A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
47.4% · rank 37 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Lindenwood
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.304
-10.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
18–152025–26 recorded finals
97.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
108.5Adjusted defense · lower is better
71.0Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Lindenwood.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
18–1533 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 73.7Mean opponent adj. net -7.0 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
50.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 268 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
47.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 37 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 294 / 366 · 20th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 55 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.9%33 games · higher is betterRank 82 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 243 / 366 · 34th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 119 / 366 · 68th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
35.5%33 games · lower is betterRank 216 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 105.5 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 98.6 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.8% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 48.2% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 30.8% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 30.5% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 30.7% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 32.9% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.0% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 67.4% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 51.6% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 47.7% | 33 | 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?
2,359 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
19.2% · rank 55 of 366 · 33 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Effective FG%
50.1% · rank 268 of 366 · 33 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Turnover rate
18.3% · rank 294 of 366 · 33 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 8 times in the selected window; Lindenwood 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 6, 2026 · neutral vs SE Missouri · L 66–68 · offense 97.2 / 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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| SE MissouriMar 6, 2026 · neutral | L 66–68 | 243 | 97.2 | 100.1 | 67.9 | 37.5 | 20.6 | 44.4 |
| Little RockMar 5, 2026 · neutral | W 72–62 | 275 | 93.0 | 80.1 | 77.4 | 34.4 | 11.6 | 31.4 |
| W IllinoisFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 91–69 | 362 | 129.0 | 97.8 | 70.6 | 56.9 | 8.5 | 40.0 |
| E IllinoisFeb 27, 2026 · home | L 67–71 | 327 | 96.9 | 102.7 | 69.2 | 43.2 | 20.2 | 42.9 |
| Tennessee TechFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 57–72 | 315 | 86.1 | 108.8 | 66.2 | 44.7 | 18.1 | 16.2 |
| Tennessee StFeb 20, 2026 · road | L 80–89 | 204 | 100.9 | 112.2 | 79.3 | 53.4 | 24.0 | 28.1 |
| SE MissouriFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 61–73 | 243 | 84.2 | 100.8 | 72.4 | 41.2 | 13.8 | 17.1 |
| UT MartinFeb 13, 2026 · home | W 75–74 | 234 | 108.2 | 106.8 | 69.3 | 59.3 | 24.5 | 30.8 |
| Little RockFeb 6, 2026 · road | W 79–74 | 275 | 116.6 | 109.2 | 67.8 | 51.6 | 16.2 | 41.0 |
| SIUEFeb 4, 2026 · home | L 72–78 | 231 | 98.6 | 106.8 | 73.0 | 43.6 | 19.2 | 42.2 |
| Morehead StJan 31, 2026 · road | W 79–78 | 276 | 108.9 | 107.6 | 72.5 | 56.7 | 22.1 | 28.6 |
| So IndianaJan 30, 2026 · road | W 73–60 | 338 | 94.0 | 77.3 | 77.6 | 41.3 | 19.3 | 33.3 |
| Tennessee StJan 24, 2026 · home | L 86–96 | 204 | 110.1 | 122.9 | 78.1 | 56.9 | 20.5 | 24.1 |
| Tennessee TechJan 23, 2026 · home | W 89–68 | 315 | 116.5 | 89.0 | 76.4 | 60.8 | 23.6 | 37.0 |
| UT MartinJan 17, 2026 · road | L 55–69 | 234 | 77.4 | 97.1 | 71.0 | 35.8 | 23.9 | 29.3 |
| SE MissouriJan 16, 2026 · road | W 88–76 | 243 | 108.0 | 93.3 | 81.5 | 55.1 | 19.6 | 35.1 |
| Little RockJan 10, 2026 · home | L 74–82 | 275 | 107.8 | 119.4 | 68.7 | 55.3 | 23.3 | 34.5 |
| SIUEJan 7, 2026 · road | L 62–66 | 231 | 88.8 | 94.6 | 69.8 | 39.4 | 18.6 | 35.6 |
| So IndianaJan 3, 2026 · home | W 83–80 | 338 | 115.8 | 111.6 | 71.7 | 52.1 | 16.7 | 46.2 |
| Morehead StJan 1, 2026 · home | W 77–64 | 276 | 111.1 | 92.4 | 69.3 | 60.0 | 14.4 | 15.2 |
| Missouri StDec 23, 2025 · road | L 65–70 | 186 | 94.4 | 101.7 | 68.8 | 39.8 | 13.1 | 31.1 |
| Harris StoweDec 20, 2025 · home | W 109–52 | Unrated | 125.2 | 59.7 | 87.1 | 57.4 | 10.3 | 35.0 |
| W IllinoisDec 19, 2025 · home | W 92–76 | 362 | 121.5 | 100.4 | 75.7 | 57.9 | 15.8 | 39.0 |
| Culver StockDec 10, 2025 · home | W 110–44 | Unrated | 145.4 | 58.1 | 75.7 | 80.0 | 23.8 | 55.0 |
| E IllinoisDec 7, 2025 · road | W 82–74 | 327 | 114.3 | 103.2 | 71.7 | 52.5 | 16.7 | 38.2 |
| N IllinoisDec 3, 2025 · road | W 99–64 | 344 | 133.3 | 86.2 | 74.3 | 55.6 | 13.5 | 50.0 |
| Kansas CityNov 25, 2025 · home | W 80–67 | 337 | 105.8 | 88.6 | 75.6 | 50.8 | 18.5 | 31.4 |
| IndianaNov 20, 2025 · road | L 53–73 | 44 | 74.5 | 102.6 | 71.2 | 27.2 | 19.7 | 37.7 |
| Alabama A&MNov 16, 2025 · road | L 65–74 | 346 | 95.7 | 108.9 | 67.9 | 48.1 | 20.6 | 29.4 |
| Charleston SoNov 14, 2025 · neutral | W 83–77 | 278 | 106.2 | 98.5 | 78.2 | 48.4 | 14.1 | 27.3 |
| Saint LouisNov 11, 2025 · road | L 66–109 | 55 | 81.4 | 134.5 | 81.0 | 47.3 | 29.6 | 27.8 |
| UHSPNov 7, 2025 · home | W 116–51 | Unrated | 145.7 | 64.1 | 79.6 | 69.7 | 12.6 | 43.3 |
| Texas TechNov 5, 2025 · road | L 60–98 | 16 | 78.3 | 127.9 | 76.6 | 35.2 | 18.3 | 23.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anias FutrellG | 32 | 31.6 | 17.4 | 5.9 | 2.0 | 55.4 | 26.8% | 32 | 0.8132 games | 21932 games |
| Mekhi CooperG | 33 | 29.9 | 6.4 | 2.8 | 3.9 | 45.0 | 14.3% | 33 | 1.9133 games | 11333 games |
| Dontrez WilliamsG | 29 | 32.0 | 15.2 | 5.1 | 2.1 | 50.3 | 25.9% | 29 | 0.7729 games | 9229 games |
| Jadis JonesG | 28 | 32.9 | 15.3 | 8.5 | 2.6 | 58.8 | 20.8% | 28 | 1.5028 games | 828 games |
| Milos NenadicC | 33 | 27.5 | 12.0 | 6.1 | 1.1 | 53.6 | 21.7% | 33 | 0.6533 games | 6133 games |
| Clayton JacksonG | 33 | 25.0 | 7.1 | 2.8 | 2.6 | 47.7 | 17.1% | 33 | 1.4233 games | 8133 games |
| Robert LewisF | 33 | 16.1 | 5.0 | 3.8 | 0.3 | 60.5 | 13.8% | 33 | 0.4833 games | 1033 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 Lindenwood?
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
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 | 4,766 | 4,766 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 782 | 782 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 1,051 | 1,051 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,599 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Anias Futrell →G | Same programLindenwood Lions | 31.6 | 17.4 | 55.4% |
| Mekhi Cooper →G | Same programLindenwood Lions | 29.9 | 6.4 | 45.0% |
| Dontrez Williams →G | Same programLindenwood Lions | 32.0 | 15.2 | 50.3% |
| Jadis Jones →G | Same programLindenwood Lions | 32.9 | 15.3 | 58.8% |
| Milos Nenadic →C | Same programLindenwood Lions | 27.5 | 12.0 | 53.6% |
| Clayton Jackson →G | Same programLindenwood Lions | 25.0 | 7.1 | 47.7% |
| Robert Lewis →F | Same programLindenwood Lions | 16.1 | 5.0 | 60.5% |
| Jeremiah Talton →F | Same programLindenwood Lions | 13.3 | 5.4 | 56.5% |
| Kevin Anthony →C | Same programLindenwood Lions | 8.1 | 1.8 | 57.5% |
| Todd Bieg →F | Same programLindenwood Lions | 5.3 | 0.5 | 80.8% |
| Tidiane d'Almeida →G | Same programLindenwood Lions | 7.3 | 1.7 | 53.5% |
| Jaylon McDaniel →F | Same programLindenwood Lions | 8.3 | 2.3 | 50.4% |
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…
Lindenwood vs Kansas St
66.0Lindenwood
84.2Kansas St
Kansas St win estimate89.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin18.2
Projected total150.2
80% home-margin range2.3 to 34.1
Estimated possessions73.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.0 pts
Kansas St attack 53.1% · Lindenwood defense 52.0%Lindenwood attack 47.2% · Kansas St defense 49.1%
Ball securityHome 0.3 pts
Kansas St attack 17.7% · Lindenwood defense 17.8%Lindenwood attack 18.1% · Kansas St defense 17.9%
Second chancesHome 1.5 pts
Kansas St attack 30.8% · Lindenwood defense 30.8%Lindenwood attack 28.9% · Kansas St defense 30.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 7.1 pts
Kansas St attack 32.3% · Lindenwood defense 37.0%Lindenwood attack 35.9% · Kansas St defense 33.5%
Bramlage Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Lindenwood vs SIUE
65.2Lindenwood
72.8SIUE
SIUE win estimate73.0%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.6
Projected total138.0
80% home-margin range-8.3 to 23.5
Estimated possessions69.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
SIUE attack 48.9% · Lindenwood defense 52.0%Lindenwood attack 47.2% · SIUE defense 49.6%
Ball securityHome 1.7 pts
SIUE attack 17.3% · Lindenwood defense 17.8%Lindenwood attack 18.1% · SIUE defense 16.9%
Second chancesHome 0.1 pts
SIUE attack 29.3% · Lindenwood defense 30.8%Lindenwood attack 28.9% · SIUE defense 30.4%
Free-throw pressureAway 4.9 pts
SIUE attack 32.7% · Lindenwood defense 37.0%Lindenwood attack 35.9% · SIUE defense 35.4%
First Community Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
UT Martin vs Lindenwood
70.7UT Martin
70.1Lindenwood
Lindenwood win estimate52.6%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.5
Projected total140.8
80% home-margin range-16.4 to 15.4
Estimated possessions70.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
Lindenwood attack 47.2% · UT Martin defense 50.7%UT Martin attack 49.1% · Lindenwood defense 52.0%
Ball securityHome 0.7 pts
Lindenwood attack 18.1% · UT Martin defense 17.8%UT Martin attack 18.8% · Lindenwood defense 17.8%
Second chancesAway 3.0 pts
Lindenwood attack 28.9% · UT Martin defense 30.7%UT Martin attack 32.0% · Lindenwood defense 30.8%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.2 pts
Lindenwood attack 35.9% · UT Martin defense 34.1%UT Martin attack 34.6% · Lindenwood defense 37.0%
Hyland 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 →