A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.3% · rank 98 of 366 · 35 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Lehigh
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.291
-9.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–172025–26 recorded finals
100.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
109.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Lehigh.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1735 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.0Mean opponent adj. net -6.5 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.1%35 games · higher is betterRank 115 / 366 · 69th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.8%35 games · lower is betterRank 114 / 366 · 69th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.7%35 games · lower is betterRank 261 / 366 · 29th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.3%35 games · higher is betterRank 219 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
23.9%35 games · higher is betterRank 351 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.9%35 games · lower is betterRank 232 / 366 · 37th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
32.0%35 games · higher is betterRank 257 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.3%35 games · lower is betterRank 98 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 105.1 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.7 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.8% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 50.2% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.6% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.6% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 39.0% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 31.8% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.8% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 75.5% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 54.9% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 44.1% | 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?
2,432 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%
49.8% · rank 114 of 366 · 35 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnover rate
17.7% · rank 261 of 366 · 35 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
23.9% · rank 351 of 366 · 35 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
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 13 times in the selected window; Lehigh won 8. 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 18, 2026 · neutral vs Prairie View · L 55–67 · offense 84.4 / defense 102.8
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Prairie ViewMar 18, 2026 · neutral | L 55–67 | 336 | 84.4 | 102.8 | 65.2 | 41.4 | 24.5 | 34.1 |
| Boston UMar 11, 2026 · home | W 74–60 | 270 | 121.0 | 98.1 | 61.2 | 51.8 | 11.4 | 40.0 |
| ColgateMar 8, 2026 · home | W 76–69 | 209 | 110.9 | 100.7 | 68.5 | 61.0 | 16.1 | 14.3 |
| Holy CrossMar 6, 2026 · home | W 69–66 | 334 | 103.6 | 99.1 | 66.6 | 54.5 | 18.0 | 24.1 |
| BucknellFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 89–79 | 310 | 131.1 | 116.3 | 67.9 | 69.6 | 20.6 | 31.8 |
| AmericanFeb 26, 2026 · road | W 78–73 | 247 | 117.5 | 110.0 | 66.4 | 58.0 | 15.1 | 19.2 |
| Boston UFeb 22, 2026 · home | W 70–67 | 270 | 119.1 | 114.0 | 58.8 | 58.0 | 17.0 | 30.8 |
| NavyFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 49–72 | 182 | 76.0 | 111.7 | 64.5 | 36.0 | 18.6 | 25.6 |
| LafayetteFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 78–69 | 319 | 120.7 | 106.8 | 64.6 | 60.5 | 12.4 | 25.0 |
| AmericanFeb 12, 2026 · home | W 90–82 | 247 | 121.4 | 110.6 | 74.2 | 72.0 | 20.2 | 18.2 |
| Holy CrossFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 67–76 | 334 | 103.3 | 117.2 | 64.8 | 52.6 | 10.8 | 12.1 |
| Loyola MDFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 84–89 | 330 | 104.7 | 110.9 | 64.2 | 53.7 | 16.2 | 23.8 |
| ColgateJan 31, 2026 · home | W 77–76 | 209 | 107.9 | 106.5 | 63.4 | 63.2 | 25.2 | 17.9 |
| ArmyJan 28, 2026 · road | L 64–67 | 340 | 94.9 | 99.4 | 67.4 | 47.3 | 17.8 | 23.7 |
| LafayetteJan 25, 2026 · home | W 64–59 | 319 | 97.6 | 89.9 | 65.6 | 50.0 | 24.4 | 28.6 |
| Loyola MDJan 20, 2026 · home | W 88–81 | 330 | 129.3 | 119.0 | 68.1 | 63.9 | 13.2 | 17.4 |
| NavyJan 17, 2026 · home | L 79–82 | 182 | 102.5 | 106.4 | 61.6 | 47.8 | 10.4 | 14.6 |
| Boston UJan 14, 2026 · road | W 93–91 | 270 | 120.6 | 118.0 | 68.6 | 57.9 | 7.8 | 8.8 |
| ColgateJan 10, 2026 · road | W 78–77 | 209 | 119.7 | 118.2 | 65.2 | 49.2 | 10.7 | 36.8 |
| Holy CrossJan 7, 2026 · home | W 66–58 | 334 | 103.9 | 91.3 | 63.5 | 54.7 | 18.9 | 21.4 |
| BucknellJan 3, 2026 · road | L 65–72 | 310 | 88.7 | 98.3 | 73.3 | 51.1 | 28.7 | 15.4 |
| ArmyDec 31, 2025 · home | L 78–85 | 340 | 101.0 | 110.0 | 68.7 | 51.6 | 11.7 | 11.1 |
| MonmouthDec 21, 2025 · road | L 62–76 | 211 | 92.1 | 112.9 | 67.3 | 55.6 | 29.7 | 31.0 |
| PSU HazletonDec 19, 2025 · home | W 83–74 | Unrated | 109.1 | 97.3 | 76.1 | 51.6 | 17.1 | 30.6 |
| Long IslandDec 6, 2025 · home | L 82–87 | 269 | 112.1 | 118.9 | 73.2 | 55.4 | 26.0 | 40.6 |
| BinghamtonDec 3, 2025 · road | L 71–80 | 352 | 99.0 | 111.6 | 63.7 | 47.0 | 15.3 | 27.9 |
| Texas StNov 29, 2025 · neutral | W 78–74 | 228 | 110.9 | 105.2 | 62.5 | 61.2 | 18.5 | 22.6 |
| Santa BarbaraNov 28, 2025 · neutral | L 70–72 | 143 | 109.3 | 112.4 | 64.1 | 53.3 | 18.7 | 21.4 |
| MaristNov 26, 2025 · road | L 55–78 | 200 | 81.1 | 115.0 | 67.8 | 37.3 | 13.3 | 19.5 |
| ColumbiaNov 21, 2025 · home | L 67–82 | 217 | 97.8 | 119.7 | 68.5 | 49.1 | 13.1 | 19.5 |
| Saint FrancisNov 19, 2025 · home | W 79–62 | 356 | 107.8 | 84.6 | 73.3 | 54.4 | 20.5 | 32.4 |
| RutgersNov 14, 2025 · road | L 72–84 | 107 | 102.5 | 119.6 | 70.2 | 50.0 | 12.8 | 18.4 |
| West VirginiaNov 9, 2025 · road | L 47–69 | 52 | 72.8 | 106.9 | 64.6 | 42.4 | 24.8 | 9.4 |
| Valley ForgeNov 7, 2025 · home | W 91–52 | Unrated | 118.4 | 67.7 | 76.9 | 58.2 | 18.2 | 38.9 |
| HoustonNov 4, 2025 · road | L 57–75 | 2 | 83.6 | 110.0 | 68.2 | 41.2 | 22.0 | 24.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nasir WhitlockG | 35 | 35.0 | 20.5 | 3.5 | 3.3 | 58.9 | 30.9% | 35 | 1.2335 games | 18035 games |
| Joshua IngramG | 35 | 34.9 | 10.5 | 5.2 | 3.3 | 60.0 | 16.4% | 35 | 1.6935 games | 12535 games |
| Hank AlveyF | 35 | 30.9 | 15.2 | 7.1 | 2.1 | 64.3 | 23.8% | 35 | 1.1635 games | 1235 games |
| Peter KramerG | 35 | 20.0 | 4.0 | 1.9 | 0.7 | 55.1 | 11.2% | 35 | 1.2135 games | 9635 games |
| Edouard BenoitF | 24 | 28.8 | 10.2 | 6.0 | 1.1 | 51.9 | 22.1% | 24 | 0.6024 games | 9624 games |
| Jalen VazquezG | 31 | 21.9 | 3.8 | 2.6 | 2.0 | 47.4 | 12.9% | 31 | 1.7031 games | 3931 games |
| Andrew UrosevicG | 28 | 19.6 | 7.5 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 52.4 | 21.2% | 28 | 1.1328 games | 14528 games |
| Caleb ThomasG | 21 | 22.7 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 2.1 | 39.8 | 18.8% | 21 | 1.2921 games | 3221 games |
| Alfredo AddesaF | 33 | 8.0 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 45.4 | 19.1% | 33 | 0.5033 games | 3233 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 Lehigh?
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
13Same-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 | 8 | 4,860 | 4,860 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,200 | 2,200 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 165 | 165 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (7,225 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nasir Whitlock →G | Same programLehigh Mountain Hawks | 35.0 | 20.5 | 58.9% |
| Joshua Ingram →G | Same programLehigh Mountain Hawks | 34.9 | 10.5 | 60.0% |
| Hank Alvey →F | Same programLehigh Mountain Hawks | 30.9 | 15.2 | 64.3% |
| Peter Kramer →G | Same programLehigh Mountain Hawks | 20.0 | 4.0 | 55.1% |
| Edouard Benoit →F | Same programLehigh Mountain Hawks | 28.8 | 10.2 | 51.9% |
| Jalen Vazquez →G | Same programLehigh Mountain Hawks | 21.9 | 3.8 | 47.4% |
| Andrew Urosevic →G | Same programLehigh Mountain Hawks | 19.6 | 7.5 | 52.4% |
| Caleb Thomas →G | Same programLehigh Mountain Hawks | 22.7 | 5.2 | 39.8% |
| Alfredo Addesa →F | Same programLehigh Mountain Hawks | 8.0 | 2.0 | 45.4% |
| Jake Pike →F | Same programLehigh Mountain Hawks | 11.0 | 1.5 | 54.0% |
| Henri Adiassa →C | Same programLehigh Mountain Hawks | 4.8 | 0.5 | 59.7% |
| Tommy Conniff →C | Same programLehigh Mountain Hawks | 5.4 | 0.4 | 57.6% |
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…
Lehigh vs Saint Louis
66.4Lehigh
85.0Saint Louis
Saint Louis win estimate90.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin18.6
Projected total151.4
80% home-margin range2.7 to 34.5
Estimated possessions70.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.0 pts
Saint Louis attack 56.6% · Lehigh defense 51.2%Lehigh attack 50.9% · Saint Louis defense 48.5%
Ball securityHome 1.1 pts
Saint Louis attack 17.3% · Lehigh defense 16.3%Lehigh attack 17.3% · Saint Louis defense 15.2%
Second chancesHome 2.1 pts
Saint Louis attack 28.5% · Lehigh defense 30.5%Lehigh attack 23.3% · Saint Louis defense 27.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.2 pts
Saint Louis attack 33.7% · Lehigh defense 34.7%Lehigh attack 33.1% · Saint Louis defense 32.9%
Chaifetz Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Brown vs Lehigh
67.9Brown
69.4Lehigh
Lehigh win estimate58.1%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin1.5
Projected total137.2
80% home-margin range-14.4 to 17.4
Estimated possessions67.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.5 pts
Lehigh attack 50.9% · Brown defense 50.6%Brown attack 50.1% · Lehigh defense 51.2%
Ball securityHome 2.8 pts
Lehigh attack 17.3% · Brown defense 17.3%Brown attack 19.1% · Lehigh defense 16.3%
Second chancesAway 5.8 pts
Lehigh attack 23.3% · Brown defense 29.9%Brown attack 29.6% · Lehigh defense 30.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.5 pts
Lehigh attack 33.1% · Brown defense 35.0%Brown attack 32.4% · Lehigh defense 34.7%
Stabler Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Binghamton vs Lehigh
66.0Binghamton
74.7Lehigh
Lehigh win estimate75.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin8.7
Projected total140.7
80% home-margin range-7.3 to 24.6
Estimated possessions66.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.6 pts
Lehigh attack 50.9% · Binghamton defense 52.7%Binghamton attack 50.1% · Lehigh defense 51.2%
Ball securityAway 1.0 pts
Lehigh attack 17.3% · Binghamton defense 13.6%Binghamton attack 19.0% · Lehigh defense 16.3%
Second chancesAway 0.6 pts
Lehigh attack 23.3% · Binghamton defense 29.7%Binghamton attack 24.6% · Lehigh defense 30.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.0 pts
Lehigh attack 33.1% · Binghamton defense 36.0%Binghamton attack 37.8% · Lehigh defense 34.7%
Stabler 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 →