A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.1% · rank 74 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
Lafayette
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.319
-12.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
11–212025–26 recorded finals
98.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
110.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
67.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Lafayette.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
11–2132 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.2Mean opponent adj. net -6.2 · 31 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.2%32 games · higher is betterRank 300 / 366 · 18th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.0%32 games · lower is betterRank 291 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.4%32 games · lower is betterRank 98 / 366 · 73th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 248 / 366 · 32th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
26.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 333 / 366 · 9th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 104 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
32.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 246 / 366 · 33th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
30.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 74 / 366 · 80th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 102.9 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.3 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 49.9% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.8% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.1% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.6% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.0% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 38.6% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 69.0% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.7% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 55.4% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 59.0% | 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?
2,161 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
15.4% · rank 98 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Effective FG%
49.2% · rank 300 of 366 · 32 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
26.1% · rank 333 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 10 times in the selected window; Lafayette 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 4, 2026 · home vs Holy Cross · L 77–82 · offense 114.0 / defense 121.4
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Holy CrossMar 4, 2026 · home | L 77–82 | 334 | 114.0 | 121.4 | 67.6 | 58.5 | 11.8 | 7.4 |
| ArmyFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 83–77 | 340 | 114.5 | 106.2 | 72.5 | 54.5 | 13.8 | 23.3 |
| ColgateFeb 26, 2026 · road | W 70–69 | 209 | 112.2 | 110.6 | 62.4 | 48.4 | 8.0 | 30.0 |
| AmericanFeb 22, 2026 · home | L 61–75 | 247 | 103.5 | 127.3 | 58.9 | 52.1 | 11.9 | 17.2 |
| Holy CrossFeb 18, 2026 · road | W 86–83 | 334 | 120.3 | 116.1 | 71.5 | 63.2 | 18.2 | 25.9 |
| LehighFeb 14, 2026 · home | L 69–78 | 291 | 106.8 | 120.7 | 64.6 | 55.0 | 20.1 | 24.1 |
| Loyola MDFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 54–68 | 330 | 82.5 | 103.9 | 65.5 | 36.4 | 6.1 | 26.5 |
| ArmyFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 63–60 | 340 | 93.6 | 89.1 | 67.3 | 42.0 | 19.3 | 32.5 |
| NavyFeb 5, 2026 · home | L 50–65 | 182 | 78.7 | 102.3 | 63.5 | 42.3 | 20.5 | 18.2 |
| AmericanJan 31, 2026 · road | W 67–65 | 247 | 105.4 | 102.2 | 63.6 | 50.0 | 17.3 | 35.3 |
| BucknellJan 29, 2026 · home | W 81–79 | 310 | 123.7 | 120.7 | 65.5 | 55.8 | 12.2 | 34.4 |
| LehighJan 25, 2026 · road | L 59–64 | 291 | 89.9 | 97.6 | 65.6 | 40.5 | 13.7 | 28.9 |
| Boston UJan 21, 2026 · road | L 73–77 | 270 | 101.5 | 107.0 | 63.9 | 47.8 | 11.1 | 24.4 |
| Holy CrossJan 17, 2026 · home | W 74–55 | 334 | 113.9 | 84.7 | 65.0 | 46.8 | 7.7 | 37.5 |
| BucknellJan 15, 2026 · road | L 69–76 | 310 | 104.7 | 115.3 | 65.9 | 52.7 | 16.7 | 20.6 |
| NavyJan 10, 2026 · road | L 50–76 | 182 | 74.7 | 113.5 | 67.0 | 36.8 | 20.9 | 19.0 |
| Boston UJan 8, 2026 · home | L 67–83 | 270 | 101.7 | 126.0 | 65.9 | 48.4 | 7.6 | 17.5 |
| Loyola MDJan 3, 2026 · road | W 79–64 | 330 | 121.2 | 98.2 | 65.2 | 61.2 | 12.3 | 28.1 |
| ColgateDec 31, 2025 · home | L 77–85 | 209 | 104.8 | 115.7 | 73.5 | 53.7 | 16.3 | 17.6 |
| Georgia TechDec 20, 2025 · road | L 81–95 | 137 | 113.9 | 133.6 | 71.1 | 53.3 | 11.2 | 22.9 |
| CharlotteDec 19, 2025 · road | L 67–81 | 181 | 113.4 | 137.1 | 59.1 | 52.4 | 15.2 | 35.1 |
| PennDec 8, 2025 · road | L 72–74 | 203 | 100.6 | 103.4 | 71.6 | 52.5 | 18.2 | 20.0 |
| MercyhurstDec 6, 2025 · home | W 79–71 | 305 | 124.0 | 111.5 | 63.7 | 64.0 | 23.5 | 36.0 |
| MonmouthNov 30, 2025 · home | L 74–88 | 211 | 104.8 | 124.7 | 70.6 | 50.9 | 17.0 | 21.9 |
| Ball StateNov 29, 2025 · home | W 55–37 | 273 | 89.3 | 60.1 | 61.6 | 35.2 | 13.0 | 26.3 |
| Le MoyneNov 28, 2025 · home | L 63–76 | 316 | 91.2 | 110.1 | 69.1 | 43.9 | 18.8 | 23.1 |
| StonehillNov 21, 2025 · road | L 70–74 | 341 | 98.0 | 103.6 | 71.4 | 41.1 | 16.8 | 38.1 |
| West VirginiaNov 18, 2025 · road | L 59–81 | 52 | 88.3 | 121.2 | 66.8 | 51.0 | 28.4 | 20.0 |
| CornellNov 13, 2025 · home | L 78–97 | 122 | 103.7 | 129.0 | 75.2 | 48.4 | 12.0 | 21.4 |
| TexasNov 8, 2025 · road | L 60–97 | 34 | 87.1 | 140.7 | 68.9 | 44.5 | 21.8 | 27.0 |
| DickinsonNov 6, 2025 · home | W 79–44 | Unrated | 102.4 | 57.1 | 77.1 | 47.0 | 16.9 | 33.3 |
| Saint Joseph'sNov 4, 2025 · road | L 76–85 | 108 | 107.5 | 120.2 | 70.7 | 50.0 | 12.7 | 30.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mark ButlerG | 32 | 33.9 | 10.7 | 2.2 | 4.2 | 49.8 | 18.4% | 32 | 3.7532 games | 2032 games |
| Andrew PhillipsG | 32 | 33.4 | 13.9 | 4.6 | 1.3 | 50.8 | 23.1% | 32 | 1.2632 games | 20932 games |
| Caleb WilliamsG | 31 | 32.7 | 16.1 | 3.6 | 3.2 | 53.9 | 27.3% | 31 | 1.4831 games | 22931 games |
| Christian Humphrey-RembertF | 32 | 30.1 | 7.7 | 6.6 | 0.5 | 54.1 | 13.7% | 32 | 0.7032 games | 15632 games |
| Shareef JacksonF | 30 | 22.1 | 10.0 | 5.0 | 1.6 | 56.8 | 26.2% | 30 | 0.7530 games | 330 games |
| Ryan PettitG | 28 | 20.8 | 5.6 | 3.3 | 1.5 | 53.5 | 14.8% | 28 | 2.2128 games | 4028 games |
| Misha BednostinC | 28 | 10.0 | 1.4 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 57.9 | 9.7% | 28 | 1.2928 games | 028 games |
| KaiMani MurdockG | 25 | 10.6 | 3.0 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 49.1 | 16.7% | 25 | 1.2525 games | 6325 games |
| Luke BevilacquaF | 25 | 9.1 | 2.8 | 1.6 | 0.5 | 58.3 | 19.3% | 25 | 0.4825 games | 025 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 Lafayette?
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.
19Source-listed players
14Same-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 | 4,232 | 4,232 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 1,913 | 1,913 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 280 | 280 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,425 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?
19 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mark Butler →G | Same programLafayette Leopards | 33.9 | 10.7 | 49.8% |
| Andrew Phillips →G | Same programLafayette Leopards | 33.4 | 13.9 | 50.8% |
| Caleb Williams →G | Same programLafayette Leopards | 32.7 | 16.1 | 53.9% |
| Christian Humphrey-Rembert →F | Same programLafayette Leopards | 30.1 | 7.7 | 54.1% |
| Shareef Jackson →F | Same programLafayette Leopards | 22.1 | 10.0 | 56.8% |
| Ryan Pettit →G | Same programLafayette Leopards | 20.8 | 5.6 | 53.5% |
| Misha Bednostin →C | Same programLafayette Leopards | 10.0 | 1.4 | 57.9% |
| KaiMani Murdock →G | Same programLafayette Leopards | 10.6 | 3.0 | 49.1% |
| Luke Bevilacqua →F | Same programLafayette Leopards | 9.1 | 2.8 | 58.3% |
| Folabomi Fayemi →G | Same programLafayette Leopards | 6.1 | 1.3 | 33.6% |
| Joshua Wyche →G | Same programLafayette Leopards | 6.9 | 0.6 | 35.4% |
| Ashton Wallace →G | Same programLafayette Leopards | 4.1 | 0.6 | 28.1% |
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…
Lafayette vs Butler
63.5Lafayette
81.3Butler
Butler win estimate89.2%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.8
Projected total144.8
80% home-margin range1.9 to 33.8
Estimated possessions68.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.5 pts
Butler attack 52.9% · Lafayette defense 51.8%Lafayette attack 48.7% · Butler defense 50.2%
Ball securityHome 1.8 pts
Butler attack 15.9% · Lafayette defense 16.1%Lafayette attack 17.0% · Butler defense 15.4%
Second chancesHome 2.8 pts
Butler attack 29.8% · Lafayette defense 29.9%Lafayette attack 25.4% · Butler defense 28.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.3 pts
Butler attack 37.6% · Lafayette defense 32.3%Lafayette attack 31.3% · Butler defense 25.8%
Hinkle Fieldhouse
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Lafayette vs St Bonaventure
62.8Lafayette
76.3St Bonaventure
St Bonaventure win estimate83.9%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin13.6
Projected total139.1
80% home-margin range-2.4 to 29.5
Estimated possessions65.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.7 pts
St Bonaventure attack 51.9% · Lafayette defense 51.8%Lafayette attack 48.7% · St Bonaventure defense 51.4%
Ball securityAway 1.4 pts
St Bonaventure attack 16.7% · Lafayette defense 16.1%Lafayette attack 17.0% · St Bonaventure defense 17.7%
Second chancesHome 4.2 pts
St Bonaventure attack 31.0% · Lafayette defense 29.9%Lafayette attack 25.4% · St Bonaventure defense 28.5%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.6 pts
St Bonaventure attack 32.0% · Lafayette defense 32.3%Lafayette attack 31.3% · St Bonaventure defense 32.3%
Reilly Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Binghamton vs Lafayette
65.4Binghamton
72.1Lafayette
Lafayette win estimate70.9%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin6.7
Projected total137.5
80% home-margin range-9.3 to 22.6
Estimated possessions65.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 2.2 pts
Lafayette attack 48.7% · Binghamton defense 52.7%Binghamton attack 50.1% · Lafayette defense 51.8%
Ball securityAway 0.4 pts
Lafayette attack 17.0% · Binghamton defense 13.6%Binghamton attack 19.0% · Lafayette defense 16.1%
Second chancesHome 1.1 pts
Lafayette attack 25.4% · Binghamton defense 29.7%Binghamton attack 24.6% · Lafayette defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 10.2 pts
Lafayette attack 31.3% · Binghamton defense 36.0%Binghamton attack 37.8% · Lafayette defense 32.3%
Kirby Sports 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 →