GAME ANALYSIS

PLAYER PERFORMANCE

ORL Orlando Magic
S Franz Wagner 37.2m
20
pts
9
reb
3
ast
Impact
+9.8

Overcame a dreadful shooting night by relentlessly attacking the glass and generating extra possessions through pure hustle. His stellar weak-side defensive rotations ensured he remained a massive net positive despite the clunky offensive execution.

Shooting
FG 5/17 (29.4%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 9/10 (90.0%)
Advanced
TS% 46.7%
USG% 26.7%
Net Rtg +5.3
+/- +4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 37.2m
Offense +15.8
Hustle +6.5
Defense +5.4
Raw total +27.7
Avg player in 37.2m -17.9
Impact +9.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 13
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 23.1%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 2
S Desmond Bane 35.3m
9
pts
5
reb
6
ast
Impact
-8.7

Uncharacteristic passivity severely damaged the offensive flow, as he routinely passed up open looks and failed to pressure the defense. Without his usual scoring gravity to warp the floor, the spacing collapsed and his overall impact plummeted.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 1/1 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 47.7%
USG% 12.3%
Net Rtg +18.5
+/- +11
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 35.3m
Offense +6.5
Hustle +1.6
Defense +0.1
Raw total +8.2
Avg player in 35.3m -16.9
Impact -8.7
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 8
Opp FG% 53.3%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
S Paolo Banchero 34.6m
28
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
-2.5

Empty scoring volume masked a surprisingly negative overall impact. He settled for too many contested perimeter looks and consistently lost his man on backdoor cuts, giving away points on defense as quickly as he generated them.

Shooting
FG 9/16 (56.2%)
3PT 0/5 (0.0%)
FT 10/10 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 68.6%
USG% 33.3%
Net Rtg +10.3
+/- +7
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 34.6m
Offense +12.4
Hustle +2.2
Defense -0.4
Raw total +14.2
Avg player in 34.6m -16.7
Impact -2.5
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 62.5%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 6
12
pts
4
reb
1
ast
Impact
-5.9

Strong interior defense was completely overshadowed by offensive clunkiness and poor spacing. He repeatedly clogged the driving lanes for the guards and forced up ill-advised perimeter shots that stalled the team's momentum.

Shooting
FG 4/10 (40.0%)
3PT 2/6 (33.3%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 55.1%
USG% 18.2%
Net Rtg -1.0
+/- -3
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 31.8m
Offense +3.1
Hustle +1.4
Defense +4.8
Raw total +9.3
Avg player in 31.8m -15.2
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 40.0%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 3
S Jalen Suggs 28.6m
20
pts
8
reb
4
ast
Impact
+19.2

Put on an absolute masterclass in two-way impact, suffocating opposing ball-handlers while scoring with surgical efficiency. His relentless point-of-attack pressure and perfectly timed transition leaks completely broke the opponent's spirit.

Shooting
FG 6/8 (75.0%)
3PT 2/4 (50.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 90.3%
USG% 20.0%
Net Rtg +35.6
+/- +21
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 28.6m
Offense +16.4
Hustle +8.2
Defense +8.3
Raw total +32.9
Avg player in 28.6m -13.7
Impact +19.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 60.0%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 3
12
pts
5
reb
0
ast
Impact
+0.8

Provided a steadying, low-mistake presence on the wing that kept the second unit organized. His timely weak-side cuts and disciplined closeouts on shooters resulted in a fundamentally sound, if unspectacular, shift.

Shooting
FG 4/9 (44.4%)
3PT 2/5 (40.0%)
FT 2/2 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 60.7%
USG% 20.8%
Net Rtg -2.2
+/- -2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 23.0m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +0.6
Defense +2.2
Raw total +11.9
Avg player in 23.0m -11.1
Impact +0.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 10
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 30.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
4
pts
3
reb
0
ast
Impact
-4.8

Brought excellent energy and active hands to the defensive end, but his offensive limitations were glaring. Opponents completely ignored him on the perimeter, which bogged down halfcourt execution and resulted in a negative net rating.

Shooting
FG 2/6 (33.3%)
3PT 0/3 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 33.3%
USG% 16.7%
Net Rtg -51.0
+/- -25
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 19.8m
Offense -1.1
Hustle +4.1
Defense +1.7
Raw total +4.7
Avg player in 19.8m -9.5
Impact -4.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
Goga Bitadze 14.9m
2
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
+3.1

Anchored the paint effectively during his brief stint by deterring drivers and securing contested rebounds. He didn't need touches to be valuable, using his sheer size and verticality to disrupt the opponent's interior gameplan.

Shooting
FG 1/2 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 50.0%
USG% 6.5%
Net Rtg -21.4
+/- -6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 14.9m
Offense +3.6
Hustle +2.8
Defense +4.0
Raw total +10.4
Avg player in 14.9m -7.3
Impact +3.1
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 11
FGM Against 7
Opp FG% 63.6%
STL 1
BLK 3
TO 0
Tyus Jones 10.2m
0
pts
0
reb
2
ast
Impact
-5.9

Operated as a complete non-factor, failing to attempt a single shot or generate any defensive disruption. His extreme passivity allowed the opposing defense to effectively play five-on-four whenever he touched the ball.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.8%
Net Rtg -77.8
+/- -14
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 10.2m
Offense -0.9
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total -0.9
Avg player in 10.2m -5.0
Impact -5.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 1
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-2.0

Struggled to find the rhythm of the game during a very brief cameo appearance. He was a step slow on defensive rotations and failed to leave any meaningful imprint before being subbed out.

Shooting
FG 0/1 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 9.1%
Net Rtg -122.2
+/- -13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 4.5m
Offense -0.9
Hustle +0.2
Defense +0.8
Raw total +0.1
Avg player in 4.5m -2.1
Impact -2.0
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 2
FGM Against 1
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Noah Penda 0.2m
0
pts
0
reb
0
ast
Impact
-0.1

Only saw the floor for a few seconds of garbage time. Did not have enough runway to impact the game in either direction.

Shooting
FG 0/0
3PT 0/0
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 0.0%
Net Rtg 0.0
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 0.2m
Offense 0.0
Hustle 0.0
Defense 0.0
Raw total 0.0
Avg player in 0.2m -0.1
Impact -0.1
How is this calculated?
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
BOS Boston Celtics
S Derrick White 36.4m
21
pts
3
reb
4
ast
Impact
+8.8

Elite point-of-attack defense and relentless hustle plays defined this standout performance. He completely disrupted the opponent's perimeter rhythm while simultaneously breaking out of a recent scoring slump with aggressive, decisive drives to the basket.

Shooting
FG 7/18 (38.9%)
3PT 3/9 (33.3%)
FT 4/6 (66.7%)
Advanced
TS% 50.9%
USG% 26.2%
Net Rtg -5.4
+/- -4
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 36.4m
Offense +9.4
Hustle +8.3
Defense +8.5
Raw total +26.2
Avg player in 36.4m -17.4
Impact +8.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 15
FGM Against 5
Opp FG% 33.3%
STL 3
BLK 0
TO 2
S Jaylen Brown 33.6m
27
pts
5
reb
1
ast
Impact
+0.4

Despite shouldering a massive offensive load, his overall impact was muted by poor shot selection and a heavy volume of missed jumpers. Strong hustle metrics and decent rotational defense kept his final rating barely above water. He forced the issue too often in isolation sets rather than letting the game come to him.

Shooting
FG 10/24 (41.7%)
3PT 1/4 (25.0%)
FT 6/7 (85.7%)
Advanced
TS% 49.9%
USG% 38.8%
Net Rtg -26.5
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.6m
Offense +9.0
Hustle +5.2
Defense +2.5
Raw total +16.7
Avg player in 33.6m -16.3
Impact +0.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 14
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 1
BLK 1
TO 4
5
pts
5
reb
5
ast
Impact
-17.8

Impact cratered due to a disastrous perimeter shooting night that stalled the offense's momentum. Unable to replicate his recent scoring surge, his inability to space the floor allowed defenders to sag off and clog the driving lanes for everyone else.

Shooting
FG 2/8 (25.0%)
3PT 1/6 (16.7%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 31.3%
USG% 14.7%
Net Rtg +4.7
+/- +2
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 33.0m
Offense -3.5
Hustle +0.4
Defense +1.2
Raw total -1.9
Avg player in 33.0m -15.9
Impact -17.8
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 42.9%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 3
S Neemias Queta 25.7m
8
pts
6
reb
0
ast
Impact
-3.6

A lack of defensive presence in the paint severely undercut his value during his minutes on the floor. While he converted his limited interior looks, he failed to alter shots at the rim or generate the secondary rim protection needed to anchor the second unit.

Shooting
FG 3/6 (50.0%)
3PT 0/0
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 51.5%
USG% 15.5%
Net Rtg -2.4
+/- 0
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.7m
Offense +7.3
Hustle +1.4
Defense 0.0
Raw total +8.7
Avg player in 25.7m -12.3
Impact -3.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 1
TO 1
S Josh Minott 16.0m
0
pts
2
reb
1
ast
Impact
-2.3

Completely vanished from the offensive gameplan after a strong recent stretch of double-digit scoring. His defensive positioning remained solid, but failing to pressure the rim or draw fouls dragged his overall value into the negative.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 5.4%
Net Rtg -47.4
+/- -17
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 16.0m
Offense +1.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +3.2
Raw total +5.4
Avg player in 16.0m -7.7
Impact -2.3
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 4
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 0
Jordan Walsh 25.6m
6
pts
6
reb
4
ast
Impact
+3.9

Thrived as a low-usage connector by making the most of his spot-up opportunities and playing menacing on-ball defense. His willingness to dive for loose balls and disrupt passing lanes perfectly complemented the primary scorers.

Shooting
FG 2/3 (66.7%)
3PT 2/2 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 100.0%
USG% 5.2%
Net Rtg +25.5
+/- +13
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 25.6m
Offense +9.1
Hustle +3.2
Defense +3.9
Raw total +16.2
Avg player in 25.6m -12.3
Impact +3.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 4
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 0
25
pts
1
reb
3
ast
Impact
+7.2

Blistering perimeter shot-making fueled a highly productive offensive shift. However, his overall rating was dragged down slightly by poor screen navigation on the defensive end, giving back several easy buckets to opposing guards.

Shooting
FG 8/13 (61.5%)
3PT 5/8 (62.5%)
FT 4/4 (100.0%)
Advanced
TS% 84.7%
USG% 30.8%
Net Rtg +12.7
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 22.7m
Offense +18.7
Hustle +1.1
Defense -1.6
Raw total +18.2
Avg player in 22.7m -11.0
Impact +7.2
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 8
FGM Against 6
Opp FG% 75.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 2
Sam Hauser 17.4m
0
pts
4
reb
0
ast
Impact
-6.9

Ghosted the offense entirely, failing to provide the floor-spacing gravity that usually makes him valuable. Even though his defensive rotations were crisp, being a complete non-threat on the perimeter severely handicapped the team's halfcourt sets.

Shooting
FG 0/2 (0.0%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 0.0%
USG% 4.5%
Net Rtg +8.1
+/- +6
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.4m
Offense -1.4
Hustle +0.8
Defense +2.0
Raw total +1.4
Avg player in 17.4m -8.3
Impact -6.9
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 6
FGM Against 3
Opp FG% 50.0%
STL 0
BLK 0
TO 0
Luka Garza 17.0m
16
pts
8
reb
3
ast
Impact
+15.6

Absolute dominance in the painted area drove a massive positive impact in limited minutes. He punished mismatches on the block with ruthless efficiency, capitalizing on every rotational mistake the defense made.

Shooting
FG 7/8 (87.5%)
3PT 0/1 (0.0%)
FT 2/4 (50.0%)
Advanced
TS% 82.0%
USG% 23.8%
Net Rtg +19.4
+/- +9
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 17.0m
Offense +18.9
Hustle +2.5
Defense +2.4
Raw total +23.8
Avg player in 17.0m -8.2
Impact +15.6
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 7
FGM Against 2
Opp FG% 28.6%
STL 1
BLK 0
TO 1
3
pts
1
reb
1
ast
Impact
+2.4

Defensive intensity was the calling card during this brief rotation stint. He locked down the perimeter and blew up multiple pick-and-roll actions, easily offsetting his minimal offensive involvement.

Shooting
FG 1/1 (100.0%)
3PT 1/1 (100.0%)
FT 0/0
Advanced
TS% 150.0%
USG% 7.7%
Net Rtg +82.2
+/- +19
Impact Breakdown
vs game-average production for 12.6m
Offense +1.6
Hustle +1.9
Defense +4.9
Raw total +8.4
Avg player in 12.6m -6.0
Impact +2.4
How is this calculated?
Defensive Matchups
FGA Against 1
FGM Against 0
Opp FG% 0.0%
STL 2
BLK 0
TO 1