A relative strength
Effective FG%
54.8% · rank 55 of 366 · 35 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
Wright St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.154
+0.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
23–122025–26 recorded finals
110.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
110.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Wright St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
23–1235 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.9Mean opponent adj. net -3.2 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.8%35 games · higher is betterRank 55 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.7%35 games · lower is betterRank 227 / 366 · 38th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.1%35 games · lower is betterRank 151 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.4%35 games · higher is betterRank 141 / 366 · 62th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.8%35 games · higher is betterRank 90 / 366 · 76th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.6%35 games · lower is betterRank 111 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.1%35 games · higher is betterRank 117 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.3%35 games · lower is betterRank 152 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 116.4 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.5 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.9% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.4% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 36.4% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.7% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 33.9% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 34.9% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.8% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.2% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 48.0% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 44.9% | 35 | 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?
2,417 source possession rows across 35 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
33.8% · rank 90 of 366 · 35 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
33.3% · rank 152 of 366 · 35 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
51.7% · rank 227 of 366 · 35 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
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 10 times in the selected window; Wright St 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 20, 2026 · neutral vs Virginia · L 73–82 · offense 112.4 / defense 126.3
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VirginiaMar 20, 2026 · neutral | L 73–82 | 35 | 112.4 | 126.3 | 64.9 | 51.6 | 10.8 | 21.6 |
| Detroit MercyMar 10, 2026 · neutral | W 66–63 | 294 | 96.8 | 92.4 | 68.2 | 43.1 | 14.7 | 32.5 |
| N KentuckyMar 9, 2026 · neutral | W 103–90 | 183 | 131.3 | 114.7 | 78.5 | 63.6 | 12.7 | 22.2 |
| Cleveland StMar 5, 2026 · home | W 90–61 | 267 | 130.0 | 88.1 | 69.2 | 58.3 | 14.4 | 40.0 |
| N KentuckyMar 1, 2026 · road | W 92–91 | 183 | 131.4 | 130.0 | 70.0 | 62.7 | 15.7 | 43.8 |
| Purdue FWFeb 26, 2026 · road | W 74–70 | 210 | 104.3 | 98.7 | 70.9 | 50.8 | 16.9 | 32.4 |
| Robert MorrisFeb 22, 2026 · home | L 68–81 | 166 | 100.6 | 119.9 | 67.6 | 48.2 | 20.7 | 27.3 |
| IU IndyFeb 20, 2026 · home | W 85–73 | 339 | 119.3 | 102.5 | 71.2 | 56.4 | 21.1 | 37.0 |
| Cleveland StFeb 15, 2026 · road | W 102–90 | 267 | 137.4 | 121.2 | 74.2 | 72.7 | 17.5 | 37.5 |
| Detroit MercyFeb 13, 2026 · home | L 74–77 | 294 | 111.9 | 116.4 | 66.2 | 46.1 | 10.6 | 32.5 |
| Purdue FWFeb 8, 2026 · home | W 73–68 | 210 | 117.2 | 109.2 | 62.3 | 55.7 | 20.9 | 48.5 |
| Robert MorrisFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 66–72 | 166 | 96.2 | 105.0 | 68.6 | 39.2 | 14.6 | 35.4 |
| Green BayFeb 1, 2026 · road | W 83–75 | 284 | 131.1 | 118.4 | 63.3 | 54.7 | 7.9 | 33.3 |
| MilwaukeeJan 31, 2026 · road | W 76–69 | 218 | 104.4 | 94.8 | 72.8 | 51.6 | 19.2 | 29.7 |
| N KentuckyJan 24, 2026 · home | W 88–80 | 183 | 125.1 | 113.7 | 70.4 | 54.6 | 14.2 | 40.0 |
| Cleveland StJan 22, 2026 · home | L 79–85 | 267 | 114.5 | 123.2 | 69.0 | 50.8 | 10.1 | 30.0 |
| Youngstown StJan 16, 2026 · home | W 93–83 | 176 | 142.0 | 126.8 | 65.5 | 57.5 | 10.7 | 51.7 |
| OaklandJan 11, 2026 · road | W 94–84 | 167 | 128.5 | 114.8 | 73.2 | 66.9 | 24.6 | 41.7 |
| Detroit MercyJan 10, 2026 · road | W 84–82 | 294 | 119.1 | 116.3 | 70.5 | 58.7 | 17.0 | 25.0 |
| IU IndyJan 4, 2026 · road | W 81–77 | 339 | 120.8 | 114.8 | 67.1 | 66.3 | 25.4 | 37.5 |
| MilwaukeeJan 1, 2026 · home | W 76–70 | 218 | 116.8 | 107.6 | 65.1 | 47.4 | 12.3 | 37.1 |
| OaklandDec 30, 2025 · home | W 88–73 | 167 | 124.2 | 103.0 | 70.9 | 64.5 | 18.3 | 32.1 |
| E MichiganDec 23, 2025 · home | W 70–64 | 274 | 103.1 | 94.3 | 67.9 | 50.0 | 19.1 | 32.4 |
| Miami OHDec 17, 2025 · home | L 76–83 | 119 | 105.0 | 114.7 | 72.4 | 45.2 | 13.8 | 30.8 |
| MarshallDec 13, 2025 · road | L 74–76 | 172 | 117.0 | 120.2 | 63.2 | 47.9 | 7.9 | 40.9 |
| Green BayDec 7, 2025 · home | W 86–58 | 284 | 127.0 | 85.7 | 67.7 | 56.9 | 11.8 | 31.3 |
| Youngstown StDec 3, 2025 · road | L 68–69 | 176 | 98.7 | 100.1 | 68.9 | 55.2 | 18.9 | 16.7 |
| ButlerNov 28, 2025 · road | L 69–94 | 82 | 91.5 | 124.7 | 75.4 | 47.2 | 17.2 | 25.0 |
| StetsonNov 26, 2025 · road | W 79–62 | 326 | 122.4 | 96.0 | 64.6 | 64.4 | 20.1 | 34.5 |
| Ohio WesleyanNov 21, 2025 · home | W 100–47 | Unrated | 152.7 | 71.8 | 65.5 | 70.3 | 13.7 | 54.5 |
| Kent StateNov 16, 2025 · neutral | L 72–76 | 133 | 97.7 | 103.1 | 65.5 | 49.2 | 14.9 | 23.7 |
| RadfordNov 15, 2025 · neutral | W 92–59 | 213 | 127.1 | 81.5 | 72.4 | 61.9 | 16.6 | 33.3 |
| ToledoNov 12, 2025 · home | L 71–81 | 148 | 106.6 | 121.7 | 66.6 | 61.7 | 28.5 | 28.6 |
| CaliforniaNov 7, 2025 · road | L 67–77 | 104 | 96.2 | 110.6 | 69.6 | 44.5 | 11.5 | 25.0 |
| FranklinNov 4, 2025 · home | W 86–37 | Unrated | 117.3 | 50.5 | 73.3 | 54.2 | 17.7 | 47.6 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Solomon CallaghanG | 33 | 28.1 | 10.2 | 1.9 | 1.1 | 61.1 | 16.3% | 33 | 1.3033 games | 17733 games |
| Dominic PangonisG | 34 | 27.0 | 8.9 | 2.6 | 1.1 | 60.1 | 15.5% | 34 | 1.1134 games | 9634 games |
| TJ BurchG | 34 | 24.7 | 12.4 | 2.4 | 3.6 | 52.8 | 28.0% | 34 | 1.7334 games | 7534 games |
| Michael ImariagbeF | 34 | 24.1 | 12.0 | 7.1 | 1.8 | 62.9 | 23.5% | 34 | 1.0334 games | 1534 games |
| Michael CooperG | 31 | 26.5 | 13.4 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 54.7 | 25.5% | 31 | 1.8431 games | 13531 games |
| Kellen PickettF | 35 | 22.9 | 8.5 | 5.4 | 1.1 | 62.2 | 17.1% | 35 | 1.0935 games | 5235 games |
| Logan WoodsG | 35 | 18.4 | 5.3 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 55.5 | 15.3% | 35 | 1.7735 games | 8135 games |
| Andrea HoldenF | 35 | 14.3 | 6.1 | 3.9 | 0.4 | 60.2 | 21.6% | 35 | 0.4235 games | 135 games |
| Sam AlamutuG | 34 | 11.9 | 2.9 | 2.4 | 1.1 | 54.0 | 14.7% | 34 | 1.2334 games | 1034 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 Wright 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 | 9 | 4,680 | 4,680 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 2,319 | 2,319 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 26 | 26 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (7,025 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Solomon Callaghan →G | Same programWright State Raiders | 28.1 | 10.2 | 61.1% |
| Dominic Pangonis →G | Same programWright State Raiders | 27.0 | 8.9 | 60.1% |
| TJ Burch →G | Same programWright State Raiders | 24.7 | 12.4 | 52.8% |
| Michael Imariagbe →F | Same programWright State Raiders | 24.1 | 12.0 | 62.9% |
| Michael Cooper →G | Same programWright State Raiders | 26.5 | 13.4 | 54.7% |
| Kellen Pickett →F | Same programWright State Raiders | 22.9 | 8.5 | 62.2% |
| Logan Woods →G | Same programWright State Raiders | 18.4 | 5.3 | 55.5% |
| Andrea Holden →F | Same programWright State Raiders | 14.3 | 6.1 | 60.2% |
| Sam Alamutu →G | Same programWright State Raiders | 11.9 | 2.9 | 54.0% |
| Bryan Etumnu →F | Same programWright State Raiders | 11.5 | 3.4 | 45.0% |
| Alex Bruskotter →G | Same programWright State Raiders | 8.3 | 4.5 | 78.2% |
| Ayden Davis →C | Same programWright State Raiders | 8.7 | 5.0 | 89.0% |
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…
Air Force vs Wright St
65.1Air Force
79.9Wright St
Wright St win estimate85.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin14.9
Projected total145.0
80% home-margin range-1.1 to 30.8
Estimated possessions66.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.0 pts
Wright St attack 54.0% · Air Force defense 53.9%Air Force attack 50.9% · Wright St defense 52.8%
Ball securityHome 3.3 pts
Wright St attack 16.5% · Air Force defense 16.2%Air Force attack 20.0% · Wright St defense 16.4%
Second chancesHome 4.4 pts
Wright St attack 29.2% · Air Force defense 30.0%Air Force attack 23.6% · Wright St defense 28.8%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.2 pts
Wright St attack 33.3% · Air Force defense 36.1%Air Force attack 34.4% · Wright St defense 34.1%
Nutter Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Wright St vs Miami OH
76.1Wright St
82.1Miami OH
Miami OH win estimate69.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.0
Projected total158.3
80% home-margin range-9.9 to 21.9
Estimated possessions70.4
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.9 pts
Miami OH attack 54.4% · Wright St defense 52.8%Wright St attack 54.0% · Miami OH defense 51.6%
Ball securityAway 1.3 pts
Miami OH attack 16.3% · Wright St defense 16.4%Wright St attack 16.5% · Miami OH defense 17.9%
Second chancesAway 2.6 pts
Miami OH attack 25.7% · Wright St defense 28.8%Wright St attack 29.2% · Miami OH defense 29.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.1 pts
Miami OH attack 34.7% · Wright St defense 34.1%Wright St attack 33.3% · Miami OH defense 32.8%
Millett Hall
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 →