GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Franz Wagner 37.3m
27
pts
6
reb
6
ast
Impact
+8.3

Masterful slashing and decisive playmaking out of the pick-and-roll drove a dominant two-way performance. He consistently collapsed the defense to create high-value opportunities, while his length disrupted passing lanes on the other end. His ability to dictate the physical terms of his matchups anchored the team's success.

Shooting
FG 9/18 (50.0%)
3PT 2/7 (28.6%)
FT 7/7 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 27.9%
Net Rtg +1.5
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.3m
Offense +21.0
Hustle +3.3
Defense +4.5
Raw total +28.8
Avg player in 37.3m -20.5
Impact +8.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 3
S Paolo Banchero 36.4m
15
pts
9
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.7

Smothering isolation defense showcased his physical tools, but a passive offensive approach limited his overall influence. He settled for contested mid-range jumpers rather than imposing his will at the rim, stalling out several possessions. The lack of downhill aggression ultimately resulted in a negative net impact.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 1/3 (33.3%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.5%
USG% 18.4%
Net Rtg +30.4
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +7.5
Hustle +2.5
Defense +7.3
Raw total +17.3
Avg player in 36.4m -20.0
Impact -2.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 19
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 31.6%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
S Desmond Bane 36.1m
22
pts
6
reb
7
ast
Impact
+8.0

Punished drop coverage relentlessly by hunting pull-up jumpers and making rapid secondary reads. His robust frame allowed him to absorb contact on drives and hold up exceptionally well at the point of attack. He served as the primary offensive engine while maintaining elite two-way intensity.

Shooting
FG 8/15 (53.3%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 4/5 (80.0%)
Advanced
TS% 64.0%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +29.1
+/- +25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.1m
Offense +16.8
Hustle +5.1
Defense +5.9
Raw total +27.8
Avg player in 36.1m -19.8
Impact +8.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 15.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 1
18
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+5.2

Anchored the paint with superb verticality and timely rotations, generating a highly positive defensive footprint. His willingness to set bruising screens and stretch the floor from the trail spot opened up critical driving lanes for the guards. A steady diet of high-effort plays kept his impact firmly in the positive.

Shooting
FG 5/10 (50.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 22.5%
Net Rtg +13.8
+/- +10
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.1m
Offense +10.7
Hustle +5.7
Defense +5.9
Raw total +22.3
Avg player in 31.1m -17.1
Impact +5.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 47.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 3
S Jalen Suggs 20.8m
14
pts
3
reb
5
ast
Impact
-2.5

Blistering perimeter shot-making provided a massive offensive spark, but foul trouble and defensive miscommunications erased those gains. He uncharacteristically lost his man on back-door cuts, dragging his defensive rating into the red. The scoring burst was entirely offset by the easy baskets he surrendered.

Shooting
FG 5/8 (62.5%)
3PT 4/6 (66.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 87.5%
USG% 21.6%
Net Rtg +19.6
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.8m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +2.1
Defense -2.6
Raw total +8.9
Avg player in 20.8m -11.4
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 5
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
13
pts
4
reb
4
ast
Impact
+5.6

Completely hijacked the opponent's offensive rhythm with suffocating perimeter ball pressure. His relentless screen navigation and active hands blew up multiple dribble hand-off actions. While his scoring was opportunistic, his defensive disruption was the defining feature of his highly positive stint.

Shooting
FG 5/11 (45.5%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 54.7%
USG% 16.0%
Net Rtg +12.9
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 32.6m
Offense +8.6
Hustle +4.4
Defense +10.5
Raw total +23.5
Avg player in 32.6m -17.9
Impact +5.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 17
FGM Against 9
Opp FG% 52.9%
STL 4
BLK 1
TO 1
11
pts
2
reb
0
ast
Impact
+1.9

Thrived as a secondary spacer by decisively punishing late closeouts from the corners. He maintained excellent spacing discipline and rarely forced the issue, leading to a highly efficient offensive cameo. His quick processing speed kept the ball moving and secured a positive overall impact.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/5 (60.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 19.5%
Net Rtg +26.6
+/- +8
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.8m
Offense +8.9
Hustle +1.2
Defense +1.4
Raw total +11.5
Avg player in 17.8m -9.6
Impact +1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 16.7%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Goga Bitadze 15.4m
0
pts
7
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.5

Provided zero vertical threat as a roll man, allowing the opposing frontcourt to completely ignore him in pick-and-roll coverages. He battled admirably on the interior defensively, but his offensive limitations created severe spacing bottlenecks. The inability to finish or draw fouls tanked his overall value.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/2 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 8.3%
Net Rtg +13.1
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 15.4m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +1.8
Defense +2.6
Raw total +3.0
Avg player in 15.4m -8.5
Impact -5.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 0
BLK 2
TO 1
Tyus Jones 7.9m
0
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.0

Operated with uncharacteristic passivity, failing to initiate any meaningful dribble penetration during his short rotation. He surrendered the point of attack too easily, leading to defensive breakdowns that forced his teammates into heavy rotation. The complete lack of offensive aggression rendered him a liability on the floor.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg -78.6
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 7.9m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.4
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 7.9m -4.4
Impact -4.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
3
pts
1
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.1

Flashed his typical defensive length during a brief first-half cameo before returning to the bench. He knocked down his only perimeter look, but the sample size was too small to establish any real rhythm. His stint was primarily about testing his mobility rather than dictating the game flow.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 22.2%
Net Rtg -50.0
+/- -7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense +1.1
Hustle 0.0
Defense +0.3
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 4.5m -2.5
Impact -1.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 37.1m
16
pts
2
reb
10
ast
Impact
+7.6

Elite point-of-attack defense and constant off-ball movement drove a stellar two-way performance. Even with his perimeter jumper failing to fall, his exceptional hustle rating reflects a barrage of deflections and loose ball recoveries. He dictated the tempo perfectly as a primary facilitator.

Shooting
FG 7/16 (43.8%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 48.7%
USG% 18.7%
Net Rtg -8.6
+/- -9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.1m
Offense +13.4
Hustle +7.7
Defense +6.9
Raw total +28.0
Avg player in 37.1m -20.4
Impact +7.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 3
BLK 1
TO 1
S Jaylen Brown 36.5m
32
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+2.5

Relentless downhill attacking generated massive offensive value, though poor perimeter shot selection capped his overall efficiency. A strong defensive rating suggests he remained engaged on the wing despite struggling to find his rhythm from deep. His ability to finish through contact ultimately kept his net impact in the green.

Shooting
FG 15/28 (53.6%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.4%
USG% 36.3%
Net Rtg -24.9
+/- -21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.5m
Offense +14.4
Hustle +2.9
Defense +5.2
Raw total +22.5
Avg player in 36.5m -20.0
Impact +2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 80.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 4
27
pts
2
reb
4
ast
Impact
+1.6

Lethal floor-spacing from the perimeter stretched the opposing defense to its breaking point. However, his overall impact was heavily suppressed by defensive limitations, as opponents repeatedly targeted him in isolation sets. The sheer volume of his deep shot-making barely outpaced the points he surrendered on the other end.

Shooting
FG 8/16 (50.0%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 6/8 (75.0%)
Advanced
TS% 69.2%
USG% 27.2%
Net Rtg -14.1
+/- -11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.9m
Offense +14.9
Hustle +2.1
Defense +2.1
Raw total +19.1
Avg player in 31.9m -17.5
Impact +1.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 3
S Neemias Queta 30.1m
5
pts
8
reb
2
ast
Impact
-4.1

Missed bunnies around the rim severely tanked his offensive value, erasing the positive contributions he made as a rim protector. While his defensive positioning deterred drives, his inability to convert high-percentage looks inside disrupted the team's half-court flow. Opponents effectively sagged off him to clog the paint.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 1/2 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 28.2%
USG% 12.5%
Net Rtg +14.8
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 30.1m
Offense +6.7
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.2
Raw total +12.3
Avg player in 30.1m -16.4
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 36.4%
STL 1
BLK 2
TO 0
S Josh Minott 25.3m
12
pts
8
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

Capitalized on spot-up opportunities to generate a highly efficient scoring profile. His activity on the glass provided a solid baseline, but a lack of playmaking and modest defensive disruption kept his overall impact relatively muted. He thrived as a low-usage finisher when left unattended in the corners.

Shooting
FG 4/7 (57.1%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 76.1%
USG% 16.4%
Net Rtg +0.7
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.3m
Offense +9.9
Hustle +2.0
Defense +2.4
Raw total +14.3
Avg player in 25.3m -13.9
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 2
Sam Hauser 20.5m
3
pts
3
reb
3
ast
Impact
-4.2

A frigid night from beyond the arc cratered his offensive gravity, allowing defenders to aggressively help off him. He remained disciplined within the team's defensive scheme, but his primary value as a spacer was neutralized by missed open looks. The lack of shot-making ultimately dragged his net impact into the red.

Shooting
FG 1/6 (16.7%)
3PT 1/5 (20.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 25.0%
USG% 11.8%
Net Rtg -34.1
+/- -15
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 20.5m
Offense +1.8
Hustle +1.7
Defense +3.5
Raw total +7.0
Avg player in 20.5m -11.2
Impact -4.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 18.8m
2
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.1

Provided fantastic perimeter length that suffocated opposing wings, reflected in a stellar defensive rating. Unfortunately, his offensive passivity and inability to punish closeouts created a 4-on-5 scenario on the other end. His defensive stops were largely negated by his lack of scoring threat.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 11.4%
Net Rtg +16.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 18.8m
Offense -0.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +5.8
Raw total +6.2
Avg player in 18.8m -10.3
Impact -4.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 2
11
pts
2
reb
2
ast
Impact
-3.6

Defensive liabilities completely overshadowed a crisp shooting stint. Opposing guards easily navigated around him on the perimeter, leading to a negative defensive rating that bled away his offensive contributions. He operated effectively as a spacer but gave up straight-line drives too frequently.

Shooting
FG 4/8 (50.0%)
3PT 3/6 (50.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 68.8%
USG% 22.0%
Net Rtg -40.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.6m
Offense +6.6
Hustle +1.6
Defense -2.2
Raw total +6.0
Avg player in 17.6m -9.6
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 57.1%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
Luka Garza 13.4m
2
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-1.9

Struggled to establish deep post position, rendering him a non-factor in the half-court offense. Although he showed decent positional awareness on defense, his inability to secure contested rebounds limited his utility. He was mostly a placeholder during his brief rotation stint.

Shooting
FG 1/3 (33.3%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 9.4%
Net Rtg -52.3
+/- -16
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 13.4m
Offense +2.1
Hustle +1.0
Defense +2.3
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 13.4m -7.3
Impact -1.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 25.0%
STL 0
BLK 3
TO 0
0
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-4.5

Completely invisible within the offensive flow, failing to register a single field goal attempt during his stint. While he chipped in on the defensive glass, his reluctance to attack or space the floor severely cramped the unit's spacing. He operated strictly as a bystander in half-court sets.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/1 (0.0%)
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.0%
Net Rtg +56.3
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 8.8m
Offense +0.3
Hustle +0.2
Defense -0.1
Raw total +0.4
Avg player in 8.8m -4.9
Impact -4.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 100.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1