Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

Every shot, every lead change, every rotation — visualized.

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
ATL lead MIL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MIL 2P — 3P —
ATL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 171 attempts

MIL MIL Shot-making Δ

Portis Hard 5/15 -1.7
Porter Jr. 7/13 -0.2
Rollins 8/11 +7.6
Kuzma 5/8 +0.7
Turner Hard 3/7 +0.2
Trent Jr. Hard 2/7 -2.0
Green Hard 3/6 +2.0
Thomas 0/3 -3.1
Sims Open 2/2 +1.2
Nance Hard 1/2 +1.2

ATL ATL Shot-making Δ

Johnson 10/20 +0.4
McCollum Hard 10/18 +7.8
Alexander-Walker 7/14 +1.6
Daniels Open 4/8 -2.4
Landale Open 5/7 +1.6
Kispert Open 4/7 -1.0
Risacher 2/7 -2.6
Okongwu Hard 2/6 -2.0
Vincent Hard 1/3 -0.4
Wallace 1/2 -0.5
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MIL
ATL
37/76 Field Goals 47/95
48.7% Field Goal % 49.5%
12/37 3-Pointers 14/38
32.4% 3-Point % 36.8%
13/18 Free Throws 14/18
72.2% Free Throw % 77.8%
59.0% True Shooting % 59.3%
45 Total Rebounds 51
5 Offensive 15
32 Defensive 32
24 Assists 29
1.04 Assist/TO Ratio 2.23
20 Turnovers 13
5 Steals 10
4 Blocks 1
18 Fouls 19
36 Points in Paint 62
2 Fast Break Pts 12
14 Points off TOs 30
6 Second Chance Pts 24
33 Bench Points 37
3 Largest Lead 26
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Ryan Rollins
22 PTS · 3 REB · 8 AST · 30.9 MIN
+24.34
2
Jalen Johnson
23 PTS · 10 REB · 12 AST · 34.7 MIN
+20.15
3
CJ McCollum
30 PTS · 3 REB · 2 AST · 27.0 MIN
+19.76
4
Nickeil Alexander-Walker
20 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 34.0 MIN
+16.67
5
Kevin Porter Jr.
18 PTS · 7 REB · 7 AST · 30.1 MIN
+16.33
6
Dyson Daniels
8 PTS · 7 REB · 4 AST · 29.1 MIN
+15.43
7
Jock Landale
10 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 17.2 MIN
+12.59
8
Corey Kispert
13 PTS · 4 REB · 1 AST · 14.5 MIN
+12.38
9
Bobby Portis
14 PTS · 6 REB · 1 AST · 26.6 MIN
+6.68
10
Myles Turner
8 PTS · 6 REB · 3 AST · 24.2 MIN
+3.69
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:22 M. Gueye REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 99–122
Q4 0:25 MISS G. Trent Jr. 26' pullup 3PT 99–122
Q4 0:36 C. Koloko Layup (2 PTS) (K. Wallace 1 AST) 99–122
Q4 0:51 G. Trent Jr. 13' step back Jump Shot (5 PTS) (P. Nance 2 AST) 99–120
Q4 1:11 K. Wallace running reverse Layup (2 PTS) 97–120
Q4 1:16 K. Wallace REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 97–118
Q4 1:19 MISS G. Harris 26' 3PT 97–118
Q4 1:26 P. Nance REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 97–118
Q4 1:29 MISS M. Gueye 25' 3PT 97–118
Q4 1:39 A. Jackson Jr. tip DUNK (2 PTS) 97–118
Q4 1:39 A. Jackson Jr. REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 95–118
Q4 1:40 MISS G. Trent Jr. 3PT 95–118
Q4 1:46 T. Antetokounmpo REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 95–118
Q4 1:50 MISS K. Wallace 24' pullup 3PT 95–118
Q4 2:05 K. Wallace REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 95–118

GAME ANALYSIS

KEEP READING

Create a free account and follow your team to get the full analysis every morning.

Create Free Account

Already have an account? Log in

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ATL Atlanta Hawks
S Jalen Johnson 34.8m
23
pts
10
reb
12
ast
Impact
+21.2

Orchestrated the offense flawlessly from the forward position, leveraging his size to see over traps and deliver pinpoint skip passes. His ability to secure the defensive glass and immediately initiate the break caught the transition defense sleeping repeatedly. This masterful display of dual-threat creation kept the opponent constantly scrambling.

Shooting
FG 10/20 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 27.6%
Net Rtg +28.0
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.8m
Scoring +14.7
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +11.7
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -7.8
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
20
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+15.9

Ignited the lineup with an absolute masterclass in two-way hustle, constantly diving on the floor to extend critical possessions. His timely perimeter shooting punished defenders who dared to go under screens. This relentless motor and opportunistic scoring made him the ultimate X-factor in the backcourt.

Shooting
FG 7/14 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 65.3%
USG% 19.3%
Net Rtg +32.0
+/- +24
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.0m
Scoring +14.7
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +4.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.8
Turnovers -5.4
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 2
S Dyson Daniels 29.1m
8
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.8

Wreaked absolute havoc as a point-of-attack defender, suffocating ball-handlers and blowing up dribble handoffs. Even with a muted scoring output, his elite connective passing and relentless screen navigation drove winning basketball. He essentially functioned as the defensive quarterback, elevating the entire unit's floor.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +22.6
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.1m
Scoring +4.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.7
Hustle +7.9
Defense +5.0
Turnovers -2.4
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
S Onyeka Okongwu 27.2m
4
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
-6.7

Dragged down the offense by stepping out of his comfort zone and bricking multiple perimeter looks. His inability to finish through contact in the paint allowed the defense to shrink the floor without consequence. Despite some decent positional rebounding, these offensive limitations severely handicapped the starting five.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg +24.3
+/- +16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Scoring +0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense -0.4
Turnovers -2.4
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
S CJ McCollum 27.0m
30
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
+20.6

Broke the game wide open with a lethal barrage of pull-up jumpers that completely shattered the opposing drop coverage. His shot selection was impeccable, identifying mismatches and ruthlessly exploiting them from beyond the arc. The sheer gravity of his perimeter threat opened up driving lanes for everyone else on the floor.

Shooting
FG 10/18 (55.6%)
3PT 7/10 (70.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 30.6%
Net Rtg +27.4
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.0m
Scoring +23.8
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +8.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -5.4
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
7
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.0

Looked overwhelmed by the physicality of the game, rushing his mechanics and forcing bad looks in traffic. His struggles to navigate off-ball screens also left him a step behind on defensive rotations. The resulting negative impact reflects a young player who let offensive frustration bleed into his overall focus.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.4%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.1m
Scoring +3.1
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +5.7
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -7.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Jock Landale 17.2m
10
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.0

Carved out deep post position with textbook footwork, sealing his man to create high-percentage interior finishes. He also set bruising screens that consistently freed up the guards for downhill attacks. This highly efficient, no-nonsense interior play stabilized the second unit during crucial stretches.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.5%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +20.0
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.2m
Scoring +7.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +6.7
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
13
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.7

Punished the defense for losing track of him in transition, constantly sprinting to the corners for high-value looks. His relentless off-ball motion warped the opposing shell, creating driving gaps even when he didn't touch the rock. Capitalizing on every defensive lapse made him a highly efficient spark plug off the bench.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 70.7%
USG% 29.0%
Net Rtg +28.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Scoring +10.0
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +5.1
Defense -1.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.4

Made his presence felt purely as a weak-side rim protector, altering several shots with his impressive length. However, his offensive rawness was glaring, as he clogged the paint and fumbled away potential scoring chances. He survived analytically only because his defensive rotations were surprisingly crisp.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 6.3%
Net Rtg +6.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Scoring -1.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Gabe Vincent 11.2m
3
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.1

Failed to generate any meaningful rim pressure, settling for stagnant perimeter swings that bogged down the offense. He was largely invisible on the defensive end, offering zero resistance at the point of attack. This highly passive stint allowed the opponent to comfortably dictate the terms of engagement.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.2m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.5

Scraped together a slightly positive rating by executing proper closeouts during a fleeting appearance. He didn't force any bad shots, simply swinging the ball and staying out of the way. This was purely rotational filler that didn't move the needle in either direction.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.4

Logged garbage-time minutes that carried virtually no weight in the grand scheme of the contest. He converted his only look around the basket but was otherwise just a warm body on the floor. This was a completely inconsequential run designed solely to close out the clock.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.0

Capitalized on a brief window of playing time by attacking a sleeping defense for a quick bucket. He maintained solid defensive positioning, ensuring no easy blow-bys occurred on his watch. It was a fundamentally sound, albeit tiny, sample size of competence.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
Scoring +1.3
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.7

Wandered aimlessly through a mop-up duty stint, failing to initiate any structured offense. A couple of defensive miscommunications led to open looks for the opponent, dinging his overall rating. He looked entirely out of sync with the rest of the deep reserves.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 2.9m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 30.9m
22
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
+20.8

Absolutely dominated the game's flow through elite decision-making and relentless off-ball movement. His sky-high hustle metrics reflect a willingness to crash the glass and dive for loose balls that repeatedly broke the opponent's spirit. A lethal combination of high-value shot creation and sheer energy made him the undisputed engine of this unit.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.6%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -21.0
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Scoring +19.7
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +5.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
18
pts
7
reb
7
ast
Impact
+12.1

Masterful point-of-attack defense fueled a massive two-way impact. He constantly disrupted passing lanes, turning deflections directly into easy transition opportunities. This combination of disciplined shot selection and relentless on-ball pressure completely dictated the game's tempo.

Shooting
FG 7/13 (53.8%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.0%
USG% 24.3%
Net Rtg -27.9
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Scoring +13.6
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +7.0
Defense +1.5
Turnovers -7.1
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jericho Sims 25.5m
7
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-11.1

Invisible on both ends for long stretches, failing to leverage his athleticism into meaningful rim deterrence. His inability to anchor the drop coverage allowed guards to walk into the paint at will. Even with a few decent loose-ball recoveries, his overall passivity tanked the lineup's ceiling.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 93.1%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -6.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.5m
Scoring +6.5
Creation +1.0
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -9.5
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Myles Turner 24.2m
8
pts
6
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.0

Generated value entirely through the dirty work, utilizing his length to alter shots and secure vital extra possessions. While his outside jumper remains erratic, his commitment to verticality at the rim kept the interior defense stable. He essentially functioned as a high-end role player to keep his overall impact afloat.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.8%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -28.6
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.2m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +1.8
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -3.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyle Kuzma 24.0m
11
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

Perimeter inefficiency dragged down his overall value despite decent defensive metrics. Settling for heavily contested looks beyond the arc stifled offensive flow. This stark drop-off from his recent scoring tear rendered him largely ineffective in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.9%
USG% 23.7%
Net Rtg -22.2
+/- -12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Scoring +8.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.1
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -10.1
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
Bobby Portis 26.6m
14
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+6.2

Overcame a brutal shooting slump by relentlessly attacking the offensive glass and generating crucial second-chance opportunities. His shot selection was highly questionable, often forcing contested midrange looks early in the clock. Yet, sheer physicality in the paint provided just enough grit to keep his overall impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 44.1%
USG% 30.0%
Net Rtg -32.0
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +6.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +6.7
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -4.7
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
AJ Green 20.8m
9
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.3

Defenders aggressively ran him off his spots on the perimeter, completely neutralizing his usual spacing gravity. Without that outside threat, the half-court offense stagnated whenever he was involved in the action. He also became a target in isolation matchups, bleeding value on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.9%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -14.5
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Scoring +6.9
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Pete Nance 15.5m
3
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-9.0

A severe lack of involvement relegated him to cardio duty for most of his minutes. He was consistently outmuscled on block-outs, giving up critical positioning that led to multiple defensive breakdowns. The few loose balls he secured couldn't mask his overall inability to anchor the frontcourt.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 12.1%
Net Rtg -24.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -3.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.2

Settled for heavily contested jumpers instead of attacking closeouts, leading to a string of empty possessions. His inability to stay in front of quicker guards on the perimeter compounded these offensive woes. The resulting negative swing highlighted a player who was completely out of sync with the defensive scheme.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 35.7%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.8m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.5
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.8

Completely vanished from the offensive game plan, failing to attempt a single shot during his stint. He salvaged a near-neutral rating by playing disciplined weak-side defense and executing his rotations flawlessly. However, this total lack of aggression allowed his defender to freely roam and double elsewhere.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -36.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.2

Provided absolutely nothing of substance during a brief, forgettable rotation. He was late on multiple closeouts and failed to register a single positive hustle metric. It was a ghost-like performance that forced the coaching staff to quickly pull the plug.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg -54.5
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.4m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.7

Brought his trademark chaotic energy to the defensive end, blowing up one pick-and-roll action through sheer effort. Offensively, he was a complete non-factor, strictly acting as a decoy and screener. His brief cameo served only to buy the primary rotation a few moments of rest.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Scoring +0.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.6

Barely had time to break a sweat before heading back to the bench. He executed his lone offensive set perfectly but lacked the runway to make a broader imprint on the game. This was essentially a neutral placeholder stint that neither helped nor hurt the overarching game plan.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
Scoring +2.0
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +0.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Cam Thomas 3.2m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.5

Forced the issue immediately upon checking in, chucking up low-percentage looks that derailed the offensive rhythm. His brief stint was defined by a complete lack of ball movement and zero defensive resistance. This kind of tunnel vision actively sabotaged the bench unit's momentum.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 37.5%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Scoring -2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0