A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
37.5% · rank 15 of 366 · 34 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
CA Baptist
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.131
+2.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
25–92025–26 recorded finals
105.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
102.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
66.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on CA Baptist.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
25–934 recorded games · 34 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.5Mean opponent adj. net -1.9 · 34 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
48.3%34 games · higher is betterRank 326 / 366 · 11th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
46.3%34 games · lower is betterRank 18 / 366 · 95th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.9%34 games · lower is betterRank 277 / 366 · 24th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
17.0%34 games · higher is betterRank 167 / 366 · 55th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
37.5%34 games · higher is betterRank 15 / 366 · 96th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
27.2%34 games · lower is betterRank 54 / 366 · 85th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.9%34 games · higher is betterRank 154 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.6%34 games · lower is betterRank 246 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 106.5 | 34 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 99.0 | 34 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 47.4% | 34 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 47.3% | 34 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.4% | 34 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 29.5% | 34 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 32.0% | 34 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 31.6% | 34 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.3% | 34 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 72.1% | 34 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 39.9% | 34 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 45.5% | 34 | 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?
2,336 source possession rows across 34 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%
46.3% · rank 18 of 366 · 34 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnover rate
17.9% · rank 277 of 366 · 34 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Effective FG%
48.3% · rank 326 of 366 · 34 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
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 7 times in the selected window; CA Baptist 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 21, 2026 · neutral vs Kansas · L 60–68 · offense 86.5 / defense 98.1
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 · 34 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KansasMar 21, 2026 · neutral | L 60–68 | 17 | 86.5 | 98.1 | 69.3 | 39.1 | 11.5 | 27.9 |
| Utah ValleyMar 15, 2026 · neutral | W 63–61 | 100 | 95.0 | 92.0 | 66.3 | 45.7 | 19.6 | 29.4 |
| Utah TechMar 14, 2026 · neutral | W 86–72 | 240 | 122.2 | 102.3 | 70.4 | 57.0 | 17.1 | 38.2 |
| Southern UtahMar 8, 2026 · road | W 82–75 | 285 | 117.2 | 107.2 | 69.9 | 58.3 | 17.2 | 32.3 |
| Abilene ChrstnMar 6, 2026 · home | W 87–48 | 248 | 120.1 | 66.2 | 72.5 | 65.1 | 19.3 | 30.0 |
| Tarleton StMar 1, 2026 · home | W 82–67 | 236 | 122.7 | 100.2 | 66.9 | 49.2 | 13.5 | 42.9 |
| UT ArlingtonFeb 27, 2026 · home | W 68–56 | 179 | 108.1 | 89.0 | 62.9 | 52.6 | 14.3 | 27.3 |
| Utah ValleyFeb 20, 2026 · road | L 46–65 | 100 | 70.3 | 99.3 | 65.4 | 33.6 | 30.6 | 36.6 |
| Utah TechFeb 15, 2026 · road | L 65–70 | 240 | 101.1 | 108.9 | 64.3 | 37.1 | 7.8 | 38.9 |
| Southern UtahFeb 13, 2026 · road | W 83–66 | 285 | 122.7 | 97.6 | 67.7 | 55.0 | 11.8 | 37.1 |
| Abilene ChrstnFeb 8, 2026 · home | W 65–63 | 248 | 95.9 | 93.0 | 67.8 | 41.0 | 17.7 | 30.0 |
| Tarleton StFeb 6, 2026 · home | W 56–55 | 236 | 85.3 | 83.7 | 65.7 | 33.9 | 24.4 | 46.5 |
| UT ArlingtonJan 31, 2026 · road | W 87–77 | 179 | 111.5 | 98.7 | 69.4 | 50.8 | 12.8 | 27.5 |
| Utah ValleyJan 25, 2026 · home | W 78–71 | 100 | 102.7 | 93.5 | 67.5 | 53.8 | 22.4 | 29.0 |
| Utah TechJan 22, 2026 · home | W 73–64 | 240 | 118.0 | 103.5 | 61.9 | 51.7 | 11.3 | 35.1 |
| Abilene ChrstnJan 16, 2026 · road | W 74–58 | 248 | 115.8 | 90.7 | 63.9 | 50.0 | 15.6 | 36.4 |
| Southern UtahJan 11, 2026 · home | W 58–55 | 285 | 95.3 | 90.4 | 60.9 | 34.6 | 9.9 | 44.0 |
| Utah TechJan 9, 2026 · home | W 84–72 | 240 | 134.5 | 115.3 | 62.5 | 53.3 | 11.2 | 51.5 |
| Tarleton StJan 3, 2026 · road | L 76–81 | 236 | 102.0 | 108.7 | 66.3 | 58.3 | 28.2 | 40.7 |
| UT ArlingtonJan 1, 2026 · road | L 51–63 | 179 | 80.0 | 98.8 | 63.8 | 43.6 | 26.7 | 25.0 |
| Utah ValleyDec 30, 2025 · road | L 66–73 | 100 | 93.6 | 103.5 | 70.5 | 54.4 | 32.6 | 28.0 |
| Sacramento StDec 21, 2025 · home | W 74–67 | 314 | 109.5 | 99.2 | 67.6 | 46.5 | 19.2 | 42.5 |
| SouthernDec 17, 2025 · home | W 75–67 | 282 | 108.0 | 96.5 | 69.4 | 45.0 | 15.8 | 34.1 |
| E WashingtonDec 13, 2025 · road | W 88–83 | 199 | 124.7 | 117.6 | 70.6 | 58.0 | 21.3 | 53.6 |
| UtahDec 7, 2025 · road | L 85–91 | 93 | 120.1 | 128.5 | 70.8 | 50.7 | 16.9 | 53.5 |
| BYUDec 4, 2025 · road | L 60–91 | 19 | 86.5 | 131.2 | 69.3 | 37.7 | 20.2 | 34.1 |
| ColoradoDec 2, 2025 · road | L 70–78 | 69 | 102.8 | 114.6 | 68.1 | 41.9 | 16.2 | 32.6 |
| Oregon StNov 30, 2025 · road | W 75–69 | 139 | 111.5 | 102.5 | 67.3 | 51.7 | 10.4 | 27.0 |
| San DiegoNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 76–61 | 263 | 107.4 | 86.2 | 70.7 | 52.9 | 24.0 | 35.5 |
| GramblingNov 22, 2025 · home | W 72–59 | 307 | 111.6 | 91.5 | 64.5 | 65.2 | 27.9 | 34.8 |
| UC RiversideNov 19, 2025 · home | W 80–57 | 241 | 105.2 | 75.0 | 76.1 | 43.3 | 15.8 | 46.9 |
| W IllinoisNov 15, 2025 · home | W 69–59 | 362 | 110.0 | 94.0 | 62.7 | 39.6 | 9.6 | 45.7 |
| UC IrvineNov 8, 2025 · road | W 69–61 | 95 | 96.5 | 85.3 | 71.5 | 44.7 | 23.8 | 47.5 |
| SC UpstateNov 4, 2025 · home | W 87–75 | 309 | 122.8 | 105.8 | 70.9 | 58.6 | 9.9 | 37.1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dominique Daniels Jr.G | 33 | 36.3 | 23.2 | 3.8 | 3.2 | 54.1 | 32.5% | 33 | 1.3133 games | 19533 games |
| Martel WilliamsG | 33 | 33.2 | 12.8 | 4.8 | 1.5 | 49.0 | 22.0% | 33 | 0.8833 games | 11033 games |
| Jayden JacksonG | 28 | 29.0 | 9.0 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 46.9 | 18.9% | 28 | 1.2328 games | 15628 games |
| Jonathan GrimanF | 31 | 23.3 | 6.1 | 5.9 | 0.5 | 57.4 | 13.5% | 31 | 0.4231 games | 631 games |
| Jordan MullerG | 34 | 20.6 | 4.4 | 1.0 | 1.8 | 46.4 | 14.6% | 34 | 1.2934 games | 9134 games |
| Bradey HenigeF | 33 | 20.2 | 4.9 | 5.5 | 0.5 | 54.2 | 13.5% | 33 | 0.5333 games | 033 games |
| Thomas NdongF | 32 | 17.5 | 4.9 | 6.5 | 0.4 | 58.6 | 14.5% | 32 | 0.3932 games | 532 games |
| Devon MalcolmF | 33 | 13.6 | 5.8 | 3.4 | 0.5 | 51.3 | 23.7% | 33 | 0.6033 games | 3333 games |
| Miles DanielsG | 21 | 11.3 | 2.6 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 48.1 | 15.3% | 21 | 0.6921 games | 2021 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 CA Baptist?
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
12Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
83%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 | 8 | 2,992 | 2,992 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,587 | 2,587 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 99 | 99 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,678 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Martel Williams →G | Same programCalifornia Baptist Lancers | 33.2 | 12.8 | 49.0% |
| Jayden Jackson →G | Same programCalifornia Baptist Lancers | 29.0 | 9.0 | 46.9% |
| Jonathan Griman →F | Same programCalifornia Baptist Lancers | 23.3 | 6.1 | 57.4% |
| Jordan Muller →G | Same programCalifornia Baptist Lancers | 20.6 | 4.4 | 46.4% |
| Bradey Henige →F | Same programCalifornia Baptist Lancers | 20.2 | 4.9 | 54.2% |
| Thomas Ndong →F | Same programCalifornia Baptist Lancers | 17.5 | 4.9 | 58.6% |
| Devon Malcolm →F | Same programCalifornia Baptist Lancers | 13.6 | 5.8 | 51.3% |
| Miles Daniels →G | Same programCalifornia Baptist Lancers | 11.3 | 2.6 | 48.1% |
| Rene D'Amelio →F | Same programCalifornia Baptist Lancers | 10.6 | 2.6 | 53.4% |
| Monty Bowser →G | Same programCalifornia Baptist Lancers | 8.3 | 2.1 | 48.6% |
| Nate Garcia →C | Same programCalifornia Baptist Lancers | 6.6 | 2.6 | 67.5% |
| Jalen Dollar →G | Same programCalifornia Baptist Lancers | 5.1 | 1.9 | 93.5% |
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…
CA Baptist vs UC Davis
68.9CA Baptist
68.8UC Davis
UC Davis win estimate53.8%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.1
Projected total137.6
80% home-margin range-16.0 to 15.8
Estimated possessions67.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 3.8 pts
UC Davis attack 50.2% · CA Baptist defense 48.9%CA Baptist attack 48.7% · UC Davis defense 51.2%
Ball securityAway 5.2 pts
UC Davis attack 18.7% · CA Baptist defense 16.0%CA Baptist attack 17.1% · UC Davis defense 19.5%
Second chancesAway 1.6 pts
UC Davis attack 28.2% · CA Baptist defense 27.0%CA Baptist attack 33.6% · UC Davis defense 30.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 10.3 pts
UC Davis attack 39.2% · CA Baptist defense 34.0%CA Baptist attack 32.7% · UC Davis defense 37.8%
University Credit Union 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 →