A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.3% · rank 80 of 366 · 31 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Kansas City
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.337
-14.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
4–272025–26 recorded finals
96.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
111.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Kansas City.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
4–2731 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.9Mean opponent adj. net -1.6 · 28 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
46.8%31 games · higher is betterRank 350 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
55.3%31 games · lower is betterRank 347 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.2%31 games · lower is betterRank 283 / 366 · 23th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.5%31 games · higher is betterRank 200 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
27.5%31 games · higher is betterRank 297 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
35.0%31 games · lower is betterRank 350 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
31.0%31 games · higher is betterRank 280 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.3%31 games · lower is betterRank 80 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 96.1 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 116.2 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 47.8% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 55.8% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 30.1% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.4% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 36.9% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.6% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 67.6% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.7% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 47.5% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 52.3% | 31 | 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?
2,246 source possession rows across 31 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
Turnovers forced
16.5% · rank 200 of 366 · 31 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Effective FG%
46.8% · rank 350 of 366 · 31 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
35.0% · rank 350 of 366 · 31 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
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 2 times in the selected window; Kansas City won 0. 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 5, 2026 · neutral vs Oral Roberts · L 62–84 · offense 88.9 / defense 120.5
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 · 31 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oral RobertsMar 5, 2026 · neutral | L 62–84 | 300 | 88.9 | 120.5 | 69.7 | 38.7 | 12.9 | 29.5 |
| Oral RobertsMar 1, 2026 · home | L 70–94 | 300 | 95.1 | 127.7 | 73.6 | 49.1 | 14.9 | 14.6 |
| S Dakota StFeb 27, 2026 · home | L 59–73 | 161 | 92.0 | 113.8 | 64.1 | 43.9 | 7.8 | 12.5 |
| N Dakota StFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 59–95 | 128 | 76.4 | 123.0 | 77.2 | 42.7 | 18.1 | 12.5 |
| North DakotaFeb 20, 2026 · road | L 70–85 | 283 | 90.7 | 110.2 | 77.1 | 44.5 | 18.1 | 23.8 |
| St Thomas (MN)Feb 15, 2026 · home | L 64–104 | 118 | 87.9 | 142.9 | 72.8 | 47.7 | 16.5 | 17.6 |
| Oral RobertsFeb 13, 2026 · road | L 60–69 | 300 | 92.2 | 106.0 | 65.1 | 39.1 | 15.4 | 34.8 |
| South DakotaFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 75–82 | 289 | 93.3 | 102.0 | 71.5 | 53.2 | 22.4 | 18.2 |
| St Thomas (MN)Feb 1, 2026 · road | L 64–99 | 118 | 86.5 | 133.8 | 74.0 | 37.7 | 18.9 | 36.0 |
| DenverJan 29, 2026 · home | L 61–69 | 268 | 90.6 | 102.5 | 67.3 | 42.1 | 11.9 | 26.2 |
| OmahaJan 25, 2026 · home | L 60–77 | 238 | 81.3 | 104.4 | 73.8 | 43.3 | 20.3 | 22.5 |
| S Dakota StJan 17, 2026 · road | L 62–90 | 161 | 95.2 | 138.1 | 65.2 | 45.7 | 16.9 | 29.7 |
| South DakotaJan 16, 2026 · road | L 83–99 | 289 | 108.9 | 129.9 | 76.2 | 51.4 | 10.5 | 29.3 |
| North DakotaJan 11, 2026 · home | L 79–81 | 283 | 120.6 | 123.6 | 65.5 | 66.0 | 27.5 | 39.1 |
| N Dakota StJan 9, 2026 · home | L 73–97 | 128 | 106.5 | 141.5 | 68.6 | 56.4 | 24.8 | 37.5 |
| OmahaJan 4, 2026 · road | W 73–66 | 238 | 107.6 | 97.3 | 67.8 | 49.1 | 10.3 | 17.1 |
| DenverDec 31, 2025 · road | L 74–87 | 268 | 105.5 | 124.0 | 70.1 | 47.5 | 14.3 | 34.2 |
| McPhersonDec 28, 2025 · home | W 91–78 | Unrated | 127.9 | 109.6 | 71.2 | 50.8 | 12.6 | 41.5 |
| Oklahoma StDec 19, 2025 · road | L 79–91 | 88 | 102.3 | 117.8 | 77.2 | 45.5 | 15.5 | 26.8 |
| OklahomaDec 17, 2025 · road | L 67–89 | 38 | 95.4 | 126.7 | 70.2 | 49.0 | 22.8 | 25.7 |
| SpurgeonDec 14, 2025 · home | W 102–75 | Unrated | 119.0 | 87.5 | 85.7 | 63.9 | 23.3 | 40.6 |
| Weber StDec 11, 2025 · home | L 60–64 | 212 | 80.8 | 86.2 | 74.3 | 39.0 | 21.5 | 30.0 |
| E WashingtonDec 6, 2025 · road | L 66–90 | 199 | 86.7 | 118.2 | 76.2 | 49.1 | 27.6 | 29.0 |
| Idaho StDec 4, 2025 · home | L 59–68 | 239 | 97.3 | 112.1 | 60.7 | 47.0 | 21.4 | 29.0 |
| Weber StNov 29, 2025 · road | L 61–82 | 212 | 89.0 | 119.6 | 68.6 | 48.2 | 19.0 | 18.9 |
| LindenwoodNov 25, 2025 · road | L 67–80 | 304 | 88.6 | 105.8 | 75.6 | 45.2 | 25.1 | 20.6 |
| TCUNov 20, 2025 · road | L 45–81 | 48 | 63.3 | 114.0 | 71.1 | 29.5 | 25.3 | 26.7 |
| TexasNov 15, 2025 · road | L 55–71 | 34 | 85.9 | 110.9 | 64.1 | 37.7 | 9.4 | 23.8 |
| IonaNov 11, 2025 · home | L 91–105 | 215 | 105.4 | 121.7 | 86.3 | 51.4 | 20.9 | 37.5 |
| S IllinoisNov 8, 2025 · road | L 78–101 | 124 | 102.4 | 132.7 | 76.1 | 46.4 | 15.8 | 34.0 |
| EvangelNov 4, 2025 · home | W 80–74 | Unrated | 111.8 | 103.5 | 71.5 | 54.2 | 18.2 | 35.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jayson PettyG | 31 | 31.1 | 11.1 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 53.0 | 19.4% | 31 | 0.8631 games | 16431 games |
| CJ EvansG | 30 | 30.4 | 11.6 | 2.5 | 3.8 | 47.6 | 24.1% | 30 | 1.3430 games | 4930 games |
| Karmello BranchG | 28 | 29.7 | 12.1 | 2.6 | 1.5 | 50.5 | 22.0% | 28 | 1.0028 games | 20528 games |
| Jerome PalmF | 31 | 26.0 | 7.8 | 6.1 | 1.3 | 48.6 | 17.3% | 31 | 1.0331 games | 2331 games |
| Kasheem Grady IIG | 30 | 25.7 | 10.0 | 3.2 | 1.2 | 51.8 | 21.2% | 30 | 0.7630 games | 12930 games |
| Chris DockeryG | 29 | 22.2 | 7.2 | 6.0 | 0.9 | 55.9 | 17.3% | 29 | 0.6329 games | 2829 games |
| Addarin ScottF | 29 | 12.5 | 3.8 | 2.8 | 0.5 | 50.4 | 17.7% | 29 | 0.5829 games | 229 games |
| Jamaria ClarkG | 27 | 11.9 | 2.8 | 0.5 | 0.9 | 42.9 | 15.9% | 27 | 1.5627 games | 4727 games |
| Trey Booker-LoweryG | 25 | 10.5 | 4.6 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 45.5 | 27.1% | 25 | 0.3825 games | 3125 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 Kansas City?
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
12Same-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 | 10 | 4,785 | 4,785 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,440 | 1,440 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,225 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jayson Petty →G | Same programKansas City Roos | 31.1 | 11.1 | 53.0% |
| CJ Evans →G | Same programKansas City Roos | 30.4 | 11.6 | 47.6% |
| Karmello Branch →G | Same programKansas City Roos | 29.7 | 12.1 | 50.5% |
| Jerome Palm →F | Same programKansas City Roos | 26.0 | 7.8 | 48.6% |
| Kasheem Grady II →G | Same programKansas City Roos | 25.7 | 10.0 | 51.8% |
| Chris Dockery →G | Same programKansas City Roos | 22.2 | 7.2 | 55.9% |
| Addarin Scott →F | Same programKansas City Roos | 12.5 | 3.8 | 50.4% |
| Jamaria Clark →G | Same programKansas City Roos | 11.9 | 2.8 | 42.9% |
| Trey Booker-Lowery →G | Same programKansas City Roos | 10.5 | 4.6 | 45.5% |
| Babacar Mbengue →F | Same programKansas City Roos | 8.0 | 1.2 | 42.6% |
| Kernan Bundy →G | Same programKansas City Roos | 13.0 | 3.0 | 37.1% |
| D'Andre Harrison →F | Same programKansas City Roos | 12.3 | 2.8 | 47.8% |
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…
Kansas City vs Creighton
60.2Kansas City
83.5Creighton
Creighton win estimate93.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin23.3
Projected total143.8
80% home-margin range7.4 to 39.3
Estimated possessions68.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.0 pts
Creighton attack 55.6% · Kansas City defense 52.7%Kansas City attack 47.0% · Creighton defense 48.0%
Ball securityHome 6.0 pts
Creighton attack 16.1% · Kansas City defense 17.2%Kansas City attack 18.6% · Creighton defense 13.7%
Second chancesAway 8.9 pts
Creighton attack 27.3% · Kansas City defense 32.0%Kansas City attack 30.2% · Creighton defense 26.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 14.5 pts
Creighton attack 30.2% · Kansas City defense 35.4%Kansas City attack 31.8% · Creighton defense 22.6%
CHI Health Center Omaha
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
S Dakota St vs Kansas City
75.2S Dakota St
68.0Kansas City
Kansas City win estimate34.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-7.2
Projected total143.2
80% home-margin range-23.1 to 8.7
Estimated possessions68.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.6 pts
Kansas City attack 47.0% · S Dakota St defense 51.2%S Dakota St attack 52.1% · Kansas City defense 52.7%
Ball securityAway 3.5 pts
Kansas City attack 18.6% · S Dakota St defense 15.3%S Dakota St attack 17.1% · Kansas City defense 17.2%
Second chancesHome 7.2 pts
Kansas City attack 30.2% · S Dakota St defense 25.6%S Dakota St attack 29.3% · Kansas City defense 32.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.9 pts
Kansas City attack 31.8% · S Dakota St defense 31.1%S Dakota St attack 31.2% · Kansas City defense 35.4%
Swinney Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
South Dakota vs Kansas City
76.6South Dakota
76.0Kansas City
Kansas City win estimate52.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.6
Projected total152.6
80% home-margin range-16.5 to 15.3
Estimated possessions71.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.6 pts
Kansas City attack 47.0% · South Dakota defense 53.7%South Dakota attack 49.6% · Kansas City defense 52.7%
Ball securityAway 3.7 pts
Kansas City attack 18.6% · South Dakota defense 15.7%South Dakota attack 16.5% · Kansas City defense 17.2%
Second chancesHome 1.9 pts
Kansas City attack 30.2% · South Dakota defense 32.0%South Dakota attack 28.2% · Kansas City defense 32.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.6 pts
Kansas City attack 31.8% · South Dakota defense 33.3%South Dakota attack 40.5% · Kansas City defense 35.4%
Swinney Center
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 →