GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ryan Rollins 33.9m
19
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
-1.5

Offensive production was entirely undone by poor defensive execution (-1.6 Def) at the point of attack. While he consistently beat his primary defender off the dribble, his inability to navigate screens on the other end gave those points right back.

Shooting
FG 6/13 (46.2%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.4%
USG% 21.3%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +15.0
Hustle +2.7
Defense -1.6
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 33.9m -17.6
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
25
pts
3
reb
10
ast
Impact
+11.0

Elite drive-and-kick facilitation broke down the opposing defense, directly fueling his massive positive impact. He manipulated pick-and-roll coverages masterfully, generating high-value looks at the rim while maintaining solid defensive discipline.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 67.5%
USG% 27.8%
Net Rtg -16.0
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.5m
Offense +23.6
Hustle +3.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +28.0
Avg player in 32.5m -17.0
Impact +11.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Taurean Prince 22.6m
8
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.8

Defensive lapses on the wing (-0.8 Def) and a dip in offensive assertiveness resulted in a heavy negative rating. He was repeatedly beaten on back-door cuts, which completely negated the value of his two spot-up triples.

Shooting
FG 3/7 (42.9%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 57.1%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -44.1
+/- -20
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +3.2
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.8
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 22.6m -11.8
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Kyle Kuzma 16.9m
3
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-8.4

An abysmal shooting night derailed his offensive rhythm, dragging down the entire unit's spacing. Settling for contested mid-range jumpers rather than attacking the paint caused his impact score to plummet.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -18.8
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.9m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +0.4
Defense +0.1
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 16.9m -8.7
Impact -8.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 0
S Jericho Sims 15.9m
4
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.7

Struggled to anchor the drop coverage, allowing guards to walk into comfortable floaters. His low-usage offensive role wasn't enough to offset the defensive bleeding during his rotational shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.1%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg -60.0
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.9m
Offense +3.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.1
Raw total +3.5
Avg player in 15.9m -8.2
Impact -4.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Bobby Portis 32.7m
19
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.6

High-volume but inefficient interior scoring was salvaged by absolute dominance on the defensive glass and in the post (+6.0 Def). He bullied his primary matchup on the block, ensuring that even his missed bunnies eventually led to positive defensive stops on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/19 (42.1%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.7m
Offense +11.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +18.6
Avg player in 32.7m -17.0
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 61.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
19
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+4.3

Sizzling perimeter efficiency and tremendous weak-side rim protection (+4.4 Def) highlighted a breakout two-way performance. His length disrupted multiple passing lanes (+5.7 Hustle), allowing him to turn defensive stops into transition triples.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +3.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +5.7
Defense +4.4
Raw total +19.8
Avg player in 29.7m -15.5
Impact +4.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Pete Nance 29.7m
13
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.5

Flawless shot selection and pristine defensive rotations (+4.3 Def) made him a highly effective glue guy in this contest. He capitalized on every defensive breakdown by the opponent, punishing them with timely spot-up shooting.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg +9.7
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.7m
Offense +13.2
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.3
Raw total +18.9
Avg player in 29.7m -15.4
Impact +3.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 53.8%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
AJ Green 26.1m
6
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-8.9

Cold shooting from beyond the arc crippled the team's half-court spacing and drove his score deep into the red. Despite surprisingly effective perimeter defense (+2.0 Def), clanking wide-open catch-and-shoot looks stalled out multiple offensive possessions.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 42.9%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +10.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +1.7
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +4.5
Avg player in 26.1m -13.4
Impact -8.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
CLE Cleveland Cavaliers
19
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.5

Severe shooting struggles from the floor heavily suppressed his offensive value, forcing him to find other ways to contribute. He managed to stay in the green purely through exceptional hustle (+5.5) and active hands in passing lanes, salvaging a rough offensive outing with sheer effort.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 10/13 (76.9%)
Advanced
TS% 48.2%
USG% 24.7%
Net Rtg -19.6
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.9m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +5.5
Defense +3.2
Raw total +18.1
Avg player in 33.9m -17.6
Impact +0.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 0
S James Harden 33.5m
27
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
+14.1

Masterful shot selection and surgical playmaking fueled a dominant two-way performance. Beyond the highly efficient scoring burst, his surprisingly robust defensive metrics (+4.5) and active rebounding from the guard spot cemented his massive positive impact.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 11/13 (84.6%)
Advanced
TS% 85.9%
USG% 21.8%
Net Rtg +24.0
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.5m
Offense +23.1
Hustle +3.9
Defense +4.5
Raw total +31.5
Avg player in 33.5m -17.4
Impact +14.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Evan Mobley 33.0m
27
pts
15
reb
2
ast
Impact
+19.2

Utterly dominated the interior matchup to generate a massive +19.2 net impact. His elite rim protection (+6.7 Def) suffocated opposing drivers, while a relentless diet of high-percentage paint touches extended his streak of hyper-efficient scoring nights.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 3/5 (60.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 29.1%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense +26.9
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.7
Raw total +36.2
Avg player in 33.0m -17.0
Impact +19.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
S Sam Merrill 28.0m
17
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+0.9

A sudden surge in scoring volume drove his positive box score, capitalizing on open looks to break out of a recent shooting slump. While his perimeter gravity stretched the defense effectively, a relatively muted defensive impact kept his overall net rating grounded.

Shooting
FG 6/12 (50.0%)
3PT 3/8 (37.5%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.0%
USG% 19.7%
Net Rtg +40.0
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.0m
Offense +12.8
Hustle +1.6
Defense +1.0
Raw total +15.4
Avg player in 28.0m -14.5
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Dean Wade 24.9m
9
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-2.2

Doubling his recent scoring average wasn't enough to rescue a negative overall impact, largely due to defensive bleeding during his shifts. His solid hustle metrics suggest active rotations, but missed assignments on the perimeter ultimately dragged down his value.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 56.3%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +27.7
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.9m
Offense +7.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.6
Raw total +10.7
Avg player in 24.9m -12.9
Impact -2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 70.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Keon Ellis 24.3m
8
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.9

Elite point-of-attack defense (+4.5 Def) anchored his time on the floor, disrupting the opponent's offensive flow. Though his offensive volume was low, flawless perimeter execution ensured he remained a net positive during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 8.0%
Net Rtg +24.3
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.3m
Offense +8.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +4.5
Raw total +13.5
Avg player in 24.3m -12.6
Impact +0.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 30.8%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Max Strus 23.1m
6
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-8.8

A sharp drop-off in scoring aggression and poor defensive positioning (-1.7 Def) cratered his overall impact. Opponents consistently targeted him in isolation, exposing his lateral quickness and rendering his minimal offensive output obsolete.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 13.7%
Net Rtg +4.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.1m
Offense +4.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense -1.7
Raw total +3.2
Avg player in 23.1m -12.0
Impact -8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
+0.3

Traded his usual scoring punch for a facilitator role, using quick-burst drives to collapse the defense and kick out. Excellent hustle metrics (+3.3) and peskiness fighting over screens kept his impact marginally positive despite a nearly invisible scoring night.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 61.5%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -17.6
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.8m
Offense +3.9
Hustle +3.3
Defense +1.3
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 15.8m -8.2
Impact +0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Jaylon Tyson 13.2m
2
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-6.5

Forced attempts in traffic and poor spacing awareness led to a highly negative stint. Although he showed flashes of energy on the margins (+1.6 Hustle), the offensive stagnation during his minutes was too severe to overcome.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 20.0%
USG% 20.7%
Net Rtg -23.2
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.2m
Offense -2.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.7
Raw total +0.3
Avg player in 13.2m -6.8
Impact -6.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
5
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Short-stint rotational minutes yielded a slightly negative return due to empty possessions and a lack of rebounding presence. While he hit a trailing three to stretch the floor, his inability to secure the glass allowed second-chance opportunities that hurt the overall rating.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg -17.7
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.3m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.1
Raw total +4.3
Avg player in 10.3m -5.4
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1