A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.9% · rank 54 of 366 · 27 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Dartmouth
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.253
-6.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
11–162025–26 recorded finals
101.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
108.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Dartmouth.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
11–1627 recorded games · 27 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.7Mean opponent adj. net -1.0 · 25 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.9%27 games · higher is betterRank 125 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.5%27 games · lower is betterRank 211 / 366 · 42th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.4%27 games · lower is betterRank 240 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
13.9%27 games · higher is betterRank 341 / 366 · 7th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
25.8%27 games · higher is betterRank 335 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.1%27 games · lower is betterRank 87 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.0%27 games · higher is betterRank 121 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.9%27 games · lower is betterRank 54 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 108.2 | 27 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 109.5 | 27 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.7% | 27 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.0% | 27 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.1% | 27 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.8% | 27 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 49.1% | 27 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.7% | 27 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.5% | 27 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.3% | 27 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 55.5% | 27 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 51.6% | 27 | 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?
1,923 source possession rows across 27 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
28.1% · rank 87 of 366 · 27 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
25.8% · rank 335 of 366 · 27 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
13.9% · rank 341 of 366 · 27 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 4 times in the selected window; Dartmouth 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 7, 2026 · home vs Cornell · L 90–111 · offense 115.5 / defense 142.5
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 · 27 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CornellMar 7, 2026 · home | L 90–111 | 122 | 115.5 | 142.5 | 77.9 | 50.8 | 14.1 | 22.9 |
| PrincetonFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 61–82 | 184 | 94.4 | 126.9 | 64.6 | 38.7 | 12.4 | 22.5 |
| PennFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 71–80 | 203 | 102.6 | 115.6 | 69.2 | 53.8 | 14.4 | 14.7 |
| ColumbiaFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 64–63 | 217 | 95.3 | 93.8 | 67.2 | 42.9 | 11.9 | 13.5 |
| BrownFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 76–79 | 249 | 106.4 | 110.6 | 71.5 | 61.4 | 23.8 | 11.5 |
| YaleFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 70–83 | 62 | 102.5 | 121.5 | 68.3 | 53.6 | 23.4 | 23.3 |
| HarvardFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 58–71 | 175 | 90.1 | 110.3 | 64.4 | 41.1 | 14.0 | 15.8 |
| BrownJan 31, 2026 · road | W 77–70 | 249 | 103.1 | 93.7 | 66.4 | 51.0 | 18.7 | 12.9 |
| YaleJan 31, 2026 · road | L 68–83 | 62 | 105.8 | 129.1 | 64.3 | 53.3 | 15.6 | 27.3 |
| ColumbiaJan 24, 2026 · home | L 69–79 | 217 | 96.6 | 110.6 | 71.4 | 47.5 | 14.0 | 20.0 |
| PrincetonJan 19, 2026 · home | W 71–69 | 184 | 116.1 | 112.8 | 61.2 | 50.9 | 13.1 | 32.4 |
| PennJan 17, 2026 · home | L 74–84 | 203 | 102.0 | 115.8 | 72.5 | 45.1 | 15.2 | 27.0 |
| CornellJan 10, 2026 · road | W 102–91 | 122 | 135.6 | 121.0 | 75.2 | 66.2 | 6.6 | 22.9 |
| HarvardJan 6, 2026 · road | W 76–68 | 175 | 118.8 | 106.3 | 64.0 | 64.1 | 17.2 | 28.0 |
| ElmsJan 1, 2026 · home | W 107–43 | Unrated | 147.6 | 59.3 | 72.5 | 66.2 | 12.4 | 48.4 |
| FloridaDec 29, 2025 · road | L 72–94 | 4 | 96.8 | 126.4 | 74.4 | 50.0 | 13.4 | 7.9 |
| Sacred HeartDec 19, 2025 · road | L 63–85 | 279 | 85.1 | 114.8 | 74.1 | 40.8 | 28.4 | 38.6 |
| Holy CrossDec 16, 2025 · road | W 89–64 | 334 | 132.4 | 95.2 | 67.2 | 67.9 | 22.3 | 38.7 |
| Boston UDec 13, 2025 · home | W 77–64 | 270 | 114.6 | 95.2 | 67.2 | 54.7 | 13.4 | 25.8 |
| Colorado StDec 10, 2025 · road | L 55–76 | 67 | 87.1 | 120.4 | 63.1 | 49.0 | 23.8 | 25.0 |
| WyomingDec 6, 2025 · road | L 80–93 | 132 | 110.1 | 127.9 | 72.7 | 63.8 | 23.4 | 12.0 |
| New HampshireDec 4, 2025 · home | W 69–68 | 348 | 99.5 | 98.0 | 69.4 | 47.5 | 20.2 | 33.3 |
| Saint Peter'sNov 29, 2025 · road | W 87–61 | 250 | 132.4 | 92.9 | 65.7 | 59.4 | 15.2 | 41.4 |
| Maine AugustaNov 19, 2025 · home | W 113–68 | Unrated | 142.0 | 85.5 | 79.6 | 61.8 | 16.3 | 51.2 |
| App StateNov 16, 2025 · home | L 77–85 | 151 | 106.8 | 117.9 | 72.1 | 56.1 | 22.2 | 25.8 |
| BryantNov 13, 2025 · road | L 75–82 | 298 | 100.6 | 110.0 | 74.5 | 50.8 | 16.1 | 22.0 |
| MaristNov 9, 2025 · home | L 56–75 | 200 | 76.9 | 103.0 | 72.8 | 37.8 | 27.5 | 25.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kareem ThomasG | 26 | 29.2 | 15.9 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 60.7 | 27.1% | 26 | 0.6326 games | 10326 games |
| Connor AmundsenPG | 26 | 29.1 | 9.5 | 2.0 | 3.7 | 52.4 | 18.0% | 26 | 3.3126 games | 11726 games |
| Brandon Mitchell-DayF | 27 | 28.0 | 12.1 | 9.0 | 2.3 | 57.4 | 24.0% | 27 | 0.8927 games | 6727 games |
| Jayden WilliamsF | 26 | 27.3 | 11.8 | 3.9 | 1.1 | 56.9 | 23.1% | 26 | 0.5726 games | 18026 games |
| Jackson MunroF | 27 | 24.7 | 7.8 | 4.2 | 2.0 | 61.5 | 14.9% | 27 | 2.2927 games | 8327 games |
| Cameron McNameeG | 27 | 20.3 | 6.0 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 56.5 | 15.4% | 27 | 0.8627 games | 8427 games |
| Cam HiattG | 23 | 17.3 | 3.7 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 47.1 | 13.8% | 23 | 1.3523 games | 6023 games |
| Nikola AbusaraG | 23 | 17.2 | 5.4 | 2.4 | 1.4 | 50.9 | 18.1% | 23 | 1.6023 games | 1723 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 Dartmouth?
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.
14Source-listed players
14Same-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 | 7 | 3,017 | 3,017 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,303 | 2,303 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 105 | 105 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,425 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?
14 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kareem Thomas →G | Same programDartmouth Big Green | 29.2 | 15.9 | 60.7% |
| Connor Amundsen →PG | Same programDartmouth Big Green | 29.1 | 9.5 | 52.4% |
| Brandon Mitchell-Day →F | Same programDartmouth Big Green | 28.0 | 12.1 | 57.4% |
| Jayden Williams →F | Same programDartmouth Big Green | 27.3 | 11.8 | 56.9% |
| Jackson Munro →F | Same programDartmouth Big Green | 24.7 | 7.8 | 61.5% |
| Cameron McNamee →G | Same programDartmouth Big Green | 20.3 | 6.0 | 56.5% |
| Cam Hiatt →G | Same programDartmouth Big Green | 17.3 | 3.7 | 47.1% |
| Nikola Abusara →G | Same programDartmouth Big Green | 17.2 | 5.4 | 50.9% |
| Ben Brown →G | Same programDartmouth Big Green | 9.2 | 2.1 | 50.0% |
| Anton Strelnikov →C | Same programDartmouth Big Green | 5.8 | 4.1 | 65.0% |
| Patrick Tivnan Jr. →F | Same programDartmouth Big Green | 6.4 | 1.0 | 48.8% |
| Shanon Simango →F | Same programDartmouth Big Green | 4.5 | 3.0 | 65.4% |
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…
Dartmouth vs Penn
71.3Dartmouth
77.4Penn
Penn win estimate69.7%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.1
Projected total148.7
80% home-margin range-9.8 to 22.1
Estimated possessions70.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.9 pts
Penn attack 51.1% · Dartmouth defense 51.2%Dartmouth attack 50.8% · Penn defense 51.8%
Ball securityHome 0.1 pts
Penn attack 16.8% · Dartmouth defense 14.3%Dartmouth attack 18.2% · Penn defense 15.6%
Second chancesHome 7.9 pts
Penn attack 29.5% · Dartmouth defense 27.2%Dartmouth attack 24.4% · Penn defense 30.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.1 pts
Penn attack 33.9% · Dartmouth defense 30.3%Dartmouth attack 35.5% · Penn defense 29.8%
The Palestra
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Brown vs Dartmouth
68.6Brown
71.7Dartmouth
Dartmouth win estimate62.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.2
Projected total140.3
80% home-margin range-12.8 to 19.1
Estimated possessions69.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.3 pts
Dartmouth attack 50.8% · Brown defense 50.6%Brown attack 50.1% · Dartmouth defense 51.2%
Ball securityHome 4.0 pts
Dartmouth attack 18.2% · Brown defense 17.3%Brown attack 19.1% · Dartmouth defense 14.3%
Second chancesAway 7.9 pts
Dartmouth attack 24.4% · Brown defense 29.9%Brown attack 29.6% · Dartmouth defense 27.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.5 pts
Dartmouth attack 35.5% · Brown defense 35.0%Brown attack 32.4% · Dartmouth defense 30.3%
Leede Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Dartmouth vs Brown
68.3Dartmouth
72.0Brown
Brown win estimate63.7%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.6
Projected total140.3
80% home-margin range-12.3 to 19.6
Estimated possessions69.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.3 pts
Brown attack 50.1% · Dartmouth defense 51.2%Dartmouth attack 50.8% · Brown defense 50.6%
Ball securityAway 4.0 pts
Brown attack 19.1% · Dartmouth defense 14.3%Dartmouth attack 18.2% · Brown defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 7.9 pts
Brown attack 29.6% · Dartmouth defense 27.2%Dartmouth attack 24.4% · Brown defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.5 pts
Brown attack 32.4% · Dartmouth defense 30.3%Dartmouth attack 35.5% · Brown defense 35.0%
Pizzitola Sports 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 →