OKC

2025-26 Season

BRANDEN CARLSON

Oklahoma City Thunder | Center | 7-0
Branden Carlson
5.8 PPG
3.0 RPG
0.7 APG
11.6 MPG
-3.2 Impact

Carlson produces at an below average rate for a 12-minute workload.

Embed this player card

Copy & paste this HTML into any page:

The widget updates automatically whenever our data does.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-3.2
Scoring +5.1
Points 5.8 PPG = +4.0
Shot Making above expected FG% = +1.1
Creation +0.3
Creation 0.7 AST/g = +0.3
Turnovers -1.0
Turnovers 0.4/g = -1.0
Defense -0.2
Defense 0.2 STL, 0.6 BLK = -0.2
Hustle & Effort +2.6
Rebounds 3.0 RPG = +2.6
Raw Impact +6.8
Baseline (game-average expected) −10.0
Net Impact
-3.2
22th pctl vs Centers

PBP Credit: Every play is analyzed from play-by-play data. Scorers get difficulty-adjusted credit, assisters get creation value based on the shot opportunity they created, and turnovers are classified by type. Shot difficulty is derived from 1M+ shots across 4 seasons. Full methodology

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 93 Centers with 10+ games

Scoring 40th
7.7 PPG
Efficiency 52th
59.3% TS
Playmaking 21th
0.9 APG
Rebounding 16th
3.9 RPG
Defense 65th
+7.2/g
Hustle 19th
+12.0/g
Creation 91th
+4.77/g
Shot Making 75th
+6.33/g
TO Discipline 95th
0.03/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Branden Carlson’s opening stretch of the season was a chaotic tightrope walk between sporadic offensive utility and glaring defensive lapses. When he finally earned extended run on 11/02 vs NOP, he poured in an efficient 11 points. Yet, he still posted a dismal -3.7 impact score because his easy interior finishes were entirely negated by his struggles to anchor the glass and protect the rim. Conversely, he found ways to actively help his team without scoring a single point on 11/12 vs LAL. Despite an ugly 0-for-4 shooting night, Carlson leveraged impeccable verticality at the rim to deter slashers, earning a +0.8 impact mark driven by his stellar defensive effort. He lacked that same discipline on 11/05 vs POR. Rushed offensive execution and blown layups completely tanked his value, resulting in a disastrous -9.8 impact score in just eight minutes. He remains a highly volatile, matchup-dependent big who bleeds value whenever his focus wanes.

Branden Carlson’s midseason stretch was defined by erratic rotational cameos punctuated by sudden, hyper-efficient flashes of brilliance. He looked like an absolute revelation on Jan 03 vs GSW, posting a massive +10.7 impact score while racking up 15 points and 11 rebounds in just 22 minutes. That stellar rating stemmed from ruthless interior finishing and a stout defensive presence (+6.0 def) that completely altered the geometry of the floor. Yet, that momentum vanished just days later on Jan 06 vs CHA. Despite logging 18 minutes, he generated a dismal -7.0 impact score because his erratic perimeter shooting entirely neutralized the floor-spacing value he was supposed to provide. He eventually learned to contribute even when his shot wasn't falling, evidenced by his gritty performance on Feb 04 vs SAS. Though he managed only 3 points in 16 minutes, he earned a robust +5.4 impact rating by setting bruising screens and fiercely protecting the paint to anchor the second unit.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Inconsistent. Carlson has clear good-night/bad-night splits, with scoring swinging ~6 points between games. You're never quite sure which version shows up.

Reliable shooter — hits 45%+ from the field in 73% of games. You can count on efficient nights more often than not.

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

Slight upward trend. First-half impact: -4.4, second-half: -1.9. Modest improvement — possibly settling into a rhythm.

Hot right now — 4 straight games with positive impact. Longest positive run this season: 4 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 43 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. Landale 49.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 10
M. Diabaté 29.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.07
PTS 2
T. Hendricks 24.8 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 5
P. Hall 18.3 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.05
PTS 1
H. Yang 16.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.54
PTS 9
Y. Missi 16.7 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.24
PTS 4
K. Filipowski 15.9 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
D. Powell 15.2 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
O. Ighodaro 14.9 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.4
PTS 6
D. Reath 14.1 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 2

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

J. Landale 53.6 poss
FG% 60.0%
3P% 60.0%
PPP 0.28
PTS 15
T. Hendricks 41.0 poss
FG% 16.7%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.07
PTS 3
H. Yang 28.6 poss
FG% 14.3%
3P% 20.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 3
M. Diabaté 27.9 poss
FG% 80.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.32
PTS 9
J. Vanderbilt 26.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 8
L. Kornet 19.9 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
O. Ighodaro 16.1 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
P. Hall 15.8 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 4
Q. Post 15.0 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 3
Y. Missi 14.6 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.41
PTS 6

SEASON STATS

42
Games
5.8
PPG
3.0
RPG
0.7
APG
0.2
SPG
0.6
BPG
52.7
FG%
36.0
3P%
57.7
FT%
11.6
MPG

GAME LOG

42 games played