GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 35.2m
13
pts
8
reb
12
ast
Impact
+2.7

Dictated the pace with exceptional playmaking and relentless hustle (+5.7) that generated crucial extra possessions via loose balls. However, a high volume of missed perimeter shots limited his overall efficiency and kept his net impact surprisingly modest.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -29.0
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +11.7
Hustle +5.7
Defense +6.7
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 35.2m -21.4
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Ousmane Dieng 27.8m
14
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.4

Disastrous overall impact (-9.4 Total) was driven by poor shot selection and defensive lapses that consistently bled points. Opponents relentlessly targeted his slow lateral movement in isolation during the second half, completely neutralizing his decent hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.8%
Net Rtg -42.0
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.0
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 27.8m -17.0
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
24
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.2

Overpowered primary defenders with relentless rim pressure, forcing defensive collapses that generated wide-open looks for teammates. Elite weak-side help (+6.0 Def) erased multiple transition opportunities at the rim, cementing a dominant two-way performance.

Shooting
FG 10/15 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/8 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -43.4
+/- -24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.2m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.0
Raw total +24.1
Avg player in 26.2m -15.9
Impact +8.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S AJ Green 23.7m
7
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-13.0

An abysmal shooting night from beyond the arc cratered his offensive value and allowed the defense to completely ignore him. Despite commendable hustle (+2.5), his inability to punish closeouts severely bottlenecked the team's spacing during the third quarter.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 38.9%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -43.8
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.7
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 23.7m -14.4
Impact -13.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Myles Turner 21.6m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.4

Anchored the backline masterfully (+6.9 Def), altering numerous interior shots and discouraging drives altogether. Spacing the floor from the perimeter kept opposing bigs out of the paint, facilitating crucial driving lanes for his guards down the stretch.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -42.3
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.8
Defense +6.9
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 21.6m -13.2
Impact +3.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Bobby Portis 24.4m
13
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
+3.0

Brought immediate intensity off the bench, using sheer physicality to generate valuable second-chance opportunities (+4.1 Hustle). Active hands in the passing lanes (+6.3 Def) fueled multiple transition breaks during a pivotal third-quarter run.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +2.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +4.1
Defense +6.3
Raw total +17.9
Avg player in 24.4m -14.9
Impact +3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Jericho Sims 22.7m
4
pts
11
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.3

Secured key defensive rebounds in traffic, completely denying second-chance points for the opposition. Sturdy post defense (+3.2 Def) against heavier matchups neutralized interior threats, making him highly effective despite minimal offensive involvement.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +11.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +3.2
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 22.7m -13.9
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kyle Kuzma 21.7m
16
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.2

Highly efficient scoring output was heavily muted by a complete lack of defensive resistance (+0.0 Def). Opponents routinely bypassed him on the perimeter during pick-and-roll actions, giving back nearly everything he generated on the offensive end.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +11.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +13.3
Avg player in 21.7m -13.1
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Cam Thomas 17.9m
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.6

Heavy reliance on contested, early-clock jumpers disrupted the offensive rhythm and dragged his net impact into the negative. The sheer volume of empty possessions outweighed his scoring bursts, particularly during a stagnant second-quarter stretch.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.1%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +31.6
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +6.0
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total +8.3
Avg player in 17.9m -10.9
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Pete Nance 14.2m
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

Struggled to integrate into the offensive flow, frequently floating on the perimeter without drawing any defensive attention. Costly miscommunications on defensive switches during his second-half minutes exacerbated an already negative impact.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 5.9%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.2m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.1
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 14.2m -8.6
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.8

Forced a heavily contested shot and failed to hustle back in transition during a disastrous minute-and-a-half stint. This brief but damaging appearance actively harmed the team's momentum and defensive structure.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 40.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense -2.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -2.8
Avg player in 1.6m -1.0
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.3

Injected immediate defensive chaos (+3.2 Def) into the game, blowing up a dribble handoff the exact moment he checked in. Sheer energy and physicality in limited seconds created a tangible positive swing for the bench unit.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense -0.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 1.6m -0.9
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.8

Executed his role perfectly in a situational appearance, staying disciplined defensively to prevent an open look. Provided exactly the stabilizing presence needed for that specific end-of-quarter possession.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.9
Raw total +2.8
Avg player in 1.6m -1.0
Impact +1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 34.4m
20
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
-4.0

Impact cratered to a -4.0 due to a high volume of forced, contested mid-range jumpers that offset his otherwise solid playmaking. He did manage to salvage some value through active weak-side rotations (+5.3 Def) during the third quarter, but the inefficient shot diet proved too costly.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 5/7 (71.4%)
Advanced
TS% 49.8%
USG% 27.5%
Net Rtg +22.5
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.4m
Offense +9.3
Hustle +2.4
Defense +5.3
Raw total +17.0
Avg player in 34.4m -21.0
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Dyson Daniels 33.8m
14
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+5.3

Point-of-attack defense against the opposing primary ball-handler set the tone early, reflected in a stellar +4.6 defensive rating. However, his overall impact was dragged down by a string of live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent fast breaks during the second half.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +28.9
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.8m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +4.6
Raw total +25.9
Avg player in 33.8m -20.6
Impact +5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 26.7%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
23
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.0

Hot perimeter shooting masked underlying issues with offensive flow and poor defensive rotations. A persistent tendency to get caught ball-watching allowed back-door cuts along the baseline, ultimately dragging his net impact into the red despite the scoring volume.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 82.1%
USG% 22.7%
Net Rtg +25.3
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +1.7
Raw total +18.4
Avg player in 31.9m -19.4
Impact -1.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Onyeka Okongwu 30.8m
21
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.5

Elite rim protection (+10.2 Def) completely deterred opponent drives and anchored a dominant defensive performance. His willingness to step out and hit timely perimeter shots during the second quarter stretched the floor, amplifying his two-way value.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.6%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg +30.6
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Offense +15.7
Hustle +3.3
Defense +10.2
Raw total +29.2
Avg player in 30.8m -18.7
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 23
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 56.5%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 2
S CJ McCollum 29.4m
18
pts
2
reb
8
ast
Impact
+2.2

Operating primarily as a facilitator kept the offense humming, though a string of missed perimeter looks limited his overall ceiling. Steady point-of-attack defense (+3.4 Def) against opposing guards during the third quarter proved essential in maintaining the team's structure.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 6/6 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +27.9
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +15.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +3.4
Raw total +20.0
Avg player in 29.4m -17.8
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
12
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.5

Relentless energy on 50/50 balls (+4.2 Hustle) provided a crucial spark and generated multiple extra possessions. Capitalizing on open spot-up opportunities from the corners kept the defense honest and rewarded his constant off-ball movement.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 19.2%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.7m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +4.2
Defense +2.6
Raw total +15.2
Avg player in 20.7m -12.7
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 90.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
1
reb
7
ast
Impact
-2.1

Struggled to find the mark from deep, allowing defenders to aggressively pack the paint and ignore him on the perimeter. Despite generating solid ball movement, his inability to space the floor effectively stalled several half-court possessions in the fourth quarter.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +48.7
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.7m
Offense +7.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.0
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 19.7m -12.0
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jock Landale 15.7m
8
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
-0.5

Defensive liabilities in drop coverage (-1.0 Def) were repeatedly exploited by opposing guards coming off screens. Giving up crucial positioning on the defensive glass during the second quarter erased the value of his highly efficient interior finishing.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.7m
Offense +8.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense -1.0
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 15.7m -9.5
Impact -0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.1

Maximized limited minutes by executing perfectly within the offensive scheme and taking only high-percentage looks. Disciplined verticality in the paint deterred multiple transition layups, anchoring a highly productive bench unit during the second quarter.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 133.3%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +2.5
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +11.4
Avg player in 13.6m -8.3
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Rushed offensive execution and forced shots completely disrupted the team's rhythm during his brief first-half stint. While he offered slight resistance on the perimeter, the empty offensive possessions rendered his minutes a distinct net negative.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -100.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Offense -1.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.2
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 5.4m -3.2
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.3

Made an outsized defensive impact (+4.4 Def) in a remarkably short stint by blowing up two consecutive pick-and-rolls. Immediate rim deterrence completely shifted the momentum of the final possession, proving his situational value.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.8
Defense +4.4
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 1.6m -0.9
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.7

Caught completely out of position defensively during a brief appearance, surrendering an uncontested driving lane. Failing to register any positive hustle metrics left his short shift entirely detrimental to the team's defensive shell.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense -0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 1.6m -0.9
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.3

A quick live-ball turnover and a missed weak-side rotation immediately put the team on the back foot during his brief run. This lack of offensive execution heavily outweighed any marginal defensive effort he provided.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.6m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -1.4
Avg player in 1.6m -0.9
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1