GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Ousmane Dieng 35.7m
12
pts
6
reb
5
ast
Impact
-5.2

A disastrous offensive showing cratered his overall impact, completely overshadowing an otherwise spectacular defensive performance (+11.7 Def). He forced up heavily contested mid-range jumpers that acted as live-ball turnovers, sparking opponent transition runs. Even elite weak-side rim protection couldn't mathematically salvage the damage done by his shot selection.

Shooting
FG 5/14 (35.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.6%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -23.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +4.0
Defense +11.7
Raw total +15.6
Avg player in 35.7m -20.8
Impact -5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 38.5%
STL 4
BLK 0
TO 4
S Pete Nance 30.2m
5
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-8.0

Bleeding points on the defensive end completely negated his highly efficient, low-volume offensive contributions. He consistently lost his man on backdoor cuts and failed to offer meaningful resistance at the rim. The opponent relentlessly targeted him in pick-and-roll switches, driving his overall impact deep into the red.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +6.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total +9.4
Avg player in 30.2m -17.4
Impact -8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Myles Turner 27.8m
15
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Stretching the floor with heavy perimeter volume pulled the opposing center out of the paint, fundamentally altering the geometry of the game. His elite drop-coverage execution (+6.0 Def) deterred multiple drives and forced late-clock bailouts. While his interior finishing was spotty, the combination of spacing and rim protection yielded a solid net positive.

Shooting
FG 5/12 (41.7%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 58.2%
USG% 20.3%
Net Rtg -47.5
+/- -28
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Offense +10.1
Hustle +2.4
Defense +6.0
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 27.8m -16.1
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 20
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 45.0%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Gary Trent Jr. 26.1m
18
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+3.7

Scorching off-ball movement and decisive catch-and-shoot execution punished defensive lapses all night. He capitalized on defensive breakdowns by relocating to the corners, providing a reliable release valve for driving teammates. Competent perimeter chasing (+3.1 Def) ensured his scoring outbursts translated into tangible scoreboard gains.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 81.8%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg -16.7
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Offense +13.8
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.1
Raw total +18.8
Avg player in 26.1m -15.1
Impact +3.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ryan Rollins 25.4m
12
pts
1
reb
4
ast
Impact
-10.0

An abysmal perimeter shooting display shattered the team's spacing and tanked his overall rating. Defenders blatantly ignored him on the perimeter, allowing them to aggressively double the post and clog driving lanes. Despite commendable effort fighting over screens (+5.1 Def), his offensive black hole was too costly to overcome.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 0/7 (0.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 37.8%
USG% 36.8%
Net Rtg -34.6
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Offense -4.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +5.1
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 25.4m -14.7
Impact -10.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 5
AJ Green 26.6m
7
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.6

Over-reliance on contested perimeter looks stalled the offensive flow and led to a negative overall footprint. By failing to attack closeouts or pressure the rim, he allowed the defense to comfortably stay attached to the three-point line. The resulting empty possessions fueled opponent fast breaks that his transition defense couldn't contain.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.3%
USG% 9.5%
Net Rtg -29.4
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +5.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +3.7
Raw total +10.8
Avg player in 26.6m -15.4
Impact -4.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 0
5
pts
3
reb
2
ast
Impact
-18.7

A catastrophic two-way performance was defined by forced perimeter shots and a total lack of defensive resistance. He routinely broke off offensive sets to isolate, resulting in clanked jumpers that ignited the opponent's transition game. Getting consistently blown by on the perimeter compounded the damage, leading to a massive negative swing.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 17.2%
Net Rtg -51.1
+/- -29
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense -3.0
Hustle +0.2
Defense -1.0
Raw total -3.8
Avg player in 25.6m -14.9
Impact -18.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Jericho Sims 21.7m
10
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+4.9

Dominant screen-setting and explosive rim-running generated high-percentage offense and collapsed the opposing defense. He feasted on the offensive glass, converting extra possessions into easy put-backs that demoralized the opponent. Staying vertically disciplined on defense prevented foul trouble and anchored a highly productive stint.

Shooting
FG 5/7 (71.4%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 71.4%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -11.6
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.7m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.2
Raw total +17.5
Avg player in 21.7m -12.6
Impact +4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
11
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.5

Despite knocking down a few perimeter looks, his erratic decision-making in the half-court ultimately dragged down the unit's efficiency. He struggled to navigate screens defensively, frequently leaving his assignments wide open for uncontested jumpers. The lack of connective passing and off-ball discipline outweighed his scoring contributions.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 61.1%
USG% 34.4%
Net Rtg -44.7
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.6m
Offense +2.8
Hustle +1.1
Defense +1.6
Raw total +5.5
Avg player in 13.6m -8.0
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.1

Failed to make any positive imprint during his brief minutes, looking a step slow on both ends of the floor. His inability to create separation resulted in forced, empty possessions that disrupted the second unit's rhythm. Opponents actively targeted his side of the floor, capitalizing on his lack of physical resistance.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +7.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.2m
Offense -2.3
Hustle +0.7
Defense +0.8
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 7.2m -4.3
Impact -5.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
SAS San Antonio Spurs
23
pts
15
reb
6
ast
Impact
+10.4

A massive defensive footprint (+10.7 Def) completely erased the opponent's interior attack, offsetting a highly inefficient shooting night. He forced countless kick-outs by simply altering trajectories around the rim. The sheer volume of his defensive deterrents and high-motor rim runs kept his overall impact deeply in the green.

Shooting
FG 7/21 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.3%
USG% 37.3%
Net Rtg +20.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +4.2
Defense +10.7
Raw total +28.2
Avg player in 30.7m -17.8
Impact +10.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 52.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 3
S Stephon Castle 29.3m
22
pts
10
reb
10
ast
Impact
+11.5

Masterful orchestration in the half-court drove a massive offensive rating spike when he was on the floor. He consistently collapsed the defense with downhill pressure, creating high-value looks for teammates while finishing efficiently himself. His point-of-attack defense set a physical tone that disrupted the opposing backcourt's rhythm.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/3 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 76.8%
USG% 25.4%
Net Rtg +29.5
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Offense +19.9
Hustle +2.3
Defense +6.4
Raw total +28.6
Avg player in 29.3m -17.1
Impact +11.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Devin Vassell 24.1m
16
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+10.9

Impact soared thanks to highly efficient perimeter shot creation that punished drop coverages. His defensive rotations (+7.1 Def) effectively neutralized the opponent's secondary actions. A steady diet of timely weak-side closeouts defined his two-way dominance.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.7%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg +11.0
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.1m
Offense +14.8
Hustle +3.0
Defense +7.1
Raw total +24.9
Avg player in 24.1m -14.0
Impact +10.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 0
11
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.8

Spacing the floor effectively allowed him to generate a positive offensive footprint without demanding the ball. His value was anchored by disciplined perimeter containment (+6.2 Def) that kept drivers out of the paint. Capitalizing on catch-and-shoot opportunities from the corners stabilized the second unit's offense.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 14.0%
Net Rtg +33.6
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.9m
Offense +8.8
Hustle +2.1
Defense +6.2
Raw total +17.1
Avg player in 22.9m -13.3
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S De'Aaron Fox 20.5m
12
pts
2
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.8

Relentless rim pressure generated high-percentage looks and collapsed the opposing defense, driving his positive overall score. While his perimeter jumper failed to connect, his ability to dictate the tempo in transition kept the offense humming. Timely defensive gambles yielded extra possessions that padded his hustle metrics.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +46.8
+/- +22
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +9.7
Hustle +2.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +15.7
Avg player in 20.5m -11.9
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
16
pts
0
reb
5
ast
Impact
+9.0

Bully-ball drives and flawless perimeter execution created an overwhelming offensive surge. He capitalized on smaller matchups by overpowering defenders on his way to the basket, generating a massive box score impact (+16.9). Timely weak-side cuts perfectly exploited the defense's over-help.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 90.1%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg +49.2
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.3m
Offense +16.9
Hustle +2.2
Defense +3.4
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 23.3m -13.5
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Luke Kornet 21.4m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.9

Offensive invisibility dragged down his overall rating despite putting up solid rim-protection numbers (+6.0 Def). He struggled to establish deep post position, leading to empty trips and a stagnant half-court flow. A lack of roll gravity allowed the defense to aggressively trap the ball-handlers.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.0%
Net Rtg +34.6
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.4m
Offense -0.1
Hustle +2.6
Defense +6.0
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 21.4m -12.4
Impact -3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 54.5%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Dylan Harper 21.1m
14
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.8

Surgical shot selection fueled a highly efficient scoring punch that stabilized the second unit. He consistently punished defensive miscommunications by attacking closeouts with decisive straight-line drives. His disciplined on-ball pressure (+3.8 Def) ensured he wasn't giving back his offensive production on the other end.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 18.5%
Net Rtg +36.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.1m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +1.9
Defense +3.8
Raw total +15.1
Avg player in 21.1m -12.3
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.4

A passive offensive approach neutralized his ability to stretch the floor, resulting in a net-negative performance. He frequently passed up contested looks, allowing the defense to sag off and clog the driving lanes for others. While his positional defense remained sound, the lack of offensive gravity severely hindered the unit's spacing.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.1%
Net Rtg +72.1
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.4m
Offense +2.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +3.2
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 18.4m -10.6
Impact -4.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
+1.3

Maximized a brief stint by executing perfectly within the flow of the offense and taking only high-percentage looks. His energetic rim runs forced defensive rotations that opened up the perimeter for teammates. A quick burst of competent weak-side help defense kept his overall impact slightly in the black.

Shooting
FG 2/2 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -4.5
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.9m
Offense +5.0
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +7.6
Avg player in 10.9m -6.3
Impact +1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
1
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.9

Bricking multiple open perimeter looks completely derailed the team's spacing during his short stint. The inability to knock down catch-and-shoot opportunities allowed defenders to aggressively pack the paint. Without defensive playmaking to compensate, his missed shots translated directly into a negative swing.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 12.9%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg -23.1
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.6m
Offense -2.4
Hustle +1.3
Defense 0.0
Raw total -1.1
Avg player in 6.6m -3.8
Impact -4.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Provided a brief but steadying presence at the point of attack, maintaining the status quo during his rotation. He avoided costly mistakes and applied decent ball pressure (+2.3 Def) to disrupt the opponent's initiation. Ultimately, the sample size was too small to swing the momentum in either direction.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -37.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.7
Defense +2.3
Raw total +3.1
Avg player in 5.3m -3.2
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.7

High-IQ connective passing and sturdy positional defense drove a positive rating despite zero shot attempts. He operated effectively from the high post, screening heavily and facilitating backdoor cuts to keep the offense fluid. His vocal back-line communication (+3.5 Def) helped snuff out multiple pick-and-roll actions.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 56.8%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -37.3
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.3m
Offense +1.0
Hustle +1.3
Defense +3.5
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 5.3m -3.1
Impact +2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0