GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 40.8m
14
pts
3
reb
7
ast
Impact
-11.7

A catastrophic net rating stemmed from poor offensive initiation and highly predictable playmaking. Opposing guards consistently jumped his telegraphed passes, igniting back-breaking transition sequences. While he competed defensively, his inability to organize the half-court offense resulted in prolonged scoring droughts.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 40.8m
Offense +4.5
Hustle +3.1
Defense +3.5
Raw total +11.1
Avg player in 40.8m -22.8
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Kyle Kuzma 38.0m
33
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+8.9

Elite shot-making and decisive isolation attacks drove a highly impactful performance. He consistently punished mismatches in the mid-post, forcing the defense into uncomfortable rotation patterns. Active weak-side help defense ensured his massive offensive output wasn't given back on the other end.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 6/10 (60.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.5%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg -18.2
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.0m
Offense +22.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense +5.5
Raw total +30.2
Avg player in 38.0m -21.3
Impact +8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 2
S Ousmane Dieng 36.7m
12
pts
10
reb
4
ast
Impact
+2.0

Lengthy perimeter contests and disciplined closeouts anchored a quietly positive night. He effectively walled off driving angles against quicker wings, funneling them toward the baseline. Smart connective passing kept the offense flowing even when he wasn't looking for his own shot.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 11.0%
Net Rtg -7.3
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.7m
Offense +13.6
Hustle +3.1
Defense +6.0
Raw total +22.7
Avg player in 36.7m -20.7
Impact +2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
22
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-3.6

Offensive foul trouble and forced drives into heavy traffic severely undercut his overall effectiveness. The defense successfully built a wall, leading to empty possessions and live-ball turnovers that fueled opponent fast breaks. Even with solid rim deterrence, his inability to adapt to the collapsing defense sank his net rating.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/5 (40.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.5%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg -16.6
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 32.0m -17.9
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
S Myles Turner 32.0m
22
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.2

Imposing rim protection and lethal pick-and-pop execution created a massive positive swing. He completely deterred drivers from entering the paint, forcing the opponent into low-percentage midrange jumpers. Stretching the floor offensively pulled the opposing center away from the basket, opening up driving lanes for teammates.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.8%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -7.0
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Offense +18.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +5.8
Raw total +27.3
Avg player in 32.0m -18.1
Impact +9.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.0

Total offensive invisibility and a failure to space the floor cratered his impact score. Defenders completely ignored him on the perimeter, allowing them to aggressively trap the ball-handler. Getting caught flat-footed on multiple backdoor cuts compounded a disastrous shift.

Shooting
FG 0/4 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.3%
Net Rtg -12.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense -3.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +2.3
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 17.8m -10.1
Impact -11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
AJ Green 15.0m
3
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.0

Struggles to navigate screens defensively led to a negative overall shift. Opponents actively hunted him in pick-and-roll actions, easily generating separation for clean looks. A lack of offensive aggression meant he couldn't offset the points he was surrendering on the other end.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -43.9
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.0m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.8
Defense +0.5
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 15.0m -8.4
Impact -3.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Cam Thomas 14.9m
8
pts
0
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.9

Tunnel vision and a diet of highly contested isolation jumpers dragged his impact into the red. Ball movement completely stalled when he initiated the offense, allowing the defense to easily reset. A lack of rotational awareness on the weak side further diminished his value.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg -30.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +5.8
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.3
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 14.9m -8.4
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Pete Nance 12.3m
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.9

Getting bullied on the interior and failing to secure defensive rebounds led to a brutal net rating. He was repeatedly displaced from his spots in the post, yielding crucial second-chance opportunities. Offensive hesitancy allowed his defender to freely roam and clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 13.3%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.3m
Offense -4.4
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.2
Raw total -3.0
Avg player in 12.3m -6.9
Impact -9.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

A fleeting end-of-quarter cameo provided virtually no time to influence the game. His fractional negative score was merely a byproduct of being on the floor for a single empty possession.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +200.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.5m
Offense 0.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.2
Avg player in 0.5m -0.3
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
PHX Phoenix Suns
S Devin Booker 33.9m
27
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+12.2

Exceptional two-way engagement drove a dominant overall rating, highlighted by an unusually high rate of loose ball recoveries. He dictated the tempo of the game by leveraging his gravity to create high-quality looks for others. Relentless ball pressure at the point of attack cemented his massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 10/21 (47.6%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.3%
USG% 30.4%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +19.2
Hustle +7.5
Defense +4.6
Raw total +31.3
Avg player in 33.9m -19.1
Impact +12.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jalen Green 32.8m
25
pts
4
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.2

Heavy offensive usage masked a negative overall impact driven by erratic perimeter shot selection. Poor transition defense and late-clock forced jumpers gave the opponent too many easy counter-attacks. His tendency to settle for contested looks rather than attacking the rim ultimately dragged down his net rating.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 3/10 (30.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.9%
USG% 32.9%
Net Rtg +11.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +13.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.1
Raw total +17.2
Avg player in 32.8m -18.4
Impact -1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 45.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Royce O'Neale 31.7m
21
pts
5
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.7

Elite floor-spacing and lockdown perimeter containment fueled a highly positive night. He punished defensive rotations by consistently knocking down catch-and-shoot daggers from the corners. His ability to navigate screens without fouling preserved his massive defensive value.

Shooting
FG 7/11 (63.6%)
3PT 7/11 (63.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 95.5%
USG% 18.3%
Net Rtg +10.1
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.7m
Offense +15.6
Hustle +1.1
Defense +5.9
Raw total +22.6
Avg player in 31.7m -17.9
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
12
pts
9
reb
9
ast
Impact
+6.0

Gritty positional rebounding and active hands in passing lanes anchored a highly effective shift. He consistently disrupted opposing offensive sets by blowing up dribble handoffs on the perimeter. That relentless defensive motor more than compensated for a few forced looks in the half-court.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg +13.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.4m
Offense +11.5
Hustle +5.6
Defense +6.6
Raw total +23.7
Avg player in 31.4m -17.7
Impact +6.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Oso Ighodaro 21.0m
8
pts
4
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

Flawless finishing around the basket couldn't salvage a negative net impact caused by poor pick-and-roll coverage. Opposing guards repeatedly exploited his drop coverage to generate wide-open floaters. A lack of rim deterrence ultimately erased the value of his offensive efficiency.

Shooting
FG 4/4 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.4%
Net Rtg +37.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.0m
Offense +9.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.8
Raw total +9.6
Avg player in 21.0m -11.8
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
12
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.5

Defensive lapses on the weak side and getting caught ball-watching resulted in a negative overall shift. While he found some success spacing the floor, his inability to stay in front of straight-line drives proved costly. Giving up multiple blow-by sequences completely erased his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.0m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.3
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 26.0m -14.7
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 13
Opp FG% 86.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
0.0

A completely neutral impact score reflected a balance of solid rebounding effort and offensive struggles. He struggled to finish through contact, wasting a few valuable scoring opportunities in the paint. However, fundamentally sound box-outs prevented second-chance points and stabilized his overall rating.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 12.8%
Net Rtg +25.9
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.6m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.4
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 16.6m -9.4
Impact 0.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
8
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.2

Vertical spacing and disciplined rim protection allowed him to post a solid positive rating in limited action. He altered several shots in the paint without committing cheap fouls, anchoring the second-unit defense. Serving as a reliable lob threat kept opposing bigs pinned to the baseline.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 80.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.9
Defense +2.5
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 15.4m -8.7
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 69.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
6
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

High-energy point-of-attack defense defined a highly productive stint off the bench. He completely disrupted the opponent's rhythm by fighting over screens and denying easy entry passes. Capitalizing on broken plays with smart cuts ensured his minutes were a net positive.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +13.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +6.1
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.8
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 13.6m -7.6
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.8

Defensive havoc creation fueled an incredibly efficient short-burst performance. He completely neutralized his primary assignment by jumping passing lanes and securing crucial 50/50 balls. That relentless defensive intensity translated directly into high-value transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.8m
Offense +5.9
Hustle +3.6
Defense +4.5
Raw total +14.0
Avg player in 12.8m -7.2
Impact +6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Ryan Dunn 4.8m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.4

A brief appearance was marred by offensive invisibility and poor spacing. Failing to command any defensive attention allowed the opponent to freely load up the strong side. Despite a couple of decent defensive rotations, the lack of offensive threat sank his brief shift.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.8m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.7
Defense +1.6
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 4.8m -2.8
Impact -1.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0