A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.1% · rank 95 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
Evansville
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.302
-10.3 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
7–252025–26 recorded finals
99.0Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
109.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.1Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Evansville.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
7–2532 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 67.5Mean opponent adj. net 4.6 · 30 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
49.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 274 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
53.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 313 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 323 / 366 · 12th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 255 / 366 · 30th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
23.0%32 games · higher is betterRank 356 / 366 · 3th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
29.5%32 games · lower is betterRank 155 / 366 · 58th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
29.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 313 / 366 · 15th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
31.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 95 / 366 · 74th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 98.5 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 112.4 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 50.4% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.4% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.8% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 37.0% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 43.3% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 42.9% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 73.1% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.6% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 55.6% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 57.6% | 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?
2,195 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 offensive rebound rate
29.5% · rank 155 of 366 · 32 games
Which matchups demand an extra box-out assignment?
A closer look
Turnover rate
18.9% · rank 323 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Offensive rebound rate
23.0% · rank 356 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 9 times in the selected window; Evansville won 3. 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 6, 2026 · neutral vs Northern Iowa · L 59–68 · offense 94.0 / defense 108.3
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 · 32 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Northern IowaMar 6, 2026 · neutral | L 59–68 | 87 | 94.0 | 108.3 | 62.8 | 46.1 | 22.3 | 26.5 |
| S IllinoisMar 1, 2026 · home | L 67–81 | 124 | 104.9 | 126.8 | 63.9 | 50.0 | 14.1 | 18.8 |
| ValparaisoFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 80–79 | 191 | 117.9 | 116.4 | 67.9 | 55.7 | 13.3 | 14.3 |
| BelmontFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 64–98 | 86 | 94.8 | 145.2 | 67.5 | 50.9 | 17.8 | 18.2 |
| Murray StFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 75–88 | 130 | 104.0 | 122.1 | 72.1 | 58.3 | 16.6 | 6.7 |
| UICFeb 19, 2026 · home | L 46–84 | 138 | 71.2 | 130.1 | 64.6 | 39.4 | 21.7 | 16.2 |
| S IllinoisFeb 13, 2026 · road | L 60–86 | 124 | 88.2 | 126.4 | 68.1 | 48.3 | 22.0 | 22.9 |
| Illinois StFeb 10, 2026 · home | W 88–80 | 112 | 132.7 | 120.6 | 66.3 | 70.6 | 10.6 | 8.3 |
| ValparaisoFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 63–70 | 191 | 91.1 | 101.2 | 61.5 | 46.7 | 18.8 | 23.7 |
| Indiana StFeb 4, 2026 · home | L 63–84 | 140 | 100.5 | 134.0 | 62.7 | 48.1 | 16.0 | 25.7 |
| Northern IowaJan 31, 2026 · road | L 55–71 | 87 | 94.6 | 122.2 | 58.1 | 47.1 | 13.8 | 19.4 |
| DrakeJan 29, 2026 · road | L 78–82 | 109 | 116.6 | 122.6 | 66.9 | 64.5 | 16.4 | 17.9 |
| UICJan 21, 2026 · road | L 49–76 | 138 | 73.0 | 113.3 | 67.1 | 36.8 | 28.3 | 30.6 |
| BradleyJan 14, 2026 · home | L 90–94 | 98 | 118.4 | 123.6 | 67.6 | 60.9 | 19.7 | 25.0 |
| Indiana StJan 10, 2026 · road | W 72–69 | 140 | 100.0 | 95.8 | 72.0 | 58.6 | 20.8 | 6.9 |
| Murray StJan 8, 2026 · home | L 69–79 | 130 | 96.6 | 110.6 | 71.4 | 51.9 | 21.0 | 16.1 |
| Northern IowaJan 4, 2026 · home | L 48–62 | 87 | 75.4 | 97.3 | 63.7 | 43.3 | 23.5 | 6.9 |
| Illinois StJan 1, 2026 · road | L 47–73 | 112 | 65.6 | 102.0 | 71.6 | 37.3 | 32.1 | 21.6 |
| BradleyDec 30, 2025 · road | L 68–76 | 98 | 98.8 | 110.4 | 68.8 | 46.8 | 16.0 | 25.0 |
| DrakeDec 21, 2025 · home | L 65–66 | 109 | 99.5 | 101.0 | 65.3 | 46.2 | 18.4 | 28.6 |
| BelmontDec 17, 2025 · home | L 78–83 | 86 | 102.4 | 109.0 | 76.1 | 47.5 | 17.1 | 24.4 |
| Notre DameDec 13, 2025 · road | L 58–82 | 114 | 87.1 | 123.1 | 66.6 | 47.2 | 19.5 | 22.2 |
| Western KYDec 6, 2025 · road | L 79–80 | 157 | 108.3 | 109.7 | 72.9 | 55.9 | 20.6 | 30.8 |
| Ball StateDec 4, 2025 · home | W 64–52 | 273 | 95.4 | 77.5 | 67.1 | 48.1 | 22.4 | 26.5 |
| CharlestonNov 24, 2025 · neutral | L 59–78 | 135 | 84.0 | 111.0 | 70.3 | 41.8 | 14.2 | 5.6 |
| AkronNov 24, 2025 · neutral | L 59–97 | 75 | 84.4 | 138.8 | 69.9 | 47.8 | 25.8 | 26.9 |
| Oregon StNov 22, 2025 · neutral | W 73–69 | 139 | 107.7 | 101.8 | 67.8 | 45.0 | 17.7 | 37.5 |
| UT ArlingtonNov 19, 2025 · home | L 76–84 | 179 | 110.8 | 122.5 | 68.6 | 51.9 | 17.5 | 26.5 |
| MTSUNov 13, 2025 · home | L 72–77 | 164 | 101.1 | 108.1 | 71.2 | 50.9 | 16.8 | 18.8 |
| Oakland CityNov 9, 2025 · home | W 76–47 | Unrated | 106.8 | 66.0 | 71.2 | 55.7 | 16.9 | 21.9 |
| CalumetNov 7, 2025 · home | W 92–50 | Unrated | 137.8 | 74.9 | 66.8 | 59.9 | 16.5 | 51.4 |
| PurdueNov 4, 2025 · road | L 51–82 | 9 | 82.6 | 132.8 | 61.8 | 35.0 | 16.2 | 41.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leif MoellerG | 32 | 32.5 | 10.8 | 3.8 | 4.0 | 52.7 | 21.5% | 32 | 1.4532 games | 13132 games |
| AJ CaseyF | 32 | 29.7 | 13.5 | 5.9 | 2.0 | 58.1 | 24.5% | 32 | 0.9832 games | 6232 games |
| Joshua HughesF | 32 | 27.6 | 9.3 | 4.7 | 0.8 | 60.5 | 17.0% | 32 | 0.7232 games | 11832 games |
| Bryce QuinetG | 32 | 26.9 | 8.7 | 2.1 | 2.4 | 50.0 | 20.9% | 32 | 1.3132 games | 7632 games |
| Alex HemenwayG | 32 | 25.9 | 6.7 | 1.9 | 0.8 | 48.3 | 15.7% | 32 | 1.4232 games | 16432 games |
| Trent HundleyF | 32 | 17.6 | 5.2 | 1.7 | 0.6 | 58.2 | 15.2% | 32 | 1.2532 games | 10532 games |
| Keishon PorterG | 16 | 22.0 | 6.9 | 2.9 | 1.2 | 43.1 | 21.9% | 16 | 0.8716 games | 3316 games |
| Kaia BerridgeG | 27 | 12.5 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 43.3 | 13.0% | 27 | 1.1727 games | 4527 games |
| Connor TurnbullF | 16 | 20.1 | 11.5 | 6.1 | 1.1 | 51.3 | 34.3% | 16 | 0.5616 games | 1816 games |
| James Dyson-MerweF | 21 | 13.1 | 2.4 | 3.4 | 0.9 | 63.0 | 13.3% | 21 | 0.5821 games | 221 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 Evansville?
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.
15Source-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 | 3,445 | 3,445 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 3,005 | 3,005 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,450 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?
15 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leif Moeller →G | Same programEvansville Purple Aces | 32.5 | 10.8 | 52.7% |
| AJ Casey →F | Same programEvansville Purple Aces | 29.7 | 13.5 | 58.1% |
| Joshua Hughes →F | Same programEvansville Purple Aces | 27.6 | 9.3 | 60.5% |
| Bryce Quinet →G | Same programEvansville Purple Aces | 26.9 | 8.7 | 50.0% |
| Alex Hemenway →G | Same programEvansville Purple Aces | 25.9 | 6.7 | 48.3% |
| Trent Hundley →F | Same programEvansville Purple Aces | 17.6 | 5.2 | 58.2% |
| Keishon Porter →G | Same programEvansville Purple Aces | 22.0 | 6.9 | 43.1% |
| Kaia Berridge →G | Same programEvansville Purple Aces | 12.5 | 2.1 | 43.3% |
| Connor Turnbull →F | Same programEvansville Purple Aces | 20.1 | 11.5 | 51.3% |
| James Dyson-Merwe →F | Same programEvansville Purple Aces | 13.1 | 2.4 | 63.0% |
| Weston Aigner →G | Same programEvansville Purple Aces | 3.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Marlon Barnes Jr. →F | Same programEvansville Purple Aces | 4.7 | 2.0 | 37.5% |
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…
Miami OH vs Evansville
77.3Miami OH
70.4Evansville
Evansville win estimate35.6%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin-6.9
Projected total147.6
80% home-margin range-22.8 to 9.0
Estimated possessions69.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.3 pts
Evansville attack 49.7% · Miami OH defense 51.6%Miami OH attack 54.4% · Evansville defense 52.0%
Ball securityAway 0.5 pts
Evansville attack 17.9% · Miami OH defense 17.9%Miami OH attack 16.3% · Evansville defense 16.8%
Second chancesAway 2.4 pts
Evansville attack 23.3% · Miami OH defense 29.7%Miami OH attack 25.7% · Evansville defense 29.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 3.4 pts
Evansville attack 31.8% · Miami OH defense 32.8%Miami OH attack 34.7% · Evansville defense 32.3%
Ford Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Evansville vs Ball State
65.5Evansville
70.3Ball State
Ball State win estimate66.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.8
Projected total135.8
80% home-margin range-11.1 to 20.7
Estimated possessions66.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.7 pts
Ball State attack 49.0% · Evansville defense 52.0%Evansville attack 49.7% · Ball State defense 52.1%
Ball securityHome 1.1 pts
Ball State attack 16.8% · Evansville defense 16.8%Evansville attack 17.9% · Ball State defense 16.8%
Second chancesHome 4.3 pts
Ball State attack 27.0% · Evansville defense 29.7%Evansville attack 23.3% · Ball State defense 30.3%
Free-throw pressureHome 5.7 pts
Ball State attack 37.5% · Evansville defense 32.3%Evansville attack 31.8% · Ball State defense 32.2%
Worthen 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 →