OKC

2025-26 Season

KENRICH WILLIAMS

Oklahoma City Thunder | Guard-Forward | 6-7
Kenrich Williams
6.4 PPG
3.1 RPG
1.3 APG
15.0 MPG
+0.5 Impact

Williams produces at an average rate for a 15-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
+0.5
Scoring +4.0
Points 6.4 PPG × +1.00 = +6.4
Missed 2PT 1.2/g × -0.78 = -0.9
Missed 3PT 1.3/g × -0.87 = -1.1
Missed FT 0.4/g × -1.00 = -0.4
Creation +1.7
Assists 1.3/g × +0.50 = +0.7
Off. Rebounds 0.8/g × +1.26 = +1.0
Turnovers -1.6
Turnovers 0.8/g × -1.95 = -1.6
Defense +0.3
Steals 0.6/g × +2.30 = +1.4
Blocks 0.1/g × +0.90 = +0.1
Def. Rebounds 2.4/g × +0.30 = +0.7
Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9
Hustle & Effort +2.0
Contested Shots 1.8/g × +0.20 = +0.4
Deflections 1.3/g × +0.65 = +0.8
Charges Drawn 0.1/g × +2.70 = +0.3
Loose Balls 0.2/g × +0.60 = +0.1
Screen Assists 0.7/g × +0.30 = +0.2
Off. Fouls Drawn 0.1/g uncredited × +2.70 = +0.2
Raw Impact +6.4
Baseline (game-average expected) −5.9
Net Impact
+0.5
74th 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 31th
7.1 PPG
Efficiency 86th
60.4% TS
Playmaking 22th
1.4 APG
Rebounding 62th
3.4 RPG
Rim Protection 79th
0.15/min
Hustle 76th
0.12/min
Shot Creation 50th
0% pullup
TO Discipline 59th
0.05/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Kenrich Williams spent this twenty-game stretch riding a volatile rollercoaster, oscillating between game-changing hustle and complete offensive invisibility. When fully engaged, his energy simply broke opponents. Look at 12/22 vs MEM. He posted a massive +13.6 impact score in that contest by combining elite positional rebounding with off-the-charts hustle metrics (+7.0) rather than just relying on his 11 points. However, pure counting stats often masked deeper flaws in his floor game. During his 12/07 vs UTA performance, Williams tallied 11 points, 7 rebounds, and 6 assists but still dragged the team down with a -4.4 impact score because of costly defensive lapses (-1.7 def). Conversely, poor shot selection could completely erase his defensive value, like on 01/19 vs CLE where his brutal 2-for-8 shooting yielded a -2.9 impact score. He remains a situational wild card who must maintain maximum discipline to survive his offensive droughts.

This twenty-game stretch was defined by extreme volatility, swinging wildly between massive offensive outbursts and crippling defensive lapses. When Williams hunted his shots within the flow of the offense, the results were spectacular. He erupted for 25 points and 9 rebounds as a starter on 02/04 vs SAS, generating a +5.5 impact score through sheer scoring volume. Yet, his production was rarely stable. During the 01/25 vs TOR matchup, he managed 15 points but still posted a -1.3 impact score because dismal perimeter chucking—including a 1-for-7 mark from deep—erased his scoring value. Even worse were the nights when his defensive focus completely evaporated. On 01/27 vs NOP, poor rotational awareness led to a brutal -9.8 impact score. Ultimately, his nightly value fluctuated based on whether he was making decisive cuts to the rim or bleeding points through blown assignments.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

PATTERNS

Boom-or-bust player. Williams's impact swings wildly relative to his average — some nights dominant, others invisible. Scoring varies by ~6 points per game.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 68% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

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

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 58 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 26.6 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.38
PTS 10
N. Reid 25.0 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
K. Johnson 24.2 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 5
D. Vassell 23.5 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.34
PTS 8
B. Portis 22.0 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.32
PTS 7
H. Barnes 21.9 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.41
PTS 9
D. Mitchell 19.5 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.36
PTS 7
J. Champagnie 18.9 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
V. Wembanyama 18.8 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.53
PTS 10
S. Castle 18.1 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

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

V. Wembanyama 58.3 poss
FG% 77.8%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.27
PTS 16
N. Reid 33.8 poss
FG% 75.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.21
PTS 7
B. Portis 28.9 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.17
PTS 5
Q. Post 23.9 poss
FG% 0.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.0
PTS 0
K. Johnson 22.9 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.31
PTS 7
P. Siakam 22.6 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.09
PTS 2
J. Jackson Jr. 21.0 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 3
J. Landale 20.0 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.1
PTS 2
J. Bouyea 18.8 poss
FG% 100.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.32
PTS 6
J. Wilson 17.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 3

SEASON STATS

51
Games
6.4
PPG
3.1
RPG
1.3
APG
0.6
SPG
0.1
BPG
49.2
FG%
40.2
3P%
64.0
FT%
15.0
MPG

GAME LOG

51 games played