GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 39.8m
13
pts
11
reb
8
ast
Impact
-0.7

Phenomenal point-of-attack defense (+9.1 Def) and relentless screen navigation kept him on the floor for heavy minutes. Unfortunately, his erratic shot selection and inability to finish through contact completely neutralized his elite defensive work.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.3%
USG% 21.1%
Net Rtg +15.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.8m
Offense +2.6
Hustle +7.3
Defense +9.1
Raw total +19.0
Avg player in 39.8m -19.7
Impact -0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 4
S Ousmane Dieng 32.1m
11
pts
8
reb
9
ast
Impact
-1.7

A noticeable dip in offensive aggression limited his effectiveness, as he frequently passed up open looks to reset the offense. Despite flashing excellent length in passing lanes (+3.0 Def), his reluctance to attack closeouts hindered the unit's overall ceiling.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 13.5%
Net Rtg +26.5
+/- +18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.1m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.0
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 32.1m -15.8
Impact -1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Kyle Kuzma 28.9m
18
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.3

Elite shot-creation and perimeter efficiency heavily masked a porous effort on the other end of the floor. Opposing wings consistently blew past him in isolation (-2.5 Def), nearly erasing the entirety of his substantial offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense -2.5
Raw total +14.6
Avg player in 28.9m -14.3
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
27
pts
9
reb
8
ast
Impact
+24.4

Utterly dominated the game through sheer physical force, combining relentless rim pressure with terrifying weak-side rim protection (+12.7 Def). His ability to single-handedly blow up pick-and-rolls while generating transition opportunities resulted in a monstrous overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 9/15 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.5%
USG% 34.9%
Net Rtg +41.9
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +5.5
Defense +12.7
Raw total +37.8
Avg player in 27.0m -13.4
Impact +24.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 2
S Myles Turner 18.2m
8
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.9

Struggled to establish a meaningful rhythm during a disjointed rotation pattern. While he provided adequate rim deterrence (+1.5 Def), his inability to consistently punish switches on the perimeter kept his overall value hovering just below neutral.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 50.8%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +21.2
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.2m
Offense +4.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.5
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 18.2m -8.9
Impact -0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
Jericho Sims 29.9m
6
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.6

Operated strictly as a low-usage vertical threat, relying entirely on his athleticism to impact the game. Elite switchability on the perimeter and hard rim-runs (+5.7 Hustle) allowed him to carve out a narrowly positive night despite minimal offensive involvement.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Offense +3.5
Hustle +5.7
Defense +6.1
Raw total +15.3
Avg player in 29.9m -14.7
Impact +0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
AJ Green 20.8m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-7.7

Cold perimeter shooting severely punished his net rating, as he failed to capitalize on the spacing created by the primary creators. Being repeatedly targeted in defensive switches (-1.9 Def) compounded the damage, making him a distinct liability during his stint.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +3.1
Defense -1.9
Raw total +2.5
Avg player in 20.8m -10.2
Impact -7.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Bobby Portis 17.9m
12
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.9

Capitalized on physical mismatches in the post to generate highly efficient offense within a condensed timeframe. His aggressive work on the offensive glass (+3.1 Hustle) provided crucial second-chance opportunities that steadily padded his positive rating.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 28.2%
Net Rtg -13.9
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +8.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +2.5
Raw total +13.7
Avg player in 17.9m -8.8
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
Pete Nance 13.7m
5
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.2

Struggled to match the physicality of the opposing frontcourt during his rotation minutes. While his positional awareness yielded a few decent contests (+1.9 Def), his inability to secure contested rebounds tilted his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg +34.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.7m
Offense +2.4
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 13.7m -6.7
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Thomas 6.2m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Barely factored into the game plan during a fleeting first-half appearance. He managed to knock down his only look, but the microscopic sample size prevented him from establishing any sort of rhythm or positive momentum.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.8%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 6.2m -3.0
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

A brief cameo was marred by defensive lapses (-1.2 Def) that allowed easy dribble penetration. He failed to provide his usual floor-spacing gravity, resulting in a quick hook from the coaching staff.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +50.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.5m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.2
Raw total +0.7
Avg player in 5.5m -2.7
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
UTA Utah Jazz
S Cody Williams 37.3m
13
pts
11
reb
2
ast
Impact
+5.2

Defensive activity and high-motor rotations (+5.5 Hustle) salvaged his overall impact on a night where his jumper completely abandoned him. Despite struggling to find his rhythm from the perimeter, his length on the wing consistently disrupted passing lanes to keep his total rating in the green.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.2%
USG% 16.9%
Net Rtg -28.4
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +5.5
Defense +7.0
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 37.3m -18.3
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyle Filipowski 34.2m
14
pts
11
reb
6
ast
Impact
+5.4

A five-game streak of hyper-efficient finishing came to a screeching halt, dragging down his usual offensive gravity. However, he compensated by anchoring the interior defense (+7.8 Def) and operating effectively as a high-post hub to maintain a solid positive impact.

Shooting
FG 4/11 (36.4%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.0%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg -17.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.2m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +7.8
Raw total +22.2
Avg player in 34.2m -16.8
Impact +5.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 2
S Ace Bailey 29.4m
9
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-15.1

Disastrous shot selection from beyond the arc completely cratered his overall value (-15.1 Total). Settling for contested perimeter looks rather than attacking the paint derailed the offense, rendering his passable weak-side defensive rotations irrelevant.

Shooting
FG 4/13 (30.8%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 34.6%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -15.5
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense -5.5
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.7
Raw total -0.7
Avg player in 29.4m -14.4
Impact -15.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
S Keyonte George 29.4m
22
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.3

Relentless rim pressure and foul-drawing masked an otherwise abysmal shooting night from the floor. His ability to generate points at the charity stripe kept the offense afloat during a prolonged cold spell, allowing him to scrape out a positive net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/17 (23.5%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 12/13 (92.3%)
Advanced
TS% 48.4%
USG% 31.5%
Net Rtg -22.0
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.4m
Offense +12.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.4
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 29.4m -14.5
Impact +2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Oscar Tshiebwe 12.2m
6
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.2

Minimal defensive resistance in the paint (-0.9 Def) neutralized his highly efficient interior finishing. He struggled to string together consecutive stops during his brief rotation stint, resulting in a slightly negative overall footprint.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.6%
USG% 13.8%
Net Rtg -38.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.2m
Offense +6.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense -0.9
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 12.2m -6.0
Impact -0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
John Konchar 26.1m
2
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.0

Complete offensive passivity allowed defenders to aggressively help off him, stalling the team's half-court execution. Even with solid perimeter containment and loose-ball recoveries (+2.9 Hustle), operating 4-on-5 on the other end severely punished his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 26.6%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg -20.6
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense -0.5
Hustle +2.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +4.9
Avg player in 26.1m -12.9
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
Blake Hinson 22.9m
8
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.3

A sharp regression to the mean from deep derailed his recent surge in scoring efficiency. He forced several contested looks early in the shot clock, dragging his net impact into the red despite adequate positional defense.

Shooting
FG 3/9 (33.3%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 17.0%
Net Rtg +4.4
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +7.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.3
Raw total +9.0
Avg player in 22.9m -11.3
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
17
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.7

Provided a massive spark plug effect off the bench by blending elite shot-making with surprisingly stout point-of-attack defense (+5.7 Def). He punished drop coverage relentlessly, driving a highly efficient offensive stretch that defined the second unit's dominance.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 28.6%
Net Rtg +23.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.7m
Offense +13.0
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.7
Raw total +21.8
Avg player in 18.7m -9.1
Impact +12.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.3

High-energy closeouts and loose-ball pursuit (+3.6 Hustle) couldn't compensate for a glaring lack of offensive polish. His ongoing struggles to convert in traffic consistently short-circuited possessions, keeping his total impact firmly negative.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 25.7%
Net Rtg +16.1
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.1m
Offense -2.1
Hustle +3.5
Defense +0.2
Raw total +1.6
Avg player in 16.1m -7.9
Impact -6.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Kevin Love 13.6m
3
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Failed to stretch the floor effectively during his brief rotation minutes, allowing opposing bigs to clog the paint. While he chipped in with veteran positioning on the glass (+2.0 Hustle), his lack of offensive gravity resulted in a net-negative stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg -29.9
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +0.6
Hustle +2.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +3.7
Avg player in 13.6m -6.7
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1