GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
20
pts
8
reb
5
ast
Impact
+14.5

Phenomenal defensive activity and elite hustle metrics skyrocketed his overall impact score. He relentlessly attacked the paint, using his burst to generate high-percentage looks while completely abandoning the three-point shot. This aggressive, downhill mentality dictated the pace and overwhelmed his primary matchups.

Shooting
FG 10/16 (62.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.9m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +8.4
Defense +14.1
Raw total +35.5
Avg player in 37.9m -21.0
Impact +14.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 5
BLK 1
TO 3
S AJ Green 37.6m
15
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-11.6

Severe defensive liabilities completely erased the value of his perimeter marksmanship, resulting in a heavily negative impact. While he provided excellent spacing by hitting a barrage of threes, he was consistently targeted and exploited on the other end of the floor. The inability to stay in front of straight-line drives turned his offensive production into empty calories.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +22.4
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.6m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.4
Defense -2.0
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 37.6m -20.9
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 21
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ryan Rollins 34.8m
18
pts
3
reb
9
ast
Impact
-6.0

Defensive struggles heavily penalized his overall score despite an otherwise productive offensive showing. He was frequently out of position on rotations, allowing easy driving lanes that negated his efficient interior scoring. The playmaking volume couldn't outpace the points he surrendered on the other end through blown coverages.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 69.2%
USG% 22.1%
Net Rtg +19.3
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Offense +11.9
Hustle +3.5
Defense -2.0
Raw total +13.4
Avg player in 34.8m -19.4
Impact -6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Kyle Kuzma 26.2m
17
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+5.6

High-volume perimeter shooting drove a solid positive impact, as he stretched the floor effectively from deep. Despite some inefficiency inside the arc, his willingness to let it fly kept the defense honest. Solid defensive positioning and weak-side awareness helped ensure his offensive contributions resulted in a net positive.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 24.6%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 26.2m -14.6
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
S Myles Turner 24.1m
15
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+5.1

Highly efficient inside-out scoring fueled a strong positive rating in his minutes. He capitalized on pick-and-pop opportunities, punishing drop coverages with timely perimeter shooting. Steady defensive presence around the rim complemented his offensive surge perfectly, altering multiple shots in the paint.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.4%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 24.1m -13.4
Impact +5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
Jericho Sims 28.9m
11
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.2

Near-perfect shot selection around the rim wasn't quite enough to push his impact into the positive. He played strictly within his role, finishing dump-offs and lobs, but lacked the defensive dominance needed to swing the game. A quiet hustle output and inability to secure contested boards left his overall rating hovering at neutral.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -6.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +12.6
Hustle +1.8
Defense +1.4
Raw total +15.8
Avg player in 28.9m -16.0
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Bobby Portis 21.1m
10
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

A relatively quiet stint resulted in a slightly negative impact, driven by a lack of overwhelming hustle or defensive plays. He provided decent spacing with his perimeter touch but failed to dominate the physical battles inside. The performance was steady but lacked the disruptive energy on the glass needed to swing the momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.6
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 21.1m -11.7
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Thomas 16.2m
7
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.6

A lack of offensive volume and minimal hustle contributions resulted in a negative net score. He failed to assert himself as a scoring threat, blending into the background during his stint on the floor. Without his usual shot creation and isolation gravity, his overall value plummeted.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 58.3%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg -35.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.9
Raw total +4.4
Avg player in 16.2m -9.0
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.1

Disastrous perimeter shooting cratered his impact score, as he continuously bricked looks from beyond the arc in a short stint. His insistence on settling for outside looks derailed offensive possessions and allowed the defense to sag off him. Minimal contributions elsewhere offered no buffer for his shooting woes, making him an offensive liability.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg -44.4
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense -0.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 13.2m -7.4
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
S Jaylon Tyson 35.1m
14
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.4

Poor shot selection defined his negative impact, as he forced contested looks and bricked a high volume of field goals. Strong defensive rotations and active hands kept him from being a complete liability. His inability to punish drop coverage stalled the half-court offense repeatedly.

Shooting
FG 5/16 (31.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 40.4%
USG% 20.5%
Net Rtg -29.5
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.1m
Offense +10.2
Hustle +2.7
Defense +6.2
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 35.1m -19.5
Impact -0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 56.2%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
26
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+2.0

A massive scoring surge compared to his recent average kept his impact in the green, driven by aggressive downhill attacks. He consistently broke down the defense to create quality looks, hitting timely perimeter shots to keep the offense humming. However, getting caught on screens defensively limited his overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 8/14 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 7/9 (77.8%)
Advanced
TS% 72.4%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -9.1
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +17.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +21.1
Avg player in 34.6m -19.1
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Sam Merrill 33.7m
14
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
-15.9

A highly negative overall impact was driven by defensive struggles and poor perimeter efficiency. Missing a high volume of three-pointers wasted critical possessions, while his inability to contain dribble penetration compounded the damage. Opponents actively hunted him in pick-and-roll switches, negating any value his spacing provided.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.4%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg -1.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.7m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.5
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 33.7m -18.7
Impact -15.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jarrett Allen 32.3m
27
pts
11
reb
1
ast
Impact
+24.3

Utter dominance in the paint fueled a massive positive impact, anchored by highly efficient interior finishing. He consistently punished mismatches around the rim, establishing a reliable offensive hub that generated high-percentage looks. Exceptional defensive anchoring and vertical spacing further solidified his stellar two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 7/8 (87.5%)
Advanced
TS% 72.9%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.3m
Offense +28.2
Hustle +5.3
Defense +8.8
Raw total +42.3
Avg player in 32.3m -18.0
Impact +24.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 12
Opp FG% 70.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Dean Wade 21.6m
0
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.7

A complete offensive ghosting severely punished his overall impact score. Failing to register a single point while missing all his perimeter looks made him an absolute liability on that end of the floor. The defense completely ignored him on the weak side, cramping the spacing for primary creators.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg +18.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.6
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 21.6m -12.1
Impact -10.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Keon Ellis 28.9m
14
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.1

Elite defensive metrics and high-level hustle plays defined a tremendously impactful two-way outing. He provided crucial floor spacing by knocking down timely looks from deep, punishing the defense for helping off him. His relentless point-of-attack pressure set the tone for the entire unit and disrupted the opponent's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +12.4
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +7.3
Defense +8.0
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 28.9m -16.1
Impact +10.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
8
pts
2
reb
9
ast
Impact
+5.0

Brilliant playmaking and hyper-efficient shot selection drove a strong positive impact in his reserve minutes. He operated as a flawless offensive engine, creating high-value looks for teammates without forcing his own offense. This disciplined approach and excellent pace manipulation maximized every possession he initiated.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 8.2%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 21.8m -12.1
Impact +5.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.2

Settling for too many outside shots neutralized his overall impact, as a flurry of missed triples resulted in wasted offensive trips. While he found some success inside, the perimeter volume was detrimental to the team's spacing and efficiency. A complete lack of rim protection left his net score hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 26.5%
Net Rtg +29.2
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +1.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 15.7m -8.7
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.1

A brief, ineffective stint was marred by poor shot selection and missed perimeter looks. He failed to find an offensive rhythm in limited minutes, creating empty possessions that dragged down his overall score. Rushed decisions against set defenses highlighted a lack of poise.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg -23.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense -3.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 8.8m -4.8
Impact -6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.9

Zero offensive usage in a short stint resulted in a slightly negative net impact. He essentially functioned as a cardio participant on offense, failing to attempt a single shot or draw defensive attention. Minor defensive rotations weren't enough to make a tangible difference in the flow of the game.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Offense +0.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 7.5m -4.1
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0