A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
44.6% · rank 2 of 366 · 40 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Michigan
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.6
+28.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
37–32025–26 recorded finals
121.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
92.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Michigan.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
37–340 recorded games · 40 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.4Mean opponent adj. net 16.3 · 40 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
58.3%40 games · higher is betterRank 9 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
44.6%40 games · lower is betterRank 2 / 366 · 100th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.3%40 games · lower is betterRank 163 / 366 · 56th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.1%40 games · higher is betterRank 298 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
34.7%40 games · higher is betterRank 64 / 366 · 83th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.2%40 games · lower is betterRank 91 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
38.0%40 games · higher is betterRank 93 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
26.0%40 games · lower is betterRank 20 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 121.9 | 40 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 97.0 | 40 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 60.6% | 40 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 43.8% | 40 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.8% | 40 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 30.4% | 40 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 41.4% | 40 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 42.3% | 40 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.8% | 40 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.1% | 40 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 61.0% | 40 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 46.7% | 40 | 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?
2,863 source possession rows across 40 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
Effective FG%
58.3% · rank 9 of 366 · 40 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Turnover rate
16.3% · rank 163 of 366 · 40 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.1% · rank 298 of 366 · 40 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
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 9 times in the selected window; Michigan won 7. 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
Apr 7, 2026 · neutral vs UConn · W 69–63 · offense 105.4 / defense 96.3
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 · 40 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| UConnApr 7, 2026 · neutral | W 69–63 | 10 | 105.4 | 96.3 | 65.4 | 40.0 | 15.3 | 33.3 |
| ArizonaApr 5, 2026 · neutral | W 91–73 | 3 | 116.6 | 93.6 | 78.0 | 56.5 | 16.7 | 29.7 |
| TennesseeMar 29, 2026 · neutral | W 95–62 | 11 | 126.1 | 82.3 | 75.3 | 60.7 | 14.6 | 25.8 |
| AlabamaMar 27, 2026 · neutral | W 90–77 | 12 | 126.6 | 108.3 | 71.1 | 59.8 | 11.3 | 38.2 |
| Saint LouisMar 21, 2026 · neutral | W 95–72 | 55 | 134.7 | 102.1 | 70.5 | 64.8 | 12.8 | 33.3 |
| HowardMar 19, 2026 · neutral | W 101–80 | 223 | 141.7 | 112.2 | 71.3 | 77.3 | 14.0 | 20.0 |
| PurdueMar 15, 2026 · neutral | L 72–80 | 9 | 114.9 | 127.7 | 62.7 | 52.3 | 11.2 | 33.3 |
| WisconsinMar 14, 2026 · neutral | W 68–65 | 21 | 100.7 | 96.2 | 67.5 | 50.0 | 20.7 | 31.3 |
| Ohio StateMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 71–67 | 25 | 106.0 | 100.0 | 67.0 | 50.0 | 13.4 | 21.4 |
| Michigan StMar 8, 2026 · home | W 90–80 | 13 | 126.5 | 112.5 | 71.1 | 58.2 | 14.1 | 26.7 |
| IowaMar 6, 2026 · road | W 71–68 | 28 | 109.1 | 104.5 | 65.1 | 60.0 | 27.7 | 34.8 |
| IllinoisFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 84–70 | 7 | 126.5 | 105.4 | 66.4 | 59.3 | 15.1 | 37.9 |
| MinnesotaFeb 25, 2026 · home | W 77–67 | 91 | 119.2 | 103.7 | 64.6 | 62.1 | 21.7 | 37.0 |
| DukeFeb 21, 2026 · neutral | L 63–68 | 1 | 101.9 | 110.0 | 61.8 | 45.5 | 11.3 | 22.2 |
| PurdueFeb 17, 2026 · road | W 91–80 | 9 | 130.5 | 114.8 | 69.7 | 64.0 | 20.1 | 43.3 |
| UCLAFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 86–56 | 27 | 134.3 | 87.5 | 64.0 | 69.0 | 14.1 | 30.4 |
| NorthwesternFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 87–75 | 53 | 116.4 | 100.4 | 74.7 | 49.3 | 16.1 | 48.6 |
| Ohio StateFeb 8, 2026 · road | W 82–61 | 25 | 124.3 | 92.5 | 66.0 | 53.5 | 12.1 | 42.1 |
| Penn StateFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 110–69 | 103 | 154.5 | 96.9 | 71.2 | 72.0 | 12.6 | 47.8 |
| Michigan StJan 31, 2026 · road | W 83–71 | 13 | 114.3 | 97.8 | 72.6 | 50.8 | 17.9 | 34.4 |
| NebraskaJan 28, 2026 · home | W 75–72 | 24 | 105.0 | 100.8 | 71.4 | 52.8 | 26.6 | 36.0 |
| Ohio StateJan 24, 2026 · home | W 74–62 | 25 | 113.7 | 95.3 | 65.1 | 56.7 | 21.5 | 44.4 |
| IndianaJan 21, 2026 · home | W 86–72 | 44 | 122.7 | 102.7 | 70.1 | 60.4 | 18.5 | 37.5 |
| OregonJan 17, 2026 · road | W 81–71 | 61 | 120.1 | 105.3 | 67.4 | 57.8 | 20.8 | 44.4 |
| WashingtonJan 15, 2026 · road | W 82–72 | 66 | 115.2 | 101.2 | 71.2 | 50.0 | 11.2 | 40.0 |
| WisconsinJan 10, 2026 · home | L 88–91 | 21 | 121.9 | 126.1 | 72.2 | 53.2 | 12.5 | 29.0 |
| Penn StateJan 7, 2026 · road | W 74–72 | 103 | 103.5 | 100.7 | 71.5 | 52.6 | 16.8 | 20.0 |
| USCJan 3, 2026 · home | W 96–66 | 72 | 114.8 | 78.9 | 83.6 | 52.3 | 13.2 | 31.4 |
| McNeeseDec 30, 2025 · home | W 112–71 | 70 | 134.3 | 85.1 | 83.4 | 64.3 | 18.0 | 48.3 |
| La SalleDec 21, 2025 · home | W 102–50 | 242 | 136.6 | 66.9 | 74.7 | 66.1 | 13.4 | 33.3 |
| MarylandDec 14, 2025 · road | W 101–83 | 63 | 144.7 | 118.9 | 69.8 | 70.7 | 12.9 | 25.0 |
| VillanovaDec 9, 2025 · home | W 89–61 | 36 | 114.5 | 78.4 | 77.8 | 54.3 | 15.4 | 35.7 |
| RutgersDec 6, 2025 · home | W 101–60 | 107 | 138.9 | 82.5 | 72.7 | 70.0 | 15.1 | 42.3 |
| GonzagaNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 101–61 | 8 | 125.5 | 75.8 | 80.5 | 70.8 | 17.4 | 16.1 |
| AuburnNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 102–72 | 15 | 143.5 | 101.3 | 71.1 | 61.8 | 12.7 | 44.4 |
| San Diego StNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 94–54 | 43 | 124.5 | 71.5 | 75.5 | 58.1 | 17.2 | 40.5 |
| MTSUNov 19, 2025 · home | W 86–61 | 164 | 109.5 | 77.7 | 78.5 | 50.0 | 16.6 | 30.8 |
| TCUNov 15, 2025 · road | W 67–63 | 48 | 96.0 | 90.2 | 69.8 | 48.1 | 31.5 | 53.6 |
| Wake ForestNov 11, 2025 · neutral | W 85–84 | 60 | 98.5 | 97.4 | 76.7 | 48.4 | 19.7 | 34.2 |
| OaklandNov 4, 2025 · home | W 121–78 | 167 | 155.8 | 100.5 | 77.7 | 77.9 | 10.3 | 26.1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Yaxel LendeborgF | 40 | 30.2 | 15.1 | 6.8 | 3.2 | 64.6 | 20.5% | 40 | 3.0740 games | 18040 games |
| Elliot CadeauG | 40 | 27.3 | 10.5 | 2.7 | 5.8 | 54.3 | 21.6% | 40 | 2.4440 games | 17340 games |
| Morez Johnson Jr.F | 40 | 25.1 | 13.1 | 7.3 | 1.2 | 67.7 | 21.3% | 40 | 0.9140 games | 3540 games |
| Aday MaraC | 40 | 23.4 | 12.1 | 6.8 | 2.4 | 65.9 | 23.2% | 40 | 1.2340 games | 1040 games |
| Trey McKenneyG | 40 | 22.0 | 9.9 | 2.8 | 0.9 | 63.2 | 19.3% | 40 | 0.9740 games | 17440 games |
| Roddy Gayle Jr.G | 39 | 21.0 | 7.3 | 3.3 | 1.3 | 55.4 | 18.2% | 39 | 1.0439 games | 6639 games |
| Nimari BurnettG | 40 | 19.8 | 8.2 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 59.9 | 18.5% | 40 | 1.8140 games | 16040 games |
| Will TschetterF | 40 | 13.7 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 56.5 | 12.1% | 40 | 2.0840 games | 8440 games |
| L.J. CasonG | 28 | 18.6 | 8.4 | 1.9 | 2.4 | 62.5 | 21.3% | 28 | 1.3828 games | 8228 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 Michigan?
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.
11Source-listed players
9Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
41%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 | 7 | 2,576 | 2,576 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 3 | 630 | 630 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 58 | 58 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (3,264 minutes).
Dated school publications
9 announced additions
| Player | Evidence | Prior program | Prior MPG | Prior PPG | Latest publication |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brandon McCoy Jr.Prep addition | Season unavailable ↗Michigan announced that Brandon McCoy Jr. will miss the 2026–27 season. | Sierra Canyon School | — | — | Sep 1, 20262 dated records |
| J.P. Estrella →College transfer | Addition announced ↗Michigan announced J.P. Estrella as a 2026–27 addition. | TennesseeTennessee · 2025–26 | 18.3 | 10.0 | Apr 28, 20261 dated record |
| Jalen Reed →College transfer | Addition announced ↗Michigan announced Jalen Reed as a 2026–27 addition. | LSULSU · 2025–26 | 17.8 | 9.5 | Apr 28, 20261 dated record |
| Lincoln CosbyPrep addition | Redshirt announced ↗Michigan announced a planned redshirt season for Lincoln Cosby in 2026–27. | Montverde Academy | — | — | Apr 28, 20262 dated records |
| Moustapha Thiam →College transfer | Addition announced ↗Michigan announced Moustapha Thiam as a 2026–27 addition. | CincinnatiCincinnati · 2025–26 | 27.2 | 12.8 | Apr 28, 20261 dated record |
| Joseph HartmanPrep addition | Addition announced ↗Michigan announced Joseph Hartman as a 2026–27 addition. | The Rock School | — | — | Nov 14, 20251 dated record |
| Malachi BrownPrep addition | Addition announced ↗Michigan announced Malachi Brown as a 2026–27 addition. | Knoxville Catholic | — | — | Nov 14, 20251 dated record |
| Marcus MollerInternational addition | Addition announced ↗Michigan announced Marcus Moller as a 2026–27 addition. | Unicaja Malaga U22 | — | — | Nov 14, 20251 dated record |
| Quinn CostelloPrep addition | Addition announced ↗Michigan announced Quinn Costello as a 2026–27 addition. | The Newman School | — | — | Nov 14, 20251 dated record |
Roster observation
Who is listed in the source release?
11 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elliot Cadeau →G | Same programMichigan Wolverines | 27.3 | 10.5 | 54.3% |
| Trey McKenney →G | Same programMichigan Wolverines | 22.0 | 9.9 | 63.2% |
| Will Tschetter →F | Same programMichigan Wolverines | 13.7 | 3.5 | 56.5% |
| L.J. Cason →G | Same programMichigan Wolverines | 18.6 | 8.4 | 62.5% |
| Oscar Goodman →F | Same programMichigan Wolverines | 5.2 | 1.4 | 41.7% |
| Malick Kordel →C | Same programMichigan Wolverines | 4.1 | 1.2 | 51.9% |
| Winters Grady →G | Same programMichigan Wolverines | 5.7 | 2.9 | 55.7% |
| Charlie May →G | Same programMichigan Wolverines | 2.4 | 0.9 | 70.7% |
| Howard Eisley Jr. →G | Same programMichigan Wolverines | 1.3 | 0.3 | 25.2% |
| Harrison Hochberg →F | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
| Ricky Liburd →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Marquette vs Michigan
69.4Marquette
82.6Michigan
Michigan win estimate83.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.3
Projected total152.0
80% home-margin range-2.7 to 29.2
Estimated possessions71.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.0 pts
Michigan attack 56.5% · Marquette defense 49.3%Marquette attack 53.5% · Michigan defense 45.3%
Ball securityHome 2.4 pts
Michigan attack 17.0% · Marquette defense 20.5%Marquette attack 15.2% · Michigan defense 16.3%
Second chancesHome 0.4 pts
Michigan attack 33.7% · Marquette defense 30.7%Marquette attack 29.7% · Michigan defense 27.1%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.0 pts
Michigan attack 38.3% · Marquette defense 31.2%Marquette attack 31.6% · Michigan defense 27.5%
Crisler Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Michigan vs Creighton
81.2Michigan
71.4Creighton
Creighton win estimate28.8%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-9.7
Projected total152.6
80% home-margin range-25.7 to 6.2
Estimated possessions70.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.8 pts
Creighton attack 55.6% · Michigan defense 45.3%Michigan attack 56.5% · Creighton defense 48.0%
Ball securityHome 3.4 pts
Creighton attack 16.1% · Michigan defense 16.3%Michigan attack 17.0% · Creighton defense 13.7%
Second chancesAway 7.5 pts
Creighton attack 27.3% · Michigan defense 27.1%Michigan attack 33.7% · Creighton defense 26.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 13.0 pts
Creighton attack 30.2% · Michigan defense 27.5%Michigan attack 38.3% · Creighton defense 22.6%
T-Mobile Arena
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 →