GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 35.2m
21
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.6

Overcame a high volume of missed shots by applying relentless pressure on both ends of the floor. His aggressive point-of-attack defense and willingness to take the big shots fueled a highly positive net rating despite the raw inefficiency. Forcing live-ball turnovers that ignited the fast break defined his chaotic but effective performance.

Shooting
FG 8/20 (40.0%)
3PT 4/10 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 25.6%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +4.0
Defense +7.5
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 35.2m -17.5
Impact +6.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyle Kuzma 35.1m
11
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
-4.6

Despite stuffing the stat sheet with hustle plays and defensive activity, his impact was dragged down by inefficient shooting and likely hidden turnover costs. Forcing contested looks disrupted the offensive flow just enough to push his net rating into the red. A pattern of overdribbling into traffic negated the value of his defensive playmaking.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/6 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 43.5%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +3.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 35.1m -17.4
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
22
pts
13
reb
7
ast
Impact
+3.6

Generated immense baseline value through sheer physical dominance and drawing defensive attention, even on a lower-volume shooting night. His elite rim protection anchored the defense, though a lack of elite hustle metrics kept his total from reaching the stratosphere. Unstoppable downhill momentum in transition defined his highly impactful shift.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 14/16 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 73.1%
USG% 27.4%
Net Rtg +7.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.2m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +0.4
Defense +4.9
Raw total +19.7
Avg player in 32.2m -16.1
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Myles Turner 29.1m
17
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+17.5

Absolutely anchored the game with a monstrous defensive impact, driven by elite rim deterrence and altering shots in the paint. He compounded this defensive masterclass with highly efficient interior finishing, resulting in a dominant two-way performance. His ability to completely shut off the driving lanes was the defining feature of the contest.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg -5.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +14.7
Hustle +4.7
Defense +12.6
Raw total +32.0
Avg player in 29.1m -14.5
Impact +17.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 6
TO 1
S Gary Harris 28.0m
4
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.1

Snapped a streak of efficient shooting by forcing contested looks, heavily penalizing the offense with empty trips. While he tracked down loose balls to boost his hustle metrics, the inability to convert open perimeter chances cratered his overall impact. Getting repeatedly blown by on the perimeter compounded his offensive struggles.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.0%
USG% 10.6%
Net Rtg -16.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +3.3
Defense +1.1
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 28.0m -13.9
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Bobby Portis 26.4m
11
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

Fell below his usual scoring standards by settling for contested perimeter jumpers rather than working the paint. The barrage of missed shots sapped offensive momentum, completely neutralizing his otherwise solid defensive rebounding and positional play. A stubborn refusal to pass out of double teams in the post tanked his overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.8%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +13.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense +3.1
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 26.4m -13.2
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Amir Coffey 21.4m
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

A disastrous defensive stint combined with clanking multiple three-point attempts to severely damage his team's momentum. Even a handful of high-effort hustle plays couldn't mask the damage done by blown rotations and poor shot selection. Getting hunted on switches by primary ball-handlers defined his negative impact.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -14.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense +0.7
Hustle +3.3
Defense -1.4
Raw total +2.6
Avg player in 21.4m -10.6
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Cole Anthony 16.4m
9
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+1.8

Delivered a stabilized, efficient shift by carefully managing the offense and taking what the defense gave him. His disciplined shot profile and steady playmaking kept the second unit humming in the positive. Excellent pick-and-roll pacing allowed him to dissect the drop coverage with ease.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -35.3
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Offense +6.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.6
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 16.4m -8.1
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Pete Nance 12.2m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Provided value exclusively as a defensive stopper during his brief run, executing switches and closing out hard. However, a complete lack of offensive involvement prevented him from generating a positive net impact. His willingness to sacrifice his body for physical box-outs was the lone bright spot.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.9%
Net Rtg +4.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +3.5
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 12.2m -6.0
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.0

Burned multiple offensive possessions on ill-advised perimeter looks during a very short stint. The inability to connect on those shots, combined with zero hustle generation, resulted in a swift negative rating. Rushing his release against heavy closeouts defined a frantic and unproductive appearance.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +8.9
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.0m
Offense -1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 4.0m -2.1
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DEN Denver Nuggets
S Spencer Jones 38.3m
5
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.1

Impact cratered largely due to empty offensive possessions, highlighted by forced looks from the perimeter. While he provided solid defensive resistance, those empty trips and potential live-ball turnovers dragged his overall net rating into the red. His inability to punish defensive closeouts ultimately defined his stint.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg +6.5
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.3m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +3.1
Defense +4.7
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 38.3m -19.1
Impact -7.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
S Zeke Nnaji 37.0m
11
pts
12
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.0

A massive spike in offensive volume resulted in poor shot selection, as clanking a barrage of jumpers severely capped his net impact. He salvaged his rating from completely bottoming out by dominating the glass and generating high-level hustle metrics. His relentless effort on second-chance opportunities defined his otherwise inefficient night.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -0.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.0m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +5.7
Defense +4.2
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 37.0m -18.4
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Jalen Pickett 34.0m
13
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.3

Inefficiency from the floor doomed his overall rating, as burning multiple empty possessions on missed shots stalled the half-court offense. Although he flashed solid playmaking vision, the sheer volume of forced perimeter looks negated any positive distribution. His tendency to settle for contested mid-range pull-ups ultimately sank his impact.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 43.7%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 34.0m -16.9
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
20
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.8

Exploded offensively compared to recent outings, driving his massive overall impact through aggressive downhill attacks. Even with a frosty showing from beyond the arc, his ability to bend the defense and create scoring gravity kept his overall rating heavily in the green. Relentless rim pressure was the defining trait of this highly productive shift.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 60.5%
USG% 27.1%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +14.6
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.0
Raw total +22.1
Avg player in 26.7m -13.3
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Aaron Gordon 16.1m
13
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.5

Maximized a brief stint by combining physical interior defense with decisive rim runs. His positive impact was anchored by high-value hustle plays that generated extra possessions, completely offsetting a few missed attempts in the paint. Operating as a bruising roll man allowed him to dictate the physical tone of the game.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.2
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 16.1m -8.0
Impact +8.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Bruce Brown 25.9m
15
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.9

Continued a highly efficient finishing streak by picking his spots perfectly within the flow of the offense. His sturdy point-of-attack defense and disciplined shot profile resulted in a clean, positive impact across the board. Excellent spatial awareness as a cutter defined his ability to generate high-value looks without forcing the issue.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.1%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -34.0
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +5.2
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 25.9m -12.8
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

A classic case of volume over value, where hoisting a barrage of contested shots dragged down his overall efficiency. His heavy reliance on contested perimeter jumpers resulted in empty trips that erased the benefits of his scoring burst. The willingness to shoot early in the shot clock fueled transition opportunities for the opponent.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 26.6%
Net Rtg -5.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.2
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 25.8m -12.8
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Struggled to establish a rhythm in limited action, with missed interior looks stunting his offensive impact. He provided adequate rotational defense and hustle, but simply didn't generate enough positive events to break even. Getting pushed off his spots in the post characterized a physically overmatched performance.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg +11.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 15.8m -7.8
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Hunter Tyson 11.7m
0
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.4

Faded into the background during his minutes, failing to generate any meaningful offensive gravity. Without scoring output to offset the defensive lapses inherent in his negative total, his floor time was largely a net drain. A complete lack of aggression on the perimeter allowed the defense to ignore him entirely.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.7m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.8
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 11.7m -5.9
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.5

Managed to keep his head above water in a brief cameo by taking only high-percentage looks. A quick, efficient scoring burst allowed him to post a slightly positive rating despite minimal defensive contributions. Decisive catch-and-shoot execution defined his short but effective time on the floor.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +6.9
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.9m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.5
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 8.9m -4.4
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0