A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.7% · rank 50 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Fresno St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.188
-2.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
13–192025–26 recorded finals
103.5Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
105.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Fresno St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
13–1932 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.4Mean opponent adj. net 4.4 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 219 / 366 · 40th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 177 / 366 · 52th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 286 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 95 / 366 · 74th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 280 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 199 / 366 · 46th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
34.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 201 / 366 · 45th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
28.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 50 / 366 · 87th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 104.9 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 104.9 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.0% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 55.3% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.0% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 30.2% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.7% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 44.4% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 74.5% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.5% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 50.3% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 51.0% | 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?
2,225 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
18.3% · rank 95 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
28.3% · rank 280 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Turnover rate
18.2% · rank 286 of 366 · 32 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 12 times in the selected window; Fresno 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 12, 2026 · neutral vs Colorado St · L 63–67 · offense 100.1 / defense 106.4
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Colorado StMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 63–67 | 67 | 100.1 | 106.4 | 63.0 | 52.9 | 20.6 | 18.5 |
| Grand CanyonMar 8, 2026 · road | L 60–85 | 65 | 82.6 | 117.0 | 72.7 | 40.8 | 19.3 | 18.9 |
| San José StMar 4, 2026 · home | W 82–68 | 226 | 120.2 | 99.7 | 68.2 | 50.0 | 8.8 | 29.3 |
| Boise StMar 1, 2026 · home | L 53–69 | 50 | 88.3 | 114.9 | 60.0 | 43.5 | 13.3 | 20.6 |
| Colorado StFeb 25, 2026 · road | L 70–74 | 67 | 105.0 | 111.0 | 66.7 | 53.4 | 18.0 | 25.0 |
| New MexicoFeb 22, 2026 · home | L 78–80 | 40 | 116.0 | 119.0 | 67.2 | 57.9 | 16.4 | 33.3 |
| WyomingFeb 18, 2026 · road | L 82–92 | 132 | 125.6 | 140.9 | 65.3 | 58.0 | 13.8 | 35.5 |
| Air ForceFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 93–63 | 347 | 127.5 | 86.4 | 72.9 | 61.2 | 12.3 | 29.0 |
| Utah StateFeb 11, 2026 · road | L 78–91 | 30 | 111.5 | 130.0 | 70.0 | 46.2 | 14.3 | 37.5 |
| NevadaFeb 8, 2026 · road | L 59–69 | 59 | 93.3 | 109.1 | 63.2 | 44.3 | 12.7 | 14.3 |
| UNLVFeb 4, 2026 · home | W 98–96 | 111 | 123.3 | 120.8 | 79.5 | 67.3 | 18.9 | 22.2 |
| Air ForceJan 31, 2026 · road | W 79–62 | 347 | 110.6 | 86.8 | 71.4 | 56.7 | 14.0 | 22.2 |
| Grand CanyonJan 25, 2026 · home | L 57–68 | 65 | 86.2 | 102.9 | 66.1 | 34.9 | 18.2 | 23.1 |
| New MexicoJan 22, 2026 · road | L 74–83 | 40 | 94.0 | 105.4 | 78.7 | 48.1 | 27.9 | 27.8 |
| WyomingJan 18, 2026 · home | W 63–60 | 132 | 103.7 | 98.7 | 60.8 | 44.1 | 13.2 | 32.4 |
| Colorado StJan 14, 2026 · home | W 79–69 | 67 | 126.3 | 110.3 | 62.6 | 52.8 | 11.2 | 30.0 |
| San Diego StJan 11, 2026 · road | L 52–71 | 43 | 70.3 | 95.9 | 74.0 | 38.1 | 23.0 | 12.5 |
| San José StJan 7, 2026 · road | W 70–55 | 226 | 110.3 | 86.6 | 63.5 | 57.7 | 25.2 | 42.3 |
| NevadaJan 4, 2026 · home | L 65–66 | 59 | 100.2 | 101.7 | 64.9 | 51.9 | 23.1 | 33.3 |
| Utah StateDec 31, 2025 · home | L 63–72 | 30 | 82.9 | 94.8 | 76.0 | 38.8 | 23.7 | 24.4 |
| UNLVDec 21, 2025 · road | L 72–84 | 111 | 104.6 | 122.1 | 68.8 | 48.4 | 17.4 | 33.3 |
| CSU NorthridgeDec 11, 2025 · road | L 87–89 | 171 | 121.5 | 124.3 | 71.6 | 60.8 | 15.4 | 23.3 |
| ArkansasDec 6, 2025 · road | L 58–82 | 23 | 79.3 | 112.1 | 73.1 | 38.1 | 23.2 | 29.3 |
| BakersfieldNov 30, 2025 · neutral | L 71–76 | 311 | 99.7 | 106.7 | 71.2 | 43.1 | 22.5 | 44.2 |
| PepperdineNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 76–53 | 261 | 110.5 | 77.1 | 68.8 | 55.5 | 10.2 | 21.9 |
| New OrleansNov 22, 2025 · home | W 85–76 | 299 | 109.7 | 98.0 | 77.5 | 55.3 | 19.4 | 27.3 |
| SF AustinNov 19, 2025 · home | W 80–78 | 145 | 117.8 | 114.8 | 67.9 | 63.9 | 19.1 | 32.1 |
| Utah ValleyNov 16, 2025 · home | W 75–74 | 100 | 105.8 | 104.4 | 70.9 | 65.2 | 24.0 | 12.0 |
| UC San DiegoNov 13, 2025 · home | L 73–78 | 97 | 102.7 | 109.7 | 71.1 | 48.3 | 19.7 | 35.1 |
| Long Beach StNov 8, 2025 · home | W 82–62 | 265 | 114.5 | 86.6 | 71.6 | 58.7 | 22.3 | 35.7 |
| SC UpstateNov 6, 2025 · home | L 66–67 | 309 | 93.3 | 94.7 | 70.8 | 41.1 | 17.0 | 32.6 |
| Fresno PacificNov 4, 2025 · home | W 88–51 | Unrated | 122.3 | 70.9 | 71.9 | 63.4 | 20.9 | 44.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jake HeidbrederG | 30 | 37.0 | 17.0 | 2.8 | 2.3 | 56.5 | 23.4% | 30 | 1.1330 games | 21630 games |
| DeShawn GoryF | 32 | 29.3 | 13.7 | 6.2 | 2.0 | 54.0 | 24.8% | 32 | 1.2632 games | 11132 games |
| Wilson JacquesC | 32 | 27.4 | 8.8 | 8.8 | 1.1 | 53.6 | 18.1% | 32 | 0.6732 games | 1332 games |
| Zaon CollinsG | 26 | 30.7 | 11.6 | 3.4 | 4.6 | 53.5 | 22.3% | 26 | 1.6526 games | 5526 games |
| Cameron FaasG | 32 | 19.1 | 5.2 | 2.3 | 0.3 | 55.4 | 13.9% | 32 | 0.6932 games | 11632 games |
| Bastien RieberG | 32 | 16.4 | 4.0 | 1.2 | 1.5 | 55.1 | 15.0% | 32 | 1.3032 games | 4632 games |
| Gasper KocevarC | 26 | 13.4 | 3.3 | 2.2 | 0.7 | 63.4 | 12.5% | 26 | 1.1226 games | 926 games |
| David Douglas Jr.G | 18 | 17.8 | 7.2 | 1.4 | 0.2 | 60.6 | 18.6% | 18 | 0.3018 games | 7318 games |
| Jac ManiF | 26 | 11.8 | 6.0 | 2.7 | 0.4 | 54.6 | 27.6% | 26 | 0.4326 games | 5026 games |
| DJ StickmanG | 20 | 15.2 | 3.6 | 2.6 | 1.4 | 64.3 | 13.5% | 20 | 1.0420 games | 920 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 Fresno 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.
15Source-listed players
14Same-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 | 10 | 3,842 | 3,842 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 3 | 1,331 | 1,331 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 1,226 | 1,226 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,399 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jake Heidbreder →G | Same programFresno State Bulldogs | 37.0 | 17.0 | 56.5% |
| DeShawn Gory →F | Same programFresno State Bulldogs | 29.3 | 13.7 | 54.0% |
| Wilson Jacques →C | Same programFresno State Bulldogs | 27.4 | 8.8 | 53.6% |
| Zaon Collins →G | Same programFresno State Bulldogs | 30.7 | 11.6 | 53.5% |
| Cameron Faas →G | Same programFresno State Bulldogs | 19.1 | 5.2 | 55.4% |
| Bastien Rieber →G | Same programFresno State Bulldogs | 16.4 | 4.0 | 55.1% |
| Gasper Kocevar →C | Same programFresno State Bulldogs | 13.4 | 3.3 | 63.4% |
| David Douglas Jr. →G | Same programFresno State Bulldogs | 17.8 | 7.2 | 60.6% |
| Jac Mani →F | Same programFresno State Bulldogs | 11.8 | 6.0 | 54.6% |
| DJ Stickman →G | Same programFresno State Bulldogs | 15.2 | 3.6 | 64.3% |
| Aram Soqui Urbano →G | Same programFresno State Bulldogs | 9.5 | 2.0 | 42.1% |
| Makhan Diouf →F | Same programFresno State Bulldogs | 5.1 | 1.1 | 36.1% |
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…
Fresno St vs San José St
71.4Fresno St
73.0San José St
San José St win estimate58.4%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin1.6
Projected total144.4
80% home-margin range-14.3 to 17.5
Estimated possessions67.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.4 pts
San José St attack 50.9% · Fresno St defense 51.7%Fresno St attack 50.1% · San José St defense 53.3%
Ball securityHome 2.7 pts
San José St attack 16.1% · Fresno St defense 17.7%Fresno St attack 17.6% · San José St defense 16.6%
Second chancesHome 3.8 pts
San José St attack 29.5% · Fresno St defense 30.4%Fresno St attack 27.5% · San José St defense 32.3%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.7 pts
San José St attack 31.4% · Fresno St defense 27.8%Fresno St attack 32.9% · San José St defense 31.9%
Provident Credit Union Event 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 →