Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIL lead WAS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
WAS 2P — 3P —
MIL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 183 attempts

WAS WAS Shot-making Δ

McCollum 7/15 +1.5
Sarr 7/15 -1.2
Carrington Hard 7/14 +7.1
Johnson Hard 5/13 +1.4
Champagnie 5/9 +0.9
Coulibaly Hard 2/8 -3.0
Bagley III Open 4/6 +0.9
Middleton 0/6 -5.5
Johnson Hard 3/5 +3.0
Riley Hard 1/3 0.0

MIL MIL Shot-making Δ

Antetokounmpo Open 12/21 -3.5
Porter Jr. 9/17 +1.7
Rollins 5/13 -0.2
Portis Hard 4/11 0.0
Turner Hard 4/10 +1.2
Green Hard 3/8 +1.1
Trent Jr. Hard 0/4 -3.7
Kuzma Open 2/3 0.0
Harris 2/2 +2.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
WAS
MIL
41/94 Field Goals 41/89
43.6% Field Goal % 46.1%
19/39 3-Pointers 16/39
48.7% 3-Point % 41.0%
13/20 Free Throws 15/22
65.0% Free Throw % 68.2%
55.4% True Shooting % 57.3%
54 Total Rebounds 61
13 Offensive 11
31 Defensive 37
31 Assists 24
3.10 Assist/TO Ratio 1.60
10 Turnovers 15
8 Steals 2
8 Blocks 6
18 Fouls 14
38 Points in Paint 42
17 Fast Break Pts 5
23 Points off TOs 4
16 Second Chance Pts 17
52 Bench Points 23
10 Largest Lead 9
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Justin Champagnie
12 PTS · 9 REB · 2 AST · 32.5 MIN
+19.93
2
Myles Turner
13 PTS · 7 REB · 2 AST · 31.1 MIN
+18.99
3
Alex Sarr
20 PTS · 11 REB · 2 AST · 28.4 MIN
+18.99
4
Giannis Antetokounmpo
33 PTS · 15 REB · 3 AST · 28.4 MIN
+17.72
5
Bub Carrington
20 PTS · 5 REB · 5 AST · 23.7 MIN
+13.53
6
CJ McCollum
18 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 32.4 MIN
+12.67
7
Marvin Bagley III
9 PTS · 3 REB · 4 AST · 19.6 MIN
+11.39
8
Bobby Portis
13 PTS · 5 REB · 3 AST · 20.2 MIN
+10.61
9
Kevin Porter Jr.
19 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 39.3 MIN
+9.89
10
Ryan Rollins
16 PTS · 7 REB · 7 AST · 39.3 MIN
+8.67
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 114–113
Q4 0:00 MISS G. Antetokounmpo 13' Jump Shot 114–113
Q4 0:01 C. McCollum 16' pullup Jump Shot (18 PTS) 114–113
Q4 0:06 C. McCollum REBOUND (Off:1 Def:3) 112–113
Q4 0:08 A. Sarr BLOCK (4 BLK) 112–113
Q4 0:08 MISS G. Antetokounmpo putback Layup - blocked 112–113
Q4 0:09 G. Antetokounmpo REBOUND (Off:5 Def:10) 112–113
Q4 0:10 MISS K. Porter Jr. driving Layup 112–113
Q4 0:30 C. McCollum cutting Layup (16 PTS) (K. Middleton 6 AST) 112–113
Q4 0:33 G. Antetokounmpo Free Throw 2 of 2 (33 PTS) 110–113
Q4 0:33 G. Antetokounmpo Free Throw 1 of 2 (32 PTS) 110–112
Q4 0:33 K. Middleton take personal FOUL (5 PF) (Antetokounmpo 2 FT) 110–111
Q4 0:33 G. Antetokounmpo REBOUND (Off:4 Def:10) 110–111
Q4 0:34 MISS T. Johnson 10' turnaround Shot 110–111
Q4 0:44 A. Sarr REBOUND (Off:4 Def:7) 110–111

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
19
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.8

Poor shot selection from beyond the arc severely capped his offensive efficiency and fueled opponent transition opportunities. While he found success driving to the rim, the wasted possessions from deep dragged his overall impact into the negative. The heavy minute load only amplified the damage of those empty perimeter trips.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Scoring +12.8
Creation +1.8
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 47.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ryan Rollins 39.3m
16
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.5

Struggled to finish inside the arc, forcing contested jumpers that routinely stalled the offensive engine. Despite knocking down a few perimeter looks, his inability to break down the primary defender led to stagnant possessions. A steep drop-off from his recent scoring tear resulted in a heavily negative shift overall.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +0.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +8.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S AJ Green 33.9m
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

Settling exclusively for three-point attempts made his offensive profile entirely one-dimensional. When those perimeter looks failed to drop at a high clip, his lack of interior pressure allowed the defense to stay home on shooters. The severe negative total (-8.9) highlights how much his one-note shot profile stalled the team's half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg +12.4
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Myles Turner 31.1m
13
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+11.8

Anchored the game with elite rim protection and exceptional defensive positioning (+12.3 Def). Stretching the floor with deadly accuracy from deep pulled the opposing center out of the paint, opening up driving lanes for teammates. His combination of shot-blocking and floor-spacing created a massive tactical advantage.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +15.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +7.9
Defense +2.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 22
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 31.8%
STL 2
BLK 5
TO 0
33
pts
15
reb
3
ast
Impact
+18.9

Utterly dominated the painted area by relentlessly attacking the basket and drawing fouls. His overwhelming physical presence forced the defense into constant rotation, generating massive box score value (+17.9). Despite modest defensive metrics, his sheer scoring gravity dictated the entire tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 9/14 (64.3%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 46.5%
Net Rtg -13.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +23.4
Creation +3.4
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +15.2
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -10.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
Kyle Kuzma 21.0m
5
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.0

Faded completely into the background offensively, attempting just three shots in a bizarrely passive performance. His lack of aggression allowed the defense to cheat off him and clog the driving lanes for others. Minimal hustle contributions (+0.4) further highlighted a disengaged outing that actively hurt the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +5.4
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Bobby Portis 20.2m
13
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.9

Provided a crucial spark by dragging opposing bigs out to the perimeter and punishing them with the three-ball. Even when his interior touches rimmed out, his willingness to battle for positioning kept the defense honest. Solid rotational defense ensured his scoring punch translated to a net positive for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.2m
Scoring +7.9
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +4.4
Defense -1.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-17.3

A disastrous stint characterized by forced shots and a complete lack of secondary effort (0.0 Hustle). Missing every attempt cratered the offense, while his inability to generate deflections or stops made him a liability on the other end. He was essentially played off the floor after bleeding points in his brief minutes.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -36.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Scoring -3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Gary Harris 11.2m
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.5

Executed his limited offensive role perfectly by burying the few open looks he was given. However, his inability to navigate screens or disrupt the point of attack (+0.2 Def) allowed opponents to score easily on his assignments. A strictly neutral outing where his flawless shooting barely covered his defensive lapses.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -37.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
WAS Washington Wizards
S CJ McCollum 32.4m
18
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+7.3

Defensive limitations heavily dragged down an otherwise standard offensive output. While he found his spots in the mid-range effectively, his inability to fight through screens or generate disruptive plays (+0.8 Hustle) made him a target on the other end. The negative total impact reflects a volume scorer who bled points at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Scoring +11.6
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.7
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Tre Johnson 28.4m
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.1

Sizzling perimeter shot-making couldn't mask the underlying defensive bleed in his minutes. A severe lack of secondary hustle plays (+0.6) and poor rotational awareness allowed opponents to relentlessly attack his side of the floor. The scoring bump was entirely negated by how much he gave up in transition.

Shooting
FG 5/13 (38.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +8.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Alex Sarr 28.4m
20
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.6

A massive breakout performance fueled by aggressive rim-running and elite rim protection (+8.6 Def). He shattered his recent scoring averages by demanding the ball in the pick-and-roll and finishing through contact. His two-way dominance dictated the terms of engagement in the paint all night.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -3.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring +13.8
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +3.6
Hustle +12.0
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 24
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 45.8%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 2
S Bilal Coulibaly 25.1m
10
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Despite a rough shooting night where his attempts clanked off the iron, his defensive activity kept him above water. High-level hustle metrics (+5.3) suggest he generated crucial deflections and loose ball recoveries to offset the offensive inefficiency. His ability to anchor the perimeter defense prevented his overall impact from slipping into the negative.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 5/8 (62.5%)
Advanced
TS% 43.4%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +12.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.1m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Khris Middleton 22.6m
0
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
-19.5

An absolute offensive black hole in this matchup, missing every attempt to crater his overall value (-8.4 Total). While he tried to salvage his minutes with active rotations (+2.2 Def), the complete lack of scoring gravity severely cramped the team's spacing. Opponents simply ignored him on the perimeter to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/6 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -8.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Scoring -4.3
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense -4.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
12
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
+13.4

Continued his streak of hyper-efficient offense by taking only high-value shots within the flow of the system. His real value, however, came from suffocating defensive rotations (+9.1 Def) that completely neutralized opposing wings. Crashing the glass and securing 50/50 balls cemented a highly positive two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Scoring +8.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +8.5
Defense +5.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
20
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.3

Caught fire from beyond the arc, punishing drop coverages with a barrage of pull-up threes. This sudden scoring explosion forced the defense to aggressively close out, bending the opponent's scheme entirely. He supplemented the shooting barrage with just enough defensive resistance to secure a strong positive margin.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.3%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +12.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Scoring +14.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +6.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
9
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.7

Maximized a short stint through relentless interior activity and excellent shot selection. High marks in both hustle (+4.0) and defense (+5.0) indicate he was a terror on the offensive glass and altered multiple shots at the rim. He played strictly within his role, converting easy looks without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring +7.5
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense +1.6
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
AJ Johnson 15.6m
8
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.7

A surprising burst of perimeter shot-making wasn't enough to keep his overall impact out of the red. He likely struggled with defensive assignments or gave up key offensive rebounds, as indicated by the low hustle metrics (+0.6). The scoring spike was a nice bonus, but structural breakdowns in his minutes cost the team.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +43.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Scoring +6.3
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Will Riley 11.7m
3
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.1

Took a massive step back in offensive usage but still found ways to contribute positively during limited action. Solid positional defense (+3.1) kept the second unit stable while he was on the floor. He deferred to teammates rather than forcing bad shots to break his slump.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0