A relative strength
Turnover rate
13.6% · rank 15 of 366 · 35 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
Gonzaga
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.8
+27.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
31–42025–26 recorded finals
121.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
94.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Gonzaga.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
31–435 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.2Mean opponent adj. net 6.5 · 35 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
55.6%35 games · higher is betterRank 30 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
46.3%35 games · lower is betterRank 17 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
13.6%35 games · lower is betterRank 15 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
20.0%35 games · higher is betterRank 33 / 366 · 91th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
34.8%35 games · higher is betterRank 60 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
25.7%35 games · lower is betterRank 23 / 366 · 94th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
31.0%35 games · higher is betterRank 279 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.9%35 games · lower is betterRank 91 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 119.7 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 94.0 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 58.2% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 46.6% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.3% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 30.6% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 30.8% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 42.8% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 70.7% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.5% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 57.5% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 52.8% | 35 | 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?
2,464 source possession rows across 35 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 effective FG%
46.3% · rank 17 of 366 · 35 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.9% · rank 91 of 366 · 35 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
31.0% · rank 279 of 366 · 35 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 1 times in the selected window; Gonzaga won 1. 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 21, 2026 · neutral vs Texas · L 68–74 · offense 106.3 / defense 115.6
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| TexasMar 21, 2026 · neutral | L 68–74 | 34 | 106.3 | 115.6 | 64.0 | 48.3 | 10.9 | 27.3 |
| Kennesaw StMar 20, 2026 · neutral | W 73–64 | 159 | 105.6 | 92.6 | 69.1 | 42.1 | 14.5 | 41.0 |
| Santa ClaraMar 11, 2026 · neutral | W 79–68 | 42 | 130.9 | 112.7 | 60.4 | 62.3 | 13.3 | 36.4 |
| Oregon StMar 10, 2026 · neutral | W 65–56 | 139 | 102.9 | 88.7 | 63.2 | 50.0 | 15.8 | 24.1 |
| Saint Mary'sMar 1, 2026 · road | L 59–70 | 18 | 92.2 | 109.4 | 64.0 | 43.8 | 17.2 | 20.6 |
| PortlandFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 89–48 | 258 | 131.9 | 71.2 | 67.5 | 63.5 | 14.8 | 33.3 |
| PacificFeb 22, 2026 · home | W 71–62 | 207 | 116.0 | 101.3 | 61.2 | 47.3 | 6.5 | 33.3 |
| San FranciscoFeb 19, 2026 · road | W 80–59 | 89 | 119.2 | 87.9 | 67.1 | 58.9 | 10.4 | 21.4 |
| Santa ClaraFeb 15, 2026 · road | W 94–86 | 42 | 123.1 | 112.6 | 76.4 | 58.6 | 11.8 | 34.3 |
| Washington StFeb 11, 2026 · home | W 83–53 | 117 | 117.1 | 74.8 | 70.9 | 57.3 | 16.9 | 35.7 |
| Oregon StFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 81–61 | 139 | 145.7 | 109.8 | 55.6 | 59.8 | 3.6 | 38.5 |
| PortlandFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 80–87 | 258 | 108.2 | 117.7 | 73.9 | 47.7 | 12.2 | 33.3 |
| Saint Mary'sFeb 1, 2026 · home | W 73–65 | 18 | 107.5 | 95.7 | 67.9 | 51.7 | 14.7 | 28.9 |
| San FranciscoJan 25, 2026 · home | W 68–66 | 89 | 100.3 | 97.3 | 67.8 | 46.7 | 10.3 | 23.8 |
| PepperdineJan 22, 2026 · home | W 84–60 | 261 | 120.8 | 86.3 | 69.5 | 50.8 | 10.1 | 38.5 |
| Seattle UJan 18, 2026 · road | W 71–50 | 120 | 102.6 | 72.3 | 69.2 | 51.7 | 21.7 | 41.9 |
| Washington StJan 16, 2026 · road | W 86–65 | 117 | 126.9 | 95.9 | 67.8 | 54.4 | 11.8 | 47.2 |
| Santa ClaraJan 9, 2026 · home | W 89–77 | 42 | 121.4 | 105.1 | 73.3 | 62.7 | 17.7 | 35.7 |
| LMUJan 5, 2026 · home | W 82–47 | 160 | 118.8 | 68.1 | 69.0 | 58.2 | 11.6 | 32.4 |
| Seattle UJan 3, 2026 · home | W 80–72 | 120 | 105.6 | 95.0 | 67.4 | 52.5 | 15.8 | 23.5 |
| San DiegoDec 31, 2025 · road | W 99–93 | 263 | 124.3 | 116.7 | 79.7 | 62.3 | 18.8 | 41.7 |
| PepperdineDec 29, 2025 · road | W 96–56 | 261 | 135.7 | 79.1 | 70.8 | 61.2 | 12.7 | 38.2 |
| OregonDec 21, 2025 · neutral | W 91–82 | 61 | 134.3 | 121.1 | 67.7 | 54.8 | 7.4 | 35.1 |
| CampbellDec 18, 2025 · home | W 98–70 | 208 | 118.9 | 85.0 | 82.4 | 61.4 | 18.2 | 34.4 |
| UCLADec 14, 2025 · neutral | W 82–72 | 27 | 125.0 | 109.7 | 65.6 | 55.4 | 12.2 | 34.3 |
| North FloridaDec 8, 2025 · home | W 109–58 | 321 | 140.9 | 75.0 | 77.4 | 68.6 | 15.5 | 41.9 |
| KentuckyDec 6, 2025 · neutral | W 94–59 | 20 | 133.4 | 83.7 | 70.5 | 64.3 | 12.8 | 34.5 |
| MichiganNov 27, 2025 · neutral | L 61–101 | 6 | 75.8 | 125.5 | 80.5 | 35.8 | 13.7 | 23.5 |
| MarylandNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 100–61 | 63 | 142.8 | 87.1 | 70.0 | 68.8 | 17.1 | 46.4 |
| AlabamaNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 95–85 | 12 | 124.0 | 110.9 | 76.6 | 52.8 | 14.4 | 46.5 |
| Southern UtahNov 18, 2025 · home | W 122–50 | 285 | 149.1 | 61.1 | 81.8 | 73.6 | 11.0 | 34.6 |
| Arizona StNov 15, 2025 · road | W 77–65 | 84 | 110.4 | 93.2 | 69.8 | 49.0 | 20.1 | 34.4 |
| CreightonNov 12, 2025 · home | W 90–63 | 47 | 125.1 | 87.6 | 71.9 | 59.3 | 9.7 | 31.4 |
| OklahomaNov 9, 2025 · home | W 83–68 | 38 | 112.3 | 92.0 | 73.9 | 49.4 | 9.5 | 36.7 |
| Texas SouthernNov 4, 2025 · home | W 98–43 | 320 | 135.1 | 59.3 | 72.5 | 58.7 | 17.9 | 55.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Graham IkeF | 31 | 31.3 | 19.9 | 8.0 | 2.4 | 62.7 | 28.0% | 31 | 1.3031 games | 7131 games |
| Emmanuel InnocentiF | 35 | 24.4 | 6.0 | 3.8 | 1.7 | 54.2 | 12.2% | 35 | 3.5935 games | 8135 games |
| Mario Saint-SuperyG | 35 | 23.1 | 8.6 | 2.8 | 3.8 | 57.0 | 19.2% | 35 | 2.5635 games | 11935 games |
| Tyon Grant-FosterG | 35 | 21.5 | 11.1 | 5.0 | 1.2 | 53.0 | 26.9% | 35 | 0.8535 games | 6535 games |
| Jalen WarleyG | 33 | 21.9 | 7.1 | 4.8 | 2.1 | 58.6 | 15.4% | 33 | 2.2633 games | 033 games |
| Adam MillerG | 35 | 19.3 | 7.3 | 1.6 | 1.0 | 53.3 | 18.5% | 35 | 2.1235 games | 12935 games |
| Braeden SmithG | 35 | 17.1 | 5.1 | 2.2 | 3.6 | 56.9 | 15.8% | 35 | 3.3435 games | 5135 games |
| Davis FogleG | 29 | 17.3 | 8.9 | 3.2 | 1.4 | 58.4 | 24.3% | 29 | 2.0029 games | 4029 games |
| Braden HuffF | 18 | 25.5 | 17.8 | 5.6 | 1.5 | 67.2 | 26.0% | 18 | 1.5918 games | 2118 games |
| Steele VentersG | 27 | 15.0 | 5.0 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 56.0 | 15.8% | 27 | 1.6527 games | 9827 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 Gonzaga?
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.
13Source-listed players
11Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
65%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 | 8 | 3,031 | 3,031 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,356 | 1,356 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 194 | 194 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (4,581 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?
13 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Emmanuel Innocenti →F | Same programGonzaga Bulldogs | 24.4 | 6.0 | 54.2% |
| Mario Saint-Supery →G | Same programGonzaga Bulldogs | 23.1 | 8.6 | 57.0% |
| Adam Miller →G | Same programGonzaga Bulldogs | 19.3 | 7.3 | 53.3% |
| Braeden Smith →G | Same programGonzaga Bulldogs | 17.1 | 5.1 | 56.9% |
| Davis Fogle →G | Same programGonzaga Bulldogs | 17.3 | 8.9 | 58.4% |
| Braden Huff →F | Same programGonzaga Bulldogs | 25.5 | 17.8 | 67.2% |
| Steele Venters →G | Same programGonzaga Bulldogs | 15.0 | 5.0 | 56.0% |
| Ismaila Diagne →C | Same programGonzaga Bulldogs | 6.9 | 1.1 | 48.2% |
| Noah Haaland →F | Same programGonzaga Bulldogs | 4.8 | 2.2 | 66.9% |
| Cade Orness →G | Same programGonzaga Bulldogs | 2.5 | 0.4 | 34.3% |
| Joaquim ArauzMoore →G | Same programGonzaga Bulldogs | 2.2 | 0.8 | 75.9% |
| Alonzo Metz →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Gonzaga vs Kansas St
84.2Gonzaga
70.7Kansas St
Kansas St win estimate21.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin-13.5
Projected total155.0
80% home-margin range-29.4 to 2.4
Estimated possessions72.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.9 pts
Kansas St attack 53.1% · Gonzaga defense 46.8%Gonzaga attack 56.3% · Kansas St defense 49.1%
Ball securityAway 2.9 pts
Kansas St attack 17.7% · Gonzaga defense 18.3%Gonzaga attack 14.4% · Kansas St defense 17.9%
Second chancesHome 1.8 pts
Kansas St attack 30.8% · Gonzaga defense 25.7%Gonzaga attack 33.8% · Kansas St defense 30.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.6 pts
Kansas St attack 32.3% · Gonzaga defense 30.6%Gonzaga attack 32.6% · Kansas St defense 33.5%
T-Mobile Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Gonzaga vs Creighton
79.1Gonzaga
73.3Creighton
Creighton win estimate38.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-5.9
Projected total152.4
80% home-margin range-21.8 to 10.1
Estimated possessions69.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.5 pts
Creighton attack 55.6% · Gonzaga defense 46.8%Gonzaga attack 56.3% · Creighton defense 48.0%
Ball securityHome 2.9 pts
Creighton attack 16.1% · Gonzaga defense 18.3%Gonzaga attack 14.4% · Creighton defense 13.7%
Second chancesAway 6.1 pts
Creighton attack 27.3% · Gonzaga defense 25.7%Gonzaga attack 33.8% · Creighton defense 26.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 10.5 pts
Creighton attack 30.2% · Gonzaga defense 30.6%Gonzaga attack 32.6% · Creighton defense 22.6%
CHI Health Center Omaha
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Gonzaga vs Duke
72.2Gonzaga
77.0Duke
Duke win estimate66.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.7
Projected total149.2
80% home-margin range-11.2 to 20.7
Estimated possessions68.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
Duke attack 57.1% · Gonzaga defense 46.8%Gonzaga attack 56.3% · Duke defense 45.4%
Ball securityAway 0.5 pts
Duke attack 15.7% · Gonzaga defense 18.3%Gonzaga attack 14.4% · Duke defense 17.6%
Second chancesHome 1.9 pts
Duke attack 36.2% · Gonzaga defense 25.7%Gonzaga attack 33.8% · Duke defense 25.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.2 pts
Duke attack 37.0% · Gonzaga defense 30.6%Gonzaga attack 32.6% · Duke defense 26.0%
Little Caesars 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 →