GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Elite defensive pressure (+6.5) and tremendous hustle metrics highlight a performance where he sacrificed his own offense for team structure. However, his passive approach to scoring allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for others. The negative overall impact reflects a stalling half-court offense when he refused to attack.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg -17.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.0m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +5.2
Defense +6.5
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 31.0m -14.1
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Ousmane Dieng 29.6m
13
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.1

Despite solid perimeter shooting and respectable defensive metrics, his overall impact slipped into the negative due to underlying lineup struggles. He failed to dictate the tempo, allowing opponents to exploit the weak side when he was off the ball. A slight dip in his recent scoring aggression limited his ability to bail out stalling offensive sets.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 65.0%
USG% 16.2%
Net Rtg -13.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.6m
Offense +7.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.1
Raw total +11.3
Avg player in 29.6m -13.4
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
19
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.1

Inefficient finishing at the rim dragged down what is normally a dominant offensive profile. He compensated for the missed shots by anchoring the paint defensively (+5.1) and controlling the defensive glass. His sheer physical gravity still created positive ripples, even on an off-shooting night.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 45.1%
USG% 42.9%
Net Rtg -30.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.1
Raw total +14.7
Avg player in 25.5m -11.6
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Myles Turner 18.6m
5
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.4

Brutal shot selection from the perimeter completely tanked his offensive value, as he failed to connect on heavily contested looks. While his rim protection and hustle (+2.0) remained intact, the empty possessions he generated were too costly. The inability to punish mismatches inside ultimately drove his negative rating.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 36.3%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -20.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.6m
Offense +0.2
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.9
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 18.6m -8.5
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S AJ Green 18.4m
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

A total disappearance of his usually reliable perimeter stroke left a glaring hole in the floor spacing. He tried to salvage his shift with relentless hustle (+3.6) and active closeouts, but the missed open looks killed offensive momentum. When a shooter fails to hit the rim, the negative impact compounds quickly.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 7.1%
Net Rtg -10.5
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +3.5
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.3
Avg player in 18.4m -8.2
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Ryan Rollins 23.7m
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.9

A catastrophic drop in scoring efficiency completely cratered his net impact, as he forced contested jumpers early in the clock. His solid defensive metrics (+3.1) were completely overshadowed by the transition opportunities his missed shots handed to the opponent. The massive -10.9 rating is a direct result of halting offensive flow with poor decision-making.

Shooting
FG 2/11 (18.2%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 22.7%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg -56.1
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense -4.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +3.1
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 23.7m -10.7
Impact -10.9
How is this calculated?
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
Bobby Portis 23.3m
12
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.2

Lethal floor spacing from the frontcourt drove a highly efficient offensive shift. He paired his excellent shot selection with high-motor hustle plays (+3.8) that extended possessions and wore down the interior defense. Consistent execution in his defined role kept his impact comfortably in the positive.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -51.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +3.8
Defense +0.7
Raw total +13.9
Avg player in 23.3m -10.7
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jericho Sims 22.3m
3
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.6

A low-usage, high-efficiency shift defined his positive contribution to the frontcourt. He focused entirely on setting hard screens, protecting the rim (+3.0), and keeping the ball moving rather than forcing his own offense. This is the blueprint for a role-playing big who understands his exact limitations.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 6.7%
Net Rtg -37.8
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.3m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.4
Defense +3.0
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 22.3m -10.2
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Pete Nance 15.1m
6
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Perfect shooting efficiency wasn't enough to prevent a negative overall impact, largely due to rotational bleeding when he was on the floor. While his individual defense (+2.0) held up, the team struggled to secure defensive rebounds during his shifts. He maximized his few touches but was a victim of poor lineup synergy.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -11.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.1m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 15.1m -6.8
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Gary Harris 12.7m
6
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.4

Textbook 3-and-D execution allowed him to provide positive value in a limited rotational stint. He hit the open looks generated by others and maintained strict defensive discipline (+2.0) on the perimeter. A perfectly balanced, low-mistake performance stabilized the backcourt.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.7m
Offense +4.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +2.0
Raw total +7.2
Avg player in 12.7m -5.8
Impact +1.4
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Cam Thomas 11.4m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.3

An uncharacteristically passive and inaccurate offensive showing derailed his brief time on the floor. Surprisingly, he provided strong defensive resistance (+3.6), but his inability to generate his usual scoring gravity bogged down the second unit. The negative impact stems directly from an isolation scorer failing to bend the defense.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 26.1%
Net Rtg -83.1
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.4m
Offense -3.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.6
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 11.4m -5.2
Impact -4.3
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.2

A brief, chaotic stint was marred by rushed offensive decisions and empty possessions. He failed to replicate his recent scoring punch, instead forcing the issue and disrupting the team's offensive rhythm. The sharp negative impact in under five minutes highlights a severe lack of execution.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +37.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense -2.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total -2.0
Avg player in 4.8m -2.2
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.6

Late-game garbage time deployment yielded no offensive stats and a few blown defensive assignments (-0.8). He simply ran out the clock without contributing any meaningful energy or structure. The negative rating is a byproduct of a sloppy closing lineup.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.9m -0.8
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.2

Despite barely seeing the floor, he managed to generate a surprisingly high positive impact through immediate defensive disruption (+2.3). He drew contact to get on the board and locked down his matchup during the final sequences. This was a rare example of maximizing every single second of a micro-shift.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.2%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -25.0
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense +1.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +4.1
Avg player in 1.9m -0.9
Impact +3.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
S Hugo González 35.3m
18
pts
16
reb
1
ast
Impact
+12.9

An absolute defensive masterclass (+11.2) defined this breakout performance, completely shutting down his primary matchups. He paired that elite point-of-attack disruption with a staggering offensive explosion, scoring nearly six times his recent average. Relentless hustle and confident shot selection made him the most impactful player on the floor.

Shooting
FG 7/15 (46.7%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg +38.5
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +14.2
Hustle +3.6
Defense +11.2
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 35.3m -16.1
Impact +12.9
How is this calculated?
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 1
S Derrick White 33.8m
18
pts
1
reb
9
ast
Impact
+1.2

A brutal shooting night from the floor limited his overall net rating despite a high volume of attempts. He salvaged his impact through elite playmaking and high-level defensive rotations (+4.1) that disrupted opponent sets. Even when the jumper is broken, his relentless hustle keeps him marginally in the positive.

Shooting
FG 5/18 (27.8%)
3PT 4/12 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.5%
USG% 26.8%
Net Rtg +46.6
+/- +31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.1
Raw total +16.5
Avg player in 33.8m -15.3
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Sam Hauser 29.0m
14
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.8

Elite floor spacing and highly efficient perimeter execution drove a robust +10.3 box score contribution. His defensive impact (+4.7) was surprisingly the anchor of his performance, showing great awareness in closing out on shooters. He continues to be a premium role player who maximizes his touches without demanding the ball.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.8%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +28.7
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.0m
Offense +10.3
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.7
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 29.0m -13.1
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
10
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+0.9

Cold shooting from beyond the arc suppressed his overall offensive ceiling, keeping his net impact modest. However, his playmaking from the high post and sturdy interior defense (+2.8) kept the unit functioning properly. He found ways to contribute through facilitation when his jumper refused to fall.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 41.7%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +47.2
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense +2.8
Raw total +12.8
Avg player in 26.3m -11.9
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

A significant scoring surge well above his recent baseline fueled a positive overall impact. Strong hustle metrics (+2.9) and capable defensive rotations helped stabilize his minutes when the half-court offense slowed. He capitalized on his perimeter touches efficiently to provide a reliable spark off the bench.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +12.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Offense +6.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.3
Raw total +11.6
Avg player in 24.6m -11.1
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
25
pts
4
reb
9
ast
Impact
+5.2

Phenomenal offensive creation drove a massive +20.0 box score impact, as he relentlessly attacked defensive gaps. While his defensive and hustle metrics were virtually non-existent, the sheer volume of his perimeter scoring and facilitation overwhelmed the opposition. He dictated the tempo entirely through his aggressive shot selection.

Shooting
FG 10/23 (43.5%)
3PT 5/10 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +25.7
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Offense +20.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.2
Raw total +20.6
Avg player in 34.0m -15.4
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Luka Garza 19.9m
7
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.5

A dip in scoring volume compared to his recent tear was offset by highly efficient interior finishing. He dominated the glass to secure extra possessions, anchoring a solid +9.7 box score impact. Despite quiet defensive metrics, his physical presence in the paint stabilized the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +9.3
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.9m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +10.5
Avg player in 19.9m -9.0
Impact +1.5
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jordan Walsh 16.2m
0
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.3

Complete offensive invisibility was barely masked by his active rebounding and defensive versatility (+2.2). He refused to force bad shots, instead focusing entirely on doing the dirty work to keep his impact above water. His ability to contribute without scoring a single point highlights his raw utility as a defensive specialist.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 2.6%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.2
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 16.2m -7.3
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.4

Breaking out of a prolonged scoreless slump, he provided a massive jolt of energy in limited minutes. His impact was heavily driven by exceptional defensive awareness (+4.3) and timely hustle plays that swung momentum. Perfect shot selection from deep ensured every touch resulted in positive value.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg +11.5
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +2.5
Defense +4.3
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 15.4m -6.8
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
John Tonje 1.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.8

Garbage time deployment resulted in a completely empty stat line across the board. The slight negative impact stems from rotational bleeding during a disjointed end-of-game stretch. There simply wasn't enough floor time to evaluate any meaningful basketball actions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 1.9m -0.8
Impact -0.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Max Shulga 1.9m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Relegated to brief mop-up duty, he failed to register any meaningful offensive production. A couple of defensive lapses (-0.4) in transition dragged his short stint into the negative. He essentially served as a warm body to close out the final seconds.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 1.9m -0.9
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

A stark drop-off from his recent efficient outings was entirely due to a lack of run. His negative impact score reflects empty offensive possessions and poor spacing during the game's final sequences. He was unable to generate any rhythm in less than two minutes of action.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Offense -1.4
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 1.9m -0.9
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1