A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
48.4% · rank 59 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
LMU
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.160
+0.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–172025–26 recorded finals
105.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
104.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on LMU.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1732 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.6Mean opponent adj. net 1.5 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 130 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
48.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 59 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 226 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 174 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
27.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 303 / 366 · 17th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 242 / 366 · 34th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
31.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 270 / 366 · 26th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 120 / 366 · 67th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 107.0 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 103.8 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.1% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 47.0% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.9% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.9% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.0% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.9% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 70.4% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.9% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 49.4% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 51.0% | 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?
2,235 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
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.2% · rank 120 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
31.3% · rank 270 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
27.1% · rank 303 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 10 times in the selected window; LMU won 3. 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 6, 2026 · neutral vs San Diego · L 62–66 · offense 101.1 / defense 107.6
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| San DiegoMar 6, 2026 · neutral | L 62–66 | 263 | 101.1 | 107.6 | 61.3 | 46.6 | 13.0 | 32.4 |
| Seattle UMar 1, 2026 · home | L 66–71 | 120 | 104.8 | 112.8 | 63.0 | 56.4 | 20.7 | 20.0 |
| Washington StFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 67–66 | 117 | 98.6 | 97.1 | 68.0 | 40.8 | 8.8 | 27.5 |
| San DiegoFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 77–65 | 263 | 124.0 | 104.7 | 62.1 | 66.7 | 17.7 | 14.3 |
| PepperdineFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 89–90 | 261 | 125.0 | 126.4 | 71.2 | 59.4 | 9.8 | 29.4 |
| PacificFeb 12, 2026 · road | L 59–65 | 207 | 93.7 | 103.2 | 63.0 | 49.0 | 19.1 | 13.8 |
| San DiegoFeb 8, 2026 · home | W 83–63 | 263 | 131.5 | 99.8 | 63.1 | 59.8 | 11.1 | 35.7 |
| San FranciscoFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 84–75 | 89 | 121.8 | 108.8 | 69.0 | 56.7 | 14.5 | 29.4 |
| Santa ClaraFeb 1, 2026 · home | L 73–104 | 42 | 94.1 | 134.1 | 77.5 | 47.9 | 28.4 | 25.8 |
| Oregon StJan 29, 2026 · home | L 69–72 | 139 | 104.6 | 109.2 | 65.9 | 52.5 | 13.6 | 23.5 |
| Seattle UJan 22, 2026 · road | L 59–69 | 120 | 85.7 | 100.2 | 68.8 | 52.1 | 29.1 | 17.9 |
| PortlandJan 18, 2026 · home | L 58–71 | 258 | 83.4 | 102.1 | 69.5 | 38.6 | 21.6 | 23.8 |
| Oregon StJan 15, 2026 · road | L 70–76 | 139 | 99.6 | 108.1 | 70.3 | 41.8 | 21.3 | 32.4 |
| Santa ClaraJan 11, 2026 · road | L 72–103 | 42 | 93.8 | 134.2 | 76.7 | 50.0 | 20.9 | 22.2 |
| San FranciscoJan 9, 2026 · home | W 84–82 | 89 | 104.9 | 102.4 | 64.1 | 50.7 | 10.0 | 15.4 |
| GonzagaJan 5, 2026 · road | L 47–82 | 8 | 68.1 | 118.8 | 69.0 | 34.9 | 18.8 | 22.2 |
| Washington StJan 3, 2026 · road | L 76–78 | 117 | 108.8 | 111.7 | 69.8 | 50.8 | 11.5 | 18.9 |
| PacificDec 31, 2025 · home | W 80–71 | 207 | 114.9 | 102.0 | 69.6 | 58.2 | 14.4 | 20.7 |
| Saint Mary'sDec 29, 2025 · home | L 73–78 | 18 | 123.0 | 131.5 | 59.3 | 57.1 | 10.1 | 32.1 |
| Morgan StDec 23, 2025 · home | W 83–56 | 351 | 119.1 | 80.4 | 69.7 | 61.1 | 18.7 | 37.5 |
| North AlabamaDec 20, 2025 · home | W 91–57 | 290 | 131.9 | 82.6 | 69.0 | 63.5 | 13.0 | 37.5 |
| UC San DiegoDec 17, 2025 · home | L 57–67 | 97 | 80.4 | 94.5 | 70.9 | 47.3 | 25.4 | 21.1 |
| Saint LouisDec 3, 2025 · home | L 70–91 | 55 | 90.8 | 118.0 | 77.1 | 45.3 | 18.2 | 23.1 |
| Stony BrookNov 29, 2025 · home | L 68–71 | 280 | 100.0 | 104.5 | 68.0 | 44.8 | 22.1 | 38.7 |
| OhioNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 70–58 | 189 | 97.3 | 80.6 | 71.9 | 46.0 | 22.2 | 37.5 |
| FAUNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 65–76 | 94 | 100.5 | 117.5 | 64.7 | 46.7 | 15.5 | 28.9 |
| Santa BarbaraNov 18, 2025 · road | W 78–74 | 143 | 105.5 | 100.1 | 65.7 | 52.5 | 18.9 | 31.0 |
| TroyNov 15, 2025 · home | W 74–63 | 123 | 106.7 | 90.8 | 69.4 | 58.5 | 15.9 | 18.8 |
| UTEPNov 12, 2025 · road | W 71–58 | 230 | 112.6 | 92.0 | 63.0 | 64.4 | 30.1 | 36.0 |
| AR-Pine BluffNov 9, 2025 · home | W 94–72 | 357 | 132.8 | 101.7 | 70.8 | 62.9 | 8.5 | 30.6 |
| E WashingtonNov 6, 2025 · home | W 70–62 | 199 | 99.4 | 88.0 | 70.4 | 50.9 | 18.5 | 26.5 |
| Lincoln (CA)Nov 4, 2025 · home | W 137–54 | Unrated | 161.2 | 63.5 | 85.0 | 76.4 | 10.6 | 47.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rodney Brown Jr.G | 31 | 32.4 | 14.0 | 2.4 | 1.7 | 56.9 | 22.0% | 31 | 1.1331 games | 22831 games |
| Myron Amey Jr.G | 32 | 30.5 | 14.8 | 3.9 | 1.7 | 55.3 | 24.8% | 32 | 1.2832 games | 23232 games |
| Aaron McBrideF | 31 | 27.2 | 7.6 | 5.6 | 1.0 | 60.7 | 14.2% | 31 | 0.8131 games | 4031 games |
| Jalen ShelleyF | 25 | 31.2 | 13.7 | 6.6 | 2.7 | 54.7 | 24.2% | 25 | 1.1925 games | 8725 games |
| Jan VideG | 27 | 28.8 | 12.1 | 3.0 | 4.0 | 50.7 | 25.8% | 27 | 1.7427 games | 3127 games |
| Rick IssanzaC | 30 | 16.3 | 2.6 | 3.4 | 0.3 | 59.7 | 9.1% | 30 | 0.4230 games | 130 games |
| AJ ThomasG | 32 | 13.5 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 52.0 | 23.5% | 32 | 1.4332 games | 2432 games |
| Rokas JociusF | 32 | 12.5 | 3.2 | 3.0 | 0.4 | 58.6 | 14.0% | 32 | 0.5532 games | 1632 games |
| Josh DaltonF | 29 | 12.9 | 3.6 | 2.6 | 0.5 | 57.4 | 14.1% | 29 | 1.1529 games | 5129 games |
| Nakyel SheltonG | 27 | 9.1 | 2.9 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 60.6 | 15.3% | 27 | 0.9227 games | 2627 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 LMU?
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.
16Source-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 | 9 | 3,451 | 3,451 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,535 | 2,535 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 488 | 488 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,474 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Rodney Brown Jr. →G | Same programLoyola Marymount Lions | 32.4 | 14.0 | 56.9% |
| Myron Amey Jr. →G | Same programLoyola Marymount Lions | 30.5 | 14.8 | 55.3% |
| Aaron McBride →F | Same programLoyola Marymount Lions | 27.2 | 7.6 | 60.7% |
| Jalen Shelley →F | Same programLoyola Marymount Lions | 31.2 | 13.7 | 54.7% |
| Jan Vide →G | Same programLoyola Marymount Lions | 28.8 | 12.1 | 50.7% |
| Rick Issanza →C | Same programLoyola Marymount Lions | 16.3 | 2.6 | 59.7% |
| AJ Thomas →G | Same programLoyola Marymount Lions | 13.5 | 5.2 | 52.0% |
| Rokas Jocius →F | Same programLoyola Marymount Lions | 12.5 | 3.2 | 58.6% |
| Josh Dalton →F | Same programLoyola Marymount Lions | 12.9 | 3.6 | 57.4% |
| Nakyel Shelton →G | Same programLoyola Marymount Lions | 9.1 | 2.9 | 60.6% |
| Jael Martin →F | Same programLoyola Marymount Lions | 7.4 | 1.9 | 62.0% |
| George Tupy →F | Same programLoyola Marymount Lions | 2.8 | 0.5 | 100.0% |
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…
LMU vs Nevada
64.9LMU
75.3Nevada
Nevada win estimate78.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin10.4
Projected total140.2
80% home-margin range-5.5 to 26.3
Estimated possessions66.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.4 pts
Nevada attack 52.1% · LMU defense 49.1%LMU attack 51.5% · Nevada defense 49.8%
Ball securityAway 0.3 pts
Nevada attack 15.2% · LMU defense 15.5%LMU attack 16.9% · Nevada defense 17.5%
Second chancesHome 0.0 pts
Nevada attack 29.8% · LMU defense 29.4%LMU attack 27.3% · Nevada defense 27.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 15.8 pts
Nevada attack 42.3% · LMU defense 32.8%LMU attack 30.7% · Nevada defense 37.1%
Lawlor Events Center
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 →