A relative strength
Opponent effective FG%
48.9% · rank 74 of 366 · 36 games
What coverages and lineups account for the shot quality opponents receive?
← Program librarySource edition Sep 12, 2026
The program dossier / men’s basketball
Kentucky
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.20
+21.1 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
22–142025–26 recorded finals
120.1Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
99.1Adjusted defense · lower is better
69.9Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on Kentucky.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
22–1436 recorded games · 36 paired efficiency samples · pace 69.7Mean opponent adj. net 13.7 · 36 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
53.3%36 games · higher is betterRank 103 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
48.9%36 games · lower is betterRank 74 / 366 · 80th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.4%36 games · lower is betterRank 103 / 366 · 72th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
15.5%36 games · higher is betterRank 274 / 366 · 25th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.2%36 games · higher is betterRank 106 / 366 · 71th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
30.0%36 games · lower is betterRank 181 / 366 · 51th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
37.4%36 games · higher is betterRank 108 / 366 · 71th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.4%36 games · lower is betterRank 239 / 366 · 35th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 115.2 | 36 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 106.3 | 36 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.7% | 36 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.7% | 36 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 34.2% | 36 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 31.8% | 36 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 39.7% | 36 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 39.9% | 36 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 72.7% | 36 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 73.3% | 36 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 56.9% | 36 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 55.4% | 36 | 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?
2,524 source possession rows across 36 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%
53.3% · rank 103 of 366 · 36 games
Which actions create the team's efficient looks, and which personnel can reproduce them?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
36.4% · rank 239 of 366 · 36 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
15.5% · rank 274 of 366 · 36 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 9 times in the selected window; Kentucky 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 22, 2026 · neutral vs Iowa State · L 63–82 · offense 91.0 / defense 118.4
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 · 36 games
| Game / venue | Result | Current opponent rank | Off. eff. | Def. eff. | Pace | eFG% | TO% | ORB% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Iowa StateMar 22, 2026 · neutral | L 63–82 | 5 | 91.0 | 118.4 | 69.2 | 56.7 | 28.9 | 18.5 |
| Santa ClaraMar 20, 2026 · neutral | W 89–84 | 42 | 119.3 | 112.6 | 66.3 | 58.7 | 14.8 | 25.7 |
| FloridaMar 13, 2026 · neutral | L 63–71 | 4 | 86.2 | 97.1 | 73.1 | 39.8 | 16.4 | 20.0 |
| MissouriMar 12, 2026 · neutral | W 78–72 | 49 | 113.2 | 104.5 | 68.9 | 54.5 | 13.1 | 22.6 |
| LSUMar 11, 2026 · neutral | W 87–82 | 74 | 123.9 | 116.8 | 70.2 | 54.7 | 7.1 | 31.4 |
| FloridaMar 7, 2026 · home | L 77–84 | 4 | 107.6 | 117.3 | 71.6 | 45.5 | 12.6 | 34.1 |
| Texas A&MMar 4, 2026 · road | L 85–96 | 31 | 112.7 | 127.3 | 75.4 | 54.0 | 17.2 | 31.0 |
| VanderbiltFeb 28, 2026 · home | W 91–77 | 29 | 133.7 | 113.2 | 68.1 | 69.6 | 16.2 | 27.3 |
| South CarolinaFeb 25, 2026 · road | W 72–63 | 99 | 100.3 | 87.7 | 71.8 | 44.7 | 20.9 | 43.9 |
| AuburnFeb 22, 2026 · road | L 74–75 | 15 | 104.6 | 106.0 | 70.7 | 46.2 | 19.8 | 45.9 |
| GeorgiaFeb 18, 2026 · home | L 78–86 | 37 | 116.0 | 127.9 | 67.3 | 55.9 | 19.3 | 41.7 |
| FloridaFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 83–92 | 4 | 108.4 | 120.2 | 76.5 | 50.0 | 18.3 | 31.7 |
| TennesseeFeb 8, 2026 · home | W 74–71 | 11 | 109.4 | 104.9 | 67.7 | 54.5 | 13.3 | 22.9 |
| OklahomaFeb 5, 2026 · home | W 94–78 | 38 | 143.7 | 119.2 | 65.4 | 60.0 | 9.2 | 42.4 |
| ArkansasJan 31, 2026 · road | W 85–77 | 23 | 127.2 | 115.3 | 66.8 | 58.9 | 10.5 | 37.0 |
| VanderbiltJan 28, 2026 · road | L 55–80 | 29 | 78.6 | 114.4 | 70.0 | 37.3 | 21.4 | 30.2 |
| Ole MissJan 24, 2026 · home | W 72–63 | 54 | 107.4 | 94.0 | 67.0 | 44.0 | 17.9 | 35.0 |
| TexasJan 22, 2026 · home | W 85–80 | 34 | 123.1 | 115.8 | 69.1 | 47.4 | 11.6 | 38.2 |
| TennesseeJan 17, 2026 · road | W 80–78 | 11 | 126.2 | 123.1 | 63.4 | 56.8 | 14.2 | 41.2 |
| LSUJan 15, 2026 · road | W 75–74 | 74 | 112.1 | 110.7 | 66.9 | 53.6 | 13.5 | 21.9 |
| Mississippi StJan 11, 2026 · home | W 92–68 | 64 | 134.0 | 99.1 | 68.7 | 61.9 | 13.1 | 42.4 |
| MissouriJan 8, 2026 · home | L 68–73 | 49 | 100.0 | 107.4 | 68.0 | 50.0 | 19.1 | 24.2 |
| AlabamaJan 3, 2026 · road | L 74–89 | 12 | 103.2 | 124.1 | 71.7 | 45.8 | 16.7 | 30.8 |
| BellarmineDec 23, 2025 · home | W 99–85 | 317 | 148.1 | 127.2 | 66.8 | 73.2 | 15.0 | 39.3 |
| St John'sDec 20, 2025 · neutral | W 78–66 | 14 | 112.5 | 95.2 | 69.3 | 49.2 | 23.1 | 48.5 |
| IndianaDec 14, 2025 · home | W 72–60 | 44 | 107.6 | 89.7 | 66.9 | 40.5 | 6.0 | 32.6 |
| NC CentralDec 10, 2025 · home | W 103–67 | 333 | 143.3 | 93.2 | 71.9 | 70.3 | 12.5 | 26.9 |
| GonzagaDec 6, 2025 · neutral | L 59–94 | 8 | 83.7 | 133.4 | 70.5 | 32.5 | 15.6 | 26.7 |
| North CarolinaDec 3, 2025 · home | L 64–67 | 22 | 100.3 | 105.0 | 63.8 | 44.3 | 14.1 | 27.6 |
| Tennessee TechNov 27, 2025 · home | W 104–54 | 315 | 142.9 | 74.2 | 72.8 | 70.5 | 13.7 | 35.7 |
| Loyola MDNov 22, 2025 · home | W 88–46 | 330 | 122.2 | 63.9 | 72.0 | 55.3 | 12.5 | 42.9 |
| Michigan StNov 18, 2025 · neutral | L 66–83 | 13 | 92.8 | 116.7 | 71.1 | 41.2 | 12.7 | 15.8 |
| E IllinoisNov 15, 2025 · home | W 99–53 | 327 | 146.0 | 78.2 | 67.8 | 68.0 | 19.2 | 57.1 |
| LouisvilleNov 12, 2025 · road | L 88–96 | 32 | 114.8 | 125.2 | 76.7 | 55.9 | 18.3 | 32.5 |
| ValparaisoNov 8, 2025 · home | W 107–59 | 191 | 142.8 | 78.7 | 74.9 | 62.5 | 8.0 | 33.3 |
| NichollsNov 5, 2025 · home | W 77–51 | 235 | 110.1 | 72.9 | 70.0 | 52.4 | 18.6 | 37.5 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Otega OwehG | 36 | 32.7 | 18.6 | 4.8 | 2.7 | 55.4 | 28.5% | 36 | 1.3036 games | 13536 games |
| Denzel AberdeenG | 36 | 30.6 | 13.5 | 2.5 | 3.4 | 56.0 | 21.5% | 36 | 2.6236 games | 17136 games |
| Collin ChandlerG | 36 | 27.1 | 9.7 | 2.8 | 2.2 | 60.5 | 16.5% | 36 | 2.0836 games | 17836 games |
| Malachi MorenoC | 36 | 22.6 | 7.8 | 6.3 | 1.8 | 62.3 | 16.4% | 36 | 1.3936 games | 336 games |
| Mouhamed DioubateF | 31 | 21.6 | 8.8 | 5.5 | 1.0 | 58.8 | 19.0% | 31 | 1.1931 games | 2831 games |
| Brandon GarrisonF | 36 | 16.2 | 4.7 | 4.1 | 1.1 | 58.0 | 15.2% | 36 | 1.0936 games | 1736 games |
| Andrija JelavicF | 32 | 15.7 | 5.5 | 4.0 | 0.7 | 54.6 | 18.4% | 32 | 0.8532 games | 7632 games |
| Kam WilliamsG | 24 | 18.5 | 6.0 | 2.1 | 1.0 | 61.7 | 14.6% | 24 | 1.6424 games | 7824 games |
| Jasper JohnsonG | 35 | 12.0 | 4.9 | 1.1 | 1.6 | 53.4 | 22.8% | 35 | 1.6335 games | 9135 games |
| Trent NoahF | 26 | 11.0 | 3.1 | 2.4 | 0.5 | 54.9 | 13.8% | 26 | 1.6326 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 Kentucky?
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
12Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
83%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 | 3,117 | 3,117 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 7 | 2,049 | 2,049 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 1 | 815 | 815 | — | 100% | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (5,981 minutes).
Dated school publications
3 announced additions
| Player | Evidence | Prior program | Prior MPG | Prior PPG | Latest publication |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Milan Momcilovic →College transfer | Addition announced ↗Kentucky announced Milan Momcilovic as a 2026–27 addition. | Iowa StateIowa State · 2025–26 | 30.4 | 16.9 | Jun 5, 20261 dated record |
| Ousmane N’DiayeInternational addition | Addition announced ↗Kentucky announced Ousmane N’Diaye as a 2026–27 addition. | Vanoli Cremona | — | — | May 7, 20261 dated record |
| Justin McBride →College transfer | Addition announced ↗Kentucky announced Justin McBride as a 2026–27 addition. | James MadisonJames Madison · 2025–26 | 27.1 | 15.3 | Apr 30, 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Denzel Aberdeen →G | Same programKentucky Wildcats | 30.6 | 13.5 | 56.0% |
| Collin Chandler →G | Same programKentucky Wildcats | 27.1 | 9.7 | 60.5% |
| Malachi Moreno →C | Same programKentucky Wildcats | 22.6 | 7.8 | 62.3% |
| Mouhamed Dioubate →F | Same programKentucky Wildcats | 21.6 | 8.8 | 58.8% |
| Brandon Garrison →F | Same programKentucky Wildcats | 16.2 | 4.7 | 58.0% |
| Andrija Jelavic →F | Same programKentucky Wildcats | 15.7 | 5.5 | 54.6% |
| Kam Williams →G | Same programKentucky Wildcats | 18.5 | 6.0 | 61.7% |
| Jasper Johnson →G | Same programKentucky Wildcats | 12.0 | 4.9 | 53.4% |
| Trent Noah →F | Same programKentucky Wildcats | 11.0 | 3.1 | 54.9% |
| Jaland Lowe →G | Same programKentucky Wildcats | 18.6 | 8.0 | 45.1% |
| Walker Horn →G | Same programKentucky Wildcats | 1.3 | 0.4 | 25.0% |
| Zach Tow →F | Same programKentucky Wildcats | 1.2 | 0.7 | 102.6% |
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…
Kentucky vs Kansas
75.0Kentucky
75.5Kansas
Kansas win estimate55.6%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin0.6
Projected total150.5
80% home-margin range-15.4 to 16.5
Estimated possessions70.5
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 4.5 pts
Kansas attack 53.9% · Kentucky defense 48.1%Kentucky attack 55.6% · Kansas defense 45.2%
Ball securityAway 0.3 pts
Kansas attack 15.7% · Kentucky defense 16.2%Kentucky attack 15.4% · Kansas defense 16.3%
Second chancesAway 1.7 pts
Kansas attack 30.4% · Kentucky defense 26.4%Kentucky attack 32.1% · Kansas defense 26.3%
Free-throw pressureAway 8.4 pts
Kansas attack 32.2% · Kentucky defense 33.5%Kentucky attack 36.3% · Kansas defense 29.2%
United Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Gardner-Webb vs Kentucky
62.5Gardner-Webb
93.1Kentucky
Kentucky win estimate97.1%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin30.6
Projected total155.6
80% home-margin range14.6 to 46.5
Estimated possessions71.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.9 pts
Kentucky attack 55.6% · Gardner-Webb defense 53.2%Gardner-Webb attack 49.6% · Kentucky defense 48.1%
Ball securityHome 3.4 pts
Kentucky attack 15.4% · Gardner-Webb defense 16.0%Gardner-Webb attack 19.0% · Kentucky defense 16.2%
Second chancesHome 0.1 pts
Kentucky attack 32.1% · Gardner-Webb defense 30.9%Gardner-Webb attack 27.4% · Kentucky defense 26.4%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.1 pts
Kentucky attack 36.3% · Gardner-Webb defense 35.2%Gardner-Webb attack 33.5% · Kentucky defense 33.5%
Rupp Arena
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
Kentucky vs Oklahoma
79.1Kentucky
78.9Oklahoma
Oklahoma win estimate53.5%
Model signalToss-up
Projected home margin-0.2
Projected total158.0
80% home-margin range-16.1 to 15.7
Estimated possessions69.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 0.8 pts
Oklahoma attack 55.2% · Kentucky defense 48.1%Kentucky attack 55.6% · Oklahoma defense 49.3%
Ball securityAway 1.4 pts
Oklahoma attack 16.1% · Kentucky defense 16.2%Kentucky attack 15.4% · Oklahoma defense 16.9%
Second chancesHome 0.8 pts
Oklahoma attack 30.2% · Kentucky defense 26.4%Kentucky attack 32.1% · Oklahoma defense 29.0%
Free-throw pressureHome 1.1 pts
Oklahoma attack 37.3% · Kentucky defense 33.5%Kentucky attack 36.3% · Oklahoma defense 33.6%
Lloyd Noble 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 →