A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
26.8% · rank 24 of 366 · 33 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Sacred Heart
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.279
-8.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
14–192025–26 recorded finals
104.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
113.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Sacred Heart.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
14–1933 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.4Mean opponent adj. net -6.2 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 150 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 299 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.6%33 games · lower is betterRank 255 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 304 / 366 · 17th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 236 / 366 · 36th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.6%33 games · lower is betterRank 214 / 366 · 42th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
30.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 300 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
26.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 24 / 366 · 94th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 109.6 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 111.6 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.2% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 53.7% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.9% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.0% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 50.7% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 43.5% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 77.7% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.7% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 58.6% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 60.0% | 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?
2,273 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
Effective FG%
52.5% · rank 150 of 366 · 33 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
30.2% · rank 300 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.0% · rank 304 of 366 · 33 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 9 times in the selected window; Sacred Heart 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
Mar 6, 2026 · neutral vs Merrimack · L 48–70 · offense 78.6 / defense 114.6
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MerrimackMar 6, 2026 · neutral | L 48–70 | 180 | 78.6 | 114.6 | 61.1 | 42.7 | 24.6 | 20.7 |
| IonaMar 5, 2026 · neutral | W 91–80 | 215 | 132.9 | 116.8 | 68.5 | 61.2 | 10.2 | 26.7 |
| Mount St MarysFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 77–69 | 264 | 116.9 | 104.7 | 65.9 | 51.6 | 13.7 | 33.3 |
| MaristFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 63–65 | 200 | 93.1 | 96.0 | 67.7 | 43.3 | 16.2 | 27.5 |
| FairfieldFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 68–78 | 271 | 98.7 | 113.2 | 68.9 | 50.0 | 18.9 | 23.5 |
| RiderFeb 15, 2026 · home | W 86–75 | 342 | 124.5 | 108.6 | 69.1 | 54.1 | 15.9 | 35.3 |
| Saint Peter'sFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 78–71 | 250 | 121.5 | 110.6 | 64.2 | 59.8 | 17.1 | 24.0 |
| ManhattanFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 68–80 | 323 | 95.7 | 112.6 | 71.1 | 45.9 | 15.5 | 20.5 |
| FairfieldFeb 6, 2026 · home | L 87–92 | 271 | 122.1 | 129.1 | 71.2 | 55.6 | 11.2 | 29.7 |
| MerrimackFeb 1, 2026 · road | L 58–75 | 180 | 90.9 | 117.6 | 63.8 | 46.7 | 25.1 | 19.2 |
| QuinnipiacJan 31, 2026 · road | W 98–91 | 192 | 129.7 | 120.4 | 75.6 | 60.8 | 9.3 | 20.0 |
| NiagaraJan 24, 2026 · home | W 71–70 | 331 | 107.6 | 106.1 | 66.0 | 55.6 | 13.6 | 12.5 |
| CanisiusJan 23, 2026 · home | W 69–66 | 354 | 100.0 | 95.6 | 69.0 | 54.3 | 17.4 | 19.4 |
| RiderJan 19, 2026 · road | W 105–85 | 342 | 136.0 | 110.1 | 77.2 | 73.7 | 11.7 | 13.8 |
| SienaJan 15, 2026 · road | W 86–80 | 221 | 127.5 | 118.6 | 67.5 | 52.1 | 7.4 | 31.7 |
| QuinnipiacJan 11, 2026 · home | L 60–70 | 192 | 92.8 | 108.3 | 64.7 | 47.3 | 23.2 | 30.8 |
| MaristJan 10, 2026 · home | L 72–76 | 200 | 113.3 | 119.6 | 63.6 | 51.0 | 22.0 | 34.4 |
| CanisiusJan 4, 2026 · road | L 78–82 | 354 | 114.0 | 119.8 | 68.4 | 55.1 | 17.5 | 21.4 |
| NiagaraJan 2, 2026 · road | L 61–64 | 331 | 104.9 | 110.1 | 58.1 | 43.4 | 24.1 | 45.7 |
| MerrimackDec 29, 2025 · home | L 72–80 | 180 | 109.1 | 121.2 | 66.0 | 52.6 | 19.7 | 37.1 |
| TowsonDec 22, 2025 · road | L 47–72 | 150 | 72.2 | 110.6 | 65.1 | 39.7 | 24.6 | 26.3 |
| DartmouthDec 19, 2025 · home | W 85–63 | 253 | 114.8 | 85.1 | 74.1 | 47.5 | 12.2 | 42.9 |
| UMass LowellDec 16, 2025 · road | L 82–87 | 272 | 111.7 | 118.5 | 73.4 | 60.7 | 19.1 | 21.9 |
| NJITDec 13, 2025 · road | W 65–49 | 350 | 102.9 | 77.6 | 63.2 | 48.2 | 15.8 | 34.4 |
| IonaDec 7, 2025 · home | L 69–81 | 215 | 97.7 | 114.7 | 70.6 | 52.7 | 28.3 | 32.4 |
| Mount St MarysDec 4, 2025 · road | W 87–80 | 264 | 128.9 | 118.6 | 67.5 | 55.3 | 16.3 | 44.1 |
| Penn StateNov 29, 2025 · road | L 59–90 | 103 | 76.1 | 116.1 | 77.5 | 45.4 | 31.0 | 18.2 |
| C ConnecticutNov 25, 2025 · road | L 106–108 | 260 | 130.0 | 132.5 | 72.5 | 60.4 | 14.7 | 27.3 |
| Holy CrossNov 22, 2025 · home | W 79–66 | 334 | 118.1 | 98.6 | 66.9 | 56.5 | 14.9 | 27.8 |
| QueensNov 15, 2025 · road | L 64–81 | 205 | 92.1 | 116.5 | 69.5 | 43.1 | 17.3 | 30.2 |
| VillanovaNov 12, 2025 · road | L 60–94 | 36 | 91.4 | 143.2 | 65.6 | 51.8 | 25.9 | 28.1 |
| DuquesneNov 8, 2025 · road | L 80–92 | 129 | 107.8 | 124.0 | 74.2 | 43.8 | 14.8 | 34.9 |
| Merch MarineNov 5, 2025 · home | W 103–46 | Unrated | 149.7 | 66.9 | 68.8 | 65.1 | 16.0 | 58.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dashon GittensG | 32 | 34.0 | 13.5 | 5.8 | 2.8 | 62.3 | 19.0% | 32 | 1.4832 games | 11732 games |
| Yann FarellF | 32 | 30.7 | 11.8 | 4.9 | 1.3 | 61.6 | 17.6% | 32 | 1.2132 games | 16332 games |
| Nyle Ralph-BeyerG | 31 | 30.5 | 14.2 | 3.8 | 0.7 | 61.1 | 21.1% | 31 | 0.7431 games | 20931 games |
| Mekhi ConnerG | 31 | 29.6 | 7.6 | 3.4 | 6.3 | 45.0 | 18.8% | 31 | 2.4931 games | 18131 games |
| Anquan HillF | 27 | 32.5 | 17.6 | 6.1 | 1.1 | 56.6 | 27.5% | 27 | 0.6127 games | 12527 games |
| Jaden SlaughterG | 32 | 20.7 | 5.3 | 3.3 | 1.1 | 54.7 | 14.3% | 32 | 1.1732 games | 3132 games |
| Abdou YaddF | 26 | 14.9 | 6.2 | 2.5 | 0.6 | 48.4 | 26.0% | 26 | 0.4326 games | 8326 games |
| Fallou GueyeG | 27 | 13.2 | 3.3 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 45.3 | 17.1% | 27 | 1.4527 games | 4727 games |
| Taj BryantG | 20 | 14.1 | 3.2 | 3.2 | 1.5 | 48.9 | 16.5% | 20 | 1.1120 games | 2220 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 Sacred Heart?
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
13Same-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 | 4,263 | 4,263 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,361 | 2,361 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,624 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dashon Gittens →G | Same programSacred Heart Pioneers | 34.0 | 13.5 | 62.3% |
| Yann Farell →F | Same programSacred Heart Pioneers | 30.7 | 11.8 | 61.6% |
| Nyle Ralph-Beyer →G | Same programSacred Heart Pioneers | 30.5 | 14.2 | 61.1% |
| Mekhi Conner →G | Same programSacred Heart Pioneers | 29.6 | 7.6 | 45.0% |
| Anquan Hill →F | Same programSacred Heart Pioneers | 32.5 | 17.6 | 56.6% |
| Jaden Slaughter →G | Same programSacred Heart Pioneers | 20.7 | 5.3 | 54.7% |
| Abdou Yadd →F | Same programSacred Heart Pioneers | 14.9 | 6.2 | 48.4% |
| Fallou Gueye →G | Same programSacred Heart Pioneers | 13.2 | 3.3 | 45.3% |
| Taj Bryant →G | Same programSacred Heart Pioneers | 14.1 | 3.2 | 48.9% |
| Lucius Gibson-Savadel →F | Same programSacred Heart Pioneers | 7.3 | 2.1 | 67.2% |
| Malik Sheppard →G | Same programSacred Heart Pioneers | 1.7 | 0.7 | 50.0% |
| Alex Woodring →F | Same programSacred Heart Pioneers | 1.3 | 0.0 | — |
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…
Sacred Heart vs Providence
71.8Sacred Heart
88.4Providence
Providence win estimate87.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin16.6
Projected total160.1
80% home-margin range0.7 to 32.5
Estimated possessions71.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.0 pts
Providence attack 54.2% · Sacred Heart defense 53.5%Sacred Heart attack 51.0% · Providence defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 1.7 pts
Providence attack 17.3% · Sacred Heart defense 16.5%Sacred Heart attack 17.6% · Providence defense 15.2%
Second chancesHome 1.1 pts
Providence attack 31.9% · Sacred Heart defense 31.3%Sacred Heart attack 27.9% · Providence defense 28.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 6.6 pts
Providence attack 36.3% · Sacred Heart defense 30.8%Sacred Heart attack 31.3% · Providence defense 32.3%
Amica Mutual Pavilion
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Sacred Heart vs Georgetown
68.9Sacred Heart
82.4Georgetown
Georgetown win estimate83.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.5
Projected total151.3
80% home-margin range-2.4 to 29.5
Estimated possessions69.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.4 pts
Georgetown attack 50.7% · Sacred Heart defense 53.5%Sacred Heart attack 51.0% · Georgetown defense 50.3%
Ball securityHome 0.3 pts
Georgetown attack 16.6% · Sacred Heart defense 16.5%Sacred Heart attack 17.6% · Georgetown defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 2.7 pts
Georgetown attack 32.2% · Sacred Heart defense 31.3%Sacred Heart attack 27.9% · Georgetown defense 29.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.5 pts
Georgetown attack 34.5% · Sacred Heart defense 30.8%Sacred Heart attack 31.3% · Georgetown defense 33.2%
Capital One Arena
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 →