A relative strength
Effective FG%
54.9% · rank 49 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Washington St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.117
+5.1 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
12–202025–26 recorded finals
111.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.3Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Washington St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
12–2032 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.2Mean opponent adj. net 4.4 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 49 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 281 / 366 · 23th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 317 / 366 · 13th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
14.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 323 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 214 / 366 · 42th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 78 / 366 · 79th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
30.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 288 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 149 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 110.0 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 112.0 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.6% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.7% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.9% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.2% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 44.8% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.6% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.2% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.7% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.8% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 49.0% | 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?
2,205 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
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.0% · rank 78 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnover rate
18.8% · rank 317 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
14.6% · rank 323 of 366 · 32 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 9 times in the selected window; Washington St won 3. 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 Portland · L 68–74 · offense 97.7 / defense 106.3
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| PortlandMar 7, 2026 · neutral | L 68–74 | 258 | 97.7 | 106.3 | 69.6 | 44.7 | 10.1 | 20.0 |
| PepperdineMar 1, 2026 · road | L 79–88 | 261 | 104.6 | 116.6 | 75.5 | 46.5 | 18.5 | 39.5 |
| LMUFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 66–67 | 160 | 97.1 | 98.6 | 68.0 | 54.5 | 25.0 | 29.6 |
| Saint Mary'sFeb 22, 2026 · home | L 67–83 | 18 | 106.5 | 131.9 | 62.9 | 50.0 | 15.9 | 26.5 |
| PacificFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 87–70 | 207 | 132.8 | 106.8 | 65.5 | 68.3 | 10.7 | 25.0 |
| GonzagaFeb 11, 2026 · road | L 53–83 | 8 | 74.8 | 117.1 | 70.9 | 44.6 | 29.6 | 10.0 |
| Santa ClaraFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 92–96 | 42 | 129.8 | 135.5 | 70.9 | 64.8 | 18.3 | 41.4 |
| Oregon StFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 64–74 | 139 | 94.7 | 109.5 | 67.6 | 41.5 | 13.3 | 20.5 |
| PortlandJan 31, 2026 · home | W 104–74 | 258 | 145.2 | 103.3 | 71.6 | 67.7 | 11.2 | 32.3 |
| Seattle UJan 29, 2026 · home | W 70–58 | 120 | 102.9 | 85.2 | 68.1 | 64.4 | 27.9 | 25.0 |
| PepperdineJan 24, 2026 · home | W 95–79 | 261 | 133.6 | 111.1 | 71.1 | 65.6 | 16.9 | 40.6 |
| San DiegoJan 22, 2026 · road | L 92–96 | 263 | 131.4 | 137.1 | 70.0 | 55.5 | 14.3 | 40.0 |
| San FranciscoJan 19, 2026 · road | L 80–85 | 89 | 124.1 | 131.8 | 64.5 | 66.1 | 15.5 | 23.1 |
| GonzagaJan 16, 2026 · home | L 65–86 | 8 | 95.9 | 126.9 | 67.8 | 52.9 | 25.1 | 27.8 |
| Saint Mary'sJan 10, 2026 · road | L 82–88 | 18 | 115.9 | 124.4 | 70.8 | 61.8 | 18.4 | 25.0 |
| Oregon StJan 5, 2026 · home | W 81–67 | 139 | 124.2 | 102.7 | 65.2 | 56.0 | 18.4 | 42.4 |
| LMUJan 3, 2026 · home | W 78–76 | 160 | 111.7 | 108.8 | 69.8 | 60.0 | 17.2 | 18.5 |
| Seattle UDec 31, 2025 · road | L 55–69 | 120 | 80.4 | 100.9 | 68.4 | 32.8 | 27.8 | 49.0 |
| PortlandDec 28, 2025 · road | W 67–62 | 258 | 98.0 | 90.7 | 68.4 | 45.3 | 19.0 | 28.2 |
| MercerDec 20, 2025 · home | W 84–78 | 196 | 111.9 | 103.9 | 75.1 | 63.4 | 17.3 | 16.7 |
| E WashingtonDec 18, 2025 · neutral | W 78–63 | 199 | 110.0 | 88.8 | 70.9 | 58.9 | 21.2 | 37.9 |
| USCDec 15, 2025 · road | L 61–68 | 72 | 86.6 | 96.6 | 70.4 | 48.1 | 18.5 | 11.8 |
| NevadaDec 7, 2025 · home | L 64–78 | 59 | 101.2 | 123.4 | 63.2 | 46.1 | 22.1 | 34.4 |
| BradleyDec 3, 2025 · road | L 60–64 | 98 | 87.5 | 93.3 | 68.6 | 51.0 | 29.2 | 25.0 |
| Seton HallNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 61–75 | 78 | 91.9 | 113.0 | 66.4 | 46.2 | 22.6 | 30.0 |
| Arizona StNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 94–100 | 84 | 131.9 | 140.3 | 71.3 | 65.5 | 15.4 | 30.0 |
| ChaminadeNov 25, 2025 · road | W 90–85 | Unrated | 116.0 | 109.5 | 77.6 | 63.2 | 29.6 | 50.0 |
| Southern UtahNov 20, 2025 · home | W 98–74 | 285 | 135.9 | 102.6 | 72.1 | 64.0 | 9.7 | 34.4 |
| WashingtonNov 15, 2025 · home | L 69–81 | 66 | 110.7 | 129.9 | 62.3 | 49.2 | 11.2 | 32.4 |
| St Thomas (MN)Nov 11, 2025 · home | W 81–71 | 118 | 118.1 | 103.5 | 68.6 | 61.1 | 21.9 | 30.8 |
| DavidsonNov 8, 2025 · road | L 69–85 | 121 | 98.6 | 121.5 | 69.9 | 45.5 | 22.9 | 33.3 |
| IdahoNov 4, 2025 · home | L 81–83 | 214 | 113.1 | 115.9 | 71.6 | 49.1 | 7.0 | 17.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ace GlassG | 32 | 28.9 | 16.4 | 3.0 | 2.3 | 58.5 | 28.7% | 32 | 0.9932 games | 19532 games |
| Eemeli YalahoF | 32 | 28.3 | 10.1 | 5.7 | 1.7 | 60.8 | 18.1% | 32 | 0.9532 games | 12832 games |
| Jerone MortonG | 32 | 24.9 | 7.8 | 1.9 | 2.6 | 56.3 | 16.4% | 32 | 2.2732 games | 8032 games |
| ND OkaforF | 32 | 23.2 | 11.0 | 5.7 | 0.9 | 59.7 | 24.7% | 32 | 0.4332 games | 032 games |
| Rihards VaversF | 29 | 25.3 | 11.5 | 4.0 | 0.4 | 64.7 | 19.4% | 29 | 0.5429 games | 17729 games |
| Adria RodriguezG | 32 | 20.3 | 3.4 | 3.4 | 3.3 | 41.7 | 14.6% | 32 | 1.9532 games | 1532 games |
| Simon HildebrandtF | 32 | 14.5 | 4.5 | 1.8 | 0.5 | 58.8 | 16.0% | 32 | 0.7432 games | 8132 games |
| Tomas ThrastarsonG | 19 | 22.8 | 8.8 | 4.1 | 1.1 | 55.3 | 21.3% | 19 | 0.7019 games | 5219 games |
| Emmanuel UgboF | 22 | 18.1 | 6.7 | 3.5 | 0.8 | 54.3 | 20.2% | 22 | 0.8122 games | 4222 games |
| Parker GerritsG | 31 | 9.5 | 1.8 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 54.8 | 11.2% | 31 | 2.0831 games | 4031 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 Washington 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.
14Source-listed players
12Same-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 | 8 | 3,157 | 3,157 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 3,243 | 3,243 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,400 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ace Glass →G | Same programWashington State Cougars | 28.9 | 16.4 | 58.5% |
| Eemeli Yalaho →F | Same programWashington State Cougars | 28.3 | 10.1 | 60.8% |
| Jerone Morton →G | Same programWashington State Cougars | 24.9 | 7.8 | 56.3% |
| ND Okafor →F | Same programWashington State Cougars | 23.2 | 11.0 | 59.7% |
| Rihards Vavers →F | Same programWashington State Cougars | 25.3 | 11.5 | 64.7% |
| Adria Rodriguez →G | Same programWashington State Cougars | 20.3 | 3.4 | 41.7% |
| Simon Hildebrandt →F | Same programWashington State Cougars | 14.5 | 4.5 | 58.8% |
| Tomas Thrastarson →G | Same programWashington State Cougars | 22.8 | 8.8 | 55.3% |
| Emmanuel Ugbo →F | Same programWashington State Cougars | 18.1 | 6.7 | 54.3% |
| Parker Gerrits →G | Same programWashington State Cougars | 9.5 | 1.8 | 54.8% |
| Kase Wynott →G | Same programWashington State Cougars | 9.4 | 4.0 | 62.5% |
| Dio Blakely →G | Same programWashington State Cougars | 1.2 | 1.0 | 51.3% |
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…
Washington St vs Duke
64.3Washington St
84.2Duke
Duke win estimate91.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin19.9
Projected total148.5
80% home-margin range4.0 to 35.8
Estimated possessions67.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.5 pts
Duke attack 57.1% · Washington St defense 50.3%Washington St attack 54.5% · Duke defense 45.4%
Ball securityHome 1.1 pts
Duke attack 15.7% · Washington St defense 15.9%Washington St attack 18.5% · Duke defense 17.6%
Second chancesHome 1.9 pts
Duke attack 36.2% · Washington St defense 28.3%Washington St attack 31.1% · Duke defense 25.1%
Free-throw pressureAway 2.3 pts
Duke attack 37.0% · Washington St defense 33.0%Washington St attack 32.4% · Duke defense 26.0%
Acrisure 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 →