A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
39.5% · rank 60 of 366 · 33 games
Who generates contact, and how do opponents keep them off the line?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Arizona St
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.84
+8.8 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
17–162025–26 recorded finals
110.8Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
101.9Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.7Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Arizona St.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
17–1633 recorded games · 33 paired efficiency samples · pace 70.6Mean opponent adj. net 13.4 · 33 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
51.1%33 games · higher is betterRank 213 / 366 · 42th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
52.4%33 games · lower is betterRank 263 / 366 · 28th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
17.1%33 games · lower is betterRank 217 / 366 · 41th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
18.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 86 / 366 · 77th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
29.8%33 games · higher is betterRank 224 / 366 · 39th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
34.9%33 games · lower is betterRank 348 / 366 · 5th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
39.5%33 games · higher is betterRank 60 / 366 · 84th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
34.3%33 games · lower is betterRank 176 / 366 · 52th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 108.1 | 33 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 111.0 | 33 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 51.7% | 33 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 52.3% | 33 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.4% | 33 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.0% | 33 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 38.4% | 33 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 40.3% | 33 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 75.3% | 33 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 74.2% | 33 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 53.0% | 33 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 55.4% | 33 | 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?
2,336 source possession rows across 33 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
Turnovers forced
18.5% · rank 86 of 366 · 33 games
Which defensive actions produce takeaways, and what shots do they concede?
A closer look
Opponent effective FG%
52.4% · rank 263 of 366 · 33 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
A closer look
Opponent offensive rebound rate
34.9% · rank 348 of 366 · 33 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 8 times in the selected window; Arizona St won 5. 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 Iowa State · L 42–91 · offense 61.1 / defense 132.3
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 · 33 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iowa StateMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 42–91 | 5 | 61.1 | 132.3 | 68.8 | 33.0 | 33.4 | 27.3 |
| BaylorMar 10, 2026 · neutral | W 83–79 | 33 | 117.3 | 111.6 | 70.8 | 64.8 | 21.2 | 31.0 |
| Iowa StateMar 7, 2026 · road | L 65–86 | 5 | 89.1 | 117.9 | 73.0 | 54.7 | 31.5 | 16.7 |
| KansasMar 4, 2026 · home | W 70–60 | 17 | 96.7 | 82.8 | 72.4 | 39.0 | 19.3 | 31.8 |
| UtahFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 73–60 | 93 | 124.8 | 102.6 | 58.5 | 57.3 | 8.5 | 24.1 |
| TCUFeb 25, 2026 · road | L 78–90 | 48 | 104.1 | 120.1 | 75.0 | 50.0 | 17.3 | 25.8 |
| BaylorFeb 21, 2026 · road | L 68–73 | 33 | 104.0 | 111.6 | 65.4 | 50.0 | 16.8 | 30.0 |
| Texas TechFeb 18, 2026 · home | W 72–67 | 16 | 108.9 | 101.3 | 66.1 | 50.0 | 13.6 | 28.6 |
| Oklahoma StFeb 11, 2026 · home | W 85–76 | 88 | 113.8 | 101.7 | 74.7 | 43.8 | 14.7 | 44.2 |
| ColoradoFeb 8, 2026 · road | L 70–78 | 69 | 106.7 | 118.9 | 65.6 | 47.4 | 13.7 | 22.9 |
| UtahFeb 5, 2026 · road | W 71–63 | 93 | 110.9 | 98.4 | 64.0 | 43.0 | 9.4 | 34.3 |
| ArizonaJan 31, 2026 · home | L 74–87 | 3 | 100.1 | 117.7 | 73.9 | 47.7 | 16.2 | 27.9 |
| UCFJan 28, 2026 · road | L 76–79 | 56 | 108.9 | 113.2 | 69.8 | 56.4 | 14.3 | 15.6 |
| CincinnatiJan 25, 2026 · home | W 82–68 | 41 | 117.9 | 97.8 | 69.6 | 58.8 | 15.8 | 24.2 |
| West VirginiaJan 22, 2026 · home | L 63–75 | 52 | 96.4 | 114.7 | 65.4 | 52.0 | 19.9 | 25.8 |
| HoustonJan 18, 2026 · road | L 73–103 | 2 | 103.5 | 146.0 | 70.6 | 49.1 | 24.1 | 41.9 |
| ArizonaJan 15, 2026 · road | L 82–89 | 3 | 116.7 | 126.6 | 70.3 | 56.0 | 12.8 | 26.3 |
| Kansas StJan 10, 2026 · home | W 87–84 | 83 | 113.6 | 109.7 | 76.6 | 49.2 | 19.6 | 50.0 |
| BYUJan 8, 2026 · road | L 76–104 | 19 | 97.8 | 133.8 | 77.7 | 42.6 | 19.3 | 40.8 |
| ColoradoJan 3, 2026 · home | L 89–95 | 69 | 110.6 | 118.1 | 80.4 | 50.0 | 17.4 | 30.0 |
| Oregon StDec 21, 2025 · home | L 75–78 | 139 | 112.5 | 117.0 | 66.7 | 48.2 | 13.5 | 24.2 |
| UCLADec 18, 2025 · road | L 77–90 | 27 | 108.6 | 126.9 | 70.9 | 43.3 | 15.5 | 31.4 |
| Santa ClaraDec 14, 2025 · neutral | W 82–79 | 42 | 112.3 | 108.1 | 73.1 | 64.2 | 21.9 | 26.9 |
| N ArizonaDec 10, 2025 · home | W 73–48 | 308 | 112.1 | 73.7 | 65.1 | 55.8 | 20.0 | 32.3 |
| OklahomaDec 7, 2025 · neutral | W 86–70 | 38 | 118.2 | 96.2 | 72.8 | 59.4 | 16.5 | 28.1 |
| USCNov 26, 2025 · neutral | L 75–88 | 72 | 113.3 | 133.0 | 66.2 | 50.0 | 16.6 | 31.0 |
| Washington StNov 26, 2025 · neutral | W 100–94 | 117 | 140.3 | 131.9 | 71.3 | 68.8 | 14.0 | 32.0 |
| TexasNov 25, 2025 · neutral | W 87–86 | 34 | 116.1 | 114.7 | 75.0 | 56.7 | 14.7 | 20.7 |
| Hawai'iNov 21, 2025 · road | W 83–76 | 136 | 110.0 | 100.7 | 75.5 | 47.6 | 10.6 | 32.4 |
| Georgia StNov 18, 2025 · home | W 75–62 | 293 | 105.5 | 87.2 | 71.1 | 50.0 | 14.1 | 28.6 |
| GonzagaNov 15, 2025 · home | L 65–77 | 8 | 93.2 | 110.4 | 69.8 | 44.8 | 14.3 | 22.7 |
| Utah TechNov 9, 2025 · home | W 81–66 | 240 | 114.0 | 92.9 | 71.0 | 52.3 | 11.3 | 29.7 |
| Southern UtahNov 5, 2025 · home | W 81–64 | 285 | 111.5 | 88.1 | 72.7 | 56.8 | 19.3 | 31.4 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maurice OdumG | 33 | 33.8 | 16.4 | 3.1 | 5.7 | 56.3 | 25.9% | 33 | 1.8033 games | 23633 games |
| Massamba DiopC | 33 | 29.7 | 13.6 | 5.8 | 1.1 | 61.4 | 21.7% | 33 | 0.5633 games | 2633 games |
| Anthony JohnsonG | 33 | 24.8 | 13.2 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 56.4 | 27.6% | 33 | 0.8033 games | 7933 games |
| Noah MeeusenG | 30 | 27.3 | 5.9 | 3.2 | 2.6 | 53.5 | 12.4% | 30 | 2.0330 games | 10030 games |
| Santiago TrouetF | 31 | 25.7 | 8.1 | 6.1 | 0.9 | 52.0 | 17.0% | 31 | 0.9031 games | 2431 games |
| Andrija GrbovicF | 33 | 19.9 | 6.8 | 2.9 | 0.4 | 54.6 | 16.9% | 33 | 0.6033 games | 12333 games |
| Bryce FordG | 27 | 22.4 | 6.9 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 50.9 | 16.4% | 27 | 1.3827 games | 10227 games |
| Allen MukebaF | 33 | 16.4 | 5.5 | 3.5 | 0.8 | 56.1 | 17.3% | 33 | 0.9033 games | 433 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 Arizona 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.
16Source-listed players
11Same-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 | 3,461 | 3,461 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,160 | 2,160 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 2 | 979 | 979 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (6,600 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?
16 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Maurice Odum →G | Same programArizona State Sun Devils | 33.8 | 16.4 | 56.3% |
| Massamba Diop →C | Same programArizona State Sun Devils | 29.7 | 13.6 | 61.4% |
| Anthony Johnson →G | Same programArizona State Sun Devils | 24.8 | 13.2 | 56.4% |
| Noah Meeusen →G | Same programArizona State Sun Devils | 27.3 | 5.9 | 53.5% |
| Santiago Trouet →F | Same programArizona State Sun Devils | 25.7 | 8.1 | 52.0% |
| Andrija Grbovic →F | Same programArizona State Sun Devils | 19.9 | 6.8 | 54.6% |
| Bryce Ford →G | Same programArizona State Sun Devils | 22.4 | 6.9 | 50.9% |
| Allen Mukeba →F | Same programArizona State Sun Devils | 16.4 | 5.5 | 56.1% |
| Marcus Adams Jr. →F | Same programArizona State Sun Devils | 11.7 | 3.6 | 49.5% |
| Trevor Best →G | Same programArizona State Sun Devils | 6.1 | 1.4 | 42.2% |
| Kash Polk →F | Same programArizona State Sun Devils | 1.0 | 0.0 | — |
| Adante' Holiman →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…
Arizona St vs Oklahoma
74.1Arizona St
78.9Oklahoma
Oklahoma win estimate66.7%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin4.9
Projected total153.0
80% home-margin range-11.1 to 20.8
Estimated possessions69.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 2.7 pts
Oklahoma attack 55.2% · Arizona St defense 49.7%Arizona St attack 52.1% · Oklahoma defense 49.3%
Ball securityHome 1.9 pts
Oklahoma attack 16.1% · Arizona St defense 18.4%Arizona St attack 16.6% · Oklahoma defense 16.9%
Second chancesHome 0.7 pts
Oklahoma attack 30.2% · Arizona St defense 29.9%Arizona St attack 28.6% · Oklahoma defense 29.0%
Free-throw pressureAway 0.4 pts
Oklahoma attack 37.3% · Arizona St defense 33.4%Arizona St attack 38.0% · Oklahoma defense 33.6%
BOK 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 →