GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 34.9m
21
pts
7
reb
10
ast
Impact
-8.2

Tunnel vision on drives resulted in a brutal string of forced, contested layups that sparked opponent fast breaks. While the playmaking numbers look robust, the sheer volume of wasted possessions inside the arc devastated the team's offensive efficiency. This inefficient usage ultimately bled away value faster than his raw production could replace it.

Shooting
FG 8/21 (38.1%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +10.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.9m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.7
Raw total +12.9
Avg player in 34.9m -21.1
Impact -8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kyle Kuzma 31.1m
31
pts
10
reb
6
ast
Impact
+14.5

Ruthless mismatch hunting in the mid-post dictated the entire flow of the offense. He punished smaller defenders with decisive moves, forcing double teams that eventually unlocked the perimeter. This dominant scoring gravity was the primary engine behind a massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 12/22 (54.5%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 4/7 (57.1%)
Advanced
TS% 61.8%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +31.4
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +25.9
Hustle +1.0
Defense +6.4
Raw total +33.3
Avg player in 31.1m -18.8
Impact +14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S AJ Green 30.5m
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+6.5

Relentless off-ball movement exhausted his primary defenders and warped the opponent's defensive shell. Hitting a barrage of catch-and-shoot daggers heavily punished any late closeouts. Adding in a surprising level of loose-ball hustle cemented a highly impactful performance.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +15.3
Hustle +6.8
Defense +2.9
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 30.5m -18.5
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S Myles Turner 22.9m
15
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

Vertical spacing and rim deterrence provided a steadying two-way presence in the frontcourt. By knocking down trailing threes, he consistently pulled the opposing center away from the basket. This combination of paint protection and floor stretching yielded a highly functional shift.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 28.1%
Net Rtg -13.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.2
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 22.9m -13.9
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 64.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
S Amir Coffey 21.9m
2
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.9

A complete lack of offensive involvement crippled his team's spacing during his rotation minutes. Defenders routinely ignored him in the corners, effectively turning half-court sets into a four-on-five disadvantage. Even decent rotational defense couldn't compensate for being an offensive zero.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -31.1
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.9m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.7
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 21.9m -13.3
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Pete Nance 27.2m
15
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.4

Capitalizing on every defensive breakdown, he found soft spots in the zone for incredibly efficient spot-up opportunities. He never forced the issue, letting the game come to him and punishing late rotations with decisive shooting. This low-maintenance, high-yield approach stabilized the second unit's offense.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +37.9
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +16.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.6
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 27.2m -16.5
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.2

Blistering perimeter shot-making kept the scoreboard ticking, but a complete lack of secondary playmaking stalled ball movement. Defenders routinely blew past him on the perimeter, forcing the interior defense into constant scramble mode. Giving back nearly every point he generated resulted in a frustratingly hollow scoring line.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg +41.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.2m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +1.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 23.2m -14.0
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jericho Sims 21.5m
9
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

Operating strictly as a lob threat and screener, he executed his narrow role with solid efficiency. However, a lack of versatility allowed the opposing bigs to camp in the paint without consequence. This predictability on offense slightly capped his overall effectiveness during half-court slogs.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.4%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +68.3
+/- +29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.5m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.0
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 21.5m -13.0
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Cole Anthony 12.2m
4
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.7

Pounding the air out of the ball at the top of the key completely short-circuited the team's offensive rhythm. His inability to generate rim pressure allowed the defense to stay home on shooters. This stagnant initiation resulted in a quick hook and a deeply negative stint.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg +48.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +2.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 12.2m -7.4
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.2

Sacrificing his own offensive touches, he focused entirely on blowing up the opponent's primary actions with elite screen navigation. His constant off-ball motion and sharp connective passing kept the offense humming even without him taking shots. This glue-guy performance perfectly complemented the high-usage scorers on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.8
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 12.1m -7.3
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

A brief garbage-time cameo was marred by erratic positioning and a forced, out-of-rhythm jumper. He failed to connect on any meaningful actions before the final buzzer sounded.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.4m
Offense -0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.3
Avg player in 2.4m -1.4
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
CHI Chicago Bulls
S Isaac Okoro 40.4m
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-7.4

Elite point-of-attack defense and high-energy closeouts were completely undone by his offensive struggles. A barrage of bricked perimeter looks allowed the defense to sag and clog the paint. His inability to punish rotations ultimately dragged his overall impact deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.4%
USG% 13.4%
Net Rtg -4.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +5.8
Defense +9.3
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 40.4m -24.5
Impact -7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 39.1%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Matas Buzelis 35.9m
22
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

A confident perimeter stroke forced defenders to respect his range, opening up driving lanes for the entire unit. He paired that floor-spacing gravity with excellent weak-side rim protection to anchor the defense. This two-way versatility kept his team afloat during crucial transition sequences.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -12.1
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +3.2
Defense +7.9
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 35.9m -21.7
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 5
TO 1
S Coby White 30.3m
21
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.3

Forcing contested jumpers early in the shot clock severely damaged the team's offensive rhythm. While the scoring volume looks solid on paper, the sheer number of empty possessions handed momentum right back to the opponent. Poor shot selection ultimately outweighed his contributions on the glass.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 52.3%
USG% 30.7%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.7
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 30.3m -18.4
Impact -7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 81.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ayo Dosunmu 27.9m
17
pts
4
reb
8
ast
Impact
+5.4

Penetration and kick-out precision generated high-quality looks for shooters all night. He dictated the tempo perfectly, balancing his own perimeter scoring with sharp reads against collapsing defenses. Active hands in the passing lanes further boosted his overall value.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 20.6%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +6.2
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 27.9m -16.9
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Smith 20.1m
16
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+8.2

Floor-stretching from the frontcourt completely warped the opponent's defensive shell in just 20 minutes of action. Capitalizing on pick-and-pop opportunities yielded massive offensive dividends without sacrificing interior presence. His timely rotations around the basket cemented a highly efficient two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.2%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.8
Raw total +20.4
Avg player in 20.1m -12.2
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
17
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

An aggressive scoring mentality yielded a massive spike in production, but the underlying efficiency left much to be desired. Settling for heavily contested mid-range pull-ups dragged down his overall offensive impact. Consequently, the high usage rate resulted in a net-neutral performance despite the scoring outburst.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg -47.3
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +12.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.7
Raw total +16.0
Avg player in 27.0m -16.4
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
5
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
-1.1

Despite orchestrating the offense with crisp passing reads, an inability to convert open perimeter looks allowed defenders to play entirely off him. This lack of scoring gravity clogged the paint for his teammates during critical half-court sets. His peskiness on defense wasn't quite enough to salvage the offensive spacing issues.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.5%
USG% 9.2%
Net Rtg -40.9
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +5.1
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 26.2m -16.0
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
7
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Floating on the perimeter without demanding the ball rendered him a non-factor in the half-court offense. While he provided adequate resistance in post-up situations, his complete lack of offensive aggression allowed the defense to double elsewhere. This passivity ultimately dragged his overall impact into the negative.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 34.7%
USG% 7.0%
Net Rtg -33.1
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.1
Defense +4.2
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 16.5m -10.0
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Dalen Terry 15.6m
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.6

Smothering on-ball pressure completely disrupted the opposing backcourt's initiation patterns. He didn't need offensive touches to dominate his minutes, relying instead on relentless defensive energy and timely deflections. This defensive masterclass turned a brief rotation stint into a massive net positive.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg -36.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.6m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +9.4
Raw total +15.0
Avg player in 15.6m -9.4
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0