BKN

2025-26 Season

DRAKE POWELL

Brooklyn Nets | Guard-Forward | 6-5
Drake Powell
6.2 PPG
1.7 RPG
1.5 APG
20.3 MPG
-4.3 Impact

Powell produces at an below average rate for a 20-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-4.3
Scoring +3.5
Points 6.2 PPG × +1.00 = +6.2
Missed 2PT 1.2/g × -0.78 = -0.9
Missed 3PT 2.0/g × -0.87 = -1.7
Missed FT 0.1/g × -1.00 = -0.1
Creation +1.3
Assists 1.5/g × +0.50 = +0.8
Off. Rebounds 0.4/g × +1.26 = +0.5
Turnovers -1.9
Turnovers 1.0/g × -1.95 = -1.9
Defense -0.2
Steals 0.5/g × +2.30 = +1.1
Blocks 0.2/g × +0.90 = +0.2
Def. Rebounds 1.3/g × +0.30 = +0.4
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +1.7
Contested Shots 2.5/g × +0.20 = +0.5
Deflections 1.2/g × +0.65 = +0.8
Loose Balls 0.3/g × +0.60 = +0.2
Screen Assists 0.2/g × +0.30 = +0.1
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.1
Raw Impact +4.4
Baseline (game-average expected) −8.7
Net Impact
-4.3
6th 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 27th
6.6 PPG
Efficiency 40th
53.3% TS
Playmaking 24th
1.6 APG
Rebounding 11th
1.8 RPG
Rim Protection 21th
0.09/min
Hustle 21th
0.08/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 65th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Drake Powell’s early season was defined by maddening inconsistency and an extreme offensive passivity that constantly sabotaged his overall value. Even when his jump shot was falling, hidden costs dragged him down. During the 11/09 vs NYK matchup, he poured in 15 points but still posted a -0.7 impact score because underlying rotational issues routinely compromised the team's structure. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to tilt the floor without filling up the box score. On 11/21 vs BOS, Powell generated a stellar +6.9 impact score with just 9 points because his smothering perimeter defense consistently blew up the opponent's actions. Unfortunately, those flashes of two-way competence were heavily outweighed by disastrous decision-making. Promoted to the starting lineup on 01/01 vs HOU, Powell managed just 8 points and completely derailed the offensive flow by forcing bad shots out of isolation, yielding an abysmal -11.1 impact score. He simply bleeds too much value when he abandons sharp off-ball cutting and settles for low-quality attempts.

This stretch of the season was defined by a brutal offensive identity crisis, as Drake Powell vacillated wildly between extreme passivity and disastrous shot selection. A brief promotion to the starting lineup quickly unraveled during the 01/16 vs CHI matchup, where forced attempts in traffic cratered his impact score to a dismal -12.6. He occasionally found ways to contribute without filling it up, notably during the 01/23 vs BOS game. Despite taking only three shots for 6 points, Powell registered a +3.5 impact by picking his spots perfectly and executing sharp defensive rotations. Yet, even when his jumper actually fell, hidden mistakes often dragged him into the red. During the 02/09 vs CHI contest, he dropped 14 points on efficient shooting, but costly defensive gambles and poor transition spacing still yielded a -1.2 impact. Ultimately, whether he was forcing bad perimeter looks or vanishing completely from the offense, his inability to process the half-court game severely handicapped his team.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Struggling. Powell has posted negative impact in 81% of games this season. The production rarely outweighs the cost.

Streaky shooter — only cracks 45% from the field in 36% of games. Efficiency is all over the place night-to-night.

Good defender on his best nights, but it comes and goes. Some games Powell locks in defensively, others he gets picked apart.

Flat trajectory all season — first-half impact -3.5, second-half -5.0. No major shifts, which fits with the overall steadiness.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 1 games. Longest cold streak: 17 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 63 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

J. Brunson 60.1 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.05
PTS 3
C. McCollum 40.7 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
C. Cunningham 36.9 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 2
A. Simons 31.4 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 7
D. Robinson 27.6 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.11
PTS 3
L. Ball 27.5 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
K. Gilbert 25.0 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 3
P. Pritchard 24.3 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
J. Harden 24.1 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

J. Brunson 48.5 poss
FG% 44.4%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.21
PTS 10
P. Pritchard 44.2 poss
FG% 72.7%
3P% 83.3%
PPP 0.57
PTS 25
FG% 75.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 9
C. McCollum 35.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 6
A. Simons 32.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
M. Bridges 31.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
C. Cunningham 31.7 poss
FG% 42.9%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.22
PTS 7
J. Fears 30.7 poss
FG% 20.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
K. Knueppel 29.4 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
J. Harden 26.8 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0

SEASON STATS

58
Games
6.2
PPG
1.7
RPG
1.5
APG
0.5
SPG
0.2
BPG
40.7
FG%
28.3
3P%
91.3
FT%
20.3
MPG

GAME LOG

58 games played