← Team Metrics
Latest

Brooklyn Nets

2025-26
2016-172017-182018-192019-202020-212021-222022-232023-242024-252025-26
Latest available releaseEvidence released Aug 22, 2026, 8:30 PM UTCLive database

What are the Brooklyn Nets in 2025-26, and what needs front-office attention?

BRK 2025-26: the clearest roster problems were Shooting and spacing. No supported strength was identified. The main rotation-player dependency cases were Terance Mann, Danny Wolf, Day'Ron Sharpe. Structural basketball need, injuries, replacement lineups, and financial constraints are reported separately.

CoveragePartial8 supported · 3 withheld
Cap positionUnder cap on selected player charges
Next decision dateJun 29, 2026 · 14 events →

What can be trusted

Supported strengths — production, who carries it, and what money is already committed.

No supported team strengths for this season — team picture available; function-level salary mapping incomplete.

What needs attention

The clearest roster problems the evidence supports.
Shooting and spacing
4th percentile
Egor Demin carries 24.9%
Availability: Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemMoney: Salary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Full reading

BRK 2025-26 Shooting and spacing: this was one of the team's clearest roster problems; production ranked at the 4.2 league percentile. Egor Demin supplied 24.9% of the team's above-replacement production in this area. Absences made the problem worse in 10 of the final 10 covered games. Function-level salary allocation was incomplete and is withheld.

Every covered basketball function (11)
FunctionReadingLeague percentileLargest contributorRecent availabilitySalary commitment
CreationSupportedMiddle of the league33rd percentileNic Claxton · 19.5%Absences repeatedly created a problemSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Defensive event creationSupportedMiddle of the league38th percentileZiaire Williams · 23.3%Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Interior finishingSupportedMiddle of the league38th percentileMichael Porter Jr. · 24.1%Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Passing connectivitySupportedMiddle of the league42nd percentileTerance Mann · 20.0%Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Point-of-attack defense proxyWithheldBasketball conclusion withheldMichael Porter Jr.Recent availability conclusion withheldSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
ReboundingSupportedMiddle of the league38th percentileDay'Ron Sharpe · 21.2%Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Rim pressureSupportedMiddle of the league46th percentileNic Claxton · 25.7%Absences repeatedly created a problemSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Rim protectionSupportedMiddle of the league38th percentileNic Claxton · 31.4%Absences repeatedly created a problemSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
ScreeningWithheldBasketball conclusion withheldMichael Porter Jr.Recent availability conclusion withheldSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Shooting and spacingSupportedCritical team problem4th percentileEgor Demin · 24.9%Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problemSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low
Switch coverage proxyWithheldBasketball conclusion withheldMichael Porter Jr.Recent availability conclusion withheldSalary-to-function mapping withheld — coverage too low

Who the team depends on

What disappears when a player is removed — and whether an observed replacement five exists.
Terance Mann
Lineup performance dependence

BRK lineups performed 3.1 points per 100 possessions better with Terance Mann than without him. The best supported alternative was [Michael Porter Jr., Nic Claxton, Noah Clowney, Egor Demin, Drake Powell] over 169 possessions.

rotation 39%loses 20.0% of passing connectivity
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Terance Mann

Michael Porter Jr. · Nic Claxton · Noah Clowney · Egor Demin · Drake Powell

shrunk net -0.83 over 169 possessions — small sample

on floor 2,796 possessions · off floor 4,397 possessions

Danny Wolf
Lineup performance dependence

BRK lineups performed 3.8 points per 100 possessions better with Danny Wolf than without him. The best supported alternative was [Michael Porter Jr., Terance Mann, Nic Claxton, Noah Clowney, Egor Demin] over 579 possessions.

rotation 30%loses 13.8% of rim protection
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Danny Wolf

Michael Porter Jr. · Terance Mann · Nic Claxton · Noah Clowney · Egor Demin

shrunk net 0.373 over 579 possessions

on floor 2,131 possessions · off floor 5,054 possessions

Day'Ron Sharpe
Lineup performance dependence

BRK lineups performed 9.2 points per 100 possessions better with Day'Ron Sharpe than without him. The best supported alternative was [Michael Porter Jr., Terance Mann, Nic Claxton, Noah Clowney, Egor Demin] over 579 possessions.

rotation 29%loses 16.6% of interior finishing
Replacement evidence
Best observed five without Day'Ron Sharpe

Michael Porter Jr. · Terance Mann · Nic Claxton · Noah Clowney · Egor Demin

shrunk net 0.373 over 579 possessions

on floor 2,081 possessions · off floor 5,106 possessions

Function loss, lineup performance, and replacement-lineup evidence remain separate; none is causal player value.

What injuries change

Recent absences and the basketball needs they created or worsened.
Creation

Absences repeatedly created a problem

created in 10 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Nic Claxton

Defensive event creation

Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problem

worsened in 10 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Ziaire Williams

Interior finishing

Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problem

worsened in 10 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Michael Porter Jr.

Passing connectivity

Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problem

worsened in 10 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Terance Mann

Rebounding

Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problem

worsened in 10 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Day'Ron Sharpe

Rim pressure

Absences repeatedly created a problem

created in 10 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Nic Claxton

Rim protection

Absences repeatedly created a problem

created in 10 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Nic Claxton

Shooting and spacing

Absences repeatedly worsened an existing problem

worsened in 10 of the final 10 covered games — mainly Egor Demin

Where money is tied up

Cap position and salary allocation — shown beside the basketball picture, never blended into it.
SupportedSelected player charges appeared below the cap, but holds and incomplete roster charges prevent a clean cap-room claim.
Selected player charges
$152.9M
Share of cap
99%
Tax line
$34.9M under
First apron
$43.0M under
Second apron
$54.9M under

Most salary is mapped to interior finishing; the highest-need area is shooting and spacing. Salary-to-function mapping covers 77% of charges.

Exact figures
Salary cap: $154,647,000Luxury tax line: $187,895,000First apron: $195,945,000Second apron: $207,824,000Selected player charges: $152,949,477Source-reported payroll: $152,025,523 (source-named payroll total; not relabeled as cash or cap)

Exact transaction legality withheld — no exception-usage, cap-hold, and transaction ledger evidence.

What the evidence cannot answer

Deliberate abstentions — where the database refuses a conclusion rather than guessing.
PartialTeam picture available; function-level salary mapping incomplete8 of 11 functions supported
  • Point-of-attack defense proxy: Basketball conclusion withheld
  • Screening: Basketball conclusion withheld
  • Switch coverage proxy: Basketball conclusion withheld

Exact transaction legality: Exact transaction legality withheld — no exception-usage, cap-hold, and transaction ledger evidence

Team-season situation report. Structural basketball quality, recent availability, player dependence, replacement lineups, and financial position remain separate. No acquisition recommendation, transaction grade, coaching grade, outcome claim, or causal value is inferred.