A relative strength
Turnovers forced
20.0% · rank 35 of 366 · 34 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Monmouth
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.211
-3.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
19–152025–26 recorded finals
104.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
107.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Monmouth.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
19–1534 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.5Mean opponent adj. net -2.7 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.8%34 games · higher is betterRank 278 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 127 / 366 · 65th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.6%34 games · lower is betterRank 182 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
20.0%34 games · higher is betterRank 35 / 366 · 91th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.6%34 games · higher is betterRank 160 / 366 · 56th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.1%34 games · lower is betterRank 286 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
32.7%34 games · higher is betterRank 244 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.8%34 games · lower is betterRank 112 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 106.4 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 103.8 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 48.9% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.2% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.4% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 34.1% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 34.3% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.5% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.7% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.6% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 53.8% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 50.6% | 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?
2,316 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
31.8% · rank 112 of 366 · 34 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Effective FG%
49.8% · rank 278 of 366 · 34 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.1% · rank 286 of 366 · 34 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; Monmouth won 5. 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 10, 2026 · neutral vs Hofstra · L 69–75 · offense 103.9 / defense 113.0
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HofstraMar 10, 2026 · neutral | L 69–75 | 115 | 103.9 | 113.0 | 66.4 | 50.0 | 13.6 | 22.2 |
| CampbellMar 9, 2026 · neutral | W 74–64 | 208 | 110.1 | 95.2 | 67.2 | 44.2 | 10.4 | 30.6 |
| DrexelMar 8, 2026 · neutral | W 65–57 | 185 | 100.6 | 88.2 | 64.6 | 51.0 | 21.7 | 26.7 |
| NortheasternMar 4, 2026 · road | W 89–83 | 262 | 132.9 | 123.9 | 67.0 | 61.5 | 9.0 | 31.3 |
| ElonFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 73–57 | 237 | 115.7 | 90.3 | 63.1 | 52.7 | 19.0 | 38.7 |
| Stony BrookFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 82–69 | 280 | 121.4 | 102.2 | 67.5 | 62.7 | 17.8 | 32.3 |
| CharlestonFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 63–74 | 135 | 93.5 | 109.9 | 67.4 | 50.0 | 19.3 | 21.2 |
| UNC WilmingtonFeb 20, 2026 · road | L 69–79 | 113 | 95.8 | 109.7 | 72.0 | 46.3 | 25.0 | 30.3 |
| TowsonFeb 16, 2026 · home | W 72–71 | 150 | 110.7 | 109.1 | 65.1 | 43.6 | 10.8 | 42.9 |
| DrexelFeb 13, 2026 · road | W 93–73 | 185 | 129.7 | 101.8 | 71.7 | 57.0 | 13.9 | 38.9 |
| Stony BrookFeb 6, 2026 · road | W 76–75 | 280 | 105.9 | 104.5 | 71.8 | 45.3 | 13.9 | 30.2 |
| HofstraJan 31, 2026 · home | L 57–73 | 115 | 87.7 | 112.3 | 65.0 | 40.8 | 9.2 | 18.9 |
| NC A&TJan 30, 2026 · home | W 83–81 | 318 | 111.6 | 108.9 | 66.1 | 47.7 | 10.8 | 28.9 |
| CampbellJan 24, 2026 · road | W 88–73 | 208 | 122.0 | 101.2 | 72.1 | 65.5 | 23.6 | 39.3 |
| HamptonJan 23, 2026 · road | L 63–65 | 288 | 97.6 | 100.7 | 64.6 | 52.7 | 24.8 | 34.4 |
| NortheasternJan 19, 2026 · home | W 81–68 | 262 | 113.0 | 94.9 | 71.7 | 53.6 | 12.6 | 34.1 |
| DrexelJan 16, 2026 · home | L 51–73 | 185 | 85.6 | 122.5 | 59.6 | 34.9 | 23.5 | 41.7 |
| HofstraJan 10, 2026 · road | L 64–67 | 115 | 89.8 | 94.0 | 63.4 | 40.4 | 16.8 | 19.5 |
| William & MaryJan 9, 2026 · home | W 81–70 | 195 | 112.3 | 97.1 | 72.1 | 54.7 | 15.3 | 32.4 |
| TowsonJan 3, 2026 · road | W 62–48 | 150 | 97.7 | 75.7 | 63.4 | 48.9 | 23.6 | 28.6 |
| CampbellDec 31, 2025 · home | L 65–68 | 208 | 100.3 | 104.9 | 64.8 | 45.3 | 10.8 | 27.8 |
| LehighDec 21, 2025 · home | W 76–62 | 291 | 112.9 | 92.1 | 67.3 | 58.3 | 20.8 | 34.4 |
| QuinnipiacDec 18, 2025 · home | L 75–85 | 192 | 104.2 | 118.1 | 72.0 | 45.9 | 18.1 | 36.1 |
| FairfieldDec 14, 2025 · road | L 65–73 | 271 | 102.6 | 115.2 | 63.4 | 50.0 | 15.8 | 27.3 |
| Georgia TechDec 6, 2025 · road | L 67–79 | 137 | 94.7 | 111.7 | 70.7 | 39.0 | 8.5 | 33.3 |
| PrincetonDec 4, 2025 · home | W 63–58 | 184 | 93.8 | 86.4 | 67.2 | 43.5 | 13.4 | 18.2 |
| LafayetteNov 30, 2025 · road | W 88–74 | 319 | 124.7 | 104.8 | 70.6 | 67.3 | 15.6 | 22.7 |
| Le MoyneNov 29, 2025 · neutral | L 79–83 | 316 | 115.5 | 121.4 | 68.4 | 48.4 | 11.7 | 37.5 |
| Ball StateNov 28, 2025 · neutral | W 80–73 | 273 | 120.4 | 109.9 | 66.4 | 56.8 | 13.5 | 37.5 |
| Robert MorrisNov 23, 2025 · home | W 71–70 | 166 | 103.3 | 101.8 | 61.1 | 42.7 | 16.0 | 36.1 |
| SyracuseNov 19, 2025 · road | L 73–78 | 102 | 103.1 | 110.2 | 70.8 | 46.5 | 17.0 | 27.0 |
| Seton HallNov 14, 2025 · road | L 58–70 | 78 | 86.8 | 104.8 | 66.8 | 43.0 | 29.9 | 30.0 |
| La SalleNov 8, 2025 · road | L 60–73 | 242 | 90.7 | 110.3 | 66.2 | 47.1 | 24.2 | 32.4 |
| CaldwellNov 5, 2025 · home | W 96–68 | Unrated | 119.5 | 84.7 | 80.3 | 55.5 | 17.4 | 42.9 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jason Rivera-TorresF | 34 | 35.2 | 15.8 | 8.1 | 2.9 | 52.3 | 24.8% | 34 | 1.5634 games | 16534 games |
| Jack CollinsG | 31 | 34.9 | 7.0 | 4.7 | 4.5 | 47.0 | 14.8% | 31 | 1.6731 games | 14231 games |
| Justin RayG | 34 | 28.4 | 11.3 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 59.4 | 18.4% | 34 | 1.9134 games | 15734 games |
| Cornelius Robinson IIIF | 33 | 24.9 | 8.0 | 3.9 | 1.2 | 49.9 | 19.1% | 33 | 0.9533 games | 1633 games |
| Stefanos SpartalisF | 32 | 23.6 | 10.7 | 5.1 | 0.9 | 52.9 | 25.3% | 32 | 0.6132 games | 1632 games |
| Andrew BallG | 34 | 20.5 | 7.9 | 3.9 | 0.6 | 57.1 | 19.3% | 34 | 0.7534 games | 8234 games |
| Dok MuordarC | 33 | 12.4 | 4.1 | 2.3 | 0.1 | 54.3 | 17.6% | 33 | 0.2933 games | 033 games |
| Kavion McClainF | 11 | 35.6 | 17.1 | 2.8 | 5.5 | 60.5 | 25.3% | 11 | 1.5411 games | 6311 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 Monmouth?
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
16Same-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 | 8 | 3,113 | 3,113 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 3,353 | 3,353 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 409 | 409 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,875 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jason Rivera-Torres →F | Same programMonmouth Hawks | 35.2 | 15.8 | 52.3% |
| Jack Collins →G | Same programMonmouth Hawks | 34.9 | 7.0 | 47.0% |
| Justin Ray →G | Same programMonmouth Hawks | 28.4 | 11.3 | 59.4% |
| Cornelius Robinson III →F | Same programMonmouth Hawks | 24.9 | 8.0 | 49.9% |
| Stefanos Spartalis →F | Same programMonmouth Hawks | 23.6 | 10.7 | 52.9% |
| Andrew Ball →G | Same programMonmouth Hawks | 20.5 | 7.9 | 57.1% |
| Dok Muordar →C | Same programMonmouth Hawks | 12.4 | 4.1 | 54.3% |
| Kavion McClain →F | Same programMonmouth Hawks | 35.6 | 17.1 | 60.5% |
| Anthony Martinez →G | Same programMonmouth Hawks | 6.9 | 0.6 | 30.0% |
| Corey Miller →G | Same programMonmouth Hawks | 13.4 | 3.7 | 63.8% |
| Jinup Dobuol →F | Same programMonmouth Hawks | 6.1 | 3.1 | 58.1% |
| O'Marion Harvey →F | Same programMonmouth Hawks | 3.8 | 0.6 | 70.0% |
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…
Monmouth vs Wake Forest
66.3Monmouth
80.2Wake Forest
Wake Forest win estimate84.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.9
Projected total146.5
80% home-margin range-2.1 to 29.8
Estimated possessions68.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.3 pts
Wake Forest attack 53.2% · Monmouth defense 51.3%Monmouth attack 48.9% · Wake Forest defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 1.3 pts
Wake Forest attack 16.2% · Monmouth defense 18.5%Monmouth attack 17.1% · Wake Forest defense 18.2%
Second chancesAway 4.4 pts
Wake Forest attack 29.1% · Monmouth defense 32.4%Monmouth attack 30.4% · Wake Forest defense 29.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.6 pts
Wake Forest attack 36.3% · Monmouth defense 35.0%Monmouth attack 35.3% · Wake Forest defense 33.4%
LJVM Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Monmouth vs Stony Brook
70.6Monmouth
70.8Stony Brook
Stony Brook win estimate54.6%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.2
Projected total141.4
80% home-margin range-15.7 to 16.1
Estimated possessions66.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.3 pts
Stony Brook attack 49.8% · Monmouth defense 51.3%Monmouth attack 48.9% · Stony Brook defense 52.7%
Ball securityHome 2.5 pts
Stony Brook attack 17.4% · Monmouth defense 18.5%Monmouth attack 17.1% · Stony Brook defense 15.8%
Second chancesAway 4.7 pts
Stony Brook attack 27.7% · Monmouth defense 32.4%Monmouth attack 30.4% · Stony Brook defense 30.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.2 pts
Stony Brook attack 31.3% · Monmouth defense 35.0%Monmouth attack 35.3% · Stony Brook defense 32.8%
Stony Brook Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Hampton vs Monmouth
66.7Hampton
73.4Monmouth
Monmouth win estimate71.0%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.7
Projected total140.1
80% home-margin range-9.2 to 22.6
Estimated possessions67.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.4 pts
Monmouth attack 48.9% · Hampton defense 52.7%Hampton attack 47.1% · Monmouth defense 51.3%
Ball securityAway 1.7 pts
Monmouth attack 17.1% · Hampton defense 17.0%Hampton attack 17.0% · Monmouth defense 18.5%
Second chancesHome 2.2 pts
Monmouth attack 30.4% · Hampton defense 29.5%Hampton attack 31.1% · Monmouth defense 32.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.8 pts
Monmouth attack 35.3% · Hampton defense 41.1%Hampton attack 36.1% · Monmouth defense 35.0%
OceanFirst Bank 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 →