A relative strength
Offensive rebound rate
35.9% · rank 38 of 366 · 35 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
G Washington
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.110
+5.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
19–162025–26 recorded finals
111.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
106.0Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.4Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on G Washington.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
19–1635 recorded games · 35 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.3Mean opponent adj. net 2.9 · 34 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
54.6%35 games · higher is betterRank 61 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
51.7%35 games · lower is betterRank 225 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
18.2%35 games · lower is betterRank 287 / 366 · 22th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.0%35 games · higher is betterRank 106 / 366 · 71th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
35.9%35 games · higher is betterRank 38 / 366 · 90th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
28.1%35 games · lower is betterRank 83 / 366 · 78th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
34.4%35 games · higher is betterRank 195 / 366 · 47th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.4%35 games · lower is betterRank 178 / 366 · 52th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 115.4 | 35 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 105.2 | 35 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 56.1% | 35 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.7% | 35 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 35.3% | 35 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 33.5% | 35 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 46.9% | 35 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 42.6% | 35 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.4% | 35 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.1% | 35 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 55.7% | 35 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 60.6% | 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?
2,489 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%
54.6% · rank 61 of 366 · 35 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
51.7% · rank 225 of 366 · 35 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Turnover rate
18.2% · rank 287 of 366 · 35 games
Where do turnovers occur under pressure, and who can relieve that pressure?
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 11 times in the selected window; G Washington 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 23, 2026 · road vs New Mexico · L 61–86 · offense 89.2 / defense 125.8
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 · 35 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| New MexicoMar 23, 2026 · road | L 61–86 | 40 | 89.2 | 125.8 | 68.4 | 42.7 | 20.5 | 28.6 |
| Utah ValleyMar 19, 2026 · road | W 79–78 | 100 | 114.5 | 113.1 | 69.0 | 59.4 | 24.6 | 31.0 |
| Saint LouisMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 81–88 | 55 | 108.8 | 118.2 | 74.4 | 49.3 | 13.4 | 34.8 |
| FordhamMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 66–62 | 187 | 103.5 | 97.2 | 63.8 | 53.0 | 20.4 | 33.3 |
| Loyola ChicagoMar 7, 2026 · road | L 62–68 | 202 | 97.4 | 106.8 | 63.7 | 39.9 | 17.3 | 41.3 |
| St BonaventureMar 5, 2026 · home | W 91–82 | 125 | 115.1 | 103.7 | 70.3 | 53.1 | 15.2 | 31.7 |
| DaytonFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 66–68 | 58 | 98.7 | 101.7 | 66.9 | 52.1 | 29.9 | 41.2 |
| La SalleFeb 24, 2026 · road | W 104–77 | 242 | 143.5 | 106.3 | 72.5 | 75.9 | 17.9 | 31.8 |
| VCUFeb 18, 2026 · road | L 75–89 | 39 | 109.7 | 130.2 | 68.4 | 52.5 | 16.1 | 34.2 |
| George MasonFeb 14, 2026 · home | W 72–53 | 90 | 122.6 | 90.2 | 58.8 | 57.7 | 15.3 | 30.8 |
| Rhode IslandFeb 11, 2026 · home | W 75–70 | 158 | 110.6 | 103.3 | 67.8 | 54.5 | 22.1 | 43.8 |
| DuquesneFeb 7, 2026 · road | L 86–88 | 129 | 126.2 | 129.2 | 68.1 | 54.8 | 23.5 | 54.3 |
| Saint Joseph'sFeb 5, 2026 · road | L 73–76 | 108 | 104.4 | 108.7 | 69.9 | 47.0 | 20.0 | 45.0 |
| FordhamJan 31, 2026 · home | L 65–79 | 187 | 95.7 | 116.4 | 67.9 | 47.5 | 19.1 | 25.0 |
| Saint LouisJan 28, 2026 · road | L 76–79 | 55 | 100.4 | 104.3 | 75.7 | 47.7 | 18.5 | 29.3 |
| RichmondJan 24, 2026 · home | W 85–69 | 162 | 127.1 | 103.2 | 66.9 | 60.8 | 16.4 | 34.4 |
| George MasonJan 19, 2026 · road | L 64–69 | 90 | 95.0 | 102.4 | 67.4 | 49.1 | 17.8 | 20.0 |
| DavidsonJan 15, 2026 · home | L 79–84 | 121 | 119.0 | 126.5 | 66.4 | 46.5 | 7.5 | 41.3 |
| Loyola ChicagoJan 10, 2026 · home | W 101–66 | 202 | 132.3 | 86.4 | 76.4 | 57.6 | 10.5 | 34.2 |
| DaytonJan 7, 2026 · road | L 72–79 | 58 | 103.8 | 113.9 | 69.4 | 57.7 | 31.7 | 45.2 |
| La SalleJan 3, 2026 · home | W 77–55 | 242 | 118.6 | 84.7 | 64.9 | 55.6 | 16.9 | 41.2 |
| RichmondDec 31, 2025 · road | W 99–85 | 162 | 151.0 | 129.7 | 65.6 | 73.3 | 15.3 | 36.0 |
| St Mary's (MD)Dec 22, 2025 · home | W 97–40 | Unrated | 119.5 | 49.3 | 81.2 | 60.6 | 19.7 | 37.1 |
| FloridaDec 13, 2025 · neutral | L 70–80 | 4 | 97.4 | 111.3 | 71.9 | 48.5 | 16.7 | 29.5 |
| DelawareDec 11, 2025 · home | L 58–70 | 251 | 84.9 | 102.5 | 68.3 | 35.5 | 17.6 | 36.2 |
| William & MaryDec 6, 2025 · home | W 99–86 | 195 | 127.4 | 110.7 | 77.7 | 57.1 | 14.2 | 40.0 |
| ArmyDec 2, 2025 · road | W 84–70 | 340 | 124.4 | 103.7 | 67.5 | 52.8 | 16.3 | 35.5 |
| Murray StNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 95–96 | 130 | 131.3 | 132.7 | 72.4 | 56.6 | 9.7 | 29.4 |
| MTSUNov 24, 2025 · neutral | W 92–79 | 164 | 128.4 | 110.2 | 71.7 | 67.6 | 12.6 | 15.4 |
| McNeeseNov 23, 2025 · neutral | L 86–92 | 70 | 116.6 | 124.7 | 73.8 | 57.4 | 32.5 | 54.5 |
| UMBCNov 20, 2025 · home | W 89–52 | 225 | 125.1 | 73.1 | 71.1 | 64.3 | 15.5 | 25.8 |
| Old DominionNov 15, 2025 · home | W 96–73 | 254 | 130.6 | 99.3 | 73.5 | 54.0 | 8.2 | 34.2 |
| AmericanNov 13, 2025 · home | W 107–67 | 247 | 141.3 | 88.5 | 75.7 | 68.6 | 17.2 | 44.8 |
| South FloridaNov 8, 2025 · neutral | W 99–95 | 76 | 116.4 | 111.7 | 85.0 | 62.7 | 24.7 | 34.4 |
| MaineNov 4, 2025 · home | W 67–47 | 306 | 100.2 | 70.3 | 66.9 | 47.5 | 23.9 | 47.1 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trey AutryG | 34 | 28.7 | 11.0 | 3.5 | 1.5 | 61.0 | 16.6% | 34 | 1.6134 games | 21834 games |
| Christian JonesG | 34 | 26.4 | 10.0 | 3.0 | 3.1 | 54.5 | 20.8% | 34 | 1.4634 games | 11834 games |
| Jean ArangurenG | 35 | 24.1 | 8.2 | 4.2 | 3.4 | 58.1 | 18.3% | 35 | 1.6335 games | 7435 games |
| Rafael CastroF | 29 | 27.3 | 15.3 | 9.1 | 1.7 | 64.5 | 24.2% | 29 | 0.8929 games | 029 games |
| Tyrone Marshall Jr.F | 33 | 23.5 | 8.8 | 4.6 | 2.0 | 58.6 | 18.7% | 33 | 1.2333 games | 5833 games |
| Tre DinkinsG | 35 | 21.1 | 8.8 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 56.5 | 20.4% | 35 | 1.5635 games | 20435 games |
| Garrett JohnsonF | 29 | 22.6 | 11.4 | 3.4 | 1.2 | 54.8 | 24.4% | 29 | 1.1329 games | 16029 games |
| Luke HungerF | 33 | 19.2 | 8.4 | 5.1 | 0.9 | 59.2 | 21.7% | 33 | 0.5933 games | 4533 games |
| Bubu BenjaminG | 30 | 20.4 | 5.8 | 2.7 | 1.0 | 49.8 | 14.9% | 30 | 1.5030 games | 9430 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 G Washington?
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
11Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
89%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 | 10 | 4,168 | 4,168 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 4 | 2,065 | 2,065 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,233 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?
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Trey Autry →G | Same programGeorge Washington Revolutionaries | 28.7 | 11.0 | 61.0% |
| Christian Jones →G | Same programGeorge Washington Revolutionaries | 26.4 | 10.0 | 54.5% |
| Jean Aranguren →G | Same programGeorge Washington Revolutionaries | 24.1 | 8.2 | 58.1% |
| Tyrone Marshall Jr. →F | Same programGeorge Washington Revolutionaries | 23.5 | 8.8 | 58.6% |
| Tre Dinkins →G | Same programGeorge Washington Revolutionaries | 21.1 | 8.8 | 56.5% |
| Garrett Johnson →F | Same programGeorge Washington Revolutionaries | 22.6 | 11.4 | 54.8% |
| Luke Hunger →F | Same programGeorge Washington Revolutionaries | 19.2 | 8.4 | 59.2% |
| Bubu Benjamin →G | Same programGeorge Washington Revolutionaries | 20.4 | 5.8 | 49.8% |
| Ty Bevins →G | Same programGeorge Washington Revolutionaries | 7.6 | 1.9 | 45.5% |
| Amir Arrington →G | Same programGeorge Washington Revolutionaries | 3.0 | 1.5 | 50.0% |
| Mohamed Binzagr →G | Same programGeorge Washington Revolutionaries | 2.2 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Jalen Rougier-Roane →G | No prior appearance observedNo prior program listed | — | — | — |
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…
Navy vs G Washington
68.6Navy
76.8G Washington
G Washington win estimate74.2%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin8.2
Projected total145.4
80% home-margin range-7.8 to 24.1
Estimated possessions67.8
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 4.1 pts
G Washington attack 53.1% · Navy defense 50.8%Navy attack 49.5% · G Washington defense 51.2%
Ball securityAway 0.0 pts
G Washington attack 18.0% · Navy defense 18.0%Navy attack 17.1% · G Washington defense 17.1%
Second chancesHome 0.5 pts
G Washington attack 32.1% · Navy defense 30.2%Navy attack 31.2% · G Washington defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureAway 1.6 pts
G Washington attack 36.8% · Navy defense 32.5%Navy attack 36.6% · G Washington defense 30.7%
Charles E. Smith Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Elon vs G Washington
71.2Elon
82.1G Washington
G Washington win estimate79.6%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin11.0
Projected total153.3
80% home-margin range-5.0 to 26.9
Estimated possessions68.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.2 pts
G Washington attack 53.1% · Elon defense 52.3%Elon attack 50.8% · G Washington defense 51.2%
Ball securityAway 1.7 pts
G Washington attack 18.0% · Elon defense 15.8%Elon attack 17.7% · G Washington defense 17.1%
Second chancesAway 1.9 pts
G Washington attack 32.1% · Elon defense 32.1%Elon attack 31.7% · G Washington defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.3 pts
G Washington attack 36.8% · Elon defense 30.7%Elon attack 35.5% · G Washington defense 30.7%
Charles E. Smith Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Harvard vs G Washington
67.4Harvard
75.2G Washington
G Washington win estimate73.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin7.8
Projected total142.6
80% home-margin range-8.1 to 23.7
Estimated possessions66.9
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.2 pts
G Washington attack 53.1% · Harvard defense 50.5%Harvard attack 51.6% · G Washington defense 51.2%
Ball securityHome 0.2 pts
G Washington attack 18.0% · Harvard defense 17.0%Harvard attack 18.3% · G Washington defense 17.1%
Second chancesHome 5.1 pts
G Washington attack 32.1% · Harvard defense 29.3%Harvard attack 27.5% · G Washington defense 29.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 7.9 pts
G Washington attack 36.8% · Harvard defense 28.7%Harvard attack 30.9% · G Washington defense 30.7%
Charles E. Smith 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 →