GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S AJ Green 40.7m
12
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
-17.6

A brutal combination of heavy minutes and poor shot selection cratered his overall metrics. Continually forcing contested looks early in the shot clock derailed the team's offensive rhythm and allowed the opposition to leak out in transition.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.2%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.7m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 40.7m -22.0
Impact -17.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ryan Rollins 37.0m
29
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+24.1

Delivered a masterclass in offensive efficiency, punishing drop coverage with lethal precision from beyond the arc. His phenomenal two-way performance was punctuated by relentless on-ball pressure that completely disrupted the opponent's initiation sequences.

Shooting
FG 11/13 (84.6%)
3PT 6/7 (85.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 107.9%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +18.8
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +30.9
Hustle +5.8
Defense +7.4
Raw total +44.1
Avg player in 37.0m -20.0
Impact +24.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
4
reb
10
ast
Impact
-6.0

Errant perimeter shooting and forced playmaking attempts into traffic severely undermined his value as a primary initiator. Despite showing solid engagement on the defensive end, his wasted possessions on offense stalled out multiple potential runs.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.6%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg -2.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.6
Defense +4.4
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 36.0m -19.4
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
30
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+17.4

Utterly dominated the restricted area by leveraging his physical tools to overwhelm primary defenders and force constant double-teams. His gravity in the paint warped the opposing scheme, while his active hands in the passing lanes fueled a highly disruptive defensive showing.

Shooting
FG 11/18 (61.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg +32.2
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +25.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.5
Raw total +33.6
Avg player in 29.8m -16.2
Impact +17.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Myles Turner 22.4m
1
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.4

Completely neutralized as a pick-and-pop threat, which severely clogged the driving lanes for his guards. While he offered some resistance at the rim, his inability to stretch the floor made the half-court offense painfully stagnant.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 10.2%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg +12.2
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.2
Raw total +4.6
Avg player in 22.4m -12.0
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Kyle Kuzma 32.0m
18
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Found a great rhythm as a secondary scorer by exploiting mismatches in the mid-post, yet his overall impact hovered in the red. Frequent defensive lapses off the ball, including losing cutters back-door, negated much of his highly efficient offensive output.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 86.2%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -6.9
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +3.5
Defense -0.8
Raw total +16.3
Avg player in 32.0m -17.2
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Bobby Portis 22.4m
20
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.5

Provided a massive scoring punch off the bench by consistently finding the soft spots in the opponent's zone coverage. His willingness to battle for positioning on the block also translated to a surprisingly stout defensive performance against bigger matchups.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.2%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg -21.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.9
Raw total +21.6
Avg player in 22.4m -12.1
Impact +9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.6

Looked completely out of sync offensively, rushing his mechanics and failing to capitalize on open spot-up opportunities. His lack of secondary contributions meant that when the jumper wasn't falling, he became an active detriment to the lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -48.4
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense -2.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total -2.2
Avg player in 17.4m -9.4
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.7

Struggled to anchor the paint during a very brief rotational stint, getting sealed off too easily by opposing bigs. His lack of spatial awareness in drop coverage allowed easy floaters that quickly pushed his net impact negative.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg -185.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.3m
Offense +0.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 2.3m -1.3
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CHA Charlotte Hornets
S Miles Bridges 36.6m
25
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.0

Relentless energy on the margins fueled a highly positive showing, highlighted by a massive hustle rating that kept possessions alive. His two-way engagement was evident as he paired aggressive downhill drives with sharp defensive rotations to anchor the forward spot.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.1%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -30.3
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +7.5
Defense +5.3
Raw total +24.7
Avg player in 36.6m -19.7
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 38.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kon Knueppel 33.8m
26
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-1.6

High-volume scoring output masked underlying defensive liabilities that dragged his overall impact into the red. Despite finding an excellent rhythm from the perimeter, his inability to string together stops at the point of attack allowed opponents to easily match his production.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 68.1%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg -2.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.2
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 33.8m -18.1
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Brandon Miller 30.3m
19
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.5

Forced isolations and contested mid-range jumpers severely hampered his offensive efficiency, resulting in a steep negative overall impact. While he generated some decent looks, the overall shot diet was too heavily skewed toward low-yield attempts against set defenses.

Shooting
FG 6/15 (40.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.7%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -13.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.1
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 30.3m -16.3
Impact -9.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S LaMelo Ball 25.9m
12
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.9

An uncharacteristically quiet scoring night was salvaged by elite defensive engagement and excellent floor mapping. By shifting his focus away from forcing his own shot, he managed to control the game's tempo and generate high-quality looks for his wings.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.6%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -21.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +6.8
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 25.9m -14.0
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S PJ Hall 18.9m
4
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Offensive struggles were completely offset by exceptional rim-protection and positional awareness on the other end. He functioned as a crucial defensive anchor during his minutes, proving that low-usage bigs can still drive winning basketball through sheer disruption.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg -58.8
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.4
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 18.9m -10.1
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
16
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
+1.5

Paced the second unit with surgical drives to the basket, maximizing his touches without stalling the ball. His ability to consistently break the paint forced defensive collapses, creating a ripple effect of positive offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 75.2%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +20.9
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +12.3
Hustle +2.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 27.3m -14.7
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Sion James 27.2m
7
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.8

Capitalized on limited offensive touches with decisive, quick-trigger actions that kept the defense off balance. His real value came from hounding opposing ball-handlers, turning up the pressure at the point of attack to stall out enemy sets.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg +8.6
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.0
Defense +5.7
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 27.2m -14.7
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.7

Supreme shot discipline defined this outing, as he only took what the defense conceded and converted at an elite clip. His opportunistic cuts and spot-up readiness provided a steadying presence that kept the offensive engine humming without demanding touches.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.0%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +59.1
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.4
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 22.1m -11.9
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Josh Green 12.8m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.2

Brought a noticeable jolt of energy through loose-ball recoveries and hard closeouts, though his complete offensive invisibility hurt the spacing. Opponents aggressively sagged off him, effectively turning half-court sets into a four-on-five disadvantage.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 3.8%
Net Rtg +52.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +4.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 12.8m -6.8
Impact -3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.9

Barely registered a pulse during a brief stint, failing to impact the game in any measurable category. He looked a step slow navigating screens, allowing his assignment too much breathing room on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +31.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.1
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 5.2m -2.8
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0