A relative strength
Turnovers forced
18.6% · rank 80 of 366 · 32 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
DePaul
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.134
+2.5 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
16–162025–26 recorded finals
106.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
103.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on DePaul.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
16–1632 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.7Mean opponent adj. net 6.8 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 276 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 91 / 366 · 75th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 271 / 366 · 26th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.6%32 games · higher is betterRank 80 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
30.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 216 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 240 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
35.3%32 games · higher is betterRank 172 / 366 · 53th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 273 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 103.7 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 102.7 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.5% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 47.3% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.5% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.4% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 39.0% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 33.9% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 69.2% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 71.5% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 60.9% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 57.5% | 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?
2,169 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
Opponent effective FG%
49.3% · rank 91 of 366 · 32 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.8% · rank 273 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Effective FG%
49.8% · rank 276 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 9 times in the selected window; DePaul 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 12, 2026 · neutral vs Georgetown · L 56–63 · offense 89.0 / defense 100.2
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| GeorgetownMar 12, 2026 · neutral | L 56–63 | 105 | 89.0 | 100.2 | 62.9 | 42.2 | 14.3 | 23.1 |
| ButlerMar 7, 2026 · home | L 71–81 | 82 | 96.8 | 110.4 | 73.4 | 42.0 | 15.0 | 34.8 |
| VillanovaMar 5, 2026 · home | L 57–76 | 36 | 81.1 | 108.2 | 70.3 | 45.1 | 22.8 | 15.6 |
| MarquetteMar 1, 2026 · road | W 62–51 | 46 | 98.0 | 80.6 | 63.2 | 45.2 | 22.1 | 36.4 |
| CreightonFeb 26, 2026 · road | W 72–71 | 47 | 110.8 | 109.3 | 65.0 | 58.9 | 20.0 | 24.1 |
| ProvidenceFeb 22, 2026 · home | L 68–71 | 73 | 101.2 | 105.7 | 67.2 | 43.1 | 10.4 | 33.3 |
| Seton HallFeb 19, 2026 · road | W 69–57 | 78 | 106.6 | 88.0 | 64.7 | 47.2 | 20.1 | 40.6 |
| CreightonFeb 12, 2026 · home | W 72–71 | 47 | 116.4 | 114.8 | 61.9 | 57.5 | 19.4 | 37.0 |
| ProvidenceFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 72–90 | 73 | 100.6 | 125.8 | 71.6 | 46.4 | 14.0 | 32.6 |
| St John'sFeb 4, 2026 · home | L 56–68 | 14 | 85.3 | 103.6 | 65.6 | 39.4 | 22.9 | 34.4 |
| XavierJan 31, 2026 · road | L 66–68 | 68 | 103.5 | 106.7 | 63.8 | 55.9 | 17.3 | 22.6 |
| GeorgetownJan 29, 2026 · road | L 61–70 | 105 | 103.5 | 118.7 | 59.0 | 50.9 | 18.7 | 35.1 |
| Seton HallJan 24, 2026 · home | W 67–60 | 78 | 100.6 | 90.1 | 66.6 | 50.0 | 19.5 | 24.1 |
| ButlerJan 21, 2026 · road | L 80–87 | 82 | 111.3 | 121.1 | 71.9 | 49.2 | 16.7 | 32.4 |
| MarquetteJan 17, 2026 · home | W 80–75 | 46 | 123.7 | 116.0 | 64.7 | 56.2 | 12.4 | 40.5 |
| UConnJan 10, 2026 · road | L 60–72 | 10 | 93.0 | 111.5 | 64.6 | 51.1 | 23.2 | 21.4 |
| GeorgetownJan 7, 2026 · home | W 56–50 | 105 | 84.4 | 75.4 | 66.4 | 42.2 | 22.6 | 27.0 |
| XavierJan 3, 2026 · home | W 86–77 | 68 | 125.2 | 112.1 | 68.7 | 58.7 | 14.6 | 29.6 |
| VillanovaDec 31, 2025 · road | L 66–71 | 36 | 98.9 | 106.4 | 66.7 | 49.2 | 21.0 | 33.3 |
| UConnDec 21, 2025 · home | L 54–72 | 10 | 79.1 | 105.4 | 68.3 | 39.1 | 19.0 | 25.6 |
| St John'sDec 17, 2025 · road | L 66–79 | 14 | 94.1 | 112.6 | 70.2 | 44.2 | 17.1 | 27.5 |
| Wichita StDec 13, 2025 · road | W 61–58 | 92 | 96.8 | 92.0 | 63.0 | 58.5 | 28.6 | 25.0 |
| Morgan StDec 10, 2025 · home | W 92–49 | 351 | 136.0 | 72.4 | 67.7 | 68.5 | 13.3 | 25.0 |
| AR-Pine BluffDec 7, 2025 · home | W 76–72 | 357 | 102.8 | 97.4 | 73.9 | 42.7 | 9.5 | 24.3 |
| LSUNov 30, 2025 · neutral | L 63–96 | 74 | 91.1 | 138.9 | 69.1 | 49.0 | 18.8 | 21.6 |
| Georgia TechNov 29, 2025 · neutral | W 75–61 | 137 | 112.2 | 91.2 | 66.9 | 54.5 | 15.0 | 26.7 |
| Detroit MercyNov 23, 2025 · home | W 95–75 | 294 | 141.4 | 111.6 | 67.2 | 62.7 | 10.4 | 39.3 |
| Gardner-WebbNov 19, 2025 · home | W 93–62 | 349 | 117.2 | 78.1 | 79.4 | 61.5 | 17.6 | 20.0 |
| NorthwesternNov 15, 2025 · home | L 79–81 | 53 | 116.8 | 119.8 | 67.6 | 48.3 | 19.2 | 45.7 |
| BuffaloNov 12, 2025 · home | L 53–66 | 277 | 78.3 | 97.5 | 67.7 | 42.2 | 29.6 | 34.2 |
| StonehillNov 8, 2025 · home | W 72–64 | 341 | 94.9 | 84.3 | 75.9 | 41.1 | 9.2 | 20.0 |
| Chicago StNov 4, 2025 · home | W 92–62 | 360 | 126.4 | 85.2 | 72.8 | 56.7 | 17.9 | 41.0 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Layden BlockerG | 32 | 29.1 | 11.1 | 2.5 | 3.5 | 49.0 | 23.7% | 32 | 1.6232 games | 11032 games |
| CJ GunnG | 32 | 27.7 | 13.1 | 3.7 | 1.9 | 49.9 | 27.9% | 32 | 0.9832 games | 17132 games |
| RJ SmithG | 32 | 27.7 | 6.6 | 2.4 | 2.4 | 49.3 | 14.5% | 32 | 2.2932 games | 12032 games |
| NJ BensonF | 32 | 25.9 | 11.7 | 7.6 | 1.2 | 61.8 | 21.3% | 32 | 0.9132 games | 332 games |
| Brandon MaclinG | 29 | 27.6 | 10.5 | 4.5 | 2.8 | 52.8 | 21.7% | 29 | 1.5329 games | 7229 games |
| Kruz McClureG | 28 | 18.6 | 5.0 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 48.0 | 18.1% | 28 | 1.0828 games | 7728 games |
| Kaleb BanksF | 31 | 16.2 | 5.6 | 2.5 | 0.4 | 58.1 | 17.0% | 31 | 0.6831 games | 6231 games |
| Théo Pierre-JustinF | 30 | 15.5 | 4.0 | 2.6 | 0.9 | 55.3 | 13.6% | 30 | 1.9330 games | 6330 games |
| Fabián FloresC | 28 | 10.5 | 2.9 | 2.9 | 0.3 | 67.9 | 12.0% | 28 | 1.0028 games | 028 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 DePaul?
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
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 | 8 | 4,150 | 4,150 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 1,889 | 1,889 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 360 | 360 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,399 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Layden Blocker →G | Same programDePaul Blue Demons | 29.1 | 11.1 | 49.0% |
| CJ Gunn →G | Same programDePaul Blue Demons | 27.7 | 13.1 | 49.9% |
| RJ Smith →G | Same programDePaul Blue Demons | 27.7 | 6.6 | 49.3% |
| NJ Benson →F | Same programDePaul Blue Demons | 25.9 | 11.7 | 61.8% |
| Brandon Maclin →G | Same programDePaul Blue Demons | 27.6 | 10.5 | 52.8% |
| Kruz McClure →G | Same programDePaul Blue Demons | 18.6 | 5.0 | 48.0% |
| Kaleb Banks →F | Same programDePaul Blue Demons | 16.2 | 5.6 | 58.1% |
| Théo Pierre-Justin →F | Same programDePaul Blue Demons | 15.5 | 4.0 | 55.3% |
| Fabián Flores →C | Same programDePaul Blue Demons | 10.5 | 2.9 | 67.9% |
| Ilija Milijaševic →G | Same programDePaul Blue Demons | 7.9 | 2.2 | 55.2% |
| Jeremy Lorenz →F | Same programDePaul Blue Demons | 10.4 | 2.2 | 56.8% |
| Khaman Maker →C | Same programDePaul Blue Demons | 5.5 | 1.2 | 47.2% |
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…
West Georgia vs DePaul
65.1West Georgia
79.4DePaul
DePaul win estimate84.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin14.3
Projected total144.6
80% home-margin range-1.6 to 30.2
Estimated possessions69.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.2 pts
DePaul attack 51.5% · West Georgia defense 53.8%West Georgia attack 48.4% · DePaul defense 50.9%
Ball securityAway 2.8 pts
DePaul attack 17.9% · West Georgia defense 15.8%West Georgia attack 16.7% · DePaul defense 17.4%
Second chancesAway 0.7 pts
DePaul attack 28.1% · West Georgia defense 29.5%West Georgia attack 28.8% · DePaul defense 29.6%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.9 pts
DePaul attack 34.2% · West Georgia defense 38.2%West Georgia attack 31.5% · DePaul defense 34.7%
Wintrust Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
South Florida vs DePaul
74.7South Florida
72.9DePaul
DePaul win estimate49.4%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-1.7
Projected total147.6
80% home-margin range-17.6 to 14.2
Estimated possessions70.3
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.7 pts
DePaul attack 51.5% · South Florida defense 49.5%South Florida attack 51.2% · DePaul defense 50.9%
Ball securityAway 0.3 pts
DePaul attack 17.9% · South Florida defense 18.8%South Florida attack 16.2% · DePaul defense 17.4%
Second chancesAway 5.0 pts
DePaul attack 28.1% · South Florida defense 30.3%South Florida attack 32.4% · DePaul defense 29.6%
Free-throw pressureAway 5.7 pts
DePaul attack 34.2% · South Florida defense 36.4%South Florida attack 38.2% · DePaul defense 34.7%
Wintrust Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Alabama A&M vs DePaul
62.6Alabama A&M
78.6DePaul
DePaul win estimate87.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin16.0
Projected total141.1
80% home-margin range0.1 to 31.9
Estimated possessions68.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.6 pts
DePaul attack 51.5% · Alabama A&M defense 53.6%Alabama A&M attack 47.2% · DePaul defense 50.9%
Ball securityHome 1.5 pts
DePaul attack 17.9% · Alabama A&M defense 17.9%Alabama A&M attack 18.8% · DePaul defense 17.4%
Second chancesAway 3.4 pts
DePaul attack 28.1% · Alabama A&M defense 32.6%Alabama A&M attack 28.5% · DePaul defense 29.6%
Free-throw pressureAway 12.6 pts
DePaul attack 34.2% · Alabama A&M defense 41.9%Alabama A&M attack 39.5% · DePaul defense 34.7%
Wintrust 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 →