GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
22
pts
4
reb
13
ast
Impact
-6.9

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
Offense +4.9
Hustle +4.5
Defense +4.5
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 40.1m -20.8
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
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
+6.6

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
Offense +18.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.6
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 30.9m -16.1
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
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
-12.6

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
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +4.4
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 30.4m -15.8
Impact -12.6
How is this calculated?
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
-9.5

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
Offense +3.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.3
Raw total +3.8
Avg player in 25.6m -13.3
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
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
-7.3

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
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.5
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 24.4m -12.7
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
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
+9.2

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
Offense +17.6
Hustle +4.6
Defense +7.5
Raw total +29.7
Avg player in 39.5m -20.5
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
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
+8.5

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
Offense +7.3
Hustle +6.7
Defense +9.2
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 28.2m -14.7
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
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
+5.5

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
Offense +8.8
Hustle +3.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +16.4
Avg player in 20.8m -10.9
Impact +5.5
How is this calculated?
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
+6.8

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
Offense +18.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.4
Raw total +25.7
Avg player in 36.4m -18.9
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
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
+13.8

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
Offense +15.6
Hustle +5.4
Defense +11.4
Raw total +32.4
Avg player in 36.0m -18.6
Impact +13.8
How is this calculated?
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
+7.2

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
Offense +17.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +6.0
Raw total +25.5
Avg player in 35.3m -18.3
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
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
+2.7

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
Offense +5.2
Hustle +8.3
Defense +4.0
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 28.8m -14.8
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
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
+2.6

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
Offense +8.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 20.5m -10.6
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
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
-5.2

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
Offense +1.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 23.4m -12.2
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
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
-4.0

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
Offense +0.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 19.0m -9.8
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
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
-5.4

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
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 18.4m -9.5
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
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
-0.9

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
Offense +3.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.5
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 17.4m -9.0
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
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
-5.7

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
Offense -3.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total -3.1
Avg player in 4.9m -2.6
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1