GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
S Pete Nance 33.4m
14
pts
10
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.6

Although he spaced the floor well and battled on the glass, defensive miscommunications in pick-and-roll coverage leaked crucial points. His positive hustle plays couldn't completely erase the damage from giving up wide-open driving lanes. Consistently caught in no-man's land when defending the screener, allowing a parade of uncontested floaters.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 4/9 (44.4%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 63.6%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -24.7
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.4m
Offense +10.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +1.1
Raw total +14.5
Avg player in 33.4m -17.1
Impact -2.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S AJ Green 30.9m
15
pts
1
reb
5
ast
Impact
-1.6

Provided excellent spacing with a lethal perimeter stroke, but was relentlessly targeted in defensive switches. Despite strong effort metrics, the defensive concessions on the perimeter slightly outweighed his offensive firepower. Opposing guards actively hunted him in isolation during the fourth quarter, neutralizing his elite floor-spacing.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 83.3%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -36.5
+/- -23
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.9m
Offense +8.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +3.2
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 30.9m -15.9
Impact -1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 10
Opp FG% 71.4%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kyle Kuzma 24.8m
14
pts
7
reb
3
ast
Impact
-5.3

Inefficient volume shooting and a tendency to force action in isolation bogged down the offensive flow. A lack of defensive resistance against straight-line drives compounded the negative overall rating. His insistence on attacking set defenses early in the shot clock fueled opponent transition opportunities and tanked his net rating.

Shooting
FG 6/14 (42.9%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg -62.0
+/- -31
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +7.6
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +7.4
Avg player in 24.8m -12.7
Impact -5.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
S Ousmane Dieng 24.0m
9
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
-13.1

A disastrous offensive outing defined by forced contested jumpers and an inability to break down his primary defender. The sheer volume of empty possessions derailed the team's momentum, resulting in a team-worst net impact. His predictable drive-and-stall pattern allowed the defense to easily reset and force contested looks.

Shooting
FG 4/15 (26.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 30.0%
USG% 29.6%
Net Rtg -61.3
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.0m
Offense -1.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.3
Raw total -0.8
Avg player in 24.0m -12.3
Impact -13.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Myles Turner 18.8m
4
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.8

Completely neutralized offensively by physical post defense, leading to hesitant shot selection and forced attempts. Even with solid rim protection, his inability to command double-teams or finish inside severely limited his team's half-court ceiling. A glaring lack of assertiveness against smaller perimeter switches defined his struggles and bailed out the defense.

Shooting
FG 1/4 (25.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -80.0
+/- -32
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +2.0
Defense +0.8
Raw total +2.9
Avg player in 18.8m -9.7
Impact -6.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Cormac Ryan 32.8m
11
pts
1
reb
2
ast
Impact
-10.8

Struggled to find any rhythm against physical ball pressure, resulting in disrupted offensive sets and poor shot quality. His inability to keep guards in front of him on the perimeter further exacerbated a highly negative stint on the floor. Consistently beaten off the dribble by quicker guards, forcing the interior defense into constant rotation.

Shooting
FG 2/7 (28.6%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 59.8%
USG% 15.7%
Net Rtg -28.4
+/- -19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.8m
Offense +4.0
Hustle +1.0
Defense +1.0
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 32.8m -16.8
Impact -10.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
18
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
+7.5

Punished late closeouts with blistering efficiency from beyond the arc, single-handedly keeping the offense afloat during a key stretch. His disciplined weak-side help defense prevented multiple easy layups, cementing a highly impactful two-way performance. A barrage of spot-up daggers in the third quarter completely tilted the floor and broke the opponent's zone coverage.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 4/5 (80.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 112.5%
USG% 18.0%
Net Rtg +3.1
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 24.8m
Offense +16.2
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 24.8m -12.7
Impact +7.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 1
Jericho Sims 16.2m
3
pts
4
reb
6
ast
Impact
-0.6

Operated strictly as a connective passer and screen-setter, completely abandoning his own scoring aggression. While he facilitated well out of the high post, his passive approach allowed the defense to sag off and clog the paint. Passed up multiple open looks at the rim, stalling out otherwise promising sets and allowing the defense to pack the paint.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 85.2%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg +15.3
+/- +3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.2m
Offense +6.8
Hustle +1.4
Defense -0.5
Raw total +7.7
Avg player in 16.2m -8.3
Impact -0.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
Gary Harris 14.8m
5
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+0.4

Delivered a steady, low-mistake shift characterized by smart cuts and solid positional defense. His ability to navigate screens and contest shooters provided a stabilizing presence for the second unit. Acted as the crucial defensive glue during a chaotic transition-heavy stretch, expertly stunting at drivers to prevent easy layups.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 62.5%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +2.3
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.8m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.1
Defense +1.7
Raw total +8.0
Avg player in 14.8m -7.6
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
0
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.7

Injected chaos into the game with relentless downhill attacking, though his finishing was erratic. His disruptive length in the passing lanes generated enough stops to keep his overall impact slightly in the positive. A pair of wild closeouts nearly erased the value of his transition rim pressure, highlighting a high-variance shift.

Shooting
FG 3/8 (37.5%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 43.8%
USG% 38.1%
Net Rtg -10.2
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.0m
Offense +3.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +1.6
Raw total +5.8
Avg player in 10.0m -5.1
Impact +0.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.1

Wild closeouts and rushed offensive decisions marred a high-energy but undisciplined shift. While his raw effort was undeniable, the resulting fouls and broken plays dragged his net rating into the red. His over-aggression on defense was easily bypassed by simple pump fakes, leading to compromised rotations.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -12.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -2.8
Hustle +1.5
Defense +1.9
Raw total +0.6
Avg player in 5.2m -2.7
Impact -2.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
1
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.3

Failed to capitalize on open perimeter looks, allowing the defense to ignore him and pack the paint. He salvaged some value by staying attached to his man defensively, but the offensive spacing issues were too costly. The opponent completely sagged off him on the perimeter, effectively blowing up the team's pick-and-roll actions by clogging the driving lanes.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 17.4%
USG% 27.3%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense -0.5
Hustle 0.0
Defense +1.4
Raw total +0.9
Avg player in 4.5m -2.2
Impact -1.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 31.5m
17
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
+4.0

Sharp decision-making and timely perimeter shooting stretched the defense, while his trademark hustle generated vital extra possessions. His point-of-attack defense disrupted the opposing guard's rhythm, solidifying a well-rounded two-way performance. A sequence of back-to-back deflections in the third quarter showcased his immense value as a disruptor.

Shooting
FG 6/11 (54.5%)
3PT 5/9 (55.6%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 77.3%
USG% 15.8%
Net Rtg +48.7
+/- +34
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.5m
Offense +13.3
Hustle +3.5
Defense +3.4
Raw total +20.2
Avg player in 31.5m -16.2
Impact +4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Jayson Tatum 31.1m
23
pts
11
reb
9
ast
Impact
+12.4

Defensive dominance fueled this massive overall rating, as his length disrupted multiple passing lanes and contested shots at the rim. Despite some offensive inefficiency compared to his usual standards, his ability to generate transition opportunities through stops defined his minutes. A relentless pattern of blowing up dribble handoffs anchored the team's defensive success.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 4/8 (50.0%)
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.8%
USG% 26.0%
Net Rtg +41.3
+/- +30
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +16.0
Hustle +1.9
Defense +10.5
Raw total +28.4
Avg player in 31.1m -16.0
Impact +12.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 55.6%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaylen Brown 30.2m
26
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+4.1

Volume scoring kept his box metric high, but a heavy reliance on contested mid-range looks dragged down his overall offensive efficiency. His on-ball pressure provided crucial stops during a decisive second-half stretch to keep his net impact in the green. Forcing the issue in isolation against set double-teams limited his offensive ceiling for the night.

Shooting
FG 7/17 (41.2%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 10/11 (90.9%)
Advanced
TS% 59.5%
USG% 33.8%
Net Rtg +42.7
+/- +27
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.2m
Offense +15.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.6
Raw total +19.5
Avg player in 30.2m -15.4
Impact +4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 12
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 41.7%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Neemias Queta 28.9m
19
pts
10
reb
2
ast
Impact
+19.6

A true interior force whose rim-running and offensive rebounding broke the opponent's defensive shell. His high-energy hustle and flawless finishing inside created a massive positive swing whenever he anchored the paint. Bullied opposing bigs during a dominant second-quarter stretch that completely shifted the momentum.

Shooting
FG 8/11 (72.7%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/4 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 74.5%
USG% 19.1%
Net Rtg +56.2
+/- +33
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.9m
Offense +22.6
Hustle +4.9
Defense +6.9
Raw total +34.4
Avg player in 28.9m -14.8
Impact +19.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 29.4%
STL 0
BLK 4
TO 0
S Sam Hauser 26.6m
13
pts
6
reb
2
ast
Impact
+2.5

Elite perimeter efficiency forced constant closeouts, boosting his box score metrics, but his overall impact was muted by a lack of defensive playmaking. The gravity he provided as a floor-spacer defined his minutes, constantly pulling the rim protector out of the paint.

Shooting
FG 5/6 (83.3%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 108.3%
USG% 10.0%
Net Rtg +47.2
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.6m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +0.6
Defense +1.1
Raw total +16.1
Avg player in 26.6m -13.6
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
16
pts
3
reb
6
ast
Impact
+3.8

Pushed the pace effectively and capitalized on defensive breakdowns with decisive drives and kick-outs. While his defensive impact was minimal, his relentless off-ball movement and ball security ensured the second unit maintained offensive momentum. Exploited drop coverage repeatedly by snaking pick-and-rolls for clean floaters.

Shooting
FG 7/12 (58.3%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 66.7%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg +1.3
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.5m
Offense +14.0
Hustle +2.7
Defense +0.6
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 26.5m -13.5
Impact +3.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
2
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.8

Offensive struggles severely hampered his rating, as poor shot selection and missed perimeter looks stalled half-court sets. He managed to salvage some value through disciplined closeouts, but the inability to capitalize on open spacing proved costly. His hesitation against aggressive closeouts threw off the unit's rhythm and led to late-clock grenades.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 7.5%
Net Rtg +3.2
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense -0.2
Hustle +1.2
Defense +2.9
Raw total +3.9
Avg player in 22.7m -11.7
Impact -7.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Luka Garza 12.4m
2
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.2

Made the most of limited minutes by setting bruising screens and fighting for deep post position. His activity on the glass created crucial second-chance opportunities that kept the offense ticking. A brief but physical stint against the backup center wore down the interior defense and generated vital extra possessions.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 7.4%
Net Rtg +5.8
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +4.2
Hustle +2.9
Defense +1.4
Raw total +8.5
Avg player in 12.4m -6.3
Impact +2.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 12.4m
7
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.7

Injected instant energy with aggressive cuts to the basket and confident finishing in traffic. His length bothered perimeter shooters just enough to yield a slight positive defensive margin during his brief stint. Capitalized on sleeping defenders with well-timed baseline drifts that punished over-helps.

Shooting
FG 3/5 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 70.0%
USG% 17.9%
Net Rtg -1.0
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.4m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total +8.1
Avg player in 12.4m -6.4
Impact +1.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
6
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
+3.3

Capitalized on dump-off passes with perfect efficiency around the rim, punishing defensive rotations. However, slow lateral movement in drop coverage allowed opponents to comfortably access the mid-range. His inability to contest pull-up jumpers in pick-and-roll coverage negated much of his offensive contribution.

Shooting
FG 3/3 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 21.4%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +0.4
Defense -1.2
Raw total +6.5
Avg player in 6.2m -3.2
Impact +3.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
2
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.5

Failed to leave a significant imprint on the game, floating on the perimeter without demanding defensive attention. A few missed defensive rotations offset his minor hustle contributions in garbage time. Blended into the background during a disjointed fourth-quarter stretch where he failed to demand the ball.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +0.6
+/- +1
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 6.2m
Offense +0.1
Hustle +0.8
Defense +0.8
Raw total +1.7
Avg player in 6.2m -3.2
Impact -1.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-0.3

Blanked offensively due to rushed attempts against set defenses, dragging down his overall value. He stayed afloat purely through stout post defense, denying entry passes and holding his ground against bigger matchups. His refusal to concede deep positioning against bigger forwards saved several half-court possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 5.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.6
Raw total +2.3
Avg player in 5.2m -2.6
Impact -0.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0