Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIL lead TOR lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
TOR 2P — 3P —
MIL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 179 attempts

TOR TOR Shot-making Δ

Quickley Hard 11/19 +8.4
Ingram Hard 8/17 +1.4
Mamukelashvili Hard 6/12 +2.7
Walter Hard 3/10 -1.0
Barrett 2/10 -6.2
Shead Hard 4/9 +0.5
Dick 1/6 -4.1
Poeltl 3/4 +1.8
Murray-Boyles Open 3/4 +0.7
Battle Hard 2/2 +3.1

MIL MIL Shot-making Δ

Rollins Hard 6/17 -0.2
Porter Jr. 8/11 +5.7
Turner Hard 6/11 +2.9
Thomas 5/9 +1.1
Portis 3/8 -1.9
Green Hard 1/6 -2.5
Jackson Jr. 1/4 -2.7
Dieng Hard 0/4 -3.7
Sims Open 2/3 +0.4
Harris Hard 1/3 -1.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
TOR
MIL
44/94 Field Goals 35/85
46.8% Field Goal % 41.2%
16/46 3-Pointers 9/32
34.8% 3-Point % 28.1%
18/23 Free Throws 15/19
78.3% Free Throw % 78.9%
58.6% True Shooting % 50.3%
53 Total Rebounds 56
14 Offensive 13
31 Defensive 33
34 Assists 18
4.25 Assist/TO Ratio 0.95
6 Turnovers 17
11 Steals 4
3 Blocks 4
19 Fouls 16
46 Points in Paint 42
15 Fast Break Pts 8
27 Points off TOs 8
21 Second Chance Pts 11
46 Bench Points 32
31 Largest Lead 8
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Immanuel Quickley
32 PTS · 3 REB · 9 AST · 30.9 MIN
+30.4
2
Kevin Porter Jr.
21 PTS · 2 REB · 10 AST · 30.9 MIN
+26.66
3
Jakob Poeltl
6 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 25.8 MIN
+17.07
4
Jamal Shead
12 PTS · 6 REB · 6 AST · 22.6 MIN
+16.8
5
Sandro Mamukelashvili
15 PTS · 4 REB · 4 AST · 22.7 MIN
+15.56
6
Brandon Ingram
22 PTS · 2 REB · 6 AST · 31.2 MIN
+11.83
7
Collin Murray-Boyles
8 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 19.7 MIN
+9.62
8
Cam Thomas
15 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 21.2 MIN
+9.27
9
Ryan Rollins
21 PTS · 9 REB · 1 AST · 33.1 MIN
+7.97
10
Myles Turner
14 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 24.8 MIN
+6.98
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 122–94
Q4 0:01 MISS A. Jackson Jr. step back 3PT 122–94
Q4 0:05 A. Jackson Jr. REBOUND (Off:2 Def:1) 122–94
Q4 0:06 T. Jackson-Davis BLOCK (1 BLK) 122–94
Q4 0:06 MISS A. Jackson Jr. driving Layup - blocked 122–94
Q4 0:12 TOR shot clock Team TURNOVER 122–94
Q4 0:36 T. Antetokounmpo Free Throw 1 of 1 (3 PTS) 122–94
Q4 0:36 G. Dick shooting personal FOUL (2 PF) (Antetokounmpo 1 FT) 122–93
Q4 0:36 T. Antetokounmpo 6' driving Layup (2 PTS) 122–93
Q4 0:50 J. Battle 8' driving floating Jump Shot (5 PTS) (S. Mamukelashvili 4 AST) 122–91
Q4 1:12 G. Harris 12' turnaround fadeaway Jump Shot (2 PTS) 120–91
Q4 1:23 T. Jackson-Davis cutting DUNK (2 PTS) (G. Dick 1 AST) 120–89
Q4 1:30 T. Jackson-Davis REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 118–89
Q4 1:32 MISS G. Trent Jr. 16' fadeaway Shot 118–89
Q4 1:46 G. Dick running DUNK (4 PTS) 118–89

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 33.1m
21
pts
9
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.0

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
Scoring +12.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +8.5
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -11.8
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
+20.8

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
Scoring +18.1
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +4.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +5.2
Turnovers -2.4
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
-10.7

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
Scoring -0.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
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
-1.2

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
Scoring +10.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense -2.4
Turnovers -5.4
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
-8.1

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
Scoring +0.9
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
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
-5.5

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
Scoring +3.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +7.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -6.1
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
+4.0

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
Scoring +12.3
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +3.0
Hustle +0.9
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
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
+2.7

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
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +8.9
Defense -2.2
Turnovers +0.0
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
-18.4

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
Scoring -2.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +1.5
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -7.1
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
-7.6

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
Scoring +0.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.5

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
Scoring -0.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.9

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
Scoring -2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Pete Nance 5.3m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.2

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
Scoring -1.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.4

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
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
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
+4.9

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
Scoring +14.4
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +4.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense -2.4
Turnovers -4.7
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
+30.6

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
Scoring +25.9
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +8.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.8
Turnovers -2.4
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
+2.0

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
Scoring +3.6
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +7.6
Defense -3.1
Turnovers +0.0
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
-4.4

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
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.6
Turnovers -2.4
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
+13.1

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
Scoring +5.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +10.2
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
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
+9.4

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
Scoring +10.6
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +4.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.8
Turnovers +0.0
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
+16.5

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
Scoring +8.4
Creation +3.2
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +7.6
Defense +3.8
Turnovers +0.0
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
+2.2

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
Scoring +6.2
Creation +0.6
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +5.1
Defense +0.1
Turnovers -2.4
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
-7.0

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
Scoring +0.7
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.5
Turnovers -2.4
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
-0.0

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
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

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
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
-5.7

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
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0