GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 36.8m
20
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
+5.7

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
Offense +13.6
Hustle +7.0
Defense +8.2
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 36.8m -23.1
Impact +5.7
How is this calculated?
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
-5.5

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
Offense +6.5
Hustle +2.6
Defense +7.8
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 35.8m -22.4
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
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
-0.6

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
Offense +8.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +6.8
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 29.9m -18.7
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
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
-2.1

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
Offense +8.2
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.4
Raw total +13.2
Avg player in 24.4m -15.3
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
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
+18.0

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
Offense +28.5
Hustle +1.1
Defense +3.0
Raw total +32.6
Avg player in 23.1m -14.6
Impact +18.0
How is this calculated?
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
+19.1

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
Offense +25.2
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.7
Raw total +35.9
Avg player in 26.6m -16.8
Impact +19.1
How is this calculated?
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
+0.4

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
Offense +10.3
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.0
Raw total +14.4
Avg player in 22.2m -14.0
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
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
-4.5

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
Offense +5.0
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +9.1
Avg player in 21.7m -13.6
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
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
-3.8

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
Offense +5.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense -0.8
Raw total +5.2
Avg player in 14.1m -9.0
Impact -3.8
How is this calculated?
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
-1.9

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
Offense +0.3
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 3.4m -2.2
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

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
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.9m -0.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.6

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
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.9m -0.6
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
IND Indiana Pacers
S Jarace Walker 29.5m
14
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.1

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
Offense +13.7
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.0
Raw total +18.3
Avg player in 29.5m -18.4
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
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
+9.0

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
Offense +24.8
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.5
Raw total +27.1
Avg player in 28.8m -18.1
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
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
-8.1

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
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.5
Defense +2.5
Raw total +9.5
Avg player in 28.1m -17.6
Impact -8.1
How is this calculated?
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
-11.7

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
Offense -3.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +6.5
Raw total +5.0
Avg player in 26.6m -16.7
Impact -11.7
How is this calculated?
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
-3.9

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
Offense +9.9
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.6
Raw total +10.9
Avg player in 23.5m -14.8
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
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
-3.3

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
Offense +9.5
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.5
Raw total +12.2
Avg player in 24.6m -15.5
Impact -3.3
How is this calculated?
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
+4.7

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
Offense +12.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.3
Raw total +16.9
Avg player in 19.6m -12.2
Impact +4.7
How is this calculated?
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
-3.9

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
Offense +4.1
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.2
Raw total +6.4
Avg player in 16.4m -10.3
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
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
-7.0

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
Offense -2.4
Hustle +3.3
Defense +1.2
Raw total +2.1
Avg player in 14.5m -9.1
Impact -7.0
How is this calculated?
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
+1.2

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
Offense +5.4
Hustle +3.1
Defense +0.9
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 13.1m -8.2
Impact +1.2
How is this calculated?
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
-1.5

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
Offense +1.0
Hustle +0.7
Defense +3.4
Raw total +5.1
Avg player in 10.3m -6.6
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
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
+3.6

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
Offense +3.8
Hustle 0.0
Defense +2.9
Raw total +6.7
Avg player in 4.9m -3.1
Impact +3.6
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0