A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.1% · rank 117 of 366 · 34 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Portland
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.258
-7.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–192025–26 recorded finals
104.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
111.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Portland.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1934 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.5Mean opponent adj. net 3.5 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.8%34 games · higher is betterRank 182 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.7%34 games · lower is betterRank 278 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
19.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 338 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.9%34 games · higher is betterRank 169 / 366 · 54th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.3%34 games · higher is betterRank 245 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.4%34 games · lower is betterRank 258 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.5%34 games · higher is betterRank 167 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.1%34 games · lower is betterRank 117 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 104.8 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.6 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 55.3% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.4% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 30.2% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.1% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 34.8% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 46.4% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.8% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.7% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 62.1% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 66.8% | 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?
2,401 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
Free-throw attempt rate
35.5% · rank 167 of 366 · 34 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
52.7% · rank 278 of 366 · 34 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnover rate
19.3% · rank 338 of 366 · 34 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
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; Portland won 3. 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 8, 2026 · neutral vs San Francisco · L 65–82 · offense 97.0 / defense 122.3
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| San FranciscoMar 8, 2026 · neutral | L 65–82 | 89 | 97.0 | 122.3 | 67.0 | 49.2 | 23.9 | 35.3 |
| Washington StMar 7, 2026 · neutral | W 74–68 | 117 | 106.3 | 97.7 | 69.6 | 50.9 | 14.4 | 18.8 |
| PepperdineMar 6, 2026 · neutral | W 77–68 | 261 | 111.2 | 98.2 | 69.3 | 55.1 | 17.3 | 33.3 |
| San DiegoFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 87–74 | 263 | 125.8 | 107.0 | 69.2 | 59.0 | 10.1 | 31.0 |
| GonzagaFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 48–89 | 8 | 71.2 | 131.9 | 67.5 | 38.8 | 32.6 | 30.3 |
| Seattle UFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 59–71 | 120 | 86.0 | 103.5 | 68.6 | 43.8 | 27.7 | 14.8 |
| PepperdineFeb 19, 2026 · home | L 87–95 | 261 | 124.8 | 136.2 | 69.7 | 69.1 | 17.2 | 16.0 |
| San DiegoFeb 12, 2026 · road | L 58–71 | 263 | 91.0 | 111.4 | 63.7 | 46.8 | 23.5 | 21.7 |
| Seattle UFeb 8, 2026 · home | W 54–53 | 120 | 86.5 | 84.9 | 62.5 | 40.4 | 19.2 | 34.3 |
| GonzagaFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 87–80 | 8 | 117.7 | 108.2 | 73.9 | 65.7 | 23.0 | 30.0 |
| Washington StJan 31, 2026 · road | L 74–104 | 117 | 103.3 | 145.2 | 71.6 | 46.7 | 12.6 | 33.3 |
| PacificJan 29, 2026 · road | L 51–74 | 207 | 80.0 | 116.1 | 63.7 | 38.1 | 22.0 | 18.8 |
| Saint Mary'sJan 25, 2026 · home | L 69–75 | 18 | 106.5 | 115.7 | 64.8 | 49.1 | 13.9 | 21.2 |
| LMUJan 18, 2026 · road | W 71–58 | 160 | 102.1 | 83.4 | 69.5 | 50.0 | 17.3 | 26.5 |
| PepperdineJan 15, 2026 · road | L 63–67 | 261 | 93.5 | 99.4 | 67.4 | 43.2 | 17.8 | 34.1 |
| Oregon StJan 11, 2026 · home | W 82–76 | 139 | 124.4 | 115.3 | 65.9 | 48.1 | 10.6 | 35.5 |
| PacificJan 9, 2026 · home | W 90–89 | 207 | 122.5 | 121.2 | 65.3 | 56.8 | 19.1 | 37.1 |
| San FranciscoJan 5, 2026 · road | L 68–73 | 89 | 100.6 | 108.0 | 67.6 | 52.0 | 25.2 | 20.7 |
| Saint Mary'sJan 3, 2026 · road | L 57–78 | 18 | 89.0 | 121.8 | 64.1 | 36.1 | 14.1 | 32.5 |
| Santa ClaraDec 31, 2025 · home | L 85–92 | 42 | 119.2 | 129.0 | 71.3 | 64.7 | 21.0 | 40.0 |
| Washington StDec 28, 2025 · home | L 62–67 | 117 | 90.7 | 98.0 | 68.4 | 36.9 | 8.8 | 29.8 |
| Santa BarbaraDec 22, 2025 · road | L 61–79 | 143 | 95.7 | 123.9 | 63.8 | 49.1 | 22.0 | 31.3 |
| OregonDec 18, 2025 · road | L 69–94 | 61 | 87.6 | 119.3 | 78.8 | 46.0 | 21.6 | 25.0 |
| Kent StateDec 14, 2025 · home | W 88–78 | 133 | 107.8 | 95.5 | 81.6 | 58.7 | 19.6 | 22.6 |
| Lewis & ClarkDec 6, 2025 · home | W 104–87 | Unrated | 140.8 | 117.8 | 73.8 | 57.1 | 12.2 | 53.8 |
| StanfordDec 2, 2025 · road | L 72–94 | 77 | 103.7 | 135.3 | 69.5 | 56.4 | 25.9 | 26.9 |
| Long Beach StNov 27, 2025 · home | W 93–73 | 265 | 129.6 | 101.7 | 71.8 | 76.0 | 20.9 | 17.6 |
| St Thomas (MN)Nov 23, 2025 · home | L 66–76 | 118 | 92.4 | 106.4 | 71.4 | 52.5 | 28.0 | 34.5 |
| N ColoradoNov 23, 2025 · home | L 80–86 | 149 | 99.3 | 106.7 | 71.6 | 47.9 | 17.4 | 30.0 |
| FullertonNov 22, 2025 · home | W 103–85 | 255 | 131.5 | 108.5 | 78.3 | 72.2 | 16.6 | 24.0 |
| WyomingNov 16, 2025 · road | L 56–93 | 132 | 79.6 | 132.1 | 70.4 | 39.6 | 18.5 | 21.1 |
| UC DavisNov 9, 2025 · home | W 67–63 | 193 | 96.4 | 90.6 | 69.5 | 47.2 | 24.5 | 32.4 |
| AR-Pine BluffNov 7, 2025 · home | W 83–74 | 357 | 100.6 | 89.7 | 82.5 | 49.2 | 23.0 | 22.9 |
| WillametteNov 4, 2025 · home | W 120–83 | Unrated | 129.6 | 89.7 | 92.6 | 62.9 | 15.1 | 37.1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joel FoxwellG | 34 | 35.7 | 15.6 | 4.3 | 6.5 | 50.9 | 25.9% | 34 | 2.0734 games | 21634 games |
| Garrett NuckollsG | 34 | 25.9 | 6.7 | 3.5 | 2.7 | 45.5 | 18.6% | 34 | 1.2434 games | 7334 games |
| James O'DonnellF | 34 | 22.5 | 10.0 | 4.4 | 1.1 | 64.8 | 21.4% | 34 | 0.5934 games | 134 games |
| Cameron WilliamsF | 31 | 23.9 | 10.6 | 4.6 | 1.0 | 57.2 | 21.7% | 31 | 0.8631 games | 4131 games |
| Mikah BallewG | 31 | 23.6 | 8.7 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 51.5 | 20.2% | 31 | 0.7431 games | 14931 games |
| Dante Censori-HerculesG | 33 | 20.5 | 3.2 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 54.9 | 8.8% | 33 | 2.1433 games | 1433 games |
| Jermaine Ballisager WebbC | 34 | 19.8 | 8.9 | 4.3 | 1.4 | 60.9 | 21.9% | 34 | 1.1434 games | 6234 games |
| Matúš HronskýF | 31 | 18.3 | 5.6 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 52.8 | 17.0% | 31 | 0.9331 games | 9131 games |
| Timo GeorgeF | 15 | 19.9 | 12.5 | 4.9 | 1.4 | 71.4 | 25.1% | 15 | 0.8115 games | 1115 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 Portland?
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
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 | 11 | 3,803 | 3,803 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 2,372 | 2,372 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 674 | 674 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,849 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joel Foxwell →G | Same programPortland Pilots | 35.7 | 15.6 | 50.9% |
| Garrett Nuckolls →G | Same programPortland Pilots | 25.9 | 6.7 | 45.5% |
| James O'Donnell →F | Same programPortland Pilots | 22.5 | 10.0 | 64.8% |
| Cameron Williams →F | Same programPortland Pilots | 23.9 | 10.6 | 57.2% |
| Mikah Ballew →G | Same programPortland Pilots | 23.6 | 8.7 | 51.5% |
| Dante Censori-Hercules →G | Same programPortland Pilots | 20.5 | 3.2 | 54.9% |
| Jermaine Ballisager Webb →C | Same programPortland Pilots | 19.8 | 8.9 | 60.9% |
| Matúš Hronský →F | Same programPortland Pilots | 18.3 | 5.6 | 52.8% |
| Timo George →F | Same programPortland Pilots | 19.9 | 12.5 | 71.4% |
| NaVaughn Long →G | Same programPortland Pilots | 10.5 | 2.0 | 62.1% |
| Kelson Gebbers →G | Same programPortland Pilots | 5.2 | 0.9 | 50.4% |
| Sam Noland →G | Same programPortland Pilots | 4.1 | 0.7 | 65.7% |
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…
Portland vs Colorado
68.4Portland
84.2Colorado
Colorado win estimate86.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.8
Projected total152.7
80% home-margin range-0.1 to 31.7
Estimated possessions70.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.0 pts
Colorado attack 53.5% · Portland defense 52.9%Portland attack 51.5% · Colorado defense 49.9%
Ball securityHome 0.5 pts
Colorado attack 17.1% · Portland defense 15.4%Portland attack 18.6% · Colorado defense 16.4%
Second chancesHome 0.3 pts
Colorado attack 30.9% · Portland defense 30.2%Portland attack 27.1% · Colorado defense 26.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 7.1 pts
Colorado attack 36.8% · Portland defense 29.8%Portland attack 34.6% · Colorado defense 34.6%
CU Events Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Fordham vs Portland
72.3Fordham
72.0Portland
Portland win estimate53.4%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.3
Projected total144.3
80% home-margin range-16.2 to 15.7
Estimated possessions68.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.5 pts
Portland attack 51.5% · Fordham defense 50.9%Fordham attack 49.0% · Portland defense 52.9%
Ball securityHome 1.1 pts
Portland attack 18.6% · Fordham defense 17.3%Fordham attack 17.9% · Portland defense 15.4%
Second chancesAway 3.0 pts
Portland attack 27.1% · Fordham defense 28.2%Fordham attack 32.0% · Portland defense 30.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.6 pts
Portland attack 34.6% · Fordham defense 36.6%Fordham attack 32.3% · Portland defense 29.8%
Chiles Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Portland vs UC Davis
70.2Portland
77.2UC Davis
UC Davis win estimate71.7%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.0
Projected total147.4
80% home-margin range-8.9 to 22.9
Estimated possessions70.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.0 pts
UC Davis attack 50.2% · Portland defense 52.9%Portland attack 51.5% · UC Davis defense 51.2%
Ball securityAway 4.2 pts
UC Davis attack 18.7% · Portland defense 15.4%Portland attack 18.6% · UC Davis defense 19.5%
Second chancesHome 1.9 pts
UC Davis attack 28.2% · Portland defense 30.2%Portland attack 27.1% · UC Davis defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 12.7 pts
UC Davis attack 39.2% · Portland defense 29.8%Portland attack 34.6% · UC Davis defense 37.8%
University Credit Union 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 →