A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
26.0% · rank 28 of 366 · 31 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
New Haven
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.332
-14.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
14–172025–26 recorded finals
96.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
110.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
65.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on New Haven.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
14–1731 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 64.2Mean opponent adj. net -7.7 · 28 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.4%31 games · higher is betterRank 252 / 366 · 31th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.9%31 games · lower is betterRank 180 / 366 · 51th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.2%31 games · lower is betterRank 225 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.7%31 games · higher is betterRank 124 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
24.0%31 games · higher is betterRank 350 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
26.0%31 games · lower is betterRank 28 / 366 · 93th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
30.7%31 games · higher is betterRank 286 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
27.5%31 games · lower is betterRank 34 / 366 · 91th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 101.1 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 103.2 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.8% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.1% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 31.3% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.8% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.3% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 37.9% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.8% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 75.5% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.5% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 48.0% | 31 | 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?
2,004 source possession rows across 31 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
27.5% · rank 34 of 366 · 31 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
30.7% · rank 286 of 366 · 31 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
24.0% · rank 350 of 366 · 31 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
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 6 times in the selected window; New Haven won 1. 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
Feb 28, 2026 · home vs Le Moyne · W 66–59 · offense 96.8 / defense 86.5
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 · 31 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Le MoyneFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 66–59 | 316 | 96.8 | 86.5 | 68.2 | 46.8 | 16.1 | 8.8 |
| WagnerFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 62–65 | 313 | 99.5 | 104.3 | 62.3 | 39.8 | 9.6 | 18.9 |
| Saint FrancisFeb 24, 2026 · home | L 67–73 | 356 | 106.6 | 116.2 | 62.8 | 54.7 | 9.5 | 12.1 |
| FDUFeb 22, 2026 · road | W 84–77 | 328 | 133.7 | 122.6 | 62.8 | 78.7 | 12.7 | 13.6 |
| StonehillFeb 20, 2026 · home | W 64–51 | 341 | 97.8 | 77.9 | 65.5 | 45.1 | 15.3 | 30.6 |
| Long IslandFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 55–52 | 269 | 88.9 | 84.1 | 61.8 | 36.5 | 14.6 | 28.2 |
| C ConnecticutFeb 13, 2026 · home | L 76–81 | 260 | 110.2 | 117.5 | 69.0 | 50.0 | 16.0 | 25.8 |
| Chicago StFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 57–63 | 360 | 96.8 | 106.9 | 58.9 | 53.3 | 18.7 | 9.7 |
| Long IslandFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 55–60 | 269 | 87.1 | 95.0 | 63.2 | 46.0 | 15.8 | 12.9 |
| Saint FrancisFeb 1, 2026 · road | W 81–69 | 356 | 122.4 | 104.2 | 66.2 | 62.5 | 15.1 | 18.5 |
| MercyhurstJan 30, 2026 · road | L 51–70 | 305 | 83.6 | 114.7 | 61.0 | 39.4 | 14.7 | 17.6 |
| MercyhurstJan 23, 2026 · home | L 57–61 | 305 | 97.1 | 103.9 | 58.7 | 52.3 | 23.9 | 24.0 |
| Chicago StJan 20, 2026 · road | W 62–56 | 360 | 105.6 | 95.4 | 58.7 | 50.0 | 28.9 | 46.4 |
| WagnerJan 17, 2026 · home | W 80–74 | 313 | 132.3 | 122.3 | 60.5 | 68.4 | 14.9 | 20.8 |
| FDUJan 10, 2026 · home | W 65–55 | 328 | 104.1 | 88.1 | 62.5 | 60.7 | 17.6 | 12.5 |
| Le MoyneJan 9, 2026 · road | L 47–73 | 316 | 76.8 | 119.3 | 61.2 | 40.4 | 21.2 | 21.6 |
| C ConnecticutJan 4, 2026 · road | L 61–72 | 260 | 104.5 | 123.3 | 58.4 | 50.0 | 18.8 | 40.0 |
| StonehillJan 3, 2026 · road | W 70–55 | 341 | 106.1 | 83.3 | 66.0 | 55.2 | 12.1 | 13.3 |
| VanderbiltDec 30, 2025 · road | L 53–96 | 29 | 77.4 | 140.1 | 68.5 | 41.4 | 19.0 | 14.3 |
| FordhamDec 22, 2025 · road | L 47–65 | 187 | 74.2 | 102.6 | 63.4 | 42.6 | 23.7 | 17.1 |
| NJITDec 11, 2025 · road | L 64–70 | 350 | 96.4 | 105.5 | 66.4 | 40.8 | 10.5 | 34.1 |
| Boston CollegeDec 6, 2025 · road | L 63–67 | 152 | 101.3 | 107.8 | 62.2 | 43.9 | 16.1 | 28.1 |
| MitchellNov 30, 2025 · home | W 92–69 | Unrated | 129.1 | 96.8 | 71.3 | 61.4 | 15.4 | 41.2 |
| Salve ReginaNov 26, 2025 · home | W 78–47 | Unrated | 120.0 | 72.3 | 65.0 | 55.3 | 12.3 | 31.4 |
| VTSU LyndonNov 22, 2025 · home | W 122–51 | Unrated | 159.9 | 66.8 | 76.3 | 67.1 | 10.5 | 57.1 |
| Seton HallNov 19, 2025 · road | L 45–68 | 78 | 72.8 | 110.1 | 61.8 | 40.8 | 22.7 | 14.7 |
| Delaware StNov 15, 2025 · home | W 65–52 | 359 | 98.3 | 78.6 | 66.1 | 53.2 | 25.7 | 28.6 |
| UMass LowellNov 10, 2025 · road | W 73–67 | 272 | 106.6 | 97.8 | 68.5 | 56.3 | 20.4 | 30.0 |
| Penn StateNov 8, 2025 · home | L 43–87 | 103 | 69.1 | 139.9 | 62.2 | 42.2 | 30.5 | 20.0 |
| ColumbiaNov 7, 2025 · home | L 53–71 | 217 | 80.8 | 108.2 | 65.6 | 35.1 | 18.3 | 21.4 |
| UConnNov 4, 2025 · road | L 55–79 | 10 | 82.6 | 118.7 | 66.6 | 47.1 | 16.5 | 11.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jabri FitzpatrickG | 31 | 34.5 | 15.0 | 4.5 | 2.6 | 54.6 | 25.8% | 31 | 1.2331 games | 12131 games |
| Najimi GeorgeG | 30 | 33.7 | 11.2 | 3.6 | 1.6 | 49.4 | 21.7% | 30 | 1.0030 games | 10830 games |
| Andre PashaF | 31 | 31.7 | 10.7 | 5.2 | 1.8 | 53.5 | 20.5% | 31 | 1.1931 games | 11431 games |
| Stefano FaloppaF | 31 | 26.1 | 6.2 | 4.4 | 1.3 | 59.7 | 13.5% | 31 | 1.2131 games | 5931 games |
| Kheni BriggsG | 28 | 18.3 | 6.9 | 1.3 | 1.2 | 57.7 | 21.9% | 28 | 1.0028 games | 7228 games |
| Maison AdeleyeG | 31 | 15.9 | 4.5 | 2.1 | 1.0 | 51.1 | 18.7% | 31 | 1.1031 games | 5331 games |
| Teshaun SteeleG | 31 | 15.2 | 3.9 | 3.2 | 0.9 | 52.7 | 15.3% | 31 | 1.9331 games | 3531 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 New Haven?
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.
21Source-listed players
17Same-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 | 17 | 4,258 | 4,258 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,942 | 1,942 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,200 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?
21 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jabri Fitzpatrick →G | Same programNew Haven Chargers | 34.5 | 15.0 | 54.6% |
| Najimi George →G | Same programNew Haven Chargers | 33.7 | 11.2 | 49.4% |
| Andre Pasha →F | Same programNew Haven Chargers | 31.7 | 10.7 | 53.5% |
| Stefano Faloppa →F | Same programNew Haven Chargers | 26.1 | 6.2 | 59.7% |
| Kheni Briggs →G | Same programNew Haven Chargers | 18.3 | 6.9 | 57.7% |
| Maison Adeleye →G | Same programNew Haven Chargers | 15.9 | 4.5 | 51.1% |
| Teshaun Steele →G | Same programNew Haven Chargers | 15.2 | 3.9 | 52.7% |
| Vere Anthony →G | Same programNew Haven Chargers | 13.5 | 2.6 | 39.1% |
| Zoumana Traore →G | Same programNew Haven Chargers | 8.7 | 2.3 | 47.6% |
| Aidan Losiewicz →G | Same programNew Haven Chargers | 6.7 | 2.9 | 62.2% |
| Tristan Burth →F | Same programNew Haven Chargers | 7.2 | 1.6 | 46.0% |
| Kyle Kearson →G | Same programNew Haven Chargers | 6.9 | 1.3 | 43.0% |
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…
New Haven vs Syracuse
59.6New Haven
76.9Syracuse
Syracuse win estimate88.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.2
Projected total136.5
80% home-margin range1.3 to 33.1
Estimated possessions65.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.7 pts
Syracuse attack 53.0% · New Haven defense 52.7%New Haven attack 49.2% · Syracuse defense 50.5%
Ball securityHome 0.1 pts
Syracuse attack 16.7% · New Haven defense 16.7%New Haven attack 17.5% · Syracuse defense 17.4%
Second chancesHome 8.2 pts
Syracuse attack 30.0% · New Haven defense 28.4%New Haven attack 23.3% · Syracuse defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.4 pts
Syracuse attack 35.6% · New Haven defense 31.2%New Haven attack 32.4% · Syracuse defense 32.5%
JMA Wireless Dome
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Army vs New Haven
64.7Army
68.3New Haven
New Haven win estimate63.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.6
Projected total133.0
80% home-margin range-12.4 to 19.5
Estimated possessions64.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.8 pts
New Haven attack 49.2% · Army defense 53.6%Army attack 49.0% · New Haven defense 52.7%
Ball securityAway 1.1 pts
New Haven attack 17.5% · Army defense 15.7%Army attack 17.5% · New Haven defense 16.7%
Second chancesAway 5.6 pts
New Haven attack 23.3% · Army defense 29.6%Army attack 27.8% · New Haven defense 28.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.0 pts
New Haven attack 32.4% · Army defense 36.2%Army attack 29.4% · New Haven defense 31.2%
Jeffery P. Hazell Athletics Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
New Haven vs Boston College
57.6New Haven
70.6Boston College
Boston College win estimate83.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.0
Projected total128.2
80% home-margin range-2.9 to 28.9
Estimated possessions64.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.5 pts
Boston College attack 49.8% · New Haven defense 52.7%New Haven attack 49.2% · Boston College defense 49.6%
Ball securityHome 1.7 pts
Boston College attack 16.5% · New Haven defense 16.7%New Haven attack 17.5% · Boston College defense 16.1%
Second chancesHome 5.5 pts
Boston College attack 29.1% · New Haven defense 28.4%New Haven attack 23.3% · Boston College defense 28.2%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.0 pts
Boston College attack 32.5% · New Haven defense 31.2%New Haven attack 32.4% · Boston College defense 34.1%
Conte Forum
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 →