Interactive analysis

EXPLORE THE GAME

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

Lead over time · win-probability overlay
LEAD TRACKER
MIL lead BOS lead Win %
Every shot · colored by difficulty
SHOT CHART
Click shooters to compare their shots on the court
BOS 2P — 3P —
MIL 2P — 3P —
Tough make Easy make Blown miss Tough miss 167 attempts

BOS BOS Shot-making Δ

Brown 10/17 +5.3
Pritchard Hard 4/14 -1.8
White Hard 3/12 -3.0
Walsh 8/10 +7.3
Hauser Hard 0/10 -9.4
Simons Hard 2/9 -4.0
Queta Open 3/6 -2.2
González 2/5 -0.6
Minott Hard 2/4 +1.7
Scheierman Hard 0/1 -1.1

MIL MIL Shot-making Δ

Kuzma Open 13/17 +6.8
Portis Hard 11/13 +14.5
Porter Jr. 6/10 +2.8
Rollins 4/10 -0.8
Trent Jr. Hard 5/9 +4.3
Anthony 4/6 +2.8
Turner Hard 1/6 -3.3
Harris 0/3 -3.7
Nance 1/2 -0.5
Sims Open 1/2 -0.8
How the game was played
BY THE NUMBERS
BOS
MIL
34/88 Field Goals 46/79
38.6% Field Goal % 58.2%
14/49 3-Pointers 13/29
28.6% 3-Point % 44.8%
19/25 Free Throws 11/14
76.0% Free Throw % 78.6%
51.0% True Shooting % 68.1%
49 Total Rebounds 49
13 Offensive 5
26 Defensive 35
18 Assists 28
1.29 Assist/TO Ratio 1.75
13 Turnovers 15
7 Steals 5
1 Blocks 5
15 Fouls 24
28 Points in Paint 50
14 Fast Break Pts 11
16 Points off TOs 23
10 Second Chance Pts 13
20 Bench Points 40
14 Largest Lead 21
Biggest contributors
TOP NET IMPACT
1
Bobby Portis
27 PTS · 10 REB · 0 AST · 26.3 MIN
+30.86
2
Jordan Walsh
20 PTS · 8 REB · 0 AST · 32.0 MIN
+27.3
3
Kyle Kuzma
31 PTS · 6 REB · 0 AST · 30.8 MIN
+21.37
4
Kevin Porter Jr.
18 PTS · 10 REB · 13 AST · 31.9 MIN
+19.56
5
Jaylen Brown
30 PTS · 3 REB · 3 AST · 28.8 MIN
+16.65
6
Gary Trent Jr.
13 PTS · 2 REB · 1 AST · 27.8 MIN
+11.66
7
Neemias Queta
9 PTS · 10 REB · 0 AST · 25.4 MIN
+8.02
8
Payton Pritchard
11 PTS · 5 REB · 7 AST · 30.7 MIN
+7.65
9
Hugo González
6 PTS · 3 REB · 1 AST · 15.5 MIN
+7.22
10
Cole Anthony
9 PTS · 3 REB · 5 AST · 18.9 MIN
+6.38
Play-by-play (most recent first)
PLAY FEED
Q4 0:00 TEAM offensive REBOUND 101–116
Q4 0:00 BOS Heave 101–116
Q4 0:00 MIL shot clock Team TURNOVER 101–116
Q4 0:24 S. Hauser bad pass out-of-bounds TURNOVER (2 TO) 101–116
Q4 0:26 S. Hauser REBOUND (Off:0 Def:7) 101–116
Q4 0:29 MISS T. Antetokounmpo driving reverse Layup 101–116
Q4 0:49 P. Nance REBOUND (Off:0 Def:1) 101–116
Q4 0:52 MISS A. Simons 25' step back 3PT 101–116
Q4 1:02 P. Nance alley-oop Layup (2 PTS) (C. Anthony 5 AST) 101–116
Q4 1:12 J. Minott 27' 3PT running pullup (7 PTS) (S. Hauser 1 AST) 101–114
Q4 1:16 H. González REBOUND (Off:1 Def:2) 98–114
Q4 1:20 MISS P. Nance 25' 3PT 98–114
Q4 1:40 A. Simons 18' pullup Jump Shot (7 PTS) 98–114
Q4 1:53 B. Portis take personal FOUL (1 PF) 96–114
Q4 1:53 H. González REBOUND (Off:1 Def:1) 96–114

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

MIL Milwaukee Bucks
18
pts
10
reb
13
ast
Impact
+14.5

Masterful pick-and-roll orchestration and elite hustle metrics drove a stellar overall impact. He consistently manipulated help defenders to create wide-open looks for teammates, perfectly balancing his own efficient scoring with high-level distribution. His relentless point-of-attack pressure set a physical tone that the opposition struggled to match.

Shooting
FG 6/10 (60.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 5/5 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 73.8%
USG% 21.7%
Net Rtg -5.7
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Scoring +14.9
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +3.5
Hustle +11.7
Defense -1.4
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Kyle Kuzma 30.8m
31
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
+18.4

Searing interior efficiency and decisive downhill attacks fueled a massive positive net rating. He relentlessly punished mismatches in the mid-post, generating high-percentage looks that completely broke the opponent's defensive scheme. Supplementing this scoring explosion with active rebounding and hustle plays cemented a dominant two-way showing.

Shooting
FG 13/17 (76.5%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 80.7%
USG% 32.8%
Net Rtg +19.7
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.8m
Scoring +27.7
Creation +1.3
Shot Making +5.7
Hustle +1.8
Defense -0.1
Turnovers -7.8
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Myles Turner 28.4m
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-8.9

Excellent rim protection was completely overshadowed by a dreadful offensive showing that tanked his overall rating. Forcing heavily contested pick-and-pop threes resulted in wasted possessions and allowed the defense to shrink the floor. His inability to punish switches inside highlighted a damaging lack of offensive versatility.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 0/4 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 25.8%
USG% 14.1%
Net Rtg +26.3
+/- +15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.4m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +0.6
Hustle +3.8
Defense -0.9
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 18
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 38.9%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
S Gary Trent Jr. 27.8m
13
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.3

A bounce-back shooting performance yielded a strong box score, but his overall net impact barely broke even. A lack of secondary playmaking and low-energy closeouts limited his ability to influence the game beyond spot-up scoring. Hitting timely corner threes kept the offense afloat, yet his peripheral contributions remained minimal.

Shooting
FG 5/9 (55.6%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 72.2%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg +17.6
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 27.8m
Scoring +10.1
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +4.0
Hustle +2.5
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Ryan Rollins 25.7m
10
pts
2
reb
7
ast
Impact
-6.5

A steep drop in scoring aggression and disjointed half-court orchestration dragged his net impact heavily into the red. He struggled to navigate drop coverage, often settling for contested floaters rather than pressuring the rim. This passive offensive approach stalled the unit's momentum and failed to replicate his recent dynamic playmaking.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 22.8%
Net Rtg +21.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Scoring +5.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.9
Hustle +0.6
Defense -0.5
Turnovers -7.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 77.8%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
Gary Harris 32.6m
0
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-14.6

A completely invisible offensive showing resulted in a disastrous net impact during his extended minutes. Passing up open looks and failing to attack closeouts allowed the defense to essentially play five-on-four. His inability to fight through off-ball screens further compounded the damage, leaving him as a severe liability on both ends.

Shooting
FG 0/3 (0.0%)
3PT 0/2 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.8%
Net Rtg +38.6
+/- +26
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Scoring -2.8
Creation +0.1
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.6
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -3.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Bobby Portis 26.3m
27
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+38.4

An absolute flamethrower performance from the perimeter fueled a gargantuan net impact score. He punished late closeouts with devastating shooting efficiency, completely breaking the opponent's zone coverage in the second half. Adding robust weak-side rim rotation transformed this into a game-wrecking two-way masterclass.

Shooting
FG 11/13 (84.6%)
3PT 5/6 (83.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 103.8%
USG% 24.1%
Net Rtg +25.0
+/- +12
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.3m
Scoring +25.6
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +7.6
Hustle +12.7
Defense +1.8
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 16
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 31.2%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Cole Anthony 18.9m
9
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-3.4

Efficient shot-making salvaged a neutral overall rating despite defensive lapses at the point of attack. He capitalized on broken plays with opportunistic scoring, but struggled to contain dribble penetration on the other end. His ability to hit timely pull-up jumpers provided just enough offensive punch to offset his defensive shortcomings.

Shooting
FG 4/6 (66.7%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 75.0%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +23.1
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.9m
Scoring +7.7
Creation +1.1
Shot Making +2.4
Hustle +0.9
Defense -1.2
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 44.4%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
Jericho Sims 10.1m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-15.9

Lethargic screen-setting and a failure to secure contested rebounds resulted in a steep negative impact during his brief stint. He consistently lost the physical battle in the paint, allowing second-chance opportunities that killed defensive momentum. A lack of vertical spacing threat rendered him largely ineffective in pick-and-roll situations.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 17.4%
Net Rtg -8.5
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.1m
Scoring +0.7
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense -1.6
Turnovers -4.7
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Pete Nance 1.9m
2
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.8

Making the most of a two-minute window, he secured a quick bucket to post a mildly positive net rating. Solid positional awareness on defense ensured he didn't bleed points during his brief late-game cameo.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 50.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.3
Hustle +0.3
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-10.5

Rushing a low-quality offensive attempt during his brief floor time quickly dragged his impact into the red. His erratic energy failed to translate into any positive hustle metrics or defensive stops.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 25.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Scoring -0.9
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-5.0

A fleeting appearance at the end of the rotation resulted in a negligible impact score. He provided a brief flash of perimeter containment but otherwise operated purely as a placeholder.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Scoring +2.4
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +0.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense -0.8
Turnovers -0.4
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-7.5

Garbage-time deployment yielded a slightly negative rating in an otherwise uneventful cameo. He failed to register any meaningful defensive pressure or offensive actions before the final buzzer.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 1.9m
Scoring +1.2
Creation +0.3
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +1.4
Defense -1.0
Turnovers -1.7
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
S Jordan Walsh 32.0m
20
pts
8
reb
0
ast
Impact
+26.2

An absolute two-way masterclass drove a staggering +22.7 net impact, highlighted by relentless point-of-attack defense. He shattered his usual offensive baseline by aggressively attacking closeouts and converting high-value perimeter looks. This unexpected surge in two-way aggression completely flipped the game's momentum.

Shooting
FG 8/10 (80.0%)
3PT 3/4 (75.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 95.8%
USG% 13.6%
Net Rtg -7.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.0m
Scoring +18.2
Creation +0.4
Shot Making +5.2
Hustle +10.2
Defense +5.0
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 9
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 22.2%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 1
11
pts
5
reb
7
ast
Impact
+4.1

A heavy diet of contested perimeter jumpers cratered his efficiency and dragged his overall impact into the negative. Falling far below his recent scoring standards, his inability to generate rim pressure allowed the defense to stay home on shooters. Despite decent defensive metrics, the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions proved costly.

Shooting
FG 4/14 (28.6%)
3PT 3/11 (27.3%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 39.3%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg -30.2
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.7m
Scoring +3.9
Creation +1.4
Shot Making +3.4
Hustle +4.4
Defense -0.3
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
S Derrick White 29.3m
11
pts
2
reb
3
ast
Impact
-7.2

Elite hustle metrics couldn't salvage a performance marred by brutal shot-making and forced perimeter attempts. Clanking multiple open catch-and-shoot looks stalled out half-court sets and fed opponent transition opportunities. His relentless ball-denial on defense was the only thing preventing a complete statistical disaster.

Shooting
FG 3/12 (25.0%)
3PT 2/9 (22.2%)
FT 3/3 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 41.3%
USG% 23.6%
Net Rtg +14.0
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 29.3m
Scoring +4.5
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +2.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense -0.3
Turnovers -8.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 46.2%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Jaylen Brown 28.8m
30
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
+13.4

Dominant shot creation fueled a massive offensive rating, sustaining his recent tear of high-volume efficiency. However, a slightly negative defensive impact kept his overall net score from reaching elite territory. His ability to consistently break down primary defenders in isolation defined his night.

Shooting
FG 10/17 (58.8%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 8/9 (88.9%)
Advanced
TS% 71.6%
USG% 37.9%
Net Rtg -27.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.8m
Scoring +24.9
Creation +2.5
Shot Making +5.8
Hustle +2.8
Defense -3.1
Turnovers -10.2
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 87.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 4
S Neemias Queta 25.4m
9
pts
10
reb
0
ast
Impact
+7.1

Sturdy interior positioning and rim deterrence generated a solid defensive impact to keep his net rating in the green. While his offensive volume dipped slightly from his recent efficient stretch, his commitment to screening and contesting shots in the paint provided steady value. His physical presence in drop coverage anchored the second unit effectively.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 3/6 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 52.1%
USG% 15.2%
Net Rtg -23.4
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.4m
Scoring +5.0
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +0.5
Hustle +12.7
Defense -1.9
Turnovers -1.1
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 11
Opp FG% 78.6%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
7
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.0

Forcing heavily contested off-the-dribble threes severely damaged his offensive efficiency and dragged his total impact into the red. His inability to create separation against primary defenders resulted in a string of empty, low-quality possessions. Without his usual perimeter gravity, the half-court offense frequently stagnated during his shifts.

Shooting
FG 2/9 (22.2%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 35.4%
USG% 16.1%
Net Rtg -15.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 26.1m
Scoring +1.4
Creation +0.7
Shot Making +1.6
Hustle +0.0
Defense +2.1
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Josh Minott 22.1m
7
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
-3.3

Outstanding energy metrics and disruptive passing-lane defense kept his net impact positive despite a sharp drop in scoring volume. He embraced a low-usage role, focusing entirely on weak-side rotations and loose ball recoveries. This gritty, glue-guy performance perfectly complemented the primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 2/4 (50.0%)
3PT 2/3 (66.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 71.7%
USG% 12.2%
Net Rtg -8.8
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.1m
Scoring +4.7
Creation +0.5
Shot Making +1.9
Hustle +0.3
Defense +1.3
Turnovers -2.4
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1
Sam Hauser 21.8m
0
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-18.5

A catastrophic shooting slump completely tanked his overall rating, as he failed to connect on a single look from deep. The constant misfires on clean spot-up opportunities severely compromised the team's spacing and offensive flow. Even a respectable defensive effort couldn't offset the damage of double-digit empty possessions.

Shooting
FG 0/10 (0.0%)
3PT 0/9 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 24.0%
Net Rtg -33.3
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 21.8m
Scoring -7.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +2.1
Defense +0.2
Turnovers -3.5
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 2
6
pts
3
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.5

Smart shot selection and active perimeter defense generated a modest but valuable positive impact. He maximized his limited touches by decisively attacking defensive rotations rather than holding the ball. This disciplined, mistake-free stint provided excellent stabilization for the second unit.

Shooting
FG 2/5 (40.0%)
3PT 1/2 (50.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.0%
USG% 14.3%
Net Rtg -5.6
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.5m
Scoring +3.5
Creation +0.2
Shot Making +1.2
Hustle +3.8
Defense +2.4
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-11.0

Brief rotational minutes yielded a negative net score due to a complete lack of offensive involvement and passive off-ball movement. He failed to register any meaningful defensive resistance or playmaking during his stint. A hesitant approach to attacking closeouts rendered him virtually invisible on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.6%
Net Rtg -27.8
+/- -5
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.3m
Scoring -0.8
Creation +0.0
Shot Making +0.0
Hustle +0.0
Defense +0.0
Turnovers +0.0
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 3
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 66.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0