A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
36.0% · rank 34 of 366 · 31 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Lamar
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.232
-4.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
12–192025–26 recorded finals
102.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
107.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Lamar.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
12–1931 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.3Mean opponent adj. net -4.4 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
48.6%31 games · higher is betterRank 319 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.9%31 games · lower is betterRank 123 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.0%31 games · lower is betterRank 280 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.9%31 games · higher is betterRank 113 / 366 · 69th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
36.0%31 games · higher is betterRank 34 / 366 · 91th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.9%31 games · lower is betterRank 125 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
27.8%31 games · higher is betterRank 345 / 366 · 6th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
42.6%31 games · lower is betterRank 343 / 366 · 6th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 105.0 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 103.8 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 48.2% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 48.4% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.9% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.9% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 34.5% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 37.1% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 70.2% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 68.6% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 56.3% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 57.4% | 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?
2,087 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
Turnovers forced
17.9% · rank 113 of 366 · 31 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
42.6% · rank 343 of 366 · 31 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
27.8% · rank 345 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 6 times in the selected window; Lamar 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 3, 2026 · road vs Hou Christian · L 53–75 · offense 79.4 / defense 112.3
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hou ChristianMar 3, 2026 · road | L 53–75 | 324 | 79.4 | 112.3 | 66.8 | 35.9 | 21.0 | 37.8 |
| Incarnate WordFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 60–72 | 292 | 94.4 | 113.3 | 63.6 | 49.1 | 23.6 | 38.2 |
| NichollsFeb 24, 2026 · home | L 52–53 | 235 | 80.3 | 81.8 | 64.8 | 39.3 | 21.6 | 27.0 |
| New OrleansFeb 22, 2026 · home | L 71–77 | 299 | 101.3 | 109.8 | 70.1 | 43.2 | 18.5 | 40.8 |
| UT Rio GrandeFeb 17, 2026 · road | L 65–70 | 198 | 108.8 | 117.1 | 59.8 | 50.0 | 11.7 | 36.1 |
| Texas A&M-CCFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 63–76 | 174 | 93.7 | 113.1 | 67.2 | 41.7 | 22.3 | 25.8 |
| N'Western StFeb 10, 2026 · home | L 68–70 | 296 | 103.1 | 106.1 | 66.0 | 46.4 | 16.7 | 31.4 |
| SF AustinFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 74–84 | 145 | 108.7 | 123.4 | 68.1 | 51.6 | 14.7 | 29.0 |
| SE LouisianaFeb 3, 2026 · home | W 73–54 | 281 | 120.3 | 89.0 | 60.7 | 52.3 | 9.9 | 39.5 |
| McNeeseFeb 1, 2026 · home | L 63–64 | 70 | 109.8 | 111.6 | 57.4 | 44.3 | 17.4 | 48.8 |
| E Texas A&MJan 28, 2026 · home | W 82–61 | 329 | 120.8 | 89.9 | 67.9 | 57.0 | 19.2 | 44.4 |
| SF AustinJan 24, 2026 · home | L 81–88 | 145 | 120.8 | 131.2 | 67.1 | 55.7 | 16.4 | 36.4 |
| New OrleansJan 20, 2026 · road | L 76–89 | 299 | 105.5 | 123.5 | 72.0 | 45.1 | 15.3 | 41.3 |
| NichollsJan 17, 2026 · road | W 90–80 | 235 | 131.4 | 116.8 | 68.5 | 73.6 | 21.9 | 40.0 |
| Hou ChristianJan 13, 2026 · home | W 64–56 | 324 | 102.5 | 89.7 | 62.4 | 53.4 | 25.6 | 28.6 |
| Incarnate WordJan 11, 2026 · home | W 63–51 | 292 | 102.3 | 82.8 | 61.6 | 47.3 | 21.1 | 38.2 |
| SE LouisianaJan 6, 2026 · road | L 52–60 | 281 | 87.6 | 101.1 | 59.4 | 32.1 | 20.2 | 42.1 |
| McNeeseJan 3, 2026 · road | L 70–82 | 70 | 116.0 | 135.8 | 60.4 | 41.7 | 16.6 | 45.2 |
| E Texas A&MDec 31, 2025 · road | W 69–62 | 329 | 104.0 | 93.5 | 66.3 | 44.5 | 13.6 | 35.9 |
| N'Western StDec 30, 2025 · road | W 76–61 | 296 | 115.1 | 92.4 | 66.0 | 63.9 | 19.7 | 25.0 |
| OmahaDec 21, 2025 · home | L 82–85 | 238 | 112.0 | 116.1 | 65.1 | 48.6 | 15.0 | 42.1 |
| UT Rio GrandeDec 17, 2025 · home | L 72–83 | 198 | 102.7 | 118.4 | 70.1 | 48.3 | 18.6 | 27.5 |
| San Diego StDec 11, 2025 · road | L 71–89 | 43 | 93.3 | 116.9 | 76.1 | 48.3 | 23.6 | 24.3 |
| Texas A&M-CCDec 7, 2025 · home | L 49–57 | 174 | 81.5 | 94.8 | 60.2 | 42.2 | 18.3 | 21.2 |
| LouisianaDec 4, 2025 · home | W 65–55 | 297 | 106.4 | 90.0 | 61.1 | 47.2 | 13.1 | 35.3 |
| Lady of LakeNov 30, 2025 · home | W 90–46 | Unrated | 119.9 | 61.3 | 75.0 | 59.0 | 16.0 | 36.8 |
| OaklandNov 24, 2025 · neutral | L 68–83 | 167 | 95.9 | 117.1 | 70.9 | 45.2 | 22.6 | 39.0 |
| MontanaNov 23, 2025 · road | W 68–63 | 178 | 93.8 | 86.9 | 72.5 | 43.8 | 17.9 | 36.2 |
| UL MonroeNov 18, 2025 · road | W 79–66 | 358 | 109.8 | 91.7 | 72.0 | 48.6 | 12.5 | 33.3 |
| TCUNov 11, 2025 · road | L 65–78 | 48 | 100.7 | 120.8 | 64.6 | 47.5 | 13.9 | 30.3 |
| Texas A&M-SANov 3, 2025 · home | W 93–53 | Unrated | 127.9 | 72.9 | 72.7 | 60.3 | 19.2 | 45.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Andrew HolifieldF | 31 | 28.6 | 11.7 | 4.6 | 1.5 | 52.1 | 22.6% | 31 | 0.9231 games | 17231 games |
| Rob Lee Jr.G | 31 | 28.2 | 16.0 | 3.2 | 2.0 | 56.8 | 28.0% | 31 | 1.3231 games | 18531 games |
| Cody PennebakerG | 31 | 27.5 | 7.1 | 4.3 | 2.5 | 51.0 | 15.2% | 31 | 1.9031 games | 3431 games |
| Braden EastF | 30 | 23.9 | 12.8 | 9.1 | 0.7 | 57.1 | 27.4% | 30 | 0.4030 games | 1630 games |
| Errol WhiteF | 31 | 22.3 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 1.2 | 49.3 | 14.6% | 31 | 0.8831 games | 031 games |
| King-Njhsanni WilhiteG | 29 | 21.0 | 5.8 | 1.1 | 2.5 | 45.8 | 17.7% | 29 | 2.4029 games | 5529 games |
| Eian LoweG | 30 | 17.9 | 4.3 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 47.1 | 16.1% | 30 | 2.1730 games | 4330 games |
| Janko BulajicC | 31 | 11.8 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 0.9 | 56.2 | 8.7% | 31 | 1.1731 games | 031 games |
| Jayden GambrellG | 30 | 11.2 | 4.0 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 46.1 | 22.1% | 30 | 0.6830 games | 9330 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 Lamar?
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.
0Source-listed players
0Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
—Prior minutes represented
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?
No source-listed roster rows were observed for this program in the current release.
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…
No upcoming games for this program in the partial schedule.
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 →