A relative strength
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.3% · rank 124 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
Mississippi St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.64
+11.0 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
13–192025–26 recorded finals
112.4Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
101.4Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.2Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Mississippi St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
13–1932 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 71.5Mean opponent adj. net 12.4 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.5%32 games · higher is betterRank 197 / 366 · 46th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 182 / 366 · 50th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
16.1%32 games · lower is betterRank 149 / 366 · 59th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
12.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 361 / 366 · 1th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 225 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 225 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
30.7%32 games · higher is betterRank 289 / 366 · 21th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
32.3%32 games · lower is betterRank 124 / 366 · 66th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 107.4 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 113.2 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 53.4% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 51.0% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 32.4% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.9% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 40.1% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.5% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 66.0% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 75.2% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 45.1% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 52.1% | 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?
2,322 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
16.1% · rank 149 of 366 · 32 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
A closer look
Free-throw attempt rate
30.7% · rank 289 of 366 · 32 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
12.8% · rank 361 of 366 · 32 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; Mississippi St won 4. 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 11, 2026 · neutral vs Auburn · L 61–79 · offense 85.6 / defense 110.8
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| AuburnMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 61–79 | 15 | 85.6 | 110.8 | 71.3 | 43.8 | 15.4 | 25.6 |
| GeorgiaMar 7, 2026 · home | L 96–102 | 37 | 121.1 | 128.7 | 79.3 | 65.4 | 20.2 | 25.0 |
| FloridaMar 4, 2026 · road | L 74–108 | 4 | 98.6 | 143.9 | 75.1 | 52.5 | 17.3 | 15.8 |
| MissouriFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 64–88 | 49 | 93.0 | 127.9 | 68.8 | 53.8 | 26.2 | 25.0 |
| AlabamaFeb 26, 2026 · road | L 75–100 | 12 | 98.8 | 131.7 | 75.9 | 48.6 | 15.8 | 26.7 |
| South CarolinaFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 89–97 | 99 | 122.7 | 133.7 | 72.5 | 52.2 | 8.3 | 34.9 |
| AuburnFeb 19, 2026 · home | W 91–85 | 15 | 135.0 | 126.1 | 67.4 | 62.9 | 8.9 | 27.3 |
| Ole MissFeb 14, 2026 · road | W 90–78 | 54 | 127.3 | 110.3 | 70.7 | 67.5 | 12.7 | 19.4 |
| TennesseeFeb 12, 2026 · home | L 64–73 | 11 | 91.6 | 104.5 | 69.9 | 46.7 | 15.7 | 17.9 |
| ArkansasFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 68–88 | 23 | 96.9 | 125.4 | 70.2 | 48.4 | 15.7 | 25.0 |
| MissouriJan 31, 2026 · road | L 79–84 | 49 | 108.1 | 114.9 | 73.1 | 51.5 | 19.1 | 35.1 |
| LSUJan 29, 2026 · road | W 80–66 | 74 | 118.1 | 97.5 | 67.7 | 60.0 | 23.6 | 44.8 |
| VanderbiltJan 24, 2026 · home | L 56–88 | 29 | 75.5 | 118.7 | 74.2 | 38.8 | 22.9 | 22.5 |
| Texas A&MJan 22, 2026 · road | L 68–88 | 31 | 96.8 | 125.2 | 70.3 | 48.3 | 18.5 | 29.7 |
| Ole MissJan 18, 2026 · home | L 67–68 | 54 | 95.9 | 97.4 | 69.8 | 40.8 | 11.5 | 30.4 |
| AlabamaJan 14, 2026 · home | L 82–97 | 12 | 106.8 | 126.3 | 76.8 | 42.8 | 5.2 | 28.8 |
| KentuckyJan 11, 2026 · road | L 68–92 | 20 | 99.1 | 134.0 | 68.7 | 50.9 | 21.8 | 29.0 |
| OklahomaJan 8, 2026 · home | W 72–53 | 38 | 109.8 | 80.8 | 65.6 | 44.1 | 13.7 | 43.6 |
| TexasJan 3, 2026 · road | W 101–98 | 34 | 122.6 | 119.0 | 73.2 | 51.3 | 13.4 | 41.3 |
| Alabama StDec 30, 2025 · home | W 94–56 | 322 | 135.4 | 80.7 | 69.4 | 60.9 | 15.9 | 48.6 |
| MemphisDec 20, 2025 · home | W 71–66 | 85 | 101.1 | 94.0 | 70.2 | 50.0 | 21.4 | 29.7 |
| Long IslandDec 17, 2025 · home | W 87–83 | 269 | 121.3 | 115.7 | 71.7 | 53.3 | 12.5 | 30.6 |
| UtahDec 14, 2025 · neutral | W 82–74 | 93 | 117.4 | 106.0 | 69.8 | 58.5 | 11.5 | 24.2 |
| San FranciscoDec 7, 2025 · neutral | L 62–65 | 89 | 100.4 | 105.2 | 61.8 | 44.8 | 8.1 | 28.9 |
| Georgia TechDec 4, 2025 · road | W 85–73 | 137 | 113.4 | 97.4 | 75.0 | 55.7 | 17.3 | 26.5 |
| SMUNov 29, 2025 · home | L 81–87 | 51 | 101.4 | 108.9 | 71.0 | 44.3 | 8.8 | 20.0 |
| New OrleansNov 25, 2025 · home | W 81–78 | 299 | 104.6 | 100.7 | 68.8 | 50.8 | 18.1 | 34.1 |
| New MexicoNov 22, 2025 · neutral | L 78–80 | 40 | 107.5 | 110.3 | 72.5 | 52.2 | 9.7 | 19.5 |
| Kansas StNov 21, 2025 · neutral | L 77–98 | 83 | 102.6 | 130.5 | 75.1 | 49.2 | 18.6 | 25.7 |
| SE LouisianaNov 15, 2025 · home | W 75–68 | 281 | 101.7 | 92.2 | 73.7 | 53.6 | 21.7 | 28.1 |
| Iowa StateNov 11, 2025 · neutral | L 80–96 | 5 | 105.6 | 126.7 | 75.8 | 59.5 | 34.3 | 48.4 |
| North AlabamaNov 6, 2025 · home | W 86–62 | 290 | 120.2 | 86.7 | 71.6 | 49.3 | 9.8 | 43.2 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh HubbardG | 32 | 33.4 | 22.1 | 2.5 | 3.6 | 54.4 | 32.7% | 32 | 1.5132 games | 27432 games |
| Jayden EppsG | 30 | 27.2 | 13.7 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 51.8 | 26.9% | 30 | 1.2130 games | 19330 games |
| Shawn Jones Jr.G | 31 | 26.0 | 5.3 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 49.9 | 12.3% | 31 | 1.1831 games | 7131 games |
| Ja'Borri McGheeG | 32 | 22.1 | 8.4 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 53.1 | 20.7% | 32 | 1.2432 games | 8432 games |
| Jamarion Davis-FlemingF | 32 | 20.2 | 3.7 | 4.8 | 0.7 | 59.1 | 8.8% | 32 | 1.2932 games | 132 games |
| Quincy BallardC | 32 | 20.2 | 6.5 | 6.0 | 0.6 | 61.0 | 14.8% | 32 | 0.6432 games | 032 games |
| Achor AchorF | 32 | 17.7 | 6.2 | 6.3 | 0.4 | 51.7 | 19.2% | 32 | 0.4032 games | 6332 games |
| Sergej MacuraF | 28 | 18.5 | 5.0 | 4.8 | 0.8 | 56.6 | 13.1% | 28 | 1.2828 games | 2128 games |
| King GraceG | 24 | 12.2 | 5.1 | 1.2 | 0.4 | 55.8 | 19.7% | 24 | 0.9124 games | 4724 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 Mississippi St?
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
12Same-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 | 3,923 | 3,923 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 1,905 | 1,905 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 3 | 647 | 647 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,475 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Josh Hubbard →G | Same programMississippi State Bulldogs | 33.4 | 22.1 | 54.4% |
| Jayden Epps →G | Same programMississippi State Bulldogs | 27.2 | 13.7 | 51.8% |
| Shawn Jones Jr. →G | Same programMississippi State Bulldogs | 26.0 | 5.3 | 49.9% |
| Ja'Borri McGhee →G | Same programMississippi State Bulldogs | 22.1 | 8.4 | 53.1% |
| Jamarion Davis-Fleming →F | Same programMississippi State Bulldogs | 20.2 | 3.7 | 59.1% |
| Quincy Ballard →C | Same programMississippi State Bulldogs | 20.2 | 6.5 | 61.0% |
| Achor Achor →F | Same programMississippi State Bulldogs | 17.7 | 6.2 | 51.7% |
| Sergej Macura →F | Same programMississippi State Bulldogs | 18.5 | 5.0 | 56.6% |
| King Grace →G | Same programMississippi State Bulldogs | 12.2 | 5.1 | 55.8% |
| Brandon Walker →F | Same programMississippi State Bulldogs | 9.0 | 4.7 | 52.2% |
| Dellquan Warren →G | Same programMississippi State Bulldogs | 7.5 | 1.2 | 41.7% |
| Amier Ali →G | Same programMississippi State Bulldogs | 7.2 | 3.2 | 46.0% |
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…
Tennessee Tech vs Mississippi St
64.2Tennessee Tech
83.4Mississippi St
Mississippi St win estimate90.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin19.2
Projected total147.6
80% home-margin range3.3 to 35.1
Estimated possessions69.1
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.9 pts
Mississippi St attack 52.6% · Tennessee Tech defense 52.5%Tennessee Tech attack 49.9% · Mississippi St defense 48.9%
Ball securityAway 0.2 pts
Mississippi St attack 16.5% · Tennessee Tech defense 15.5%Tennessee Tech attack 17.9% · Mississippi St defense 17.2%
Second chancesHome 3.1 pts
Mississippi St attack 32.4% · Tennessee Tech defense 30.4%Tennessee Tech attack 26.6% · Mississippi St defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureHome 4.0 pts
Mississippi St attack 32.9% · Tennessee Tech defense 28.8%Tennessee Tech attack 32.1% · Mississippi St defense 32.0%
Humphrey Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
N'Western St vs Mississippi St
62.5N'Western St
79.8Mississippi St
Mississippi St win estimate88.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin17.2
Projected total142.3
80% home-margin range1.3 to 33.2
Estimated possessions67.2
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.2 pts
Mississippi St attack 52.6% · N'Western St defense 52.7%N'Western St attack 49.0% · Mississippi St defense 48.9%
Ball securityHome 1.7 pts
Mississippi St attack 16.5% · N'Western St defense 17.5%N'Western St attack 17.8% · Mississippi St defense 17.2%
Second chancesAway 0.5 pts
Mississippi St attack 32.4% · N'Western St defense 32.0%N'Western St attack 28.6% · Mississippi St defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.6 pts
Mississippi St attack 32.9% · N'Western St defense 36.7%N'Western St attack 34.8% · Mississippi St defense 32.0%
Humphrey Coliseum
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Jackson St vs Mississippi St
63.9Jackson St
86.2Mississippi St
Mississippi St win estimate93.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin22.2
Projected total150.1
80% home-margin range6.3 to 38.2
Estimated possessions70.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.3 pts
Mississippi St attack 52.6% · Jackson St defense 53.2%Jackson St attack 47.0% · Mississippi St defense 48.9%
Ball securityHome 2.0 pts
Mississippi St attack 16.5% · Jackson St defense 17.1%Jackson St attack 18.6% · Mississippi St defense 17.2%
Second chancesAway 2.1 pts
Mississippi St attack 32.4% · Jackson St defense 32.7%Jackson St attack 29.6% · Mississippi St defense 27.7%
Free-throw pressureAway 6.2 pts
Mississippi St attack 32.9% · Jackson St defense 36.5%Jackson St attack 34.6% · Mississippi St defense 32.0%
Humphrey 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 →