A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
47.5% · rank 40 of 366 · 37 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
St John's
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.14
+23.2 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
30–72025–26 recorded finals
116.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
93.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
70.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on St John's.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
30–737 recorded games · 37 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.6Mean opponent adj. net 12.5 · 37 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.1%37 games · higher is betterRank 215 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
47.5%37 games · lower is betterRank 40 / 366 · 89th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.4%37 games · lower is betterRank 40 / 366 · 89th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.1%37 games · higher is betterRank 63 / 366 · 83th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
35.2%37 games · higher is betterRank 53 / 366 · 86th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.9%37 games · lower is betterRank 178 / 366 · 52th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
40.2%37 games · higher is betterRank 54 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.8%37 games · lower is betterRank 110 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 114.3 | 37 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 98.4 | 37 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.5% | 37 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 47.8% | 37 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.5% | 37 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.3% | 37 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 35.2% | 37 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 33.1% | 37 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.2% | 37 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.0% | 37 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 57.9% | 37 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 46.6% | 37 | 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?
2,639 source possession rows across 37 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
Turnover rate
14.4% · rank 40 of 366 · 37 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.9% · rank 178 of 366 · 37 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Effective FG%
51.1% · rank 215 of 366 · 37 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 8 times in the selected window; St John's 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 27, 2026 · neutral vs Duke · L 75–80 · offense 117.0 / defense 124.8
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 · 37 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| DukeMar 27, 2026 · neutral | L 75–80 | 1 | 117.0 | 124.8 | 64.1 | 55.5 | 9.4 | 26.3 |
| KansasMar 22, 2026 · neutral | W 67–65 | 17 | 95.5 | 92.7 | 70.2 | 44.2 | 11.4 | 23.9 |
| Northern IowaMar 20, 2026 · neutral | W 79–53 | 87 | 125.2 | 84.0 | 63.1 | 56.1 | 12.7 | 34.3 |
| UConnMar 14, 2026 · home | W 72–52 | 10 | 114.5 | 82.7 | 62.9 | 52.7 | 12.7 | 27.6 |
| Seton HallMar 13, 2026 · home | W 78–68 | 78 | 117.3 | 102.3 | 66.5 | 56.3 | 19.6 | 40.0 |
| ProvidenceMar 12, 2026 · home | W 85–72 | 73 | 112.6 | 95.4 | 75.5 | 47.4 | 11.9 | 40.9 |
| Seton HallMar 7, 2026 · road | W 72–65 | 78 | 112.3 | 101.3 | 64.1 | 56.7 | 15.6 | 26.7 |
| GeorgetownMar 4, 2026 · home | W 72–69 | 105 | 103.5 | 99.2 | 69.6 | 43.9 | 12.9 | 35.7 |
| VillanovaMar 1, 2026 · home | W 89–57 | 36 | 122.8 | 78.6 | 72.5 | 59.0 | 11.0 | 27.6 |
| UConnFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 40–72 | 10 | 68.8 | 123.8 | 58.2 | 24.1 | 13.8 | 33.3 |
| CreightonFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 81–52 | 47 | 108.4 | 69.6 | 74.7 | 48.4 | 14.7 | 28.6 |
| MarquetteFeb 19, 2026 · road | W 76–70 | 46 | 110.9 | 102.2 | 68.5 | 51.7 | 17.5 | 36.1 |
| ProvidenceFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 79–69 | 73 | 104.9 | 91.6 | 75.3 | 42.6 | 5.3 | 25.0 |
| XavierFeb 9, 2026 · home | W 87–82 | 68 | 105.1 | 99.1 | 73.6 | 44.7 | 12.1 | 30.2 |
| UConnFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 81–72 | 10 | 117.9 | 104.8 | 68.7 | 54.6 | 14.6 | 31.0 |
| DePaulFeb 4, 2026 · road | W 68–56 | 134 | 103.6 | 85.3 | 65.6 | 40.0 | 10.7 | 36.6 |
| ButlerJan 29, 2026 · home | W 92–70 | 82 | 147.3 | 112.1 | 62.5 | 63.3 | 8.0 | 41.9 |
| XavierJan 24, 2026 · road | W 88–83 | 68 | 115.1 | 108.5 | 76.5 | 53.7 | 13.1 | 32.5 |
| Seton HallJan 21, 2026 · home | W 65–60 | 78 | 101.8 | 93.9 | 63.9 | 37.3 | 18.8 | 46.5 |
| VillanovaJan 18, 2026 · road | W 86–79 | 36 | 121.0 | 111.2 | 71.1 | 56.0 | 12.7 | 36.4 |
| MarquetteJan 13, 2026 · home | W 92–68 | 46 | 123.3 | 91.1 | 74.6 | 54.6 | 16.1 | 40.6 |
| CreightonJan 10, 2026 · road | W 90–73 | 47 | 134.3 | 108.9 | 67.0 | 60.0 | 9.0 | 33.3 |
| ButlerJan 7, 2026 · road | W 84–70 | 82 | 117.8 | 98.1 | 71.3 | 55.3 | 7.0 | 20.0 |
| ProvidenceJan 3, 2026 · home | L 71–77 | 73 | 94.7 | 102.8 | 74.9 | 33.1 | 16.0 | 46.3 |
| GeorgetownJan 1, 2026 · road | W 95–83 | 105 | 136.4 | 119.2 | 69.6 | 62.5 | 15.8 | 42.4 |
| HarvardDec 23, 2025 · home | W 85–59 | 175 | 125.2 | 86.9 | 67.9 | 57.3 | 17.7 | 46.7 |
| KentuckyDec 20, 2025 · neutral | L 66–78 | 20 | 95.2 | 112.5 | 69.3 | 38.2 | 17.3 | 32.4 |
| DePaulDec 17, 2025 · home | W 79–66 | 134 | 112.6 | 94.1 | 70.2 | 53.4 | 14.3 | 29.4 |
| IonaDec 13, 2025 · home | W 91–64 | 215 | 119.6 | 84.1 | 76.1 | 60.3 | 22.3 | 34.5 |
| Ole MissDec 7, 2025 · home | W 63–58 | 54 | 88.0 | 81.0 | 71.6 | 38.0 | 27.9 | 39.5 |
| AuburnNov 27, 2025 · neutral | L 74–85 | 15 | 111.1 | 127.7 | 66.6 | 44.2 | 21.0 | 45.2 |
| BaylorNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 96–81 | 33 | 133.8 | 112.9 | 71.8 | 66.4 | 13.9 | 29.0 |
| Iowa StateNov 24, 2025 · neutral | L 82–83 | 5 | 119.6 | 121.1 | 68.6 | 49.2 | 14.6 | 41.7 |
| BucknellNov 21, 2025 · home | W 97–49 | 310 | 127.8 | 64.6 | 75.9 | 58.5 | 17.1 | 48.6 |
| William & MaryNov 15, 2025 · home | W 93–60 | 195 | 116.1 | 74.9 | 80.1 | 52.0 | 13.7 | 39.0 |
| AlabamaNov 8, 2025 · home | L 96–103 | 12 | 114.0 | 122.3 | 84.2 | 54.0 | 14.2 | 25.6 |
| QuinnipiacNov 3, 2025 · home | W 108–74 | 192 | 129.2 | 88.5 | 83.6 | 62.3 | 16.7 | 43.2 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Zuby EjioforF | 37 | 30.1 | 16.3 | 7.3 | 3.5 | 60.9 | 24.8% | 37 | 1.6837 games | 5937 games |
| Bryce HopkinsF | 37 | 28.8 | 13.6 | 6.2 | 1.9 | 55.8 | 22.6% | 37 | 1.5337 games | 9137 games |
| Oziyah SellersG | 37 | 28.6 | 10.3 | 2.7 | 1.6 | 54.7 | 17.0% | 37 | 2.4037 games | 15137 games |
| Dillon MitchellF | 37 | 28.1 | 8.3 | 7.0 | 3.0 | 55.5 | 14.7% | 37 | 3.0037 games | 1537 games |
| Joson SanonG | 37 | 20.9 | 7.9 | 2.4 | 0.7 | 47.7 | 21.1% | 37 | 0.6737 games | 14337 games |
| Dylan DarlingG | 35 | 21.3 | 6.9 | 2.5 | 2.6 | 52.1 | 17.2% | 35 | 2.5335 games | 10135 games |
| Ian JacksonG | 36 | 18.2 | 9.4 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 54.4 | 26.5% | 36 | 0.8836 games | 14336 games |
| Ruben PreyF | 37 | 10.7 | 4.3 | 2.1 | 0.8 | 60.8 | 18.2% | 37 | 1.5037 games | 2437 games |
| Lefteris LiotopoulosG | 30 | 7.7 | 2.9 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 51.3 | 20.2% | 30 | 0.9230 games | 5330 games |
| Sadiku Ibine AyoF | 30 | 7.7 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.4 | 49.6 | 12.4% | 30 | 1.6330 games | 1930 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 St John's?
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.
11Source-listed players
10Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
42%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 | 7 | 2,498 | 2,498 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 3 | 628 | 628 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 19 | 19 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (3,145 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?
11 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joson Sanon →G | Same programSt. John's Red Storm | 20.9 | 7.9 | 47.7% |
| Dylan Darling →G | Same programSt. John's Red Storm | 21.3 | 6.9 | 52.1% |
| Ian Jackson →G | Same programSt. John's Red Storm | 18.2 | 9.4 | 54.4% |
| Ruben Prey →F | Same programSt. John's Red Storm | 10.7 | 4.3 | 60.8% |
| Lefteris Liotopoulos →G | Same programSt. John's Red Storm | 7.7 | 2.9 | 51.3% |
| Sadiku Ibine Ayo →F | Same programSt. John's Red Storm | 7.7 | 1.8 | 49.6% |
| Kelvin Odih →G | Same programSt. John's Red Storm | 5.4 | 1.5 | 47.0% |
| Casper Pohto →G | Same programSt. John's Red Storm | 5.4 | 0.4 | 20.0% |
| Handje Tamba →C | Same programSt. John's Red Storm | 2.4 | 0.6 | 50.5% |
| Fotis Konstantinidis →G | Same programSt. John's Red Storm | 1.3 | 0.5 | 150.0% |
| Imran Suljanovic →F | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Arizona vs St John's
78.3Arizona
76.7St John's
St John's win estimate49.6%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.7
Projected total155.0
80% home-margin range-17.6 to 14.3
Estimated possessions73.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.8 pts
St John's attack 51.9% · Arizona defense 45.9%Arizona attack 55.7% · St John's defense 46.9%
Ball securityAway 2.5 pts
St John's attack 15.4% · Arizona defense 17.1%Arizona attack 15.5% · St John's defense 19.7%
Second chancesHome 3.3 pts
St John's attack 36.2% · Arizona defense 25.0%Arizona attack 36.5% · St John's defense 28.6%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.6 pts
St John's attack 36.6% · Arizona defense 28.6%Arizona attack 40.6% · St John's defense 33.2%
Madison Square Garden
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
St John's vs Alabama
82.7St John's
84.7Alabama
Alabama win estimate59.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin2.0
Projected total167.4
80% home-margin range-13.9 to 17.9
Estimated possessions75.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 5.0 pts
Alabama attack 57.1% · St John's defense 46.9%St John's attack 51.9% · Alabama defense 46.7%
Ball securityHome 4.8 pts
Alabama attack 15.2% · St John's defense 19.7%St John's attack 15.4% · Alabama defense 15.1%
Second chancesAway 2.8 pts
Alabama attack 34.0% · St John's defense 28.6%St John's attack 36.2% · Alabama defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.3 pts
Alabama attack 38.1% · St John's defense 33.2%St John's attack 36.6% · Alabama defense 33.0%
Legacy Arena at BJCC
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 →