A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
27.3% · rank 30 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
Purdue FW
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.210
-3.7 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
17–152025–26 recorded finals
105.9Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
109.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.5Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Purdue FW.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
17–1532 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.2Mean opponent adj. net -2.8 · 29 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.4%32 games · higher is betterRank 66 / 366 · 82th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
54.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 334 / 366 · 9th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
14.2%32 games · lower is betterRank 31 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
19.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 42 / 366 · 89th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
23.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 353 / 366 · 4th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 303 / 366 · 17th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
29.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 306 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
27.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 30 / 366 · 92th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 111.2 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 109.8 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 55.8% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 54.5% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.2% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 36.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 44.4% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 43.8% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 71.1% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 75.9% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 49.2% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 55.1% | 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?
2,247 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
Turnover rate
14.2% · rank 31 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
54.6% · rank 334 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
23.6% · rank 353 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
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 9 times in the selected window; Purdue FW won 7. 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 4, 2026 · road vs Green Bay · L 56–64 · offense 96.7 / defense 110.6
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Green BayMar 4, 2026 · road | L 56–64 | 284 | 96.7 | 110.6 | 57.9 | 44.7 | 13.8 | 30.6 |
| IU IndyFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 87–81 | 339 | 125.0 | 116.4 | 69.6 | 54.1 | 10.1 | 32.4 |
| Wright StFeb 26, 2026 · home | L 70–74 | 154 | 98.7 | 104.3 | 70.9 | 44.0 | 16.9 | 33.3 |
| Cleveland StFeb 22, 2026 · road | W 92–86 | 267 | 120.7 | 112.8 | 76.2 | 66.9 | 17.1 | 21.9 |
| N KentuckyFeb 19, 2026 · road | L 71–87 | 183 | 99.7 | 122.1 | 71.2 | 50.9 | 18.2 | 16.1 |
| IU IndyFeb 15, 2026 · home | W 83–78 | 339 | 110.7 | 104.1 | 75.0 | 58.5 | 12.0 | 18.4 |
| Green BayFeb 13, 2026 · road | L 59–76 | 284 | 100.1 | 129.0 | 58.9 | 47.8 | 22.1 | 35.7 |
| Wright StFeb 8, 2026 · road | L 68–73 | 154 | 109.2 | 117.2 | 62.3 | 54.7 | 17.7 | 23.3 |
| Youngstown StFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 61–90 | 176 | 96.0 | 141.6 | 63.5 | 51.0 | 14.2 | 10.3 |
| Robert MorrisJan 31, 2026 · home | W 83–71 | 166 | 118.8 | 101.6 | 69.9 | 57.1 | 11.4 | 14.3 |
| OaklandJan 29, 2026 · home | L 65–74 | 167 | 93.6 | 106.6 | 69.4 | 44.2 | 11.5 | 20.5 |
| Detroit MercyJan 22, 2026 · road | W 83–76 | 294 | 115.3 | 105.6 | 72.0 | 52.4 | 8.3 | 22.5 |
| MilwaukeeJan 18, 2026 · home | W 100–82 | 218 | 137.0 | 112.3 | 73.0 | 66.4 | 9.6 | 22.6 |
| Robert MorrisJan 11, 2026 · road | W 79–74 | 166 | 122.6 | 114.9 | 64.4 | 65.7 | 18.6 | 26.9 |
| Youngstown StJan 8, 2026 · road | W 71–69 | 176 | 106.7 | 103.7 | 66.6 | 50.9 | 16.5 | 25.7 |
| Cleveland StJan 4, 2026 · home | W 74–71 | 267 | 110.3 | 105.8 | 67.1 | 49.1 | 11.9 | 25.8 |
| Green BayJan 1, 2026 · home | L 54–72 | 284 | 87.3 | 116.4 | 61.8 | 47.2 | 17.8 | 15.2 |
| MilwaukeeDec 30, 2025 · road | L 55–77 | 218 | 81.6 | 114.2 | 67.4 | 42.2 | 13.3 | 10.5 |
| Notre DameDec 21, 2025 · road | W 72–69 | 114 | 103.5 | 99.2 | 69.6 | 50.0 | 11.5 | 14.7 |
| Detroit MercyDec 14, 2025 · home | W 81–77 | 294 | 118.7 | 112.8 | 68.2 | 55.8 | 2.9 | 19.4 |
| E MichiganDec 11, 2025 · home | W 80–65 | 274 | 121.2 | 98.4 | 66.0 | 54.5 | 13.6 | 25.0 |
| N KentuckyDec 6, 2025 · home | W 79–77 | 183 | 104.6 | 102.0 | 75.5 | 57.0 | 23.8 | 33.3 |
| OaklandDec 4, 2025 · road | L 92–101 | 167 | 119.6 | 131.3 | 77.0 | 58.1 | 10.4 | 22.0 |
| Holy Cross ColNov 28, 2025 · home | W 92–59 | Unrated | 125.0 | 80.2 | 73.6 | 64.9 | 16.3 | 25.8 |
| Chicago StNov 26, 2025 · home | W 90–77 | 360 | 132.2 | 113.1 | 68.1 | 72.6 | 22.0 | 30.4 |
| Saint LouisNov 22, 2025 · road | L 60–91 | 55 | 85.3 | 129.3 | 70.4 | 40.2 | 15.6 | 18.6 |
| UtahNov 19, 2025 · road | L 77–85 | 93 | 115.9 | 128.0 | 66.4 | 54.6 | 15.1 | 34.3 |
| BoyceNov 15, 2025 · home | W 118–68 | Unrated | 137.2 | 79.1 | 86.0 | 63.5 | 10.5 | 38.9 |
| W MichiganNov 13, 2025 · road | L 71–83 | 295 | 93.6 | 109.4 | 75.9 | 41.0 | 11.9 | 28.6 |
| Dominican (IL)Nov 9, 2025 · home | W 137–56 | Unrated | 160.6 | 65.6 | 85.3 | 77.3 | 7.0 | 29.2 |
| Ohio StateNov 7, 2025 · road | L 68–94 | 25 | 93.6 | 129.4 | 72.6 | 48.3 | 17.9 | 19.4 |
| Grand CanyonNov 4, 2025 · road | L 71–90 | 65 | 94.5 | 119.8 | 75.1 | 48.4 | 17.3 | 15.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corey Hadnot IIG | 32 | 33.2 | 20.4 | 4.0 | 3.5 | 60.0 | 29.5% | 32 | 1.7032 games | 15932 games |
| Mikale StevensonG | 32 | 29.8 | 13.9 | 3.6 | 3.1 | 53.0 | 26.3% | 32 | 1.4032 games | 15232 games |
| DeAndre Craig Jr.G | 32 | 28.8 | 14.0 | 3.2 | 2.6 | 56.2 | 24.9% | 32 | 1.6732 games | 13532 games |
| Maximus NelsonF | 32 | 27.5 | 7.9 | 3.4 | 0.8 | 57.1 | 13.9% | 32 | 1.4132 games | 19532 games |
| Darius DuffyF | 32 | 21.6 | 5.0 | 4.4 | 0.6 | 62.8 | 10.6% | 32 | 1.2732 games | 132 games |
| Deangelo EliseeF | 32 | 13.8 | 3.8 | 2.6 | 0.3 | 69.6 | 12.4% | 32 | 0.5832 games | 232 games |
| EJ MosleyG | 32 | 13.1 | 3.2 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 52.1 | 12.9% | 32 | 2.5032 games | 4832 games |
| Chris MorganG | 27 | 14.5 | 3.1 | 1.0 | 1.0 | 52.7 | 12.4% | 27 | 2.0027 games | 3927 games |
| Yuval LevinF | 32 | 9.6 | 3.2 | 1.9 | 0.7 | 50.6 | 19.4% | 32 | 1.2432 games | 4632 games |
| Ebrahim KabaG | 20 | 12.8 | 4.0 | 2.9 | 0.8 | 52.3 | 17.9% | 20 | 0.8820 games | 5020 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 Purdue FW?
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
11Same-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 | 4,080 | 4,080 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 5 | 2,320 | 2,320 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,400 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Corey Hadnot II →G | Same programPurdue Fort Wayne Mastodons | 33.2 | 20.4 | 60.0% |
| Mikale Stevenson →G | Same programPurdue Fort Wayne Mastodons | 29.8 | 13.9 | 53.0% |
| DeAndre Craig Jr. →G | Same programPurdue Fort Wayne Mastodons | 28.8 | 14.0 | 56.2% |
| Maximus Nelson →F | Same programPurdue Fort Wayne Mastodons | 27.5 | 7.9 | 57.1% |
| Darius Duffy →F | Same programPurdue Fort Wayne Mastodons | 21.6 | 5.0 | 62.8% |
| Deangelo Elisee →F | Same programPurdue Fort Wayne Mastodons | 13.8 | 3.8 | 69.6% |
| EJ Mosley →G | Same programPurdue Fort Wayne Mastodons | 13.1 | 3.2 | 52.1% |
| Chris Morgan →G | Same programPurdue Fort Wayne Mastodons | 14.5 | 3.1 | 52.7% |
| Yuval Levin →F | Same programPurdue Fort Wayne Mastodons | 9.6 | 3.2 | 50.6% |
| Ebrahim Kaba →G | Same programPurdue Fort Wayne Mastodons | 12.8 | 4.0 | 52.3% |
| Mason Shrout →G | Same programPurdue Fort Wayne Mastodons | 5.9 | 3.7 | 64.4% |
| Danny Kelly →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Purdue FW vs Xavier
71.9Purdue FW
85.6Xavier
Xavier win estimate84.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.7
Projected total157.6
80% home-margin range-2.2 to 29.7
Estimated possessions71.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 1.6 pts
Xavier attack 53.5% · Purdue FW defense 54.0%Purdue FW attack 52.1% · Xavier defense 51.0%
Ball securityHome 2.6 pts
Xavier attack 15.1% · Purdue FW defense 19.3%Purdue FW attack 15.2% · Xavier defense 16.8%
Second chancesAway 0.0 pts
Xavier attack 28.0% · Purdue FW defense 31.2%Purdue FW attack 23.3% · Xavier defense 26.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.7 pts
Xavier attack 33.8% · Purdue FW defense 30.8%Purdue FW attack 30.3% · Xavier defense 32.0%
Cintas 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 →