A relative strength
Free-throw attempt rate
40.9% · rank 43 of 366 · 32 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
LSU
2025–26 performance, personnel and game context.
A starting point for 2026–27 preparation.
Independent preseason modelNo.74
+9.9 adjusted net
per 100 estimated possessions
15–172025–26 recorded finals
113.6Adjusted offense · 2026–27 baseline
103.6Adjusted defense · lower is better
68.3Model tempo · possessions / 40 min
Publisher lens / exact source team ID
A second read on LSU.
Checking the attributed publisher rating…
01 / Both ends of the floor
The possession profile.
15–1732 recorded games · 32 paired efficiency samples · pace 68.6Mean opponent adj. net 9.9 · 32 rated opponents
Offense
Effective FG%
52.8%32 games · higher is betterRank 132 / 366 · 64th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent effective FG%
50.9%32 games · lower is betterRank 179 / 366 · 51th favorable percentileOffense
Turnover rate
15.6%32 games · lower is betterRank 112 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileDefense
Turnovers forced
13.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 339 / 366 · 7th favorable percentileOffense
Offensive rebound rate
33.1%32 games · higher is betterRank 110 / 366 · 70th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent offensive rebound rate
31.7%32 games · lower is betterRank 267 / 366 · 27th favorable percentileOffense
Free-throw attempt rate
40.9%32 games · higher is betterRank 43 / 366 · 88th favorable percentileDefense
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.8%32 games · lower is betterRank 272 / 366 · 26th favorable percentileShooting and ball-movement detail
| Metric | Observed rate | Games | Definition |
|---|---|---|---|
| Offensive efficiency | 115.5 | 32 | Points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Defensive efficiency | 111.3 | 32 | Opponent points per 100 estimated possessions. |
| Two-point FG% | 54.5% | 32 | (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Opponent two-point FG% | 49.5% | 32 | Opponent (FGM − 3PM) / (FGA − 3PA). |
| Three-point FG% | 33.1% | 32 | 3PM / 3PA. |
| Opponent three-point FG% | 35.4% | 32 | Opponent 3PM / 3PA. |
| Three-point attempt share | 34.5% | 32 | 3PA / FGA; a style measure, not a quality grade. |
| Opponent three-point attempt share | 37.9% | 32 | Opponent 3PA / FGA; a style measure. |
| Free-throw accuracy | 76.4% | 32 | FTM / FTA. |
| Opponent free-throw accuracy | 69.8% | 32 | Opponent FTM / FTA; not attributed to defensive skill. |
| Assisted field-goal share | 52.5% | 32 | Assists / FGM; describes recorded ball movement. |
| Opponent assisted FG share | 46.3% | 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?
2,265 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
Offensive rebound rate
33.1% · rank 110 of 366 · 32 games
Who crashes the glass, and how does that affect transition defense?
A closer look
Opponent free-throw attempt rate
37.8% · rank 272 of 366 · 32 games
Which defenders can protect the paint without surrendering free throws?
A closer look
Turnovers forced
13.9% · rank 339 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 7 times in the selected window; LSU won 1. 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 Kentucky · L 82–87 · offense 116.8 / defense 123.9
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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| KentuckyMar 11, 2026 · neutral | L 82–87 | 20 | 116.8 | 123.9 | 70.2 | 53.9 | 12.8 | 33.3 |
| Texas A&MMar 7, 2026 · home | L 91–94 | 31 | 98.7 | 101.9 | 67.1 | 50.0 | 23.9 | 29.5 |
| AuburnMar 4, 2026 · road | L 74–88 | 15 | 109.8 | 130.6 | 67.4 | 62.5 | 23.7 | 21.7 |
| OklahomaFeb 28, 2026 · home | L 67–83 | 38 | 102.6 | 127.1 | 65.3 | 39.7 | 15.3 | 40.0 |
| Ole MissFeb 26, 2026 · road | W 106–99 | 54 | 125.8 | 117.5 | 67.4 | 57.9 | 13.1 | 28.6 |
| AlabamaFeb 21, 2026 · home | L 83–90 | 12 | 116.9 | 126.7 | 71.0 | 48.6 | 14.1 | 40.9 |
| TexasFeb 18, 2026 · road | L 85–88 | 34 | 123.9 | 128.3 | 68.6 | 55.6 | 7.3 | 21.2 |
| TennesseeFeb 14, 2026 · road | L 63–73 | 11 | 107.7 | 124.8 | 58.5 | 45.5 | 5.1 | 21.6 |
| ArkansasFeb 11, 2026 · home | L 62–91 | 23 | 83.1 | 122.0 | 74.6 | 33.1 | 18.8 | 42.9 |
| GeorgiaFeb 7, 2026 · home | L 71–83 | 37 | 107.7 | 125.9 | 65.9 | 46.4 | 21.2 | 41.2 |
| South CarolinaJan 31, 2026 · road | W 92–87 | 99 | 123.0 | 116.3 | 66.5 | 59.2 | 14.7 | 31.0 |
| Mississippi StJan 29, 2026 · home | L 66–80 | 64 | 97.5 | 118.1 | 67.7 | 46.6 | 10.3 | 21.1 |
| ArkansasJan 24, 2026 · road | L 81–85 | 23 | 117.9 | 123.7 | 68.7 | 48.4 | 13.1 | 39.4 |
| FloridaJan 21, 2026 · road | L 61–79 | 4 | 91.1 | 118.0 | 67.0 | 45.5 | 16.4 | 21.2 |
| MissouriJan 17, 2026 · home | W 78–70 | 49 | 125.6 | 112.7 | 62.1 | 50.8 | 11.3 | 43.2 |
| KentuckyJan 15, 2026 · home | L 74–75 | 20 | 110.7 | 112.1 | 66.9 | 58.5 | 17.9 | 24.1 |
| VanderbiltJan 10, 2026 · road | L 73–84 | 29 | 102.2 | 117.6 | 71.4 | 51.7 | 19.6 | 29.4 |
| South CarolinaJan 7, 2026 · home | L 68–78 | 99 | 106.6 | 122.2 | 63.8 | 45.2 | 21.9 | 42.5 |
| Texas A&MJan 3, 2026 · road | L 72–75 | 31 | 99.7 | 103.8 | 72.2 | 51.9 | 22.1 | 23.3 |
| Southern MissDec 30, 2025 · home | W 90–62 | 233 | 128.0 | 88.2 | 70.3 | 58.1 | 8.5 | 29.4 |
| Prairie ViewDec 23, 2025 · home | W 104–90 | 336 | 140.0 | 121.2 | 74.3 | 53.5 | 14.8 | 48.4 |
| SE LouisianaDec 20, 2025 · home | W 78–65 | 281 | 126.9 | 105.7 | 61.5 | 64.1 | 13.0 | 24.0 |
| SMUDec 14, 2025 · neutral | W 89–77 | 51 | 138.2 | 119.6 | 64.4 | 68.1 | 18.6 | 43.5 |
| Texas TechDec 7, 2025 · neutral | L 58–82 | 16 | 81.9 | 115.8 | 70.8 | 36.5 | 12.7 | 20.5 |
| Boston CollegeDec 4, 2025 · road | W 78–69 | 152 | 103.0 | 91.1 | 67.3 | 42.4 | 13.2 | 34.1 |
| DePaulNov 30, 2025 · neutral | W 96–63 | 134 | 138.9 | 91.1 | 69.1 | 73.5 | 21.7 | 42.1 |
| DrakeNov 29, 2025 · neutral | W 71–62 | 109 | 103.9 | 90.8 | 68.3 | 50.9 | 10.2 | 15.2 |
| OmahaNov 22, 2025 · home | W 99–73 | 238 | 127.5 | 94.0 | 77.6 | 64.3 | 14.2 | 22.9 |
| Alcorn StNov 19, 2025 · home | W 107–81 | 353 | 146.8 | 111.1 | 72.9 | 60.3 | 15.1 | 55.9 |
| FIUNov 14, 2025 · home | W 98–81 | 229 | 126.3 | 104.4 | 77.6 | 56.7 | 18.0 | 38.7 |
| New OrleansNov 11, 2025 · home | W 93–58 | 299 | 127.9 | 79.8 | 72.7 | 50.7 | 9.6 | 42.9 |
| Tarleton StNov 6, 2025 · home | W 96–60 | 236 | 140.8 | 88.0 | 68.2 | 80.4 | 23.5 | 46.7 |
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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Marquel SuttonF | 32 | 31.4 | 13.1 | 7.3 | 0.7 | 57.2 | 19.7% | 32 | 0.6832 games | 10932 games |
| Max MackinnonG | 31 | 31.9 | 15.7 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 55.2 | 25.4% | 31 | 1.2431 games | 17831 games |
| Pablo TambaF | 32 | 28.6 | 7.9 | 7.2 | 1.5 | 64.1 | 12.6% | 32 | 1.4732 games | 2532 games |
| Jalen ReeceG | 32 | 23.8 | 5.8 | 1.8 | 3.6 | 45.9 | 16.0% | 32 | 2.8332 games | 7732 games |
| Mike NwokoF | 32 | 21.9 | 13.4 | 5.9 | 0.8 | 65.3 | 27.6% | 32 | 0.4532 games | 332 games |
| Robert Miller IIIF | 31 | 19.4 | 6.1 | 3.9 | 0.7 | 67.7 | 14.8% | 31 | 0.6431 games | 131 games |
| Rashad KingG | 32 | 18.7 | 5.8 | 2.1 | 1.2 | 51.4 | 17.7% | 32 | 1.2732 games | 8832 games |
| Dedan Thomas Jr.G | 16 | 29.4 | 15.2 | 2.7 | 6.5 | 56.0 | 25.6% | 16 | 4.0016 games | 4316 games |
| PJ CarterG | 25 | 10.8 | 4.2 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 50.8 | 19.8% | 25 | 1.7525 games | 8625 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 LSU?
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.
13Source-listed players
11Same-program prior records
0Different-program records
70%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 | 7 | 2,259 | 2,259 | — | 100% | — |
| Forward | 6 | 2,323 | 2,323 | — | 100% | — |
| Center | 0 | — | — | — | — | — |
0 listed players have no recognized source position. The workload denominator is the matched prior-production sample (4,582 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?
13 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% |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Pablo Tamba →F | Same programLSU Tigers | 28.6 | 7.9 | 64.1% |
| Jalen Reece →G | Same programLSU Tigers | 23.8 | 5.8 | 45.9% |
| Mike Nwoko →F | Same programLSU Tigers | 21.9 | 13.4 | 65.3% |
| Robert Miller III →F | Same programLSU Tigers | 19.4 | 6.1 | 67.7% |
| Rashad King →G | Same programLSU Tigers | 18.7 | 5.8 | 51.4% |
| Dedan Thomas Jr. →G | Same programLSU Tigers | 29.4 | 15.2 | 56.0% |
| PJ Carter →G | Same programLSU Tigers | 10.8 | 4.2 | 50.8% |
| Mazi Mosley →G | Same programLSU Tigers | 6.7 | 1.9 | 49.3% |
| Jalen Reed →F | Same programLSU Tigers | 17.8 | 9.5 | 63.4% |
| Ron Zipper →G | Same programLSU Tigers | 3.6 | 2.2 | 59.3% |
| Jaden Bobbett →G | Same programLSU Tigers | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0% |
| Marcus Vaughn →F | 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…
Wake Forest vs LSU
74.0Wake Forest
76.4LSU
LSU win estimate60.4%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin2.4
Projected total150.4
80% home-margin range-13.6 to 18.3
Estimated possessions69.0
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityAway 0.2 pts
LSU attack 52.9% · Wake Forest defense 49.3%Wake Forest attack 53.2% · LSU defense 49.5%
Ball securityHome 0.9 pts
LSU attack 17.0% · Wake Forest defense 18.2%Wake Forest attack 16.2% · LSU defense 16.4%
Second chancesHome 2.8 pts
LSU attack 31.4% · Wake Forest defense 29.3%Wake Forest attack 29.1% · LSU defense 29.8%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.9 pts
LSU attack 37.1% · Wake Forest defense 33.4%Wake Forest attack 36.3% · LSU defense 33.5%
Pete Maravich Assembly Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
South Carolina vs LSU
69.6South Carolina
74.8LSU
LSU win estimate67.5%
Model signalLean
Projected home margin5.2
Projected total144.5
80% home-margin range-10.7 to 21.1
Estimated possessions66.7
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.3 pts
LSU attack 52.9% · South Carolina defense 50.0%South Carolina attack 51.1% · LSU defense 49.5%
Ball securityAway 1.2 pts
LSU attack 17.0% · South Carolina defense 15.8%South Carolina attack 16.4% · LSU defense 16.4%
Second chancesHome 3.1 pts
LSU attack 31.4% · South Carolina defense 28.0%South Carolina attack 30.2% · LSU defense 29.8%
Free-throw pressureHome 2.0 pts
LSU attack 37.1% · South Carolina defense 31.9%South Carolina attack 36.9% · LSU defense 33.5%
Pete Maravich Assembly Center
Preseason baseline · roster changes are not model features.
No verified pregame market line imported. Check the forecast record →
LSU vs Alabama
76.3LSU
91.6Alabama
Alabama win estimate86.3%
Model signalStrong lean
Projected home margin15.3
Projected total168.0
80% home-margin range-0.6 to 31.3
Estimated possessions73.6
Why the model tiltsfour-factor edge
Shot qualityHome 1.4 pts
Alabama attack 57.1% · LSU defense 49.5%LSU attack 52.9% · Alabama defense 46.7%
Ball securityHome 3.1 pts
Alabama attack 15.2% · LSU defense 16.4%LSU attack 17.0% · Alabama defense 15.1%
Second chancesHome 0.7 pts
Alabama attack 34.0% · LSU defense 29.8%LSU attack 31.4% · Alabama defense 27.9%
Free-throw pressureHome 0.4 pts
Alabama attack 38.1% · LSU defense 33.5%LSU attack 37.1% · Alabama defense 33.0%
Coleman 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 →