OKC

2025-26 Season

BROOKS BARNHIZER

Oklahoma City Thunder | Guard | 6-5
Brooks Barnhizer
1.7 PPG
1.9 RPG
0.6 APG
8.7 MPG
-7.4 Impact

Barnhizer produces at an poor rate for a 9-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
-7.4
Scoring +1.3
Points 1.7 PPG = +0.9
Shot Making above expected FG% = +0.4
Creation +0.1
Creation 0.6 AST/g = +0.1
Turnovers -0.7
Turnovers 0.2/g = -0.7
Hustle & Effort +1.5
Rebounds 1.9 RPG = +1.5
Raw Impact +2.2
Baseline (game-average expected) −9.6
Net Impact
-7.4
4th pctl vs Guards

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 245 Guards with 10+ games

Scoring 1th
2.4 PPG
Efficiency 1th
38.0% TS
Playmaking 4th
0.8 APG
Rebounding 43th
2.6 RPG
Defense 24th
+5.2/g
Hustle 69th
+10.5/g
Creation 19th
+1.71/g
Shot Making 17th
+4.30/g
TO Discipline 94th
0.03/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Brooks Barnhizer’s opening stretch was defined by sheer offensive invisibility, as the deep-bench forward floated through brief minutes without making a dent in the rotation. During a disastrous 12/07 vs UTA appearance, he managed just 3 points in 12 minutes, generating a brutal -6.0 impact score because he lazily drifted around the perimeter instead of forcing the action. This passive approach haunted him again on 12/22 vs MEM, where he logged a season-high 16 minutes but posted a miserable -4.7 impact. Even though he grabbed 3 rebounds and rotated well defensively in that contest, his absolute refusal to shoot allowed defenders to ignore him entirely. The spacing suffered immensely. He did manage a rare flash of utility on 11/23 vs POR, hitting his only three-pointer to tally 5 points and a +3.9 impact. That brief success stemmed directly from smart off-ball relocation rather than just standing still. Unfortunately, those fleeting moments of energy rarely translated into consistent value, leaving him firmly stapled to the end of the bench.

This brutal stretch of the season was defined by empty cardio minutes and offensive invisibility that actively handicapped the second unit. Look no further than the Feb 25 vs DET matchup. Despite logging 22 minutes, Barnhizer scored zero points and posted a devastating -12.3 impact score because his absolute refusal to attack destroyed the team's floor spacing. Even when he found the bottom of the net, the hidden costs were staggering. During the Feb 04 vs SAS contest, he dropped 14 points, yet generated a massive -10.7 impact score because those empty offensive calories masked glaring defensive liabilities. Ironically, he offered far more value when he stopped hunting shots. On Mar 07 vs GSW, he managed just 2 points but earned a +1.0 impact score by playing a disciplined, mistake-free brand of basketball fueled by crisp passing. Until he balances his defensive effort with actual offensive gravity, these hollow rotation minutes will continue hurting the roster.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Struggling. Barnhizer has posted negative impact in 95% of games this season. The production rarely outweighs the cost.

Average defender. Barnhizer doesn't hurt you defensively, but he's not making opponents uncomfortable either.

Flat trajectory all season — first-half impact -7.5, second-half -7.2. No major shifts, which fits with the overall steadiness.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 1 games. Longest cold streak: 28 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 44 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

L. Kornet 15.8 poss
FG% 37.5%
3P% 40.0%
PPP 0.51
PTS 8
S. Aldama 14.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
P. Siakam 12.6 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
J. Jackson Jr. 12.3 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
C. LeVert 11.5 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
P. Spencer 10.1 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
K. Huerter 10.1 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
B. Podziemski 9.9 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 2
B. Mathurin 9.3 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 2
J. LaRavia 9.2 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.22
PTS 2

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

S. Aldama 15.3 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.2
PTS 3
C. Bryant 13.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 2
K. Johnson 12.1 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.25
PTS 3
J. Wells 11.5 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.52
PTS 6
B. Mathurin 10.8 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.56
PTS 6
J. LaRavia 10.8 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
N. Traore 10.1 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
M. Kleber 9.7 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
D. Carter 9.2 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.43
PTS 4
P. Spencer 8.5 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0

SEASON STATS

40
Games
1.7
PPG
1.9
RPG
0.6
APG
0.3
SPG
0.1
BPG
38.0
FG%
29.2
3P%
70.0
FT%
8.7
MPG

GAME LOG

40 games played