A relative strength
Turnover rate
14.2% · rank 35 of 366 · 31 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Sacramento St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.314
-11.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
10–212025–26 recorded finals
100.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
112.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Sacramento St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
10–2131 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 72.9Mean opponent adj. net -0.8 · 28 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
48.2%31 games · higher is betterRank 328 / 366 · 10th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.3%31 games · lower is betterRank 301 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.2%31 games · lower is betterRank 35 / 366 · 91th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.9%31 games · higher is betterRank 175 / 366 · 52th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
25.4%31 games · higher is betterRank 340 / 366 · 7th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.0%31 games · lower is betterRank 281 / 366 · 23th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
40.7%31 games · higher is betterRank 48 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.8%31 games · lower is betterRank 191 / 366 · 48th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 106.1 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 112.0 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 47.1% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 55.0% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.3% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.0% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 36.8% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 43.5% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 77.7% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.6% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 50.8% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 58.3% | 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?
2,279 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
Free-throw attempt rate
40.7% · rank 48 of 366 · 31 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Effective FG%
48.2% · rank 328 of 366 · 31 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
25.4% · rank 340 of 366 · 31 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
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 7 times in the selected window; Sacramento St 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 8, 2026 · neutral vs Idaho · L 45–68 · offense 65.0 / defense 98.2
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IdahoMar 8, 2026 · neutral | L 45–68 | 214 | 65.0 | 98.2 | 69.3 | 28.2 | 13.0 | 15.9 |
| Idaho StMar 3, 2026 · home | W 83–65 | 239 | 118.7 | 92.9 | 69.9 | 60.2 | 12.9 | 15.4 |
| Montana StFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 61–82 | 163 | 91.9 | 123.5 | 66.4 | 41.7 | 4.5 | 10.0 |
| MontanaFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 73–81 | 178 | 101.4 | 112.5 | 72.0 | 44.0 | 11.1 | 25.6 |
| IdahoFeb 22, 2026 · home | L 80–86 | 214 | 109.2 | 117.4 | 73.3 | 47.3 | 10.9 | 13.9 |
| E WashingtonFeb 20, 2026 · home | L 94–102 | 199 | 129.2 | 140.2 | 72.8 | 58.2 | 9.6 | 33.3 |
| N ArizonaFeb 15, 2026 · road | L 74–79 | 308 | 104.2 | 111.2 | 71.0 | 48.2 | 18.3 | 31.3 |
| N ColoradoFeb 13, 2026 · road | L 79–95 | 149 | 99.4 | 119.6 | 79.4 | 41.4 | 10.1 | 17.1 |
| Portland StFeb 8, 2026 · home | L 73–74 | 170 | 106.9 | 108.3 | 68.3 | 44.4 | 11.7 | 21.1 |
| Weber StFeb 3, 2026 · home | W 104–90 | 212 | 133.3 | 115.3 | 78.0 | 73.1 | 17.9 | 25.0 |
| MontanaFeb 1, 2026 · home | W 86–79 | 178 | 119.1 | 109.4 | 72.2 | 58.5 | 13.9 | 23.5 |
| Montana StJan 30, 2026 · home | W 83–80 | 163 | 115.5 | 111.4 | 71.8 | 63.2 | 15.3 | 10.7 |
| E WashingtonJan 24, 2026 · road | L 67–75 | 199 | 103.2 | 115.5 | 64.9 | 48.9 | 18.5 | 19.2 |
| IdahoJan 23, 2026 · road | L 76–86 | 214 | 105.8 | 119.7 | 71.8 | 41.5 | 12.5 | 34.9 |
| N ColoradoJan 18, 2026 · home | W 93–89 | 149 | 116.0 | 111.0 | 71.3 | 49.3 | 10.0 | 29.5 |
| N ArizonaJan 16, 2026 · home | W 83–69 | 308 | 125.1 | 104.0 | 66.3 | 55.1 | 10.6 | 27.3 |
| Portland StJan 10, 2026 · road | L 69–96 | 170 | 95.3 | 132.6 | 72.4 | 37.9 | 6.9 | 17.1 |
| Weber StJan 4, 2026 · road | L 82–95 | 212 | 106.1 | 122.9 | 77.3 | 51.5 | 19.4 | 29.5 |
| Idaho StJan 2, 2026 · road | L 84–97 | 239 | 104.1 | 120.2 | 80.7 | 45.2 | 14.9 | 25.6 |
| CSU NorthridgeDec 23, 2025 · road | L 88–100 | 171 | 106.6 | 121.2 | 82.5 | 47.1 | 9.7 | 14.6 |
| CA BaptistDec 21, 2025 · road | L 67–74 | 131 | 99.2 | 109.5 | 67.6 | 43.7 | 16.3 | 37.8 |
| BaylorDec 3, 2025 · road | L 88–110 | 33 | 115.9 | 144.9 | 75.9 | 45.6 | 17.1 | 45.2 |
| PacificNov 30, 2025 · road | L 54–68 | 207 | 76.3 | 96.1 | 70.8 | 34.7 | 15.5 | 18.2 |
| San Fran StNov 26, 2025 · home | W 94–46 | Unrated | 118.5 | 58.0 | 79.3 | 57.5 | 11.3 | 26.8 |
| CaliforniaNov 22, 2025 · road | L 67–91 | 104 | 89.2 | 121.1 | 75.1 | 32.1 | 14.6 | 36.0 |
| UCLANov 19, 2025 · road | L 48–79 | 27 | 67.8 | 111.5 | 70.8 | 26.9 | 18.4 | 28.3 |
| PresbyterianNov 16, 2025 · home | W 64–62 | 257 | 96.3 | 93.3 | 66.4 | 47.9 | 25.6 | 33.3 |
| UC DavisNov 15, 2025 · road | L 73–77 | 193 | 100.8 | 106.4 | 72.4 | 47.5 | 19.3 | 31.4 |
| Santa BarbaraNov 12, 2025 · home | L 87–92 | 143 | 118.5 | 125.3 | 73.4 | 61.0 | 16.3 | 23.5 |
| JessupNov 8, 2025 · home | W 86–76 | Unrated | 112.4 | 99.3 | 76.5 | 55.8 | 19.6 | 25.6 |
| Dominican (CA)Nov 5, 2025 · home | W 103–79 | Unrated | 127.3 | 97.7 | 80.9 | 60.8 | 16.1 | 29.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prophet JohnsonG | 30 | 35.4 | 18.2 | 7.4 | 3.7 | 56.7 | 25.3% | 30 | 1.6130 games | 12530 games |
| Mark LavrenovF | 31 | 26.0 | 9.9 | 7.0 | 0.5 | 56.3 | 18.4% | 31 | 0.4531 games | 3531 games |
| Jahni SummersG | 31 | 25.8 | 9.9 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 59.5 | 17.8% | 31 | 0.8531 games | 13531 games |
| Mikey WilliamsG | 21 | 35.0 | 17.1 | 3.0 | 4.5 | 49.6 | 27.4% | 21 | 1.5621 games | 8321 games |
| Arman MadiG | 30 | 21.9 | 7.0 | 2.9 | 1.5 | 54.5 | 16.1% | 30 | 1.8330 games | 7730 games |
| Shaqir O'NealF | 31 | 19.4 | 5.3 | 3.2 | 0.5 | 54.3 | 13.8% | 31 | 0.8131 games | 4931 games |
| Jayden TeatG | 29 | 14.6 | 6.0 | 1.6 | 0.9 | 46.8 | 23.9% | 29 | 1.2929 games | 10129 games |
| Taj GloverG | 29 | 13.6 | 4.5 | 1.6 | 1.2 | 50.6 | 17.5% | 29 | 3.0029 games | 3929 games |
| Romari RobinsonG | 24 | 11.0 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 43.6 | 11.0% | 24 | 1.0924 games | 1924 games |
| Brandon GardnerF | 16 | 15.6 | 4.1 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 51.5 | 13.3% | 16 | 0.8616 games | 2216 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 Sacramento St?
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
13Same-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 | 9 | 4,358 | 4,358 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,866 | 1,866 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,224 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prophet Johnson →G | Same programSacramento State Hornets | 35.4 | 18.2 | 56.7% |
| Mark Lavrenov →F | Same programSacramento State Hornets | 26.0 | 9.9 | 56.3% |
| Jahni Summers →G | Same programSacramento State Hornets | 25.8 | 9.9 | 59.5% |
| Mikey Williams →G | Same programSacramento State Hornets | 35.0 | 17.1 | 49.6% |
| Arman Madi →G | Same programSacramento State Hornets | 21.9 | 7.0 | 54.5% |
| Shaqir O'Neal →F | Same programSacramento State Hornets | 19.4 | 5.3 | 54.3% |
| Jayden Teat →G | Same programSacramento State Hornets | 14.6 | 6.0 | 46.8% |
| Taj Glover →G | Same programSacramento State Hornets | 13.6 | 4.5 | 50.6% |
| Romari Robinson →G | Same programSacramento State Hornets | 11.0 | 1.8 | 43.6% |
| Brandon Gardner →F | Same programSacramento State Hornets | 15.6 | 4.1 | 51.5% |
| Jeremiah Cherry →F | Same programSacramento State Hornets | 31.2 | 15.5 | 52.0% |
| Jeremiah Nyarko →F | Same programSacramento State Hornets | 5.0 | 0.8 | 33.3% |
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…
UC Davis vs Sacramento St
74.1UC Davis
70.9Sacramento St
Sacramento St win estimate45.2%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-3.3
Projected total145.0
80% home-margin range-19.2 to 12.7
Estimated possessions69.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.3 pts
Sacramento St attack 48.2% · UC Davis defense 51.2%UC Davis attack 50.2% · Sacramento St defense 53.6%
Ball securityHome 3.4 pts
Sacramento St attack 18.2% · UC Davis defense 19.5%UC Davis attack 18.7% · Sacramento St defense 16.7%
Second chancesAway 0.1 pts
Sacramento St attack 29.0% · UC Davis defense 30.9%UC Davis attack 28.2% · Sacramento St defense 30.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.1 pts
Sacramento St attack 35.2% · UC Davis defense 37.8%UC Davis attack 39.2% · Sacramento St defense 35.8%
Hornet 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 →