GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 35.6m
24
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
+6.8

Masterful offensive orchestration and highly efficient shot creation fueled a dominant statistical profile. He consistently broke down the primary defender to generate high-quality looks, dictating the game's tempo while maintaining solid defensive pressure.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 20.4%
Net Rtg +37.2
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.6m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +24.3
Avg player in 35.6m -17.5
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 26
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jericho Sims 29.5m
8
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Despite solid traditional big-man production, a lack of impactful rim deterrence resulted in a surprisingly negative overall rating. Opponents were too comfortable navigating the paint against him, neutralizing the value of his efficient interior finishing.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +45.5
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.1
Raw total +11.2
Avg player in 29.5m -14.5
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 7.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Myles Turner 27.3m
10
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.5

Elite rim protection and timely weak-side rotations formed the backbone of his highly positive defensive metrics. Offensively, he operated strictly as a floor-spacer, punishing drop coverages from deep without needing to force action in the paint.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 14.9%
Net Rtg +19.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.3m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +9.7
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 27.3m -13.4
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 1
BLK 4
TO 1
S Kyle Kuzma 23.2m
20
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.6

Lethal finishing inside the arc and exceptional defensive engagement drove a stellar overall rating. He completely abandoned his perimeter touch but compensated by relentlessly attacking mismatches in the mid-range and paint.

Shooting
FG 9/17 (52.9%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 54.6%
USG% 33.9%
Net Rtg +32.1
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +9.8
Hustle +4.4
Defense +8.8
Raw total +23.0
Avg player in 23.2m -11.4
Impact +11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Gary Trent Jr. 22.6m
13
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Living and dying by the three-point line, his perimeter-heavy shot diet produced a perfectly neutral overall impact. He provided necessary floor spacing, but an inability to create off the dribble or pressure the rim capped his ceiling for the night.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.7%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +25.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.6
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 22.6m -11.1
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.5

Shifting away from his recent scoring burden, he found alternative ways to influence the game through active rebounding and versatile defensive switching. His relentless motor on loose balls ensured he remained a positive force despite a noticeable dip in offensive volume.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 48.6%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +7.5
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.7m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +3.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 28.7m -14.1
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
AJ Green 27.7m
17
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.3

Scorching hot perimeter shooting masked underlying defensive vulnerabilities that ultimately dragged his rating slightly below neutral. While his gravity warped the opposing defense, he was consistently targeted on the other end of the floor, giving back the value he created.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.7m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.9
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 27.7m -13.6
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
6
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.6

A disastrous shooting performance from beyond the arc completely derailed his impact, turning his offensive possessions into empty trips. Lacking his usual two-way stability, his forced jumpers and sluggish defensive rotations compounded into a massive net negative.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.2
Raw total -3.8
Avg player in 21.9m -10.8
Impact -14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Pete Nance 15.9m
11
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.4

Highly efficient spot-up shooting and surprisingly stout defensive positioning maximized his value in a condensed role. He capitalized perfectly on the defensive attention drawn by others, providing a flawless two-way spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.9%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg +10.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense +7.8
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 15.9m -7.9
Impact +9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Relegated to brief mop-up duty, he failed to establish any rhythm or imprint his usual athletic chaos on the game. The sheer lack of playing time prevented him from utilizing his transition playmaking, resulting in a negligible overall rating.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -10.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.7m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 4.7m -2.4
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Drawing a shooting foul constituted his entire offensive contribution during a fleeting appearance at the end of the rotation. He simply didn't log enough minutes to generate any meaningful defensive or hustle metrics, leaving his impact slightly in the red.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.8m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +1.1
Avg player in 2.8m -1.3
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 31.8m
19
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.4

Elite defensive metrics salvaged an otherwise inefficient offensive outing where his perimeter jumper completely abandoned him. The sheer volume of missed shots dragged his overall impact down, but his relentless activity on the other end prevented a negative rating.

Shooting
FG 6/19 (31.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 42.2%
USG% 32.5%
Net Rtg -38.0
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +11.0
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 31.8m -15.6
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 35.3%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 3
S Max Christie 26.4m
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.5

A catastrophic shooting night from the perimeter single-handedly cratered his value, wasting numerous open looks and stalling the offense. Although he tried to compensate with decent defensive rotations, the sheer volume of bricked threes made him a massive liability.

Shooting
FG 1/12 (8.3%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 12.5%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -43.3
+/- -26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.4m
Offense -7.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total -3.6
Avg player in 26.4m -12.9
Impact -16.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Khris Middleton 22.4m
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.5

Continued offensive stagnation tanked his overall rating, as a steady diet of contested jumpers resulted in empty possessions. Lacking the defensive foot speed to offset his shooting woes, his presence on the floor was a massive net negative for the spacing and flow.

Shooting
FG 3/11 (27.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.7%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.4
Raw total +0.5
Avg player in 22.4m -11.0
Impact -10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ryan Nembhard 22.4m
9
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.3

While his point production spiked compared to recent outings, an inability to finish inside the arc dragged his overall rating into the red. Solid point-of-attack defensive metrics weren't enough to overcome the offensive friction caused by his erratic shot selection.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.4%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -4.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.9
Raw total +4.8
Avg player in 22.4m -11.1
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Daniel Gafford 11.1m
7
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.0

Despite snapping a hot streak of highly efficient finishing around the rim, he still managed to post a positive rating in limited action. His interior physical presence and solid positional defense provided a steadying baseline even when his touch was off.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.5%
USG% 32.1%
Net Rtg -45.8
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.1m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.1
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 11.1m -5.4
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.7

Operating almost exclusively as a catch-and-shoot threat, his one-dimensional offensive profile ultimately yielded a slightly negative overall rating. Even with a noticeable scoring bump and active defensive hands, his inability to pressure the rim limited his broader impact.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 27.6m -13.6
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
18
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
0.0

Improved shooting efficiency inside the arc generated solid box metrics, yet his overall influence flatlined to a perfectly neutral rating. The lack of perimeter gravity allowed defenders to sag, neutralizing the positive momentum from his aggressive downhill drives.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -32.8
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.4
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 25.6m -12.6
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
Moussa Cisse 22.3m
8
pts
13
reb
0
ast
Impact
+11.5

Absolute dominance on the glass and elite rim protection fueled a massive positive rating. His constant motor translated into top-tier hustle metrics, anchoring the interior defense while capitalizing on high-percentage putbacks.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +4.6
Defense +9.1
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 22.3m -11.0
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
Tyler Smith 19.6m
5
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

Breaking out of a severe shooting slump, he provided a modest but highly efficient offensive spark in his minutes. Sound defensive positioning kept his rating in the green, proving he can be a net positive even on low usage.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 8.9%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +3.3
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 19.6m -9.7
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Johnson 16.2m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.6

A sudden surge of perimeter confidence completely flipped his recent trajectory, providing a much-needed scoring punch off the bench. Capitalizing on open spot-up opportunities allowed him to post a solid positive rating in a short burst of playing time.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.6
Avg player in 16.2m -8.0
Impact +2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Extreme offensive passivity rendered him nearly invisible on that end of the floor, dragging his overall rating slightly below neutral. While his pick-and-roll defense remained fundamentally sound, the complete lack of scoring threat allowed the opposition to ignore him entirely.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.4
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 14.7m -7.3
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0