A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
33.8% · rank 86 of 366 · 31 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Wagner
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.313
-11.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
14–172025–26 recorded finals
98.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
110.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
64.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Wagner.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
14–1731 recorded games · 31 paired efficiency samples · pace 66.2Mean opponent adj. net -8.7 · 28 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.1%31 games · higher is betterRank 266 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.3%31 games · lower is betterRank 87 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.9%31 games · lower is betterRank 322 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.4%31 games · higher is betterRank 283 / 366 · 23th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.8%31 games · higher is betterRank 86 / 366 · 77th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.4%31 games · lower is betterRank 99 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
31.1%31 games · higher is betterRank 275 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.7%31 games · lower is betterRank 267 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 105.5 | 31 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.1 | 31 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 48.7% | 31 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 48.8% | 31 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.0% | 31 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.3% | 31 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 36.4% | 31 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 36.6% | 31 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.0% | 31 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.7% | 31 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 49.5% | 31 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 54.1% | 31 | 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?
2,114 source possession rows across 31 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 effective FG%
49.3% · rank 87 of 366 · 31 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.4% · rank 283 of 366 · 31 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Turnover rate
18.9% · rank 322 of 366 · 31 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
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 11 times in the selected window; Wagner 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 · road vs Long Island · L 56–64 · offense 87.6 / defense 100.1
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 · 31 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Long IslandMar 7, 2026 · road | L 56–64 | 269 | 87.6 | 100.1 | 63.9 | 34.9 | 20.3 | 31.6 |
| C ConnecticutMar 5, 2026 · road | W 70–60 | 260 | 114.0 | 97.7 | 61.4 | 50.9 | 8.1 | 25.0 |
| Chicago StFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 80–61 | 360 | 116.2 | 88.6 | 68.9 | 58.8 | 23.2 | 36.7 |
| New HavenFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 65–62 | 332 | 104.3 | 99.5 | 62.3 | 48.2 | 12.8 | 25.0 |
| Saint FrancisFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 65–56 | 356 | 100.0 | 86.2 | 65.0 | 46.1 | 23.1 | 35.5 |
| MercyhurstFeb 20, 2026 · road | W 83–80 | 305 | 111.4 | 107.3 | 66.3 | 50.9 | 21.5 | 37.1 |
| Long IslandFeb 17, 2026 · road | L 65–83 | 269 | 101.9 | 130.1 | 63.8 | 47.3 | 23.5 | 43.6 |
| StonehillFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 68–57 | 341 | 103.2 | 86.5 | 65.9 | 42.2 | 13.7 | 45.2 |
| Long IslandFeb 13, 2026 · home | L 57–67 | 269 | 81.2 | 95.5 | 70.2 | 43.5 | 24.2 | 24.3 |
| C ConnecticutFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 67–84 | 260 | 102.0 | 127.9 | 65.7 | 44.5 | 13.7 | 31.0 |
| Le MoyneFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 79–78 | 316 | 115.3 | 113.9 | 68.5 | 60.6 | 20.4 | 26.9 |
| FDUJan 31, 2026 · home | W 75–72 | 328 | 109.4 | 105.0 | 61.0 | 47.5 | 13.1 | 29.7 |
| C ConnecticutJan 30, 2026 · home | L 55–62 | 260 | 91.6 | 103.3 | 60.0 | 37.0 | 11.7 | 30.8 |
| Le MoyneJan 24, 2026 · road | L 67–69 | 316 | 110.0 | 113.3 | 60.9 | 56.6 | 19.7 | 33.3 |
| FDUJan 19, 2026 · road | L 61–68 | 328 | 104.7 | 116.8 | 58.2 | 49.0 | 13.7 | 19.2 |
| New HavenJan 17, 2026 · road | L 74–80 | 332 | 122.3 | 132.3 | 60.5 | 62.7 | 28.1 | 50.0 |
| MercyhurstJan 10, 2026 · home | L 69–70 | 305 | 106.5 | 108.0 | 64.8 | 51.7 | 18.5 | 28.9 |
| Saint FrancisJan 9, 2026 · home | L 69–71 | 356 | 106.1 | 109.2 | 65.0 | 48.3 | 20.0 | 41.7 |
| StonehillJan 4, 2026 · home | L 60–69 | 341 | 98.1 | 112.8 | 61.2 | 44.7 | 16.4 | 32.4 |
| Chicago StJan 3, 2026 · road | W 79–72 | 360 | 123.4 | 112.4 | 64.0 | 53.8 | 12.5 | 36.4 |
| ManorDec 22, 2025 · home | W 74–57 | Unrated | 102.7 | 79.1 | 72.0 | 45.6 | 16.7 | 35.9 |
| MD EasternDec 18, 2025 · home | W 78–64 | 361 | 120.0 | 98.5 | 65.0 | 55.5 | 7.7 | 25.7 |
| BloomfieldDec 12, 2025 · home | W 95–93 | Unrated | 112.6 | 110.2 | 75.0 | 57.3 | 21.3 | 42.5 |
| Bryant Str-AlbDec 6, 2025 · home | W 92–36 | Unrated | 118.1 | 46.2 | 77.9 | 58.3 | 27.0 | 53.1 |
| MarylandDec 3, 2025 · road | L 63–89 | 63 | 85.2 | 120.3 | 74.0 | 42.1 | 24.3 | 24.3 |
| ManhattanNov 26, 2025 · road | W 103–101 | 323 | 132.5 | 129.9 | 69.1 | 64.8 | 18.0 | 48.4 |
| GeorgetownNov 22, 2025 · road | L 75–92 | 105 | 100.5 | 123.2 | 74.7 | 50.0 | 21.4 | 28.2 |
| UMBCNov 16, 2025 · road | L 70–71 | 225 | 92.2 | 93.5 | 67.5 | 46.9 | 19.8 | 26.8 |
| FordhamNov 12, 2025 · road | L 61–63 | 187 | 103.5 | 106.9 | 58.9 | 49.2 | 15.3 | 34.2 |
| Seton HallNov 8, 2025 · road | L 61–68 | 78 | 94.5 | 105.3 | 64.6 | 57.1 | 31.0 | 31.0 |
| VCUNov 4, 2025 · road | L 74–103 | 39 | 97.3 | 135.4 | 76.1 | 45.2 | 19.7 | 33.3 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nick JonesG | 29 | 32.1 | 14.9 | 3.6 | 2.5 | 53.2 | 27.1% | 29 | 0.9429 games | 10629 games |
| Eddie PlacerG | 30 | 25.9 | 8.5 | 2.4 | 1.3 | 53.3 | 18.0% | 30 | 1.2530 games | 13630 games |
| Jaden BakerG | 24 | 31.8 | 9.3 | 3.6 | 3.2 | 48.3 | 18.9% | 24 | 1.4924 games | 9624 games |
| John AwokeG | 29 | 26.2 | 7.1 | 3.0 | 2.0 | 50.9 | 16.7% | 29 | 1.3629 games | 10229 games |
| Binael BasilF | 30 | 22.7 | 8.9 | 6.1 | 1.1 | 57.7 | 20.8% | 30 | 0.7730 games | 1630 games |
| Bryan AkanmuF | 31 | 20.3 | 6.2 | 3.9 | 1.4 | 50.4 | 19.6% | 31 | 0.9231 games | 531 games |
| Travis GrayG | 21 | 21.5 | 8.7 | 5.6 | 0.5 | 54.1 | 21.6% | 21 | 0.5921 games | 8321 games |
| Zavier FitchF | 18 | 23.2 | 6.8 | 6.2 | 1.1 | 56.2 | 15.2% | 18 | 1.0618 games | 2918 games |
| Michael CooperG | 31 | 13.4 | 4.8 | 2.4 | 0.6 | 55.5 | 20.0% | 31 | 0.7431 games | 4331 games |
| Makhai AndersonG | 22 | 9.5 | 3.4 | 2.2 | 0.4 | 55.1 | 18.2% | 22 | 0.8922 games | 1122 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 Wagner?
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
13Same-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 | 4,488 | 4,488 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,837 | 1,837 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,325 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nick Jones →G | Same programWagner Seahawks | 32.1 | 14.9 | 53.2% |
| Eddie Placer →G | Same programWagner Seahawks | 25.9 | 8.5 | 53.3% |
| Jaden Baker →G | Same programWagner Seahawks | 31.8 | 9.3 | 48.3% |
| John Awoke →G | Same programWagner Seahawks | 26.2 | 7.1 | 50.9% |
| Binael Basil →F | Same programWagner Seahawks | 22.7 | 8.9 | 57.7% |
| Bryan Akanmu →F | Same programWagner Seahawks | 20.3 | 6.2 | 50.4% |
| Travis Gray →G | Same programWagner Seahawks | 21.5 | 8.7 | 54.1% |
| Zavier Fitch →F | Same programWagner Seahawks | 23.2 | 6.8 | 56.2% |
| Michael Cooper →G | Same programWagner Seahawks | 13.4 | 4.8 | 55.5% |
| Makhai Anderson →G | Same programWagner Seahawks | 9.5 | 3.4 | 55.1% |
| Elijah Brown →G | Same programWagner Seahawks | 6.2 | 1.7 | 67.1% |
| Sam Smith →F | Same programWagner Seahawks | 15.4 | 9.0 | 61.9% |
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…
Wagner vs Boston College
59.0Wagner
70.2Boston College
Boston College win estimate80.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin11.2
Projected total129.1
80% home-margin range-4.7 to 27.1
Estimated possessions63.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.7 pts
Boston College attack 49.8% · Wagner defense 51.5%Wagner attack 47.2% · Boston College defense 49.6%
Ball securityHome 1.6 pts
Boston College attack 16.5% · Wagner defense 16.3%Wagner attack 17.9% · Boston College defense 16.1%
Second chancesAway 2.1 pts
Boston College attack 29.1% · Wagner defense 28.7%Wagner attack 30.6% · Boston College defense 28.2%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.7 pts
Boston College attack 32.5% · Wagner defense 40.1%Wagner attack 31.2% · Boston College defense 34.1%
Conte Forum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Wagner vs Marquette
57.9Wagner
78.4Marquette
Marquette win estimate91.8%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin20.5
Projected total136.3
80% home-margin range4.6 to 36.5
Estimated possessions65.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.1 pts
Marquette attack 53.5% · Wagner defense 51.5%Wagner attack 47.2% · Marquette defense 49.3%
Ball securityAway 1.5 pts
Marquette attack 15.2% · Wagner defense 16.3%Wagner attack 17.9% · Marquette defense 20.5%
Second chancesHome 1.1 pts
Marquette attack 29.7% · Wagner defense 28.7%Wagner attack 30.6% · Marquette defense 30.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 8.6 pts
Marquette attack 31.6% · Wagner defense 40.1%Wagner attack 31.2% · Marquette defense 31.2%
Fiserv Forum
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 →