A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
49.8% · rank 118 of 366 · 31 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
E Michigan
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.274
-8.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
10–212025–26 recorded finals
101.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
109.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on E Michigan.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
10–2131 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.4Mean opponent adj. net -1.4 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.7%31 games · higher is betterRank 282 / 366 · 23th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.8%31 games · lower is betterRank 118 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.3%31 games · lower is betterRank 234 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.9%31 games · higher is betterRank 245 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.4%31 games · higher is betterRank 274 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.8%31 games · lower is betterRank 121 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
29.5%31 games · higher is betterRank 316 / 366 · 14th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.3%31 games · lower is betterRank 210 / 366 · 43th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 102.4 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.6 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.4% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.4% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.2% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.5% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 31.9% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 35.3% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.8% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.7% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 48.5% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 50.9% | 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?
2,138 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
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.8% · rank 121 of 366 · 31 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Effective FG%
49.7% · rank 282 of 366 · 31 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
29.5% · rank 316 of 366 · 31 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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; E Michigan won 0. 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 6, 2026 · home vs Bowling Green · L 69–77 · offense 96.9 / defense 108.2
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Bowling GreenMar 6, 2026 · home | L 69–77 | 190 | 96.9 | 108.2 | 71.2 | 46.6 | 14.0 | 24.2 |
| BuffaloMar 3, 2026 · road | L 67–72 | 277 | 100.7 | 108.2 | 66.5 | 48.2 | 16.5 | 21.2 |
| Miami OHFeb 24, 2026 · home | L 64–74 | 119 | 89.5 | 103.5 | 71.5 | 40.2 | 15.4 | 23.9 |
| ToledoFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 75–94 | 148 | 105.2 | 131.9 | 71.3 | 50.8 | 18.2 | 24.2 |
| C MichiganFeb 17, 2026 · home | W 66–54 | 266 | 99.5 | 81.4 | 66.3 | 52.9 | 27.1 | 34.5 |
| W MichiganFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 62–76 | 295 | 96.0 | 117.6 | 64.6 | 48.3 | 12.4 | 16.7 |
| Kent StateFeb 12, 2026 · road | L 91–95 | 133 | 129.6 | 135.3 | 70.2 | 64.8 | 18.5 | 40.7 |
| App StateFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 60–65 | 151 | 92.9 | 100.7 | 64.6 | 44.4 | 9.3 | 23.1 |
| AkronFeb 3, 2026 · home | L 64–66 | 75 | 92.2 | 95.1 | 69.4 | 47.4 | 23.1 | 34.3 |
| UMassJan 31, 2026 · road | L 67–70 | 177 | 102.9 | 107.5 | 65.1 | 52.0 | 21.5 | 22.2 |
| C MichiganJan 28, 2026 · road | L 65–100 | 266 | 85.9 | 132.2 | 75.7 | 50.0 | 25.1 | 17.2 |
| Kent StateJan 24, 2026 · home | L 75–76 | 133 | 95.9 | 97.2 | 62.6 | 39.0 | 11.5 | 30.8 |
| Bowling GreenJan 17, 2026 · road | L 79–85 | 190 | 119.1 | 128.2 | 66.3 | 56.8 | 13.6 | 32.3 |
| N IllinoisJan 13, 2026 · home | W 77–59 | 344 | 106.1 | 81.3 | 72.6 | 53.3 | 13.8 | 15.2 |
| W MichiganJan 10, 2026 · road | L 62–79 | 295 | 93.5 | 119.2 | 66.3 | 50.0 | 16.6 | 17.6 |
| Ball StateJan 7, 2026 · road | W 74–52 | 273 | 128.7 | 90.5 | 57.5 | 69.0 | 24.4 | 47.6 |
| OhioJan 3, 2026 · home | L 67–68 | 189 | 100.8 | 102.3 | 66.5 | 47.1 | 16.5 | 32.4 |
| UMassDec 31, 2025 · home | W 80–74 | 177 | 109.5 | 101.3 | 73.0 | 48.2 | 12.3 | 27.0 |
| Wright StDec 23, 2025 · road | L 64–70 | 154 | 94.3 | 103.1 | 67.9 | 45.7 | 16.2 | 22.9 |
| AkronDec 20, 2025 · road | L 72–93 | 75 | 101.4 | 131.0 | 71.0 | 43.0 | 14.1 | 34.8 |
| Purdue FWDec 11, 2025 · road | L 65–80 | 210 | 98.4 | 121.2 | 66.0 | 58.0 | 16.7 | 15.6 |
| ClearyDec 6, 2025 · home | W 86–48 | Unrated | 118.6 | 66.2 | 72.5 | 52.9 | 15.2 | 43.6 |
| ButlerDec 3, 2025 · road | L 68–84 | 82 | 104.5 | 129.0 | 65.1 | 48.3 | 16.9 | 26.5 |
| NJITNov 28, 2025 · home | W 73–55 | 350 | 109.8 | 82.8 | 66.5 | 56.0 | 19.6 | 31.3 |
| CincinnatiNov 27, 2025 · road | W 64–56 | 41 | 97.6 | 85.4 | 65.6 | 51.1 | 25.9 | 25.0 |
| LouisvilleNov 25, 2025 · road | L 46–87 | 32 | 68.6 | 129.8 | 67.1 | 29.8 | 19.4 | 25.0 |
| OaklandNov 21, 2025 · home | W 97–91 | 167 | 130.5 | 122.5 | 74.3 | 71.2 | 16.1 | 17.4 |
| Detroit MercyNov 19, 2025 · road | W 72–62 | 294 | 103.3 | 88.9 | 69.7 | 53.8 | 18.6 | 30.3 |
| IU IndyNov 14, 2025 · home | L 83–90 | 339 | 105.6 | 114.5 | 78.6 | 45.9 | 16.5 | 40.0 |
| PittNov 11, 2025 · road | L 66–78 | 71 | 95.0 | 112.3 | 69.4 | 40.7 | 14.4 | 25.6 |
| Georgia StNov 3, 2025 · home | W 71–49 | 293 | 103.7 | 71.6 | 68.5 | 44.5 | 19.0 | 46.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mohammad HabhabF | 30 | 36.0 | 14.2 | 8.3 | 3.1 | 46.7 | 25.1% | 30 | 1.3730 games | 3630 games |
| Addison PattersonF | 31 | 29.7 | 13.7 | 5.3 | 2.6 | 60.5 | 23.6% | 31 | 1.1431 games | 7131 games |
| Godslove NwabudeF | 30 | 19.4 | 5.4 | 5.5 | 0.3 | 64.8 | 12.6% | 30 | 0.5030 games | 130 games |
| Carlos HartG | 18 | 32.2 | 13.1 | 5.3 | 2.7 | 52.8 | 22.9% | 18 | 1.2918 games | 6018 games |
| Braelon GreenG | 28 | 20.4 | 4.6 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 50.0 | 13.8% | 28 | 1.5628 games | 4428 games |
| Gregory Lawson IIG | 28 | 17.9 | 7.1 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 54.5 | 20.8% | 28 | 1.0528 games | 8828 games |
| Jon Sanders IIG | 27 | 17.1 | 6.2 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 52.0 | 21.0% | 27 | 1.0427 games | 7327 games |
| Mak MancielG | 31 | 13.0 | 5.4 | 1.3 | 0.5 | 55.5 | 21.7% | 31 | 0.7731 games | 10131 games |
| Mehki EllisonG | 25 | 14.4 | 4.2 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 49.4 | 18.7% | 25 | 1.3625 games | 3125 games |
| Aidan RubioG | 31 | 9.9 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 0.5 | 47.3 | 17.5% | 31 | 1.1731 games | 4731 games |
| John Shanu IIC | 29 | 9.0 | 1.0 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 58.4 | 7.8% | 29 | 0.2029 games | 029 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 E Michigan?
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 | 9 | 3,236 | 3,236 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 2,753 | 2,753 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 262 | 262 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,251 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mohammad Habhab →F | Same programEastern Michigan Eagles | 36.0 | 14.2 | 46.7% |
| Addison Patterson →F | Same programEastern Michigan Eagles | 29.7 | 13.7 | 60.5% |
| Godslove Nwabude →F | Same programEastern Michigan Eagles | 19.4 | 5.4 | 64.8% |
| Carlos Hart →G | Same programEastern Michigan Eagles | 32.2 | 13.1 | 52.8% |
| Braelon Green →G | Same programEastern Michigan Eagles | 20.4 | 4.6 | 50.0% |
| Gregory Lawson II →G | Same programEastern Michigan Eagles | 17.9 | 7.1 | 54.5% |
| Jon Sanders II →G | Same programEastern Michigan Eagles | 17.1 | 6.2 | 52.0% |
| Mak Manciel →G | Same programEastern Michigan Eagles | 13.0 | 5.4 | 55.5% |
| Mehki Ellison →G | Same programEastern Michigan Eagles | 14.4 | 4.2 | 49.4% |
| Aidan Rubio →G | Same programEastern Michigan Eagles | 9.9 | 2.9 | 47.3% |
| John Shanu II →C | Same programEastern Michigan Eagles | 9.0 | 1.0 | 58.4% |
| Merritt Alderink →F | Same programEastern Michigan Eagles | 6.9 | 1.8 | 45.2% |
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…
E Michigan vs Coastal
68.0E Michigan
70.9Coastal
Coastal win estimate61.7%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin2.9
Projected total138.8
80% home-margin range-13.1 to 18.8
Estimated possessions67.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.2 pts
Coastal attack 49.0% · E Michigan defense 52.1%E Michigan attack 49.7% · Coastal defense 49.6%
Ball securityHome 4.2 pts
Coastal attack 17.1% · E Michigan defense 16.8%E Michigan attack 17.5% · Coastal defense 12.9%
Second chancesAway 2.1 pts
Coastal attack 27.8% · E Michigan defense 30.4%E Michigan attack 27.8% · Coastal defense 28.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.1 pts
Coastal attack 32.5% · E Michigan defense 36.0%E Michigan attack 31.7% · Coastal defense 34.0%
The HTC Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
E Michigan vs Xavier
67.1E Michigan
83.5Xavier
Xavier win estimate87.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin16.4
Projected total150.6
80% home-margin range0.5 to 32.3
Estimated possessions70.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.8 pts
Xavier attack 53.5% · E Michigan defense 52.1%E Michigan attack 49.7% · Xavier defense 51.0%
Ball securityHome 2.4 pts
Xavier attack 15.1% · E Michigan defense 16.8%E Michigan attack 17.5% · Xavier defense 16.8%
Second chancesAway 3.7 pts
Xavier attack 28.0% · E Michigan defense 30.4%E Michigan attack 27.8% · Xavier defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.9 pts
Xavier attack 33.8% · E Michigan defense 36.0%E Michigan attack 31.7% · Xavier defense 32.0%
Cintas Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UMass vs E Michigan
74.2UMass
72.9E Michigan
E Michigan win estimate50.4%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.4
Projected total147.1
80% home-margin range-17.3 to 14.6
Estimated possessions69.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.5 pts
E Michigan attack 49.7% · UMass defense 51.4%UMass attack 49.9% · E Michigan defense 52.1%
Ball securityHome 0.5 pts
E Michigan attack 17.5% · UMass defense 17.3%UMass attack 17.5% · E Michigan defense 16.8%
Second chancesAway 3.8 pts
E Michigan attack 27.8% · UMass defense 28.7%UMass attack 33.2% · E Michigan defense 30.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 9.2 pts
E Michigan attack 31.7% · UMass defense 40.2%UMass attack 36.6% · E Michigan defense 36.0%
Gervin GameAbove 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 →