Oklahoma City Thunder

Western Conference

Oklahoma City
Thunder

HC Mark Daigneault

73-19
W1

ROSTER — IMPACT RANKINGS

Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
Guard Yr 7 82G (82S)
+26.4
30.4 pts
4.0 reb
6.8 ast
33.7 min

This late-season stretch was defined by absolute offensive mastery, as Shai Gilgeous-Alexander toggled effortlessly between ruthless scoring and elite playmaking. His brilliant orchestration peaked on 03/09 vs DEN. He carved up the defense for 35 points and 15 assists on 14-of-21 shooting, earning a staggering +41.9 Impact score because he generated pristine looks without forcing bad shots. He was not entirely immune to poor decisions, however, as seen during a frustrating 03/28 vs CHI matchup. Gilgeous-Alexander bricked all 10 of his three-point attempts en route to an 8-for-24 shooting night. This stubborn shot selection and the resulting wasted possessions dragged his Impact down to a pedestrian +11.6 despite scoring 25 points. He quickly erased that memory on 03/30 vs DET. Erupting for 47 points on just 19 field goal attempts, he attacked the rim relentlessly to draw fouls and generate a massive +46.8 Impact.

Chet Holmgren
Center-Forward Yr 2 83G (83S)
+13.7
16.9 pts
8.8 reb
1.6 ast
29.2 min

This late-season stretch was defined by Holmgren transforming into an absolute terror on the glass while maintaining ruthless offensive efficiency. Look no further than his monstrous performance on 02/27 vs DEN, where he ripped down 21 rebounds to generate a massive +26.2 Impact score. That towering metric stemmed directly from his relentless effort to end possessions defensively and his highly selective 5-for-8 shooting. Even when his shot abandoned him during a quiet 7-point outing on 02/24 vs TOR, he still managed to post a +9.3 Impact. He kept the offense moving with four assists and fought for nine crucial rebounds, creating immense non-scoring value without demanding touches. The climax arrived on 04/08 vs LAC. He unleashed his full offensive arsenal, hanging 30 points on blistering 10-for-13 shooting. Those buckets, combined with 14 boards and five assists, pushed his Impact to a staggering +36.7.

Jalen Williams
Guard-Forward Yr 3 38G (37S)
+7.0
16.7 pts
4.4 reb
5.1 ast
27.5 min

Jalen Williams spent this erratic mid-season stretch wrestling with his offensive identity, oscillating wildly between broken jumper and unstoppable force. The growing pains were glaring on 01/16 vs HOU. During that contest, a brutal 2-for-11 shooting night tanked his overall value to a -4.5 Impact, as his terrible shot selection completely negated the impressive 10 assists he handed out. He quickly abandoned that hesitation and morphed into an absolute buzzsaw a month later. On 02/11 vs PHX, Williams erupted for 28 points on a near-flawless 11-of-12 from the floor, generating a massive +26.2 Impact by ruthlessly punishing the defense with perfect efficiency. Even when his scorer's touch vanished down the stretch, he learned to manipulate the game through sheer effort. Facing off on 04/02 vs LAL, he tallied a mere 10 points on 4-of-10 shooting but still posted a +6.9 Impact. He salvaged his value in that matchup by crashing the glass for nine rebounds and threading eight assists, finding ways to dominate the margins without forcing bad shots.

Ajay Mitchell
Guard Yr 1 68G (23S)
+5.7
13.8 pts
3.4 reb
3.7 ast
26.3 min

Ajay Mitchell’s mid-season run was defined by a chaotic oscillation between a lethal bench sparkplug and an erratic spot-starter. When he stayed within the flow of the offense, the results were devastating. On 01/16 vs HOU, Mitchell torched the nets for 17 points on 7-of-10 shooting, generating a massive +18.6 impact score because of his pristine shot selection and engaged perimeter defense. Yet that discipline vanished on 01/18 vs MIA, where he still managed 15 points but posted a -3.6 impact score. That negative mark stemmed entirely from forcing terrible looks, as he chucked up a 1-of-6 brickfest from beyond the arc that routinely killed offensive momentum. He occasionally found ways to contribute when his jumper abandoned him, like on 03/15 vs MIN. Despite a miserable 4-of-13 shooting night that yielded a low 11 points, Mitchell earned a +4.7 impact score by securing extra possessions through relentless hustle plays and digging in defensively. He remains a highly volatile guard whose nightly value hinges entirely on his offensive restraint.

Isaiah Hartenstein
Center-Forward Yr 7 61G (60S)
+5.7
9.2 pts
9.2 reb
3.4 ast
24.1 min

This fifteen-game stretch was defined by a bizarre oscillation between complete offensive passivity and absolute glass-eating dominance. During a brutal mid-March rut, he became a complete non-threat looking at the rim, bottoming out on 03/17 vs ORL. Despite dishing out 8 assists in just 16 minutes that night, his total refusal to shoot the basketball yielded zero points and a dismal -12.7 Impact score because defenders simply abandoned him to clog the passing lanes. He quickly flipped the script just days later on 03/21 vs WAS by leaning into his true identity as a chaotic, high-motor hub. Even though he only scored 9 points, he generated a massive +19.0 Impact score because he absolutely hijacked the game with 20 rebounds and 10 assists. He maintained that dirty-work mentality on 03/28 vs CHI, pulling down 16 boards to drive a +11.4 Impact score despite managing only 6 points. When Hartenstein relentlessly attacks the glass and creates extra possessions, his single-digit scoring totals become completely irrelevant to his actual on-court value.

Cason Wallace
Guard Yr 2 91G (59S)
+1.6
8.5 pts
3.2 reb
2.5 ast
26.2 min

This late-season stretch was defined by a volatile transition from a high-usage offensive engine to an erratic bench piece. Wallace looked like a budding star during a blistering late-February run. He peaked on 02/24 vs TOR, racking up 27 points, eight rebounds, and seven assists on hyper-efficient 11-for-16 shooting to drive a massive +23.8 Impact score. Even when his jumper vanished, he occasionally found ways to tilt the floor through sheer grit and playmaking. During his shift to the second unit on 03/15 vs MIN, Wallace managed a +7.6 Impact score despite scoring just four points because he relentlessly crashed the glass for six rebounds and dished out seven assists. Unfortunately, his offensive rhythm frequently collapsed into brutal inefficiency down the stretch. On 04/08 vs LAC, he clanked his way to three points on a dismal 1-for-6 shooting night, yielding a disastrous -13.6 Impact score as his missed shots actively dragged the team down.

Isaiah Joe
Guard Yr 5 84G (9S)
+0.3
10.1 pts
2.4 reb
1.3 ast
19.6 min

This late-season stretch was defined by Isaiah Joe's jarring transition from a reliable starter to a highly volatile bench sniper. He opened the period scorching hot, drilling six triples en route to a +16.4 Impact score on 02/24 vs TOR. That consistency quickly vanished as he was relegated to the second unit, leading to wild fluctuations in his nightly value. When his jumper abandoned him, he offered zero offensive gravity, perfectly illustrated on 03/04 vs NYK where a miserable 0-for-5 shooting night yielded a disastrous -11.0 Impact score. Conversely, he occasionally found ways to contribute without filling the stat sheet. He scratched out a +1.6 Impact score on 03/17 vs ORL despite scoring just five points by leaning heavily into scrappy hustle plays and disruptive perimeter defense. Ultimately, his true calling card remains his microwave scoring ability. He was completely unstoppable on 04/02 vs LAL, generating a massive +17.9 Impact score simply because he torched the nets for 20 points on 6-of-8 shooting from deep in a mere 13 minutes.

Alex Caruso
Guard Yr 8 70G
-1.1
7.2 pts
2.8 reb
2.0 ast
19.1 min

An agonizing offensive slump and a shrinking rotation role defined this late-season stretch for Alex Caruso. He offered a fleeting glimpse of his ideal value on 03/15 vs MIN, where crisp shot selection yielded 17 points on 6/10 shooting and a massive +17.7 Impact score. Sometimes, his jumper vanished entirely. Yet he could still tilt the margins through sheer hustle, like on 03/04 vs NYK. Despite scoring just 3 points, he posted a +2.0 Impact by crashing the glass for four rebounds in 12 minutes and refusing to force bad looks. Conversely, he managed to hurt the team on nights when his point totals actually looked respectable. On 02/27 vs DEN, Caruso tallied 12 points but suffered a -1.3 Impact because those points required 11 shot attempts, and he provided virtually zero playmaking or rebounding across 28 empty minutes. When a role player bleeds value through inefficient volume, his presence on the floor quickly becomes a liability.

Jared McCain
Guard Yr 1 44G (4S)
-1.7
10.2 pts
2.0 reb
1.0 ast
17.6 min

Jared McCain’s late-season stretch was defined by extreme volatility, oscillating wildly between lethal microwave scoring and hollow, empty-calorie minutes. Look no further than his explosive outing on 03/18 vs BKN, where he poured in 26 points on five made threes to post a massive +17.3 impact score. But when the shots stopped falling, his lack of playmaking made him an absolute liability. During a brutal dud on 03/29 vs NYK, he went scoreless on 0-for-3 shooting, resulting in a disastrous -15.2 impact score simply because he offered zero secondary value to keep the offense afloat. Even when he managed to fill the bucket, the underlying math often punished him. His promotion to the starting lineup on 04/10 vs DEN yielded 15 points on efficient 6-of-11 shooting, yet he still registered a -0.4 impact score. Those hidden costs—nonexistent rebounding and defensive lapses—gave right back to the opponent whatever he produced on the scoreboard.

Kenrich Williams
Guard-Forward Yr 7 66G (2S)
-2.4
6.0 pts
3.1 reb
1.3 ast
14.0 min

Kenrich Williams spent this stretch fighting to stay relevant, oscillating wildly between invisible cameos and sudden bursts of heavy rotation minutes. His offensive struggles were glaringly obvious during a disastrous 03/03 vs CHI appearance. He managed just 1 point on 0-for-3 shooting in 15 minutes, generating a dismal -13.7 Impact score as his inability to space the floor crippled the second unit. Yet, he occasionally flashed the gritty utility that keeps him in the league. On 03/18 vs BKN, Williams scored only 9 points in 21 minutes but posted a stellar +11.2 Impact score. He earned that mark by crashing the glass, making extra passes, and flying around on defense to disrupt the Nets' rhythm. By the end of the stretch, desperation forced him into a massive role on 04/10 vs DEN. He hauled in 12 rebounds and scored 15 points to earn a +7.4 Impact score, creating value through relentless board work even as his brutal 7-for-22 shooting clip exposed the limits of his offensive game.

Aaron Wiggins
Guard Yr 4 78G (21S)
-2.7
8.1 pts
2.6 reb
1.5 ast
19.1 min

Aaron Wiggins spent this late-season stretch riding a brutal pendulum between spot-starting heroics and bench-warming anonymity. Volume did not guarantee value. Look at the 02/25 vs DET matchup, where he racked up 20 points and 6 assists but scraped together a tepid +1.1 Impact score. That lackluster rating stemmed directly from his erratic shot selection, as he clanked 10 of his 16 field goal attempts and forced bad looks from deep. Conversely, he found ways to dominate without an outside jumper during the 03/03 vs CHI game. Despite missing all five of his three-pointers, Wiggins posted a massive +17.3 Impact by relentlessly attacking the glass for 7 rebounds and distributing 4 assists to keep the offense humming. Then came the collapse. Starting the 04/12 vs PHX matchup, a catastrophic 1-for-7 shooting night yielded just 3 points, resulting in a disastrous -17.0 Impact that completely erased the value of his five assists.

Luguentz Dort
Guard Yr 6 83G (83S)
-3.0
7.9 pts
3.4 reb
1.2 ast
26.1 min

Luguentz Dort spent the bulk of this late-season stretch trapped in a brutal offensive slump that severely hampered his overall value. The nadir arrived on 03/09 vs DEN. He hoisted an abysmal 2/11 from the field for just six points, generating a staggering -15.6 Impact score because the sheer volume of wasted offensive possessions completely erased his defensive contributions. Even when his shot refused to fall, like his inefficient 5/16 shooting performance for 15 points on 02/24 vs TOR, he still managed a +5.4 Impact score. He salvaged that game by creating non-scoring value through relentless off-ball hustle and suffocating perimeter defense. Thankfully, a subtle shift in shot discipline rescued his numbers in the final weeks. By taking only what the defense gave him on 03/29 vs NYK, Dort scored 12 points on a crisp 4/7 shooting night. That improved shot profile yielded a +10.2 Impact score, revealing exactly how effective he can be when he stops forcing the issue.

Branden Carlson
Center Yr 1 42G (4S)
-3.2
5.8 pts
3.0 reb
0.7 ast
11.6 min

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.

Jaylin Williams
Forward Yr 3 79G (11S)
-3.2
6.7 pts
5.2 reb
2.2 ast
18.9 min

Jaylin Williams spent this stretch oscillating wildly between dominant floor-spacer and absolute offensive black hole. When his perimeter stroke caught fire on 02/25 vs DET, he torched the defense for 30 points and 11 rebounds, generating a massive +19.6 Impact score through elite shot-making. He did not always need high volume to swing a game, however. During the 03/18 vs BKN matchup, Williams scored just 6 points but earned a +5.7 Impact by providing flawless 2-of-2 shooting and grabbing 7 crucial rebounds in only 14 minutes. Conversely, even when he managed double-digit points, hidden costs sometimes tanked his overall value. During the 02/27 vs DEN contest, he tallied 12 points on highly efficient shooting but still posted a -4.3 Impact because of sluggish defensive rotations and untimely turnovers. If Williams wants to be a reliable rotation big, he must find ways to consistently influence winning regardless of his scoring output.

Payton Sandfort
Forward Yr 0 4G
-3.5
8.8 pts
2.5 reb
0.0 ast
15.8 min
Ousmane Dieng
Forward Yr 3 27G
-6.5
3.7 pts
1.6 reb
1.0 ast
10.9 min

This late-season stretch was defined by maddening inconsistency, as Ousmane Dieng toggled wildly between offensive centerpiece and inefficient liability. The peak of his erratic usage arrived on 04/01 vs HOU, where he logged 45 minutes and poured in 36 points alongside 10 assists. He needed a staggering 31 shot attempts to get there, but the sheer volume of his playmaking engine generated a massive +21.1 Impact. However, his high-volume habits often carried heavy hidden costs. During the 03/25 vs POR matchup, Dieng scored 16 points but posted a dismal -5.8 Impact because he forced 17 shots and bricked four threes to reach that total. Conversely, he was much more effective when he stopped hunting his own shot. On 03/10 vs PHX, he managed only 12 points, yet his efficient 5-for-8 shooting and relentless effort to grab 10 rebounds fueled a stellar +10.2 Impact. He clearly has the physical tools to dominate, but his erratic shot selection makes him a dangerous gamble on any given night.

Chris Youngblood
Guard Yr 0 32G
-7.1
2.0 pts
0.9 reb
0.3 ast
5.4 min

Chris Youngblood's mid-season stretch was defined by deep-bench irrelevance punctuated by erratic, trigger-happy cameos. His lone bright spot arrived on 01/03 vs GSW. He scored 9 points by firing up seven three-pointers in just eight minutes, hitting three of them to post a +2.8 impact score. That aggressive floor-spacing gave the offense a brief jolt, but his volume-heavy approach usually backfired. When finally handed a real rotation opportunity on 02/04 vs SAS, he logged 20 minutes but managed just 5 points on 2-of-6 shooting. His abysmal -8.6 impact score in that contest reflected empty offensive possessions and a total inability to generate playmaking when his jumper clanked. Even when he caught fire, like hitting both of his attempts from deep for 6 points in a three-minute stint on 01/19 vs CLE, he still recorded a negative -1.9 impact. Those brief scoring bursts were completely negated by defensive bleeding and a stubborn refusal to do anything besides hunt his own shot.

Brooks Barnhizer
Guard Yr 0 40G
-7.4
1.7 pts
1.9 reb
0.6 ast
8.7 min

This stretch of the season was defined by brutal offensive invisibility, as Brooks Barnhizer spent weeks looking completely lost on the floor before a sudden late-season awakening. Even when he managed to put up points, like his 14-point outing on 02/04 vs SAS, terrible shot selection dragged him down. He bricked ten shots overall in that contest, resulting in a miserable -7.7 Impact score because his empty volume came at the expense of offensive flow. The absolute nadir arrived on 02/25 vs DET. Barnhizer wandered the hardwood for 22 minutes without scoring a single point, posting a catastrophic -12.4 Impact score as his inability to space the floor crippled the second unit. Yet, just as he seemed destined to fall out of the rotation entirely, he flipped the script on 04/10 vs DEN. Given an unexpected 33 minutes of run, he crashed the glass relentlessly for 9 rebounds and shot an efficient 5-for-10 from the field. That gritty effort translated to a stellar +9.8 Impact score, reminding everyone he can actually contribute when he stops forcing bad looks and focuses on the dirty work.

Buddy Boeheim
Forward Yr 2 4G
-7.7
1.5 pts
0.0 reb
0.0 ast
3.7 min
Nikola Topić
Guard Yr 0 19G (2S)
-9.7
2.9 pts
1.1 reb
2.5 ast
9.6 min
W
vs SAS SAS
113 SAS OKC 122
SAS vs SAS
122 113
Wed, May 20
Playoffs Analysis
+9
L
vs SAS SAS
122 SAS OKC 115
SAS vs SAS
115 122
Mon, May 18
Playoffs Analysis
-7
W
@ LAL LAL
115 OKC LAL 110
LAL @ LAL
115 110
Mon, May 11
Playoffs Analysis
+5
W
@ LAL LAL
131 OKC LAL 108
LAL @ LAL
131 108
Sat, May 9
Playoffs Analysis
+23
W
vs LAL LAL
107 LAL OKC 125
LAL vs LAL
125 107
Thu, May 7
Playoffs Analysis
+18
W
vs LAL LAL
90 LAL OKC 108
LAL vs LAL
108 90
Tue, May 5
Playoffs Analysis
+18
W
@ PHX PHX
131 OKC PHX 122
PHX @ PHX
131 122
Mon, Apr 27
Playoffs Analysis
+9
W
@ PHX PHX
121 OKC PHX 109
PHX @ PHX
121 109
Sat, Apr 25
Playoffs Analysis
+12
W
vs PHX PHX
107 PHX OKC 120
PHX vs PHX
120 107
Wed, Apr 22
Playoffs Analysis
+13
W
vs PHX PHX
84 PHX OKC 119
PHX vs PHX
119 84
Sun, Apr 19
Playoffs Analysis
+35
L
vs PHX PHX
135 PHX OKC 103
PHX vs PHX
103 135
Sun, Apr 12
Analysis
-32
L
@ DEN DEN
107 OKC DEN 127
DEN @ DEN
107 127
Fri, Apr 10
Analysis
-20
W
@ LAC LAC
128 OKC LAC 110
LAC @ LAC
128 110
Wed, Apr 8
Analysis
+18
W
@ LAL LAL
123 OKC LAL 87
LAL @ LAL
123 87
Tue, Apr 7
Analysis
+36
W
vs UTA UTA
111 UTA OKC 146
UTA vs UTA
146 111
Sun, Apr 5
Analysis
+35
W
vs LAL LAL
96 LAL OKC 139
LAL vs LAL
139 96
Thu, Apr 2
Analysis
+43
W
vs DET DET
110 DET OKC 114
DET vs DET
114 110
Mon, Mar 30
Analysis
+4
W
vs NYK NYK
100 NYK OKC 111
NYK vs NYK
111 100
Sun, Mar 29
Analysis
+11
W
vs CHI CHI
113 CHI OKC 131
CHI vs CHI
131 113
Sat, Mar 28
Analysis
+18
L
@ BOS BOS
109 OKC BOS 119
BOS @ BOS
109 119
Wed, Mar 25
Analysis
-10
W
@ PHI PHI
123 OKC PHI 103
PHI @ PHI
123 103
Mon, Mar 23
Analysis
+20
W
@ WAS WAS
132 OKC WAS 111
WAS @ WAS
132 111
Sat, Mar 21
Analysis
+21
W
@ BKN BKN
121 OKC BKN 92
BKN @ BKN
121 92
Wed, Mar 18
Analysis
+29
W
@ ORL ORL
113 OKC ORL 108
ORL @ ORL
113 108
Tue, Mar 17
Analysis
+5
W
vs MIN MIN
103 MIN OKC 116
MIN vs MIN
116 103
Sun, Mar 15
Analysis
+13
W
vs BOS BOS
102 BOS OKC 104
BOS vs BOS
104 102
Thu, Mar 12
Analysis
+2
W
vs DEN DEN
126 DEN OKC 129
DEN vs DEN
129 126
Mon, Mar 9
Analysis
+3
W
vs GSW GSW
97 GSW OKC 104
GSW vs GSW
104 97
Sat, Mar 7
Analysis
+7
W
@ NYK NYK
103 OKC NYK 100
NYK @ NYK
103 100
Wed, Mar 4
Analysis
+3
W
@ CHI CHI
116 OKC CHI 108
CHI @ CHI
116 108
Tue, Mar 3
Analysis
+8
W
@ DAL DAL
100 OKC DAL 87
DAL @ DAL
100 87
Sun, Mar 1
Analysis
+13
W
vs DEN DEN
121 DEN OKC 127
DEN vs DEN
127 121
Fri, Feb 27
Analysis
+6
L
@ DET DET
116 OKC DET 124
DET @ DET
116 124
Wed, Feb 25
Analysis
-8
W
@ TOR TOR
116 OKC TOR 107
TOR @ TOR
116 107
Tue, Feb 24
Analysis
+9
W
vs CLE CLE
113 CLE OKC 121
CLE vs CLE
121 113
Sun, Feb 22
Analysis
+8
W
vs BKN BKN
86 BKN OKC 105
BKN vs BKN
105 86
Fri, Feb 20
Analysis
+19
L
vs MIL MIL
110 MIL OKC 93
MIL vs MIL
93 110
Thu, Feb 12
Analysis
-17
W
@ PHX PHX
136 OKC PHX 109
PHX @ PHX
136 109
Wed, Feb 11
Analysis
+27
W
@ LAL LAL
119 OKC LAL 110
LAL @ LAL
119 110
Mon, Feb 9
Analysis
+9
L
vs HOU HOU
112 HOU OKC 106
HOU vs HOU
106 112
Sat, Feb 7
Analysis
-6
L
@ SAS SAS
106 OKC SAS 116
SAS @ SAS
106 116
Wed, Feb 4
Analysis
-10
W
vs ORL ORL
92 ORL OKC 128
ORL vs ORL
128 92
Tue, Feb 3
Analysis
+36
W
@ DEN DEN
121 OKC DEN 111
DEN @ DEN
121 111
Sun, Feb 1
Analysis
+10
L
@ MIN MIN
111 OKC MIN 123
MIN @ MIN
111 123
Thu, Jan 29
Analysis
-12
W
vs NOP NOP
95 NOP OKC 104
NOP vs NOP
104 95
Wed, Jan 28
Analysis
+9
L
vs TOR TOR
103 TOR OKC 101
TOR vs TOR
101 103
Mon, Jan 26
Analysis
-2
L
vs IND IND
117 IND OKC 114
IND vs IND
114 117
Sat, Jan 24
Analysis
-3
W
@ MIL MIL
122 OKC MIL 102
MIL @ MIL
122 102
Thu, Jan 22
Analysis
+20
W
@ CLE CLE
136 OKC CLE 104
CLE @ CLE
136 104
Mon, Jan 19
Analysis
+32
L
@ MIA MIA
120 OKC MIA 122
MIA @ MIA
120 122
Sun, Jan 18
Analysis
-2
W
@ HOU HOU
111 OKC HOU 91
HOU @ HOU
111 91
Fri, Jan 16
Analysis
+20
W
vs SAS SAS
98 SAS OKC 119
SAS vs SAS
119 98
Wed, Jan 14
Analysis
+21
W
vs MIA MIA
112 MIA OKC 124
MIA vs MIA
124 112
Mon, Jan 12
Analysis
+12
W
@ MEM MEM
117 OKC MEM 116
MEM @ MEM
117 116
Sat, Jan 10
Analysis
+1
W
vs UTA UTA
125 UTA OKC 129
UTA vs UTA
129 125
Thu, Jan 8
Analysis
+4
L
vs CHA CHA
124 CHA OKC 97
CHA vs CHA
97 124
Tue, Jan 6
Analysis
-27
L
@ PHX PHX
105 OKC PHX 108
PHX @ PHX
105 108
Mon, Jan 5
Analysis
-3
W
@ GSW GSW
131 OKC GSW 94
GSW @ GSW
131 94
Sat, Jan 3
Analysis
+37
W
vs POR POR
95 POR OKC 124
POR vs POR
124 95
Thu, Jan 1
Analysis
+29
W
vs ATL ATL
129 ATL OKC 140
ATL vs ATL
140 129
Tue, Dec 30
Analysis
+11
W
vs PHI PHI
104 PHI OKC 129
PHI vs PHI
129 104
Sun, Dec 28
Analysis
+25
L
vs SAS SAS
117 SAS OKC 102
SAS vs SAS
102 117
Thu, Dec 25
Analysis
-15
L
@ SAS SAS
110 OKC SAS 130
SAS @ SAS
110 130
Wed, Dec 24
Analysis
-20
W
vs MEM MEM
103 MEM OKC 119
MEM vs MEM
119 103
Tue, Dec 23
Analysis
+16
L
@ MIN MIN
107 OKC MIN 112
MIN @ MIN
107 112
Sat, Dec 20
Analysis
-5
W
vs LAC LAC
101 LAC OKC 122
LAC vs LAC
122 101
Fri, Dec 19
Analysis
+21
L
vs SAS SAS
111 SAS OKC 109
SAS vs SAS
109 111
Sun, Dec 14
Analysis
-2
W
vs PHX PHX
89 PHX OKC 138
PHX vs PHX
138 89
Thu, Dec 11
Analysis
+49
W
@ UTA UTA
131 OKC UTA 101
UTA @ UTA
131 101
Mon, Dec 8
Analysis
+30
W
vs DAL DAL
111 DAL OKC 132
DAL vs DAL
132 111
Sat, Dec 6
Analysis
+21
W
@ GSW GSW
124 OKC GSW 112
GSW @ GSW
124 112
Wed, Dec 3
Analysis
+12
W
@ POR POR
123 OKC POR 115
POR @ POR
123 115
Sun, Nov 30
Analysis
+8
W
vs PHX PHX
119 PHX OKC 123
PHX vs PHX
123 119
Sat, Nov 29
Analysis
+4
W
vs MIN MIN
105 MIN OKC 113
MIN vs MIN
113 105
Thu, Nov 27
Analysis
+8
W
vs POR POR
95 POR OKC 122
POR vs POR
122 95
Mon, Nov 24
Analysis
+27
W
@ UTA UTA
144 OKC UTA 112
UTA @ UTA
144 112
Sat, Nov 22
Analysis
+32
W
vs SAC SAC
99 SAC OKC 113
SAC vs SAC
113 99
Thu, Nov 20
Analysis
+14
W
@ NOP NOP
126 OKC NOP 109
NOP @ NOP
126 109
Tue, Nov 18
Analysis
+17
W
@ CHA CHA
109 OKC CHA 96
CHA @ CHA
109 96
Sun, Nov 16
Analysis
+13
W
vs LAL LAL
92 LAL OKC 121
LAL vs LAL
121 92
Thu, Nov 13
Analysis
+29
W
vs GSW GSW
102 GSW OKC 126
GSW vs GSW
126 102
Wed, Nov 12
Analysis
+24
W
@ MEM MEM
114 OKC MEM 100
MEM @ MEM
114 100
Sun, Nov 9
Analysis
+14
W
@ SAC SAC
132 OKC SAC 101
SAC @ SAC
132 101
Sat, Nov 8
Analysis
+31
L
@ POR POR
119 OKC POR 121
POR @ POR
119 121
Thu, Nov 6
Analysis
-2
W
@ LAC LAC
126 OKC LAC 107
LAC @ LAC
126 107
Wed, Nov 5
Analysis
+19
W
vs NOP NOP
106 NOP OKC 137
NOP vs NOP
137 106
Sun, Nov 2
Analysis
+31
W
vs WAS WAS
108 WAS OKC 127
WAS vs WAS
127 108
Fri, Oct 31
Analysis
+19
W
vs SAC SAC
101 SAC OKC 107
SAC vs SAC
107 101
Wed, Oct 29
Analysis
+6
W
@ DAL DAL
101 OKC DAL 94
DAL @ DAL
101 94
Mon, Oct 27
Analysis
+7
W
@ ATL ATL
117 OKC ATL 100
ATL @ ATL
117 100
Sat, Oct 25
Analysis
+17
W
@ IND IND
141 OKC IND 135
IND @ IND
141 135
Thu, Oct 23
Analysis
+6
W
vs HOU HOU
124 HOU OKC 125
HOU vs HOU
125 124
Tue, Oct 21
Analysis
+1