A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
27.5% · rank 32 of 366 · 35 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Siena
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.221
-4.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
23–122025–26 recorded finals
103.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
108.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Siena.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
23–1235 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 64.2Mean opponent adj. net -5.8 · 35 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.4%35 games · higher is betterRank 256 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
48.5%35 games · lower is betterRank 60 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.8%35 games · lower is betterRank 131 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.0%35 games · higher is betterRank 166 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
31.8%35 games · higher is betterRank 154 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.5%35 games · lower is betterRank 156 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
33.4%35 games · higher is betterRank 223 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
27.5%35 games · lower is betterRank 32 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 109.2 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 102.2 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 52.5% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 48.5% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 30.6% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 32.3% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 32.2% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.4% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 77.1% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.0% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 53.2% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 48.3% | 35 | 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?
2,255 source possession rows across 35 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%
48.5% · rank 60 of 366 · 35 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
33.4% · rank 223 of 366 · 35 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Effective FG%
50.4% · rank 256 of 366 · 35 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 10 times in the selected window; Siena won 6. 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 19, 2026 · neutral vs Duke · L 65–71 · offense 105.0 / defense 114.7
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DukeMar 19, 2026 · neutral | L 65–71 | 1 | 105.0 | 114.7 | 61.9 | 45.4 | 9.7 | 28.9 |
| MerrimackMar 11, 2026 · neutral | W 64–54 | 180 | 100.7 | 84.9 | 63.6 | 41.8 | 22.0 | 44.1 |
| FairfieldMar 9, 2026 · neutral | W 76–61 | 271 | 119.0 | 95.5 | 63.9 | 54.8 | 15.7 | 32.3 |
| Mount St MarysMar 8, 2026 · neutral | W 63–58 | 264 | 104.4 | 96.1 | 60.3 | 42.0 | 13.3 | 33.3 |
| RiderMar 1, 2026 · home | W 76–61 | 342 | 114.2 | 91.6 | 66.6 | 50.9 | 12.0 | 21.9 |
| FairfieldFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 58–72 | 271 | 82.9 | 102.9 | 69.9 | 38.7 | 12.9 | 14.6 |
| Saint Peter'sFeb 22, 2026 · home | W 72–63 | 250 | 117.3 | 102.6 | 61.4 | 51.2 | 17.9 | 36.0 |
| MerrimackFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 72–79 | 180 | 113.6 | 124.7 | 56.3 | 52.0 | 18.9 | 37.9 |
| MaristFeb 15, 2026 · road | W 67–63 | 200 | 102.7 | 96.5 | 65.3 | 57.1 | 19.9 | 19.2 |
| QuinnipiacFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 62–74 | 192 | 92.8 | 110.8 | 66.8 | 40.0 | 15.0 | 28.2 |
| Saint Peter'sFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 65–70 | 250 | 95.5 | 102.9 | 68.0 | 45.4 | 14.7 | 18.8 |
| IonaFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 79–72 | 215 | 119.6 | 109.0 | 66.1 | 56.6 | 18.2 | 39.3 |
| CanisiusFeb 1, 2026 · road | W 78–63 | 354 | 130.9 | 105.7 | 59.6 | 61.8 | 15.1 | 38.5 |
| NiagaraJan 30, 2026 · road | W 82–79 | 331 | 130.1 | 125.3 | 63.1 | 67.4 | 15.9 | 20.0 |
| MaristJan 23, 2026 · home | W 69–50 | 200 | 114.0 | 82.6 | 60.5 | 50.9 | 13.2 | 27.6 |
| FairfieldJan 19, 2026 · home | W 85–77 | 271 | 131.6 | 119.2 | 64.6 | 75.0 | 20.1 | 25.0 |
| ManhattanJan 17, 2026 · road | W 74–59 | 323 | 118.3 | 94.3 | 62.6 | 64.0 | 19.2 | 32.1 |
| Sacred HeartJan 15, 2026 · home | L 80–86 | 279 | 118.6 | 127.5 | 67.5 | 50.0 | 4.4 | 30.0 |
| Mount St MarysJan 11, 2026 · road | W 67–50 | 264 | 108.9 | 81.3 | 61.5 | 48.2 | 13.0 | 31.4 |
| MerrimackJan 10, 2026 · home | L 59–63 | 180 | 108.8 | 116.2 | 54.2 | 44.8 | 18.4 | 54.5 |
| RiderJan 4, 2026 · road | W 74–65 | 342 | 123.7 | 108.7 | 59.8 | 51.8 | 18.4 | 54.5 |
| IonaJan 3, 2026 · road | L 72–75 | 215 | 100.4 | 104.6 | 71.7 | 46.2 | 12.6 | 23.1 |
| IndianaDec 22, 2025 · road | L 60–81 | 44 | 87.2 | 117.8 | 68.8 | 36.0 | 13.1 | 23.8 |
| VermontDec 18, 2025 · road | L 69–83 | 194 | 98.8 | 118.8 | 69.8 | 43.3 | 12.9 | 26.8 |
| CanisiusDec 7, 2025 · home | W 74–52 | 354 | 115.1 | 80.9 | 64.3 | 53.4 | 9.3 | 27.0 |
| NiagaraDec 6, 2025 · home | W 83–54 | 331 | 126.8 | 82.5 | 65.4 | 61.9 | 13.8 | 32.1 |
| MaineNov 30, 2025 · neutral | W 64–60 | 306 | 106.2 | 99.6 | 60.3 | 48.0 | 16.6 | 33.3 |
| AmericanNov 29, 2025 · road | W 59–55 | 247 | 84.5 | 78.8 | 69.8 | 43.2 | 28.7 | 35.3 |
| LongwoodNov 28, 2025 · neutral | W 70–63 | 220 | 103.7 | 93.3 | 67.5 | 58.2 | 19.3 | 17.2 |
| Holy CrossNov 24, 2025 · road | W 73–69 | 334 | 112.3 | 106.1 | 65.0 | 60.0 | 13.8 | 16.0 |
| UAlbanyNov 22, 2025 · home | W 73–63 | 303 | 120.6 | 104.1 | 60.5 | 53.9 | 18.2 | 38.5 |
| ColgateNov 18, 2025 · home | L 69–72 | 209 | 107.3 | 112.0 | 64.3 | 46.6 | 15.5 | 36.4 |
| St BonaventureNov 13, 2025 · road | L 66–75 | 125 | 102.7 | 116.7 | 64.3 | 45.3 | 21.8 | 45.5 |
| BrownNov 8, 2025 · road | W 62–46 | 249 | 93.1 | 69.1 | 66.6 | 41.2 | 21.0 | 38.5 |
| BryantNov 4, 2025 · home | W 82–66 | 298 | 123.1 | 99.1 | 66.6 | 50.0 | 10.5 | 47.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gavin DotyG | 35 | 36.7 | 18.0 | 6.9 | 2.2 | 57.0 | 24.6% | 35 | 2.2335 games | 14135 games |
| Justice ShoatsG | 35 | 35.6 | 13.1 | 2.6 | 4.5 | 50.4 | 23.4% | 35 | 1.7335 games | 4135 games |
| Brendan CoyleF | 35 | 30.5 | 8.7 | 4.6 | 0.9 | 50.2 | 17.1% | 35 | 0.9235 games | 23735 games |
| Francis FolefacF | 35 | 28.1 | 11.3 | 5.3 | 2.2 | 57.7 | 22.7% | 35 | 1.1035 games | 1635 games |
| Antonio ChandlerF | 29 | 22.1 | 7.3 | 5.6 | 0.4 | 66.2 | 14.9% | 29 | 0.6929 games | 729 games |
| Christian JonesG | 34 | 17.5 | 4.3 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 46.5 | 16.7% | 34 | 1.4634 games | 9734 games |
| Riley MulveyC | 26 | 18.1 | 3.9 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 63.5 | 12.2% | 26 | 1.5826 games | 126 games |
| Isaiah HendersonF | 28 | 13.8 | 3.8 | 0.8 | 0.5 | 52.1 | 16.4% | 28 | 0.9328 games | 6928 games |
| Tasman GoodrickF | 9 | 23.4 | 9.7 | 7.3 | 1.3 | 64.3 | 18.9% | 9 | 1.339 games | 19 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 Siena?
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.
17Source-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 | 10 | 3,252 | 3,252 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 3,303 | 3,303 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 470 | 470 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (7,025 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?
17 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gavin Doty →G | Same programSiena Saints | 36.7 | 18.0 | 57.0% |
| Justice Shoats →G | Same programSiena Saints | 35.6 | 13.1 | 50.4% |
| Brendan Coyle →F | Same programSiena Saints | 30.5 | 8.7 | 50.2% |
| Francis Folefac →F | Same programSiena Saints | 28.1 | 11.3 | 57.7% |
| Antonio Chandler →F | Same programSiena Saints | 22.1 | 7.3 | 66.2% |
| Christian Jones →G | Same programSiena Saints | 17.5 | 4.3 | 46.5% |
| Riley Mulvey →C | Same programSiena Saints | 18.1 | 3.9 | 63.5% |
| Isaiah Henderson →F | Same programSiena Saints | 13.8 | 3.8 | 52.1% |
| Tasman Goodrick →F | Same programSiena Saints | 23.4 | 9.7 | 64.3% |
| Owen Schlager →G | Same programSiena Saints | 10.0 | 2.8 | 44.4% |
| Marcus Jackson →G | Same programSiena Saints | 7.3 | 0.5 | 17.9% |
| Tajae Jones →F | Same programSiena Saints | 5.0 | 1.3 | 40.0% |
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…
Siena vs Dayton
62.0Siena
75.4Dayton
Dayton win estimate83.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.5
Projected total137.4
80% home-margin range-2.5 to 29.4
Estimated possessions65.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.9 pts
Dayton attack 53.6% · Siena defense 51.2%Siena attack 49.3% · Dayton defense 49.7%
Ball securityAway 0.9 pts
Dayton attack 16.5% · Siena defense 16.6%Siena attack 17.5% · Dayton defense 18.5%
Second chancesAway 3.8 pts
Dayton attack 28.3% · Siena defense 30.1%Siena attack 30.0% · Dayton defense 28.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 6.5 pts
Dayton attack 41.7% · Siena defense 32.5%Siena attack 35.2% · Dayton defense 32.4%
UD Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Brown vs Siena
65.0Brown
69.7Siena
Siena win estimate66.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.8
Projected total134.7
80% home-margin range-11.2 to 20.7
Estimated possessions66.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.2 pts
Siena attack 49.3% · Brown defense 50.6%Brown attack 50.1% · Siena defense 51.2%
Ball securityHome 2.3 pts
Siena attack 17.5% · Brown defense 17.3%Brown attack 19.1% · Siena defense 16.6%
Second chancesHome 0.6 pts
Siena attack 30.0% · Brown defense 29.9%Brown attack 29.6% · Siena defense 30.1%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.4 pts
Siena attack 35.2% · Brown defense 35.0%Brown attack 32.4% · Siena defense 32.5%
MVP Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
St Bonaventure vs Siena
70.7St Bonaventure
68.8Siena
Siena win estimate48.8%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.9
Projected total139.6
80% home-margin range-17.8 to 14.0
Estimated possessions65.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.8 pts
Siena attack 49.3% · St Bonaventure defense 51.4%St Bonaventure attack 51.9% · Siena defense 51.2%
Ball securityHome 0.3 pts
Siena attack 17.5% · St Bonaventure defense 17.7%St Bonaventure attack 16.7% · Siena defense 16.6%
Second chancesHome 0.5 pts
Siena attack 30.0% · St Bonaventure defense 28.5%St Bonaventure attack 31.0% · Siena defense 30.1%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.5 pts
Siena attack 35.2% · St Bonaventure defense 32.3%St Bonaventure attack 32.0% · Siena defense 32.5%
MVP 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 →