A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
34.1% · rank 77 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Detroit Mercy
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.294
-9.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
17–152025–26 recorded finals
102.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
112.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Detroit Mercy.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
17–1532 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.0Mean opponent adj. net -2.3 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 279 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 203 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 153 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 321 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
34.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 77 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 185 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
34.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 199 / 366 · 46th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 269 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 110.2 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.4 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 48.7% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.0% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.8% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.7% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 30.8% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 42.6% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 77.5% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.1% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 48.0% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 58.0% | 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?
2,249 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
Turnover rate
16.1% · rank 153 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Effective FG%
49.8% · rank 279 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
14.7% · rank 321 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 9 times in the selected window; Detroit Mercy won 6. 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 10, 2026 · neutral vs Wright St · L 63–66 · offense 92.4 / defense 96.8
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wright StMar 10, 2026 · neutral | L 63–66 | 154 | 92.4 | 96.8 | 68.2 | 38.3 | 17.6 | 30.8 |
| Robert MorrisMar 10, 2026 · neutral | W 70–64 | 166 | 111.1 | 101.5 | 63.0 | 46.5 | 12.7 | 41.2 |
| MilwaukeeMar 5, 2026 · home | W 84–63 | 218 | 124.9 | 93.7 | 67.2 | 59.8 | 13.4 | 24.1 |
| OaklandFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 95–89 | 167 | 131.7 | 123.4 | 72.1 | 59.0 | 8.3 | 29.0 |
| Robert MorrisFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 62–73 | 166 | 97.5 | 114.8 | 63.6 | 48.2 | 18.9 | 25.0 |
| Green BayFeb 22, 2026 · home | W 74–70 | 284 | 107.2 | 101.4 | 69.0 | 47.3 | 17.4 | 28.1 |
| MilwaukeeFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 91–86 | 218 | 129.7 | 122.5 | 70.2 | 62.5 | 14.2 | 32.1 |
| Youngstown StFeb 15, 2026 · home | W 76–70 | 176 | 106.3 | 97.9 | 71.5 | 47.6 | 9.8 | 25.0 |
| Wright StFeb 13, 2026 · road | W 77–74 | 154 | 116.4 | 111.9 | 66.2 | 56.6 | 15.1 | 34.5 |
| Green BayFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 63–76 | 284 | 94.7 | 114.3 | 66.5 | 43.8 | 19.5 | 29.7 |
| MilwaukeeFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 76–63 | 218 | 119.0 | 98.6 | 63.9 | 58.3 | 17.2 | 30.8 |
| N KentuckyJan 31, 2026 · home | W 90–77 | 183 | 127.5 | 109.1 | 70.6 | 66.7 | 21.3 | 37.9 |
| OaklandJan 24, 2026 · home | L 87–95 | 167 | 126.0 | 137.5 | 69.1 | 58.1 | 15.9 | 39.4 |
| Purdue FWJan 22, 2026 · home | L 76–83 | 210 | 105.6 | 115.3 | 72.0 | 50.0 | 16.7 | 28.2 |
| IU IndyJan 17, 2026 · road | W 80–77 | 339 | 106.7 | 102.7 | 75.0 | 44.3 | 18.7 | 36.1 |
| N KentuckyJan 16, 2026 · road | L 71–96 | 183 | 94.7 | 128.0 | 75.0 | 43.6 | 9.3 | 31.3 |
| Cleveland StJan 11, 2026 · home | W 94–84 | 267 | 124.4 | 111.2 | 75.6 | 52.3 | 21.2 | 51.3 |
| Wright StJan 10, 2026 · home | L 82–84 | 154 | 116.3 | 119.1 | 70.5 | 49.2 | 14.2 | 40.0 |
| Robert MorrisJan 3, 2026 · home | L 77–85 | 166 | 112.8 | 124.5 | 68.3 | 54.8 | 20.5 | 32.3 |
| Youngstown StDec 29, 2025 · road | W 73–68 | 176 | 104.8 | 97.6 | 69.7 | 49.1 | 20.1 | 33.3 |
| Siena HeightsDec 20, 2025 · home | W 91–60 | Unrated | 122.9 | 81.0 | 74.1 | 57.8 | 24.3 | 54.8 |
| Purdue FWDec 14, 2025 · road | L 77–81 | 210 | 112.8 | 118.7 | 68.2 | 47.8 | 13.2 | 35.7 |
| Cleveland StDec 6, 2025 · road | W 71–59 | 267 | 112.2 | 93.3 | 63.3 | 49.1 | 9.5 | 28.6 |
| IU IndyDec 4, 2025 · home | W 92–78 | 339 | 129.5 | 109.8 | 71.1 | 55.5 | 12.7 | 41.2 |
| NiagaraNov 29, 2025 · road | W 70–66 | 331 | 107.0 | 100.8 | 65.5 | 42.7 | 13.8 | 37.8 |
| DePaulNov 23, 2025 · road | L 75–95 | 134 | 111.6 | 141.4 | 67.2 | 50.0 | 17.9 | 38.2 |
| Michigan StNov 21, 2025 · road | L 56–84 | 13 | 81.7 | 122.5 | 68.6 | 40.8 | 21.9 | 29.7 |
| E MichiganNov 19, 2025 · home | L 62–72 | 274 | 88.9 | 103.3 | 69.7 | 35.2 | 17.2 | 30.2 |
| ToledoNov 15, 2025 · road | L 83–90 | 148 | 109.0 | 118.2 | 76.2 | 50.7 | 15.8 | 34.9 |
| ClearyNov 12, 2025 · home | W 92–54 | Unrated | 122.0 | 71.6 | 75.4 | 52.3 | 11.9 | 39.0 |
| Notre DameNov 8, 2025 · road | L 70–102 | 114 | 92.0 | 134.0 | 76.1 | 48.5 | 17.1 | 19.5 |
| UICNov 4, 2025 · road | L 71–91 | 138 | 89.5 | 114.8 | 79.3 | 36.4 | 18.9 | 38.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Orlando LovejoyG | 31 | 31.0 | 15.8 | 3.6 | 3.7 | 53.0 | 26.7% | 31 | 1.8531 games | 2731 games |
| TJ NadeauG | 31 | 26.5 | 13.8 | 3.2 | 1.0 | 64.3 | 21.6% | 31 | 1.1031 games | 15031 games |
| Tyler SprattG | 32 | 24.8 | 9.9 | 3.6 | 1.5 | 55.9 | 19.3% | 32 | 1.6332 games | 14332 games |
| Legend GeeterF | 29 | 25.6 | 8.3 | 6.4 | 2.3 | 55.2 | 17.5% | 29 | 1.4629 games | 3429 games |
| Lance StoneG | 32 | 20.8 | 6.8 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 47.6 | 19.5% | 32 | 1.6832 games | 10032 games |
| Ryan KalambayF | 31 | 20.6 | 4.2 | 5.5 | 0.5 | 60.8 | 9.8% | 31 | 0.8031 games | 031 games |
| London MaidenF | 31 | 15.5 | 6.3 | 3.0 | 0.4 | 56.5 | 20.8% | 31 | 0.3731 games | 031 games |
| Nate JohnsonG | 26 | 10.3 | 2.8 | 1.9 | 0.4 | 38.4 | 18.7% | 26 | 0.7726 games | 2426 games |
| Jared LaryG | 26 | 9.7 | 2.3 | 1.8 | 0.7 | 39.5 | 18.1% | 26 | 0.9026 games | 2526 games |
| Keshawn FisherG | 20 | 11.4 | 5.5 | 2.2 | 0.8 | 51.9 | 26.0% | 20 | 0.7020 games | 4020 games |
| Je'kel CottonG | 27 | 7.4 | 2.3 | 2.5 | 0.1 | 45.0 | 17.6% | 27 | 0.6727 games | 4127 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 Detroit Mercy?
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 | 10 | 4,379 | 4,379 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 3 | 1,864 | 1,864 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 157 | 157 | — | 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?
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Orlando Lovejoy →G | Same programDetroit Mercy Titans | 31.0 | 15.8 | 53.0% |
| TJ Nadeau →G | Same programDetroit Mercy Titans | 26.5 | 13.8 | 64.3% |
| Tyler Spratt →G | Same programDetroit Mercy Titans | 24.8 | 9.9 | 55.9% |
| Legend Geeter →F | Same programDetroit Mercy Titans | 25.6 | 8.3 | 55.2% |
| Lance Stone →G | Same programDetroit Mercy Titans | 20.8 | 6.8 | 47.6% |
| Ryan Kalambay →F | Same programDetroit Mercy Titans | 20.6 | 4.2 | 60.8% |
| London Maiden →F | Same programDetroit Mercy Titans | 15.5 | 6.3 | 56.5% |
| Nate Johnson →G | Same programDetroit Mercy Titans | 10.3 | 2.8 | 38.4% |
| Jared Lary →G | Same programDetroit Mercy Titans | 9.7 | 2.3 | 39.5% |
| Keshawn Fisher →G | Same programDetroit Mercy Titans | 11.4 | 5.5 | 51.9% |
| Je'kel Cotton →G | Same programDetroit Mercy Titans | 7.4 | 2.3 | 45.0% |
| Ayden Carter →G | Same programDetroit Mercy Titans | 20.6 | 12.2 | 60.9% |
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…
Detroit Mercy vs Marquette
64.0Detroit Mercy
84.2Marquette
Marquette win estimate91.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin20.2
Projected total148.2
80% home-margin range4.3 to 36.1
Estimated possessions69.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.5 pts
Marquette attack 53.5% · Detroit Mercy defense 52.3%Detroit Mercy attack 48.0% · Marquette defense 49.3%
Ball securityAway 2.6 pts
Marquette attack 15.2% · Detroit Mercy defense 16.0%Detroit Mercy attack 17.2% · Marquette defense 20.5%
Second chancesAway 1.5 pts
Marquette attack 29.7% · Detroit Mercy defense 31.1%Detroit Mercy attack 30.8% · Marquette defense 30.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.3 pts
Marquette attack 31.6% · Detroit Mercy defense 37.0%Detroit Mercy attack 32.1% · Marquette defense 31.2%
Fiserv Forum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Detroit Mercy vs Xavier
68.7Detroit Mercy
86.4Xavier
Xavier win estimate89.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.7
Projected total155.0
80% home-margin range1.8 to 33.6
Estimated possessions71.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.3 pts
Xavier attack 53.5% · Detroit Mercy defense 52.3%Detroit Mercy attack 48.0% · Xavier defense 51.0%
Ball securityHome 1.3 pts
Xavier attack 15.1% · Detroit Mercy defense 16.0%Detroit Mercy attack 17.2% · Xavier defense 16.8%
Second chancesAway 7.4 pts
Xavier attack 28.0% · Detroit Mercy defense 31.1%Detroit Mercy attack 30.8% · Xavier defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.3 pts
Xavier attack 33.8% · Detroit Mercy defense 37.0%Detroit Mercy attack 32.1% · Xavier defense 32.0%
Cintas 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 →