A relative strength
Turnovers forced
19.2% · rank 62 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Alabama St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.322
-12.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
10–222025–26 recorded finals
98.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
110.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Alabama St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
10–2232 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.9Mean opponent adj. net -10.1 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
47.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 336 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 237 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 281 / 366 · 23th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 62 / 366 · 83th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 120 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 223 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 181 / 366 · 51th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
42.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 337 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 101.7 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.4 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 47.8% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.5% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.9% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.9% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 38.2% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.6% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 69.4% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.4% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 48.6% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.8% | 32 | 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?
2,301 source possession rows across 32 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
Offensive rebound rate
32.7% · rank 120 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Effective FG%
47.8% · rank 336 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
42.1% · rank 337 of 366 · 32 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; Alabama St won 2. 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 9, 2026 · neutral vs Alcorn St · L 65–77 · offense 92.4 / defense 109.4
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Alcorn StMar 9, 2026 · neutral | L 65–77 | 353 | 92.4 | 109.4 | 70.4 | 40.6 | 12.8 | 31.8 |
| GramblingMar 6, 2026 · home | L 63–65 | 307 | 89.0 | 91.9 | 70.8 | 42.4 | 19.8 | 32.5 |
| SouthernMar 4, 2026 · home | L 64–71 | 282 | 90.2 | 100.0 | 71.0 | 43.5 | 18.3 | 26.8 |
| Alabama A&MFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 89–88 | 346 | 132.5 | 131.0 | 67.2 | 62.9 | 11.9 | 28.6 |
| Florida A&MFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 63–76 | 335 | 90.2 | 108.8 | 69.9 | 46.4 | 14.3 | 17.1 |
| BethuneFeb 20, 2026 · road | L 71–82 | 301 | 99.4 | 114.8 | 71.4 | 44.0 | 8.4 | 22.2 |
| Miss Valley StFeb 17, 2026 · home | W 92–55 | 365 | 127.3 | 76.1 | 72.3 | 51.7 | 22.1 | 50.0 |
| AR-Pine BluffFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 79–61 | 357 | 109.1 | 84.2 | 72.4 | 45.5 | 15.2 | 41.0 |
| SouthernFeb 10, 2026 · road | L 68–69 | 282 | 103.2 | 104.7 | 65.9 | 50.0 | 25.8 | 40.5 |
| GramblingFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 47–57 | 307 | 74.4 | 90.3 | 63.2 | 31.8 | 17.4 | 34.6 |
| Florida A&MFeb 3, 2026 · home | W 79–66 | 335 | 108.9 | 90.9 | 72.6 | 56.8 | 23.4 | 31.4 |
| BethuneJan 31, 2026 · home | L 54–69 | 301 | 78.5 | 100.3 | 68.8 | 41.1 | 23.3 | 24.3 |
| Texas SouthernJan 27, 2026 · road | L 64–96 | 320 | 87.6 | 131.4 | 73.1 | 36.7 | 13.7 | 32.6 |
| Prairie ViewJan 24, 2026 · road | W 95–80 | 336 | 113.0 | 95.2 | 84.0 | 60.6 | 16.7 | 25.0 |
| Alabama A&MJan 19, 2026 · neutral | L 69–73 | 346 | 96.6 | 102.2 | 71.4 | 52.7 | 28.0 | 36.7 |
| Alcorn StJan 13, 2026 · home | W 81–66 | 353 | 113.3 | 92.3 | 71.5 | 60.0 | 22.4 | 30.8 |
| Jackson StJan 10, 2026 · home | L 64–75 | 345 | 84.7 | 99.2 | 75.6 | 34.2 | 25.1 | 48.1 |
| AR-Pine BluffJan 5, 2026 · road | L 79–90 | 357 | 105.5 | 120.1 | 74.9 | 49.2 | 14.7 | 23.7 |
| Miss Valley StJan 3, 2026 · road | W 89–69 | 365 | 121.8 | 94.4 | 73.1 | 59.8 | 21.9 | 39.1 |
| Mississippi StDec 30, 2025 · road | L 56–94 | 64 | 80.7 | 135.4 | 69.4 | 33.0 | 17.3 | 22.0 |
| MemphisDec 23, 2025 · road | L 67–88 | 85 | 91.8 | 120.5 | 73.0 | 42.2 | 21.9 | 43.2 |
| CincinnatiDec 18, 2025 · road | L 51–88 | 41 | 73.3 | 126.4 | 69.6 | 31.9 | 15.8 | 34.7 |
| MissouriDec 12, 2025 · road | L 77–85 | 49 | 123.9 | 136.8 | 62.2 | 58.5 | 11.3 | 32.3 |
| UT MartinDec 7, 2025 · road | L 64–74 | 234 | 97.0 | 112.2 | 66.0 | 52.0 | 19.7 | 25.0 |
| New MexicoNov 27, 2025 · road | L 87–93 | 40 | 119.5 | 127.8 | 72.8 | 63.4 | 23.4 | 37.0 |
| SIUENov 23, 2025 · neutral | L 68–83 | 231 | 102.3 | 124.8 | 66.5 | 37.1 | 13.5 | 39.0 |
| IU IndyNov 21, 2025 · neutral | W 101–80 | 339 | 126.1 | 99.9 | 80.1 | 65.3 | 18.7 | 27.6 |
| Air ForceNov 19, 2025 · road | L 64–66 | 347 | 96.3 | 99.3 | 66.5 | 44.5 | 16.5 | 18.2 |
| ColoradoNov 18, 2025 · road | L 66–94 | 69 | 93.1 | 132.6 | 70.9 | 44.0 | 15.5 | 28.3 |
| VA LynchburgNov 15, 2025 · home | W 124–68 | 366 | 132.9 | 72.9 | 93.3 | 62.8 | 15.0 | 54.5 |
| UABNov 12, 2025 · road | W 77–74 | 106 | 103.3 | 99.3 | 74.5 | 49.2 | 14.8 | 30.0 |
| Florida StNov 8, 2025 · road | L 64–101 | 81 | 81.7 | 128.9 | 78.3 | 40.8 | 21.7 | 28.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Micah SimpsonG | 32 | 32.7 | 13.9 | 3.8 | 3.6 | 47.6 | 25.3% | 32 | 1.3932 games | 22032 games |
| Cameron PalesseG | 32 | 27.7 | 5.5 | 3.9 | 1.9 | 45.2 | 12.2% | 32 | 2.0332 games | 4032 games |
| Jerquarius StanbackF | 32 | 24.6 | 8.8 | 5.8 | 0.7 | 56.1 | 18.1% | 32 | 0.4632 games | 2132 games |
| Tyler ByrdG | 31 | 24.1 | 10.3 | 3.3 | 1.2 | 55.6 | 21.0% | 31 | 0.8231 games | 8031 games |
| Asjon AndersonG | 28 | 26.6 | 14.2 | 2.2 | 3.2 | 50.0 | 30.6% | 28 | 1.0628 games | 17028 games |
| Damarien YatesG | 32 | 17.1 | 6.8 | 3.7 | 0.7 | 56.3 | 19.7% | 32 | 0.6532 games | 8732 games |
| R'Chaun KingF | 29 | 12.8 | 4.9 | 2.4 | 0.3 | 64.2 | 17.1% | 29 | 0.4329 games | 029 games |
| Tyler MackG | 16 | 20.9 | 5.9 | 3.2 | 0.9 | 47.2 | 16.3% | 16 | 1.2516 games | 7616 games |
| Mario AndrewsC | 31 | 9.2 | 1.6 | 3.1 | 0.1 | 48.5 | 10.3% | 31 | 0.1831 games | 531 games |
| Tyler MasonF | 22 | 11.9 | 5.0 | 2.3 | 0.1 | 54.3 | 20.5% | 22 | 0.3322 games | 1022 games |
| JaSteven WalkerF | 16 | 15.8 | 4.6 | 3.2 | 0.4 | 48.9 | 16.2% | 16 | 0.5516 games | 2916 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 Alabama 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.
16Source-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 | 10 | 4,393 | 4,393 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,723 | 1,723 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 284 | 284 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,400 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Micah Simpson →G | Same programAlabama State Hornets | 32.7 | 13.9 | 47.6% |
| Cameron Palesse →G | Same programAlabama State Hornets | 27.7 | 5.5 | 45.2% |
| Jerquarius Stanback →F | Same programAlabama State Hornets | 24.6 | 8.8 | 56.1% |
| Tyler Byrd →G | Same programAlabama State Hornets | 24.1 | 10.3 | 55.6% |
| Asjon Anderson →G | Same programAlabama State Hornets | 26.6 | 14.2 | 50.0% |
| Damarien Yates →G | Same programAlabama State Hornets | 17.1 | 6.8 | 56.3% |
| R'Chaun King →F | Same programAlabama State Hornets | 12.8 | 4.9 | 64.2% |
| Tyler Mack →G | Same programAlabama State Hornets | 20.9 | 5.9 | 47.2% |
| Mario Andrews →C | Same programAlabama State Hornets | 9.2 | 1.6 | 48.5% |
| Tyler Mason →F | Same programAlabama State Hornets | 11.9 | 5.0 | 54.3% |
| JaSteven Walker →F | Same programAlabama State Hornets | 15.8 | 4.6 | 48.9% |
| Trey Miller →G | Same programAlabama State Hornets | 22.0 | 7.3 | 44.1% |
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…
Alabama St vs San José St
68.3Alabama St
77.1San José St
San José St win estimate75.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin8.8
Projected total145.5
80% home-margin range-7.1 to 24.7
Estimated possessions67.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 5.7 pts
San José St attack 50.9% · Alabama St defense 52.4%Alabama St attack 46.1% · San José St defense 53.3%
Ball securityHome 1.3 pts
San José St attack 16.1% · Alabama St defense 18.0%Alabama St attack 15.8% · San José St defense 16.6%
Second chancesHome 1.7 pts
San José St attack 29.5% · Alabama St defense 31.0%Alabama St attack 29.0% · San José St defense 32.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.2 pts
San José St attack 31.4% · Alabama St defense 39.7%Alabama St attack 30.8% · San José St defense 31.9%
Provident Credit Union Event Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Alabama St vs UC Davis
66.4Alabama St
77.3UC Davis
UC Davis win estimate79.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin10.8
Projected total143.7
80% home-margin range-5.1 to 26.8
Estimated possessions70.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.9 pts
UC Davis attack 50.2% · Alabama St defense 52.4%Alabama St attack 46.1% · UC Davis defense 51.2%
Ball securityAway 4.4 pts
UC Davis attack 18.7% · Alabama St defense 18.0%Alabama St attack 15.8% · UC Davis defense 19.5%
Second chancesAway 1.0 pts
UC Davis attack 28.2% · Alabama St defense 31.0%Alabama St attack 29.0% · UC Davis defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 6.6 pts
UC Davis attack 39.2% · Alabama St defense 39.7%Alabama St attack 30.8% · UC Davis defense 37.8%
University Credit Union Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Alabama St vs Oklahoma
63.5Alabama St
86.6Oklahoma
Oklahoma win estimate93.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin23.1
Projected total150.1
80% home-margin range7.2 to 39.1
Estimated possessions69.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 5.9 pts
Oklahoma attack 55.2% · Alabama St defense 52.4%Alabama St attack 46.1% · Oklahoma defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 0.9 pts
Oklahoma attack 16.1% · Alabama St defense 18.0%Alabama St attack 15.8% · Oklahoma defense 16.9%
Second chancesAway 0.8 pts
Oklahoma attack 30.2% · Alabama St defense 31.0%Alabama St attack 29.0% · Oklahoma defense 29.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.4 pts
Oklahoma attack 37.3% · Alabama St defense 39.7%Alabama St attack 30.8% · Oklahoma defense 33.6%
Lloyd Noble 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 →