A relative strength
Turnover rate
13.5% · rank 14 of 366 · 36 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Vanderbilt
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.29
+18.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
27–92025–26 recorded finals
119.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
100.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Vanderbilt.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
27–936 recorded games · 36 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.4Mean opponent adj. net 12.8 · 36 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
55.3%36 games · higher is betterRank 35 / 366 · 91th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.0%36 games · lower is betterRank 77 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
13.5%36 games · lower is betterRank 14 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.7%36 games · higher is betterRank 126 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.2%36 games · higher is betterRank 179 / 366 · 51th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.5%36 games · lower is betterRank 262 / 366 · 28th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
38.1%36 games · higher is betterRank 92 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
39.5%36 games · lower is betterRank 306 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 120.9 | 36 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 105.7 | 36 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 56.9% | 36 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.0% | 36 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.6% | 36 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.6% | 36 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 44.2% | 36 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 37.9% | 36 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 78.9% | 36 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 75.4% | 36 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 56.4% | 36 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 46.9% | 36 | 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?
2,566 source possession rows across 36 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
Effective FG%
55.3% · rank 35 of 366 · 36 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.5% · rank 262 of 366 · 36 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
39.5% · rank 306 of 366 · 36 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
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 9 times in the selected window; Vanderbilt 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 22, 2026 · neutral vs Nebraska · L 72–74 · offense 112.7 / defense 115.8
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 · 36 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NebraskaMar 22, 2026 · neutral | L 72–74 | 24 | 112.7 | 115.8 | 63.9 | 52.6 | 12.5 | 29.7 |
| McNeeseMar 19, 2026 · neutral | W 78–68 | 70 | 122.1 | 106.4 | 63.9 | 59.8 | 20.3 | 33.3 |
| ArkansasMar 15, 2026 · neutral | L 75–86 | 23 | 107.0 | 122.6 | 70.1 | 45.5 | 10.0 | 24.4 |
| FloridaMar 14, 2026 · neutral | W 91–74 | 4 | 142.4 | 115.8 | 63.9 | 63.6 | 12.5 | 30.8 |
| TennesseeMar 13, 2026 · neutral | W 75–68 | 11 | 120.3 | 109.1 | 62.4 | 46.5 | 9.6 | 36.1 |
| TennesseeMar 7, 2026 · road | W 86–82 | 11 | 117.7 | 112.2 | 73.1 | 57.8 | 19.2 | 24.1 |
| Ole MissMar 4, 2026 · road | W 89–86 | 54 | 115.6 | 111.7 | 68.4 | 44.7 | 11.7 | 44.0 |
| KentuckyFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 77–91 | 20 | 113.2 | 133.7 | 68.1 | 57.8 | 16.2 | 20.7 |
| GeorgiaFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 88–80 | 37 | 133.2 | 121.1 | 66.1 | 54.9 | 7.6 | 34.4 |
| TennesseeFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 65–69 | 11 | 102.7 | 109.1 | 63.3 | 50.0 | 15.8 | 24.2 |
| MissouriFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 80–81 | 49 | 114.5 | 115.9 | 69.9 | 50.8 | 15.7 | 40.0 |
| Texas A&MFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 82–69 | 31 | 117.5 | 98.9 | 69.8 | 51.8 | 12.9 | 34.3 |
| AuburnFeb 11, 2026 · road | W 84–76 | 15 | 131.2 | 118.7 | 64.0 | 53.7 | 10.9 | 35.7 |
| OklahomaFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 91–92 | 38 | 122.6 | 123.9 | 74.3 | 57.0 | 17.5 | 37.5 |
| Ole MissJan 31, 2026 · home | W 71–68 | 54 | 111.1 | 106.4 | 63.9 | 50.9 | 17.2 | 35.3 |
| KentuckyJan 28, 2026 · home | W 80–55 | 20 | 114.4 | 78.6 | 70.0 | 48.4 | 12.9 | 35.1 |
| Mississippi StJan 24, 2026 · road | W 88–56 | 64 | 118.7 | 75.5 | 74.2 | 60.0 | 12.1 | 16.7 |
| ArkansasJan 21, 2026 · road | L 68–93 | 23 | 100.9 | 138.1 | 67.4 | 46.6 | 14.8 | 23.7 |
| FloridaJan 17, 2026 · home | L 94–98 | 4 | 129.0 | 134.5 | 72.9 | 56.9 | 5.5 | 18.2 |
| TexasJan 15, 2026 · road | L 64–80 | 34 | 96.5 | 120.7 | 66.3 | 44.2 | 15.1 | 24.4 |
| LSUJan 10, 2026 · home | W 84–73 | 74 | 117.6 | 102.2 | 71.4 | 48.4 | 9.8 | 32.4 |
| AlabamaJan 8, 2026 · home | W 96–90 | 12 | 115.8 | 108.6 | 82.9 | 51.7 | 9.7 | 20.5 |
| South CarolinaJan 3, 2026 · road | W 83–71 | 99 | 127.6 | 109.1 | 65.1 | 59.6 | 10.8 | 28.6 |
| New HavenDec 30, 2025 · home | W 96–53 | 332 | 140.1 | 77.4 | 68.5 | 66.4 | 13.1 | 39.3 |
| Wake ForestDec 21, 2025 · road | W 98–67 | 60 | 134.4 | 91.9 | 72.9 | 72.9 | 16.5 | 22.2 |
| MemphisDec 18, 2025 · road | W 77–70 | 85 | 89.9 | 81.7 | 76.2 | 37.1 | 23.3 | 34.9 |
| C ArkansasDec 13, 2025 · home | W 83–72 | 259 | 110.5 | 95.8 | 75.1 | 50.8 | 17.3 | 33.3 |
| SMUDec 4, 2025 · home | W 88–69 | 51 | 129.8 | 101.8 | 67.8 | 61.9 | 7.4 | 21.4 |
| Saint Mary'sNov 28, 2025 · neutral | W 96–71 | 18 | 132.5 | 98.0 | 72.5 | 58.2 | 9.7 | 31.4 |
| VCUNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 89–74 | 39 | 118.4 | 98.5 | 75.2 | 63.7 | 22.6 | 33.3 |
| Western KYNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 83–78 | 157 | 102.9 | 96.7 | 80.6 | 53.8 | 21.1 | 20.0 |
| Texas SouthernNov 21, 2025 · home | W 109–74 | 320 | 146.1 | 99.2 | 74.6 | 63.0 | 12.1 | 48.6 |
| AR-Pine BluffNov 15, 2025 · home | W 104–75 | 357 | 139.6 | 100.7 | 74.5 | 55.6 | 9.4 | 48.7 |
| E KentuckyNov 13, 2025 · home | W 92–62 | 256 | 126.4 | 85.2 | 72.8 | 59.4 | 13.7 | 37.8 |
| UCFNov 8, 2025 · road | W 105–93 | 56 | 141.5 | 125.4 | 74.2 | 66.2 | 8.1 | 30.0 |
| LipscombNov 4, 2025 · home | W 105–61 | 144 | 140.4 | 81.6 | 74.8 | 68.4 | 8.0 | 24.2 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tyler TannerG | 36 | 33.5 | 19.5 | 3.6 | 5.1 | 61.2 | 26.4% | 36 | 2.7136 games | 16336 games |
| Tyler NickelF | 36 | 30.5 | 13.5 | 3.2 | 1.2 | 61.7 | 18.9% | 36 | 1.6536 games | 27536 games |
| AK OkerekeF | 36 | 26.2 | 9.6 | 3.6 | 2.0 | 60.8 | 17.1% | 36 | 1.7636 games | 10036 games |
| Devin McGlocktonF | 36 | 25.3 | 9.5 | 6.8 | 1.2 | 62.8 | 16.7% | 36 | 1.2636 games | 9336 games |
| Duke MilesG | 28 | 29.6 | 16.1 | 3.0 | 4.5 | 59.5 | 25.5% | 28 | 2.4728 games | 13828 games |
| Jalen WashingtonC | 36 | 20.6 | 8.9 | 5.6 | 0.9 | 63.0 | 19.1% | 36 | 1.0036 games | 3436 games |
| Chandler BingG | 35 | 15.3 | 3.7 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 56.7 | 12.8% | 35 | 0.6835 games | 3835 games |
| Tyler HarrisF | 29 | 13.2 | 5.7 | 2.4 | 0.3 | 48.5 | 23.0% | 29 | 0.7529 games | 8029 games |
| Mike JamesG | 21 | 11.2 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 42.9 | 9.2% | 21 | 2.6721 games | 2421 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 Vanderbilt?
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.
11Source-listed players
10Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
38%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 | 2,219 | 2,219 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 2 | 403 | 403 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 104 | 104 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (2,726 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?
11 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tyler Tanner →G | Same programVanderbilt Commodores | 33.5 | 19.5 | 61.2% |
| Chandler Bing →G | Same programVanderbilt Commodores | 15.3 | 3.7 | 56.7% |
| Tyler Harris →F | Same programVanderbilt Commodores | 13.2 | 5.7 | 48.5% |
| Mike James →G | Same programVanderbilt Commodores | 11.2 | 1.5 | 42.9% |
| Frankie Collins →G | Same programVanderbilt Commodores | 20.9 | 7.8 | 48.5% |
| Jayden Leverett →C | Same programVanderbilt Commodores | 4.0 | 1.0 | 61.5% |
| Jaylon Dean-Vines →G | Same programVanderbilt Commodores | 2.5 | 0.9 | 82.2% |
| Miles Keeffe →G | Same programVanderbilt Commodores | 1.9 | 0.5 | 31.2% |
| Mason Nicholson →F | Same programVanderbilt Commodores | 4.0 | 0.4 | 50.0% |
| Coleson Messer →G | Same programVanderbilt Commodores | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| George Kimble III →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Wake Forest vs Vanderbilt
73.0Wake Forest
81.3Vanderbilt
Vanderbilt win estimate74.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin8.3
Projected total154.3
80% home-margin range-7.6 to 24.3
Estimated possessions69.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.7 pts
Vanderbilt attack 53.6% · Wake Forest defense 49.3%Wake Forest attack 53.2% · Vanderbilt defense 49.6%
Ball securityHome 1.7 pts
Vanderbilt attack 14.4% · Wake Forest defense 18.2%Wake Forest attack 16.2% · Vanderbilt defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 1.2 pts
Vanderbilt attack 31.1% · Wake Forest defense 29.3%Wake Forest attack 29.1% · Vanderbilt defense 28.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.4 pts
Vanderbilt attack 36.3% · Wake Forest defense 33.4%Wake Forest attack 36.3% · Vanderbilt defense 35.9%
Memorial Gymnasium (TN)
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Vanderbilt vs Tennessee
68.7Vanderbilt
77.3Tennessee
Tennessee win estimate75.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin8.7
Projected total146.0
80% home-margin range-7.3 to 24.6
Estimated possessions67.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.9 pts
Tennessee attack 53.3% · Vanderbilt defense 49.6%Vanderbilt attack 53.6% · Tennessee defense 45.1%
Ball securityAway 2.2 pts
Tennessee attack 16.5% · Vanderbilt defense 18.2%Vanderbilt attack 14.4% · Tennessee defense 18.2%
Second chancesHome 5.8 pts
Tennessee attack 38.9% · Vanderbilt defense 28.4%Vanderbilt attack 31.1% · Tennessee defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.5 pts
Tennessee attack 36.6% · Vanderbilt defense 35.9%Vanderbilt attack 36.3% · Tennessee defense 33.1%
Food City Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Mississippi St vs Vanderbilt
72.7Mississippi St
81.3Vanderbilt
Vanderbilt win estimate75.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin8.7
Projected total154.0
80% home-margin range-7.3 to 24.6
Estimated possessions70.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.7 pts
Vanderbilt attack 53.6% · Mississippi St defense 48.9%Mississippi St attack 52.6% · Vanderbilt defense 49.6%
Ball securityHome 1.0 pts
Vanderbilt attack 14.4% · Mississippi St defense 17.2%Mississippi St attack 16.5% · Vanderbilt defense 18.2%
Second chancesAway 0.5 pts
Vanderbilt attack 31.1% · Mississippi St defense 27.7%Mississippi St attack 32.4% · Vanderbilt defense 28.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 7.3 pts
Vanderbilt attack 36.3% · Mississippi St defense 32.0%Mississippi St attack 32.9% · Vanderbilt defense 35.9%
Memorial Gymnasium (TN)
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 →