A relative strength
Turnover rate
13.1% · rank 9 of 366 · 35 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Alabama
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.12
+25.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
25–102025–26 recorded finals
125.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
99.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
73.6Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Alabama.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
25–1035 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 74.2Mean opponent adj. net 16.1 · 35 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
55.2%35 games · higher is betterRank 40 / 366 · 89th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
49.2%35 games · lower is betterRank 85 / 366 · 77th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
13.1%35 games · lower is betterRank 9 / 366 · 98th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
12.8%35 games · higher is betterRank 362 / 366 · 1th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
32.4%35 games · higher is betterRank 134 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.8%35 games · lower is betterRank 306 / 366 · 16th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
36.0%35 games · higher is betterRank 152 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.0%35 games · lower is betterRank 113 / 366 · 69th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 122.1 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 110.7 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 57.0% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 48.3% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.8% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.8% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 54.3% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 35.4% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 76.7% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.6% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 54.3% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 47.1% | 35 | 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?
2,629 source possession rows across 35 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
Effective FG%
55.2% · rank 40 of 366 · 35 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
32.8% · rank 306 of 366 · 35 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
12.8% · rank 362 of 366 · 35 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
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 8 times in the selected window; Alabama won 6. 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 27, 2026 · neutral vs Michigan · L 77–90 · offense 108.3 / defense 126.6
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MichiganMar 27, 2026 · neutral | L 77–90 | 6 | 108.3 | 126.6 | 71.1 | 46.4 | 9.8 | 25.0 |
| Texas TechMar 23, 2026 · neutral | W 90–65 | 16 | 129.9 | 93.8 | 69.3 | 58.1 | 18.8 | 46.2 |
| HofstraMar 20, 2026 · neutral | W 90–70 | 115 | 129.1 | 100.4 | 69.7 | 56.7 | 14.3 | 44.7 |
| Ole MissMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 79–80 | 54 | 107.5 | 108.8 | 73.5 | 47.7 | 6.8 | 19.5 |
| AuburnMar 8, 2026 · home | W 96–84 | 15 | 134.9 | 118.0 | 71.2 | 57.2 | 11.2 | 50.0 |
| GeorgiaMar 3, 2026 · road | L 88–98 | 37 | 117.7 | 131.1 | 74.7 | 51.6 | 13.4 | 28.9 |
| TennesseeFeb 28, 2026 · road | W 71–69 | 11 | 112.7 | 109.5 | 63.0 | 53.6 | 15.9 | 29.0 |
| Mississippi StFeb 26, 2026 · home | W 100–75 | 64 | 131.7 | 98.8 | 75.9 | 63.4 | 17.1 | 38.5 |
| LSUFeb 21, 2026 · road | W 90–83 | 74 | 126.7 | 116.9 | 71.0 | 51.7 | 11.3 | 38.2 |
| ArkansasFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 117–115 | 23 | 133.6 | 131.3 | 70.1 | 63.4 | 13.7 | 36.4 |
| South CarolinaFeb 15, 2026 · home | W 89–75 | 99 | 117.6 | 99.1 | 75.7 | 60.3 | 15.9 | 24.2 |
| Ole MissFeb 12, 2026 · road | W 93–74 | 54 | 126.1 | 100.3 | 73.8 | 52.3 | 8.1 | 26.8 |
| AuburnFeb 7, 2026 · road | W 96–92 | 15 | 128.5 | 123.2 | 74.7 | 64.4 | 18.7 | 25.0 |
| Texas A&MFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 100–97 | 31 | 127.8 | 124.0 | 78.3 | 56.5 | 7.7 | 29.5 |
| FloridaFeb 1, 2026 · road | L 77–100 | 4 | 99.7 | 129.4 | 77.3 | 54.8 | 23.3 | 23.7 |
| MissouriJan 28, 2026 · home | W 90–64 | 49 | 121.4 | 86.3 | 74.1 | 54.0 | 9.4 | 21.6 |
| TennesseeJan 25, 2026 · home | L 73–79 | 11 | 108.7 | 117.7 | 67.1 | 48.3 | 10.4 | 26.3 |
| OklahomaJan 17, 2026 · road | W 83–81 | 38 | 110.8 | 108.1 | 74.9 | 51.5 | 14.7 | 33.3 |
| Mississippi StJan 14, 2026 · road | W 97–82 | 64 | 126.3 | 106.8 | 76.8 | 53.0 | 6.5 | 26.3 |
| TexasJan 11, 2026 · home | L 88–92 | 34 | 123.1 | 128.6 | 71.5 | 52.3 | 9.8 | 30.2 |
| VanderbiltJan 8, 2026 · road | L 90–96 | 29 | 108.6 | 115.8 | 82.9 | 43.6 | 15.7 | 37.5 |
| KentuckyJan 3, 2026 · home | W 89–74 | 20 | 124.1 | 103.2 | 71.7 | 57.5 | 13.9 | 35.9 |
| YaleDec 30, 2025 · home | W 102–78 | 62 | 147.9 | 113.1 | 69.0 | 58.4 | 7.2 | 46.7 |
| Kennesaw StDec 21, 2025 · neutral | W 92–81 | 159 | 116.8 | 102.9 | 78.7 | 50.7 | 10.2 | 29.5 |
| South FloridaDec 18, 2025 · home | W 104–93 | 76 | 131.8 | 117.9 | 78.9 | 54.3 | 17.7 | 48.8 |
| ArizonaDec 14, 2025 · neutral | L 75–96 | 3 | 98.7 | 126.3 | 76.0 | 55.4 | 19.7 | 9.1 |
| UTSADec 7, 2025 · home | W 97–55 | 312 | 125.1 | 70.9 | 77.6 | 48.8 | 6.4 | 37.3 |
| ClemsonDec 4, 2025 · home | W 90–84 | 26 | 125.0 | 116.6 | 72.0 | 56.7 | 12.5 | 34.2 |
| MarylandNov 27, 2025 · neutral | W 105–72 | 63 | 137.5 | 94.3 | 76.4 | 68.2 | 15.7 | 39.3 |
| UNLVNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 115–76 | 111 | 146.2 | 96.6 | 78.6 | 66.2 | 15.3 | 43.8 |
| GonzagaNov 25, 2025 · neutral | L 85–95 | 8 | 110.9 | 124.0 | 76.6 | 53.0 | 17.0 | 31.7 |
| IllinoisNov 20, 2025 · neutral | W 90–86 | 7 | 114.4 | 109.3 | 78.7 | 55.3 | 12.7 | 27.8 |
| PurdueNov 14, 2025 · home | L 80–87 | 9 | 116.2 | 126.4 | 68.8 | 54.5 | 8.7 | 17.5 |
| St John'sNov 8, 2025 · road | W 103–96 | 14 | 122.3 | 114.0 | 84.2 | 54.9 | 8.3 | 30.4 |
| North DakotaNov 4, 2025 · home | W 91–62 | 283 | 123.1 | 83.8 | 74.0 | 60.3 | 20.3 | 36.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Labaron Philon Jr.G | 33 | 30.9 | 22.0 | 3.5 | 5.0 | 62.6 | 30.2% | 33 | 1.9633 games | 20333 games |
| Amari AllenF | 32 | 28.3 | 11.4 | 6.9 | 3.1 | 57.0 | 18.5% | 32 | 2.2732 games | 13832 games |
| Houston MalletteG | 35 | 23.3 | 6.6 | 4.5 | 1.1 | 56.2 | 12.4% | 35 | 2.8635 games | 16635 games |
| Aiden SherrellF | 34 | 23.9 | 11.1 | 6.2 | 1.1 | 62.7 | 19.2% | 34 | 1.2234 games | 8034 games |
| Aden HollowayG | 28 | 28.4 | 16.8 | 2.8 | 3.8 | 64.3 | 23.5% | 28 | 2.5928 games | 16928 games |
| Latrell Wrightsell Jr.G | 27 | 27.3 | 13.2 | 3.1 | 1.9 | 56.1 | 21.6% | 27 | 2.2227 games | 21127 games |
| Taylor Bol BowenF | 30 | 19.1 | 6.3 | 4.2 | 0.5 | 55.5 | 15.4% | 30 | 0.7430 games | 9630 games |
| London JemisonF | 33 | 15.6 | 6.2 | 3.4 | 0.4 | 55.4 | 18.4% | 33 | 0.6533 games | 8933 games |
| Noah WilliamsonC | 33 | 8.1 | 1.3 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 40.3 | 12.5% | 33 | 0.6133 games | 3033 games |
| Jalil BetheaG | 26 | 8.0 | 3.9 | 1.7 | 0.5 | 53.3 | 23.0% | 26 | 1.1726 games | 5126 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 Alabama?
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.
14Source-listed players
14Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
62%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 | 6 | 1,147 | 1,147 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,944 | 2,944 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 278 | 278 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (4,369 minutes).
Dated school publications
7 announced additions
| Player | Evidence | Prior program | Prior MPG | Prior PPG | Latest publication |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Brandon Garrison →College transfer | Addition announced ↗Alabama announced Brandon Garrison as a 2026–27 addition. | KentuckyKentucky · 2025–26 | 16.2 | 4.7 | Jun 3, 20261 dated record |
| Cole CloerCollege transfer | Addition announced ↗Alabama announced Cole Cloer as a 2026–27 addition. | NC State | — | — | Jun 3, 20261 dated record |
| Drew Fielder →College transfer | Addition announced ↗Alabama announced Drew Fielder as a 2026–27 addition. | Boise StateBoise St · 2025–26 | 23.7 | 14.7 | Jun 3, 20261 dated record |
| Jamarion Davis-Fleming →College transfer | Addition announced ↗Alabama announced Jamarion Davis-Fleming as a 2026–27 addition. | Mississippi StateMississippi St · 2025–26 | 20.2 | 3.7 | Jun 3, 20261 dated record |
| Jaxon RichardsonPrep addition | Addition announced ↗Alabama announced Jaxon Richardson as a 2026–27 addition. | Southeastern Prep Academy | — | — | Jun 3, 20261 dated record |
| Qayden SamuelsPrep addition | Addition announced ↗Alabama announced Qayden Samuels as a 2026–27 addition. | Bishop McNamara High School | — | — | Jun 3, 20261 dated record |
| Tarris BouiePrep addition | Addition announced ↗Alabama announced Tarris Bouie as a 2026–27 addition. | SPIRE Academy | — | — | Jun 3, 20261 dated record |
Roster observation
Who is listed in the source release?
14 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amari Allen →F | Same programAlabama Crimson Tide | 28.3 | 11.4 | 57.0% |
| Aiden Sherrell →F | Same programAlabama Crimson Tide | 23.9 | 11.1 | 62.7% |
| Aden Holloway →G | Same programAlabama Crimson Tide | 28.4 | 16.8 | 64.3% |
| Taylor Bol Bowen →F | Same programAlabama Crimson Tide | 19.1 | 6.3 | 55.5% |
| London Jemison →F | Same programAlabama Crimson Tide | 15.6 | 6.2 | 55.4% |
| Noah Williamson →C | Same programAlabama Crimson Tide | 8.1 | 1.3 | 40.3% |
| Jalil Bethea →G | Same programAlabama Crimson Tide | 8.0 | 3.9 | 53.3% |
| Davion Hannah →G | Same programAlabama Crimson Tide | 12.7 | 3.3 | 55.4% |
| Keitenn Bristow →F | Same programAlabama Crimson Tide | 12.6 | 3.6 | 44.9% |
| Preston Murphy Jr. →G | Same programAlabama Crimson Tide | 2.5 | 0.3 | 25.3% |
| Jacob Martin →F | Same programAlabama Crimson Tide | 1.4 | 0.3 | 76.9% |
| Collins Onyejiaka →C | Same programAlabama Crimson Tide | 5.5 | 1.0 | 33.9% |
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…
Sam Houston vs Alabama
75.3Sam Houston
95.7Alabama
Alabama win estimate91.7%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin20.5
Projected total171.0
80% home-margin range4.6 to 36.4
Estimated possessions74.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.4 pts
Alabama attack 57.1% · Sam Houston defense 51.4%Sam Houston attack 51.9% · Alabama defense 46.7%
Ball securityHome 4.5 pts
Alabama attack 15.2% · Sam Houston defense 17.5%Sam Houston attack 17.3% · Alabama defense 15.1%
Second chancesHome 0.1 pts
Alabama attack 34.0% · Sam Houston defense 29.0%Sam Houston attack 33.0% · Alabama defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.4 pts
Alabama attack 38.1% · Sam Houston defense 35.6%Sam Houston attack 34.0% · Alabama defense 33.0%
Coleman Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Arkansas St vs Alabama
76.1Arkansas St
96.9Alabama
Alabama win estimate92.0%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin20.8
Projected total173.0
80% home-margin range4.9 to 36.7
Estimated possessions76.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.8 pts
Alabama attack 57.1% · Arkansas St defense 50.2%Arkansas St attack 50.8% · Alabama defense 46.7%
Ball securityHome 2.6 pts
Alabama attack 15.2% · Arkansas St defense 15.7%Arkansas St attack 17.2% · Alabama defense 15.1%
Second chancesAway 0.2 pts
Alabama attack 34.0% · Arkansas St defense 28.1%Arkansas St attack 34.0% · Alabama defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.5 pts
Alabama attack 38.1% · Arkansas St defense 36.8%Arkansas St attack 35.8% · Alabama defense 33.0%
Coleman Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Oakland vs Alabama
74.2Oakland
97.3Alabama
Alabama win estimate93.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin23.1
Projected total171.4
80% home-margin range7.2 to 39.0
Estimated possessions73.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.3 pts
Alabama attack 57.1% · Oakland defense 52.5%Oakland attack 51.0% · Alabama defense 46.7%
Ball securityHome 1.9 pts
Alabama attack 15.2% · Oakland defense 16.4%Oakland attack 15.8% · Alabama defense 15.1%
Second chancesAway 0.3 pts
Alabama attack 34.0% · Oakland defense 31.7%Oakland attack 30.6% · Alabama defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 8.3 pts
Alabama attack 38.1% · Oakland defense 27.9%Oakland attack 34.9% · Alabama defense 33.0%
Coleman Coliseum
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 →