GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 36.8m
21
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+3.5

Relentless motor and elite hustle defined a gritty performance that constantly disrupted the opponent's rhythm. He excelled at blowing up passing lanes and securing 50/50 balls, translating defensive chaos into easy transition opportunities. This high-energy approach perfectly complemented his efficient slashing to the rim.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 62.2%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +4.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Offense +10.4
Hustle +7.0
Defense +7.6
Raw total +25.0
Avg player in 36.8m -21.5
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 4
32
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+22.8

Delivered a masterclass in two-way dominance, tearing apart the defense with relentless downhill attacks while simultaneously locking down his assignment. His spectacular box impact was amplified by hyper-aggressive hustle plays that consistently generated extra possessions. He dictated the terms of engagement on every single shift to drive a massive positive rating.

Shooting
FG 11/20 (55.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.6m
Offense +30.4
Hustle +4.3
Defense +9.4
Raw total +44.1
Avg player in 36.6m -21.3
Impact +22.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S AJ Green 27.6m
8
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
-4.6

Operating exclusively as a perimeter decoy limited his ability to positively influence the game's flow. While his gravity stretched the defense, hidden costs like poor closeouts or transition defensive lapses dragged his net rating into the red. The one-dimensional offensive approach made him too easy to scheme against.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.6m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.9
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 27.6m -16.1
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kyle Kuzma 24.8m
19
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

A heavy diet of contested midrange attempts bogged down the offensive machinery and capped his overall value. Although he provided solid weak-side defensive help, the empty offensive possessions and potential ball-security issues resulted in a net negative impact. Forcing the issue against set defenses ultimately hurt the team's efficiency.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 31.7%
Net Rtg -6.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +5.0
Raw total +12.7
Avg player in 24.8m -14.6
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Myles Turner 18.8m
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.6

Anchored the entire defensive scheme with elite rim deterrence, generating a massive defensive impact that salvaged his overall rating. His offensive game was completely out of sync, as he settled for poorly timed perimeter shots instead of rolling to the basket. The sheer force of his interior defense was the only thing keeping his net rating afloat.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 10.2%
Net Rtg -9.3
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +3.3
Defense +9.4
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 18.8m -11.0
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Jericho Sims 29.2m
8
pts
10
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.8

Flawless finishing around the rim masked underlying issues with interior positioning that ultimately dragged down his net rating. Despite the highly efficient offensive output, he likely bled value by biting on pump fakes or surrendering deep post position. The raw counting stats hid a performance that was structurally damaging to the team's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +21.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.2m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 29.2m -17.1
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Bobby Portis 24.2m
21
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Caught fire from the perimeter to single-handedly bust the opponent's zone coverage. His aggressive floor-spacing completely altered the defensive geometry, forcing bigs out of the paint to respect his shot. While his defensive impact was muted, the sheer volume of his perimeter scoring drove a solid positive net rating.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 25.9%
Net Rtg +36.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +0.7
Raw total +17.4
Avg player in 24.2m -14.2
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.6

Punished defensive rotations with lethal precision from beyond the arc, capitalizing perfectly on the space created by the primary creators. His length and discipline on the perimeter generated a strong defensive impact, effectively neutralizing his matchup. This highly efficient 3-and-D execution provided a crucial stabilizing presence.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 91.7%
USG% 10.7%
Net Rtg +5.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.4m
Offense +11.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.3
Raw total +17.7
Avg player in 22.4m -13.1
Impact +4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Thomas 19.6m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.2

Severe tunnel vision and forced shots completely derailed the second-unit offense, leading to a disastrous negative total impact. Clanking early-clock jumpers allowed the opposition to leak out for easy transition buckets. His inability to recognize double-teams or defer to teammates actively harmed the offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 2/10 (20.0%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 26.5%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.1
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 19.6m -11.5
Impact -10.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIA Miami Heat
S Pelle Larsson 35.9m
10
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.5

A steep drop in overall impact suggests hidden negatives like live-ball turnovers or missed defensive rotations heavily outweighed his basic counting stats. His perimeter shot completely abandoned him, breaking a long streak of high-efficiency offense. This passive offensive showing allowed the defense to sag and disrupt Miami's spacing.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg -11.1
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.9m
Offense +8.5
Hustle +3.0
Defense +2.0
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 35.9m -21.0
Impact -7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Bam Adebayo 31.3m
18
pts
9
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.4

Uncharacteristic shot selection severely dragged down his overall value, as settling for a heavy volume of perimeter attempts bailed out the opposing interior defense. While his rim protection remained formidable, the wasted offensive possessions neutralized that defensive value. Forcing contested jumpers rather than attacking the paint ultimately resulted in a flat net impact.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 47.4%
USG% 24.4%
Net Rtg -7.6
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.3m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.0
Defense +5.2
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 31.3m -18.3
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Norman Powell 29.8m
26
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.3

High-volume scoring completely masked a damaging overall floor game that bled value in the margins. Despite the aggressive scoring surge, hidden costs like defensive breakdowns or poorly timed turnovers dragged his net rating deep into the red. He operated as a pure volume scorer at the expense of the broader offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 11/14 (78.6%)
Advanced
TS% 64.5%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg -12.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.8m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +3.4
Raw total +12.1
Avg player in 29.8m -17.4
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 6
S Andrew Wiggins 28.9m
16
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+7.8

Elite two-way execution drove a highly positive overall rating, anchored by suffocating perimeter defense that neutralized his primary matchup. He consistently punished defensive lapses from deep, spacing the floor effectively to open up driving lanes. His relentless activity on the margins kept the opponent from establishing any offensive rhythm.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg -8.1
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +6.7
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 28.9m -16.8
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 43.8%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
S Davion Mitchell 28.1m
8
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.5

A highly efficient but overly passive offensive approach limited his ability to dictate the game's tempo. Despite solid point-of-attack defense, his reluctance to pressure the rim allowed the opponent to hide weaker defenders. Hidden mistakes in the half-court offense ultimately pushed his overall impact into negative territory.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 6.8%
Net Rtg +0.9
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 28.1m -16.4
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Tyler Herro 26.1m
14
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
-9.7

Brutal shot selection and forced isolation attempts completely cratered his overall impact. Clanking contested jumpers early in the shot clock fueled opponent transition opportunities and derailed the offensive system. The sheer volume of wasted possessions heavily outweighed his decent hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.1%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg -36.1
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +2.3
Defense +2.1
Raw total +5.6
Avg player in 26.1m -15.3
Impact -9.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
9
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.0

Struggled to find his typical offensive rhythm, resulting in a passive performance that stalled half-court execution. While he maintained solid defensive positioning, his inability to generate downhill pressure severely limited his overall effectiveness. The steep drop in scoring aggression allowed defenders to cheat off him and clog the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 19.0%
Net Rtg +6.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +3.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +7.8
Avg player in 22.0m -12.8
Impact -5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Kel'el Ware 18.8m
14
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.3

Capitalized brilliantly on interior mismatches to generate a massive spike in offensive production. His ability to finish efficiently around the basket drove a strong positive impact, even if his rim protection numbers were unusually quiet. He served as a highly effective release valve against defensive pressure.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg -16.3
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +14.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 18.8m -10.9
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.6

Failed to make a tangible mark during his brief rotation minutes, struggling to adapt to the game's physicality. A lack of offensive assertiveness resulted in empty possessions that slightly dragged down the unit's momentum. He provided adequate defensive energy but couldn't offset the offensive stagnation.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -37.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.6
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 10.2m -5.9
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Dru Smith 6.4m
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.9

Completely changed the complexion of the game defensively during a highly disruptive six-minute stint. His suffocating point-of-attack pressure generated a massive defensive rating spike, completely blowing up the opponent's offensive sets. This elite defensive energy easily erased the impact of his scoreless offensive showing.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.1%
Net Rtg -12.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.4m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +6.9
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 6.4m -3.7
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Logged only a brief cameo appearance that wasn't long enough to establish any rhythm. His minimal floor time resulted in a negligible statistical footprint. The slight negative impact stems purely from the small sample size of a disjointed rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +83.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 2.6m -1.5
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