GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S AJ Green 28.2m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.6

Continuing to fire away despite a broken rhythm resulted in a string of long rebounds that ignited the opponent's transition game. Opposing wings relentlessly targeted his lack of lateral quickness, blowing by him on straight-line drives. His off-ball movement was stagnant, making him an easy cover and clogging the team's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/8 (12.5%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 23.7%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -54.0
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.2m
Offense -6.0
Hustle +4.5
Defense +1.3
Raw total -0.2
Avg player in 28.2m -14.4
Impact -14.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jericho Sims 25.0m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.6

Serving as an elite lob threat, his vertical gravity sucked in weak-side defenders and opened up the perimeter. He never forced a shot outside his comfort zone, strictly feasting on spoon-fed dump-offs and putbacks. Hard rim-runs in transition consistently forced cross-matches that the offense easily exploited.

Shooting
FG 5/5 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg -58.8
+/- -30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.0m
Offense +14.1
Hustle +2.1
Defense 0.0
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 25.0m -12.6
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ousmane Dieng 24.5m
2
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-7.2

Forcing heavily contested floaters in traffic tanked his offensive value and sparked opponent fast breaks. He looked hesitant attacking closeouts, often picking up his dribble prematurely and killing the possession's flow. While his length provided some defensive disruption, it wasn't nearly enough to offset the empty offensive trips.

Shooting
FG 1/7 (14.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 14.3%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg -59.2
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.5m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +3.0
Defense +3.3
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 24.5m -12.4
Impact -7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S Myles Turner 22.9m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-16.8

An inability to establish physical positioning allowed smaller defenders to push him out of his spots all night. He settled for fading, low-percentage jumpers rather than attacking the basket, completely neutralizing his size advantage. His sluggish pick-and-roll coverage repeatedly surrendered wide-open driving lanes to opposing guards.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 21.8%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -58.7
+/- -27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense -6.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +0.2
Raw total -5.2
Avg player in 22.9m -11.6
Impact -16.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Ryan Rollins 22.9m
15
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Tenacious ball pressure and aggressive screen navigation kept his overall impact afloat despite a shaky offensive outing. He forced multiple live-ball turnovers by digging into the post, creating instant offense the other way. However, a tendency to over-dribble into crowded paint areas resulted in stalled possessions that capped his ceiling.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 34.0%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +4.8
Defense +6.8
Raw total +11.7
Avg player in 22.9m -11.5
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 5
Bobby Portis 27.9m
18
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+10.5

Punishing late closeouts with decisive shot mechanics stretched the opposing frontcourt to its breaking point. He brought a massive physical edge to the glass, securing contested loose balls that demoralized the defense. His ability to seamlessly toggle between popping and rolling kept the pick-and-roll attack entirely unpredictable.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.7%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg -19.5
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.9m
Offense +16.7
Hustle +2.5
Defense +5.4
Raw total +24.6
Avg player in 27.9m -14.1
Impact +10.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
9
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.6

Brutal shot selection from beyond the arc acted as a turnover equivalent, constantly bailing out the opposing defense. He repeatedly hoisted contested looks early in the shot clock instead of making the extra pass to open teammates. Compounding the offensive struggles, he frequently died on screens, forcing the frontcourt into impossible rotation scenarios.

Shooting
FG 4/12 (33.3%)
3PT 1/9 (11.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -45.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.2m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +0.7
Defense -1.1
Raw total +1.2
Avg player in 25.2m -12.8
Impact -11.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Pete Nance 22.0m
6
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.7

Operating strictly within the flow of the offense, he made quick, decisive reads that kept the ball moving side-to-side. He provided sturdy post defense against heavier matchups, refusing to concede deep angles. A few missed rotations on the perimeter prevented his solid fundamental play from translating into a higher overall rating.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 9.6%
Net Rtg -40.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.0m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +11.8
Avg player in 22.0m -11.1
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Thomas 20.0m
17
pts
1
reb
6
ast
Impact
+6.5

A relentless downhill attacking mentality completely fractured the opponent's shell defense. He utilized subtle hesitation moves to freeze rim protectors, creating high-percentage finishing angles in heavy traffic. Uncharacteristically active hands in the passing lanes also sparked a pair of crucial fast breaks.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 1/3 (33.3%)
Advanced
TS% 63.8%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -14.4
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.0m
Offense +10.5
Hustle +4.0
Defense +2.1
Raw total +16.6
Avg player in 20.0m -10.1
Impact +6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.2

Rushing his perimeter attempts threw the offense out of sync and allowed the defense to pack the paint. He struggled to read the secondary line of defense, driving wildly into charges and crowded gaps. While his raw energy was evident, a lack of offensive polish severely dragged down his short stint.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -37.5
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.0m
Offense -0.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +1.8
Avg player in 12.0m -6.0
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+1.1

Pure chaos energy disrupted the opponent's offensive sets during a highly physical rotational appearance. He blew up multiple dribble hand-offs by aggressively shooting the gap, completely short-circuiting the opposing guards. Staying within his incredibly narrow offensive role prevented him from giving back the value he created on defense.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.5%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -46.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 9.4m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 9.4m -4.7
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
ORL Orlando Magic
S Desmond Bane 30.3m
18
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+18.8

Relentless ball pressure and elite navigation through off-ball screens defined a masterful two-way performance. He generated massive value by blowing up dribble hand-offs and diving for loose balls, creating extra possessions out of thin air. His gravity as a decoy on the perimeter also opened up driving lanes for teammates all night.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.4%
USG% 22.9%
Net Rtg +48.3
+/- +28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.3m
Offense +14.3
Hustle +8.7
Defense +11.2
Raw total +34.2
Avg player in 30.3m -15.4
Impact +18.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 3
S Paolo Banchero 29.1m
33
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+17.6

Elite shot selection and bullying mismatches in the mid-post fueled a massive positive swing whenever he was on the floor. He consistently punished switches by getting downhill, generating high-value looks without forcing action into traffic. His physical point-of-attack defense also disrupted the opponent's primary actions early in the shot clock.

Shooting
FG 12/16 (75.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 6/9 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 82.7%
USG% 32.3%
Net Rtg +45.8
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Offense +26.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +32.2
Avg player in 29.1m -14.6
Impact +17.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
5
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.7

A stark drop in offensive aggression rendered him nearly invisible on the perimeter, severely limiting the team's half-court spacing. He passed up multiple open catch-and-shoot opportunities, stalling out possessions and allowing the defense to reset. His minimal defensive resistance against straight-line drives further dragged his overall impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 9.7%
Net Rtg +44.2
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.5
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 27.2m -13.7
Impact -5.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 12.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Suggs 23.7m
20
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.8

Capitalizing on defensive lapses, he found soft spots in the zone to generate highly efficient perimeter looks. His aggressive closeouts and deflections in the passing lanes fueled transition opportunities that kept the offense humming. A few ill-advised gambles on steals slightly capped what was otherwise a stellar two-way shift.

Shooting
FG 7/9 (77.8%)
3PT 3/3 (100.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 96.9%
USG% 28.3%
Net Rtg +52.5
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +10.0
Hustle +4.5
Defense +2.3
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 23.7m -12.0
Impact +4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
9
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.4

Anchoring the paint with exceptional verticality completely altered the opponent's rim-finishing metrics. While his offensive usage dipped significantly, his ability to blow up pick-and-roll coverages through hard hedges kept his overall value highly positive. He consistently boxed out larger assignments to secure critical defensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.0%
USG% 18.8%
Net Rtg +47.3
+/- +20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.6m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +2.9
Defense +8.7
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 21.6m -10.9
Impact +7.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 11.1%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
Jett Howard 25.5m
14
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-1.8

Scoring efficiency masked severe rotational lapses on the defensive end that consistently left corner shooters wide open. He struggled to stay in front of quicker guards on an island, bleeding points at the point of attack. Those defensive breakdowns ultimately negated his confident weak-side shotmaking.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 78.8%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +39.1
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense +0.9
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 25.5m -12.9
Impact -1.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jevon Carter 24.3m
5
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.9

Settling for contested, early-clock jumpers completely derailed the team's offensive rhythm during his stints. His inability to create separation off the dribble led to stagnant possessions and easy run-outs for the opposition. Even his trademark peskiness on the ball couldn't salvage the damage done by his poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 15.3%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +3.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 24.3m -12.3
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 27.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Noah Penda 23.7m
8
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.2

Timely weak-side rotations and active hands in the paint anchored a surprisingly effective defensive stint. He consistently disrupted lob attempts and forced ball-handlers to redirect their drives away from the rim. Offensively, he kept things simple by moving the ball quickly and punishing late closeouts.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.2%
USG% 11.9%
Net Rtg +22.7
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.7m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +1.2
Defense +5.2
Raw total +14.1
Avg player in 23.7m -11.9
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
9
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.6

Getting bullied on the interior by stronger bigs neutralized his typical energy-guy impact. He failed to establish deep post position and rushed his attempts around the basket when pressured. A lack of rim protection on the other end allowed opponents to finish through him with minimal resistance.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.5%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.9m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.8
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 17.9m -9.1
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
7
pts
5
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.9

Maximizing a brief rotation, he set crushing flare screens that directly resulted in open perimeter looks for the guards. His sheer physicality in the drop coverage deterred slashers from testing the paint. He capitalized on dump-off passes with decisive, powerful finishes through contact.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/4 (25.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.8%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg +51.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.5m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 8.5m -4.2
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 20.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jamal Cain 8.3m
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+6.1

A sudden burst of transition energy completely flipped the momentum during his short stint on the floor. He leaked out perfectly off defensive rebounds, punishing a lazy transition defense with easy run-outs. His flawless execution on spot-up attempts from the corner maximized his limited touches.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +58.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +10.2
Avg player in 8.3m -4.1
Impact +6.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0