BOS

2025-26 Season

DERRICK WHITE

Boston Celtics | Guard | 6-4
Derrick White
16.8 PPG
4.5 RPG
5.5 APG
34.2 MPG
+2.9 Impact

White produces at an above average rate for a 34-minute workload. Elite defensive value (+3.1/game) is a major strength.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+2.9
Scoring +9.0
Points 16.8 PPG × +1.00 = +16.8
Missed 2PT 3.2/g × -0.78 = -2.5
Missed 3PT 5.7/g × -0.87 = -5.0
Missed FT 0.3/g × -1.00 = -0.3
Creation +4.2
Assists 5.5/g × +0.50 = +2.8
Off. Rebounds 1.1/g × +1.26 = +1.4
Turnovers -3.5
Turnovers 1.8/g × -1.95 = -3.5
Defense +3.1
Steals 1.2/g × +2.30 = +2.8
Blocks 1.3/g × +0.90 = +1.2
Def. Rebounds 3.3/g × +0.30 = +1.0
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +4.8
Contested Shots 7.4/g × +0.20 = +1.5
Deflections 2.6/g × +0.65 = +1.7
Charges Drawn 0.1/g × +2.70 = +0.3
Loose Balls 0.7/g × +0.60 = +0.4
Screen Assists 0.3/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.3/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.8
Raw Impact +17.6
Baseline (game-average expected) −14.7
Net Impact
+2.9
92th pctl vs Guards

About this model: Net Impact can't measure floor spacing, help defense rotations, or playmaking gravity — so wings and guards are slightly undervalued vs bigs. How Net Impact works

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 235 Guards with 10+ games

Scoring 80th
16.8 PPG
Efficiency 35th
52.6% TS
Playmaking 86th
5.5 APG
Rebounding 82th
4.5 RPG
Rim Protection 92th
0.18/min
Hustle 89th
0.14/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 57th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

A maddeningly erratic shooting profile defined Derrick White's opening stretch of the season, forcing him to rely on relentless hustle and point-of-attack defense to salvage his on-court value. Even when his jumper completely abandoned him, his non-scoring contributions often kept his head above water. During the 11/03 vs UTA matchup, he managed just 10 points on nine shots, yet still posted a +3.7 impact score because suffocating perimeter defense and off-the-charts hustle completely erased his offensive quietness. Hidden costs frequently dragged him down on other nights. He dropped 18 points on 11/11 vs PHI, but high-volume misfires from the field actively stalled possessions, resulting in a disappointing -4.2 impact mark despite the respectable scoring total. When his shot selection finally aligned with his defensive intensity, the results were devastating. He delivered flawless two-way execution on 11/26 vs DET, posting a massive +16.1 impact score fueled by lethal perimeter marksmanship that yielded 27 points. White remains an elite defensive disruptor, but his nightly value hinges entirely on whether he attacks the paint or settles for contested pull-ups.

This volatile stretch of the season was defined by extreme swings between two-way brilliance and self-inflicted offensive sabotage. Look no further than 12/07 vs TOR, where White dropped 27 points but still posted a -0.3 impact score. That negative mark stemmed directly from a high volume of missed perimeter shots and questionable offensive aggression that derailed the team's rhythm. Conversely, White found ways to dominate without scoring, which was perfectly captured on 01/17 vs ATL. Despite taking just four shots and scoring a mere 7 points, he drove a massive +11.2 impact score by operating as a masterful floor general and dishing out 12 assists. When his jumper actually fell, he was absolutely lethal. He delivered a two-way masterclass on 12/19 vs MIA, burying nine three-pointers for 33 points to earn a staggering +23.2 impact score. Whether he was torpedoing his value with bricked jumpers or saving it through suffocating point-of-attack defense, White remained the ultimate bellwether for his squad.

This midseason stretch was defined by a volatile tug-of-war between erratic shot-hunting and brilliant connective playmaking. When White leaned too heavily into his own scoring, the results often backfired on the margins. Look no further than 02/04 vs HOU, where he poured in 28 points but posted a -3.1 impact score because his inefficient gunning on 25 shot attempts actively dragged down the offense. Conversely, he was a massive net positive when he embraced his identity as a defensive menace and offensive maestro. During 01/30 vs SAC, White finished with a mere 7 points, yet he generated a +4.8 impact score by sacrificing his own volume to orchestrate the floor and terrorize opposing ball-handlers. He finally found the perfect balance on 02/24 vs PHX, stepping into a primary creation role to tally 22 points, 8 rebounds, and 8 assists. That flawless two-way effort yielded a massive +16.3 impact score, revealing that White is at his absolute best when he lets the game come to him instead of forcing the issue.

IMPACT TIMELINE

Game-by-game performance vs average. Green = above average, red = below.

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. White's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~7 points per game.

Streaky shooter — only cracks 45% from the field in 31% of games. Efficiency is all over the place night-to-night.

Defensive difference-maker. White consistently forces tough shots and protects the rim — opponents shoot worse when he's guarding them.

Small downward trend. First-half impact: +4.0, second-half: +1.8. Not alarming yet, but trending the wrong direction.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 7 games. Longest cold streak: 4 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 72 games with tracking data. Shows who guarded this player on offense and who he guarded on defense, with their shooting stats in those matchups.

ON OFFENSE: WHO GUARDED HIM

His shooting stats against each primary defender this season

V. Edgecombe 83.1 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 10
D. Bane 81.8 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 37.5%
PPP 0.18
PTS 15
C. Cunningham 71.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 41.7%
PPP 0.31
PTS 22
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.1
PTS 7
M. Bridges 53.7 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 5
D. Fox 52.9 poss
FG% 55.6%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.23
PTS 12
A. Nesmith 49.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.26
PTS 13
E. Dëmin 48.3 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 4
T. Maxey 47.8 poss
FG% 41.2%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.42
PTS 20
C. McCollum 46.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.19
PTS 9

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

How opponents shot when he was the primary defender. Lower FG% = better defense.

V. Edgecombe 79.8 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 22.2%
PPP 0.16
PTS 13
FG% 44.4%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.29
PTS 21
D. Bane 69.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.14
PTS 10
T. Harris 62.6 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 17
K. Oubre Jr. 55.3 poss
FG% 30.8%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 8
N. Powell 50.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.34
PTS 17
T. Maxey 49.1 poss
FG% 61.5%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.39
PTS 19
A. Thompson 48.9 poss
FG% 61.5%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.41
PTS 20
C. McCollum 47.4 poss
FG% 26.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 8
I. Quickley 42.6 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 5

SEASON STATS

73
Games
16.8
PPG
4.5
RPG
5.5
APG
1.2
SPG
1.3
BPG
39.4
FG%
32.4
3P%
90.0
FT%
34.2
MPG

GAME LOG

73 games played