2025-26 Season

BROOKS BARNHIZER

Oklahoma City Thunder | Guard | 6-5

2025-26 Season

BROOKS BARNHIZER

Oklahoma City Thunder | Guard | 6-5 | Yr 0

1.3 PPG

1.7 RPG

0.5 APG

7.6 MPG

-1.6 Impact

Barnhizer produces at an below average rate for a 8-minute workload.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN

Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average

-1.6

Scoring +0.5

Points 1.3 PPG × +1.00 = +1.3

Missed 2PT 0.5/g × -0.78 = -0.4

Missed 3PT 0.3/g × -0.87 = -0.3

Missed FT 0.1/g × -1.00 = -0.1

Creation +0.7

Assists 0.5/g × +0.50 = +0.2

Off. Rebounds 0.4/g × +1.26 = +0.5

Turnovers -0.4

Turnovers 0.2/g × -1.95 = -0.4

Defense -0.9

Steals 0.2/g × +2.30 = +0.5

Blocks 0.1/g × +0.90 = +0.1

Def. Rebounds 1.3/g × +0.30 = +0.4

Fouls Committed 2.5/g × -0.75 = -1.9

Hustle & Effort +0.6

Contested Shots 1.2/g × +0.20 = +0.2

Deflections 0.5/g × +0.65 = +0.3

Loose Balls 0.1/g × +0.60 = +0.1

Raw Impact +0.5

Baseline (game-average expected) −2.1

Net Impact

-1.6

46th 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

TEAM COMPARISON

#16

Impact

#16

Offense

#16

Hustle

#14

Defense

of 16 teammates (10+ games, 10+ min)

Shai Gilgeous-Alexander +14.3 Chet Holmgren +7.8 Isaiah Hartenstein +6.1 Jalen Williams +3.2 Ajay Mitchell +2.6 Alex Caruso +2.0 Jaylin Williams +1.3 Branden Carlson +1.3 Kenrich Williams +1.2 Cason Wallace +1.1 Isaiah Joe +1.0 Jared McCain +0.4 Aaron Wiggins -1.2 Ousmane Dieng -1.8 Luguentz Dort -3.5 Brooks Barnhizer -3.8

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 235 Guards with 10+ games

Scoring 1th

1.9 PPG

Efficiency 1th

36.8% TS

Playmaking 4th

0.8 APG

Rebounding 30th

2.3 RPG

Rim Protection 78th

0.15/min

Hustle 11th

0.07/min

Shot Creation 50th

0% pullup

TO Discipline 95th

0.02/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.

IMPACT TIMELINE

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

Feb 25 | -13.0 impact

PATTERNS

Struggling. Barnhizer has posted negative impact in 76% 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 -1.3, second-half -1.9. No major shifts, which fits with the overall steadiness.

In a rough stretch — 4 straight games with negative impact. Longest cold streak this season: 9 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.