Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

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

IND IND Shot-making Δ

Nesmith Hard 10/14 +12.7
Walker 6/12 +1.0
McConnell Hard 3/10 -3.0
Zubac Open 4/10 -3.3
Huff Hard 5/8 +4.3
Toppin Hard 3/7 +2.1
Jackson 2/5 -0.5
Brown Hard 3/4 +4.1
Peter 3/4 +2.2
Slawson Hard 1/4 -1.2

MIL MIL Shot-making Δ

Antetokounmpo Open 11/22 -4.2
Portis Hard 11/21 +6.3
Rollins 8/12 +5.8
Green Hard 4/7 +5.9
Prince Hard 5/7 +5.2
Turner Hard 4/7 +3.6
Kuzma Hard 3/7 +1.2
Harris Hard 2/4 +1.6
Sims Open 1/3 -2.0
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
IND
MIL
42/81 Field Goals 49/90
51.9% Field Goal % 54.4%
21/42 3-Pointers 23/44
50.0% 3-Point % 52.3%
18/23 Free Throws 13/19
78.3% Free Throw % 68.4%
67.5% True Shooting % 68.1%
48 Total Rebounds 43
10 Offensive 13
30 Defensive 27
34 Assists 31
1.79 Assist/TO Ratio 3.44
18 Turnovers 9
5 Steals 10
6 Blocks 2
15 Fouls 17
30 Points in Paint 38
10 Fast Break Pts 15
13 Points off TOs 27
15 Second Chance Pts 16
55 Bench Points 50
10 Largest Lead 19
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Bobby Portis
29 PTS · 10 REB · 3 AST · 26.6 MIN
+29.97
2
Giannis Antetokounmpo
31 PTS · 14 REB · 8 AST · 23.1 MIN
+29.66
3
Aaron Nesmith
32 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 28.8 MIN
+24.96
4
Ryan Rollins
20 PTS · 2 REB · 7 AST · 36.8 MIN
+19.33
5
Jarace Walker
14 PTS · 8 REB · 6 AST · 29.5 MIN
+16.13
6
Jay Huff
16 PTS · 1 REB · 0 AST · 19.6 MIN
+13.53
7
Kyle Kuzma
8 PTS · 3 REB · 8 AST · 35.8 MIN
+11.45
8
Taurean Prince
13 PTS · 2 REB · 2 AST · 22.2 MIN
+10.95
9
Myles Turner
13 PTS · 4 REB · 0 AST · 29.9 MIN
+10.58
10
Kobe Brown
9 PTS · 6 REB · 5 AST · 24.6 MIN
+8.92
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:20 R. Rollins 26' 3PT step back (20 PTS) 123–134
Q4 0:42 K. Brown driving Layup (9 PTS) 123–131
Q4 0:57 B. Portis personal FOUL (1 PF) 121–131
Q4 1:00 K. Jones STEAL (1 STL) 121–131
Q4 1:00 M. Turner bad pass TURNOVER (1 TO) 121–131
Q4 1:20 T. Peter running DUNK (9 PTS) (K. Jones 3 AST) 121–131
Q4 1:22 J. Slawson STEAL (2 STL) 119–131
Q4 1:22 R. Rollins lost ball TURNOVER (3 TO) 119–131
Q4 1:40 T. Peter running Layup (7 PTS) (K. Jones 2 AST) 119–131
Q4 1:40 K. Jones REBOUND (Off:0 Def:2) 117–131
Q4 1:44 MISS B. Portis 23' pullup Shot 117–131
Q4 1:54 B. Portis REBOUND (Off:4 Def:6) 117–131
Q4 1:54 MISS T. Peter 26' pullup 3PT 117–131
Q4 2:07 B. Portis tip Layup (29 PTS) 117–131
Q4 2:07 B. Portis REBOUND (Off:4 Def:5) 117–129

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

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 36.8m
20
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+12.4

Operating as an absolute terror in the passing lanes, he generated massive value through deflections and aggressive transition pushes. He sustained his recent scoring tear by attacking scrambled defenses before they could get set, establishing a frantic two-way pace the opposition could not match.

Shooting
FG 8/12 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 77.6%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.8m
Scoring +16.4
Creation +2.2
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense +6.8
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kyle Kuzma 35.8m
8
pts
3
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.9

Elite defensive rebounding and weak-side rim protection were entirely negated by catastrophic offensive decision-making. He forced heavily contested mid-range jumpers and committed momentum-swinging turnovers when trapped on the baseline, derailing his overall impact through poor shot selection.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 9.9%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.8m
Scoring +4.8
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense +3.7
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Myles Turner 29.9m
13
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.2

A strong bounce-back shooting night was undermined by getting bullied on the defensive glass and committing cheap fouls. While his rim protection altered several drives, he gave those points right back by failing to secure contested rebounds against more physical interior matchups.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.5%
USG% 13.0%
Net Rtg +10.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.9m
Scoring +10.6
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.7
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
S AJ Green 24.4m
12
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.2

Opponents actively hunted him in isolation to exploit his lateral quickness, erasing the value of his lethal perimeter gravity. He was repeatedly targeted in pick-and-roll switches, forcing defensive breakdowns and over-helps that proved far too costly to keep him on the floor.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 85.7%
USG% 14.8%
Net Rtg +17.0
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.4m
Scoring +9.6
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +3.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
31
pts
14
reb
8
ast
Impact
+27.8

Utterly dominating the restricted area, he collapsed the defense on nearly every downhill drive to generate massive offensive value. His overwhelming physical advantage forced early rotations, which he expertly diagnosed to find open shooters and dictate the entire geometry of the game.

Shooting
FG 11/22 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 9/13 (69.2%)
Advanced
TS% 55.9%
USG% 54.7%
Net Rtg +36.2
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Scoring +20.4
Creation +4.4
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +15.8
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Bobby Portis 26.6m
29
pts
10
reb
3
ast
Impact
+34.2

Erupting for a massive offensive performance, he fueled the second unit with relentless offensive rebounding and decisive catch-and-shoot execution. He bullied smaller defenders in the mid-post, forcing double teams that he quickly punished to completely flip the momentum of the game.

Shooting
FG 11/21 (52.4%)
3PT 6/11 (54.5%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.3%
USG% 37.1%
Net Rtg -4.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +21.2
Creation +0.8
Shot Making +8.1
Hustle +12.7
Defense +4.4
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
13
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-0.1

Providing steady, low-mistake minutes, he hit timely corner threes and executed the defensive game plan without overextending. However, his overall impact was slightly muted by a tendency to over-help in the paint, yielding open perimeter looks to his primary assignment.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 92.9%
USG% 14.5%
Net Rtg +26.1
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.2m
Scoring +11.4
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Gary Harris 21.7m
6
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
-6.3

Active hands and solid screen navigation couldn't compensate for a glaring lack of offensive assertiveness. He passed up early-clock advantages, allowing the defense to reset and ultimately forcing teammates into tough late-possession shots that killed the lineup's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg -1.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Scoring +4.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.0
Defense -0.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jericho Sims 14.1m
2
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.5

Completely neutralized as a roll man, he was forced into a purely screening role that clogged the paint and cramped half-court spacing. He struggled to anchor the drop coverage, consistently allowing opposing guards to turn the corner with ease and collapse the defense.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 8.8%
Net Rtg +3.4
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.1m
Scoring -0.3
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +3.8
Defense -4.7
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Pete Nance 3.4m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.0

Invisible during a brief cameo, he failed to register any meaningful defensive stops or offensive actions. He struggled to match the speed of the game, getting caught in no-man's land on two critical pick-and-roll coverages before receiving a quick hook.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +38.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.4m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +2.3
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -1.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.6

Burning a quick foul in a late-clock scenario defined his fleeting appearance on the court. He was utilized strictly as a chaotic energy sub, but the opposition easily sidestepped his overly aggressive closeout.

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 0.9m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -0.6
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Inserted purely for situational defense at the end of a quarter, he left virtually no statistical footprint. A quick blown assignment in transition accounted for the slight negative impact during his fleeting seconds on the floor.

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 0.9m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.0
Turnovers -1.7
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Jarace Walker 29.5m
14
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+9.8

A robust offensive rhythm was entirely undone by careless transition turnovers and poorly timed reaching fouls. He operated effectively as a finisher but gave the value right back by repeatedly biting on pump fakes during disorganized defensive sequences.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 17.8%
Net Rtg -26.3
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Scoring +8.6
Creation +1.5
Shot Making +3.2
Hustle +9.2
Defense +0.5
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Aaron Nesmith 28.8m
32
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+20.1

Blistering perimeter shot creation drove a massive offensive ceiling in this matchup. He consistently capitalized on defensive miscommunications, punishing drop coverage with lethal pull-up mechanics that dictated the tempo of the entire game.

Shooting
FG 10/14 (71.4%)
3PT 7/10 (70.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 98.8%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Scoring +29.1
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +7.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S T.J. McConnell 28.1m
9
pts
2
reb
11
ast
Impact
-7.6

Pacing issues and forced interior passes severely damaged his bottom-line impact despite active hands on the perimeter. Straying from his normally highly efficient shot profile, he settled for contested floaters that fueled opponent transition opportunities and masked his high playmaking volume.

Shooting
FG 3/10 (30.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.8%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg -19.0
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Scoring +4.0
Creation +1.9
Shot Making +1.8
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.8
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jalen Slawson 26.6m
3
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.8

Despite highly disruptive perimeter defense, his overall impact plummeted due to costly live-ball turnovers and offensive stagnation. The steep drop-off from his recent scoring averages forced the offense into late-clock situations where his inability to punish closeouts allowed the defense to completely ignore him.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -7.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.0
Turnovers -5.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 2
TO 2
S Ivica Zubac 23.5m
10
pts
7
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.2

A steep drop in offensive assertiveness allowed the defense to completely neutralize his interior gravity by fronting the post early. Poor pick-and-roll positioning and illegal screens dragged his overall value into the negative despite a decent effort on the glass.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg -3.8
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.5m
Scoring +5.1
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +7.9
Defense -6.2
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 35.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kobe Brown 24.6m
9
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.1

While his spot-up efficiency remained pristine, hidden errors in defensive rotations and off-ball fouls cratered his overall impact. He struggled to navigate off-ball screens, routinely giving up the baseline against quicker wings and getting targeted on the weak side.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 92.2%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -21.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.6m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +7.6
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jay Huff 19.6m
16
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+4.4

Capitalizing on backup bigs, he provided a massive spark through excellent vertical spacing and disciplined rim deterrence. His ability to stretch the floor opened up driving lanes, while his flawless drop coverage completely deterred attacks at the basket.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.8%
USG% 23.3%
Net Rtg -26.5
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.6m
Scoring +13.6
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Obi Toppin 16.4m
11
pts
4
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.5

Settling for perimeter looks rather than attacking the rim neutralized his usual athletic advantages and bailed out the interior defense. Costly defensive lapses in transition and a failure to secure long rebounds allowed the opposition to generate back-breaking second-chance points.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 66.1%
USG% 23.1%
Net Rtg -1.6
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.4m
Scoring +7.3
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.9

High-energy hustle plays were completely overshadowed by erratic decision-making with the ball in his hands. Breaking his streak of efficient shooting, he forced contested drives into traffic that resulted in momentum-killing empty trips and disrupted the team's half-court execution.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +16.7
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.5m
Scoring +2.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -5.9
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
Taelon Peter 13.1m
9
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

Relentless activity on the margins defined this stint, with loose ball recoveries keeping critical possessions alive. He played perfectly within himself offensively, taking only high-value shots when the defense tilted away to stabilize the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 84.6%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.1m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.4
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Kam Jones 10.3m
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.7

Smothering point-of-attack defense kept him viable despite a near-total disappearance on the offensive end. He passed up open catch-and-shoot opportunities, stalling the offensive flow and forcing teammates into late-clock grenades that dragged down the lineup's ceiling.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +4.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.9
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.4
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.6

Maximizing a brief rotational stint, he executed flawless defensive coverages and knocked down his only perimeter look. He provided immediate structural stability to the frontcourt by communicating switches effectively and perfectly executing a specialized floor-spacing role.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +27.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.9m
Scoring +3.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0