GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
19
pts
14
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.2

Relentless rim pressure and highly efficient finishing fueled a strong positive impact. Consistently collapsing the defense on drives created a gravitational pull that opened up the floor. Excellent weak-side help defense (+6.1) ensured his minutes were a dominant net positive.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.6%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.1
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 31.5m -17.4
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S AJ Green 31.5m
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.3

Defensive liabilities severely undercut a solid perimeter shooting performance. Being repeatedly targeted in isolation bled points that erased the value of his four made threes. The one-dimensional nature of his game resulted in a deeply negative net impact despite the hot hand.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.8%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -21.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 31.5m -17.4
Impact -8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ryan Rollins 29.1m
10
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.9

Strong defensive instincts and active hands (+6.5 Def) couldn't fully compensate for a clunky offensive outing. Struggling to finish through contact in the paint dragged down his scoring efficiency. The defensive playmaking kept him afloat, but the missed interior looks proved costly.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 21.2%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.5
Raw total +13.1
Avg player in 29.1m -16.0
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 42.1%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kyle Kuzma 28.3m
9
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.2

Terrible shot selection from beyond the arc completely torpedoed his overall value. Forcing five contested threes that all missed stalled the half-court offense and sparked opponent transition opportunities. Despite decent hustle metrics, the offensive inefficiency was too much to overcome.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.2%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -33.9
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.3m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +3.3
Defense +1.1
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 28.3m -15.7
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Gary Harris 8.8m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.8

Flawless shooting in a short stint provided a minor box score lift, but defensive passivity dragged his overall rating down. Struggling to navigate screens off the ball gave up wide-open driving lanes. The lack of defensive resistance quickly negated his brief offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 5.3%
Net Rtg -86.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 8.8m -4.9
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bobby Portis 37.4m
15
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
-2.9

High-volume, low-efficiency shooting dragged down what was otherwise a productive playmaking night. Settling for too many contested mid-range jumpers early in the shot clock killed offensive momentum. While his passing out of the post was sharp, the bricked shots fueled opponent transition breaks.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.9%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.4m
Offense +13.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.2
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 37.4m -20.7
Impact -2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Pete Nance 29.7m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.3

A balanced effort of floor spacing and high hustle (+5.1) was slightly offset by rotational mistakes. Knocking down open looks effectively was overshadowed by struggles with positioning in pick-and-roll coverage. The effort was there, but minor defensive miscommunications kept his impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 78.6%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg +0.8
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +5.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 29.7m -16.5
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Cole Anthony 24.2m
17
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.5

A massive defensive crater (-2.4) completely erased a hyper-efficient scoring clinic. Acting as a turnstile at the point of attack allowed straight-line drives that compromised the entire defensive shell. Zero measurable hustle plays further highlighted his lack of engagement on that end of the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 94.4%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg -14.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +8.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -2.4
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 24.2m -13.5
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
3
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.8

Forcing contested perimeter shots quickly derailed his short time on the court. Breaking the offense's rhythm by jacking up threes early in the shot clock handed momentum to the opponent. Poor defensive positioning compounded the damage of his inefficient shooting.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 36.4%
Net Rtg -79.5
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.0m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 6.0m -3.4
Impact -2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

A completely invisible offensive stint sapped his value during brief rotation minutes. Failing to create any separation off the ball led to a stagnant half-court flow. The lack of aggression was a sharp departure from his usual scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -15.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 5.9m -3.4
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Providing absolutely zero statistical production during a very brief appearance resulted in a default negative impact score. Failing to secure position in the paint or contest shots at the rim left him completely unimpactful. The empty minutes were entirely forgettable.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -125.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.5m -1.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Erratic energy led to a rushed, missed shot that immediately hurt his net rating. Playing out of control on his lone offensive touch resulted in a bad miss that sparked a fast break. Defensive over-help left shooters open, cementing a negative stint.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -125.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total -0.5
Avg player in 2.5m -1.3
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

Acting as a ghost on the floor during garbage time contributed nothing to either end. Being completely bypassed by the offensive flow and showing no urgency defensively drove the negative score. The lack of any measurable actions generated a baseline negative rating.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -125.0
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.5m -1.4
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
OKC Oklahoma City Thunder
40
pts
7
reb
11
ast
Impact
+31.8

An absolute masterclass in offensive efficiency, punishing drop coverage with surgical precision to generate an astronomical +41.3 box score impact. Dictating the pace entirely, he generated high-quality looks every time down the floor. The sheer volume of clean makes overwhelmed any minor defensive flaws.

Shooting
FG 16/19 (84.2%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 90.6%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.3m
Offense +41.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.8
Raw total +50.2
Avg player in 33.3m -18.4
Impact +31.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Luguentz Dort 32.8m
13
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.6

A sudden surge in perimeter confidence fueled his offensive value, but defensive tradeoffs muted the overall impact. He consistently lost his man on back-door cuts, surrendering easy layups that offset his scoring. Breaking out of his recent slump was promising, though the defensive lapses were uncharacteristic.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 59.1%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +13.4
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +11.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.0
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 32.8m -18.2
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Chet Holmgren 31.8m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

Settling for contested jumpers rather than attacking the paint severely dragged down his net value. Strong weak-side rim contests (+7.9 Def) provided a solid anchor, but empty offensive possessions proved too costly. The failure to punish switches on the perimeter stalled the half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.5%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +3.2
Defense +7.9
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 31.8m -17.6
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Cason Wallace 31.1m
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.2

Elite point-of-attack pressure disrupted the opposing backcourt and drove a massive +10.2 defensive rating. Active hands and flawless off-ball rotations completely masked a rough shooting night. His relentless ball denial set the tone for the entire defensive unit.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +7.2
Defense +10.2
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 31.1m -17.1
Impact +4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 0
S Ajay Mitchell 25.2m
18
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.6

Patience and precise shot selection drove a highly efficient scoring night that spiked his box score metric. He consistently found soft spots in the midrange against drop coverage, converting at a high clip. Solid defensive positioning further amplified his positive floor presence.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.3%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +21.9
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +5.4
Raw total +19.6
Avg player in 25.2m -14.0
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
18
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.3

Capitalizing on broken plays and transition opportunities generated a massive scoring outburst that completely flipped his usual offensive profile. This unexpected offensive punch paired perfectly with his standard reliable defensive rotations. Slashing to the rim with intent caught the defense entirely off guard.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.0%
USG% 22.6%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 27.9m -15.5
Impact +6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 72.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Isaiah Joe 25.3m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.0

A disastrous perimeter shooting night tanked his overall value despite commendable hustle (+5.5). Missing six threes, many of them open catch-and-shoot looks, allowed the defense to pack the paint. His off-ball movement was active, but the failure to space the floor proved detrimental.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +30.1
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +5.5
Defense +2.9
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 25.3m -14.0
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 61.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
9
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.3

Finishing through contact on short rolls provided a sudden spark of interior scoring that boosted his box score metric significantly. Solid weak-side rim contests added just enough defensive value to round out a highly effective stint. He maximized his limited minutes by playing decisively in the paint.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +24.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.9
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 16.2m -9.0
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.4

Operating purely as a defensive specialist, strong on-ball pressure (+4.8 Def) kept his overall impact near neutral despite zero shot attempts. His reluctance to look at the basket allowed defenders to heavily sag off, clogging the paint for teammates. He essentially played lockdown defense while playing four-on-five offensively.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +40.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.8
Raw total +6.9
Avg player in 13.1m -7.3
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Barely seeing the floor in a brief cameo generated zero statistical footprint. The lack of any measurable hustle or defensive actions resulted in a slightly negative baseline score. He simply logged cardio during garbage time without influencing the play.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.7m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.7m -0.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

A rushed, contested shot attempt in extremely limited action drove his minor negative impact. Failing to establish any rhythm during a fleeting rotation stint left him completely disconnected from the offense. The brief appearance offered no opportunity to leverage his length defensively.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +66.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 1.6m -0.8
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0