A relative strength
Turnover rate
15.5% · rank 106 of 366 · 33 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
Stanford
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.77
+9.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
20–132025–26 recorded finals
112.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
103.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Stanford.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
20–1333 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.9Mean opponent adj. net 7.8 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 199 / 366 · 46th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.0%33 games · lower is betterRank 186 / 366 · 49th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.5%33 games · lower is betterRank 106 / 366 · 71th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 107 / 366 · 71th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 131 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 170 / 366 · 54th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 168 / 366 · 54th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
40.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 315 / 366 · 14th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 111.6 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 107.1 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.5% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.8% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.2% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.9% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 44.0% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 33.4% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.2% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 76.0% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 45.8% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 41.9% | 33 | 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?
2,245 source possession rows across 33 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
Turnovers forced
18.0% · rank 107 of 366 · 33 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Effective FG%
51.5% · rank 199 of 366 · 33 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
40.3% · rank 315 of 366 · 33 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 12 times in the selected window; Stanford won 7. 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 3, 2026 · neutral vs West Virginia · L 77–82 · offense 104.9 / defense 111.7
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| West VirginiaApr 3, 2026 · neutral | L 77–82 | 52 | 104.9 | 111.7 | 65.3 | 44.9 | 13.6 | 36.4 |
| PittMar 10, 2026 · neutral | L 63–64 | 71 | 107.6 | 109.3 | 58.6 | 55.8 | 17.1 | 25.0 |
| NC StateMar 7, 2026 · road | W 85–84 | 45 | 123.7 | 122.3 | 68.7 | 56.6 | 11.6 | 40.5 |
| Notre DameMar 5, 2026 · road | W 86–78 | 114 | 135.5 | 122.9 | 63.5 | 67.9 | 11.0 | 24.1 |
| SMUFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 95–75 | 51 | 147.6 | 116.6 | 64.4 | 64.7 | 10.9 | 34.6 |
| PittFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 75–67 | 71 | 122.1 | 109.1 | 61.4 | 56.0 | 14.6 | 34.5 |
| CaliforniaFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 66–72 | 104 | 95.2 | 103.8 | 69.4 | 40.0 | 14.4 | 31.1 |
| Wake ForestFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 63–68 | 60 | 100.1 | 108.1 | 62.9 | 51.9 | 17.5 | 23.3 |
| Boston CollegeFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 70–64 | 152 | 102.2 | 93.4 | 68.5 | 54.4 | 16.1 | 16.1 |
| Georgia TechFeb 8, 2026 · home | W 95–72 | 137 | 130.9 | 99.2 | 72.6 | 63.9 | 16.5 | 37.9 |
| ClemsonFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 64–66 | 26 | 103.5 | 106.7 | 61.9 | 47.5 | 11.3 | 26.3 |
| Florida StJan 31, 2026 · road | L 80–88 | 81 | 115.9 | 127.5 | 69.0 | 55.2 | 15.9 | 35.9 |
| MiamiJan 29, 2026 · road | L 70–79 | 57 | 104.9 | 118.4 | 66.7 | 52.4 | 21.0 | 35.1 |
| CaliforniaJan 25, 2026 · home | L 66–78 | 104 | 92.6 | 109.4 | 71.3 | 31.8 | 9.8 | 33.3 |
| DukeJan 17, 2026 · home | L 50–80 | 1 | 79.3 | 126.9 | 63.0 | 40.7 | 28.6 | 35.1 |
| North CarolinaJan 15, 2026 · home | W 95–90 | 22 | 130.0 | 123.2 | 73.1 | 71.4 | 10.9 | 7.4 |
| VirginiaJan 10, 2026 · road | L 55–70 | 35 | 86.5 | 110.1 | 63.6 | 36.6 | 20.4 | 32.4 |
| Virginia TechJan 8, 2026 · road | W 69–68 | 79 | 114.9 | 113.2 | 60.1 | 53.4 | 13.3 | 31.3 |
| LouisvilleJan 3, 2026 · home | W 80–76 | 32 | 125.3 | 119.0 | 63.9 | 54.6 | 14.1 | 40.0 |
| Notre DameDec 31, 2025 · home | L 40–47 | 114 | 68.8 | 80.8 | 58.2 | 26.8 | 10.3 | 23.8 |
| CSU NorthridgeDec 28, 2025 · home | W 88–80 | 171 | 117.1 | 106.5 | 75.2 | 58.7 | 17.3 | 24.2 |
| ColoradoDec 21, 2025 · neutral | W 77–68 | 69 | 109.5 | 96.7 | 70.3 | 47.1 | 12.8 | 36.4 |
| UT ArlingtonDec 18, 2025 · home | W 76–60 | 179 | 112.6 | 88.9 | 67.5 | 53.1 | 17.8 | 26.9 |
| San José StDec 14, 2025 · road | W 86–82 | 226 | 124.4 | 118.6 | 69.1 | 70.7 | 28.9 | 60.0 |
| UNLVDec 7, 2025 · home | L 74–75 | 111 | 102.3 | 103.7 | 72.3 | 45.2 | 22.1 | 47.6 |
| PortlandDec 2, 2025 · home | W 94–72 | 258 | 135.3 | 103.7 | 69.5 | 62.5 | 11.5 | 34.3 |
| Saint LouisNov 29, 2025 · neutral | W 78–77 | 55 | 107.8 | 106.4 | 72.4 | 47.7 | 13.8 | 30.2 |
| MinnesotaNov 28, 2025 · neutral | W 72–68 | 91 | 112.4 | 106.2 | 64.1 | 43.3 | 12.5 | 47.2 |
| Seattle UNov 22, 2025 · home | L 69–77 | 120 | 95.0 | 106.0 | 72.6 | 42.1 | 16.5 | 32.6 |
| LouisianaNov 19, 2025 · home | W 93–66 | 297 | 130.3 | 92.5 | 71.4 | 58.0 | 14.0 | 34.4 |
| Montana StNov 13, 2025 · home | W 77–68 | 163 | 103.3 | 91.2 | 74.6 | 49.2 | 16.1 | 25.0 |
| MontanaNov 8, 2025 · home | W 91–68 | 178 | 122.0 | 91.2 | 74.6 | 51.9 | 6.7 | 34.0 |
| Portland StNov 5, 2025 · home | W 89–79 | 170 | 110.8 | 98.3 | 80.4 | 52.6 | 21.2 | 31.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ebuka OkorieG | 31 | 35.1 | 23.2 | 3.6 | 3.6 | 58.9 | 31.1% | 31 | 1.9131 games | 17831 games |
| Benny GealerG | 33 | 29.5 | 10.9 | 2.5 | 1.7 | 63.5 | 16.0% | 33 | 2.4333 games | 21033 games |
| Aidan CammannF | 33 | 21.7 | 6.5 | 3.8 | 1.4 | 56.4 | 15.9% | 33 | 1.2733 games | 4133 games |
| Ryan AgarwalG | 32 | 22.3 | 5.9 | 4.1 | 0.8 | 47.5 | 16.7% | 32 | 0.6832 games | 10932 games |
| AJ RohosyF | 33 | 20.5 | 7.6 | 5.6 | 0.7 | 53.1 | 20.2% | 33 | 0.6733 games | 033 games |
| Jeremy Dent-SmithG | 33 | 20.1 | 8.2 | 1.8 | 1.5 | 51.8 | 22.8% | 33 | 1.2233 games | 15333 games |
| Chisom OkparaF | 17 | 28.5 | 13.9 | 3.9 | 2.2 | 52.1 | 27.5% | 17 | 0.8417 games | 5617 games |
| Oskar GiltayF | 32 | 14.6 | 3.3 | 4.1 | 0.3 | 62.2 | 11.8% | 32 | 0.5232 games | 032 games |
| Donavin YoungF | 21 | 15.4 | 2.5 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 45.7 | 10.7% | 21 | 1.7521 games | 2721 games |
| Jaylen ThompsonF | 20 | 11.2 | 2.3 | 1.2 | 0.3 | 50.6 | 12.5% | 20 | 0.8620 games | 1920 games |
| Cameron GrantF | 20 | 10.4 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 37.1 | 15.2% | 20 | 1.1420 games | 5320 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 Stanford?
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
84%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 | 6 | 2,354 | 2,354 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 10 | 3,182 | 3,182 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,536 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Benny Gealer →G | Same programStanford Cardinal | 29.5 | 10.9 | 63.5% |
| Aidan Cammann →F | Same programStanford Cardinal | 21.7 | 6.5 | 56.4% |
| Ryan Agarwal →G | Same programStanford Cardinal | 22.3 | 5.9 | 47.5% |
| AJ Rohosy →F | Same programStanford Cardinal | 20.5 | 7.6 | 53.1% |
| Jeremy Dent-Smith →G | Same programStanford Cardinal | 20.1 | 8.2 | 51.8% |
| Chisom Okpara →F | Same programStanford Cardinal | 28.5 | 13.9 | 52.1% |
| Oskar Giltay →F | Same programStanford Cardinal | 14.6 | 3.3 | 62.2% |
| Donavin Young →F | Same programStanford Cardinal | 15.4 | 2.5 | 45.7% |
| Jaylen Thompson →F | Same programStanford Cardinal | 11.2 | 2.3 | 50.6% |
| Cameron Grant →F | Same programStanford Cardinal | 10.4 | 2.1 | 37.1% |
| Kristers Skrinda →F | Same programStanford Cardinal | 6.1 | 0.8 | 38.9% |
| Evan Stinson →F | Same programStanford Cardinal | 5.2 | 1.8 | 58.8% |
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…
Stanford vs Colorado
74.8Stanford
75.3Colorado
Colorado win estimate55.4%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.5
Projected total150.1
80% home-margin range-15.4 to 16.4
Estimated possessions68.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.5 pts
Colorado attack 53.5% · Stanford defense 50.2%Stanford attack 52.7% · Colorado defense 49.9%
Ball securityHome 0.4 pts
Colorado attack 17.1% · Stanford defense 17.5%Stanford attack 16.4% · Colorado defense 16.4%
Second chancesAway 1.3 pts
Colorado attack 30.9% · Stanford defense 27.9%Stanford attack 31.0% · Colorado defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.0 pts
Colorado attack 36.8% · Stanford defense 35.9%Stanford attack 33.6% · Colorado defense 34.6%
Acrisure Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
San José St vs Stanford
66.9San José St
79.5Stanford
Stanford win estimate82.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.6
Projected total146.3
80% home-margin range-3.3 to 28.5
Estimated possessions65.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.3 pts
Stanford attack 52.7% · San José St defense 53.3%San José St attack 50.9% · Stanford defense 50.2%
Ball securityAway 1.3 pts
Stanford attack 16.4% · San José St defense 16.6%San José St attack 16.1% · Stanford defense 17.5%
Second chancesAway 2.9 pts
Stanford attack 31.0% · San José St defense 32.3%San José St attack 29.5% · Stanford defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 6.1 pts
Stanford attack 33.6% · San José St defense 31.9%San José St attack 31.4% · Stanford defense 35.9%
Maples 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 →