A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
49.0% · rank 79 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Le Moyne
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.316
-11.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–172025–26 recorded finals
101.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
113.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Le Moyne.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1732 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.4Mean opponent adj. net -9.1 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 128 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 79 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 324 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 271 / 366 · 26th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
25.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 339 / 366 · 7th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 130 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
38.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 82 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 118 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 105.1 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 105.4 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.1% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 45.9% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.0% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.8% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.5% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.4% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.9% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.5% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 56.5% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.9% | 32 | 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?
2,242 source possession rows across 32 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
Free-throw attempt rate
38.5% · rank 82 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnover rate
18.9% · rank 324 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
25.5% · rank 339 of 366 · 32 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 7 times in the selected window; Le Moyne won 4. 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 5, 2026 · home vs Stonehill · L 71–81 · offense 100.6 / defense 114.8
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| StonehillMar 5, 2026 · home | L 71–81 | 341 | 100.6 | 114.8 | 70.6 | 43.8 | 15.6 | 31.8 |
| New HavenFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 59–66 | 332 | 86.5 | 96.8 | 68.2 | 40.7 | 14.7 | 11.4 |
| FDUFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 76–59 | 328 | 118.7 | 92.2 | 64.0 | 62.7 | 15.6 | 20.0 |
| StonehillFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 68–77 | 341 | 96.6 | 109.4 | 70.4 | 48.1 | 19.9 | 23.5 |
| C ConnecticutFeb 20, 2026 · road | L 77–78 | 260 | 108.8 | 110.2 | 70.8 | 57.1 | 17.0 | 19.4 |
| Chicago StFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 81–63 | 360 | 117.6 | 91.5 | 68.9 | 64.7 | 16.0 | 13.8 |
| MercyhurstFeb 13, 2026 · home | W 58–57 | 305 | 84.2 | 82.7 | 68.9 | 45.3 | 26.1 | 25.7 |
| Saint FrancisFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 86–84 | 356 | 112.0 | 109.4 | 76.8 | 70.7 | 27.4 | 22.7 |
| WagnerFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 78–79 | 313 | 113.9 | 115.3 | 68.5 | 63.0 | 20.4 | 20.8 |
| StonehillJan 31, 2026 · home | L 54–65 | 341 | 75.7 | 91.1 | 71.4 | 38.3 | 16.8 | 14.0 |
| Long IslandJan 30, 2026 · road | L 61–83 | 269 | 80.7 | 109.8 | 75.6 | 39.3 | 21.2 | 24.4 |
| FDUJan 26, 2026 · road | W 87–74 | 328 | 130.8 | 111.3 | 66.5 | 75.6 | 18.0 | 13.6 |
| WagnerJan 24, 2026 · home | W 69–67 | 313 | 113.3 | 110.0 | 60.9 | 43.3 | 13.1 | 38.5 |
| Long IslandJan 19, 2026 · home | W 83–77 | 269 | 116.6 | 108.1 | 71.2 | 70.9 | 19.7 | 8.7 |
| Chicago StJan 17, 2026 · road | W 72–57 | 360 | 104.6 | 82.8 | 68.9 | 55.0 | 20.3 | 17.9 |
| C ConnecticutJan 10, 2026 · home | L 59–69 | 260 | 83.1 | 97.2 | 71.0 | 36.3 | 18.3 | 25.0 |
| New HavenJan 9, 2026 · home | W 73–47 | 332 | 119.3 | 76.8 | 61.2 | 58.0 | 13.1 | 28.6 |
| MercyhurstJan 4, 2026 · road | L 60–74 | 305 | 94.0 | 115.9 | 63.8 | 42.6 | 18.8 | 35.0 |
| Saint FrancisJan 3, 2026 · road | W 84–58 | 356 | 125.2 | 86.5 | 67.1 | 65.5 | 20.9 | 37.9 |
| Boston CollegeDec 28, 2025 · road | L 64–72 | 152 | 87.7 | 98.7 | 73.0 | 42.1 | 20.6 | 28.6 |
| St BonaventureDec 20, 2025 · road | L 81–92 | 125 | 119.1 | 135.3 | 68.0 | 53.4 | 16.2 | 31.4 |
| TexasDec 17, 2025 · road | L 53–95 | 34 | 71.7 | 128.5 | 73.9 | 30.0 | 17.6 | 22.2 |
| BinghamtonDec 6, 2025 · road | W 78–63 | 352 | 117.7 | 95.1 | 66.3 | 62.3 | 15.1 | 25.9 |
| Ball StateNov 30, 2025 · neutral | L 85–96 | 273 | 123.4 | 139.3 | 68.9 | 65.4 | 16.0 | 24.0 |
| MonmouthNov 29, 2025 · neutral | W 83–79 | 211 | 121.4 | 115.5 | 68.4 | 62.2 | 20.5 | 25.0 |
| LafayetteNov 28, 2025 · road | W 76–63 | 319 | 110.1 | 91.2 | 69.1 | 52.5 | 17.4 | 35.5 |
| FairfieldNov 22, 2025 · home | L 83–97 | 271 | 117.6 | 137.4 | 70.6 | 57.3 | 21.3 | 40.0 |
| NiagaraNov 18, 2025 · home | W 74–68 | 331 | 110.4 | 101.4 | 67.1 | 52.9 | 19.4 | 23.3 |
| UMassNov 14, 2025 · road | L 80–94 | 177 | 104.7 | 123.0 | 76.4 | 50.8 | 13.1 | 21.6 |
| Bowling GreenNov 9, 2025 · road | L 60–83 | 190 | 85.2 | 117.9 | 70.4 | 47.1 | 34.1 | 34.4 |
| XavierNov 7, 2025 · road | L 69–74 | 68 | 100.5 | 107.8 | 68.7 | 60.8 | 26.2 | 19.2 |
| SUNY CobleNov 4, 2025 · home | W 94–50 | Unrated | 122.5 | 65.2 | 76.7 | 57.5 | 14.3 | 33.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trent MosqueraG | 32 | 31.8 | 13.5 | 5.8 | 2.3 | 53.8 | 23.6% | 32 | 1.1432 games | 21932 games |
| Deng GarangG | 32 | 30.1 | 10.8 | 5.2 | 1.0 | 55.6 | 19.2% | 32 | 0.6532 games | 12732 games |
| Jakai SandersG | 29 | 29.9 | 10.7 | 3.4 | 4.3 | 53.3 | 21.4% | 29 | 1.7629 games | 7429 games |
| Shilo JacksonF | 27 | 30.8 | 15.8 | 8.0 | 2.1 | 66.1 | 24.1% | 27 | 0.8427 games | 227 games |
| Tennessee RainwaterG | 32 | 24.5 | 9.8 | 4.3 | 1.7 | 65.7 | 19.5% | 32 | 0.9832 games | 4232 games |
| Jakob BlakleyG | 32 | 16.1 | 4.2 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 49.9 | 14.7% | 32 | 1.4632 games | 8632 games |
| Samuel HincapieG | 30 | 15.6 | 4.9 | 2.1 | 0.7 | 50.1 | 18.4% | 30 | 1.1130 games | 5230 games |
| Eli GreenbergG | 31 | 14.0 | 2.6 | 1.2 | 1.6 | 47.1 | 14.0% | 31 | 1.4831 games | 4531 games |
| Isaac NyakundiF | 24 | 9.8 | 2.1 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 51.8 | 13.2% | 24 | 0.5824 games | 1224 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 Le Moyne?
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
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 | 11 | 5,208 | 5,208 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,192 | 1,192 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,400 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trent Mosquera →G | Same programLe Moyne Dolphins | 31.8 | 13.5 | 53.8% |
| Deng Garang →G | Same programLe Moyne Dolphins | 30.1 | 10.8 | 55.6% |
| Jakai Sanders →G | Same programLe Moyne Dolphins | 29.9 | 10.7 | 53.3% |
| Shilo Jackson →F | Same programLe Moyne Dolphins | 30.8 | 15.8 | 66.1% |
| Tennessee Rainwater →G | Same programLe Moyne Dolphins | 24.5 | 9.8 | 65.7% |
| Jakob Blakley →G | Same programLe Moyne Dolphins | 16.1 | 4.2 | 49.9% |
| Samuel Hincapie →G | Same programLe Moyne Dolphins | 15.6 | 4.9 | 50.1% |
| Eli Greenberg →G | Same programLe Moyne Dolphins | 14.0 | 2.6 | 47.1% |
| Isaac Nyakundi →F | Same programLe Moyne Dolphins | 9.8 | 2.1 | 51.8% |
| Trevor Roe →F | Same programLe Moyne Dolphins | 7.3 | 2.9 | 54.5% |
| Josiah Lee →G | Same programLe Moyne Dolphins | 5.3 | 1.5 | 60.7% |
| Ametri Moss →G | Same programLe Moyne Dolphins | 27.5 | 7.5 | 45.7% |
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…
Le Moyne vs Creighton
64.6Le Moyne
86.3Creighton
Creighton win estimate92.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin21.7
Projected total150.9
80% home-margin range5.7 to 37.6
Estimated possessions69.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.3 pts
Creighton attack 55.6% · Le Moyne defense 52.4%Le Moyne attack 51.5% · Creighton defense 48.0%
Ball securityHome 4.6 pts
Creighton attack 16.1% · Le Moyne defense 15.8%Le Moyne attack 18.6% · Creighton defense 13.7%
Second chancesAway 3.3 pts
Creighton attack 27.3% · Le Moyne defense 31.4%Le Moyne attack 25.2% · Creighton defense 26.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 19.4 pts
Creighton attack 30.2% · Le Moyne defense 35.4%Le Moyne attack 36.7% · 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 →
Binghamton vs Le Moyne
69.7Binghamton
76.8Le Moyne
Le Moyne win estimate71.8%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.0
Projected total146.5
80% home-margin range-8.9 to 23.0
Estimated possessions68.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.2 pts
Le Moyne attack 51.5% · Binghamton defense 52.7%Binghamton attack 50.1% · Le Moyne defense 52.4%
Ball securityAway 1.8 pts
Le Moyne attack 18.6% · Binghamton defense 13.6%Binghamton attack 19.0% · Le Moyne defense 15.8%
Second chancesHome 2.3 pts
Le Moyne attack 25.2% · Binghamton defense 29.7%Binghamton attack 24.6% · Le Moyne defense 31.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.8 pts
Le Moyne attack 36.7% · Binghamton defense 36.0%Binghamton attack 37.8% · Le Moyne defense 35.4%
Ted Grant Court
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 →