A relative strength
Opponent offensive rebound rate
26.2% · rank 31 of 366 · 33 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Stonehill
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.341
-15.1 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
12–212025–26 recorded finals
94.7Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
109.8Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Stonehill.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
12–2133 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.1Mean opponent adj. net -9.1 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
48.0%33 games · higher is betterRank 333 / 366 · 9th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
47.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 32 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
19.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 332 / 366 · 9th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
13.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 344 / 366 · 6th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
28.2%33 games · higher is betterRank 281 / 366 · 23th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
26.2%33 games · lower is betterRank 31 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
28.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 336 / 366 · 8th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 83 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 97.5 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 100.7 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 47.8% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 46.0% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.2% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.1% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.6% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 33.2% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 68.6% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 66.8% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.3% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 43.4% | 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?
2,243 source possession rows across 33 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%
47.2% · rank 32 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
28.5% · rank 336 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
13.8% · rank 344 of 366 · 33 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 11 times in the selected window; Stonehill won 5. 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 Mercyhurst · L 51–56 · offense 77.8 / defense 85.4
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MercyhurstMar 7, 2026 · road | L 51–56 | 305 | 77.8 | 85.4 | 65.6 | 38.0 | 15.2 | 8.6 |
| Le MoyneMar 5, 2026 · road | W 81–71 | 316 | 114.8 | 100.6 | 70.6 | 53.9 | 11.3 | 23.1 |
| MercyhurstFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 72–75 | 305 | 94.0 | 97.9 | 68.1 | 43.0 | 15.7 | 26.1 |
| Saint FrancisFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 103–77 | 356 | 141.0 | 105.4 | 73.0 | 68.2 | 11.0 | 34.5 |
| Le MoyneFeb 21, 2026 · home | W 77–68 | 316 | 109.4 | 96.6 | 70.4 | 48.4 | 8.5 | 28.6 |
| New HavenFeb 20, 2026 · road | L 51–64 | 332 | 77.9 | 97.8 | 65.5 | 40.4 | 15.3 | 17.9 |
| WagnerFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 57–68 | 313 | 86.5 | 103.2 | 65.9 | 39.2 | 21.3 | 28.2 |
| Chicago StFeb 13, 2026 · road | L 55–68 | 360 | 98.3 | 121.5 | 56.0 | 56.0 | 25.0 | 20.8 |
| Long IslandFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 54–61 | 269 | 88.2 | 99.7 | 61.2 | 38.2 | 21.2 | 36.4 |
| FDUFeb 6, 2026 · road | L 58–74 | 328 | 91.0 | 116.1 | 63.7 | 42.9 | 18.8 | 21.6 |
| Le MoyneJan 31, 2026 · road | W 65–54 | 316 | 91.1 | 75.7 | 71.4 | 39.8 | 11.2 | 22.7 |
| FDUJan 30, 2026 · home | W 58–57 | 328 | 96.6 | 94.9 | 60.1 | 44.4 | 16.6 | 32.3 |
| C ConnecticutJan 27, 2026 · home | W 61–59 | 260 | 92.9 | 89.9 | 65.7 | 43.3 | 19.8 | 28.6 |
| Long IslandJan 24, 2026 · home | L 63–66 | 269 | 97.1 | 101.7 | 64.9 | 50.9 | 23.1 | 32.3 |
| Saint FrancisJan 19, 2026 · road | L 61–63 | 356 | 90.2 | 93.1 | 67.6 | 51.1 | 31.0 | 25.0 |
| MercyhurstJan 17, 2026 · road | W 62–57 | 305 | 88.8 | 81.7 | 62.0 | 47.1 | 21.5 | 25.0 |
| Chicago StJan 10, 2026 · home | W 85–82 | 360 | 115.7 | 111.6 | 65.3 | 57.4 | 23.1 | 45.7 |
| C ConnecticutJan 9, 2026 · road | L 69–76 | 260 | 104.1 | 114.6 | 66.3 | 51.7 | 19.6 | 32.4 |
| WagnerJan 4, 2026 · road | W 69–60 | 313 | 112.8 | 98.1 | 61.2 | 52.8 | 13.1 | 29.0 |
| New HavenJan 3, 2026 · home | L 55–70 | 332 | 83.3 | 106.1 | 66.0 | 40.4 | 18.2 | 26.5 |
| SyracuseDec 23, 2025 · road | L 48–77 | 102 | 77.5 | 124.3 | 61.9 | 34.9 | 24.2 | 32.6 |
| New HampshireDec 17, 2025 · road | L 58–59 | 348 | 84.9 | 86.4 | 68.3 | 43.0 | 30.7 | 30.3 |
| VTSU JohnsonDec 13, 2025 · home | W 101–60 | Unrated | 134.3 | 79.8 | 75.2 | 62.5 | 14.6 | 41.2 |
| BryantDec 2, 2025 · road | L 65–77 | 298 | 105.4 | 124.8 | 61.7 | 50.0 | 14.6 | 33.3 |
| QuinnipiacNov 30, 2025 · road | L 62–76 | 192 | 89.5 | 109.7 | 69.3 | 45.3 | 21.7 | 38.9 |
| UMass LowellNov 26, 2025 · home | L 64–75 | 272 | 93.3 | 109.4 | 68.6 | 40.7 | 13.1 | 30.6 |
| LafayetteNov 21, 2025 · home | W 74–70 | 319 | 103.6 | 98.0 | 71.4 | 53.3 | 21.0 | 34.3 |
| Iowa StateNov 18, 2025 · road | L 57–96 | 5 | 80.7 | 136.0 | 70.6 | 50.9 | 28.3 | 18.8 |
| Loyola MDNov 15, 2025 · neutral | L 63–74 | 330 | 95.7 | 112.4 | 65.9 | 51.7 | 25.8 | 31.3 |
| FairfieldNov 15, 2025 · road | L 71–73 | 271 | 91.8 | 94.4 | 68.7 | 46.3 | 12.9 | 12.5 |
| Rhode IslandNov 12, 2025 · road | L 57–80 | 158 | 80.0 | 112.3 | 71.2 | 40.4 | 29.5 | 31.6 |
| DePaulNov 8, 2025 · road | L 64–72 | 134 | 84.3 | 94.9 | 75.9 | 48.2 | 21.1 | 16.2 |
| Thomas CollNov 3, 2025 · home | W 100–48 | Unrated | 131.8 | 63.3 | 75.9 | 63.3 | 15.8 | 40.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hermann KoffiG | 32 | 35.4 | 12.8 | 2.8 | 1.3 | 54.2 | 19.3% | 32 | 1.0832 games | 21232 games |
| Davante HackettG | 33 | 27.7 | 13.6 | 4.1 | 1.5 | 54.3 | 25.9% | 33 | 1.0933 games | 18633 games |
| Chas StinsonG | 32 | 27.9 | 11.3 | 5.5 | 1.6 | 52.2 | 24.1% | 32 | 0.7732 games | 3432 games |
| Rex SunderlandG | 33 | 26.9 | 4.7 | 3.5 | 3.2 | 40.8 | 15.6% | 33 | 1.3633 games | 8433 games |
| Raymond Espinal-GuzmanF | 33 | 24.1 | 6.3 | 5.1 | 1.3 | 45.9 | 18.2% | 33 | 0.8333 games | 7633 games |
| Ridvan TuticF | 30 | 22.5 | 7.1 | 7.8 | 1.0 | 59.0 | 16.9% | 30 | 0.7830 games | 030 games |
| Ethan MeuserF | 20 | 20.4 | 6.1 | 5.2 | 1.2 | 47.8 | 19.6% | 20 | 1.0920 games | 6020 games |
| Trenton RuthG | 32 | 11.4 | 3.4 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 41.4 | 21.9% | 32 | 1.7032 games | 5032 games |
| Pearse McGuinnF | 25 | 9.3 | 2.7 | 1.6 | 0.3 | 49.2 | 18.1% | 25 | 0.4725 games | 1625 games |
| Anthony HoldenG | 20 | 10.0 | 2.4 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 59.4 | 11.3% | 20 | 2.0020 games | 2820 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 Stonehill?
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.
16Source-listed players
16Same-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 | 11 | 4,523 | 4,523 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,177 | 2,177 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,700 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hermann Koffi →G | Same programStonehill Skyhawks | 35.4 | 12.8 | 54.2% |
| Davante Hackett →G | Same programStonehill Skyhawks | 27.7 | 13.6 | 54.3% |
| Chas Stinson →G | Same programStonehill Skyhawks | 27.9 | 11.3 | 52.2% |
| Rex Sunderland →G | Same programStonehill Skyhawks | 26.9 | 4.7 | 40.8% |
| Raymond Espinal-Guzman →F | Same programStonehill Skyhawks | 24.1 | 6.3 | 45.9% |
| Ridvan Tutic →F | Same programStonehill Skyhawks | 22.5 | 7.1 | 59.0% |
| Ethan Meuser →F | Same programStonehill Skyhawks | 20.4 | 6.1 | 47.8% |
| Trenton Ruth →G | Same programStonehill Skyhawks | 11.4 | 3.4 | 41.4% |
| Pearse McGuinn →F | Same programStonehill Skyhawks | 9.3 | 2.7 | 49.2% |
| Anthony Holden →G | Same programStonehill Skyhawks | 10.0 | 2.4 | 59.4% |
| William Batchelder →G | Same programStonehill Skyhawks | 27.3 | 10.3 | 55.7% |
| Cory Lovell →F | Same programStonehill Skyhawks | 5.9 | 0.6 | 37.1% |
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…
Stonehill vs Fordham
60.5Stonehill
72.6Fordham
Fordham win estimate81.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin12.1
Projected total133.2
80% home-margin range-3.8 to 28.0
Estimated possessions66.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.6 pts
Fordham attack 49.0% · Stonehill defense 51.1%Stonehill attack 48.2% · Fordham defense 50.9%
Ball securityAway 1.2 pts
Fordham attack 17.9% · Stonehill defense 15.2%Stonehill attack 18.8% · Fordham defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 5.0 pts
Fordham attack 32.0% · Stonehill defense 29.7%Stonehill attack 25.5% · Fordham defense 28.2%
Free-throw pressureHome 6.6 pts
Fordham attack 32.3% · Stonehill defense 32.8%Stonehill attack 29.5% · Fordham defense 36.6%
Rose Hill Gym
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Stonehill vs Providence
62.3Stonehill
83.0Providence
Providence win estimate91.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin20.7
Projected total145.3
80% home-margin range4.8 to 36.6
Estimated possessions69.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.2 pts
Providence attack 54.2% · Stonehill defense 51.1%Stonehill attack 48.2% · Providence defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 1.5 pts
Providence attack 17.3% · Stonehill defense 15.2%Stonehill attack 18.8% · Providence defense 15.2%
Second chancesHome 5.1 pts
Providence attack 31.9% · Stonehill defense 29.7%Stonehill attack 25.5% · Providence defense 28.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 6.4 pts
Providence attack 36.3% · Stonehill defense 32.8%Stonehill attack 29.5% · Providence defense 32.3%
Amica Mutual Pavilion
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Stonehill vs UMass
64.3Stonehill
77.4UMass
UMass win estimate83.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.1
Projected total141.7
80% home-margin range-2.8 to 29.0
Estimated possessions69.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.0 pts
UMass attack 49.9% · Stonehill defense 51.1%Stonehill attack 48.2% · UMass defense 51.4%
Ball securityAway 0.9 pts
UMass attack 17.5% · Stonehill defense 15.2%Stonehill attack 18.8% · UMass defense 17.3%
Second chancesHome 6.8 pts
UMass attack 33.2% · Stonehill defense 29.7%Stonehill attack 25.5% · UMass defense 28.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 14.5 pts
UMass attack 36.6% · Stonehill defense 32.8%Stonehill attack 29.5% · UMass defense 40.2%
Mullins 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 →