A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
24.9% · rank 8 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Butler
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.82
+9.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
16–162025–26 recorded finals
113.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
104.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Butler.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
16–1632 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.0Mean opponent adj. net 8.5 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 226 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 243 / 366 · 34th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 135 / 366 · 63th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 299 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
34.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 67 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 186 / 366 · 49th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
42.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 25 / 366 · 93th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
24.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 8 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 111.7 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 109.1 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.9% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.1% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.7% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.3% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 34.9% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 37.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.9% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.8% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 57.2% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 53.7% | 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?
2,276 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
Free-throw attempt rate
42.1% · rank 25 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
51.9% · rank 243 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.1% · rank 299 of 366 · 32 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 6 times in the selected window; Butler won 4. 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 11, 2026 · neutral vs Providence · L 81–91 · offense 111.6 / defense 125.4
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| ProvidenceMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 81–91 | 73 | 111.6 | 125.4 | 72.6 | 50.0 | 11.0 | 24.3 |
| DePaulMar 7, 2026 · road | W 81–71 | 134 | 110.4 | 96.8 | 73.4 | 45.9 | 21.8 | 48.6 |
| CreightonMar 4, 2026 · home | L 59–76 | 47 | 83.4 | 107.4 | 70.8 | 44.8 | 21.2 | 17.6 |
| VillanovaFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 73–82 | 36 | 103.9 | 116.7 | 70.2 | 48.1 | 19.9 | 33.3 |
| XavierFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 80–75 | 68 | 117.7 | 110.4 | 67.9 | 50.0 | 8.8 | 25.0 |
| GeorgetownFeb 18, 2026 · road | W 93–89 | 105 | 136.4 | 130.5 | 68.2 | 61.9 | 8.8 | 32.1 |
| Seton HallFeb 15, 2026 · home | L 56–63 | 78 | 83.6 | 94.1 | 67.0 | 34.1 | 13.4 | 29.2 |
| UConnFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 70–80 | 10 | 115.8 | 132.4 | 60.4 | 53.7 | 13.2 | 27.6 |
| MarquetteFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 55–70 | 46 | 82.2 | 104.6 | 66.9 | 37.7 | 23.9 | 39.5 |
| ProvidenceFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 87–97 | 73 | 110.4 | 123.0 | 63.1 | 49.2 | 12.7 | 28.6 |
| GeorgetownJan 31, 2026 · home | L 64–77 | 105 | 99.1 | 119.2 | 64.6 | 38.1 | 10.8 | 37.1 |
| St John'sJan 29, 2026 · road | L 70–92 | 14 | 112.1 | 147.3 | 62.5 | 50.0 | 9.6 | 31.7 |
| MarquetteJan 24, 2026 · home | W 87–76 | 46 | 124.0 | 108.3 | 70.2 | 56.1 | 15.7 | 39.4 |
| DePaulJan 21, 2026 · home | W 87–80 | 134 | 121.1 | 111.3 | 71.9 | 64.7 | 16.7 | 30.8 |
| Seton HallJan 17, 2026 · road | W 77–66 | 78 | 114.6 | 98.3 | 67.2 | 50.0 | 11.9 | 17.2 |
| XavierJan 14, 2026 · road | L 75–89 | 68 | 102.9 | 122.1 | 72.9 | 50.0 | 17.8 | 25.7 |
| St John'sJan 7, 2026 · home | L 70–84 | 14 | 98.1 | 117.8 | 71.3 | 57.3 | 29.4 | 22.2 |
| VillanovaJan 3, 2026 · home | L 67–85 | 36 | 94.3 | 119.6 | 71.1 | 42.9 | 19.7 | 36.1 |
| CreightonDec 31, 2025 · road | L 85–89 | 47 | 117.1 | 122.6 | 72.6 | 46.7 | 13.8 | 45.7 |
| NJITDec 22, 2025 · home | W 101–52 | 350 | 138.9 | 71.5 | 72.7 | 63.1 | 11.0 | 36.7 |
| NorthwesternDec 20, 2025 · neutral | W 61–58 | 53 | 91.1 | 86.6 | 67.0 | 44.0 | 20.9 | 33.3 |
| UConnDec 17, 2025 · road | L 60–79 | 10 | 86.0 | 113.2 | 69.8 | 33.6 | 14.3 | 27.3 |
| ProvidenceDec 13, 2025 · home | W 113–110 | 73 | 131.7 | 128.2 | 68.6 | 53.1 | 8.2 | 42.9 |
| Boise StDec 6, 2025 · home | L 68–77 | 50 | 101.2 | 114.6 | 67.2 | 48.3 | 11.9 | 23.7 |
| E MichiganDec 3, 2025 · home | W 84–68 | 274 | 129.0 | 104.5 | 65.1 | 61.6 | 15.4 | 39.3 |
| Wright StNov 28, 2025 · home | W 94–69 | 154 | 124.7 | 91.5 | 75.4 | 62.7 | 14.6 | 35.5 |
| VirginiaNov 23, 2025 · neutral | W 80–73 | 35 | 116.0 | 105.9 | 69.0 | 53.6 | 18.9 | 40.0 |
| South CarolinaNov 21, 2025 · neutral | W 79–72 | 99 | 114.8 | 104.7 | 68.8 | 52.7 | 14.5 | 42.9 |
| SMUNov 15, 2025 · road | L 85–87 | 51 | 114.1 | 116.7 | 74.5 | 56.3 | 22.8 | 43.2 |
| Chicago StNov 12, 2025 · home | W 98–66 | 360 | 133.9 | 90.1 | 73.2 | 67.5 | 19.1 | 37.9 |
| IU IndyNov 8, 2025 · home | W 112–80 | 339 | 124.1 | 88.6 | 90.3 | 54.6 | 18.8 | 56.1 |
| So IndianaNov 6, 2025 · home | W 88–58 | 338 | 117.5 | 77.4 | 74.9 | 52.3 | 17.4 | 40.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Michael AjayiF | 32 | 33.6 | 16.4 | 11.1 | 3.2 | 51.6 | 27.1% | 32 | 1.2032 games | 6932 games |
| Finley BizjackG | 31 | 34.0 | 17.1 | 2.2 | 2.5 | 57.7 | 23.8% | 31 | 1.4631 games | 19531 games |
| Jamie Kaiser Jr.G | 30 | 29.0 | 9.5 | 4.3 | 1.0 | 55.8 | 15.6% | 30 | 1.4330 games | 11630 games |
| Yohan TraoreF | 32 | 19.6 | 8.2 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 59.7 | 18.6% | 32 | 1.3332 games | 1532 games |
| Drayton JonesC | 32 | 19.5 | 6.3 | 4.6 | 1.4 | 63.4 | 14.4% | 32 | 1.9632 games | 132 games |
| Evan HaywoodG | 29 | 19.4 | 7.2 | 1.9 | 1.2 | 50.8 | 18.7% | 29 | 2.8329 games | 15329 games |
| Yame ButlerG | 31 | 13.6 | 4.2 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 54.4 | 16.2% | 31 | 1.9131 games | 3831 games |
| Efeosa Oliogu-ElaborF | 25 | 16.4 | 5.0 | 2.2 | 2.0 | 46.8 | 20.6% | 25 | 1.4225 games | 1925 games |
| Azavier RobinsonG | 22 | 18.3 | 6.1 | 1.9 | 2.5 | 56.8 | 19.2% | 22 | 1.2922 games | 3022 games |
| Jackson KeithF | 26 | 8.6 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 0.2 | 51.4 | 11.6% | 26 | 1.5026 games | 1726 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 Butler?
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
12Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
83%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 | 3,455 | 3,455 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 1,344 | 1,344 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 623 | 623 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,422 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Finley Bizjack →G | Same programButler Bulldogs | 34.0 | 17.1 | 57.7% |
| Jamie Kaiser Jr. →G | Same programButler Bulldogs | 29.0 | 9.5 | 55.8% |
| Yohan Traore →F | Same programButler Bulldogs | 19.6 | 8.2 | 59.7% |
| Drayton Jones →C | Same programButler Bulldogs | 19.5 | 6.3 | 63.4% |
| Evan Haywood →G | Same programButler Bulldogs | 19.4 | 7.2 | 50.8% |
| Yame Butler →G | Same programButler Bulldogs | 13.6 | 4.2 | 54.4% |
| Efeosa Oliogu-Elabor →F | Same programButler Bulldogs | 16.4 | 5.0 | 46.8% |
| Azavier Robinson →G | Same programButler Bulldogs | 18.3 | 6.1 | 56.8% |
| Jackson Keith →F | Same programButler Bulldogs | 8.6 | 2.0 | 51.4% |
| Jalen Jackson →G | Same programButler Bulldogs | 22.5 | 9.5 | 54.8% |
| Jack McCaffery →F | Same programButler Bulldogs | 9.6 | 2.8 | 52.5% |
| Ethan McComb →G | Same programButler Bulldogs | 1.2 | 0.3 | 100.0% |
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…
Lafayette vs Butler
63.5Lafayette
81.3Butler
Butler win estimate89.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.8
Projected total144.8
80% home-margin range1.9 to 33.8
Estimated possessions68.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.5 pts
Butler attack 52.9% · Lafayette defense 51.8%Lafayette attack 48.7% · Butler defense 50.2%
Ball securityHome 1.8 pts
Butler attack 15.9% · Lafayette defense 16.1%Lafayette attack 17.0% · Butler defense 15.4%
Second chancesHome 2.8 pts
Butler attack 29.8% · Lafayette defense 29.9%Lafayette attack 25.4% · Butler defense 28.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.3 pts
Butler attack 37.6% · Lafayette defense 32.3%Lafayette attack 31.3% · Butler defense 25.8%
Hinkle Fieldhouse
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
FDU vs Butler
65.2FDU
84.2Butler
Butler win estimate90.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin19.0
Projected total149.4
80% home-margin range3.1 to 35.0
Estimated possessions68.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.4 pts
Butler attack 52.9% · FDU defense 54.3%FDU attack 48.4% · Butler defense 50.2%
Ball securityHome 3.3 pts
Butler attack 15.9% · FDU defense 17.1%FDU attack 17.4% · Butler defense 15.4%
Second chancesAway 0.7 pts
Butler attack 29.8% · FDU defense 30.0%FDU attack 28.9% · Butler defense 28.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.9 pts
Butler attack 37.6% · FDU defense 35.8%FDU attack 33.4% · Butler defense 25.8%
Hinkle Fieldhouse
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Butler vs Boise St
71.1Butler
77.6Boise St
Boise St win estimate70.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.5
Projected total148.7
80% home-margin range-9.4 to 22.4
Estimated possessions67.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.1 pts
Boise St attack 52.8% · Butler defense 50.2%Butler attack 52.9% · Boise St defense 50.2%
Ball securityAway 1.4 pts
Boise St attack 16.4% · Butler defense 15.4%Butler attack 15.9% · Boise St defense 16.2%
Second chancesAway 1.9 pts
Boise St attack 32.7% · Butler defense 28.3%Butler attack 29.8% · Boise St defense 23.6%
Free-throw pressureHome 7.0 pts
Boise St attack 38.9% · Butler defense 25.8%Butler attack 37.6% · Boise St defense 31.5%
ExtraMile 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 →