Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIL lead TOR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
TOR 2P — 3P —
MIL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 168 attempts

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Ingram 9/18 +3.5
Barnes 10/14 +5.8
Mamukelashvili 8/12 +3.8
Quickley Hard 3/11 -4.4
Shead 3/9 -3.5
Agbaji 4/7 +1.9
Dick Hard 2/5 +0.7
Murray-Boyles 2/3 +0.9
Walter Open 1/3 -1.7
Battle Hard 0/2 -2.0

MIL MIL Shot-making Δ

Porter Jr. Hard 7/18 -1.5
Portis 9/16 +4.6
Rollins 7/15 +1.2
Turner Hard 6/14 +1.3
Trent Jr. Hard 1/8 -4.3
Green 2/5 -0.1
Harris 3/4 +2.5
Sims Open 3/4 +0.4
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
TOR
MIL
42/84 Field Goals 38/84
50.0% Field Goal % 45.2%
13/35 3-Pointers 15/37
37.1% 3-Point % 40.5%
14/21 Free Throws 14/16
66.7% Free Throw % 87.5%
59.5% True Shooting % 57.7%
54 Total Rebounds 44
12 Offensive 9
33 Defensive 29
31 Assists 25
1.82 Assist/TO Ratio 1.56
16 Turnovers 16
9 Steals 10
2 Blocks 2
20 Fouls 19
44 Points in Paint 28
19 Fast Break Pts 4
12 Points off TOs 19
12 Second Chance Pts 13
21 Bench Points 48
11 Largest Lead 2
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Bobby Portis
24 PTS · 12 REB · 0 AST · 39.5 MIN
+24.11
2
Scottie Barnes
24 PTS · 11 REB · 2 AST · 36.0 MIN
+22.79
3
Brandon Ingram
29 PTS · 8 REB · 3 AST · 35.3 MIN
+21.89
4
Sandro Mamukelashvili
18 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 36.4 MIN
+19.58
5
Myles Turner
21 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 30.9 MIN
+15.88
6
Ryan Rollins
17 PTS · 4 REB · 5 AST · 28.2 MIN
+13.62
7
Gary Harris
7 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 20.8 MIN
+10.88
8
Ochai Agbaji
10 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 20.5 MIN
+8.71
9
Immanuel Quickley
9 PTS · 6 REB · 10 AST · 28.8 MIN
+7.75
10
Kevin Porter Jr.
22 PTS · 4 REB · 13 AST · 40.2 MIN
+7.02
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:03 R. Rollins 15' pullup Jump Shot (17 PTS) 111–105
Q4 0:10 I. Quickley Free Throw 2 of 2 (9 PTS) 111–103
Q4 0:10 TEAM offensive REBOUND 110–103
Q4 0:10 MISS I. Quickley Free Throw 1 of 2 110–103
Q4 0:10 K. Porter Jr. personal FOUL (3 PF) (Quickley 2 FT) 110–103
Q4 0:16 M. Turner 29' 3PT (21 PTS) (R. Rollins 5 AST) 110–103
Q4 0:26 J. Shead take personal FOUL (2 PF) 110–100
Q4 0:30 J. Shead driving Layup (8 PTS) (I. Quickley 10 AST) 110–100
Q4 0:37 A. Green driving finger roll Layup (5 PTS) 108–100
Q4 0:46 J. Shead 3PT (6 PTS) (S. Mamukelashvili 2 AST) 108–98
Q4 1:10 B. Portis Layup (24 PTS) (K. Porter Jr. 13 AST) 105–98
Q4 1:22 I. Quickley 15' pullup Jump Shot (8 PTS) (B. Ingram 3 AST) 105–96
Q4 1:41 B. Ingram REBOUND (Off:2 Def:6) 103–96
Q4 1:45 MISS K. Porter Jr. 26' step back 3PT 103–96
Q4 2:08 I. Quickley putback Layup (6 PTS) 103–96

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
22
pts
4
reb
13
ast
Impact
-3.7

High-usage playmaking masked a highly inefficient scoring night plagued by predictable isolation drives. His tendency to over-dribble late in the shot clock resulted in forced attempts and live-ball turnovers that sparked opponent fast breaks. The raw production was ultimately hollow, as his ball-dominant style disrupted the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 52.2%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg +3.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.1m
Scoring +13.7
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -16.6
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 7
S Myles Turner 30.9m
21
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.2

Stretched the floor brilliantly as a trailing big, punishing drop coverages with confident perimeter shooting. His rim deterrence altered several drives, even if it didn't translate to massive defensive metrics. This dual-threat capability as a spacer and shot-alterer dictated the geometric flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -11.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +14.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +7.6
Defense -6.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Gary Trent Jr. 30.4m
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.9

An absolute offensive black hole whose forced, contested jumpers repeatedly short-circuited possessions. While he remained engaged defensively and fought through screens, his inability to convert open looks completely stalled the offense. Opponents blatantly ignored him on the perimeter, creating a crippling numerical disadvantage for his teammates.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 18.8%
USG% 11.3%
Net Rtg -23.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.4m
Scoring -1.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +4.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Jericho Sims 25.6m
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.5

Bled value on the defensive end by consistently dropping too deep in pick-and-roll coverage, surrendering wide-open floaters. His lack of physical engagement on the glass gave up crucial second-chance opportunities to the opposition. A few easy lob finishes couldn't compensate for the structural defensive issues he caused.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -12.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +7.0
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -10.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S AJ Green 24.4m
5
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.6

Offensive hesitation severely undercut his value during his time on the floor. Despite executing defensive schemes well and staying disciplined on switches, his refusal to let it fly from deep allowed the defense to pack the paint. This lack of spacing derailed the second unit's offensive rhythm entirely.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +2.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Bobby Portis 39.5m
24
pts
12
reb
0
ast
Impact
+23.0

Dominated the interior with relentless physicality, securing crucial extra possessions through sheer willpower on the glass. He capitalized on defensive mismatches in the post and stretched the floor effectively when left unguarded. His infectious energy and timely weak-side rotations anchored a highly successful frontcourt pairing.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +2.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.5m
Scoring +19.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +6.1
Hustle +8.4
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Ryan Rollins 28.2m
17
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+8.6

Wreaked havoc at the point of attack, generating immense value through relentless ball pressure and deflections. His offensive game was equally decisive, utilizing sharp changes of pace to collapse the defense and create high-quality looks. This aggressive, two-way motor set the tone for the entire backcourt rotation.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 27.7%
Net Rtg +8.4
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Scoring +11.3
Creation +2.3
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
Gary Harris 20.8m
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Provided a masterclass in role-player efficiency by never forcing the issue and capitalizing on every defensive lapse. His off-ball movement kept defenders occupied, while his disciplined closeouts neutralized secondary scoring threats. A flawless execution of the three-and-D archetype that stabilized the lineup during key transitional minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 8.5%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
18
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.6

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns by consistently finding the soft spots in the opponent's zone coverage. While his perimeter stroke was erratic, his decisive cutting and interior finishing yielded a highly positive offensive footprint. Active hands in the passing lanes helped solidify his overall positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Scoring +14.8
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.7
Hustle +7.0
Defense -1.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 47.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Scottie Barnes 36.0m
24
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+22.0

A masterclass in two-way dominance highlighted by suffocating weak-side rim protection. He generated massive value through relentless offensive rebounding and high-percentage interior finishes, punishing mismatches in the post. His ability to anchor the defense while serving as a primary offensive hub drove an elite overall impact rating.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.1%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Scoring +19.7
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +13.0
Defense +4.2
Turnovers -11.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 5
S Brandon Ingram 35.3m
29
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+21.9

Broke out of his recent scoring funk by hunting high-value perimeter looks rather than settling for contested mid-range jumpers. His defensive rotations were surprisingly sharp, generating deflections that fueled transition opportunities. This aggressive two-way showing completely shifted the momentum during a crucial second-half stretch.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 67.4%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +16.4
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Scoring +22.2
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +6.0
Hustle +7.2
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -8.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
9
pts
6
reb
10
ast
Impact
+0.8

Overcame a dreadful shooting night by transforming into a relentless point-of-attack pest. His elite hustle metrics were driven by diving for loose balls and keeping offensive possessions alive. He expertly manipulated pick-and-roll coverages to feed teammates, salvaging his impact score despite the scoring dip.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.3%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +3.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Scoring +2.6
Creation +1.7
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +6.7
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ochai Agbaji 20.5m
10
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Delivered a massive spark off the bench by knocking down timely catch-and-shoot looks from the corner. His disciplined closeouts on the perimeter prevented straight-line drives, adding quiet but crucial defensive value. This low-usage, high-efficiency role execution was exactly what the second unit needed.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +17.7
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.2
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 23.4m
8
pts
2
reb
11
ast
Impact
-11.7

Playmaking volume couldn't mask the damage done by forced, low-quality perimeter jumpers early in the shot clock. Opponents aggressively sagged off him, clogging the driving lanes and disrupting the team's spacing. His negative overall score stems directly from empty offensive possessions that fueled transition counterattacks.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +4.2
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Scoring +2.5
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.8

Faded completely into the background offensively, failing to exploit closeouts or attack rotating defenses. He provided some value through energetic closeouts and weak-side rotations, but his lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to roam freely. The resulting spacing issues tanked his overall net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -5.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.0m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Gradey Dick 18.4m
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.7

Struggled to stay in front of quicker guards, repeatedly getting blown by at the point of attack. While he provided a minor floor-spacing threat from the wings, his inability to navigate screens compromised the defensive shell. Those defensive breakdowns heavily outweighed his modest offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Scoring +3.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +1.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.1

Passive offensive involvement severely limited his overall influence on the game. Though he battled well for positioning in the paint and showed flashes of solid post defense, his reluctance to look for his own shot stalled the offense. The lack of aggression ultimately dragged his net impact slightly into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Scoring +3.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-17.4

A disastrous short stint characterized by forced shots and missed defensive assignments. He looked out of sync with the offensive flow, rushing his perimeter looks against set defenses. Opponents immediately targeted him in isolation, quickly playing him off the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1