GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 39.8m
27
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-5.7

High-usage inefficiency and a barrage of live-ball turnovers completely tanked his overall value. Repeatedly driving into collapsed defenses without a bailout plan gifted the opposition easy transition points that outweighed his scoring output.

Shooting
FG 10/19 (52.6%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.7%
USG% 28.7%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 39.8m -23.9
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S AJ Green 35.7m
20
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.3

Consistent struggles to navigate screens allowed straight-line drives to the rim, bleeding away his defensive value. His perimeter scoring volume merely masked the damage caused by an inability to stay in front of quicker guards at the point of attack.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 6/12 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 17.5%
Net Rtg -8.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 35.7m -21.5
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyle Kuzma 31.0m
7
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
-8.8

Forced passes and sloppy ball-handling in traffic ignited opponent fast breaks, severely dragging down his overall impact. Despite decent rebounding effort, a tendency to stall the offense with isolation-heavy possessions ruined the team's half-court flow.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg -3.1
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 31.0m -18.7
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Myles Turner 28.5m
16
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.6

Gave up critical positioning on the defensive glass, allowing second-chance points that eroded his offensive contributions. A costly stretch of foul trouble in the first half forced passive rim protection, ultimately tipping his net impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -11.2
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.5m
Offense +9.5
Hustle +4.3
Defense +2.8
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 28.5m -17.2
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Amir Coffey 25.2m
16
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

Maximized his touches with pristine shot selection, attacking closeouts decisively rather than settling for contested jumpers. A flurry of timely deflections in the third quarter highlighted a highly efficient, mistake-free performance.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.8%
USG% 15.1%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +15.9
Hustle +4.5
Defense +0.9
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 25.2m -15.1
Impact +6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
18
pts
6
reb
9
ast
Impact
+6.8

Suffocating on-ball pressure completely flipped the game, blowing up multiple pick-and-roll actions before they could develop. Disciplined closeouts and an ability to navigate screens without fouling made him an absolute nightmare for the opposing backcourt.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.8
Defense +11.5
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 29.4m -17.7
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 5
BLK 0
TO 4
Jericho Sims 27.8m
8
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.4

Struggled to process defensive rotations in space, frequently dropping too deep and conceding rhythm jumpers to the ball handler. While he finished plays around the basket, poor positioning in pick-and-roll coverage continuously put the defense in rotation.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 27.8m -16.7
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.9

A lack of off-ball engagement and poor transition defense sapped the value of his perimeter shot-making. He was repeatedly caught ball-watching on the weak side, surrendering easy backdoor cuts that kept his net impact below zero.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.8m
Offense +12.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.3
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 23.8m -14.2
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Pete Nance 18.7m
16
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+6.9

Leveraged excellent spatial awareness to find soft spots in the zone defense, playing a brilliantly clean game. Quick decision-making as a connective passer kept the offense humming and ensured virtually zero wasted possessions.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 88.9%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 18.7m -11.3
Impact +6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.5

A disastrously brief stint defined by reckless fouls and rushed decisions that immediately put the team in the penalty. An inability to execute the defensive scheme forced a quick substitution before further damage could be done.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.1m
Offense +0.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.6
Raw total -0.4
Avg player in 5.1m -3.1
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
NOP New Orleans Pelicans
S Trey Murphy III 39.9m
44
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+20.9

An absolute masterclass in two-way dominance, driven by elite shot selection and suffocating point-of-attack defense. He completely neutralized his primary matchup while punishing defensive rotations with lethal catch-and-shoot execution from deep.

Shooting
FG 15/28 (53.6%)
3PT 12/19 (63.2%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.2%
USG% 38.4%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Offense +31.2
Hustle +4.0
Defense +9.8
Raw total +45.0
Avg player in 39.9m -24.1
Impact +20.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 14
Opp FG% 93.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 4
S Zion Williamson 37.7m
20
pts
5
reb
8
ast
Impact
-5.4

Offensive fouls and sloppy ball security in traffic severely dragged down his net impact. While he commanded double-teams effectively, his tendency to force drives into heavy rim protection resulted in empty possessions that fueled opponent fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 10/12 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 61.4%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +0.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.7m
Offense +13.7
Hustle +1.3
Defense +2.4
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 37.7m -22.8
Impact -5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Herbert Jones 36.0m
7
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.8

Relentless weak-side rotations and elite screen navigation kept the defense anchored, but offensive limitations cratered his overall score. Missed open looks and stalled half-court possessions allowed the defense to completely ignore him on the perimeter.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +7.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.0m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +7.2
Defense +5.9
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 36.0m -21.7
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Saddiq Bey 35.1m
22
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.3

Despite strong perimeter shot-making, his overall value plummeted due to a string of costly live-ball turnovers and defensive lapses. He consistently lost his man on backdoor cuts, bleeding points that erased his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.5%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +18.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.0
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 35.1m -21.1
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Derik Queen 22.0m
6
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.3

Kept his head above water through sheer effort, generating crucial extra possessions with timely offensive rebounds and loose ball recoveries. His active hands in the passing lanes disrupted the opposing pick-and-roll just enough to offset a quiet scoring night.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/3 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.5%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +5.7
Hustle +3.3
Defense +4.6
Raw total +13.6
Avg player in 22.0m -13.3
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Yves Missi 30.8m
7
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.8

Anchored the paint effectively with verticality, altering multiple shots at the rim without fouling. His impact remained slightly positive because his rim-running and screen-setting created gravity, even when his own finishing touch was lacking.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.1%
USG% 11.6%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.6
Raw total +19.3
Avg player in 30.8m -18.5
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 64.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
13
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.8

Provided a stabilizing presence off the bench by making quick, decisive reads against scrambling defenses. Disciplined closeouts and a refusal to bite on pump fakes ensured the secondary unit didn't bleed points during his stint.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.9
Raw total +13.8
Avg player in 19.8m -12.0
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
9
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Injected immediate pace into the offense, capitalizing on transition opportunities and punishing lazy closeouts. A crucial stretch of backcourt pressure in the second quarter disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm and kept his net impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -36.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.2
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 16.9m -10.2
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.4

Careless moving screens and biting on perimeter fakes gave back the value of his interior finishing. He struggled to anchor the drop coverage, frequently allowing uncontested floaters that tipped his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -6.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.3m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.2
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 15.3m -9.2
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Micah Peavy 11.6m
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Survived his minutes entirely on grit, utilizing his length to contest shots and secure tough contested rebounds. However, an inability to space the floor or create separation offensively resulted in a stagnant attack when he was on the court.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.6m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +3.4
Defense +3.8
Raw total +6.8
Avg player in 11.6m -7.0
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0