A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
49.6% · rank 110 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Stony Brook
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.280
-8.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
17–152025–26 recorded finals
102.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
111.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.8Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Stony Brook.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
17–1532 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.0Mean opponent adj. net -3.0 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 245 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 110 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 180 / 366 · 51th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 125 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 276 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 277 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
28.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 340 / 366 · 7th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 174 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 105.9 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 105.0 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 48.8% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 47.7% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.9% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.1% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 46.0% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.6% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.2% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.8% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.8% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 53.5% | 32 | 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?
2,180 source possession rows across 32 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
Turnovers forced
17.7% · rank 125 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.9% · rank 277 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
28.2% · rank 340 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
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; Stony Brook 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 7, 2026 · neutral vs Campbell · L 89–96 · offense 123.2 / defense 132.8
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| CampbellMar 7, 2026 · neutral | L 89–96 | 208 | 123.2 | 132.8 | 72.3 | 55.6 | 13.8 | 29.4 |
| TowsonMar 3, 2026 · home | L 57–69 | 150 | 93.1 | 112.7 | 61.2 | 45.8 | 16.3 | 24.3 |
| HofstraMar 1, 2026 · road | L 58–67 | 115 | 83.8 | 96.8 | 69.2 | 36.9 | 14.4 | 27.1 |
| MonmouthFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 69–82 | 211 | 102.2 | 121.4 | 67.5 | 52.4 | 19.2 | 26.5 |
| HamptonFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 79–72 | 288 | 114.6 | 104.5 | 68.9 | 64.1 | 23.2 | 24.0 |
| DrexelFeb 17, 2026 · home | W 72–69 | 185 | 110.1 | 105.5 | 65.4 | 46.7 | 9.2 | 27.0 |
| TowsonFeb 13, 2026 · road | L 57–69 | 150 | 89.9 | 108.8 | 63.4 | 39.5 | 11.0 | 27.9 |
| NortheasternFeb 7, 2026 · home | W 69–55 | 262 | 102.9 | 82.0 | 67.1 | 55.0 | 19.4 | 13.8 |
| MonmouthFeb 6, 2026 · home | L 75–76 | 211 | 104.5 | 105.9 | 71.8 | 52.6 | 23.7 | 31.4 |
| ElonJan 31, 2026 · road | W 72–68 | 237 | 104.3 | 98.5 | 69.0 | 46.7 | 18.8 | 36.1 |
| CampbellJan 30, 2026 · road | W 81–69 | 208 | 121.7 | 103.6 | 66.6 | 56.8 | 15.0 | 36.4 |
| NortheasternJan 23, 2026 · road | W 95–80 | 262 | 133.3 | 112.3 | 71.3 | 71.4 | 21.0 | 37.0 |
| CharlestonJan 17, 2026 · home | W 112–106 | 135 | 129.6 | 122.7 | 69.1 | 63.0 | 9.3 | 20.0 |
| HofstraJan 16, 2026 · home | W 76–71 | 115 | 128.4 | 120.0 | 59.2 | 57.9 | 11.8 | 36.4 |
| UNC WilmingtonJan 10, 2026 · home | L 71–75 | 113 | 108.4 | 114.5 | 65.5 | 55.0 | 15.3 | 21.9 |
| DrexelJan 9, 2026 · road | L 37–56 | 185 | 64.9 | 98.3 | 57.0 | 24.6 | 14.0 | 34.0 |
| NC A&TJan 3, 2026 · home | W 81–80 | 318 | 124.0 | 122.4 | 65.3 | 60.3 | 12.2 | 21.9 |
| William & MaryDec 31, 2025 · road | L 57–76 | 195 | 87.8 | 117.1 | 64.9 | 38.9 | 20.0 | 34.9 |
| HamptonDec 30, 2025 · road | L 59–62 | 288 | 91.8 | 96.5 | 64.3 | 54.3 | 24.9 | 22.6 |
| MaristDec 21, 2025 · road | L 51–70 | 200 | 77.2 | 105.9 | 66.1 | 37.0 | 19.7 | 22.0 |
| UAlbanyDec 18, 2025 · home | L 55–71 | 303 | 84.1 | 108.6 | 65.4 | 37.7 | 10.7 | 16.7 |
| C MichiganDec 13, 2025 · home | W 78–55 | 266 | 121.6 | 85.8 | 64.1 | 68.4 | 31.2 | 54.2 |
| ColumbiaDec 10, 2025 · home | W 77–73 | 217 | 97.5 | 92.4 | 70.2 | 47.0 | 20.3 | 29.5 |
| DuquesneDec 6, 2025 · road | L 75–84 | 129 | 108.7 | 121.7 | 69.0 | 47.1 | 11.6 | 31.7 |
| LMUNov 29, 2025 · road | W 71–68 | 160 | 104.5 | 100.0 | 68.0 | 50.0 | 14.7 | 24.2 |
| BethuneNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 61–54 | 301 | 96.9 | 85.7 | 63.0 | 44.7 | 22.2 | 38.5 |
| PacificNov 24, 2025 · neutral | L 58–86 | 207 | 86.8 | 128.8 | 66.8 | 41.2 | 18.0 | 18.4 |
| BrownNov 20, 2025 · home | W 80–70 | 249 | 119.6 | 104.7 | 66.9 | 55.0 | 13.5 | 32.4 |
| YaleNov 15, 2025 · road | L 79–86 | 62 | 123.7 | 134.6 | 63.9 | 67.0 | 18.8 | 23.1 |
| St Joseph's LINov 11, 2025 · home | W 107–43 | Unrated | 138.3 | 55.6 | 77.4 | 66.9 | 15.5 | 37.5 |
| MaineNov 8, 2025 · home | W 71–60 | 306 | 101.6 | 85.8 | 69.9 | 45.2 | 11.4 | 24.4 |
| Farmingdale StNov 3, 2025 · home | W 66–59 | Unrated | 91.2 | 81.5 | 72.4 | 39.6 | 12.4 | 28.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Erik PrattG | 30 | 34.4 | 19.4 | 4.9 | 3.7 | 52.0 | 32.6% | 30 | 1.2930 games | 17130 games |
| Rob Brown IIIG | 32 | 31.1 | 10.8 | 3.1 | 1.3 | 52.9 | 18.6% | 32 | 1.2732 games | 19232 games |
| Andrej ShoshkikjG | 32 | 26.0 | 10.7 | 2.6 | 2.4 | 63.4 | 20.4% | 32 | 1.3332 games | 10232 games |
| Richard GoodsF | 32 | 25.0 | 7.7 | 5.9 | 2.1 | 50.0 | 19.0% | 32 | 1.4732 games | 9132 games |
| Tomas ValentinyF | 32 | 19.1 | 4.8 | 3.5 | 0.9 | 49.5 | 14.7% | 32 | 1.7632 games | 7832 games |
| Quin GormanF | 31 | 18.6 | 3.9 | 3.6 | 0.9 | 52.5 | 11.9% | 31 | 1.4231 games | 4631 games |
| Ethan SimmonG | 27 | 16.2 | 6.0 | 1.4 | 0.4 | 60.6 | 16.7% | 27 | 1.1127 games | 7827 games |
| Jonah ButlerG | 30 | 12.5 | 4.3 | 1.9 | 0.6 | 55.9 | 17.9% | 30 | 1.1330 games | 6230 games |
| Oleg KojenetsF | 32 | 10.3 | 2.9 | 3.0 | 0.4 | 43.9 | 20.0% | 32 | 0.5532 games | 032 games |
| Toby OnyekonwuG | 20 | 10.8 | 2.5 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 44.4 | 16.6% | 20 | 1.0720 games | 2720 games |
| Collin O'ConnorG | 8 | 26.2 | 7.5 | 2.5 | 1.8 | 63.7 | 14.3% | 8 | 1.178 games | 148 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 Stony Brook?
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
15Same-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 | 4,119 | 4,119 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,356 | 2,356 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,475 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Erik Pratt →G | Same programStony Brook Seawolves | 34.4 | 19.4 | 52.0% |
| Rob Brown III →G | Same programStony Brook Seawolves | 31.1 | 10.8 | 52.9% |
| Andrej Shoshkikj →G | Same programStony Brook Seawolves | 26.0 | 10.7 | 63.4% |
| Richard Goods →F | Same programStony Brook Seawolves | 25.0 | 7.7 | 50.0% |
| Tomas Valentiny →F | Same programStony Brook Seawolves | 19.1 | 4.8 | 49.5% |
| Quin Gorman →F | Same programStony Brook Seawolves | 18.6 | 3.9 | 52.5% |
| Ethan Simmon →G | Same programStony Brook Seawolves | 16.2 | 6.0 | 60.6% |
| Jonah Butler →G | Same programStony Brook Seawolves | 12.5 | 4.3 | 55.9% |
| Oleg Kojenets →F | Same programStony Brook Seawolves | 10.3 | 2.9 | 43.9% |
| Toby Onyekonwu →G | Same programStony Brook Seawolves | 10.8 | 2.5 | 44.4% |
| Collin O'Connor →G | Same programStony Brook Seawolves | 26.2 | 7.5 | 63.7% |
| Leon Nahar →F | Same programStony Brook Seawolves | 4.3 | 1.3 | 44.7% |
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…
Stony Brook vs Brown
66.2Stony Brook
70.7Brown
Brown win estimate65.8%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.5
Projected total136.8
80% home-margin range-11.5 to 20.4
Estimated possessions66.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.8 pts
Brown attack 50.1% · Stony Brook defense 52.7%Stony Brook attack 49.8% · Brown defense 50.6%
Ball securityAway 3.2 pts
Brown attack 19.1% · Stony Brook defense 15.8%Stony Brook attack 17.4% · Brown defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 1.5 pts
Brown attack 29.6% · Stony Brook defense 30.3%Stony Brook attack 27.7% · Brown defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 3.3 pts
Brown attack 32.4% · Stony Brook defense 32.8%Stony Brook attack 31.3% · Brown defense 35.0%
Pizzitola Sports Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Monmouth vs Stony Brook
70.6Monmouth
70.8Stony Brook
Stony Brook win estimate54.6%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.2
Projected total141.4
80% home-margin range-15.7 to 16.1
Estimated possessions66.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.3 pts
Stony Brook attack 49.8% · Monmouth defense 51.3%Monmouth attack 48.9% · Stony Brook defense 52.7%
Ball securityHome 2.5 pts
Stony Brook attack 17.4% · Monmouth defense 18.5%Monmouth attack 17.1% · Stony Brook defense 15.8%
Second chancesAway 4.7 pts
Stony Brook attack 27.7% · Monmouth defense 32.4%Monmouth attack 30.4% · Stony Brook defense 30.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.2 pts
Stony Brook attack 31.3% · Monmouth defense 35.0%Monmouth attack 35.3% · Stony Brook defense 32.8%
Stony Brook Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Stony Brook vs Hofstra
62.1Stony Brook
74.3Hofstra
Hofstra win estimate81.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.2
Projected total136.4
80% home-margin range-3.8 to 28.1
Estimated possessions64.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.8 pts
Hofstra attack 51.8% · Stony Brook defense 52.7%Stony Brook attack 49.8% · Hofstra defense 47.8%
Ball securityHome 0.3 pts
Hofstra attack 16.6% · Stony Brook defense 15.8%Stony Brook attack 17.4% · Hofstra defense 16.3%
Second chancesHome 0.3 pts
Hofstra attack 29.0% · Stony Brook defense 30.3%Stony Brook attack 27.7% · Hofstra defense 29.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.2 pts
Hofstra attack 29.8% · Stony Brook defense 32.8%Stony Brook attack 31.3% · Hofstra defense 34.0%
David S. Mack Sports and Exhibition Complex
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 →