A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
25.5% · rank 13 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Manhattan
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.323
-12.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
12–202025–26 recorded finals
103.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
116.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Manhattan.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
12–2032 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.3Mean opponent adj. net -6.9 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
48.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 318 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 308 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 102 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 187 / 366 · 49th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 235 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
36.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 360 / 366 · 2th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
34.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 200 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
25.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 13 / 366 · 97th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 107.1 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 114.2 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 48.6% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.8% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.4% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 37.3% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.2% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 79.5% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.9% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 50.7% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 61.1% | 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?
2,225 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
Turnover rate
15.4% · rank 102 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Effective FG%
48.6% · rank 318 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
36.3% · rank 360 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
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; Manhattan 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 6, 2026 · neutral vs Fairfield · L 60–71 · offense 88.3 / defense 104.5
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| FairfieldMar 6, 2026 · neutral | L 60–71 | 271 | 88.3 | 104.5 | 67.9 | 45.5 | 23.6 | 27.3 |
| IonaMar 1, 2026 · home | L 65–69 | 215 | 86.7 | 92.0 | 75.0 | 38.3 | 16.0 | 22.7 |
| Saint Peter'sFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 65–75 | 250 | 103.6 | 119.5 | 62.8 | 39.3 | 14.3 | 36.8 |
| MaristFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 70–84 | 200 | 109.3 | 131.2 | 64.0 | 50.0 | 17.2 | 35.5 |
| CanisiusFeb 15, 2026 · road | W 69–65 | 354 | 106.5 | 100.4 | 64.8 | 50.9 | 13.9 | 30.3 |
| NiagaraFeb 13, 2026 · road | W 76–69 | 331 | 119.9 | 108.9 | 63.4 | 58.0 | 15.8 | 29.0 |
| Sacred HeartFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 80–68 | 279 | 112.6 | 95.7 | 71.1 | 50.8 | 11.3 | 19.4 |
| Saint Peter'sFeb 6, 2026 · home | L 75–80 | 250 | 120.1 | 128.1 | 62.5 | 49.1 | 19.2 | 45.7 |
| Mount St MarysFeb 1, 2026 · road | L 65–72 | 264 | 99.4 | 110.1 | 65.4 | 45.0 | 12.2 | 26.3 |
| RiderJan 31, 2026 · home | W 95–90 | 342 | 141.1 | 133.6 | 67.4 | 63.8 | 11.9 | 31.0 |
| IonaJan 25, 2026 · road | L 57–66 | 215 | 87.9 | 101.8 | 64.9 | 37.5 | 17.0 | 30.0 |
| QuinnipiacJan 19, 2026 · road | L 92–98 | 192 | 114.9 | 122.4 | 71.2 | 50.0 | 13.7 | 33.3 |
| SienaJan 17, 2026 · home | L 59–74 | 221 | 94.3 | 118.3 | 62.6 | 43.2 | 12.8 | 24.3 |
| FairfieldJan 15, 2026 · road | L 62–98 | 271 | 86.2 | 136.3 | 71.9 | 38.4 | 18.1 | 23.1 |
| NiagaraJan 11, 2026 · home | W 79–70 | 331 | 131.3 | 116.4 | 60.2 | 53.6 | 8.3 | 36.7 |
| CanisiusJan 10, 2026 · home | L 64–70 | 354 | 96.0 | 105.0 | 66.7 | 45.1 | 16.5 | 24.3 |
| MerrimackJan 4, 2026 · road | L 66–73 | 180 | 98.3 | 108.7 | 67.2 | 44.7 | 13.4 | 30.8 |
| QuinnipiacJan 3, 2026 · home | W 80–79 | 192 | 111.6 | 110.2 | 71.7 | 52.4 | 15.3 | 26.5 |
| RiderDec 30, 2025 · road | W 74–71 | 342 | 113.0 | 108.4 | 65.5 | 45.7 | 15.3 | 41.0 |
| PresbyterianDec 21, 2025 · home | W 87–81 | 257 | 122.8 | 114.3 | 70.9 | 58.9 | 11.3 | 27.3 |
| FurmanDec 19, 2025 · home | L 68–75 | 146 | 97.7 | 107.7 | 69.6 | 44.5 | 17.2 | 33.3 |
| FordhamDec 13, 2025 · road | L 53–82 | 187 | 81.4 | 126.0 | 65.1 | 37.9 | 13.8 | 15.8 |
| MaristDec 7, 2025 · road | L 68–80 | 200 | 90.4 | 106.3 | 75.3 | 43.1 | 18.6 | 20.0 |
| FairfieldDec 6, 2025 · home | W 70–66 | 271 | 97.0 | 91.5 | 72.2 | 47.3 | 20.8 | 24.2 |
| ArmyNov 29, 2025 · road | L 78–81 | 340 | 105.5 | 109.5 | 65.7 | 48.5 | 13.5 | 22.5 |
| WagnerNov 26, 2025 · home | L 101–103 | 313 | 129.9 | 132.5 | 69.1 | 53.6 | 11.6 | 35.7 |
| Texas A&MNov 22, 2025 · road | L 68–109 | 31 | 91.2 | 146.2 | 74.6 | 51.8 | 21.5 | 19.4 |
| Miss Valley StNov 16, 2025 · neutral | W 80–73 | 365 | 124.6 | 113.7 | 64.2 | 56.3 | 20.2 | 48.1 |
| Hawai'iNov 15, 2025 · road | L 56–86 | 136 | 77.3 | 118.7 | 72.4 | 41.1 | 16.6 | 15.0 |
| Utah TechNov 13, 2025 · neutral | W 79–75 | 240 | 121.9 | 115.7 | 64.8 | 57.4 | 18.5 | 37.9 |
| USCNov 9, 2025 · road | L 83–114 | 72 | 101.0 | 138.8 | 82.2 | 44.3 | 14.6 | 24.4 |
| St Joseph BKNNov 5, 2025 · home | W 125–59 | Unrated | 166.8 | 78.7 | 74.9 | 67.3 | 9.3 | 61.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jaden WinstonG | 32 | 35.3 | 15.3 | 3.1 | 3.8 | 57.5 | 22.4% | 32 | 1.6732 games | 11832 games |
| Devin DinkinsG | 32 | 33.6 | 12.1 | 1.6 | 2.6 | 53.1 | 19.9% | 32 | 1.4832 games | 14332 games |
| Fraser RoxburghF | 32 | 30.6 | 11.0 | 5.8 | 1.1 | 53.2 | 20.0% | 32 | 0.6832 games | 13332 games |
| Terrance JonesG | 32 | 28.2 | 12.7 | 4.6 | 1.8 | 53.6 | 23.4% | 32 | 1.5132 games | 13832 games |
| Anthony IsaacF | 32 | 23.8 | 9.5 | 7.2 | 0.9 | 54.8 | 21.0% | 32 | 0.8132 games | 1332 games |
| Marko LjubicicF | 32 | 20.0 | 5.8 | 3.8 | 0.6 | 50.5 | 16.4% | 32 | 0.8732 games | 9232 games |
| Erik Oliver-BushG | 26 | 16.2 | 3.1 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 50.0 | 11.9% | 26 | 1.2026 games | 1926 games |
| Quron ElliottG | 29 | 12.0 | 3.6 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 50.3 | 17.3% | 29 | 1.8629 games | 2229 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 Manhattan?
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.
19Source-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 | 14 | 4,071 | 4,071 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,404 | 2,404 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,475 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?
19 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jaden Winston →G | Same programManhattan Jaspers | 35.3 | 15.3 | 57.5% |
| Devin Dinkins →G | Same programManhattan Jaspers | 33.6 | 12.1 | 53.1% |
| Fraser Roxburgh →F | Same programManhattan Jaspers | 30.6 | 11.0 | 53.2% |
| Terrance Jones →G | Same programManhattan Jaspers | 28.2 | 12.7 | 53.6% |
| Anthony Isaac →F | Same programManhattan Jaspers | 23.8 | 9.5 | 54.8% |
| Marko Ljubicic →F | Same programManhattan Jaspers | 20.0 | 5.8 | 50.5% |
| Erik Oliver-Bush →G | Same programManhattan Jaspers | 16.2 | 3.1 | 50.0% |
| Quron Elliott →G | Same programManhattan Jaspers | 12.0 | 3.6 | 50.3% |
| Jackson Delaney →G | Same programManhattan Jaspers | 5.0 | 0.7 | 38.9% |
| Asier Miguel →G | Same programManhattan Jaspers | 4.9 | 2.3 | 58.7% |
| Omari Moore →G | Same programManhattan Jaspers | 5.0 | 1.3 | 27.5% |
| Michael Lawlor →F | Same programManhattan Jaspers | 4.6 | 2.6 | 62.4% |
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…
Fordham vs Manhattan
75.1Fordham
71.0Manhattan
Manhattan win estimate43.0%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-4.1
Projected total146.1
80% home-margin range-20.0 to 11.9
Estimated possessions68.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.1 pts
Manhattan attack 49.0% · Fordham defense 50.9%Fordham attack 49.0% · Manhattan defense 54.0%
Ball securityHome 2.1 pts
Manhattan attack 16.9% · Fordham defense 17.3%Fordham attack 17.9% · Manhattan defense 16.2%
Second chancesHome 1.8 pts
Manhattan attack 28.6% · Fordham defense 28.2%Fordham attack 32.0% · Manhattan defense 33.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.7 pts
Manhattan attack 31.7% · Fordham defense 36.6%Fordham attack 32.3% · Manhattan defense 29.5%
Draddy Gymnasium
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 →