Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIL lead DAL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
DAL 2P — 3P —
MIL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 188 attempts

DAL DAL Shot-making Δ

Flagg 6/19 -6.8
Christie Hard 1/12 -9.5
Williams Open 6/11 -0.9
Middleton Hard 3/11 -3.4
Poulakidas Hard 4/9 +2.4
Johnson 3/8 -0.4
Nembhard Hard 2/7 -0.1
Cisse Open 4/7 -1.0
Gafford Open 2/6 -2.8
Smith 2/5 -0.8

MIL MIL Shot-making Δ

Kuzma 9/17 +0.1
Rollins Hard 8/14 +6.3
Trent Jr. Hard 4/10 +2.1
Dieng 4/10 -2.3
Prince Hard 2/10 -4.8
Green Hard 4/8 +4.4
Turner Hard 3/8 +1.5
Nance 4/7 +2.2
Sims Open 3/6 -2.2
Antetokounmpo Hard 0/1 -1.1
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
DAL
MIL
34/96 Field Goals 41/92
35.4% Field Goal % 44.6%
10/36 3-Pointers 20/54
27.8% 3-Point % 37.0%
21/28 Free Throws 21/26
75.0% Free Throw % 80.8%
45.7% True Shooting % 59.5%
57 Total Rebounds 69
14 Offensive 12
36 Defensive 47
18 Assists 28
1.29 Assist/TO Ratio 1.56
14 Turnovers 16
12 Steals 7
4 Blocks 9
19 Fouls 19
46 Points in Paint 40
18 Fast Break Pts 18
21 Points off TOs 19
12 Second Chance Pts 12
53 Bench Points 48
1 Largest Lead 31
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Ryan Rollins
24 PTS · 7 REB · 9 AST · 35.6 MIN
+20.4
2
Kyle Kuzma
20 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 23.2 MIN
+18.64
3
Moussa Cisse
8 PTS · 13 REB · 0 AST · 22.3 MIN
+17.15
4
Cooper Flagg
19 PTS · 10 REB · 3 AST · 31.8 MIN
+12.7
5
Ousmane Dieng
11 PTS · 10 REB · 5 AST · 28.7 MIN
+12.29
6
Pete Nance
11 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 15.9 MIN
+11.56
7
Myles Turner
10 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 27.3 MIN
+10.66
8
AJ Green
17 PTS · 6 REB · 2 AST · 27.7 MIN
+10.31
9
Brandon Williams
18 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 25.6 MIN
+9.25
10
John Poulakidas
11 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 27.6 MIN
+8.29
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:14 MIL shot clock Team TURNOVER 99–123
Q4 0:38 M. Cisse alley-oop DUNK (8 PTS) (A. Johnson 3 AST) 99–123
Q4 0:44 T. Smith REBOUND (Off:3 Def:3) 97–123
Q4 0:48 MISS A. Antetokounmpo 24' running 3PT 97–123
Q4 0:54 P. Nance STEAL (1 STL) 97–123
Q4 0:54 R. Nembhard lost ball TURNOVER (3 TO) 97–123
Q4 1:04 A. Antetokounmpo Free Throw 2 of 2 (3 PTS) 97–123
Q4 1:04 A. Antetokounmpo Free Throw 1 of 2 (2 PTS) 97–122
Q4 1:04 R. Nembhard shooting personal FOUL (1 PF) (Antetokounmpo 2 FT) 97–121
Q4 1:07 P. Nance REBOUND (Off:2 Def:4) 97–121
Q4 1:11 MISS A. Johnson driving Layup 97–121
Q4 1:22 O. Dieng driving Layup (11 PTS) 97–121
Q4 1:37 R. Nembhard 26' 3PT running pullup (9 PTS) 97–119
Q4 1:40 R. Nembhard STEAL (2 STL) 94–119
Q4 1:40 P. Nance bad pass TURNOVER (2 TO) 94–119

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
S Ryan Rollins 35.6m
24
pts
7
reb
9
ast
Impact
+12.1

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
Scoring +19.3
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -7.1
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
+0.9

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
Scoring +4.9
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +11.4
Defense -2.0
Turnovers -4.7
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
+2.4

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
Scoring +5.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.8
Hustle +2.4
Defense +2.5
Turnovers -2.4
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
+12.3

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
Scoring +13.1
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +4.2
Hustle +1.8
Defense +6.0
Turnovers -4.7
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
+2.0

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
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
+9.9

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
Scoring +6.0
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +11.7
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
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
+4.1

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
Scoring +14.2
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +6.7
Defense -4.7
Turnovers -7.1
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
-12.8

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
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -3.5
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
+4.8

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
Scoring +8.6
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +6.7
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -4.7
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
-8.9

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
Scoring -1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
-7.0

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
Scoring +1.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
DAL Dallas Mavericks
S Cooper Flagg 31.8m
19
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+11.4

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
Scoring +9.9
Creation +2.8
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +5.9
Defense +5.7
Turnovers -7.8
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
-15.4

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
Scoring -5.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ryan Nembhard 22.4m
9
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.4

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
Scoring +4.8
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +3.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Khris Middleton 22.4m
8
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.1

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
Scoring +2.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.5
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
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
Scoring +2.2
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +5.1
Defense -2.6
Turnovers +0.0
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
+2.2

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
Scoring +7.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -2.4
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
+2.7

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
Scoring +14.3
Creation +2.7
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -8.2
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
+13.8

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
Scoring +5.8
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +14.6
Defense +4.7
Turnovers -3.1
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
+2.0

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
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +7.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
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
-0.1

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
Scoring +4.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
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
-6.0

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
Scoring +2.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 14.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0