GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 33.1m
21
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.6

Brutal inefficiency inside the arc completely negated his stellar defensive metrics (+5.7). He repeatedly forced wildly contested floaters and layups into heavy traffic, effectively handing the opponent transition opportunities through missed shots. Despite generating tremendous defensive pressure, his offensive tunnel vision sank his net impact.

Shooting
FG 6/17 (35.3%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg -24.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +4.5
Defense +5.7
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 33.1m -16.9
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
21
pts
2
reb
10
ast
Impact
+15.6

Elite dual-threat playmaking and suffocating perimeter defense (+6.4) drove a spectacular overall performance. He methodically picked apart defensive coverages, creating high-percentage looks while ruthlessly punishing mismatches in isolation. His ability to dictate the pace of the game on both ends made him the most impactful player on the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 77.0%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +4.0
Defense +6.4
Raw total +31.4
Avg player in 30.9m -15.8
Impact +15.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 63.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S AJ Green 25.7m
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-12.8

Cold shooting and glaring defensive liabilities combined to create a massive negative impact. Opposing guards relentlessly targeted him in isolation, exposing his lateral quickness and generating easy paint touches (-1.1 def). Because his perimeter shot wasn't falling, his inability to impact the game in other areas made him a severe liability.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -15.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.1
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 25.7m -13.1
Impact -12.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Myles Turner 24.8m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.0

Strong interior defense (+4.4) barely kept his overall impact in the green amidst highly erratic perimeter shooting. While he successfully deterred drives at the rim, his insistence on forcing contested trail threes bailed out the opposing defense. It was a mixed bag where his elite rim protection ultimately outweighed his questionable shot selection.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.4
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 24.8m -12.7
Impact +1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Kyle Kuzma 18.3m
3
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.0

Total offensive disengagement completely ruined what was actually a respectable defensive showing (+1.9). He vanished from the offensive game plan entirely, passing up open looks and failing to attack obvious mismatches. This unusually passive approach stalled the offense and resulted in a stark negative impact despite his effort on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 38.7%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -16.2
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.3m
Offense -1.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 18.3m -9.3
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jericho Sims 24.0m
4
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.6

Extreme passivity as a roll man allowed the opposing defense to aggressively trap the ball-handlers without consequence. Failing to make himself available in the dunker spot, he effectively forced his team to play 4-on-5 on the offensive end. Despite decent defensive positioning (+1.7), his offensive invisibility severely dragged the unit down.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 7.9%
Net Rtg -36.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense +4.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.7
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 24.0m -12.2
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Cam Thomas 21.2m
15
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.7

A pure scoring punch simply wasn't enough to overcome his lack of connective tissue on either end of the floor. Operating with extreme tunnel vision, he frequently stalled ball movement and allowed the defense to reset. While the isolation shot-making was highly efficient, his inability to generate stops or create for others left his overall impact slightly negative.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.7%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -40.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.2m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.9
Raw total +10.1
Avg player in 21.2m -10.8
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Bobby Portis 17.9m
6
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Sluggish defensive rotations (-0.4) and forced mid-range jumpers completely neutralized his typical energy-guy impact. Struggling to establish deep post position, he settled instead for contested turnarounds that bailed out the defense. Without his usual offensive rebounding dominance to generate extra possessions, his overall contribution was entirely flat.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -41.7
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense -0.4
Raw total +8.8
Avg player in 17.9m -9.1
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.4

A complete offensive blackout created a massive crater in the team's production during his minutes. Looking entirely lost against physical defensive pressure, he rushed his mechanics and failed to bend the defense on drives. The sheer volume of empty, zero-impact possessions vastly outweighed his marginal defensive contributions (+1.7).

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg -31.3
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.7m
Offense -9.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total -6.9
Avg player in 14.7m -7.5
Impact -14.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Minor struggles to navigate off-ball screens resulted in a slightly negative, low-impact stint. While he provided adequate point-of-attack defense (+1.1), his inability to shake loose for clean catch-and-shoot opportunities bogged down the half-court sets. He was essentially a non-factor who failed to tilt the floor in either direction.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.1
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 6.5m -3.3
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

Forcing bad shots early in possessions completely sabotaged his brief time on the court. Bypassing the flow of the offense to hunt contested looks, he generated zero points and absolutely zero hustle plays. Combined with lazy defensive closeouts (-0.8), this was a purely detrimental performance that killed team momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense -2.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -3.2
Avg player in 6.5m -3.3
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Out-of-control drives directly into the teeth of the defense led to multiple wasted possessions. Playing at a frantic, uncalculated pace, he settled for wild layup attempts rather than executing structured offense. This erratic decision-making ultimately outweighed his trademark energy, leading to a negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -42.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.5m
Offense +0.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 6.5m -3.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Pete Nance 5.3m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.2

Rushed perimeter shots in a very short stint quickly derailed the offense's momentum. Firing away early in the shot clock without letting plays develop, he directly fueled opponent fast breaks through long rebounds. It was a highly damaging stretch defined entirely by poor situational awareness and zero hustle (+0.0).

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense -1.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 5.3m -2.8
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.7

Unbridled energy in garbage time resulted in a chaotic but positive spark for the end-of-bench unit. Converting an aggressive drive to the rim, he created havoc in the passing lanes during his brief appearance. It was a classic high-motor cameo that successfully ran out the clock without bleeding points.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 104.2%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -81.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.4m
Offense +4.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense 0.0
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 4.4m -2.3
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
TOR Toronto Raptors
S Brandon Ingram 31.2m
22
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.9

High-volume isolation scoring masked the underlying inefficiencies that pushed his net impact slightly into the red. Operating primarily as a one-dimensional threat, he failed to generate enough defensive disruption (+2.2) to offset the possessions where he stalled the offensive flow. The scoring bump looked good on paper but lacked the connective tissue needed for winning basketball.

Shooting
FG 8/17 (47.1%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 56.0%
USG% 29.2%
Net Rtg +17.4
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.2m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +14.9
Avg player in 31.2m -15.8
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
32
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
+22.7

An absolute masterclass in offensive initiation and perimeter shot-making fueled a staggering +22.7 total impact. He relentlessly punished drop coverage with pull-up jumpers while constantly generating extra possessions through elite hustle (+7.0). This explosive scoring surge was defined by flawless decision-making and relentless off-ball movement.

Shooting
FG 11/19 (57.9%)
3PT 5/11 (45.5%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.5%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg +15.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +29.0
Hustle +7.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +38.4
Avg player in 30.9m -15.7
Impact +22.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ja'Kobe Walter 30.3m
9
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.7

Settling for heavily contested perimeter looks resulted in a string of empty possessions that tanked his overall rating. Instead of attacking closeouts, he fell in love with the three-point line, neutralizing his offensive gravity. While his hustle metrics remained solid, the poor shot selection proved too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 13.9%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.0
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 30.3m -15.4
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S RJ Barrett 26.5m
7
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.9

Poor shot selection and an inability to finish inside completely derailed his offensive value. Despite generating a massive +5.5 hustle rating through active rotations and loose ball recoveries, the sheer volume of empty possessions dragged his total impact into the red. It was a classic high-effort, low-execution outing.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.8%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +1.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense -1.0
Hustle +5.5
Defense +4.2
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 26.5m -13.6
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jakob Poeltl 25.9m
6
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.1

Elite rim protection and flawless defensive anchoring (+9.2) drove a massive positive impact despite a sharp dip in offensive usage. He dominated the paint through verticality and disciplined closeouts, completely shutting off the opponent's interior attack. By accepting a low-usage offensive role, he perfectly stabilized the team's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.9m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +3.7
Defense +9.2
Raw total +25.3
Avg player in 25.9m -13.2
Impact +12.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
15
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+9.1

Floor-spacing from the frontcourt and disciplined defensive positioning created a massive matchup advantage. By consistently pulling opposing bigs out to the perimeter, he opened up vital driving lanes for the guards. His ability to act as a secondary connector while holding up defensively (+4.8) kept the offensive engine humming.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +47.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +2.7
Defense +4.8
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 22.7m -11.5
Impact +9.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jamal Shead 22.6m
12
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.8

Tenacious point-of-attack defense and timely playmaking drove a highly efficient two-way performance. He completely disrupted the opposing backcourt's rhythm, consistently turning defensive stops into transition opportunities. The combination of active hands (+4.2 hustle) and smart offensive reads made him a massive plus off the bench.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 18.9%
Net Rtg +54.5
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +4.2
Defense +3.5
Raw total +21.3
Avg player in 22.6m -11.5
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.5

Hyper-efficient interior finishing and relentless activity around the basket anchored a highly productive stint. Though his overall usage dipped, he maximized every touch and generated crucial second-chance opportunities through sheer effort (+4.9 hustle). He played perfectly within his role, setting bone-crushing screens and rolling with purpose.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.4%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +34.2
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +4.9
Defense +2.6
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 19.6m -10.0
Impact +4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Gradey Dick 16.5m
4
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

A prolonged shooting slump continues to severely limit his on-court utility and drag down his overall rating. Unable to punish closeouts or hit open looks, his lack of offensive gravity allowed defenders to freely pack the paint. While he tried to compensate with fundamental rotations (+1.4 def), the sheer volume of empty possessions was too detrimental.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 29.1%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +43.8
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.5m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.4
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 16.5m -8.4
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.9

Flawless execution in a brief cameo provided a quick, efficient jolt to the second unit. He capitalized perfectly on defensive miscommunications, converting every look he was given without disrupting the offensive flow. This was a textbook example of a deep reserve staying ready and maximizing limited minutes.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 125.0%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg +69.0
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense +6.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +7.5
Avg player in 8.8m -4.6
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.7

Garbage-time efficiency yielded a slight positive bump in an otherwise negligible sample size. He executed a simple rim-run perfectly and maintained defensive discipline during his brief stint on the floor. While there wasn't enough runway to alter the game, he completely avoided any negative plays.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +36.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.0
Avg player in 2.5m -1.3
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

A purely cardio stint at the end of the rotation offered absolutely zero measurable production. He essentially existed as a placeholder on the court, failing to register a single positive or negative action in any category. The slight negative impact score stems purely from the team losing his brief minutes on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +36.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 2.5m -1.2
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0