OKC

2025-26 Season

BRANDEN CARLSON

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

IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-3.2
Scoring +5.1
Points Scored 5.8 PPG = +5.8
Missed Shots difficulty-adjusted = -1.8
Shot Making above expected FG% = +1.1
Creation +0.3
Assists & Self-Creation 0.7 AST/g + self-creation = +0.3
Turnovers -1.0
Turnovers 0.4/g (live + dead blend) = -1.0
Defense -0.2
Steals 0.2/g = +0.5
Blocks 0.6/g = +0.5
Fouls + context committed fouls, matchup adj = -1.2
Hustle & Effort +2.6
Rebounds 3.0 RPG (OREB + DREB) = +1.5
Contested Shots 3.7/g = +0.7
Deflections 0.3/g = +0.2
Charges Drawn 0.0/g = +0.0
Loose Balls 0.1/g = +0.0
Screen Assists 0.6/g = +0.2
Raw Impact +6.8
Baseline (game-average expected) −10.0
Net Impact
-3.2
23th 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 53th
59.3% TS
Playmaking 23th
0.9 APG
Rebounding 16th
3.9 RPG
Defense 64th
+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 2025-26 season was defined by the erratic, disjointed reality of life at the end of an NBA bench. Far too often, his brief cameos were actively harmful to the team. Take his eight-minute appearance on 11/06 vs POR, where he missed all four of his field goals to post a brutal -16.4 Impact score, dragged down entirely by empty offensive possessions. Yet, on 11/02 vs NOP, the big man finally found a rhythm. He tallied 11 points and 5 rebounds in a season-high 20 minutes, earning a +2.3 Impact score because his active glass-cleaning provided essential value to match his scoring. Conversely, his outing on 11/22 vs UTA exposed the hidden costs of one-dimensional play. Despite scoring a quick 7 points in nine minutes, he posted a -1.9 Impact score because he failed to grab a single rebound, rendering his minutes a net negative. Surviving as a fringe rotational piece requires reliable two-way production, not just empty cardio.

Branden Carlson spent this stretch riding a brutal rotational pendulum, oscillating wildly between game-changing interior presence and unplayable liability. He reached his absolute peak during the 01/03 vs GSW matchup, recording 15 points and 11 boards. Crashing the glass with ferocity and finishing efficiently around the rim earned him a massive +17.4 impact score for the night. Yet, earning a rare spot start on 12/23 vs MEM revealed his limitations as a primary anchor. Despite knocking down a trio of three-pointers on his way to 11 points, his inability to secure the paint yielded just three rebounds in 25 minutes, dragging his overall impact down to -2.7. This empty-calorie production flared up again on 12/30 vs ATL. He managed six points in 11 minutes, but registering zero rebounds and zero assists left him completely disconnected from the gritty elements of the game, resulting in a dismal -9.7 impact score. If he wants to survive in an NBA rotation, he must realize that occasional floor-spacing cannot mask fundamental gaps in his basic big-man duties.

Branden Carlson’s mid-to-late season stretch was defined by months of irrelevant garbage-time minutes before an abrupt, explosive promotion to the starting five. For most of the winter, he was an active detriment to the rotation. During a brutal 01/24 vs IND outing, Carlson logged a dreadful -13.5 Impact score because he sleepwalked through seven minutes with just two points and zero rebounds, offering completely empty floor time that dragged down the second unit. He languished on the bench for weeks, rarely cracking double-digit minutes. Then, the script flipped entirely in April. Thrust into a massive role on 04/10 vs DEN, he posted a stellar +18.4 Impact score by racking up 23 points, 12 rebounds, and five assists, punishing the defense with heavy volume and aggressive glass-cleaning. He followed that up on 04/12 vs PHX with an even more dominant +24.9 Impact score, drilling five three-pointers en route to 26 points and 10 boards over 42 grueling minutes. It was a shocking transformation from an end-of-bench liability into a high-usage offensive hub.

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 ⚠ Updated 46 days ago

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