SSILVERMINECollege basketball stats
LIVE BOARD
2026–27 SEASON
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball

Bakersfield

2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.

Independent preseason modelNo.311

-11.6 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions

8242025–26 recorded finals
101.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
112.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID

A second read on Bakersfield.

Open model archive ↗

Checking the attributed publisher rating…

01 / Both ends of the floor

The possession profile.

82432 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 73.0Mean opponent adj. net -1.9 · 30 rated opponents
Offense

Effective FG%

46.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 355 / 366 · 3th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent effective FG%

53.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 302 / 366 · 18th favorable percentile
Offense

Turnover rate

18.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 309 / 366 · 16th favorable percentile
Defense

Turnovers forced

18.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 92 / 366 · 75th favorable percentile
Offense

Offensive rebound rate

30.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 198 / 366 · 46th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent offensive rebound rate

35.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 349 / 366 · 5th favorable percentile
Offense

Free-throw attempt rate

42.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 19 / 366 · 95th favorable percentile
Defense

Opponent free-throw attempt rate

42.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 342 / 366 · 7th favorable percentile
Shooting and ball-movement detail
MetricObserved rateGamesDefinition
Offensive efficiency100.232Points per 100 estimated possessions.
Defensive efficiency112.632Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions.
Two-point FG%47.3%32(FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Opponent two-point FG%53.2%32Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA).
Three-point FG%29.0%323PM / 3PA.
Opponent three-point FG%35.6%32Opponent 3PM / 3PA.
Three-point attempt share28.8%323PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade.
Opponent three-point attempt share38.4%32Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure.
Free-throw accuracy73.5%32FTM / FTA.
Opponent free-throw accuracy71.9%32Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill.
Assisted field-goal share44.7%32Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement.
Opponent assisted FG share53.4%32Opponent 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 / 202526

What did the possessions look like?

Compare possession style →
0.995
Points / source possession
73.59
Source possessions / game
20.0%
Transition share
15.1%
Assisted share
4.4%
Garbage-time share

2,355 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.

Full-season relative strengths and watch points
A relative strength

Free-throw attempt rate

42.5% · rank 19 of 366 · 32 games

Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?

A relative strength

Turnovers forced

18.3% · rank 92 of 366 · 32 games

Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?

A closer look

Opponent offensive rebound rate

35.0% · rank 349 of 366 · 32 games

Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?

A closer look

Effective FG%

46.2% · rank 355 of 366 · 32 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; Bakersfield 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
Unadjusted efficiency by game. Focus a point to inspect it.60110160OldestNewest

Mar 8, 2026 · road vs Cal Poly · L 76–108 · offense 92.2 / defense 131.0

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 / venueResultCurrent opponent rankOff. eff.Def. eff.PaceeFG%TO%ORB%
Cal PolyMar 8, 2026 · roadL 7610824692.2131.082.547.021.830.2
CSU NorthridgeMar 6, 2026 · homeL 8486171105.7108.279.550.712.623.8
Long Beach StMar 1, 2026 · homeL 8788265117.3118.674.255.912.121.2
UC San DiegoFeb 27, 2026 · roadL 728497100.8117.671.448.018.213.3
FullertonFeb 22, 2026 · homeL 8088255108.9119.873.447.713.627.5
UC RiversideFeb 20, 2026 · roadL 659324184.3120.677.133.916.922.7
Hawai'iFeb 13, 2026 · homeL 7489136102.3123.072.448.415.225.7
FullertonFeb 8, 2026 · roadL 668225589.0110.674.243.421.632.6
UC IrvineFeb 6, 2026 · roadL 62789584.7106.673.237.926.036.6
UC DavisJan 31, 2026 · homeL 7280193103.4114.969.653.721.527.6
Cal PolyJan 30, 2026 · homeL 79104246101.8134.177.654.521.936.8
Hawai'iJan 23, 2026 · roadL 719813691.8126.777.337.79.112.2
UC San DiegoJan 17, 2026 · homeL 62839787.1116.671.238.421.131.0
Santa BarbaraJan 16, 2026 · homeL 6975143111.5121.261.949.112.933.3
Long Beach StJan 11, 2026 · roadL 758126599.2107.175.648.318.522.2
UC RiversideJan 9, 2026 · homeW 676624195.694.270.141.921.441.5
UC DavisJan 3, 2026 · roadW 8179193112.9110.171.747.613.933.3
UC IrvineJan 1, 2026 · homeL 778195110.5116.269.743.812.946.5
IdahoDec 23, 2025 · homeW 646321497.896.265.554.519.922.6
NobelDec 19, 2025 · homeW 9766Unrated132.590.173.266.316.430.4
PepperdineDec 14, 2025 · homeL 627026191.9103.867.533.322.240.0
N Dakota StDec 12, 2025 · homeL 698012894.2109.273.340.621.835.7
Santa BarbaraDec 7, 2025 · roadL 84109143115.3149.672.960.416.516.7
CSU NorthridgeDec 5, 2025 · roadL 668717189.0117.374.139.224.337.5
Fresno StNov 30, 2025 · neutralW 7671188106.799.771.246.514.022.6
Florida StNov 26, 2025 · roadL 59898172.8109.881.139.834.536.1
Miss Valley StNov 22, 2025 · homeW 8670365114.993.574.947.513.438.1
Portland StNov 18, 2025 · roadL 8093170108.0125.674.151.823.030.3
Ole MissNov 15, 2025 · roadL 60825496.2131.562.444.920.832.4
W IllinoisNov 12, 2025 · homeW 7458362110.486.567.049.219.440.0
WhittierNov 6, 2025 · homeW 8361Unrated101.074.282.244.813.437.5
CaliforniaNov 4, 2025 · roadL 608710482.1119.173.138.723.330.6
04 / The people behind the possessions

Personnel and workload.

Full player index →

2025–26 recorded affiliations, independent of the split selector. This is not a confirmed 2026–27 roster. Inspect roster observations →

PlayerGPMIN/GPTS/GREB/GAST/GTS%Est. usageUsage gamesAST/TO3PA
Dailin SmithG3029.316.52.40.951.428.4%300.5730 games16130 games
AJ GeorgeG3028.18.23.51.544.018.8%300.8830 games4830 games
Ronald JessamyF3126.013.56.61.256.326.8%310.4331 games1531 games
Tom MarkF2725.06.74.21.054.413.4%271.0827 games5527 games
Kadar WallerG3220.53.31.82.845.311.3%322.1732 games2732 games
CJ HardyG2228.112.43.82.957.122.2%221.2322 games6722 games
Mike PriceG3118.26.51.10.845.721.5%310.6731 games9631 games
Pierre Geneste Jr.C2618.93.07.00.356.48.8%260.3626 games026 games
Jaden AlexanderG2019.69.33.40.555.623.6%200.3720 games3420 games
Bentley WallerG2211.14.01.30.653.319.7%220.6422 games1922 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 Bakersfield?

Open the full recruiting file →Build a role shortlist →

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.

0Source-listed players
0Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
Prior minutes represented

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?

Rank this roster’s workload →

No source-listed roster rows were observed for this program in the current release.

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.

Full published slate →

Checking the live schedule edition…

No upcoming games for this program in the partial schedule.

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 →