GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Pete Nance 38.5m
5
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-14.8

A disastrous shooting display from beyond the arc completely derailed the offense during his minutes. While he battled admirably in post-up defense, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions drove a massive negative swing.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 27.8%
USG% 12.6%
Net Rtg -14.8
+/- -10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.5m
Offense -1.9
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.1
Raw total +6.1
Avg player in 38.5m -20.9
Impact -14.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Gary Trent Jr. 37.3m
36
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.8

An absolute flamethrower from deep, his perimeter shot-making single-handedly warped the opposing defense. Active hands in the passing lanes supplemented the scoring binge, turning deflections into immediate transition triples.

Shooting
FG 12/21 (57.1%)
3PT 9/15 (60.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 79.1%
USG% 32.5%
Net Rtg -7.1
+/- -8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +19.6
Hustle +3.9
Defense +5.5
Raw total +29.0
Avg player in 37.3m -20.2
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 58.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
13
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-9.4

Costly live-ball turnovers and disjointed offensive reads severely damaged his overall impact. Despite finishing well around the basket, his erratic decision-making in the half-court consistently stalled momentum.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.2%
USG% 17.3%
Net Rtg -19.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.7
Defense +2.8
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 33.1m -17.9
Impact -9.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jericho Sims 22.6m
6
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-2.3

Vertical spacing and rim-running yielded efficient interior looks, but his inability to secure contested defensive rebounds proved costly. Second-chance points surrendered in the paint ultimately outweighed his solid finishing.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 60.0%
USG% 13.2%
Net Rtg -35.5
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +5.4
Hustle +1.6
Defense +2.9
Raw total +9.9
Avg player in 22.6m -12.2
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ousmane Dieng 21.8m
7
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
-13.5

Forced perimeter shots and poor spacing cratered his offensive value. Compounding the bricked jumpers were sluggish defensive rotations that routinely left shooters wide open on the weak side.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 39.4%
USG% 25.5%
Net Rtg -11.4
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Offense -1.6
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.6
Raw total -1.8
Avg player in 21.8m -11.7
Impact -13.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
18
pts
6
reb
8
ast
Impact
-2.1

Excellent secondary playmaking and spot-up shooting were entirely undone by poor transition defense. He repeatedly lost his man on the break, bleeding easy points that erased his robust offensive creation.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 19.8%
Net Rtg -2.5
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +8.0
Raw total +18.5
Avg player in 38.2m -20.6
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 5
AJ Green 28.1m
15
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.1

Timely floor-spacing kept the offense humming, though his impact was largely confined to catch-and-shoot situations. A lack of resistance at the point of attack prevented his solid scoring night from translating into a higher overall margin.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.5%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -27.5
+/- -18
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.1m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +1.4
Defense +1.4
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 28.1m -15.1
Impact +1.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
Cormac Ryan 20.4m
13
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.6

Lethal off-ball movement generated wide-open looks that he converted with high efficiency. His defensive impact was negligible, but the sheer gravity of his perimeter shooting provided a steadying presence.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 94.5%
USG% 18.6%
Net Rtg +9.8
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.4m
Offense +9.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +1.1
Raw total +12.6
Avg player in 20.4m -11.0
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
LAC LA Clippers
S John Collins 35.2m
22
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+1.7

A massive scoring surge masked significant defensive lapses that bled points on the other end. While his rim-running generated high-percentage looks, poor pick-and-roll coverage neutralized most of his offensive contributions.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 72.4%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -1.4
+/- -1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.2m
Offense +18.5
Hustle +2.4
Defense -0.1
Raw total +20.8
Avg player in 35.2m -19.1
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Darius Garland 26.7m
15
pts
2
reb
11
ast
Impact
+9.0

Masterful offensive initiation created high-quality looks for teammates throughout his shift. He paired this playmaking with relentless point-of-attack pressure, generating deflections that sparked multiple transition opportunities.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/7 (42.9%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 75.9%
USG% 24.2%
Net Rtg +32.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.7m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +7.5
Defense +8.5
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 26.7m -14.5
Impact +9.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 5
13
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
+2.8

Opportunistic cutting and transition finishing fueled an unexpected offensive spike. However, defensive gambles and missed rotations off the ball kept his overall net impact relatively grounded despite the scoring efficiency.

Shooting
FG 6/9 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 15.9%
Net Rtg +23.7
+/- +14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +2.8
Defense +5.0
Raw total +16.8
Avg player in 25.7m -14.0
Impact +2.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 1
S Brook Lopez 25.3m
8
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
+9.6

Rim deterrence was the defining feature of this outing, completely altering the opponent's shot profile in the paint. Even with a sharp dip in scoring volume, his elite drop coverage and box-outs drove a highly positive overall margin.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.9%
USG% 8.6%
Net Rtg +43.5
+/- +23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +7.2
Hustle +4.8
Defense +11.2
Raw total +23.2
Avg player in 25.3m -13.6
Impact +9.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 3
BLK 2
TO 0
S Kawhi Leonard 22.6m
20
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+12.3

Elite shot-making from the perimeter anchored his massive offensive footprint. His defensive rotations and active hands disrupted passing lanes, compounding his value on both ends of the floor.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +20.6
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.6m
Offense +16.3
Hustle +3.8
Defense +4.4
Raw total +24.5
Avg player in 22.6m -12.2
Impact +12.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Kris Dunn 31.6m
10
pts
2
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.3

Timely perimeter shooting provided a surprising offensive lift, but hidden mistakes dragged down his overall value. Late closeouts and poorly timed fouls gave back the points he generated during his scoring bursts.

Shooting
FG 4/5 (80.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 10.1%
Net Rtg +17.1
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.6m
Offense +7.7
Hustle +3.8
Defense +3.3
Raw total +14.8
Avg player in 31.6m -17.1
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
28
pts
6
reb
1
ast
Impact
+7.8

Aggressive downhill drives and foul-drawing defined a dominant scoring performance. The sheer volume of his offensive creation outweighed a relatively quiet night in the hustle and off-ball defensive metrics.

Shooting
FG 7/10 (70.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 13/14 (92.9%)
Advanced
TS% 86.6%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg -3.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.2m
Offense +19.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.7
Raw total +22.4
Avg player in 27.2m -14.6
Impact +7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 37.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
5
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.2

Smothering on-ball defense salvaged a rough shooting night where he struggled to find rhythm. His ability to navigate screens and contest without fouling kept his overall impact neutral despite the offensive drop-off.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 31.7%
USG% 17.6%
Net Rtg +2.1
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Offense +2.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense +8.3
Raw total +13.0
Avg player in 23.9m -12.8
Impact +0.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 85.7%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.1

Stagnant offensive positioning and bricked perimeter looks severely limited his utility. Without his usual connective passing to grease the wheels, his minutes resulted in a net negative despite adequate positional defense.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 37.5%
USG% 15.4%
Net Rtg +17.2
+/- +5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 11.9m
Offense +1.2
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.2
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 11.9m -6.5
Impact -3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Kobe Sanders 10.0m
3
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Limited minutes yielded minimal tangible production outside of a single converted perimeter look. Defensive miscommunications in transition ultimately pushed his brief stint into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 8.7%
Net Rtg -51.2
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense +1.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +1.9
Raw total +3.4
Avg player in 10.0m -5.4
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1