GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S AJ Green 36.6m
14
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

Chucking from the perimeter without a conscience severely damaged the team's offensive rhythm and his total impact score. The sheer volume of wasted possessions on contested outside looks fueled opponent transition opportunities. Despite showing decent effort on loose balls, his shot selection was actively detrimental.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +5.1
Hustle +3.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 36.6m -17.8
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
23
pts
7
reb
8
ast
Impact
+9.3

Relentless downhill attacking and primary playmaking drove a massive positive impact despite a completely broken perimeter stroke. By abandoning the outside shot and forcing his way into the paint, he consistently collapsed the defense to create high-value opportunities. His active hands in the passing lanes further amplified this dominant two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 0/6 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.9%
USG% 28.4%
Net Rtg +6.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.1m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.5
Raw total +25.8
Avg player in 34.1m -16.5
Impact +9.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ryan Rollins 33.9m
22
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.5

High-volume scoring masked significant defensive shortcomings that ultimately sank his net impact. He bled points on the perimeter, consistently losing his man off the ball and dying on screens. The offensive production was essentially empty calories given how much he surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 9/19 (47.4%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.9%
USG% 28.8%
Net Rtg +9.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +4.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total +12.0
Avg player in 33.9m -16.5
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jericho Sims 31.0m
4
pts
15
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.3

Relentless glass-cleaning and sturdy interior defense anchored a highly positive overall impact. He completely abandoned offensive usage to focus on securing extra possessions and walling off the paint. This pure role-player execution provided massive value without requiring a single play call.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 4.1%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +1.8
Defense +5.5
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 31.0m -15.0
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
S Myles Turner 26.9m
9
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.1

Settling for low-percentage perimeter looks dragged his overall rating into the negative despite solid rim protection. He repeatedly bailed out the interior defense by popping for contested outside shots rather than rolling to the basket. This offensive inefficiency neutralized the value of his defensive deterrence.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.6
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 26.9m -13.0
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 46.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Bobby Portis 26.0m
21
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.7

An aggressive scorer's mentality provided a massive offensive spark that drove a highly positive net rating. He hunted mismatches in the mid-post and confidently stepped into trail looks, punishing defensive hesitation. This instant-offense approach completely shifted the momentum during the middle quarters.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 32.2%
Net Rtg +0.3
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 26.0m -12.6
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.5

Floating on the perimeter without demanding the ball resulted in a quiet, negative-impact performance. He failed to generate any defensive pressure or hustle stats, making him a virtual non-factor during his rotation minutes. This lack of two-way engagement allowed the opposition to dictate the tempo while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 14.6%
Net Rtg -10.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.1m
Offense +5.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +5.7
Avg player in 19.1m -9.2
Impact -3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Pete Nance 18.0m
5
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.3

Playing strictly within himself yielded a modestly positive impact during a brief rotation stint. He focused entirely on executing defensive assignments and making the extra pass rather than forcing his own offense. This mistake-free basketball stabilized the second unit when the starters rested.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg -8.2
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.0m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +2.1
Defense +3.2
Raw total +10.0
Avg player in 18.0m -8.7
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Gary Harris 14.2m
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

A complete lack of offensive production and poor point-of-attack defense resulted in a disastrous net rating. He bricked his few open looks and failed to contain dribble penetration, making him a liability on both ends of the floor. The rotation suffered heavily during his uninspired stint.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.4
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 14.2m -6.9
Impact -6.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Andrew Nembhard 36.9m
22
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+1.7

Playmaking volume and aggressive creation salvaged a positive impact score despite a highly inefficient shooting performance. He forced the issue from beyond the arc, clanking numerous contested jumpers that capped his overall ceiling. However, his ability to consistently collapse the defense and distribute kept the offensive engine humming.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.8%
USG% 29.3%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.9m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.5
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 36.9m -17.8
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Pascal Siakam 32.7m
19
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-3.4

A heavy diet of clanked perimeter jumpers severely suppressed his overall rating. Settling for outside looks rather than attacking the paint resulted in a highly inefficient scoring night that offset his otherwise stellar defensive metrics. His shot selection bailed out the defense repeatedly.

Shooting
FG 7/19 (36.8%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.2%
USG% 36.8%
Net Rtg -15.9
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +4.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.0
Raw total +12.5
Avg player in 32.7m -15.9
Impact -3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Johnny Furphy 31.4m
2
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.9

Extensive minutes yielded almost no offensive gravity, dragging his total impact deep into the red. While his defensive metrics and hustle remained solid, the complete lack of scoring threat allowed opponents to freely sag off him. Failing to punish closeouts ultimately negated his off-ball contributions.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 6.2%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +2.3
Defense +4.2
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 31.4m -15.2
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Aaron Nesmith 26.9m
12
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.5

Peripheral invisibility torpedoed his overall score despite a passable shooting night. Failing to generate secondary plays or secure loose balls meant his only contributions came from spot-up looks. The lack of rotational rebounding forced the defense into extended shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +13.6
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.9m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 26.9m -12.9
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jay Huff 22.8m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.2

Drifting to the perimeter limited his effectiveness, as his shot profile neutralized his usual interior gravity. Despite anchoring the defense capably, his offensive passivity and missed outside looks left points on the board. This inability to pressure the rim resulted in a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.2%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -52.4
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.8m
Offense +2.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +4.8
Raw total +9.7
Avg player in 22.8m -10.9
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
15
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.3

Elite defensive event creation and pristine shot selection fueled a dominant two-way rating. He refused to force bad looks, continuing a trend of highly efficient interior finishing that punished defensive rotations. His ability to anchor the weak side while capitalizing on low-usage offensive opportunities made him the ultimate glue guy tonight.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +1.6
Defense +10.1
Raw total +22.0
Avg player in 30.5m -14.7
Impact +7.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Micah Potter 16.2m
8
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.0

Capitalizing on brief rotation minutes, a hyper-efficient scoring burst drove a highly positive net rating. He found soft spots in the defensive coverage to knock down timely perimeter looks without disrupting the offensive flow. Active hustle on 50/50 balls further amplified his short-stint value.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 16.2m -7.8
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ben Sheppard 15.9m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

Defensive liabilities heavily outweighed his spot-up shooting contributions, tanking his overall grade. Opponents consistently targeted him in isolation and pick-and-roll actions, exposing his lateral quickness. Consequently, his floor-spacing value was completely erased by the points he surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +6.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense -1.0
Raw total +3.6
Avg player in 15.9m -7.7
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
8
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+7.5

Masterful pace manipulation and surgical interior passing generated an elite impact score in limited action. He relentlessly probed the paint, creating high-value looks for teammates while finishing his own drives with characteristic efficiency. This quick-hitting offensive initiation completely tilted the game's momentum during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.2
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 14.1m -6.8
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Kam Jones 12.7m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Total offensive invisibility across a brief rotation stint resulted in a slightly negative grade. He failed to assert himself within the flow of the offense, taking minimal shots and generating zero secondary statistics. This passive approach made it easy for defenders to ignore him.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg -50.9
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +2.8
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 12.7m -6.2
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0