A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
22.4% · rank 2 of 366 · 10 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
VA Lynchburg
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.366
-68.4 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
0–102025–26 recorded finals
74.2Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
142.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
78.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on VA Lynchburg.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
0–1010 recorded games · 10 paired efficiency samples · pace 84.9Mean opponent adj. net -8.9 · 10 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
34.0%10 games · higher is betterRank 366 / 366 · 0th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
66.0%10 games · lower is betterRank 366 / 366 · 0th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.9%10 games · lower is betterRank 276 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
12.1%10 games · higher is betterRank 365 / 366 · 0th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
12.4%10 games · higher is betterRank 366 / 366 · 0th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
54.3%10 games · lower is betterRank 366 / 366 · 0th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
25.9%10 games · higher is betterRank 356 / 366 · 3th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
22.4%10 games · lower is betterRank 2 / 366 · 100th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 68.1 | 10 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 149.6 | 10 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 32.5% | 10 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 75.3% | 10 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 24.2% | 10 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.3% | 10 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.4% | 10 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 41.4% | 10 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 67.4% | 10 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 67.4% | 10 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.8% | 10 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 58.0% | 10 | 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.
02 / The film queue
Turn a number into a question.
A relative strength
Turnover rate
17.9% · rank 276 of 366 · 10 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
12.4% · rank 366 of 366 · 10 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
54.3% · rank 366 of 366 · 10 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
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 0 times in the selected window; VA Lynchburg won 0. 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
Jan 20, 2026 · road vs Morgan St · L 53–128 · offense 64.3 / defense 155.3
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 · 10 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Morgan StJan 20, 2026 · road | L 53–128 | 351 | 64.3 | 155.3 | 82.4 | 32.7 | 17.0 | 6.5 |
| UNC GreensboroDec 21, 2025 · road | L 53–131 | 227 | 61.9 | 153.0 | 85.6 | 31.2 | 12.9 | 12.5 |
| CampbellDec 7, 2025 · road | L 62–149 | 208 | 70.7 | 169.9 | 87.7 | 38.2 | 21.7 | 12.2 |
| App StateDec 3, 2025 · road | L 45–133 | 151 | 57.9 | 171.1 | 77.7 | 26.1 | 14.2 | 13.0 |
| W CarolinaDec 2, 2025 · road | L 62–124 | 245 | 77.4 | 154.7 | 80.2 | 37.7 | 18.7 | 9.5 |
| Norfolk StNov 26, 2025 · road | L 79–136 | 252 | 98.3 | 169.3 | 80.3 | 53.3 | 16.2 | 2.9 |
| Alabama StNov 15, 2025 · road | L 68–124 | 322 | 72.9 | 132.9 | 93.3 | 42.6 | 28.9 | 9.8 |
| VMINov 12, 2025 · road | L 54–106 | 363 | 61.3 | 120.4 | 88.1 | 28.5 | 15.9 | 18.0 |
| Tennessee TechNov 11, 2025 · road | L 58–118 | 315 | 67.9 | 138.1 | 85.5 | 33.1 | 19.9 | 21.4 |
| CoastalNov 8, 2025 · road | L 44–121 | 286 | 49.9 | 137.3 | 88.2 | 23.5 | 12.5 | 11.8 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Filaun PaythressG | 10 | 25.1 | 9.2 | 2.6 | 1.9 | 33.2 | 29.6% | 10 | 0.6310 games | 4010 games |
| Zephaniah WilliamsF | 10 | 23.8 | 6.7 | 2.7 | 0.3 | 33.5 | 20.4% | 10 | 0.3010 games | 3010 games |
| Zaquavious BakerF | 9 | 26.2 | 7.2 | 2.6 | 1.7 | 44.1 | 15.6% | 9 | 1.509 games | 549 games |
| Aamere TolbertG | 10 | 20.6 | 3.5 | 1.8 | 0.3 | 41.4 | 11.1% | 10 | 0.3010 games | 2110 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 VA Lynchburg?
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?
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.
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 →