GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 32.4m
13
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.9

Completely lost his rhythm against aggressive trapping schemes, coughing up the ball in crucial momentum-shifting moments. He routinely missed the primary read out of the pick-and-roll, leading to stagnant, late-clock isolations. The defense ruthlessly exploited his hesitation, turning his offensive indecision into easy fast-break points.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.8%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -44.8
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.4m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 32.4m -15.8
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 5
S AJ Green 30.2m
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.5

Impact plummeted due to a series of ill-advised, contested transition threes that functioned as live-ball turnovers. The opposing wings targeted him relentlessly in isolation, blowing past his closeouts to collapse the defense. His inability to stay in front of the ball completely unraveled the team's defensive structure during a massive third-quarter run.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 10.8%
Net Rtg -27.0
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 30.2m -14.8
Impact -11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyle Kuzma 27.4m
17
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.7

Punished sagging defenders by stepping confidently into rhythm jumpers out of the pick-and-pop. His willingness to make the extra pass against collapsing defenses kept the ball moving and generated high-quality looks. Timely weak-side digs helped disrupt the opponent's post actions.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.5%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -28.1
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.4m
Offense +13.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.5
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 27.4m -13.5
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
11
pts
6
reb
10
ast
Impact
-3.7

High playmaking volume was severely undercut by reckless drives into heavy traffic that resulted in costly live-ball turnovers. Forcing contested mid-range pull-ups early in the shot clock bailed out the opposing defense repeatedly. Despite active hands in passing lanes, his erratic offensive decision-making dragged down the unit's overall efficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 42.7%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.1m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.5
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 27.1m -13.2
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Myles Turner 24.7m
19
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.9

Anchored the floor beautifully by stretching his man out to the perimeter, opening up massive driving lanes. His impeccable timing on weak-side rotations erased multiple guaranteed layups at the rim. The combination of spacing the floor and elite rim deterrence maximized his two-way value.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg -40.5
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.7m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total +18.0
Avg player in 24.7m -12.1
Impact +5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Jericho Sims 22.9m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-1.9

Struggled to anchor the drop coverage, consistently allowing opposing guards to turn the corner and access the paint. His reluctance to challenge shots vertically resulted in a parade of easy layups. While he secured his own misses, the defensive porousness negated any second-chance value.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 1.9%
Net Rtg -48.8
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +5.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.2
Raw total +9.2
Avg player in 22.9m -11.1
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Thomas 17.1m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.1

Shot selection was the primary culprit here, as he repeatedly forced heavily contested floaters over multiple defenders. The total lack of ball movement during his touches allowed the defense to easily set their half-court shell. His inability to generate separation severely handicapped the second unit's scoring punch.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 33.9%
USG% 26.3%
Net Rtg -48.6
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.1m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.2
Avg player in 17.1m -8.3
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 83.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Bobby Portis 16.7m
14
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.0

Brought immediate physicality to the interior, sealing off defenders early in the clock to generate deep post catches. His relentless offensive rebounding created vital extra possessions during a sluggish offensive stretch. Smart positioning in the zone defense helped neutralize the opponent's slashing threats.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 75.1%
USG% 28.9%
Net Rtg -37.7
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.7m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.7
Raw total +10.3
Avg player in 16.7m -8.3
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.3

Floated on the perimeter without purpose, failing to cut or relocate when the primary action broke down. Opponents completely ignored him off the ball, allowing them to freely double-team the post. The lack of offensive assertiveness essentially forced his team to play four-on-five.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -42.3
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.1m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.4
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 12.1m -6.0
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Capitalized on momentary lapses in defensive communication to sneak loose for timely spot-up opportunities. He stayed disciplined on his closeouts, running shooters off the line without committing cheap fouls. A quiet but highly efficient stint that stabilized the floor spacing.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +2.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.7
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 6.2m -3.1
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.9

Value was generated almost entirely through textbook screen navigation and relentless point-of-attack harassment. He completely denied his man the ball in crucial late-quarter situations, blowing up the opponent's primary sets. Made the defense pay for over-helping with a perfectly timed baseline cut.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +1.9
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +5.9
Avg player in 6.2m -3.0
Impact +2.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Pete Nance 6.2m
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

Looked overwhelmed by the speed of the game, consistently arriving a half-step late on defensive rotations. Rushed his perimeter attempts when the defense closed out hard, leading to long rebounds and transition opportunities going the other way. Failed to establish any physical presence on the glass.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense -1.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.6
Raw total -0.6
Avg player in 6.2m -3.1
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.1

Elite defensive energy was completely overshadowed by chaotic and destructive offensive decision-making. He derailed multiple fast breaks by driving wildly into set defenders, resulting in offensive fouls that killed momentum. The defensive stops simply couldn't compensate for the self-inflicted offensive wounds.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +21.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total -0.1
Avg player in 6.2m -3.0
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Injected pure chaos into the game with a flurry of deflections and relentless full-court pressure. His willingness to sacrifice his body on loose balls completely disrupted the opponent's offensive rhythm during a brief but impactful stint. The raw energy and hustle plays far outweighed his lack of scoring touch.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +14.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 4.5m -2.2
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
NYK New York Knicks
S Jalen Brunson 30.5m
27
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.4

Masterful manipulation of the pick-and-roll allowed him to dictate the tempo all night. He generated massive value by consistently beating the blitz and finding the roll man, while diving for loose balls to extend critical possessions. The combination of elite shot creation and relentless floor burns made him virtually unplayable for the defense.

Shooting
FG 11/17 (64.7%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.5%
USG% 30.2%
Net Rtg +24.2
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.5m
Offense +20.7
Hustle +5.6
Defense +2.1
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 30.5m -15.0
Impact +13.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
17
pts
13
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.6

Kept the offense afloat by consistently drawing double-teams on the block and making the right passing reads out of the post. While a few forced hooks in traffic dragged down his efficiency, his sheer physical presence warped the opponent's defensive shell. Solid drop-coverage positioning helped stabilize the interior defense.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 57.6%
USG% 23.9%
Net Rtg +36.7
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.7
Raw total +17.8
Avg player in 28.8m -14.2
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S OG Anunoby 28.1m
24
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.6

Elite two-way execution defined this outing, driven by flawless weak-side corner spacing and punishing closeouts. He completely neutralized his primary assignment on the wing, turning defensive stops into immediate transition gravity. The sheer efficiency of his shot profile maximized every touch he got.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 102.0%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +38.7
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +20.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.7
Raw total +29.4
Avg player in 28.1m -13.8
Impact +15.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Mikal Bridges 25.8m
10
pts
0
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.7

Absolute defensive masterclass at the point of attack, blowing up multiple dribble hand-offs and denying entry passes. He didn't need to force outside shots to dominate, instead relying on timely baseline cuts to generate high-percentage looks. His relentless ball pressure set the tone for the entire unit.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg +30.5
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.8m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +8.2
Raw total +21.4
Avg player in 25.8m -12.7
Impact +8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 0
S Josh Hart 24.9m
12
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-0.5

Despite active hands on the perimeter, his overall impact dipped into the red due to erratic perimeter shooting and forced transition attempts. Settling for heavily contested above-the-break threes short-circuited several offensive possessions. His defensive rotations remained sharp, but the empty offensive trips offset that value.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.5%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg +34.0
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.9
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 24.9m -12.2
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.3

A surprising scoring surge masked a series of blown defensive assignments that consistently compromised the team's shell. He struggled to navigate off-ball screens, frequently losing his man on backdoor cuts. The offensive bump was entirely negated by the easy layups surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +57.2
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.5
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 22.6m -11.1
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
15
pts
0
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.2

Capitalized on defensive breakdowns by relocating flawlessly along the perimeter to punish late closeouts. His off-ball gravity stretched the floor horizontally, opening up driving lanes for the primary creators. A surprisingly stout effort fighting over screens added hidden value to his stint.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 5/7 (71.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 93.8%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +49.0
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 22.6m -11.0
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.1

Proved you don't need a single field goal attempt to control the flow of the game. His value stemmed entirely from elite rim deterrence and multiple second-effort box-outs that killed opponent possessions. Altering shots in the paint and securing contested long rebounds anchored the second unit's success.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +39.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.2
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 15.7m -7.7
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
7
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.0

Completely disrupted the opposing backcourt's rhythm with his trademark full-court harassment. Pushing the pace off live rebounds forced cross-matches in transition, generating easy looks before the defense could set. His energy shifted the momentum during a crucial second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.0m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.8
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 13.0m -6.4
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

A brutal stint defined by forced, early-clock isolation jumpers that derailed the offensive flow. Failing to bend the defense meant his empty possessions directly fueled opponent fast breaks. Even a couple of hard closeouts couldn't salvage the damage done by his tunnel vision.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 6.2m -2.9
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.1

Provided solid verticality at the rim, but his inability to set solid screens bogged down the half-court sets. Fumbled a pair of pocket passes in traffic, resulting in dead-end possessions. The defensive positioning was sound, yet the offensive clunkiness outweighed those stops.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.5
Raw total +1.0
Avg player in 6.2m -3.1
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Hesitancy on the perimeter allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for his teammates. He missed a crucial rotation on the weak side that led to a wide-open corner three. While he competed on the glass, the lack of decisive decision-making stalled the offensive engine.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -25.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.9m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.9
Raw total +1.3
Avg player in 5.9m -2.8
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Over-dribbling against switch-heavy schemes led to stagnant possessions and late-clock desperation heaves. He struggled to turn the corner against bigger guards, neutralizing his playmaking ability. The resulting live-ball turnovers were immediately punished in transition.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense -2.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total -1.3
Avg player in 5.5m -2.7
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.7

Consistently caught in no-man's land during pick-and-roll coverages, giving up uncontested floaters. He failed to establish deep post position, rendering him invisible on the offensive end. The lack of physicality on box-outs gave the opponent multiple extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.2m
Offense -0.2
Hustle 0.0
Defense -1.5
Raw total -1.7
Avg player in 4.2m -2.0
Impact -3.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1