A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
45.4% · rank 8 of 366 · 35 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Hofstra
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.115
+5.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
24–112025–26 recorded finals
108.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
103.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
65.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Hofstra.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
24–1135 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 65.7Mean opponent adj. net -1.2 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.1%35 games · higher is betterRank 166 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
45.4%35 games · lower is betterRank 8 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.1%35 games · lower is betterRank 148 / 366 · 60th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.2%35 games · higher is betterRank 295 / 366 · 19th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
35.3%35 games · higher is betterRank 49 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.9%35 games · lower is betterRank 174 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
31.1%35 games · higher is betterRank 278 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.8%35 games · lower is betterRank 163 / 366 · 56th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 114.0 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 100.9 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.5% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 44.0% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 37.0% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.6% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 43.4% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.6% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.5% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.2% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 48.8% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.7% | 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?
2,330 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
Offensive rebound rate
35.3% · rank 49 of 366 · 35 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
31.1% · rank 278 of 366 · 35 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.2% · rank 295 of 366 · 35 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 14 times in the selected window; Hofstra 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 20, 2026 · neutral vs Alabama · L 70–90 · offense 100.4 / defense 129.1
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AlabamaMar 20, 2026 · neutral | L 70–90 | 12 | 100.4 | 129.1 | 69.7 | 48.6 | 17.2 | 31.0 |
| MonmouthMar 10, 2026 · neutral | W 75–69 | 211 | 113.0 | 103.9 | 66.4 | 44.8 | 16.6 | 39.5 |
| TowsonMar 10, 2026 · neutral | W 68–65 | 150 | 111.7 | 106.8 | 54.1 | 46.8 | 14.8 | 43.2 |
| William & MaryMar 9, 2026 · neutral | W 92–61 | 195 | 140.0 | 92.8 | 65.7 | 56.5 | 9.1 | 41.0 |
| DrexelMar 4, 2026 · home | W 62–51 | 185 | 109.3 | 89.9 | 56.7 | 48.2 | 24.7 | 50.0 |
| Stony BrookMar 1, 2026 · home | W 67–58 | 280 | 96.8 | 83.8 | 69.2 | 49.0 | 20.2 | 16.1 |
| NortheasternFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 82–68 | 262 | 128.0 | 106.1 | 64.1 | 62.0 | 9.4 | 21.2 |
| HamptonFeb 20, 2026 · home | W 79–43 | 288 | 129.5 | 70.5 | 61.0 | 62.9 | 13.1 | 30.8 |
| UNC WilmingtonFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 66–70 | 113 | 108.2 | 114.7 | 61.0 | 46.2 | 11.5 | 27.8 |
| CharlestonFeb 13, 2026 · road | W 66–62 | 135 | 94.0 | 88.3 | 70.2 | 38.5 | 15.7 | 31.0 |
| TowsonFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 71–49 | 150 | 114.9 | 79.3 | 61.8 | 51.8 | 12.9 | 32.4 |
| NortheasternFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 80–63 | 262 | 120.5 | 94.9 | 66.4 | 54.0 | 15.1 | 40.0 |
| MonmouthJan 31, 2026 · road | W 73–57 | 211 | 112.3 | 87.7 | 65.0 | 62.5 | 29.2 | 40.0 |
| CharlestonJan 30, 2026 · home | L 64–66 | 135 | 93.6 | 96.5 | 68.4 | 39.7 | 14.6 | 40.7 |
| William & MaryJan 24, 2026 · road | L 82–89 | 195 | 122.1 | 132.5 | 67.2 | 50.0 | 11.9 | 39.0 |
| NC A&TJan 23, 2026 · road | L 78–79 | 318 | 118.1 | 119.6 | 66.1 | 51.6 | 9.1 | 25.6 |
| ElonJan 17, 2026 · home | L 85–89 | 237 | 128.0 | 134.0 | 66.4 | 58.5 | 16.6 | 38.2 |
| Stony BrookJan 16, 2026 · road | L 71–76 | 280 | 120.0 | 128.4 | 59.2 | 50.8 | 11.8 | 36.8 |
| MonmouthJan 10, 2026 · home | W 67–64 | 211 | 94.0 | 89.8 | 63.4 | 32.2 | 16.8 | 34.8 |
| TowsonJan 8, 2026 · road | W 78–67 | 150 | 116.4 | 99.9 | 67.0 | 51.0 | 11.9 | 31.3 |
| DrexelJan 3, 2026 · road | W 70–67 | 185 | 118.1 | 113.0 | 59.3 | 56.9 | 15.2 | 33.3 |
| CampbellDec 30, 2025 · home | W 86–72 | 208 | 129.8 | 108.7 | 66.2 | 64.0 | 21.1 | 50.0 |
| QuinnipiacDec 21, 2025 · home | W 74–66 | 192 | 110.1 | 98.2 | 67.2 | 44.5 | 19.3 | 47.7 |
| SyracuseDec 13, 2025 · road | W 70–69 | 102 | 120.2 | 118.5 | 58.2 | 60.4 | 17.2 | 29.6 |
| Old WestburyDec 11, 2025 · home | W 92–23 | Unrated | 143.8 | 36.0 | 64.0 | 66.4 | 15.6 | 54.5 |
| PittDec 7, 2025 · road | W 80–73 | 71 | 130.1 | 118.7 | 61.5 | 60.0 | 11.4 | 30.8 |
| ColumbiaDec 4, 2025 · road | L 70–72 | 217 | 106.0 | 109.0 | 66.0 | 50.0 | 15.1 | 28.6 |
| PennNov 30, 2025 · road | W 77–60 | 203 | 115.2 | 89.8 | 66.8 | 58.8 | 22.5 | 34.8 |
| MerrimackNov 29, 2025 · neutral | W 78–58 | 180 | 116.3 | 86.5 | 67.1 | 54.5 | 20.9 | 36.7 |
| La SalleNov 28, 2025 · neutral | W 63–58 | 242 | 94.8 | 87.3 | 66.5 | 48.3 | 19.6 | 27.8 |
| TempleNov 20, 2025 · road | L 76–81 | 142 | 109.4 | 116.6 | 69.4 | 52.4 | 14.4 | 26.5 |
| BucknellNov 15, 2025 · road | W 83–77 | 310 | 111.3 | 103.2 | 74.6 | 54.4 | 16.1 | 29.4 |
| MolloyNov 10, 2025 · home | W 95–61 | Unrated | 121.5 | 78.0 | 78.2 | 58.9 | 14.1 | 35.9 |
| IonaNov 8, 2025 · road | L 73–81 | 215 | 97.7 | 108.5 | 74.7 | 50.0 | 20.1 | 36.8 |
| UCFNov 4, 2025 · road | L 78–82 | 56 | 107.2 | 112.7 | 72.8 | 46.0 | 16.5 | 35.1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cruz DavisG | 35 | 37.9 | 20.1 | 3.7 | 4.7 | 56.2 | 27.5% | 35 | 1.8635 games | 20535 games |
| Preston EdmeadG | 35 | 33.9 | 16.1 | 3.5 | 4.4 | 57.3 | 24.5% | 35 | 2.0035 games | 24835 games |
| German PlotnikovG | 33 | 32.3 | 9.4 | 3.3 | 0.8 | 57.8 | 14.1% | 33 | 1.0433 games | 15533 games |
| Joshua DeCadyF | 33 | 24.1 | 6.2 | 3.4 | 0.6 | 48.8 | 15.3% | 33 | 0.7333 games | 5733 games |
| Silas SundayF | 35 | 19.7 | 5.1 | 6.8 | 0.7 | 65.6 | 13.3% | 35 | 0.5535 games | 135 games |
| Biggie PattersonG | 31 | 20.9 | 9.5 | 5.6 | 0.4 | 51.3 | 24.7% | 31 | 0.4131 games | 11131 games |
| Victory OnuetuF | 35 | 17.9 | 4.7 | 6.9 | 0.4 | 55.7 | 14.8% | 35 | 0.4335 games | 035 games |
| Joshua Aaron ReavesG | 23 | 10.8 | 2.5 | 2.1 | 0.1 | 51.9 | 11.8% | 23 | 0.6723 games | 4323 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 Hofstra?
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.
15Source-listed players
12Same-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 | 11 | 4,868 | 4,868 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 3 | 2,114 | 2,114 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 68 | 68 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (7,050 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?
15 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cruz Davis →G | Same programHofstra Pride | 37.9 | 20.1 | 56.2% |
| Preston Edmead →G | Same programHofstra Pride | 33.9 | 16.1 | 57.3% |
| German Plotnikov →G | Same programHofstra Pride | 32.3 | 9.4 | 57.8% |
| Joshua DeCady →F | Same programHofstra Pride | 24.1 | 6.2 | 48.8% |
| Silas Sunday →F | Same programHofstra Pride | 19.7 | 5.1 | 65.6% |
| Biggie Patterson →G | Same programHofstra Pride | 20.9 | 9.5 | 51.3% |
| Victory Onuetu →F | Same programHofstra Pride | 17.9 | 4.7 | 55.7% |
| Joshua Aaron Reaves →G | Same programHofstra Pride | 10.8 | 2.5 | 51.9% |
| Jaeden Roberts →G | Same programHofstra Pride | 8.3 | 4.1 | 56.1% |
| A.J. Wills →G | Same programHofstra Pride | 10.8 | 3.4 | 47.2% |
| Alex Tsynkevich →C | Same programHofstra Pride | 4.2 | 0.8 | 46.7% |
| Amir Williams →G | Same programHofstra Pride | 5.7 | 1.3 | 50.0% |
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…
Stony Brook vs Hofstra
62.1Stony Brook
74.3Hofstra
Hofstra win estimate81.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.2
Projected total136.4
80% home-margin range-3.8 to 28.1
Estimated possessions64.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.8 pts
Hofstra attack 51.8% · Stony Brook defense 52.7%Stony Brook attack 49.8% · Hofstra defense 47.8%
Ball securityHome 0.3 pts
Hofstra attack 16.6% · Stony Brook defense 15.8%Stony Brook attack 17.4% · Hofstra defense 16.3%
Second chancesHome 0.3 pts
Hofstra attack 29.0% · Stony Brook defense 30.3%Stony Brook attack 27.7% · Hofstra defense 29.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.2 pts
Hofstra attack 29.8% · Stony Brook defense 32.8%Stony Brook attack 31.3% · Hofstra defense 34.0%
David S. Mack Sports and Exhibition Complex
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Hofstra vs Towson
64.2Hofstra
64.5Towson
Towson win estimate55.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.4
Projected total128.7
80% home-margin range-15.6 to 16.3
Estimated possessions62.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.5 pts
Towson attack 48.3% · Hofstra defense 47.8%Hofstra attack 51.8% · Towson defense 49.9%
Ball securityAway 0.1 pts
Towson attack 16.6% · Hofstra defense 16.3%Hofstra attack 16.6% · Towson defense 16.4%
Second chancesHome 5.0 pts
Towson attack 35.2% · Hofstra defense 29.3%Hofstra attack 29.0% · Towson defense 28.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.0 pts
Towson attack 32.3% · Hofstra defense 34.0%Hofstra attack 29.8% · Towson defense 31.6%
SECU Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
William & Mary vs Hofstra
69.5William & Mary
78.3Hofstra
Hofstra win estimate75.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin8.9
Projected total147.8
80% home-margin range-7.1 to 24.8
Estimated possessions68.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 5.8 pts
Hofstra attack 51.8% · William & Mary defense 52.9%William & Mary attack 52.5% · Hofstra defense 47.8%
Ball securityHome 1.9 pts
Hofstra attack 16.6% · William & Mary defense 17.5%William & Mary attack 17.3% · Hofstra defense 16.3%
Second chancesHome 1.9 pts
Hofstra attack 29.0% · William & Mary defense 29.9%William & Mary attack 26.6% · Hofstra defense 29.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 9.3 pts
Hofstra attack 29.8% · William & Mary defense 34.3%William & Mary attack 38.8% · Hofstra defense 34.0%
David S. Mack Sports and Exhibition Complex
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 →