⏱️How it unfolded
The score against the pace we expected, quarter by quarter.
The score, against the pace we expected
The Bucks fell 8 points behind the pace we expected in the second quarter but finished ahead of it.
Where it moved
▲ MIL better than we expected
▼ SAC better than we expected
The third quarter was where it moved most, 24 points better than our numbers for the Bucks.
⚖️What decided it
Why the Bucks won, and why the Kings did not.
From the game
They went cold, four of twenty from three- Kept giving it away, 21 turnovers to their thirteen
- Gave up second chances, eighteen offensive rebounds to their eleven
Key battles
🏀Good plays, bad plays
The plays that went each side's way, and the ones each side did to itself.
Bucks
Good plays
- 9-0 run
A 9-0 run took them from 5 down to 4 up
Q1 9:19 · MIL 14-10 SAC
- 10-0 run
A 10-0 run took them from 2 down to 8 up
Q3 7:52 · MIL 73-65 SAC
Bad plays
- Technical
Mo Williams technical foul (1st technical foul)
Q2 2:11 · MIL 42-44 SAC
Kings
Good plays
- 8-0 run
A 8-0 run took them from 3 down to 5 up
Q2 5:41 · MIL 36-41 SAC
- 8-0 run
A 8-0 run stretched a 2-point lead to 10
Q2 2:11 · MIL 42-52 SAC
Bad plays
- Missed FT
Mike Bibby misses technical free throw
Q1 5:31 · MIL 19-16 SAC
📊The numbers
| MIL | SAC | |
|---|---|---|
| 53% | Shooting from the field | 40% |
| 9 | Threes made | 4 |
| 53% | Three-point accuracy | 20% |
| 19 | Free throws made | 19 |
| 52 | Rebounds | 45 |
| 11 | Offensive rebounds | 18 |
| 29 | Assists | 22 |
| -1 | Points in the paint | -1 |
| 16 | Fast break points | 7 |
| 10 | Points off turnovers | 17 |
| 21 | Turnovers | 13 |
| 3 | Steals | 13 |
| 2 | Blocks | 3 |
