CBB Matchups
Every D1 game with tempo-free ratings, four factors and market lines, one place.
College basketball is being built for the 2026-27 season (tip-off Nov 3). What's here fills in as games are played.
Non-conferenceNeutral siteUnited Center, Chicago, ILChampions Classic
Michigan St
Efficiency #11
2025-26: 27-8 · 15-6 conf
vs
Duke
Efficiency #2
2025-26: 35-3 · 20-1 conf
Tue, Nov 10 · TBD
68.9
win 32%
Projected
74.2
win 68%
No line posted yet.
Model: DUKE −5.3 · total 143.2 · ratings as of Sat, Oct 3
Preseason ratings start from 2025-26's final adjusted ratings, regressed toward the D1 average. The stats below are 2025-26's too; both update once 2026-27 games are played.
How the projection is built
each step, from an average D-I game to this oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Duke 67.2, Michigan St 67.5 → 66.4 possessions
−4.1
Duke offense vs Michigan St defense
+2.2
Michigan St offense vs Duke defense
−3.1
Projected total
143.2
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Duke offense vs Michigan St defense
+2.2
Michigan St offense vs Duke defense
+3.1
Duke by 5.3
5.3
Michigan St side ◂▸ Duke side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Duke.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 66.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Michigan St is the faster team (66.8, #249 of 365) and Duke the slower (66.8, #250). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
66.4
per team, 40 min
Projected total
143.2
model
Projected team totals
68.9 / 74.2
Michigan St / Duke
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.5#249
Michigan St
67.2#274
Duke
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetClashDuke
Strength vs strength: 2-point shooting
Duke (#7 in 2-point shooting) against Michigan St (#47 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 55.1%. Historically Duke's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.61 vs 0.55).
DefenseMichigan St
Michigan St's shot-blocking
Michigan St ranks #19 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.3% of Duke's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
AdvantageDuke
Where Duke scores: shooting
Duke shoots an effective 56.6% (#13); Michigan St allows 48.9% (#61). Expect about 53.2%, 1.9 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.7 points per 100 possessions.
ClashDuke
Style match: 3-point volume
Duke takes 43.5% of its shots from three; Michigan St lets opponents take 46.2% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 47.0% — both habits push the same way.
ClashDuke
Style match: ball movement
Duke assists on 58.8% of its made baskets; Michigan St allows assists on 57.2% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 59.7% — both habits push the same way.
TurnoversDuke
Duke protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 15.1% is worth roughly +2.0 points per 100 possessions for Duke's offense.
Michigan St has the ball
OffenseDuke allowsvs D1 avg
53.8% #72
46.2% #13
-1.6 pt/100
17.2% #219
17.3% #132
-0.7 pt/100
37.8% #10
25.2% #10
+1.6 pt/100
35.9% #157
22.8% #2
-0.9 pt/100
76.4% #41
—
+0.4 pt/100
Michigan St net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.2 pts/100
Duke has the ball
OffenseMichigan St allowsvs D1 avg
56.6% #13
48.9% #61
+2.7 pt/100
15.9% #135
14.9% #298
+2.0 pt/100
38.4% #4
22.4% #1
+1.0 pt/100
38.2% #97
30.2% #64
-0.2 pt/100
72.9% #175
—
+0.0 pt/100
Duke net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.6 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersMichigan Stoffense vsDukedefense
Share of shots by zone
Michigan St shoots
33.3
6.9
23.5
36.3
Duke allows
30.5
6.1
18.7
44.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 66.3%#13 | 55.4%#75 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 41.1%#145 | 41.9%#229 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.8%#155 | 34.4%#61 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.3%#47 | 30.6%#27 | 33.7% |
Dukeoffense vsMichigan Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
Duke shoots
44.5
4.3
8.0
43.1
Michigan St allows
28.2
10.0
15.9
46.0
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 64.4%#29 | 59.8%#218 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 42.7%#108 | 36.6%#102 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 43.1%#34 | 33.2%#34 | 38.0% |
| Three | 34.7%#133 | 33.0%#119 | 33.7% |
RimShort 2 (≤9 ft)Mid 2 (10 ft+)Three
Zones from play-by-play shot descriptions; garbage time removed. Bars show the share of field-goal attempts in each zone; where a slice is too thin for its number, the shares are listed under the bar. FG% ranks: #1 = best for that side (most accurate shooting, stingiest defense).
Shot volume
Extra scoring chances from rebounds, turnovers and the foul line · 2025-26 numbersMichigan St
+5.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#22 of 365
Off reb %
37.8%
#10
Def reb %
77.6%
#1
Turnover %
17.2%
#219
Forced TO %
14.9%
#298
FT rate
35.9%
#157
FT allowed
30.2%
#64
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+2.4
Defensive rebounding+2.7
Ball security−0.3
Forcing turnovers−1.2
Foul shots drawn+0.2
Foul shots allowed+1.3
Duke
+9.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#1 of 365
Off reb %
38.4%
#4
Def reb %
74.8%
#10
Turnover %
15.9%
#135
Forced TO %
17.3%
#132
FT rate
38.2%
#97
FT allowed
22.8%
#2
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+2.6
Defensive rebounding+1.7
Ball security+0.6
Forcing turnovers+0.4
Foul shots drawn+0.8
Foul shots allowed+3.2
Duke has more extra scoring chances per game: +9.3 (#1 of 365) to Michigan St’s +5.0 (#22).
Grade = extra shots and foul-line trips per game compared with a D-I average team, built from six season rates. Cell shading is the national rank for each rate (greener = better for that team).
Rotation
Michigan St2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jeremy Fears Jr. | G | So | 6'2" | 35-35 | 32.4 | 15.2 | 2.4 | 9.4 | 2.4 | 47.9% | 32.1% | 3.1 | 88.5% | 28.9% | |
| 55 | Coen Carr | F | Jr | 6'6" | 35-35 | 29.3 | 12.0 | 5.4 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 55.4% | 27.6% | 2.2 | 62.9% | 24.2% | |
| 6 | Jordan Scott | F | Fr | 6'7" | 35-13 | 20.8 | 5.8 | 3.1 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 52.5% | 37.0% | 2.9 | 70.2% | 17.8% | |
| 2 | Kur Teng | G | So | 6'4" | 35-4 | 17.5 | 7.3 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 49.6% | 38.1% | 4.2 | 81.0% | 27.1% | |
| 3 | Cam Ward | F | Fr | 6'8" | 34-0 | 15.3 | 5.1 | 4.2 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 58.9% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 51.0% | 20.4% | |
| 99 | Divine Ugochukwu | G | So | 6'3" | 22-12 | 16.0 | 5.1 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 62.0% | 44.2% | 2.0 | 55.6% | 17.9% | |
| 9 | Trey Fort | G | Sr | 6'4" | 33-6 | 10.2 | 4.2 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 46.2% | 34.5% | 2.5 | 88.9% | 27.9% | |
| 35 | Jesse McCulloch | F | Fr | 6'10" | 28-0 | 7.4 | 2.4 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 57.3% | 50.0% | 0.6 | 92.9% | 18.1% | |
| 10 | Denham Wojcik | G | Sr | 6'2" | 31-0 | 5.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 28.6% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 13.2% | |
| 20 | Nick Sanders | G | Sr | 5'10" | 14-0 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 50.0% | 50.0% | 0.3 | — | 14.4% | |
| 40 | Brennan Walton | F | Fr | 6'7" | 12-0 | 1.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 62.5% | 50.0% | 0.2 | — | 17.1% | |
| 43 | Colin Walton | F | Fr | 6'7" | 12-0 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 150.0% | 100.0% | 0.1 | — | 3.4% | |
| 8 | Kaleb Glenn | F | Jr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Duke2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 13 | John Blackwellat Wisconsin | G | Sr | 6'5" | 34-34 | 33.8 | 19.1 | 5.1 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 53.4% | 38.9% | 7.3 | 85.9% | 30.6% | |
| 7 | Dame Sarr | F | So | 6'8" | 38-30 | 23.5 | 6.4 | 3.8 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 50.7% | 32.3% | 3.5 | 53.2% | 18.8% | |
| 2 | Cayden Boozer | G | So | 6'4" | 38-11 | 22.8 | 7.7 | 2.3 | 3.0 | 1.3 | 54.8% | 30.3% | 1.7 | 81.3% | 20.6% | |
| 1 | Caleb Foster | G | Sr | 6'5" | 33-30 | 24.9 | 8.3 | 3.5 | 2.8 | 1.1 | 53.3% | 39.8% | 3.0 | 58.2% | 21.0% | |
| 8 | Drew Scharnowskiat Belmont | F | Sr | 6'10" | 30-24 | 21.7 | 10.7 | 6.0 | 2.6 | 1.8 | 68.3% | 20.0% | 0.2 | 43.6% | 27.3% | |
| 26 | Jacob Theodosiouat Loyola MD | G | Sr | 6'4" | 27-18 | 23.4 | 13.1 | 3.6 | 2.7 | 2.5 | 51.7% | 29.6% | 3.6 | 67.2% | 35.2% | |
| 21 | Patrick Ngongba II | C | Jr | 6'11" | 32-28 | 21.9 | 10.1 | 5.8 | 2.0 | 1.3 | 62.8% | 25.8% | 1.0 | 66.4% | 24.8% | |
| 50 | Brock Davis | G | Sr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Sebastian Wilkins | F | So | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | Bryson Howard | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Cameron Williams | F | Fr | 7'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | Deron Rippey Jr. | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 30 | Joaquim Boumtje Boumtje | C | Fr | 7'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Maxime Meyer | C | Fr | 7'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 55 | Nick Arnold | G | Fr | 5'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Transfers in: John Blackwell (from Wisconsin), Drew Scharnowski (from Belmont), Jacob Theodosiou (from Loyola MD)
Michigan St2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Jeremy Fears Jr. | G | So | 6'2" | 35-35 | 32.4 | 15.2 | 2.4 | 9.4 | 2.4 | 47.9% | 32.1% | 3.1 | 88.5% | 28.9% | |
| 55 | Coen Carr | F | Jr | 6'6" | 35-35 | 29.3 | 12.0 | 5.4 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 55.4% | 27.6% | 2.2 | 62.9% | 24.2% | |
| 6 | Jordan Scott | F | Fr | 6'7" | 35-13 | 20.8 | 5.8 | 3.1 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 52.5% | 37.0% | 2.9 | 70.2% | 17.8% | |
| 2 | Kur Teng | G | So | 6'4" | 35-4 | 17.5 | 7.3 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.8 | 49.6% | 38.1% | 4.2 | 81.0% | 27.1% | |
| 3 | Cam Ward | F | Fr | 6'8" | 34-0 | 15.3 | 5.1 | 4.2 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 58.9% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 51.0% | 20.4% | |
| 99 | Divine Ugochukwu | G | So | 6'3" | 22-12 | 16.0 | 5.1 | 1.5 | 1.5 | 0.7 | 62.0% | 44.2% | 2.0 | 55.6% | 17.9% | |
| 9 | Trey Fort | G | Sr | 6'4" | 33-6 | 10.2 | 4.2 | 1.3 | 0.6 | 0.6 | 46.2% | 34.5% | 2.5 | 88.9% | 27.9% | |
| 35 | Jesse McCulloch | F | Fr | 6'10" | 28-0 | 7.4 | 2.4 | 1.3 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 57.3% | 50.0% | 0.6 | 92.9% | 18.1% | |
| 10 | Denham Wojcik | G | Sr | 6'2" | 31-0 | 5.4 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 28.6% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 13.2% | |
| 20 | Nick Sanders | G | Sr | 5'10" | 14-0 | 1.7 | 0.4 | 0.1 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 50.0% | 50.0% | 0.3 | — | 14.4% | |
| 40 | Brennan Walton | F | Fr | 6'7" | 12-0 | 1.4 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 62.5% | 50.0% | 0.2 | — | 17.1% | |
| 43 | Colin Walton | F | Fr | 6'7" | 12-0 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 150.0% | 100.0% | 0.1 | — | 3.4% | |
| 8 | Kaleb Glenn | F | Jr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Michigan St
Against the spread
Season
17-17-1
Home
7-10
Road
5-4-1
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +1.6
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 7 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 4 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
16-19
Home
7-10
Road
6-4
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +7.3
Under 2 straightOver in 4 of 7 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 4 with a line of 10+
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 27 | #2UConn | N | L 63–67 | +2.0 | L−2.0 | 136.0 | U130 | 99.1 | 105.4 | 63.6 |
| Mar 21 | #6Louisville | N | W 77–69 | −5.0 | W+3.0 | 151.0 | U146 | 115.0 | 103.1 | 66.9 |
| Mar 19 | #14N Dakota St | N | W 92–67 | −16.0 | W+9.0 | 144.5 | O159 | 126.4 | 92.0 | 72.8 |
| Mar 13 | UCLA | N | L 84–88 | −5.0 | L−9.0 | 141.5 | O172 | 125.9 | 131.9 | 66.7 |
| Mar 8 | #3Michigan | A | L 80–90 | +10.5 | W+0.5 | 152.0 | O170 | 112.5 | 126.5 | 71.1 |
| Mar 5 | Rutgers | H | W 91–87 | −19.5 | L−15.5 | 142.0 | O178 | 126.1 | 120.6 | 72.1 |
| Mar 1 | Indiana | A | W 77–64 | −3.0 | W+10.0 | 144.0 | U141 | 128.1 | 106.5 | 60.1 |
| Feb 26 | #8Purdue | A | W 76–74 | +7.0 | W+9.0 | 143.0 | O150 | 121.7 | 118.5 | 62.4 |
| Feb 22 | Ohio State | H | W 66–60 | −10.0 | L−4.0 | 147.0 | U126 | 108.2 | 98.4 | 61.0 |
| Feb 17 | UCLA | H | W 82–59 | −8.0 | W+15.0 | 139.0 | O141 | 125.3 | 90.1 | 65.5 |
Duke
Against the spread
Season
20-18
Home
7-8
Road
8-3
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −0.1
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 4 of 10 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 6 with a line of 10+
Over / under
Season
13-23-2
Home
4-10-1
Road
4-7
Last 10
5-4-1
avg vs total +1.6
Over 2 straightOver in 5 of 10 as a favorite, 1 pushOver in 1 of 6 with a line of 10+, 1 push
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 29 | #2UConn | N | L 72–73 | −4.5 | L−5.5 | 135.5 | O145 | 114.7 | 116.3 | 62.8 |
| Mar 27 | #5St John's | N | W 80–75 | −6.5 | L−1.5 | 140.5 | O155 | 124.8 | 117.0 | 64.1 |
| Mar 21 | #9TCU | N | W 81–58 | −12.0 | W+11.0 | 140.5 | U139 | 116.8 | 83.6 | 69.3 |
| Mar 19 | #16Siena | N | W 71–65 | −27.5 | L−21.5 | 136.0 | P136 | 114.7 | 105.0 | 61.9 |
| Mar 14 | #10Virginia | N | W 74–70 | −6.5 | L−2.5 | 139.5 | O144 | 116.4 | 110.1 | 63.5 |
| Mar 13 | Clemson | N | W 73–61 | −10.5 | W+1.5 | 135.0 | U134 | 115.5 | 96.5 | 63.2 |
| Mar 12 | Florida St | N | W 80–79 | −17.0 | L−16.0 | 150.5 | O159 | 119.0 | 117.5 | 67.2 |
| Mar 7 | #17North Carolina | H | W 76–61 | −18.0 | L−3.0 | 147.0 | U137 | 116.9 | 93.8 | 65.0 |
| Mar 2 | NC State | A | W 93–64 | −9.0 | W+20.0 | 150.5 | O157 | 144.3 | 99.3 | 64.5 |
| Feb 28 | #11Virginia | H | W 77–51 | −10.0 | W+16.0 | 143.0 | U128 | 126.4 | 83.7 | 60.9 |
Records vs the closing line describe the past; ten games is a small sample.
Tale of the tape
national rank toned left for away, right for homeMichigan StDuke
Efficiency
116.5
121.1
99.2
95.8
67.5
67.2
—
—
Shooting
53.8%
56.6%
53.4%
60.2%
36.3%
34.7%
76.4%
72.9%
35.9%
38.2%
Ball control & glass
17.2%
15.9%
14.9%
17.3%
37.8%
38.4%
22.4%
25.2%
9.7%
9.7%
8.2%
9.6%
Style
36.4%
43.5%
41.3%
45.5%
19.7%
12.2%
67.6%
58.8%
31.5%
32.2%
Roster
2.12
3.26
6'4.9"
6'6.5"
73.0%
43.2%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputMichigan St
Returning minutes: 73.0%Returning production: 67.2%
Lost
- Jaxon Kohler 27.7 mpg, 12.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Carson Cooper 26.7 mpg, 11.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Kaleb Glenn no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 73% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5. Teams returning at least 65% of last season's minutes have historically gained about 2.2 points of AdjEM (n=156 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
Duke
Returning minutes: 43.2%Returning production: 36.9%
Lost
- Cameron Boozer 33.5 mpg, 22.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Isaiah Evans 28.3 mpg, 15.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Maliq Brown 20.2 mpg, 4.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Nikolas Khamenia 19.7 mpg, 5.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Darren Harris 9.1 mpg, 3.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Cameron Sheffield 1.2 mpg, 0.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- John Blackwell from Wisconsin · 32.8 mpg, 18.6 ppg last season
- Drew Scharnowski from Belmont · 20.3 mpg, 10.1 ppg last season
- Jacob Theodosiou from Loyola MD · 19.7 mpg, 11.0 ppg last season
- Sebastian Wilkins no D1 minutes last season
- Cameron Williams no D1 minutes last season
- Nick Arnold no D1 minutes last season
Returns 43% of last season's minutes; lost 2 of its top 5.
Head-to-head
this season and last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Sat, Dec 6 | 2025-26 | Duke 66 – 60 Michigan St |
The CBB Matchups tab lays out the day's Division I slate: matchup, tip time, records and rank, and — once posted — Pinnacle's spread and total (the median across books when Pinnacle has no line). Three views switch the table between projected scores, pace and totals, and each team's offensive and defensive tendencies. Each game opens into opponent-adjusted possessions, efficiency and four-factor tendencies for both teams, plus recent form, rotation and head-to-head history. Every game also carries our projected score, spread and total, built bottom-up from those same numbers: expected possessions times each side's opponent-adjusted points per possession, plus home court.
What these numbers mean: line shopping.