A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
37.2% · rank 20 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Baylor
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.33
+18.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
17–172025–26 recorded finals
120.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
102.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Baylor.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
17–1734 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.7Mean opponent adj. net 12.2 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 74 / 366 · 80th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 239 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 159 / 366 · 57th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.9%34 games · higher is betterRank 244 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
37.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 20 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 224 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
34.3%34 games · higher is betterRank 203 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
29.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 63 / 366 · 83th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 117.2 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 109.6 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 56.4% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.9% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.9% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.6% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 39.0% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 35.0% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.5% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.9% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.9% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 48.8% | 34 | 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?
2,380 source possession rows across 34 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
29.7% · rank 63 of 366 · 34 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
51.9% · rank 239 of 366 · 34 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.9% · rank 244 of 366 · 34 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
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 5 times in the selected window; Baylor won 2. 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
Apr 4, 2026 · neutral vs Oklahoma · L 69–82 · offense 98.5 / defense 117.1
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| OklahomaApr 4, 2026 · neutral | L 69–82 | 38 | 98.5 | 117.1 | 70.1 | 43.5 | 17.1 | 32.5 |
| MinnesotaApr 2, 2026 · neutral | W 67–48 | 91 | 112.7 | 80.7 | 59.5 | 51.7 | 8.4 | 22.6 |
| Arizona StMar 10, 2026 · neutral | L 79–83 | 84 | 111.6 | 117.3 | 70.8 | 47.8 | 17.0 | 40.0 |
| UtahMar 7, 2026 · home | W 101–75 | 93 | 159.9 | 118.7 | 63.2 | 67.7 | 4.7 | 48.0 |
| HoustonMar 5, 2026 · road | L 64–77 | 2 | 98.2 | 118.2 | 65.2 | 49.1 | 27.6 | 40.6 |
| UCFMar 1, 2026 · road | W 87–86 | 56 | 131.3 | 129.8 | 66.2 | 53.9 | 12.1 | 47.1 |
| ArizonaFeb 25, 2026 · home | L 80–87 | 3 | 122.2 | 132.9 | 65.4 | 55.1 | 7.6 | 27.3 |
| Arizona StFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 73–68 | 84 | 111.6 | 104.0 | 65.4 | 65.7 | 19.9 | 19.2 |
| Kansas StFeb 18, 2026 · road | L 74–90 | 83 | 91.3 | 111.1 | 81.0 | 42.1 | 23.4 | 40.9 |
| LouisvilleFeb 14, 2026 · neutral | L 71–82 | 32 | 104.6 | 120.8 | 67.9 | 38.3 | 13.3 | 39.5 |
| BYUFeb 11, 2026 · home | L 94–99 | 19 | 127.2 | 134.0 | 73.9 | 59.7 | 17.6 | 36.4 |
| Iowa StateFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 69–72 | 5 | 110.1 | 114.9 | 62.7 | 55.3 | 14.4 | 25.8 |
| ColoradoFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 86–67 | 69 | 126.7 | 98.7 | 67.9 | 62.3 | 13.3 | 25.0 |
| West VirginiaJan 31, 2026 · road | W 63–53 | 52 | 104.2 | 87.7 | 60.5 | 53.6 | 23.2 | 33.3 |
| CincinnatiJan 28, 2026 · road | L 57–67 | 41 | 83.3 | 97.9 | 68.5 | 40.0 | 14.6 | 26.8 |
| TCUJan 24, 2026 · home | L 90–97 | 48 | 113.5 | 122.4 | 79.3 | 57.1 | 22.7 | 40.0 |
| Texas TechJan 21, 2026 · home | L 73–92 | 16 | 108.4 | 136.6 | 67.4 | 55.3 | 16.3 | 32.4 |
| KansasJan 17, 2026 · road | L 62–80 | 17 | 94.0 | 121.3 | 66.0 | 45.1 | 16.7 | 26.8 |
| Oklahoma StJan 14, 2026 · road | W 94–79 | 88 | 137.9 | 115.9 | 68.2 | 70.3 | 17.6 | 36.0 |
| HoustonJan 10, 2026 · home | L 55–77 | 2 | 88.8 | 124.3 | 62.0 | 45.1 | 25.8 | 31.3 |
| Iowa StateJan 8, 2026 · home | L 60–70 | 5 | 86.8 | 101.2 | 69.1 | 34.7 | 20.2 | 42.9 |
| TCUJan 3, 2026 · road | L 63–69 | 48 | 98.1 | 107.4 | 64.2 | 41.5 | 17.1 | 35.1 |
| Arlington BaptDec 29, 2025 · home | W 124–61 | Unrated | 148.9 | 73.3 | 83.3 | 77.2 | 16.8 | 52.4 |
| SouthernDec 21, 2025 · home | W 111–67 | 282 | 158.6 | 95.7 | 70.0 | 67.9 | 5.7 | 42.4 |
| Alcorn StDec 20, 2025 · home | W 113–56 | 353 | 144.6 | 71.7 | 78.1 | 71.5 | 17.9 | 47.8 |
| Norfolk StDec 10, 2025 · home | W 97–67 | 252 | 127.4 | 88.0 | 76.2 | 58.8 | 15.8 | 38.2 |
| MemphisDec 6, 2025 · road | L 71–78 | 85 | 100.2 | 110.1 | 70.9 | 42.2 | 18.3 | 41.9 |
| Sacramento StDec 3, 2025 · home | W 110–88 | 314 | 144.9 | 115.9 | 75.9 | 65.1 | 15.8 | 60.7 |
| San Diego StNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 91–81 | 43 | 128.8 | 114.6 | 70.7 | 60.5 | 12.7 | 30.3 |
| St John'sNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 81–96 | 14 | 112.9 | 133.8 | 71.8 | 42.3 | 15.3 | 51.0 |
| CreightonNov 24, 2025 · neutral | W 81–74 | 47 | 119.7 | 109.3 | 67.7 | 47.9 | 14.8 | 52.4 |
| Tarleton StNov 15, 2025 · home | W 94–81 | 236 | 128.6 | 110.8 | 73.1 | 67.5 | 20.5 | 36.0 |
| WashingtonNov 10, 2025 · home | W 78–69 | 66 | 109.2 | 96.6 | 71.5 | 51.8 | 12.6 | 21.2 |
| UT Rio GrandeNov 4, 2025 · home | W 96–81 | 198 | 123.5 | 104.2 | 77.7 | 57.7 | 14.2 | 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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cameron CarrG | 34 | 33.7 | 18.9 | 5.8 | 2.6 | 62.2 | 25.3% | 34 | 1.1134 games | 20634 games |
| Tounde YessoufouG | 34 | 32.7 | 17.8 | 5.9 | 1.6 | 55.0 | 26.9% | 34 | 0.8434 games | 18134 games |
| Obi AgbimG | 33 | 33.3 | 10.7 | 2.7 | 3.1 | 52.0 | 16.7% | 33 | 2.8333 games | 21933 games |
| Isaac Williams IVG | 34 | 25.0 | 10.4 | 2.2 | 3.3 | 63.3 | 19.1% | 34 | 2.0434 games | 5134 games |
| Caden PowellC | 34 | 24.4 | 6.9 | 6.3 | 1.3 | 68.0 | 12.4% | 34 | 1.1834 games | 234 games |
| Michael RatajG | 34 | 23.1 | 7.2 | 4.6 | 1.7 | 49.8 | 18.0% | 34 | 1.2634 games | 5534 games |
| Dan Skillings Jr.G | 29 | 25.5 | 9.4 | 5.7 | 2.0 | 53.0 | 19.0% | 29 | 1.5829 games | 7429 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 Baylor?
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
11Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
83%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 | 10 | 4,678 | 4,678 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 1 | — | — | — | — | — |
| Center | 4 | 976 | 976 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,654 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Tounde Yessoufou →G | Same programBaylor Bears | 32.7 | 17.8 | 55.0% |
| Obi Agbim →G | Same programBaylor Bears | 33.3 | 10.7 | 52.0% |
| Isaac Williams IV →G | Same programBaylor Bears | 25.0 | 10.4 | 63.3% |
| Caden Powell →C | Same programBaylor Bears | 24.4 | 6.9 | 68.0% |
| Michael Rataj →G | Same programBaylor Bears | 23.1 | 7.2 | 49.8% |
| Dan Skillings Jr. →G | Same programBaylor Bears | 25.5 | 9.4 | 53.0% |
| James Nnaji →C | Same programBaylor Bears | 8.2 | 1.4 | 66.2% |
| Will Kuykendall →G | Same programBaylor Bears | 3.7 | 2.0 | 64.5% |
| JJ White →G | Same programBaylor Bears | 6.5 | 1.5 | 50.0% |
| Drew Perry →G | Same programBaylor Bears | 2.7 | 1.1 | 50.8% |
| James Goodis →G | Same programBaylor Bears | 2.7 | 1.7 | 125.0% |
| Andre Iguodala II →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
N'Western St vs Baylor
62.0N'Western St
83.4Baylor
Baylor win estimate92.4%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin21.4
Projected total145.3
80% home-margin range5.5 to 37.3
Estimated possessions65.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.8 pts
Baylor attack 54.7% · N'Western St defense 52.7%N'Western St attack 49.0% · Baylor defense 50.9%
Ball securityHome 2.1 pts
Baylor attack 15.7% · N'Western St defense 17.5%N'Western St attack 17.8% · Baylor defense 17.6%
Second chancesHome 3.4 pts
Baylor attack 36.1% · N'Western St defense 32.0%N'Western St attack 28.6% · Baylor defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.7 pts
Baylor attack 35.5% · N'Western St defense 36.7%N'Western St attack 34.8% · Baylor defense 32.3%
Foster Pavilion
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
AR-Pine Bluff vs Baylor
65.1AR-Pine Bluff
94.0Baylor
Baylor win estimate96.5%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin28.8
Projected total159.1
80% home-margin range12.9 to 44.7
Estimated possessions70.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.3 pts
Baylor attack 54.7% · AR-Pine Bluff defense 54.6%AR-Pine Bluff attack 49.7% · Baylor defense 50.9%
Ball securityHome 1.6 pts
Baylor attack 15.7% · AR-Pine Bluff defense 16.5%AR-Pine Bluff attack 18.3% · Baylor defense 17.6%
Second chancesHome 4.8 pts
Baylor attack 36.1% · AR-Pine Bluff defense 33.5%AR-Pine Bluff attack 25.7% · Baylor defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.3 pts
Baylor attack 35.5% · AR-Pine Bluff defense 40.0%AR-Pine Bluff attack 35.2% · Baylor defense 32.3%
Foster Pavilion
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Yale vs Baylor
72.2Yale
80.0Baylor
Baylor win estimate73.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.8
Projected total152.2
80% home-margin range-8.1 to 23.7
Estimated possessions66.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.6 pts
Baylor attack 54.7% · Yale defense 49.8%Yale attack 54.1% · Baylor defense 50.9%
Ball securityAway 1.7 pts
Baylor attack 15.7% · Yale defense 16.3%Yale attack 15.3% · Baylor defense 17.6%
Second chancesHome 4.6 pts
Baylor attack 36.1% · Yale defense 27.6%Yale attack 31.8% · Baylor defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.5 pts
Baylor attack 35.5% · Yale defense 30.7%Yale attack 34.8% · Baylor defense 32.3%
Foster Pavilion
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 →