Last Updated on September 2, 2026 by Mat Diekhake
The 2005 Detroit Shock relied on a balanced veteran core led by Deanna Nolan, whose scoring and playmaking drove the offense. Cheryl Ford controlled the paint with elite rebounding and efficient interior production, while Swin Cash and Katie Smith provided versatile scoring and strong perimeter play. Detroit’s physical defense, dominant rebounding, balanced scoring, and disciplined ball movement defined a well-rounded team that consistently contributed on both ends of the floor.
Roster
| NO. | PLAYER NAME | POS | HT | WT | BIRTH DATE | COLLEGE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Ruth Riley | C | 6-5 | 198 | August 28, 1979 | Notre Dame |
| 5 | Elaine Powell | G | 5-8 | 150 | August 9, 1975 | LSU |
| 7 | Andrea Stinson | G | 5-10 | 158 | November 25, 1967 | NC State |
| 11 | Stacey Thomas | F | 5-10 | 154 | August 29, 1978 | Michigan |
| 12 | Ayana Walker | F | 6-3 | 143 | September 10, 1979 | Louisiana Tech |
| 13 | Chandi Jones | G | 5-9 | 150 | March 25, 1982 | Houston |
| 13 | Sheila Lambert | G | 5-7 | 125 | July 21, 1980 | Baylor |
| 14 | Deanna Nolan | G-F | 5-9 | 147 | August 25, 1979 | Georgia |
| 23 | Plenette Pierson | F | 6-2 | 195 | August 31, 1981 | Texas Tech |
| 30 | Katie Smith | G | 5-11 | 175 | June 4, 1974 | Ohio State |
| 32 | Swin Cash | F | 6-1 | 171 | September 22, 1979 | UConn |
| 33 | Niele Ivey | G | 5-7 | 149 | September 24, 1977 | Notre Dame |
| 35 | Cheryl Ford | F | 6-3 | 195 | June 6, 1981 | Louisiana Tech |
| 45 | Kara Braxton | C-F | 6-6 | 225 | February 18, 1983 | Georgia |
| 54 | Barbara Farris | F-C | 6-3 | 200 | September 10, 1976 | Tulane |
Regular Season Per Game
| PLAYER NAME | POS | AGE | GP | GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | SPG | BPG | TOV | FGA | FGM | FG% | 3PA | 3PM | 3P% | FTA | FTM | FT% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deanna Nolan | — | 25 | 33 | 33 | 36.8 | 15.9 | 4.7 | 3.7 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 3.0 | 14.0 | 5.6 | .398 | 2.7 | 0.8 | .311 | 4.8 | 3.9 | .800 |
| Cheryl Ford | — | 24 | 33 | 33 | 28.2 | 9.5 | 9.8 | 0.8 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 8.5 | 3.6 | .430 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 4.5 | 2.2 | .487 | |
| Ruth Riley | — | 25 | 33 | 33 | 25.9 | 7.6 | 4.7 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 8.1 | 3.0 | .375 | 0.4 | 0.1 | .250 | 1.8 | 1.5 | .800 |
| Kara Braxton | — | 22 | 33 | 2 | 13.8 | 6.9 | 3.0 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 0.4 | 1.6 | 6.4 | 2.9 | .462 | 0.0 | 0.0 | .000 | 1.8 | 1.0 | .550 |
| Plenette Pierson | — | 23 | 23 | 0 | 19.3 | 7.7 | 2.7 | 0.9 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 1.8 | 5.5 | 2.4 | .437 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.000 | 4.2 | 2.9 | .698 |
| Elaine Powell | — | 29 | 29 | 21 | 23.1 | 5.6 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 1.8 | 4.9 | 2.1 | .437 | 0.1 | 0.0 | .000 | 2.2 | 1.3 | .600 |
| Chandi Jones | — | 23 | 21 | 0 | 15.7 | 6.0 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 0.1 | 1.1 | 5.4 | 2.2 | .407 | 1.8 | 0.9 | .486 | 0.9 | 0.7 | .789 |
| Katie Smith | — | 31 | 13 | 9 | 30.3 | 9.5 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 8.2 | 3.1 | .374 | 4.2 | 1.4 | .327 | 2.6 | 2.0 | .765 |
| Swin Cash | — | 25 | 21 | 21 | 21.8 | 5.7 | 4.2 | 2.0 | 0.6 | 0.3 | 2.2 | 6.0 | 2.3 | .381 | 0.5 | 0.1 | .200 | 1.5 | 1.0 | .656 |
| Barbara Farris | — | 28 | 34 | 1 | 13.1 | 2.4 | 2.5 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 1.3 | 2.1 | 0.7 | .342 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.6 | 1.0 | .611 | |
| Ayana Walker | — | 25 | 12 | 11 | 20.1 | 4.9 | 3.9 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 1.3 | 4.3 | 2.1 | .481 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.8 | .750 | |
| Sheila Lambert | — | 24 | 12 | 5 | 12.7 | 2.8 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 2.0 | 3.8 | 1.2 | .311 | 0.6 | 0.1 | .143 | 0.4 | 0.3 | .800 |
| Andrea Stinson | — | 37 | 18 | 1 | 5.7 | 1.2 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 1.3 | 0.4 | .348 | 0.6 | 0.1 | .200 | 0.3 | 0.2 | .667 |
| Niele Ivey | — | 27 | 12 | 0 | 8.5 | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.4 | 1.9 | 0.4 | .217 | 1.0 | 0.3 | .250 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 1.000 |
| Stacey Thomas | — | 26 | 17 | 0 | 7.8 | 0.7 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.7 | 0.1 | .167 | 0.1 | 0.0 | .000 | 1.2 | 0.5 | .400 |
Playoff Per Game
| PLAYER NAME | POS | AGE | GP | GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | SPG | BPG | TOV | FGA | FGM | FG% | 3PA | 3PM | 3P% | FTA | FTM | FT% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deanna Nolan | — | 25 | 2 | 2 | 39.5 | 18.5 | 4.0 | 3.5 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 3.0 | 18.5 | 7.5 | .405 | 2.0 | 0.5 | .250 | 3.5 | 3.0 | .857 |
| Katie Smith | — | 31 | 2 | 2 | 33.5 | 10.5 | 3.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 13.0 | 3.5 | .269 | 5.0 | 1.0 | .200 | 2.5 | 2.5 | 1.000 |
| Cheryl Ford | — | 24 | 2 | 2 | 24.5 | 9.5 | 7.0 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 9.0 | 4.0 | .444 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.5 | 1.5 | .600 | |
| Ruth Riley | — | 25 | 2 | 2 | 27.0 | 8.5 | 5.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 2.5 | 8.5 | 3.5 | .412 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 1.000 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |
| Swin Cash | — | 25 | 2 | 2 | 25.5 | 8.0 | 4.5 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 6.5 | 2.0 | .308 | 0.5 | 0.0 | .000 | 5.5 | 4.0 | .727 |
| Kara Braxton | — | 22 | 2 | 0 | 18.0 | 7.5 | 3.5 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 9.0 | 2.5 | .278 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 3.0 | 2.5 | .833 | |
| Plenette Pierson | — | 23 | 2 | 0 | 10.0 | 2.0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 2.5 | 1.0 | .400 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | .000 | |
| Elaine Powell | — | 29 | 2 | 0 | 16.0 | 0.0 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 0.0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | |||
| Barbara Farris | — | 28 | 2 | 0 | 6.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | .000 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 |
HeatingUp Impact Index: Regular Season Team Impact Spotlight
| PLAYER NAME | ROLE TIER | MPG | USAGE TIER | PPG | RPG | APG | STK | IMPACT INDEX | NOTES | AWARDS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deanna Nolan | Starter/Star (1.10) | 36.8 | High (1.20) | 15.9 | 4.7 | 3.7 | 2.1 | 69.17 | Detroit’s primary perimeter creator, Nolan was routinely trusted to initiate late-clock offense and attack off the dribble. Contemporary coverage frequently highlighted Bill Laimbeer’s reliance on her shot creation and fearless transition play, even as efficiency fluctuated during a demanding offensive workload. (Basketball Reference) | All-WNBA Second Team (2005), WNBA All-Star (2005) |
| Cheryl Ford | Starter/Star (1.10) | 28.2 | Medium (1.10) | 9.5 | 9.8 | 0.8 | 2.4 | 54.72 | Operating as Detroit’s interior anchor, Ford controlled possessions with elite rebounding and physical post defence. Writers consistently praised her toughness and willingness to do the dirty work that rarely appeared in scoring totals, making her one of the league’s defining glue players. | WNBA Rebounding Leader (2005), WNBA All-Star (2005) |
| Ruth Riley | Starter/Star (1.10) | 25.9 | Medium (1.10) | 7.6 | 4.7 | 1.2 | 2.1 | 37.51 | Riley filled the classic defensive centre role, protecting the paint and providing veteran structure to Detroit’s half-court defence. Season reporting regularly described her communication and positional discipline as qualities that stabilised the frontcourt beyond the box score. | — |
| Swin Cash | Starter/Star (1.10) | 21.8 | Medium (1.10) | 5.7 | 4.2 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 30.23 | Limited by injury for stretches, Cash still gave Detroit versatility as a forward capable of defending multiple matchups and pushing the pace after rebounds. Coverage throughout the season focused on her leadership and all-around impact more than her individual numbers. | — |
| Katie Smith | Starter/Star (1.10) | 30.3 | Medium (1.10) | 9.5 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 0.6 | 30.23 | After arriving midseason, Smith immediately stretched defences with her perimeter shooting and veteran decision-making. Analysts noted how quickly she fit Laimbeer’s system, giving Detroit another reliable scoring option for the playoff push. | — |
| Elaine Powell | Starter/Star (1.10) | 23.1 | Medium (1.10) | 5.6 | 2.8 | 2.7 | 1.1 | 29.77 | Powell handled the steady point guard responsibilities, organising the offence while defending opposing guards with energy. Contemporary reporting often credited her with setting the team’s tempo rather than hunting her own offence. | — |
| Plenette Pierson | Bench (1.00) | 19.3 | Medium (1.10) | 7.7 | 2.7 | 0.9 | 0.9 | 29.48 | Pierson brought instant offence from the second unit through physical post scoring and aggressive drives. Independent coverage regularly mentioned her ability to change the rhythm of games despite coming off the bench. | — |
| Kara Braxton | Bench (1.00) | 13.8 | Medium (1.10) | 6.9 | 3.0 | 0.4 | 0.9 | 26.14 | The rookie centre supplied energy, size and offensive rebounding in short bursts. Reports during the season frequently pointed to her physical tools while noting that consistency and foul management remained developmental priorities. | WNBA All-Rookie Team (2005) |
| Ayana Walker | Starter/Star (1.10) | 20.1 | Low (1.00) | 4.9 | 3.9 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 24.68 | Walker filled a complementary frontcourt role by defending, rebounding and finishing around the basket. Contemporary discussion focused on her willingness to accept limited touches while providing dependable minutes when called upon. | — |
| Chandi Jones | Bench (1.00) | 15.7 | Low (1.00) | 6.0 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 18.60 | Jones played as a reserve scoring guard whose confidence from three-point range translated quickly to the professional game. Coverage described her as an energetic bench option capable of providing offensive sparks. | — |
| Sheila Lambert | Bench (1.00) | 12.7 | Low (1.00) | 2.8 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 13.60 | Lambert functioned as backcourt depth, primarily handling secondary ball-handling duties when injuries affected the rotation. Independent coverage from the season surrounding her was limited. | — |
| Barbara Farris | Bench (1.00) | 13.1 | Low (1.00) | 2.4 | 2.5 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 11.40 | Farris supplied experienced frontcourt minutes and interior toughness in a reserve role. Available reporting from the season was limited, with most discussion centred on her dependable veteran presence. | — |
| Andrea Stinson | Bench (1.00) | 5.7 | Low (1.00) | 1.2 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 5.60 | The veteran guard appeared in a limited reserve capacity, providing experience and leadership whenever called upon. Contemporary independent coverage of her brief stint was limited. | — |
| Niele Ivey | Bench (1.00) | 8.5 | Low (1.00) | 1.2 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 7.00 | Ivey offered depth at point guard and helped stabilise the second unit when needed. Independent reporting specifically covering her 2005 season was limited beyond roster updates. | — |
| Stacey Thomas | Bench (1.00) | 7.8 | Low (1.00) | 0.7 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 0.7 | 6.20 | Thomas filled an end-of-rotation frontcourt role focused on defence and rebounding. Contemporary independent coverage of her contributions during the season was limited. | — |
| TOTALS | 282.9 | 95.7 | 51.3 | 19.3 | 15.5 | — | Detroit relied on a defence-first core built around Nolan’s perimeter creation and Ford’s interior dominance, with experienced veterans and productive reserves supporting a playoff-calibre rotation throughout the regular season. | — |
HeatingUp Impact Index: Playoff Team Impact Spotlight
| PLAYER NAME | ROLE TIER | MPG | USAGE TIER | PPG | RPG | APG | STK | IMPACT INDEX | NOTES | AWARDS |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Deanna Nolan | Starter/Star (1.10) | 39.5 | High (1.20) | 18.5 | 4.0 | 3.5 | 2.0 | 73.39 | Detroit leaned on Nolan as its primary shot creator throughout the series, asking her to generate offence against Connecticut’s disciplined defence. Even in defeat, reporters highlighted her late scoring bursts and willingness to attack off the dribble when the offence stalled. (Los Angeles Times) | WNBA All-Star (2005), All-WNBA Second Team (2005) |
| Cheryl Ford | Starter/Star (1.10) | 24.5 | Medium (1.10) | 9.5 | 7.0 | 1.0 | 1.5 | 45.98 | Ford remained the emotional and physical tone-setter inside, battling Connecticut’s frontcourt on nearly every possession. Coverage of the series noted that foul trouble limited her influence as the Sun successfully neutralised Detroit’s usual rebounding edge. (Los Angeles Times) | WNBA Rebounding Leader (2005) |
| Swin Cash | Starter/Star (1.10) | 25.5 | Medium (1.10) | 8.0 | 4.5 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 44.77 | Cash filled a versatile two-way role, defending multiple positions while helping initiate offence in transition. Her activity level remained evident, but Connecticut consistently forced Detroit into difficult half-court possessions. (Los Angeles Times) | — |
| Katie Smith | Starter/Star (1.10) | 33.5 | Medium (1.10) | 10.5 | 3.0 | 0.5 | 1.0 | 36.91 | Smith worked mainly as a floor-spacing scorer, yet Connecticut chased her aggressively off the perimeter. Writers still viewed her veteran shooting presence as an important addition despite the difficult postseason matchup. | — |
| Ruth Riley | Starter/Star (1.10) | 27.0 | Medium (1.10) | 8.5 | 5.5 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 37.51 | Riley anchored Detroit’s interior defence with positioning and rim protection rather than offensive volume. The series turned tougher after she fouled out in Game 2, leaving the Shock without one of their key defensive organisers late. | — |
| Kara Braxton | Bench (1.00) | 18.0 | Medium (1.10) | 7.5 | 3.5 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 26.40 | Braxton supplied energetic minutes off the bench and tried to provide a physical spark in the paint. Independent game coverage noted Connecticut’s length made finishing around the rim much harder than during the regular season. | WNBA All-Rookie Team (2005) |
| Elaine Powell | Bench (1.00) | 16.0 | Low (1.00) | 0.0 | 3.5 | 2.5 | 1.5 | 15.00 | Powell concentrated almost entirely on ball movement and perimeter defence instead of looking for her own offence. Her steady decision-making remained valuable, although Connecticut’s pressure limited Detroit’s offensive rhythm. | — |
| Plenette Pierson | Bench (1.00) | 10.0 | Low (1.00) | 2.0 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 11.00 | Pierson’s assignment was to bring physicality and energy with the second unit, but consistent scoring opportunities never really developed in the short series. Contemporary independent coverage of her individual performances was limited. | — |
| Barbara Farris | Bench (1.00) | 6.0 | Low (1.00) | 0.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 1.00 | Farris appeared in a limited reserve role, providing experienced frontcourt depth whenever Detroit needed additional size. Contemporary independent reporting specifically discussing her playoff minutes was limited. | — |
| TOTALS | 200.0 | 64.5 | 31.5 | 12.0 | 10.0 | — | Detroit’s first-round series revolved around Nolan’s shot creation and a normally dominant frontcourt that Connecticut successfully contained, particularly on the glass and in late-game situations. | — |