A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
44.5% · rank 1 of 366 · 35 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Saint Louis
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.55
+12.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
29–62025–26 recorded finals
115.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
103.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Saint Louis.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
29–635 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 72.2Mean opponent adj. net 3.0 · 34 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
59.9%35 games · higher is betterRank 4 / 366 · 99th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
44.5%35 games · lower is betterRank 1 / 366 · 100th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.1%35 games · lower is betterRank 218 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.1%35 games · higher is betterRank 235 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.5%35 games · higher is betterRank 165 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
26.7%35 games · lower is betterRank 43 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
33.2%35 games · higher is betterRank 227 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.9%35 games · lower is betterRank 251 / 366 · 32th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 120.8 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 97.6 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 60.4% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 44.4% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 39.6% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 29.7% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 45.3% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 41.8% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.1% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.7% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 60.2% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 51.3% | 35 | 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?
2,545 source possession rows across 35 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%
59.9% · rank 4 of 366 · 35 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
16.1% · rank 235 of 366 · 35 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.9% · rank 251 of 366 · 35 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
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 6 times in the selected window; Saint Louis won 3. 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 21, 2026 · neutral vs Michigan · L 72–95 · offense 102.1 / defense 134.7
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MichiganMar 21, 2026 · neutral | L 72–95 | 6 | 102.1 | 134.7 | 70.5 | 52.5 | 11.3 | 13.9 |
| GeorgiaMar 20, 2026 · neutral | W 102–77 | 37 | 127.8 | 96.5 | 79.8 | 64.6 | 16.3 | 34.4 |
| DaytonMar 14, 2026 · neutral | L 69–70 | 58 | 100.8 | 102.3 | 68.4 | 52.9 | 26.3 | 23.3 |
| G WashingtonMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 88–81 | 110 | 118.2 | 108.8 | 74.4 | 54.2 | 14.8 | 21.9 |
| George MasonMar 7, 2026 · road | L 57–86 | 90 | 90.6 | 136.6 | 62.9 | 43.1 | 19.1 | 30.0 |
| Loyola ChicagoMar 5, 2026 · home | W 79–65 | 202 | 132.9 | 109.4 | 59.4 | 69.8 | 11.8 | 22.7 |
| DuquesneMar 1, 2026 · home | W 91–76 | 129 | 138.6 | 115.7 | 65.7 | 70.0 | 15.2 | 26.1 |
| DaytonFeb 25, 2026 · road | L 62–77 | 58 | 89.3 | 110.9 | 69.4 | 44.5 | 21.6 | 24.2 |
| VCUFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 88–75 | 39 | 114.1 | 97.3 | 77.1 | 59.1 | 19.5 | 35.1 |
| Rhode IslandFeb 18, 2026 · road | L 76–81 | 158 | 101.9 | 108.6 | 74.6 | 51.9 | 24.1 | 27.3 |
| Loyola ChicagoFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 86–59 | 202 | 118.3 | 81.2 | 72.7 | 61.5 | 19.3 | 31.3 |
| La SalleFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 82–58 | 242 | 115.9 | 82.0 | 70.8 | 63.2 | 15.5 | 14.3 |
| DavidsonFeb 4, 2026 · road | W 91–82 | 121 | 130.6 | 117.7 | 69.7 | 61.0 | 14.4 | 37.5 |
| DaytonJan 31, 2026 · home | W 102–71 | 58 | 140.2 | 97.6 | 72.8 | 77.7 | 17.9 | 26.1 |
| G WashingtonJan 28, 2026 · home | W 79–76 | 110 | 104.3 | 100.4 | 75.7 | 54.0 | 18.5 | 30.2 |
| St BonaventureJan 23, 2026 · road | W 97–62 | 125 | 137.9 | 88.1 | 70.3 | 72.7 | 14.2 | 29.0 |
| DuquesneJan 21, 2026 · road | W 81–77 | 129 | 105.5 | 100.3 | 76.8 | 57.0 | 20.8 | 26.5 |
| RichmondJan 17, 2026 · home | W 88–63 | 162 | 126.7 | 90.7 | 69.4 | 57.4 | 13.0 | 35.3 |
| FordhamJan 15, 2026 · home | W 78–56 | 187 | 128.1 | 91.9 | 60.9 | 61.8 | 9.9 | 27.6 |
| La SalleJan 10, 2026 · road | W 84–72 | 242 | 124.5 | 106.7 | 67.5 | 66.7 | 20.7 | 32.0 |
| VCUJan 8, 2026 · road | W 71–62 | 39 | 92.2 | 80.5 | 77.0 | 47.6 | 15.6 | 15.4 |
| Saint Joseph'sDec 31, 2025 · home | W 102–79 | 108 | 156.2 | 121.0 | 65.3 | 79.2 | 10.7 | 28.0 |
| PrincipiaDec 28, 2025 · home | W 114–33 | Unrated | 150.8 | 43.7 | 75.6 | 66.2 | 14.6 | 58.8 |
| New HampshireDec 21, 2025 · home | W 93–79 | 348 | 125.4 | 106.6 | 74.1 | 53.8 | 10.8 | 34.1 |
| BethuneDec 18, 2025 · home | W 112–53 | 301 | 144.7 | 68.5 | 77.4 | 75.8 | 16.8 | 34.5 |
| San FranciscoDec 14, 2025 · home | W 85–75 | 89 | 120.7 | 106.5 | 70.4 | 54.0 | 12.8 | 36.1 |
| C MichiganDec 7, 2025 · home | W 107–65 | 266 | 154.7 | 93.9 | 69.2 | 65.9 | 5.8 | 43.3 |
| LMUDec 3, 2025 · road | W 91–70 | 160 | 118.0 | 90.8 | 77.1 | 57.2 | 23.3 | 48.6 |
| StanfordNov 29, 2025 · neutral | L 77–78 | 77 | 106.4 | 107.8 | 72.4 | 41.8 | 15.2 | 34.2 |
| Santa ClaraNov 28, 2025 · neutral | W 71–70 | 42 | 100.4 | 99.0 | 70.7 | 50.0 | 15.6 | 28.6 |
| Purdue FWNov 22, 2025 · home | W 91–60 | 210 | 129.3 | 85.3 | 70.4 | 61.5 | 22.7 | 48.4 |
| Grand CanyonNov 16, 2025 · home | W 78–64 | 65 | 104.3 | 85.6 | 74.8 | 54.2 | 24.1 | 29.4 |
| LindenwoodNov 11, 2025 · home | W 109–66 | 304 | 134.5 | 81.4 | 81.0 | 76.3 | 24.7 | 47.8 |
| Chicago StNov 7, 2025 · home | W 108–86 | 360 | 126.1 | 100.4 | 85.7 | 62.9 | 17.5 | 25.0 |
| SE MissouriNov 4, 2025 · home | W 92–67 | 243 | 119.2 | 86.8 | 77.2 | 56.0 | 19.4 | 38.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quentin JonesG | 35 | 26.5 | 9.1 | 3.9 | 3.0 | 56.6 | 18.2% | 35 | 1.6035 games | 9435 games |
| Robbie AvilaC | 35 | 26.4 | 12.8 | 4.5 | 4.1 | 65.1 | 21.4% | 35 | 2.3635 games | 16135 games |
| Dion BrownG | 35 | 23.7 | 11.3 | 5.4 | 1.6 | 67.3 | 20.8% | 35 | 0.9735 games | 6035 games |
| Trey GreenG | 34 | 23.6 | 10.7 | 2.9 | 1.7 | 65.6 | 18.1% | 34 | 2.5734 games | 20834 games |
| Ishan SharmaF | 35 | 22.2 | 9.1 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 64.4 | 16.7% | 35 | 2.7435 games | 19235 games |
| Amari McCottryG | 34 | 22.9 | 10.5 | 5.3 | 2.9 | 56.1 | 25.2% | 34 | 1.1834 games | 6234 games |
| Brady DunlapF | 34 | 16.9 | 7.0 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 65.7 | 18.0% | 34 | 1.1034 games | 11334 games |
| Kellen ThamesG | 33 | 17.1 | 9.7 | 4.7 | 1.8 | 65.8 | 24.8% | 33 | 1.4333 games | 1233 games |
| Paul OtienoF | 35 | 15.3 | 5.3 | 3.9 | 0.9 | 65.1 | 15.1% | 35 | 1.4135 games | 335 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 Saint Louis?
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.
15Source-listed players
11Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
75%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 | 8 | 3,244 | 3,244 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 2,004 | 2,004 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,248 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?
15 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Quentin Jones →G | Same programSaint Louis Billikens | 26.5 | 9.1 | 56.6% |
| Trey Green →G | Same programSaint Louis Billikens | 23.6 | 10.7 | 65.6% |
| Ishan Sharma →F | Same programSaint Louis Billikens | 22.2 | 9.1 | 64.4% |
| Amari McCottry →G | Same programSaint Louis Billikens | 22.9 | 10.5 | 56.1% |
| Brady Dunlap →F | Same programSaint Louis Billikens | 16.9 | 7.0 | 65.7% |
| Kellen Thames →G | Same programSaint Louis Billikens | 17.1 | 9.7 | 65.8% |
| Paul Otieno →F | Same programSaint Louis Billikens | 15.3 | 5.3 | 65.1% |
| Jax Kerr →F | Same programSaint Louis Billikens | 6.8 | 2.9 | 45.3% |
| Cam Hutson →G | Same programSaint Louis Billikens | 5.4 | 1.8 | 46.2% |
| Jaden Schertz →G | Same programSaint Louis Billikens | 3.2 | 0.7 | 44.9% |
| Isaac Holmes →G | Same programSaint Louis Billikens | 2.8 | 0.8 | 42.5% |
| Badara Diakite →F | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Lehigh vs Saint Louis
66.4Lehigh
85.0Saint Louis
Saint Louis win estimate90.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin18.6
Projected total151.4
80% home-margin range2.7 to 34.5
Estimated possessions70.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.0 pts
Saint Louis attack 56.6% · Lehigh defense 51.2%Lehigh attack 50.9% · Saint Louis defense 48.5%
Ball securityHome 1.1 pts
Saint Louis attack 17.3% · Lehigh defense 16.3%Lehigh attack 17.3% · Saint Louis defense 15.2%
Second chancesHome 2.1 pts
Saint Louis attack 28.5% · Lehigh defense 30.5%Lehigh attack 23.3% · Saint Louis defense 27.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.2 pts
Saint Louis attack 33.7% · Lehigh defense 34.7%Lehigh attack 33.1% · Saint Louis defense 32.9%
Chaifetz Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Missouri vs Saint Louis
79.9Missouri
78.6Saint Louis
Saint Louis win estimate50.4%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.3
Projected total158.4
80% home-margin range-17.3 to 14.6
Estimated possessions70.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.6 pts
Saint Louis attack 56.6% · Missouri defense 50.5%Missouri attack 55.2% · Saint Louis defense 48.5%
Ball securityHome 3.2 pts
Saint Louis attack 17.3% · Missouri defense 18.9%Missouri attack 16.9% · Saint Louis defense 15.2%
Second chancesAway 7.4 pts
Saint Louis attack 28.5% · Missouri defense 31.0%Missouri attack 32.2% · Saint Louis defense 27.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 9.4 pts
Saint Louis attack 33.7% · Missouri defense 35.8%Missouri attack 40.3% · Saint Louis defense 32.9%
Chaifetz Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
N Kentucky vs Saint Louis
70.8N Kentucky
84.2Saint Louis
Saint Louis win estimate83.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.3
Projected total155.0
80% home-margin range-2.6 to 29.2
Estimated possessions71.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.8 pts
Saint Louis attack 56.6% · N Kentucky defense 52.9%N Kentucky attack 50.4% · Saint Louis defense 48.5%
Ball securityHome 3.8 pts
Saint Louis attack 17.3% · N Kentucky defense 19.5%N Kentucky attack 16.8% · Saint Louis defense 15.2%
Second chancesAway 5.8 pts
Saint Louis attack 28.5% · N Kentucky defense 31.6%N Kentucky attack 30.1% · Saint Louis defense 27.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.1 pts
Saint Louis attack 33.7% · N Kentucky defense 34.8%N Kentucky attack 33.9% · Saint Louis defense 32.9%
Chaifetz 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 →