Milwaukee Bucks

Eastern Conference

Milwaukee
Bucks

32-50
L1

ROSTER — IMPACT RANKINGS

Giannis Antetokounmpo
Forward Yr 12 36G (36S)
+20.1
27.6 pts
9.8 reb
5.4 ast
28.9 min

Giannis Antetokounmpo spent this mid-season stretch morphing from a sheer battering ram into a surgical offensive hub. During the 01/12 vs DEN matchup, he completely dismantled the defense with 31 points and 11 assists on just 17 shot attempts. That generated a massive +22.8 Impact, driven heavily by unselfish playmaking and elite shot selection. He found entirely different ways to break the same team weeks later on 01/24 vs DEN. Attempting a mere eight shots from the floor, he still managed to score 22 points. Despite the incredibly low shooting volume, he posted a +16.6 Impact by dominating the glass with 13 rebounds and suffocating opponents on the defensive end. Raw scoring alone rarely dictated his true value. This was glaringly obvious during the 01/14 vs MIN game, where he poured in 25 points on 9-of-13 shooting, but severe defensive lapses and empty possessions dragged his overall influence down to a pedestrian +2.1 Impact.

Kevin Porter Jr.
Guard-Forward Yr 5 38G (36S)
+8.0
17.4 pts
5.2 reb
7.4 ast
33.2 min

Kevin Porter Jr.'s mid-season stretch was defined by a scorching offensive peak that abruptly crashed into a freezing shooting slump. He looked utterly unstoppable during the 02/24 vs MIA matchup. Pouring in 32 points, he generated a massive +30.9 Impact score because his crisp shot selection and relentless downhill pressure completely broke the defense apart. The magic wore off quickly. Just a week later, during the 03/01 vs CHI contest, Porter's decision-making devolved into a series of forced, contested clanks. He shot a dismal 4-for-16 from the floor for just 10 points, dragging his overall influence down to a -5.3 Impact score as his offensive inefficiency suffocated the team's rhythm. He desperately needs to rediscover the gritty, unselfish style he played earlier in the month to survive these cold spells. During the 02/11 vs ORL game, for example, his jumper failed him on an ugly 5-for-14 shooting night, yet he still posted a +12.5 Impact by dominating the margins with ten rebounds and eleven assists.

Bobby Portis
Forward Yr 10 67G (9S)
+6.8
13.7 pts
6.4 reb
1.6 ast
24.2 min

A permanent move to the second unit defined this midseason stretch for Bobby Portis, transforming him into a lethal sparkplug. Even before the role shift, he found ways to alter games without scoring. He logged an ugly 4-for-13 shooting night on 02/01 vs BOS but still posted a +4.4 Impact score because of his relentless effort to rip down 12 rebounds. The transition to the bench wasn't entirely seamless, though. He occasionally forced the issue, like his disastrous outing on 02/11 vs ORL where poor shot selection and a lack of rebounding dragged him down to a brutal -15.5 Impact. But when his jumper was falling, he was completely unguardable. On 03/15 vs IND, Portis erupted for 29 points and 10 rebounds in just 27 minutes. His scorching 6-for-11 shooting from beyond the arc stretched the floor perfectly, generating a massive +34.2 Impact score to punish the opposing second unit.

Ryan Rollins
Guard Yr 3 74G (67S)
+6.5
17.3 pts
4.6 reb
5.6 ast
32.1 min

This late-season stretch was a volatile but highly productive breakout for Ryan Rollins, defined by explosive scoring bursts and relentless playmaking. He completely torched the perimeter on 02/20 vs NOP, draining 7-of-10 from deep for 27 points to generate a massive +26.9 impact score through sheer offensive efficiency. Yet his real growth appeared on nights when his jumper abandoned him, like his 03/04 vs ATL matchup. Rollins shot a miserable 4-of-11 from the floor in that contest but still posted a +10.1 impact by manufacturing crucial non-scoring value, crashing the glass for eight rebounds and orchestrating the offense with 12 assists. Conversely, raw production did not always guarantee winning basketball. On 02/25 vs CLE, he tallied a highly efficient 18 points and nine assists, but hidden costs like defensive lapses and sloppy turnovers dragged him down to a -1.0 impact score. He is rapidly evolving into a legitimate offensive engine, though he still needs to iron out those sudden lapses in focus.

Cormac Ryan
Guard Yr 0 11G (2S)
+3.0
14.3 pts
2.5 reb
1.7 ast
24.6 min
Myles Turner
Center-Forward Yr 10 71G (71S)
+2.3
11.9 pts
5.3 reb
1.5 ast
26.9 min

This late-season stretch was defined by maddening volatility, as Myles Turner swung wildly between game-wrecking force and absolute ghost. Sometimes he affected winning without filling the hoop, like his quiet outing on 03/04 vs ATL. Despite scoring just 8 points, he posted a solid +6.1 Impact by generating crucial stops and executing gritty, unglamorous hustle plays. Conversely, there were nights where his box score looked perfectly healthy but his actual presence actively harmed the team. During his 16-point, 9-rebound performance on 02/04 vs NOP, hidden costs like blown defensive rotations and lazy closeouts dragged him down to a -1.3 Impact. When he finally managed to align his scoring with high-motor physical play, the results were devastating. On 04/05 vs MEM, Turner bullied his way to 19 points and 11 rebounds. That dominant outing yielded a massive +20.1 Impact because his sheer force on the glass completely suffocated the opposing frontcourt.

Kyle Kuzma
Forward Yr 8 69G (43S)
+0.5
13.0 pts
4.5 reb
2.7 ast
26.2 min

Kyle Kuzma's midseason stretch was defined by maddening volatility. He exploded on 02/03 vs CHI, pouring in 31 points and grabbing 10 rebounds to generate a massive +26.9 Impact score. That dominant performance was fueled by highly efficient shot creation (12-of-22 from the floor) and relentless rebounding rather than settling for perimeter jumpers. Yet, that aggression routinely vanished. Look no further than his passive outing on 04/10 vs BKN, where a demotion to the bench resulted in a mere four shot attempts and a brutal -15.6 Impact score. Even when he found the scoring column, as he did with 15 points on 02/11 vs ORL, terrible shot selection dragged down his overall value. He clanked six of his seven three-point attempts in that contest, producing a -3.4 Impact score because those wasted possessions actively derailed the offense. For a veteran expected to anchor a lineup, this feast-or-famine production simply creates too many holes.

Cam Thomas
Guard Yr 4 18G
-2.1
10.7 pts
1.6 reb
1.9 ast
16.6 min

This mid-season stretch was defined by a brutal offensive slump that saw Cam Thomas marginalized at the end of the bench. During the 02/24 vs MIA matchup, his erratic shot selection resulted in a dismal 2-for-10 shooting night and a staggering -11.3 Impact score. Even when he managed to put points on the board, like his 15-point outing on 03/01 vs CHI, the hidden costs of his tunnel vision dragged him down. The sheer inefficiency of his 3-for-11 chucking in that contest yielded a disappointing -0.5 Impact score. He briefly found a better rhythm on 03/08 vs ORL. By trading forced jumpers for actual offensive flow, he dished out six assists to go with an efficient 17 points, earning a rare +3.2 Impact score. Ultimately, when a one-dimensional volume scorer loses his touch, the resulting empty possessions make him an absolute liability.

Ousmane Dieng
Forward Yr 3 30G (20S)
-2.2
11.0 pts
4.6 reb
3.6 ast
26.8 min

This late-season stretch was defined by maddening inconsistency, as Ousmane Dieng toggled wildly between offensive centerpiece and inefficient liability. The peak of his erratic usage arrived on 04/01 vs HOU, where he logged 45 minutes and poured in 36 points alongside 10 assists. He needed a staggering 31 shot attempts to get there, but the sheer volume of his playmaking engine generated a massive +21.1 Impact. However, his high-volume habits often carried heavy hidden costs. During the 03/25 vs POR matchup, Dieng scored 16 points but posted a dismal -5.8 Impact because he forced 17 shots and bricked four threes to reach that total. Conversely, he was much more effective when he stopped hunting his own shot. On 03/10 vs PHX, he managed only 12 points, yet his efficient 5-for-8 shooting and relentless effort to grab 10 rebounds fueled a stellar +10.2 Impact. He clearly has the physical tools to dominate, but his erratic shot selection makes him a dangerous gamble on any given night.

AJ Green
Guard Yr 3 78G (68S)
-2.5
10.4 pts
2.7 reb
1.9 ast
29.1 min

AJ Green spent most of late winter drowning in a miserable shooting slump before suddenly catching fire in April to salvage his season. Even when his jumper fell early on, like his 15-point outing on 02/25 vs CLE, he still posted a -3.4 impact score because he offered virtually zero playmaking and bled points on the defensive end. He bounced between the starting unit and the bench as his confidence waned. The lowest point came during a dismal 1-for-8 shooting night on 03/08 vs ORL that yielded a brutal -17.4 impact. Then the calendar flipped to April, and his rhythm completely shifted. He absolutely erupted on 04/10 vs BKN, draining an absurd 11 three-pointers en route to a season-high 35 points. That massive +36.4 impact score was certainly driven by his lethal perimeter efficiency, but he also finally paired his shooting with active rebounding and engaged defense to become a complete offensive weapon.

Taurean Prince
Forward Yr 9 26G (7S)
-2.7
9.2 pts
3.1 reb
1.8 ast
23.5 min

A mid-season role change defined this eight-game stretch, as Taurean Prince morphed from a hyper-efficient bench sniper into a rugged, high-volume starter. Operating as a reserve on 04/03 vs BOS, he was an absolute offensive buzzsaw, generating a massive +13.7 Impact score simply by taking flawless shots and draining 7 of his 8 field goal attempts for 18 points. He followed that up with a perfect 5-for-5 barrage from deep on 04/05 vs MEM, logging a +7.6 Impact before the coaching staff finally rewarded him with a starting nod. The promotion immediately altered his playstyle. Starting on 04/07 vs BKN, Prince crashed the glass hard for 11 rebounds, allowing him to carve out a positive +3.4 Impact despite a sudden dip in scoring efficiency on 6-for-15 shooting. However, the hidden costs of his expanded green light eventually caught up with him on 04/12 vs PHI. Even though he scored a respectable 14 points, his erratic shot selection resulted in an ugly 5-for-14 shooting night, dragging his Impact down to -0.6 as the empty possessions heavily outweighed his raw production.

Pete Nance
Forward Yr 2 47G (6S)
-3.7
5.4 pts
2.7 reb
1.0 ast
15.7 min

This fifteen-game stretch was defined by a jarring late-March promotion to the starting lineup that yielded wildly inconsistent results for Pete Nance. He eventually found his offensive rhythm on 04/01 vs HOU, pouring in 23 points on blistering 5-of-9 shooting from deep to earn a +7.8 Impact score. He followed that up with a gritty double-double on 04/03 vs BOS. Nance grabbed 10 rebounds and hit four triples in that contest, generating a stretch-best +10.4 Impact score because his relentless work on the glass added massive value alongside his perimeter shooting. The momentum evaporated almost instantly. Relegated back to the bench on 04/08 vs DET, Nance looked completely lost while putting up zero points in 18 minutes. That disastrous outing resulted in a horrific -16.6 Impact score, severely dragged down by forced perimeter shots and totally empty offensive possessions.

Jericho Sims
Center Yr 4 66G (19S)
-3.8
5.1 pts
5.6 reb
1.6 ast
20.0 min

This late-season stretch was defined by extreme volatility, as Jericho Sims bounced between the starting lineup and the bench while trying to figure out how to influence winning without demanding the basketball. When he committed to the dirty work, his value skyrocketed regardless of his scoring totals. Look at his 04/01 vs HOU performance; he shot a miserable 1-for-5 from the floor for just six points, yet generated a stellar +7.4 impact score purely by vacuuming up 20 massive rebounds. Conversely, empty scoring often dragged down his overall effectiveness. During his 04/05 vs MEM outing, Sims dropped 12 points on blistering 6-for-7 shooting, but bled value with a -7.3 impact mark because of sluggish defensive rotations and an inability to anchor the paint. He finally found the perfect balance of hustle and playmaking on 04/08 vs DET. Logging a dominant +11.2 impact, he battered the Pistons with a brilliant 11-point, 11-rebound, 10-assist triple-double that revealed exactly what he can be when fully engaged.

Gary Trent Jr.
Guard Yr 7 65G (21S)
-5.4
8.1 pts
1.0 reb
1.2 ast
21.2 min

This brutal late-season stretch was defined by erratic minutes, abysmal shooting slumps, and a fleeting mirage of competence. Even when his shot occasionally fell off the bench, his one-dimensional style actively hurt the team. During the 02/03 vs CHI matchup, Trent scored 15 points on red-hot perimeter shooting but still posted an Impact: -3.0 because his complete lack of playmaking and rebounding left the second unit stranded. For weeks, he was virtually unplayable, culminating in a disastrous 03/25 vs POR outing where he threw up a goose egg on 0-for-7 shooting to earn a ghastly Impact: -17.2. Out of nowhere, a brief promotion to the starting lineup sparked a massive offensive eruption. He torched the nets during the 03/29 vs LAC game, dropping 36 points and draining nine triples to generate a massive Impact: +17.2 as he finally found an aggressive, efficient rhythm. The magic vanished almost immediately. Sent back to the second unit for the 04/08 vs DET contest, he chucked his way to an Impact: -15.9 by missing all eight of his three-point attempts, confirming he remains a wildly volatile rotation piece.

Alex Antetokounmpo
Forward Yr 0 6G
-5.8
3.2 pts
1.0 reb
0.2 ast
3.4 min
Amir Coffey
Guard-Forward Yr 6 30G (2S)
-6.2
2.4 pts
0.9 reb
0.4 ast
8.8 min

This stretch of the season was defined by Amir Coffey largely running empty cardio at the end of the rotation. During a dismal 02/19 vs SAS outing, he logged 12 minutes without scoring a single point, resulting in a brutal -10.7 Impact score because his total lack of offensive aggression allowed defenders to completely ignore him. He briefly found his footing off the bench on 02/22 vs POR. Though he only scored 8 points, Coffey generated a stellar +8.4 Impact score by actively crashing the glass for 4 rebounds and keeping the offense flowing with 4 assists. Unfortunately, that two-way energy quickly evaporated into a string of invisible, single-digit minute appearances where he was a total non-factor. Even when he finally earned a spot start on 04/12 vs OKC and poured in 17 points, his overall influence resulted in a surprisingly muted +2.3 Impact score. While the scoring burst looked nice on paper, his value was capped because he required 14 shot attempts to get there and failed to generate the defensive stops needed to truly swing the game.

Mark Sears
Guard Yr 0 7G
-6.4
3.1 pts
0.3 reb
0.3 ast
3.7 min
Gary Harris
Guard Yr 11 48G (2S)
-7.0
2.7 pts
1.3 reb
1.1 ast
13.8 min

Gary Harris spent this brutal midseason stretch tumbling out of the starting lineup and fading into offensive irrelevance. The veteran lost his starting job shortly after a dismal outing on 01/24 vs DEN, where he logged 28 minutes but managed just four points on 1-for-5 shooting. That inefficient performance and total lack of playmaking earned him a -7.0 impact score. His subsequent move to the second unit offered no relief. During the 01/28 vs PHI matchup, Harris posted a staggering -14.3 impact in just 14 minutes off the bench because he failed to attempt a single shot, actively hurting his team by running empty cardio. Even when he finally found the basket later in the year, the underlying metrics remained grim. He scored a stretch-high seven points on 04/07 vs BKN, yet still recorded a -2.1 impact because the hidden cost of his clunky 3-for-9 shooting dragged down the offensive flow.

Cole Anthony
Guard Yr 5 35G
-7.0
6.7 pts
2.5 reb
3.5 ast
15.0 min

Cole Anthony spent this eleven-game stretch buried in a deep, seemingly inescapable slump that torpedoed his value off the bench. The warning signs were flashing early in this run. On 12/14 vs BKN, he logged 20 minutes of action but completely laid a goose egg from the field, missing all four of his shots and posting a catastrophic -16.9 impact. His persistent offensive struggles peaked on 01/29 vs WAS. He chucked his way to just 5 points on a miserable 2-of-11 from the floor, generating a dreadful -14.8 impact score. Even when his shot actually fell, the underlying metrics painted a bleak picture. During his 24 minutes on 01/22 vs OKC, Anthony poured in 17 points on blistering 7-of-9 shooting. Yet, he still finished with a -2.0 impact score, as his scoring burst was entirely offset by defensive bleeding and empty-calorie possessions that gave points right back to the opponent.

Thanasis Antetokounmpo
Forward Yr 6 34G
-7.5
1.4 pts
0.9 reb
0.4 ast
4.4 min

Thanasis Antetokounmpo’s late-season stretch was defined entirely by empty garbage-time minutes and a stark inability to positively influence the game. During an eight-minute stint on 03/23 vs LAC, he failed to score and missed his only shot. That total lack of offensive threat allowed defenders to completely ignore him, resulting in a brutal -11.3 Impact score. The exact same issues plagued him on 03/25 vs POR, where he managed just a single point and posted a disastrous -11.1 Impact. Even when handed a massive workload on 04/12 vs PHI, his fundamental limitations remained glaring. He tallied stretch-highs of eight points and six assists in 27 minutes, but still dragged the lineup down with a -5.1 Impact. His inability to shoot from the perimeter simply clogged the paint for everyone else, neutralizing any value his passing created. Endless energy on the bench is a nice luxury, but it cannot mask a complete lack of functional basketball production on the hardwood.

Andre Jackson Jr.
Guard Yr 2 48G (1S)
-7.6
2.4 pts
1.5 reb
0.9 ast
8.5 min

Andre Jackson Jr. spent the late spring bouncing between garbage-time irrelevance and spot-start survival, struggling to find any consistent rhythm in a highly volatile stretch. When he actually found his stroke during the 03/28 vs SAS matchup, tallying 11 points on 4-of-9 shooting, his one-dimensional play yielded a -4.2 impact score. That negative rating stemmed directly from his failure to register a single assist while grabbing just one rebound. During the 04/12 vs PHI contest, Jackson flipped the script by generating a +5.9 impact score despite scoring just nine points on an ugly 3-of-10 from the floor. He salvaged his value that night by crashing the glass for seven rebounds and keeping the offense moving with a pair of assists. Unfortunately, those gritty efforts were routinely overshadowed by complete duds like the 04/10 vs BKN game. In that brutal outing, he posted a staggering -21.6 impact score after missing both of his field goal attempts and floating aimlessly through 15 empty minutes.

L
@ PHI PHI
106 MIL PHI 126
PHI @ PHI
106 126
Sun, Apr 12
Analysis
-20
W
vs BKN BKN
108 BKN MIL 125
BKN vs BKN
125 108
Fri, Apr 10
Analysis
+17
L
@ DET DET
111 MIL DET 137
DET @ DET
111 137
Wed, Apr 8
Analysis
-26
L
@ BKN BKN
90 MIL BKN 96
BKN @ BKN
90 96
Tue, Apr 7
Analysis
-6
W
vs MEM MEM
115 MEM MIL 131
MEM vs MEM
131 115
Sun, Apr 5
Analysis
+16
L
vs BOS BOS
133 BOS MIL 101
BOS vs BOS
101 133
Fri, Apr 3
Analysis
-32
L
@ HOU HOU
113 MIL HOU 119
HOU @ HOU
113 119
Wed, Apr 1
Analysis
-6
L
vs LAC LAC
127 LAC MIL 113
LAC vs LAC
113 127
Sun, Mar 29
Analysis
-14
L
vs SAS SAS
127 SAS MIL 95
SAS vs SAS
95 127
Sat, Mar 28
Analysis
-32
L
@ POR POR
99 MIL POR 130
POR @ POR
99 130
Wed, Mar 25
Analysis
-31
L
@ LAC LAC
96 MIL LAC 129
LAC @ LAC
96 129
Mon, Mar 23
Analysis
-33
W
@ PHX PHX
108 MIL PHX 105
PHX @ PHX
108 105
Sat, Mar 21
Analysis
+3
L
@ UTA UTA
96 MIL UTA 128
UTA @ UTA
96 128
Thu, Mar 19
Analysis
-32
L
vs CLE CLE
123 CLE MIL 116
CLE vs CLE
116 123
Tue, Mar 17
Analysis
-7
W
vs IND IND
123 IND MIL 134
IND vs IND
134 123
Sun, Mar 15
Analysis
+11
L
@ ATL ATL
99 MIL ATL 122
ATL @ ATL
99 122
Sat, Mar 14
Analysis
-23
L
@ MIA MIA
105 MIL MIA 112
MIA @ MIA
105 112
Thu, Mar 12
Analysis
-7
L
vs PHX PHX
129 PHX MIL 114
PHX vs PHX
114 129
Tue, Mar 10
Analysis
-15
L
vs ORL ORL
130 ORL MIL 91
ORL vs ORL
91 130
Sun, Mar 8
Analysis
-39
W
vs UTA UTA
99 UTA MIL 113
UTA vs UTA
113 99
Sat, Mar 7
Analysis
+14
L
vs ATL ATL
131 ATL MIL 113
ATL vs ATL
113 131
Wed, Mar 4
Analysis
-18
L
vs BOS BOS
108 BOS MIL 81
BOS vs BOS
81 108
Mon, Mar 2
Analysis
-27
L
@ CHI CHI
97 MIL CHI 120
CHI @ CHI
97 120
Sun, Mar 1
Analysis
-23
L
vs NYK NYK
127 NYK MIL 98
NYK vs NYK
98 127
Fri, Feb 27
Analysis
-29
W
vs CLE CLE
116 CLE MIL 118
CLE vs CLE
118 116
Wed, Feb 25
Analysis
+2
W
vs MIA MIA
117 MIA MIL 128
MIA vs MIA
128 117
Tue, Feb 24
Analysis
+11
L
vs TOR TOR
122 TOR MIL 94
TOR vs TOR
94 122
Sun, Feb 22
Analysis
-28
W
@ NOP NOP
139 MIL NOP 118
NOP @ NOP
139 118
Fri, Feb 20
Analysis
+21
W
@ OKC OKC
110 MIL OKC 93
OKC @ OKC
110 93
Thu, Feb 12
Analysis
+17
W
@ ORL ORL
116 MIL ORL 108
ORL @ ORL
116 108
Wed, Feb 11
Analysis
+8
L
@ ORL ORL
99 MIL ORL 118
ORL @ ORL
99 118
Mon, Feb 9
Analysis
-19
W
vs IND IND
99 IND MIL 105
IND vs IND
105 99
Fri, Feb 6
Analysis
+6
W
vs NOP NOP
137 NOP MIL 141
NOP vs NOP
141 137
Wed, Feb 4
Analysis
+4
W
vs CHI CHI
115 CHI MIL 131
CHI vs CHI
131 115
Tue, Feb 3
Analysis
+16
L
@ BOS BOS
79 MIL BOS 107
BOS @ BOS
79 107
Sun, Feb 1
Analysis
-28
L
@ WAS WAS
99 MIL WAS 109
WAS @ WAS
99 109
Thu, Jan 29
Analysis
-10
L
@ PHI PHI
122 MIL PHI 139
PHI @ PHI
122 139
Wed, Jan 28
Analysis
-17
W
vs DAL DAL
99 DAL MIL 123
DAL vs DAL
123 99
Sun, Jan 25
Analysis
+24
L
vs DEN DEN
102 DEN MIL 100
DEN vs DEN
100 102
Sat, Jan 24
Analysis
-2
L
vs OKC OKC
122 OKC MIL 102
OKC vs OKC
102 122
Thu, Jan 22
Analysis
-20
W
@ ATL ATL
112 MIL ATL 110
ATL @ ATL
112 110
Mon, Jan 19
Analysis
+2
L
@ SAS SAS
101 MIL SAS 119
SAS @ SAS
101 119
Fri, Jan 16
Analysis
-18
L
vs MIN MIN
139 MIN MIL 106
MIN vs MIN
106 139
Wed, Jan 14
Analysis
-33
L
@ DEN DEN
104 MIL DEN 108
DEN @ DEN
104 108
Mon, Jan 12
Analysis
-4
W
@ LAL LAL
105 MIL LAL 101
LAL @ LAL
105 101
Sat, Jan 10
Analysis
+4
L
@ GSW GSW
113 MIL GSW 120
GSW @ GSW
113 120
Thu, Jan 8
Analysis
-7
W
@ SAC SAC
115 MIL SAC 98
SAC @ SAC
115 98
Mon, Jan 5
Analysis
+17
W
vs CHA CHA
121 CHA MIL 122
CHA vs CHA
122 121
Sat, Jan 3
Analysis
+1
L
vs WAS WAS
114 WAS MIL 113
WAS vs WAS
113 114
Thu, Jan 1
Analysis
-1
W
@ CHA CHA
123 MIL CHA 113
CHA @ CHA
123 113
Tue, Dec 30
Analysis
+10
W
@ CHI CHI
112 MIL CHI 103
CHI @ CHI
112 103
Sun, Dec 28
Analysis
+9
L
@ MEM MEM
104 MIL MEM 125
MEM @ MEM
104 125
Sat, Dec 27
Analysis
-21
W
@ IND IND
111 MIL IND 94
IND @ IND
111 94
Wed, Dec 24
Analysis
+17
L
@ MIN MIN
100 MIL MIN 103
MIN @ MIN
100 103
Mon, Dec 22
Analysis
-3
L
vs TOR TOR
111 TOR MIL 105
TOR vs TOR
105 111
Fri, Dec 19
Analysis
-6
L
@ BKN BKN
82 MIL BKN 127
BKN @ BKN
82 127
Sun, Dec 14
Analysis
-45
W
vs BOS BOS
101 BOS MIL 116
BOS vs BOS
116 101
Fri, Dec 12
Analysis
+15
L
@ DET DET
112 MIL DET 124
DET @ DET
112 124
Sun, Dec 7
Analysis
-12
L
vs PHI PHI
116 PHI MIL 101
PHI vs PHI
101 116
Sat, Dec 6
Analysis
-15
W
vs DET DET
109 DET MIL 113
DET vs DET
113 109
Thu, Dec 4
Analysis
+4
L
@ WAS WAS
126 MIL WAS 129
WAS @ WAS
126 129
Tue, Dec 2
Analysis
-3
W
vs BKN BKN
99 BKN MIL 116
BKN vs BKN
116 99
Sun, Nov 30
Analysis
+17
L
@ NYK NYK
109 MIL NYK 118
NYK @ NYK
109 118
Sat, Nov 29
Analysis
-9
L
@ MIA MIA
103 MIL MIA 106
MIA @ MIA
103 106
Thu, Nov 27
Analysis
-3
L
vs POR POR
115 POR MIL 103
POR vs POR
103 115
Tue, Nov 25
Analysis
-12
L
vs DET DET
129 DET MIL 116
DET vs DET
116 129
Sun, Nov 23
Analysis
-13
L
vs PHI PHI
123 PHI MIL 114
PHI vs PHI
114 123
Fri, Nov 21
Analysis
-9
L
@ CLE CLE
106 MIL CLE 118
CLE @ CLE
106 118
Tue, Nov 18
Analysis
-12
L
vs LAL LAL
119 LAL MIL 95
LAL vs LAL
95 119
Sun, Nov 16
Analysis
-24
W
vs CHA CHA
134 CHA MIL 147
CHA vs CHA
147 134
Sat, Nov 15
Analysis
+13
L
@ CHA CHA
100 MIL CHA 111
CHA @ CHA
100 111
Thu, Nov 13
Analysis
-11
W
@ DAL DAL
116 MIL DAL 114
DAL @ DAL
116 114
Tue, Nov 11
Analysis
+2
L
vs HOU HOU
122 HOU MIL 115
HOU vs HOU
115 122
Sun, Nov 9
Analysis
-7
W
vs CHI CHI
110 CHI MIL 126
CHI vs CHI
126 110
Sat, Nov 8
Analysis
+16
L
@ TOR TOR
100 MIL TOR 128
TOR @ TOR
100 128
Wed, Nov 5
Analysis
-28
W
@ IND IND
117 MIL IND 115
IND @ IND
117 115
Tue, Nov 4
Analysis
+2
L
vs SAC SAC
135 SAC MIL 133
SAC vs SAC
133 135
Sat, Nov 1
Analysis
-2
W
vs GSW GSW
110 GSW MIL 120
GSW vs GSW
120 110
Fri, Oct 31
Analysis
+10
W
vs NYK NYK
111 NYK MIL 121
NYK vs NYK
121 111
Wed, Oct 29
Analysis
+10
L
@ CLE CLE
113 MIL CLE 118
CLE @ CLE
113 118
Sun, Oct 26
Analysis
-5
W
@ TOR TOR
122 MIL TOR 116
TOR @ TOR
122 116
Fri, Oct 24
Analysis
+6
W
vs WAS WAS
120 WAS MIL 133
WAS vs WAS
133 120
Wed, Oct 22
Analysis
+13