A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
26.9% · rank 27 of 366 · 29 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Harvard
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.175
-1.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
17–122025–26 recorded finals
104.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
105.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
65.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Harvard.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
17–1229 recorded games · 29 paired efficiency samples · pace 64.0Mean opponent adj. net -2.3 · 28 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.2%29 games · higher is betterRank 108 / 366 · 71th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.8%29 games · lower is betterRank 112 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.2%29 games · lower is betterRank 219 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.1%29 games · higher is betterRank 158 / 366 · 57th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
26.9%29 games · higher is betterRank 317 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.8%29 games · lower is betterRank 73 / 366 · 80th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
26.5%29 games · higher is betterRank 352 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
26.9%29 games · lower is betterRank 27 / 366 · 93th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 108.1 | 29 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 102.9 | 29 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.1% | 29 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.2% | 29 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.6% | 29 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.7% | 29 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.1% | 29 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.1% | 29 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 79.9% | 29 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.0% | 29 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 55.4% | 29 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 51.5% | 29 | Opponent assists / FGM. |
Window changes describe the historical sample; they do not refit the preseason model. Full-season ranks require 10 games. Percentiles compare qualifying programs in the model’s rated field. Source coverage can differ by metric.
NCAA source context / 2025–26
What did the possessions look like?
1,881 source possession rows across 29 recorded team-games. These are descriptive NCAA source aggregates: they do not assign individual credit or enter the forecast.
02 / The film queue
Turn a number into a question.
A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.8% · rank 73 of 366 · 29 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
26.9% · rank 317 of 366 · 29 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
26.5% · rank 352 of 366 · 29 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
These are stat-led film prompts, not verified explanations of a scheme. Lower-ranked factors can still be above average. A five-point-or-closer final occurred 11 times in the selected window; Harvard won 6. That small-sample record is not a clutch-skill estimate.
03 / How the season moved
Read beyond the average.
● Offense● Opponent offenseRaw points / 100 possessions · game order
Mar 14, 2026 · neutral vs Penn · L 60–62 · offense 85.9 / defense 88.7
Higher offense and lower opponent offense are better. Opponent strength and venue are not adjusted here. Missing paired boxes create gaps.
Open the game-by-game scouting log · 29 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PennMar 14, 2026 · neutral | L 60–62 | 203 | 85.9 | 88.7 | 62.1 | 46.8 | 24.3 | 30.6 |
| ColumbiaMar 7, 2026 · home | W 81–71 | 217 | 120.2 | 105.4 | 67.4 | 63.5 | 16.3 | 19.2 |
| PennFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 61–64 | 203 | 85.3 | 89.5 | 71.5 | 46.6 | 26.6 | 23.5 |
| PrincetonFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 58–56 | 184 | 96.6 | 93.3 | 60.0 | 43.1 | 16.7 | 35.3 |
| CornellFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 73–54 | 122 | 121.5 | 89.9 | 60.1 | 50.9 | 10.0 | 35.1 |
| YaleFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 75–76 | 62 | 114.2 | 115.8 | 58.4 | 55.7 | 12.2 | 22.6 |
| BrownFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 56–53 | 249 | 90.6 | 85.7 | 61.8 | 45.9 | 24.3 | 31.4 |
| DartmouthFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 71–58 | 253 | 110.3 | 90.1 | 64.4 | 53.9 | 14.0 | 17.9 |
| YaleFeb 1, 2026 · road | W 67–65 | 62 | 115.7 | 112.3 | 57.9 | 55.3 | 13.8 | 23.1 |
| BrownJan 31, 2026 · road | W 69–59 | 249 | 113.3 | 96.8 | 60.9 | 60.0 | 23.0 | 10.5 |
| CornellJan 24, 2026 · home | L 79–86 | 122 | 120.7 | 131.4 | 65.4 | 58.2 | 13.8 | 26.7 |
| PennJan 19, 2026 · home | W 64–63 | 203 | 102.5 | 100.9 | 62.4 | 55.6 | 19.2 | 25.8 |
| PrincetonJan 17, 2026 · home | W 87–80 | 184 | 128.5 | 118.2 | 60.2 | 52.3 | 7.4 | 33.3 |
| ColumbiaJan 10, 2026 · road | W 79–54 | 217 | 131.2 | 89.7 | 60.2 | 61.8 | 14.9 | 38.5 |
| DartmouthJan 6, 2026 · home | L 68–76 | 253 | 106.3 | 118.8 | 64.0 | 46.0 | 12.5 | 32.5 |
| ColgateDec 28, 2025 · road | W 78–69 | 209 | 113.4 | 100.3 | 68.8 | 61.9 | 14.5 | 13.3 |
| St John'sDec 23, 2025 · road | L 59–85 | 14 | 86.9 | 125.2 | 67.9 | 47.2 | 22.1 | 19.4 |
| Holy CrossDec 20, 2025 · home | W 81–53 | 334 | 132.4 | 86.6 | 61.2 | 66.3 | 18.0 | 36.4 |
| FurmanDec 6, 2025 · road | L 69–79 | 146 | 100.9 | 115.6 | 68.4 | 50.8 | 13.2 | 22.9 |
| UMassDec 4, 2025 · road | L 71–78 | 177 | 97.2 | 106.8 | 73.1 | 45.4 | 17.8 | 31.6 |
| BryantNov 29, 2025 · home | W 56–53 | 298 | 96.3 | 91.2 | 58.1 | 46.6 | 17.2 | 35.3 |
| Boston CollegeNov 26, 2025 · road | L 60–73 | 152 | 92.6 | 112.7 | 64.8 | 45.8 | 15.4 | 20.6 |
| Boston UNov 22, 2025 · neutral | L 74–75 | 270 | 115.6 | 117.1 | 64.0 | 63.2 | 17.2 | 17.4 |
| Penn StateNov 19, 2025 · road | L 80–84 | 103 | 125.3 | 131.6 | 63.8 | 63.2 | 20.4 | 37.5 |
| MaristNov 16, 2025 · road | W 56–54 | 200 | 88.9 | 85.7 | 63.0 | 42.2 | 23.8 | 25.0 |
| ArmyNov 15, 2025 · road | W 75–52 | 340 | 118.0 | 81.8 | 63.6 | 59.4 | 18.9 | 25.9 |
| NortheasternNov 12, 2025 · home | L 60–77 | 262 | 90.0 | 115.5 | 66.7 | 43.5 | 27.0 | 28.1 |
| New HampshireNov 9, 2025 · home | W 86–75 | 348 | 122.6 | 106.9 | 70.2 | 63.4 | 12.8 | 18.5 |
| MITNov 7, 2025 · home | W 79–50 | Unrated | 118.5 | 75.0 | 66.7 | 54.5 | 10.5 | 27.8 |
04 / The people behind the possessions
Personnel and workload.
2025–26 recorded affiliations, independent of the split selector. This is not a confirmed 2026–27 roster. Inspect roster observations →
| Player | GP | MIN/G | PTS/G | REB/G | AST/G | TS% | Est. usage | Usage games | AST/TO | 3PA |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tey BarbourG | 29 | 33.6 | 13.6 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 64.1 | 19.6% | 29 | 1.1429 games | 19729 games |
| Chandler PiggeG | 29 | 33.6 | 12.9 | 5.1 | 3.3 | 53.8 | 23.3% | 29 | 1.6329 games | 8929 games |
| Robert HintonG | 29 | 33.4 | 16.8 | 4.8 | 2.1 | 56.4 | 27.7% | 29 | 1.1929 games | 8529 games |
| Thomas Batties IIIF | 29 | 33.0 | 12.3 | 5.4 | 2.3 | 60.2 | 19.8% | 29 | 1.4929 games | 12829 games |
| Ben EisendrathG | 28 | 29.1 | 5.3 | 2.2 | 3.2 | 51.5 | 14.0% | 28 | 1.4928 games | 4228 games |
| Austin HuntG | 14 | 22.8 | 6.9 | 3.6 | 1.0 | 60.5 | 16.4% | 14 | 0.8814 games | 3714 games |
| Frankie ManninoG | 28 | 8.9 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 59.9 | 11.6% | 28 | 1.5628 games | 1028 games |
Usage is a minutes-based estimate over the stated sample, not a direct measure of on-court possessions. Low-minute estimates are noisy. AST/TO is unavailable when recorded turnovers are zero; missing fields are never filled with zero.
05 / Recruiting evidence
What changed around Harvard?
This panel keeps dated school publications, source-listed roster observations and prior college production in separate evidence lanes. A source record does not establish eligibility, availability or a future role.
17Source-listed players
16Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
100%Prior minutes represented
Role workload watch
Which source-listed role is represented?
Prior minutes are grouped by the source-reported position on the current listing. “Unrepresented” means prior minutes not attached to a same-program listing in this release; it does not establish a departure, transfer, eligibility or expected role.
| Role | Listed | Prior minutes | Returning minutes | Incoming prior minutes | Returning share | Unrepresented |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Guard | 11 | 4,534 | 4,534 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 1,341 | 1,341 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,875 minutes).
No dated school announcement is in the selected review file for this program. The roster row below is observation-only; absence of a reviewed announcement does not mean the program made no move.
No announced additions are in the reviewed file for this program.
Roster observation
Who is listed in the source release?
17 source-listed players. Prior rates below are attached by exact source ID where available; missing values remain missing.
| Player | Observation | Prior MPG | Prior PPG | Prior TS% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tey Barbour →G | Same programHarvard Crimson | 33.6 | 13.6 | 64.1% |
| Chandler Pigge →G | Same programHarvard Crimson | 33.6 | 12.9 | 53.8% |
| Robert Hinton →G | Same programHarvard Crimson | 33.4 | 16.8 | 56.4% |
| Thomas Batties III →F | Same programHarvard Crimson | 33.0 | 12.3 | 60.2% |
| Ben Eisendrath →G | Same programHarvard Crimson | 29.1 | 5.3 | 51.5% |
| Austin Hunt →G | Same programHarvard Crimson | 22.8 | 6.9 | 60.5% |
| Frankie Mannino →G | Same programHarvard Crimson | 8.9 | 1.8 | 59.9% |
| Ryan Sullivan →F | Same programHarvard Crimson | 7.5 | 1.3 | 54.5% |
| Xavier Nesbitt →G | Same programHarvard Crimson | 5.2 | 0.6 | 27.5% |
| Kenan Parrish →F | Same programHarvard Crimson | 6.2 | 2.2 | 48.4% |
| Luca Ace-Nasteski →F | Same programHarvard Crimson | 5.5 | 1.1 | 54.2% |
| Dutch Dowdell →G | Same programHarvard Crimson | 3.9 | 0.9 | 44.1% |
Showing the 12 highest prior-minute records. Open the full roster board for every source-listed player.
Recruiting review edition Sep 8, 2026 · coverage is partial (14 programs reviewed). See the full methodology and coverage map before drawing a roster conclusion.
Look ahead / 2026–27
The next assignments.
Checking the live schedule edition…
Harvard vs G Washington
67.4Harvard
75.2G Washington
G Washington win estimate73.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.8
Projected total142.6
80% home-margin range-8.1 to 23.7
Estimated possessions66.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.2 pts
G Washington attack 53.1% · Harvard defense 50.5%Harvard attack 51.6% · G Washington defense 51.2%
Ball securityHome 0.2 pts
G Washington attack 18.0% · Harvard defense 17.0%Harvard attack 18.3% · G Washington defense 17.1%
Second chancesHome 5.1 pts
G Washington attack 32.1% · Harvard defense 29.3%Harvard attack 27.5% · G Washington defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 7.9 pts
G Washington attack 36.8% · Harvard defense 28.7%Harvard attack 30.9% · G Washington defense 30.7%
Charles E. Smith Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Harvard vs American
67.1Harvard
66.9American
American win estimate53.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.2
Projected total133.9
80% home-margin range-16.1 to 15.7
Estimated possessions63.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.0 pts
American attack 51.6% · Harvard defense 50.5%Harvard attack 51.6% · American defense 53.5%
Ball securityHome 0.1 pts
American attack 17.4% · Harvard defense 17.0%Harvard attack 18.3% · American defense 17.9%
Second chancesAway 0.8 pts
American attack 26.5% · Harvard defense 29.3%Harvard attack 27.5% · American defense 29.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 9.8 pts
American attack 31.2% · Harvard defense 28.7%Harvard attack 30.9% · American defense 38.3%
Bender Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Boston College vs Harvard
64.8Boston College
66.7Harvard
Harvard win estimate59.2%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin1.9
Projected total131.5
80% home-margin range-14.0 to 17.8
Estimated possessions64.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.7 pts
Harvard attack 51.6% · Boston College defense 49.6%Boston College attack 49.8% · Harvard defense 50.5%
Ball securityAway 2.7 pts
Harvard attack 18.3% · Boston College defense 16.1%Boston College attack 16.5% · Harvard defense 17.0%
Second chancesAway 0.4 pts
Harvard attack 27.5% · Boston College defense 28.2%Boston College attack 29.1% · Harvard defense 29.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.0 pts
Harvard attack 30.9% · Boston College defense 34.1%Boston College attack 32.5% · Harvard defense 28.7%
Lavietes Pavilion
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Read the evidence correctly.
The top-line adjusted ratings use the full published preseason model. Split statistics below them are unadjusted observations from 2025–26. Opponent ranks are the current model’s ranks, not what was known before each historical game. The “top 50” split is descriptive and does not enter model evaluation.
Rates pool numerators and denominators from games with all fields required for that metric. Missing values remain unavailable; every metric shows its game count. Ranks require at least 10 games and compare programs in the model’s rated field. Ties share rank; percentiles use their average position. High percentiles mean favorable values only for metrics with a defined direction.
Player workloads refer to recorded 2025–26 appearances. Estimated usage divides FGA + 0.475 × FTA + turnovers by minutes-prorated team opportunities in those same games. It assumes team opportunity rates were constant while a player was on court; it is not a lineup or play-by-play measurement. Overtime is included in available minutes. Minutes and usage samples can differ.
Source statistics: SportsDataverse bulk releases, CC BY 4.0. Calculations and model: Silvermine. Definitions draw on publicly documented Four Factors and basketball rate statistics; these are not another publisher’s proprietary ratings. Model notebook →