A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
42.1% · rank 24 of 366 · 34 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Missouri St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.186
-1.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
16–182025–26 recorded finals
106.3Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
108.2Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Missouri St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
16–1834 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.9Mean opponent adj. net -0.8 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.7%34 games · higher is betterRank 186 / 366 · 49th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 204 / 366 · 44th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.4%34 games · lower is betterRank 170 / 366 · 54th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
16.9%34 games · higher is betterRank 178 / 366 · 52th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.2%34 games · higher is betterRank 107 / 366 · 71th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.2%34 games · lower is betterRank 248 / 366 · 32th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
42.1%34 games · higher is betterRank 24 / 366 · 94th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.4%34 games · lower is betterRank 289 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 110.5 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 108.4 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.4% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.6% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.9% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.8% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.9% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 35.2% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 67.7% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 70.9% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 56.6% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 49.4% | 34 | 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?
2,326 source possession rows across 34 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
33.2% · rank 107 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.2% · rank 248 of 366 · 34 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
38.4% · rank 289 of 366 · 34 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
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 13 times in the selected window; Missouri St 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 · neutral vs Louisiana Tech · L 66–69 · offense 116.1 / defense 121.4
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Louisiana TechMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 66–69 | 156 | 116.1 | 121.4 | 56.8 | 50.0 | 10.6 | 35.3 |
| LibertyMar 11, 2026 · neutral | W 77–69 | 96 | 120.6 | 108.0 | 63.9 | 64.0 | 15.7 | 26.9 |
| FIUMar 10, 2026 · neutral | W 75–72 | 229 | 115.1 | 110.5 | 65.1 | 64.3 | 18.4 | 24.1 |
| MTSUMar 7, 2026 · home | L 63–75 | 164 | 95.0 | 113.1 | 66.3 | 46.4 | 13.6 | 20.0 |
| Western KYMar 6, 2026 · home | W 87–74 | 157 | 130.9 | 111.3 | 66.5 | 61.1 | 10.5 | 27.6 |
| Sam HoustonFeb 28, 2026 · road | L 81–86 | 127 | 119.8 | 127.1 | 67.6 | 53.2 | 11.8 | 33.3 |
| Louisiana TechFeb 27, 2026 · road | L 70–72 | 156 | 105.4 | 108.4 | 66.4 | 46.3 | 19.6 | 38.2 |
| FIUFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 67–70 | 229 | 99.7 | 104.2 | 67.2 | 47.3 | 20.8 | 35.1 |
| Kennesaw StFeb 19, 2026 · home | L 87–91 | 159 | 120.3 | 125.8 | 72.3 | 55.5 | 12.4 | 27.3 |
| DelawareFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 67–76 | 251 | 106.7 | 121.0 | 62.8 | 45.8 | 11.1 | 28.2 |
| Louisiana TechFeb 13, 2026 · home | L 78–79 | 156 | 90.8 | 91.9 | 68.8 | 40.0 | 20.9 | 40.8 |
| LibertyFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 76–79 | 96 | 112.9 | 117.3 | 67.3 | 55.4 | 14.9 | 34.3 |
| Jax StateJan 31, 2026 · home | W 74–67 | 173 | 108.2 | 98.0 | 68.4 | 53.4 | 17.5 | 35.3 |
| Sam HoustonJan 29, 2026 · home | L 71–80 | 127 | 103.2 | 116.3 | 68.8 | 53.6 | 17.4 | 26.5 |
| UTEPJan 24, 2026 · road | W 62–57 | 230 | 96.1 | 88.3 | 64.5 | 50.0 | 23.2 | 20.7 |
| New Mexico StJan 23, 2026 · road | W 84–75 | 169 | 129.9 | 116.0 | 64.7 | 58.5 | 17.0 | 43.3 |
| MTSUJan 17, 2026 · road | L 87–90 | 164 | 114.3 | 118.2 | 60.9 | 51.4 | 14.4 | 35.7 |
| Western KYJan 15, 2026 · road | L 72–87 | 157 | 108.9 | 131.5 | 66.1 | 50.0 | 18.1 | 34.3 |
| FIUJan 10, 2026 · home | W 79–71 | 229 | 110.7 | 99.5 | 71.4 | 56.6 | 22.4 | 36.4 |
| Kennesaw StJan 8, 2026 · road | L 80–90 | 159 | 107.4 | 120.9 | 74.5 | 47.7 | 17.5 | 42.2 |
| New Mexico StJan 4, 2026 · home | W 89–82 | 169 | 125.0 | 115.1 | 71.2 | 55.6 | 18.3 | 38.9 |
| UTEPJan 3, 2026 · home | W 79–55 | 230 | 136.4 | 95.0 | 57.9 | 61.2 | 17.3 | 48.0 |
| DelawareDec 29, 2025 · road | W 61–43 | 251 | 101.1 | 71.3 | 60.3 | 47.0 | 16.6 | 25.0 |
| LindenwoodDec 23, 2025 · home | W 70–65 | 304 | 101.7 | 94.4 | 68.8 | 46.8 | 13.1 | 32.5 |
| Oral RobertsDec 17, 2025 · home | W 63–62 | 300 | 99.3 | 97.7 | 63.5 | 48.0 | 15.8 | 25.8 |
| XavierDec 13, 2025 · road | L 57–75 | 68 | 89.9 | 118.3 | 63.4 | 42.5 | 20.5 | 29.4 |
| TulsaDec 6, 2025 · road | L 74–98 | 116 | 110.2 | 146.0 | 67.1 | 61.8 | 20.9 | 21.9 |
| NE StateNov 30, 2025 · home | W 92–71 | Unrated | 136.0 | 105.0 | 67.7 | 60.8 | 14.8 | 48.4 |
| Long IslandNov 25, 2025 · home | L 61–75 | 269 | 97.3 | 119.6 | 62.7 | 42.7 | 16.0 | 35.1 |
| UT Rio GrandeNov 22, 2025 · home | W 74–67 | 198 | 117.1 | 106.0 | 63.2 | 50.0 | 9.5 | 28.6 |
| UT ArlingtonNov 15, 2025 · road | L 49–67 | 179 | 71.8 | 98.2 | 68.2 | 33.0 | 24.9 | 29.7 |
| Arkansas StNov 12, 2025 · home | L 85–86 | 126 | 106.7 | 107.9 | 79.7 | 51.8 | 15.1 | 21.2 |
| N'Western (OK)Nov 9, 2025 · home | W 106–57 | Unrated | 139.1 | 74.8 | 76.2 | 67.6 | 15.7 | 42.4 |
| Missouri So StNov 5, 2025 · home | W 88–70 | Unrated | 116.0 | 92.3 | 75.8 | 44.9 | 10.5 | 43.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kobi WilliamsG | 33 | 35.4 | 14.4 | 2.6 | 1.6 | 58.9 | 19.9% | 33 | 1.0433 games | 23433 games |
| Keith Palek IIIF | 34 | 32.7 | 17.3 | 6.4 | 3.6 | 51.6 | 30.3% | 34 | 1.3434 games | 15734 games |
| Trey Williams Jr.G | 34 | 30.6 | 9.4 | 2.0 | 3.2 | 53.3 | 17.1% | 34 | 2.4234 games | 17134 games |
| Zaxton KingG | 34 | 27.0 | 7.2 | 2.0 | 1.6 | 54.8 | 14.0% | 34 | 2.2434 games | 11834 games |
| Michael Osei-BonsuF | 31 | 27.4 | 15.3 | 7.3 | 2.3 | 58.3 | 29.0% | 31 | 0.9631 games | 031 games |
| Darrion SuttonF | 34 | 13.7 | 4.6 | 4.3 | 0.8 | 56.0 | 18.0% | 34 | 1.1334 games | 1334 games |
| Antwan BurnettG | 19 | 23.9 | 4.7 | 3.5 | 1.0 | 52.3 | 11.5% | 19 | 1.1219 games | 4019 games |
| Melakih CunninghamG | 21 | 11.8 | 3.1 | 2.0 | 0.6 | 53.2 | 14.8% | 21 | 1.5021 games | 2721 games |
| Cameron BooneF | 29 | 7.7 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 0.1 | 63.7 | 8.7% | 29 | 0.4329 games | 029 games |
| Logan EpesG | 21 | 9.7 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.3 | 44.0 | 9.1% | 21 | 0.8621 games | 1321 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 Missouri St?
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.
13Source-listed players
12Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
84%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 | 4,250 | 4,250 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,537 | 1,537 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,787 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?
13 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Kobi Williams →G | Same programMissouri State Bears | 35.4 | 14.4 | 58.9% |
| Trey Williams Jr. →G | Same programMissouri State Bears | 30.6 | 9.4 | 53.3% |
| Zaxton King →G | Same programMissouri State Bears | 27.0 | 7.2 | 54.8% |
| Michael Osei-Bonsu →F | Same programMissouri State Bears | 27.4 | 15.3 | 58.3% |
| Darrion Sutton →F | Same programMissouri State Bears | 13.7 | 4.6 | 56.0% |
| Antwan Burnett →G | Same programMissouri State Bears | 23.9 | 4.7 | 52.3% |
| Melakih Cunningham →G | Same programMissouri State Bears | 11.8 | 3.1 | 53.2% |
| Cameron Boone →F | Same programMissouri State Bears | 7.7 | 1.3 | 63.7% |
| Logan Epes →G | Same programMissouri State Bears | 9.7 | 1.3 | 44.0% |
| Tyrique Brooks →G | Same programMissouri State Bears | 7.4 | 1.9 | 47.4% |
| Amar Kuljuhovic →G | Same programMissouri State Bears | 13.0 | 7.5 | 60.9% |
| Ryder Cheesman →G | Same programMissouri State Bears | 6.7 | 3.3 | 71.4% |
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…
Iowa State vs Missouri St
79.8Iowa State
59.9Missouri St
Missouri St win estimate11.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin-19.9
Projected total139.7
80% home-margin range-35.9 to -4.0
Estimated possessions66.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.0 pts
Missouri St attack 51.3% · Iowa State defense 48.3%Iowa State attack 55.3% · Missouri St defense 51.4%
Ball securityHome 3.5 pts
Missouri St attack 17.9% · Iowa State defense 22.5%Iowa State attack 15.7% · Missouri St defense 16.9%
Second chancesHome 0.5 pts
Missouri St attack 31.3% · Iowa State defense 26.7%Iowa State attack 33.8% · Missouri St defense 29.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.6 pts
Missouri St attack 37.2% · Iowa State defense 31.7%Iowa State attack 36.3% · Missouri St defense 36.5%
T-Mobile Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Missouri St vs Sam Houston
70.0Missouri St
76.8Sam Houston
Sam Houston win estimate71.3%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.8
Projected total146.7
80% home-margin range-9.1 to 22.8
Estimated possessions67.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.7 pts
Sam Houston attack 51.9% · Missouri St defense 51.4%Missouri St attack 51.3% · Sam Houston defense 51.4%
Ball securityAway 0.0 pts
Sam Houston attack 17.3% · Missouri St defense 16.9%Missouri St attack 17.9% · Sam Houston defense 17.5%
Second chancesHome 0.9 pts
Sam Houston attack 33.0% · Missouri St defense 29.7%Missouri St attack 31.3% · Sam Houston defense 29.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.0 pts
Sam Houston attack 34.0% · Missouri St defense 36.5%Missouri St attack 37.2% · Sam Houston defense 35.6%
Bernard G. Johnson Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Missouri St vs New Mexico St
67.3Missouri St
71.3New Mexico St
New Mexico St win estimate64.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.0
Projected total138.6
80% home-margin range-11.9 to 19.9
Estimated possessions65.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.7 pts
New Mexico St attack 48.5% · Missouri St defense 51.4%Missouri St attack 51.3% · New Mexico St defense 49.5%
Ball securityHome 3.7 pts
New Mexico St attack 15.6% · Missouri St defense 16.9%Missouri St attack 17.9% · New Mexico St defense 15.5%
Second chancesAway 1.2 pts
New Mexico St attack 31.0% · Missouri St defense 29.7%Missouri St attack 31.3% · New Mexico St defense 28.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.2 pts
New Mexico St attack 34.3% · Missouri St defense 36.5%Missouri St attack 37.2% · New Mexico St defense 41.6%
Pan American 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 →