A relative strength
Turnovers forced
21.5% · rank 9 of 366 · 33 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Seton Hall
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.78
+9.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
21–122025–26 recorded finals
106.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
97.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Seton Hall.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
21–1233 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.5Mean opponent adj. net 9.1 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
47.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 339 / 366 · 7th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
47.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 33 / 366 · 91th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.7%33 games · lower is betterRank 185 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
21.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 9 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
35.6%33 games · higher is betterRank 42 / 366 · 89th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 278 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.3%33 games · higher is betterRank 171 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
42.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 335 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 105.8 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 98.3 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 48.3% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 46.3% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 30.5% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.4% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 26.8% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 42.2% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.3% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.2% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.6% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 58.3% | 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?
2,202 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
Opponent effective FG%
47.3% · rank 33 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
42.1% · rank 335 of 366 · 33 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Effective FG%
47.6% · rank 339 of 366 · 33 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
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; Seton Hall won 4. 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 13, 2026 · road vs St John's · L 68–78 · offense 102.3 / defense 117.3
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| St John'sMar 13, 2026 · road | L 68–78 | 14 | 102.3 | 117.3 | 66.5 | 45.4 | 18.1 | 39.5 |
| CreightonMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 72–61 | 47 | 104.4 | 88.5 | 68.9 | 44.1 | 10.2 | 23.7 |
| St John'sMar 7, 2026 · home | L 65–72 | 14 | 101.3 | 112.3 | 64.1 | 42.0 | 14.0 | 38.9 |
| XavierMar 4, 2026 · road | W 77–68 | 68 | 121.4 | 107.2 | 63.4 | 51.6 | 12.6 | 43.8 |
| UConnFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 67–71 | 10 | 106.3 | 112.7 | 63.0 | 55.7 | 23.8 | 33.3 |
| GeorgetownFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 51–47 | 105 | 80.8 | 74.4 | 63.1 | 30.9 | 20.6 | 43.6 |
| DePaulFeb 19, 2026 · home | L 57–69 | 134 | 88.0 | 106.6 | 64.7 | 51.1 | 23.2 | 12.0 |
| ButlerFeb 15, 2026 · road | W 63–56 | 82 | 94.1 | 83.6 | 67.0 | 54.1 | 20.9 | 22.6 |
| ProvidenceFeb 12, 2026 · home | W 87–80 | 73 | 127.1 | 116.8 | 68.5 | 55.7 | 7.3 | 26.5 |
| CreightonFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 68–69 | 47 | 102.0 | 103.5 | 66.7 | 54.6 | 21.0 | 30.0 |
| VillanovaFeb 4, 2026 · road | L 60–72 | 36 | 94.7 | 113.7 | 63.3 | 44.6 | 15.8 | 25.0 |
| MarquetteJan 31, 2026 · home | W 69–64 | 46 | 110.8 | 102.8 | 62.3 | 54.4 | 22.5 | 44.4 |
| XavierJan 29, 2026 · home | W 86–68 | 68 | 118.6 | 93.8 | 72.5 | 46.4 | 13.8 | 48.8 |
| DePaulJan 24, 2026 · road | L 60–67 | 134 | 90.1 | 100.6 | 66.6 | 41.0 | 15.0 | 27.8 |
| St John'sJan 21, 2026 · road | L 60–65 | 14 | 93.9 | 101.8 | 63.9 | 42.2 | 20.4 | 46.2 |
| ButlerJan 17, 2026 · home | L 66–77 | 82 | 98.3 | 114.6 | 67.2 | 38.3 | 19.4 | 48.8 |
| UConnJan 14, 2026 · home | L 64–69 | 10 | 99.1 | 106.8 | 64.6 | 42.2 | 21.7 | 48.8 |
| GeorgetownJan 10, 2026 · road | W 76–67 | 105 | 108.8 | 96.0 | 69.8 | 45.6 | 15.8 | 36.8 |
| CreightonJan 4, 2026 · home | W 56–54 | 47 | 88.5 | 85.3 | 63.3 | 37.7 | 12.6 | 16.7 |
| MarquetteDec 31, 2025 · road | W 79–73 | 46 | 110.8 | 102.4 | 71.3 | 44.5 | 18.2 | 48.8 |
| VillanovaDec 24, 2025 · home | L 56–64 | 36 | 88.7 | 101.4 | 63.1 | 35.7 | 14.3 | 34.8 |
| ProvidenceDec 19, 2025 · road | W 72–67 | 73 | 103.5 | 96.4 | 69.5 | 50.0 | 18.7 | 32.4 |
| RutgersDec 14, 2025 · home | W 81–59 | 107 | 119.9 | 87.3 | 67.6 | 58.1 | 22.2 | 50.0 |
| Kansas StDec 6, 2025 · road | W 78–67 | 83 | 100.6 | 86.4 | 77.5 | 42.4 | 15.5 | 34.9 |
| C ConnecticutDec 4, 2025 · home | W 77–61 | 260 | 121.4 | 96.2 | 63.4 | 55.1 | 12.6 | 32.4 |
| Washington StNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 75–61 | 117 | 113.0 | 91.9 | 66.4 | 60.4 | 21.1 | 29.2 |
| USCNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 81–83 | 72 | 116.9 | 119.8 | 69.3 | 60.5 | 13.0 | 17.2 |
| NC StateNov 24, 2025 · neutral | W 85–74 | 45 | 115.0 | 100.1 | 73.9 | 58.0 | 18.9 | 25.0 |
| New HavenNov 19, 2025 · home | W 68–45 | 332 | 110.1 | 72.8 | 61.8 | 55.6 | 16.2 | 23.3 |
| MonmouthNov 14, 2025 · home | W 70–58 | 211 | 104.8 | 86.8 | 66.8 | 39.5 | 12.0 | 37.2 |
| FairfieldNov 11, 2025 · home | W 82–59 | 271 | 119.5 | 86.0 | 68.6 | 44.7 | 10.2 | 37.2 |
| WagnerNov 8, 2025 · home | W 68–61 | 313 | 105.3 | 94.5 | 64.6 | 45.9 | 17.0 | 50.0 |
| Saint Peter'sNov 4, 2025 · home | W 77–50 | 250 | 127.7 | 83.0 | 60.3 | 52.2 | 13.3 | 39.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adam ClarkG | 33 | 30.7 | 12.7 | 3.0 | 4.9 | 49.9 | 25.3% | 33 | 1.8733 games | 4133 games |
| AJ Staton-McCrayG | 33 | 27.5 | 11.8 | 3.2 | 1.4 | 51.7 | 23.5% | 33 | 1.0233 games | 16233 games |
| Tajuan SimpkinsG | 33 | 25.1 | 9.7 | 2.8 | 1.2 | 53.9 | 20.3% | 33 | 1.1133 games | 10033 games |
| Mike WilliamsG | 33 | 20.9 | 7.0 | 2.6 | 1.5 | 48.6 | 19.9% | 33 | 1.4733 games | 9833 games |
| Elijah FisherG | 33 | 20.7 | 6.6 | 2.9 | 0.8 | 52.0 | 17.5% | 33 | 1.0033 games | 3833 games |
| Stephon PayneF | 33 | 20.2 | 5.9 | 6.5 | 0.6 | 52.9 | 15.7% | 33 | 0.8333 games | 033 games |
| Najai HinesF | 31 | 17.9 | 6.5 | 5.5 | 0.6 | 62.3 | 16.9% | 31 | 0.7231 games | 031 games |
| Trey ParkerG | 32 | 15.5 | 4.3 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 44.8 | 19.0% | 32 | 1.3432 games | 4432 games |
| Josh RiveraF | 30 | 11.7 | 3.3 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 50.9 | 15.5% | 30 | 1.2730 games | 630 games |
| Jacob DarG | 30 | 10.4 | 3.3 | 2.0 | 0.3 | 55.5 | 15.9% | 30 | 1.0030 games | 2130 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 Seton Hall?
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.
15Source-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 | 9 | 4,975 | 4,975 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,575 | 1,575 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 49 | 49 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,599 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?
15 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Adam Clark →G | Same programSeton Hall Pirates | 30.7 | 12.7 | 49.9% |
| AJ Staton-McCray →G | Same programSeton Hall Pirates | 27.5 | 11.8 | 51.7% |
| Tajuan Simpkins →G | Same programSeton Hall Pirates | 25.1 | 9.7 | 53.9% |
| Mike Williams →G | Same programSeton Hall Pirates | 20.9 | 7.0 | 48.6% |
| Elijah Fisher →G | Same programSeton Hall Pirates | 20.7 | 6.6 | 52.0% |
| Stephon Payne →F | Same programSeton Hall Pirates | 20.2 | 5.9 | 52.9% |
| Najai Hines →F | Same programSeton Hall Pirates | 17.9 | 6.5 | 62.3% |
| Trey Parker →G | Same programSeton Hall Pirates | 15.5 | 4.3 | 44.8% |
| Josh Rivera →F | Same programSeton Hall Pirates | 11.7 | 3.3 | 50.9% |
| Jacob Dar →G | Same programSeton Hall Pirates | 10.4 | 3.3 | 55.5% |
| Godswill Erheriene →C | Same programSeton Hall Pirates | 4.5 | 0.8 | 62.3% |
| Jahseem Felton →G | Same programSeton Hall Pirates | 14.0 | 1.7 | 25.3% |
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…
Seton Hall vs Alabama
69.6Seton Hall
84.9Alabama
Alabama win estimate86.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.2
Projected total154.5
80% home-margin range-0.7 to 31.2
Estimated possessions71.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 5.1 pts
Alabama attack 57.1% · Seton Hall defense 49.2%Seton Hall attack 49.5% · Alabama defense 46.7%
Ball securityHome 8.4 pts
Alabama attack 15.2% · Seton Hall defense 20.9%Seton Hall attack 17.8% · Alabama defense 15.1%
Second chancesAway 1.3 pts
Alabama attack 34.0% · Seton Hall defense 29.8%Seton Hall attack 33.4% · Alabama defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.5 pts
Alabama attack 38.1% · Seton Hall defense 38.3%Seton Hall attack 36.2% · Alabama defense 33.0%
Coleman Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Kansas St vs Seton Hall
67.9Kansas St
71.6Seton Hall
Seton Hall win estimate63.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin3.7
Projected total139.5
80% home-margin range-12.2 to 19.7
Estimated possessions69.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 3.5 pts
Seton Hall attack 49.5% · Kansas St defense 49.1%Kansas St attack 53.1% · Seton Hall defense 49.2%
Ball securityAway 3.1 pts
Seton Hall attack 17.8% · Kansas St defense 17.9%Kansas St attack 17.7% · Seton Hall defense 20.9%
Second chancesHome 2.1 pts
Seton Hall attack 33.4% · Kansas St defense 30.4%Kansas St attack 30.8% · Seton Hall defense 29.8%
Free-throw pressureHome 8.7 pts
Seton Hall attack 36.2% · Kansas St defense 33.5%Kansas St attack 32.3% · Seton Hall defense 38.3%
Prudential 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 →