Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
HOU lead MIL lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
MIL 2P — 3P —
HOU 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 176 attempts

MIL MIL Shot-making Δ

Dieng 15/31 +0.2
Green Hard 5/15 +3.4
Ryan Hard 9/14 +7.8
Nance Hard 9/13 +9.4
Jackson Jr. 3/8 -0.5
Sims Open 1/5 -4.2
Trent Jr. Hard 0/3 -2.8

HOU HOU Shot-making Δ

Durant Hard 7/16 +0.9
Sheppard Hard 9/15 +14.2
Smith Jr. 5/15 -4.2
Sengun 9/13 +5.2
Thompson Open 5/10 -1.3
Eason Hard 1/8 -5.8
Okogie 3/4 +2.2
Holiday Hard 1/3 +0.1
Capela Open 1/2 -0.8
Tate Open 0/1 -1.2
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
MIL
HOU
42/89 Field Goals 41/87
47.2% Field Goal % 47.1%
17/40 3-Pointers 18/42
42.5% 3-Point % 42.9%
12/16 Free Throws 19/22
75.0% Free Throw % 86.4%
58.8% True Shooting % 61.5%
51 Total Rebounds 50
15 Offensive 12
30 Defensive 30
21 Assists 30
1.40 Assist/TO Ratio 3.75
15 Turnovers 7
3 Steals 7
1 Blocks 4
16 Fouls 13
40 Points in Paint 46
0 Fast Break Pts 14
7 Points off TOs 18
19 Second Chance Pts 13
33 Bench Points 18
0 Largest Lead 20
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Reed Sheppard
27 PTS · 4 REB · 6 AST · 37.2 MIN
+30.65
2
Alperen Sengun
25 PTS · 9 REB · 4 AST · 29.5 MIN
+29.24
3
Amen Thompson
18 PTS · 8 REB · 6 AST · 39.9 MIN
+26.22
4
Ousmane Dieng
36 PTS · 7 REB · 10 AST · 44.7 MIN
+22.78
5
Cormac Ryan
25 PTS · 2 REB · 4 AST · 38.2 MIN
+20.74
6
Pete Nance
23 PTS · 3 REB · 0 AST · 39.9 MIN
+16.65
7
Kevin Durant
19 PTS · 5 REB · 9 AST · 39.3 MIN
+13.05
8
Jericho Sims
6 PTS · 20 REB · 2 AST · 35.7 MIN
+10.63
9
Josh Okogie
8 PTS · 1 REB · 1 AST · 12.9 MIN
+5.94
10
AJ Green
15 PTS · 8 REB · 2 AST · 46.5 MIN
+4.65
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:01 TEAM defensive REBOUND 113–119
Q4 0:02 MISS O. Dieng 28' step back 3PT 113–119
Q4 0:06 K. Durant Free Throw 2 of 2 (19 PTS) 113–119
Q4 0:06 K. Durant Free Throw 1 of 2 (18 PTS) 113–118
Q4 0:06 O. Dieng take personal FOUL (1 PF) (Durant 2 FT) 113–117
Q4 0:07 C. Ryan putback Layup (25 PTS) 113–117
Q4 0:07 C. Ryan REBOUND (Off:2 Def:0) 111–117
Q4 0:09 MISS A. Green 30' pullup 3PT 111–117
Q4 0:16 A. Sengun Free Throw 2 of 2 (25 PTS) 111–117
Q4 0:16 TEAM offensive REBOUND 111–116
Q4 0:16 MISS A. Sengun Free Throw 1 of 2 111–116
Q4 0:16 C. Ryan personal FOUL (4 PF) (Sengun 2 FT) 111–116
Q4 0:23 J. Smith Jr. REBOUND (Off:0 Def:7) 111–116
Q4 0:24 MISS C. Ryan 27' 3PT 111–116
Q4 0:27 O. Dieng STEAL (1 STL) 111–116

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

HOU Houston Rockets
S Amen Thompson 39.9m
18
pts
8
reb
6
ast
Impact
+17.5

Relentless point-of-attack pressure and elite transition playmaking fueled a stellar overall rating. He created absolute chaos on the defensive end, generating deflections that instantly transformed into fast-break opportunities. His ability to consistently collapse the paint off the dribble completely dictated the tempo of the game.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 8/8 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 66.6%
USG% 15.6%
Net Rtg +13.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Scoring +14.5
Creation +3.0
Shot Making +1.3
Hustle +7.2
Defense +3.2
Turnovers +0.0
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
S Kevin Durant 39.3m
19
pts
5
reb
9
ast
Impact
+7.2

Stagnant isolation sets and uncharacteristic struggles against double-teams dragged his overall impact into the negative. Opponents successfully sped up his processing time, forcing him into contested midrange pull-ups that derailed the team's spacing. Despite commanding immense defensive attention, his inability to punish the blitz effectively stalled the offense.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 53.5%
USG% 21.5%
Net Rtg +2.8
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.3m
Scoring +12.4
Creation +2.0
Shot Making +3.8
Hustle +4.4
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -3.5
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Reed Sheppard 37.1m
27
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
+26.7

A historic perimeter barrage completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme. By punishing every under-screen and late rotation with lethal accuracy, he stretched the floor to its absolute limits and opened up the interior for his teammates. Outstanding positional awareness on defense perfectly complemented his offensive explosion.

Shooting
FG 9/15 (60.0%)
3PT 9/14 (64.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 90.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg +17.9
+/- +17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Scoring +22.5
Creation +2.6
Shot Making +8.8
Hustle +1.2
Defense +4.7
Turnovers +0.0
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
12
pts
7
reb
4
ast
Impact
-9.4

Errant perimeter shooting severely handicapped his offensive value, as he repeatedly settled for heavily contested looks early in the clock. While his switchability and weakside rim protection provided a notable defensive boost, it wasn't enough to offset the sheer volume of wasted offensive trips. His inability to stretch the floor allowed the defense to pack the paint against drivers.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 2/8 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 40.0%
USG% 22.4%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.1m
Scoring +4.1
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -4.7
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 2
S Alperen Sengun 29.5m
25
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
+24.6

Pick-and-roll mastery and elite interior footwork drove a dominant two-way performance. He completely dismantled the opposing frontcourt with methodical post-ups, forcing defensive collapses that generated wide-open looks for others. Active hands in the passing lanes and excellent drop-coverage positioning further amplified his massive positive swing.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 5/6 (83.3%)
Advanced
TS% 79.9%
USG% 23.5%
Net Rtg +8.0
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.5m
Scoring +21.6
Creation +1.2
Shot Making +5.0
Hustle +8.5
Defense -0.1
Turnovers +0.0
STL 2
BLK 1
TO 0
Tari Eason 23.9m
5
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-12.0

An abysmal shooting night from the corners destroyed the team's half-court spacing. He repeatedly short-circuited offensive sets by forcing contested looks rather than keeping the ball moving. Compounding the offensive woes, he routinely lost his man on backdoor cuts, bleeding points on the defensive end.

Shooting
FG 1/8 (12.5%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -16.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.9m
Scoring -0.4
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.6
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.7

Stagnated the second-unit offense by over-dribbling and failing to initiate sets on time. While he held his own at the point of attack defensively, his inability to generate dribble penetration allowed the opposing defense to rest. The offense visibly bogged down into isolation play during his minutes.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 10.3%
Net Rtg -52.0
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Scoring +1.5
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +1.0
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Okogie 12.9m
8
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.3

Injected immediate energy into the lineup with decisive cuts and opportunistic finishing. He capitalized on broken plays and defensive naps, converting highly efficient looks around the basket. His relentless motor provided a noticeable, albeit brief, momentum shift for the bench unit.

Shooting
FG 3/4 (75.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 19.4%
Net Rtg +9.5
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.9m
Scoring +6.7
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +1.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers -1.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.7

Provided a brief but highly effective burst of rim protection and screen-setting. He executed his role perfectly during a short stint, sealing off driving lanes and altering shots at the basket. His vertical gravity on rolls to the rim kept the defense honest while he was on the floor.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -19.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Scoring +1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +6.3
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -3.5
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-14.4

Struggled to find the pace of the game during a fleeting rotational appearance. A forced, out-of-rhythm shot attempt and a missed rotation in transition accounted for his negative swing. He was quickly subbed out after failing to provide the intended defensive spark.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -66.7
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 3.2m
Scoring -1.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S AJ Green 46.5m
15
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.2

Severe volume inefficiency cratered his overall value during a marathon shift on the floor. He fell in love with contested perimeter looks, bricking away critical possessions while offering zero resistance against dribble penetration on the other end. The sheer number of empty trips he generated stalled the offense entirely.

Shooting
FG 5/15 (33.3%)
3PT 5/13 (38.5%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -0.8
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 46.5m
Scoring +7.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +5.1
Hustle +10.2
Defense -3.4
Turnovers -3.5
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ousmane Dieng 44.7m
36
pts
7
reb
10
ast
Impact
+21.1

Massive offensive usage yielded a major scoring spike, but his overall impact was dragged down by poor perimeter shot selection. Settling for heavily contested looks from beyond the arc limited his efficiency despite a career-best scoring night. His defensive length provided some disruption to offset the wasted possessions.

Shooting
FG 15/31 (48.4%)
3PT 1/7 (14.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.2%
USG% 36.5%
Net Rtg -9.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 44.7m
Scoring +24.6
Creation +3.1
Shot Making +7.1
Hustle +7.0
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -9.3
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 5
S Pete Nance 39.9m
23
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.8

Blistering perimeter efficiency fueled his offensive rating, punishing drop coverages effectively from the outside. However, his overall net impact remained marginal due to a lack of secondary playmaking and struggles anchoring the weakside defense. He operated strictly as a finisher rather than a play-driver.

Shooting
FG 9/13 (69.2%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 88.5%
USG% 16.5%
Net Rtg -1.9
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 39.9m
Scoring +19.9
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +5.9
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.1
Turnovers -4.7
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
S Jericho Sims 35.7m
6
pts
20
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.4

Dominated the glass with sheer verticality, keeping numerous possessions alive through relentless effort. Yet his inability to convert high-percentage looks around the rim actively harmed the half-court offense. Opponents completely ignored him as a scoring threat, clogging the driving lanes for his teammates and dragging his net rating into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/5 (20.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 10.5%
Net Rtg -6.3
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.7m
Scoring +1.1
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +0.1
Hustle +25.4
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -3.1
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-17.4

A brief, highly ineffective stint was defined by forced jumpers early in the shot clock. Failing to find any offensive rhythm, his errant attempts essentially functioned as live-ball turnovers that ignited opponent transition opportunities. He was quickly pulled after breaking the team's offensive flow.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg -52.9
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.5m
Scoring -2.0
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.1
Turnovers -2.4
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Cormac Ryan 38.2m
25
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+10.6

Exceptional shot selection and decisive off-ball movement unlocked a massive scoring surge. He consistently found the soft spots in the opposing zone, punishing late closeouts with quick-trigger precision. While his point-of-attack defense was occasionally exposed, his offensive gravity kept the unit afloat.

Shooting
FG 9/14 (64.3%)
3PT 4/7 (57.1%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 81.6%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +1.7
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 38.2m
Scoring +21.1
Creation +1.6
Shot Making +6.2
Hustle +2.5
Defense -2.6
Turnovers -4.7
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
8
pts
5
reb
3
ast
Impact
-9.6

Defensive miscommunications and missed rotations overshadowed a few flashy offensive sequences. His tendency to gamble in the passing lanes compromised the team's shell defense, leading to easy backdoor cuts. Offensively, rushed decision-making in traffic resulted in wasted possessions.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 45.0%
USG% 19.6%
Net Rtg +2.0
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.4m
Scoring +3.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +2.3
Hustle +4.4
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -4.7
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.8

Made a negligible footprint during a very brief rotation appearance. A couple of missed defensive assignments in transition accounted for the slight dip in his net rating. He essentially served as a warm body to eat a few minutes of clock.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg +12.5
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.1m
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0