GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
20
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
+0.7

High-usage creation was heavily offset by inefficient finishing and likely sloppy ball security in traffic. He consistently broke down the primary defender but struggled to make the right read once the help arrived. Strong defensive engagement barely kept his overall impact above water despite the offensive turbulence.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 9/9 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -26.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.5
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 36.7m -18.2
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Ryan Rollins 34.7m
16
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+8.9

Suffocating perimeter defense and relentless hustle defined a masterful two-way performance. He completely disrupted the opponent's offensive flow by fighting through screens and blowing up dribble hand-offs. This elite defensive pressure more than compensated for a slight dip in his recent scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.7m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +5.2
Defense +9.4
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 34.7m -17.3
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jericho Sims 29.8m
2
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Extreme offensive passivity allowed the opposing frontcourt to completely ignore him and roam the paint. While he provided sturdy interior defense and battled on the glass, playing essentially 4-on-5 on the other end stalled multiple possessions. His reluctance to even look at the rim dragged down an otherwise solid physical effort.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +4.8
Defense +4.8
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 29.8m -14.8
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Myles Turner 23.2m
19
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.1

Pulling the opposing center out to the perimeter with confident outside shooting completely unlocked the half-court offense. This spacing dynamic created uncontested driving lanes that teammates easily exploited. A sudden return to offensive rhythm proved vital in swinging the momentum during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 8/12 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.5%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +12.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 23.2m -11.6
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 21.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S AJ Green 15.2m
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.3

Total inability to connect from deep completely neutralized his primary value as a floor spacer. Defenders quickly realized they could ignore him on the perimeter, packing the paint and stifling the team's half-court offense. Despite decent hustle, the offensive zeroes created a massive structural disadvantage.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -56.7
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.2m
Offense -4.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense -0.2
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 15.2m -7.5
Impact -9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kyle Kuzma 28.8m
14
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.1

Efficient mid-range execution was unfortunately neutralized by poor decision-making when forced to pass out of double teams. Stagnating the ball and missing open shooters on the weak side prevented the offense from finding a true rhythm. Consequently, his solid individual shot-making failed to translate into a positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/3 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.6%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -12.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 28.8m -14.2
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.4

Failing to generate separation on the perimeter severely limited his ability to punish closeouts. The lack of scoring gravity allowed defenders to stay home on shooters, bogging down the offensive flow. Without his usual shot-making to stretch the floor, his overall utility plummeted.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.2
Raw total +6.3
Avg player in 23.5m -11.7
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bobby Portis 23.0m
22
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.0

Aggressive mismatch hunting in the post and confident perimeter strikes overwhelmed the opposing second unit. He consistently punished switches, forcing the defense to collapse and scramble in recovery. This instant-offense mentality provided a crucial scoring punch that stabilized the rotation.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 36.5%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +10.8
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.6
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 23.0m -11.4
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
Gary Harris 20.9m
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.4

A completely invisible offensive stint allowed defenders to aggressively double-team the primary ball handlers. Failing to attempt meaningful shots or bend the defense created a stagnant, predictable half-court attack. Combined with sluggish perimeter rotations, his presence on the floor was a severe detriment to the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg -22.8
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.9m
Offense -4.3
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.8
Raw total -4.0
Avg player in 20.9m -10.4
Impact -14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Maximized a fleeting garbage-time appearance by immediately attacking the rim for a quick conversion. The burst of energy in the final minute yielded a disproportionately high positive metric. It was a brief but highly efficient cameo to close out the period.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Offense +2.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +2.0
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.5

A rushed offensive execution during a brief end-of-game stint resulted in a slightly negative rating. Missing his lone attempt in traffic represented the entirety of his on-court influence. There simply wasn't enough time to settle into the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Pete Nance 0.8m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Logged less than a minute of action, preventing any meaningful statistical accumulation. The fractional negative score reflects a single empty team possession rather than individual poor play. He was essentially a placeholder to run out the clock.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.1

Managed to orchestrate a quick scoring strike during his extremely limited time on the floor. Delivering a crisp pass in transition generated a fractional positive impact before the final buzzer. It was a purely situational deployment with minimal broader context.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Offense +0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact +0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Entered the game solely to burn the final seconds off the clock. The lack of any measurable activity resulted in a negligible statistical footprint. His presence was entirely procedural.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +100.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHI Philadelphia 76ers
S Tyrese Maxey 36.8m
12
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.8

A brutal shooting slump was salvaged entirely by phenomenal point-of-attack defense and high-energy hustle plays. He completely locked down his primary assignment, disrupting offensive sets and forcing late-clock situations. Adapting to an off-night offensively by weaponizing his speed on the other end kept his overall impact positive.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.3%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +5.3
Hustle +4.8
Defense +10.9
Raw total +21.0
Avg player in 36.8m -18.2
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 2
S Paul George 30.0m
20
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+14.3

Elite two-way engagement drove a massive positive net impact, heavily buoyed by exceptional hustle and defensive metrics. Even with a slight dip in his recent scoring volume, his ability to disrupt passing lanes and contest shots on the perimeter anchored the lineup. He consistently generated high-value possessions without needing to force offensive action.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +11.1
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.0m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +7.0
Defense +6.0
Raw total +29.1
Avg player in 30.0m -14.8
Impact +14.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S VJ Edgecombe 24.4m
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.4

Defensive lapses and poor rotational timing dragged his net impact into the red despite efficient perimeter shooting. Opponents consistently targeted him in isolation, neutralizing the value of his offensive spacing. His inability to stay in front of quicker guards ultimately outweighed a solid shooting night.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +2.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +1.5
Defense -0.9
Raw total +9.8
Avg player in 24.4m -12.2
Impact -2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Andre Drummond 23.4m
5
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Physicality in the paint and relentless activity on the glass generated a solid positive impact. He dominated his specific matchup by sealing off driving lanes and altering interior attempts. This defensive anchoring perfectly complemented a slight uptick in his usually limited offensive role.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Offense +3.7
Hustle +5.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 23.4m -11.6
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Dominick Barlow 21.2m
6
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

A stark departure from his recent hyper-efficient finishing cratered his overall value. Missing multiple looks around the rim stalled offensive momentum and allowed the defense to sag off him. Despite decent rotational awareness on the other end, the empty offensive trips proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +1.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.8
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 21.2m -10.6
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
22
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.8

Scorching perimeter execution masked underlying defensive vulnerabilities that suppressed his total impact score. While his floor-spacing gravity opened up the offense, he struggled to navigate screens on the other end. The resulting defensive breakdowns prevented his offensive explosion from translating into a dominant net rating.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 6/7 (85.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 111.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +21.1
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.7
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 28.8m -14.4
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
Adem Bona 23.7m
10
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.1

Capitalizing on unexpected offensive opportunities fueled a highly productive stint. He consistently beat his man down the floor in transition, generating high-percentage looks that energized the unit. Combined with sturdy rim protection, his two-way activity provided a massive spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +19.8
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 23.7m -11.8
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Jared McCain 22.8m
8
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.0

Forcing contested perimeter jumpers stalled the offense and pushed his net impact into the negative. While he provided excellent ball pressure to disrupt opposing guards, the sheer volume of empty offensive possessions was too much to overcome. Better shot discipline is needed to maximize his strong defensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.2
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 22.8m -11.2
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
18
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.7

Catching fire from beyond the arc completely altered the geometry of the floor and drove a massive positive rating. Defenders were forced to abandon their drop coverages, opening up driving lanes for teammates. This unexpected spacing dynamic proved to be the pivotal swing factor during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.5%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg +14.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.8
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 18.3m -9.1
Impact +7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Kyle Lowry 9.8m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

A lack of physical engagement and zero hustle contributions resulted in a noticeable drag on the lineup. Opponents easily bypassed his point-of-attack pressure, forcing the defense into constant rotation. His veteran savvy couldn't compensate for the sheer lack of foot speed in critical matchups.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.8m
Offense +2.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.5
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 9.8m -4.8
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Barely saw the floor during a brief end-of-quarter cameo. There was not enough court time to establish any rhythm or influence the game's outcome. His negative fractional impact is purely statistical noise from a single empty possession.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.8m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.8m -0.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0