A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
23.8% · rank 6 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Saint Mary's
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.18
+21.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
27–62025–26 recorded finals
116.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
94.7Adjusted defense · lower is better
65.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Saint Mary's.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
27–633 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.3Mean opponent adj. net 6.2 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 114 / 366 · 69th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
46.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 20 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.6%33 games · lower is betterRank 183 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 268 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
37.7%33 games · higher is betterRank 13 / 366 · 97th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
23.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 6 / 366 · 99th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 159 / 366 · 57th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
25.8%33 games · lower is betterRank 17 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 116.7 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 97.4 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.9% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 46.2% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 39.0% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.0% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 36.5% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.7% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 79.8% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.0% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 57.8% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 53.1% | 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?
2,190 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
Offensive rebound rate
37.7% · rank 13 of 366 · 33 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Turnover rate
16.6% · rank 183 of 366 · 33 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.5% · rank 268 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 6 times in the selected window; Saint Mary's 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 19, 2026 · neutral vs Texas A&M · L 50–63 · offense 84.5 / defense 106.4
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Texas A&MMar 19, 2026 · neutral | L 50–63 | 31 | 84.5 | 106.4 | 59.2 | 48.9 | 30.4 | 33.3 |
| Santa ClaraMar 10, 2026 · neutral | L 71–76 | 42 | 114.8 | 122.9 | 61.8 | 50.0 | 16.2 | 37.5 |
| GonzagaMar 1, 2026 · home | W 70–59 | 8 | 109.4 | 92.2 | 64.0 | 47.0 | 9.4 | 33.3 |
| Santa ClaraFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 86–67 | 42 | 131.5 | 102.4 | 65.4 | 57.7 | 19.9 | 58.3 |
| Washington StFeb 22, 2026 · road | W 83–67 | 117 | 131.9 | 106.5 | 62.9 | 62.7 | 15.9 | 44.8 |
| Seattle UFeb 19, 2026 · road | W 72–70 | 120 | 98.4 | 95.7 | 73.1 | 48.1 | 21.9 | 30.0 |
| PacificFeb 15, 2026 · road | W 72–61 | 207 | 113.5 | 96.2 | 63.4 | 45.5 | 6.3 | 34.1 |
| PepperdineFeb 12, 2026 · home | W 88–60 | 261 | 122.9 | 83.8 | 71.6 | 60.5 | 21.0 | 48.6 |
| San FranciscoFeb 8, 2026 · home | W 79–54 | 89 | 123.1 | 84.1 | 64.2 | 54.5 | 7.8 | 34.3 |
| San DiegoFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 87–60 | 263 | 136.3 | 94.0 | 63.8 | 62.3 | 15.7 | 41.9 |
| GonzagaFeb 1, 2026 · road | L 65–73 | 8 | 95.7 | 107.5 | 67.9 | 39.6 | 16.2 | 20.0 |
| PortlandJan 25, 2026 · road | W 75–69 | 258 | 115.7 | 106.5 | 64.8 | 53.6 | 18.5 | 36.7 |
| Oregon StJan 22, 2026 · home | W 81–51 | 139 | 128.8 | 81.1 | 62.9 | 55.2 | 11.1 | 39.4 |
| Santa ClaraJan 18, 2026 · road | L 54–62 | 42 | 80.6 | 92.6 | 67.0 | 34.5 | 19.4 | 33.3 |
| San FranciscoJan 14, 2026 · road | W 82–68 | 89 | 122.3 | 101.5 | 67.0 | 56.6 | 14.9 | 31.0 |
| Washington StJan 10, 2026 · home | W 88–82 | 117 | 124.4 | 115.9 | 70.8 | 60.7 | 19.8 | 28.6 |
| Seattle UJan 5, 2026 · home | W 93–76 | 120 | 143.8 | 117.5 | 64.7 | 61.1 | 13.9 | 58.6 |
| PortlandJan 3, 2026 · home | W 78–57 | 258 | 121.8 | 89.0 | 64.1 | 58.5 | 15.6 | 31.0 |
| PepperdineDec 31, 2025 · road | W 72–45 | 261 | 117.4 | 73.4 | 61.3 | 58.5 | 16.3 | 28.0 |
| LMUDec 29, 2025 · road | W 78–73 | 160 | 131.5 | 123.0 | 59.3 | 58.0 | 10.1 | 40.0 |
| Northern IowaDec 23, 2025 · home | W 63–58 | 87 | 101.8 | 93.8 | 61.9 | 35.8 | 17.8 | 40.5 |
| FAUDec 20, 2025 · home | W 88–75 | 94 | 115.4 | 98.3 | 76.3 | 50.0 | 17.0 | 41.7 |
| Boise StDec 14, 2025 · neutral | L 67–68 | 50 | 97.1 | 98.5 | 69.0 | 41.2 | 14.5 | 28.6 |
| DavidsonDec 7, 2025 · road | W 70–61 | 121 | 109.2 | 95.2 | 64.1 | 48.4 | 17.2 | 45.9 |
| VanderbiltNov 28, 2025 · neutral | L 71–96 | 29 | 98.0 | 132.5 | 72.5 | 51.0 | 22.1 | 20.7 |
| Virginia TechNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 77–66 | 79 | 113.6 | 97.4 | 67.8 | 57.4 | 22.1 | 40.7 |
| Wichita StNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 70–65 | 92 | 101.9 | 94.6 | 68.7 | 40.7 | 13.1 | 30.8 |
| UC MercedNov 23, 2025 · home | W 96–42 | Unrated | 137.2 | 60.0 | 70.0 | 59.4 | 11.4 | 43.2 |
| Arkansas StNov 20, 2025 · home | W 85–72 | 126 | 123.3 | 104.5 | 68.9 | 56.6 | 18.9 | 40.6 |
| North TexasNov 15, 2025 · home | W 80–49 | 101 | 119.7 | 73.3 | 66.8 | 51.6 | 22.5 | 54.1 |
| OhioNov 12, 2025 · home | W 90–60 | 189 | 129.7 | 86.5 | 69.4 | 58.9 | 13.0 | 41.9 |
| ChattanoogaNov 8, 2025 · home | W 87–66 | 201 | 129.1 | 97.9 | 67.4 | 66.7 | 20.8 | 28.6 |
| St Thomas (MN)Nov 4, 2025 · home | W 84–58 | 118 | 129.5 | 89.4 | 64.9 | 60.5 | 17.0 | 36.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joshua DentG | 33 | 36.2 | 13.2 | 2.5 | 5.6 | 62.0 | 18.3% | 33 | 2.4333 games | 15133 games |
| Paulius MurauskasF | 33 | 32.2 | 18.4 | 7.6 | 2.1 | 59.2 | 27.5% | 33 | 1.1533 games | 10833 games |
| Dillan ShawG | 33 | 27.5 | 7.5 | 5.4 | 1.5 | 56.9 | 14.3% | 33 | 1.5033 games | 12533 games |
| Mikey LewisG | 33 | 26.8 | 13.9 | 2.7 | 2.1 | 53.1 | 27.7% | 33 | 1.5633 games | 18533 games |
| Andrew McKeeverC | 33 | 23.1 | 8.2 | 9.2 | 1.8 | 52.8 | 21.0% | 33 | 1.0433 games | 033 games |
| Harry WesselsC | 32 | 16.7 | 4.8 | 5.1 | 0.6 | 55.4 | 15.2% | 32 | 0.8632 games | 032 games |
| Liam CampbellG | 33 | 14.7 | 4.9 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 66.9 | 14.2% | 33 | 1.0033 games | 5033 games |
| Rory HawkeG | 31 | 11.0 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 59.4 | 12.1% | 31 | 0.6531 games | 1831 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 Saint Mary'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.
14Source-listed players
12Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
92%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 | 8 | 4,147 | 4,147 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,156 | 1,156 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 763 | 763 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,066 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?
14 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Joshua Dent →G | Same programSaint Mary's Gaels | 36.2 | 13.2 | 62.0% |
| Paulius Murauskas →F | Same programSaint Mary's Gaels | 32.2 | 18.4 | 59.2% |
| Dillan Shaw →G | Same programSaint Mary's Gaels | 27.5 | 7.5 | 56.9% |
| Mikey Lewis →G | Same programSaint Mary's Gaels | 26.8 | 13.9 | 53.1% |
| Andrew McKeever →C | Same programSaint Mary's Gaels | 23.1 | 8.2 | 52.8% |
| Liam Campbell →G | Same programSaint Mary's Gaels | 14.7 | 4.9 | 66.9% |
| Rory Hawke →G | Same programSaint Mary's Gaels | 11.0 | 2.5 | 59.4% |
| Mantas Juzenas →G | Same programSaint Mary's Gaels | 5.8 | 2.1 | 65.4% |
| Tony Duckett →G | Same programSaint Mary's Gaels | 7.2 | 3.5 | 54.9% |
| Kevin Gad →F | Same programSaint Mary's Gaels | 10.1 | 1.4 | 45.5% |
| Cade Bennett →G | Same programSaint Mary's Gaels | 4.5 | 1.0 | 58.0% |
| Oliver Faubert →F | Same programSaint Mary's Gaels | 1.9 | 0.2 | 33.3% |
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…
Saint Mary's vs Nevada
70.7Saint Mary's
64.2Nevada
Nevada win estimate36.7%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-6.5
Projected total134.8
80% home-margin range-22.4 to 9.5
Estimated possessions63.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.2 pts
Nevada attack 52.1% · Saint Mary's defense 46.2%Saint Mary's attack 52.6% · Nevada defense 49.8%
Ball securityHome 0.1 pts
Nevada attack 15.2% · Saint Mary's defense 16.4%Saint Mary's attack 16.4% · Nevada defense 17.5%
Second chancesAway 4.3 pts
Nevada attack 29.8% · Saint Mary's defense 23.8%Saint Mary's attack 37.2% · Nevada defense 27.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 16.3 pts
Nevada attack 42.3% · Saint Mary's defense 29.4%Saint Mary's attack 33.8% · Nevada defense 37.1%
Lawlor Events Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Saint Louis vs Saint Mary's
67.6Saint Louis
77.3Saint Mary's
Saint Mary's win estimate77.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin9.6
Projected total144.9
80% home-margin range-6.3 to 25.5
Estimated possessions67.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 6.4 pts
Saint Mary's attack 52.6% · Saint Louis defense 48.5%Saint Louis attack 56.6% · Saint Mary's defense 46.2%
Ball securityAway 0.2 pts
Saint Mary's attack 16.4% · Saint Louis defense 15.2%Saint Louis attack 17.3% · Saint Mary's defense 16.4%
Second chancesHome 5.2 pts
Saint Mary's attack 37.2% · Saint Louis defense 27.4%Saint Louis attack 28.5% · Saint Mary's defense 23.8%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.5 pts
Saint Mary's attack 33.8% · Saint Louis defense 32.9%Saint Louis attack 33.7% · Saint Mary's defense 29.4%
University Credit Union Pavilion
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 →