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-conferenceUD Arena, Dayton, OH
C Michigan
Efficiency #283
2025-26: 10-21 · 6-12 conf
@
Dayton
Efficiency #62
2025-26: 25-12 · 14-7 conf
Tue, Nov 17 · TBD
65.6
win 13%
Projected
78.8
win 87%
No line posted yet.
Model: DAY −13.3 · total 144.4 · 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: Dayton 67.8, C Michigan 68.1 → 67.7 possessions
−1.4
Dayton offense vs C Michigan defense
+3.5
C Michigan offense vs Dayton defense
−5.9
Projected total
144.4
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Dayton offense vs C Michigan defense
+3.5
C Michigan offense vs Dayton defense
+5.9
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Dayton by 13.3
13.3
C Michigan side ◂▸ Dayton 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 Dayton.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 67.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, C Michigan is the faster team (68.3, #185 of 365) and Dayton the slower (67.6, #216). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
67.7
per team, 40 min
Projected total
144.4
model
Projected team totals
65.6 / 78.8
C Michigan / Dayton
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
68.1#198
C Michigan
67.8#222
Dayton
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageC Michigan
Where C Michigan struggles: ball control
C Michigan turns it over on 18.1% of possessions (#276); Dayton forces turnovers on 21.0% of opponent possessions (#11). Expect about 20.2%, 3.4 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.2 points per 100 possessions.
ClashDayton
Style match: ball movement
Dayton assists on 59.1% of its made baskets; C Michigan allows assists on 57.9% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 60.4% — both habits push the same way.
DefenseDayton
Dayton's ball-hawking
Dayton ranks #23 nationally in steal rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 11.8% of C Michigan's possessions to end in a steal against this defense.
AdvantageDayton
Where Dayton scores: shooting
Dayton shoots an effective 51.6% (#168); C Michigan allows 54.0% (#299). Expect about 52.8%, 1.5 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.2 points per 100 possessions.
C Michigan has the ball
OffenseDayton allowsvs D1 avg
51.8% #158
51.0% #164
+0.2 pt/100
18.1% #276
21.0% #11
-4.2 pt/100
29.2% #230
28.8% #94
-1.0 pt/100
31.4% #269
35.5% #194
-0.2 pt/100
69.7% #277
—
-0.2 pt/100
C Michigan net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -5.4 pts/100
Dayton has the ball
OffenseC Michigan allowsvs D1 avg
51.6% #168
54.0% #299
+2.2 pt/100
16.9% #195
17.0% #156
-0.2 pt/100
26.9% #298
34.3% #323
-0.3 pt/100
46.2% #2
39.0% #284
+1.0 pt/100
75.4% #71
—
+0.3 pt/100
Dayton net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +2.8 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersC Michiganoffense vsDaytondefense
Share of shots by zone
C Michigan shoots
38.2
10.0
18.5
33.3
Dayton allows
37.3
9.9
12.5
40.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.3%#154 | 57.9%#143 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 46.8%#41 | 34.8%#54 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.4%#99 | 37.1%#134 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.9%#181 | 35.4%#270 | 33.7% |
Daytonoffense vsC Michigandefense
Share of shots by zone
Dayton shoots
42.8
6.3
9.8
41.1
C Michigan allows
44.8
6.0
10.8
38.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.8%#122 | 61.1%#270 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 27.4%#360 | 44.2%#270 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 33.3%#326 | 31.6%#14 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.9%#182 | 35.5%#282 | 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 numbersC Michigan
−4.2extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#330 of 365
Off reb %
29.2%
#230
Def reb %
65.7%
#323
Turnover %
18.1%
#276
Forced TO %
17.0%
#156
FT rate
31.4%
#269
FT allowed
39.0%
#284
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.4
Defensive rebounding−1.2
Ball security−0.9
Forcing turnovers+0.2
Foul shots drawn−0.9
Foul shots allowed−1.0
Dayton
+5.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#19 of 365
Off reb %
26.9%
#298
Def reb %
71.2%
#94
Turnover %
16.9%
#195
Forced TO %
21.0%
#11
FT rate
46.2%
#2
FT allowed
35.5%
#194
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.1
Defensive rebounding+0.6
Ball security−0.1
Forcing turnovers+2.9
Foul shots drawn+2.9
Foul shots allowed−0.1
Dayton has more extra scoring chances per game: +5.1 (#19 of 365) to C Michigan’s −4.2 (#330).
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
C Michigan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Jayson Pettyat Kansas City | G | Sr | 6'3" | 31-31 | 31.1 | 11.1 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 49.0% | 33.5% | 5.3 | 83.3% | 22.2% | |
| 10 | Phat Phat Brooks | G | Jr | 6'3" | 31-27 | 28.1 | 11.0 | 2.9 | 3.9 | 2.3 | 43.2% | 17.6% | 1.1 | 73.3% | 27.3% | |
| 13 | Keenan Garner | F | Jr | 6'7" | 31-18 | 24.2 | 7.5 | 5.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 56.1% | 47.1% | 0.5 | 59.2% | 19.9% | |
| 3 | Jaxson Whitaker | G | Jr | 6'4" | 31-6 | 18.2 | 5.4 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 52.3% | 34.5% | 3.7 | 83.3% | 17.8% | |
| 2 | Jalen Kampen | G | So | 6'4" | 20-0 | 13.9 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 49.3% | 31.3% | 1.6 | 68.8% | 18.3% | |
| 4 | Kareem Aburashed | C | Sr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Nsikan Usen | F | So | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Uchenna Amene | G | So | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 21 | Brock Mendoza | C | Sr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 55 | Conrad Luczynski | C | Sr | 7'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Jacob Wrencher | G | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Jake Bascom | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 20 | Jayden Hackett | G | Sr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 40 | Travis Ambrose | F | Jr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Tyre Acuff | G | Fr | 6'3" | 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: Jayson Petty (from Kansas City)
Dayton2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Javon Bennett | G | Sr | 5'10" | 37-37 | 34.5 | 15.8 | 2.2 | 2.9 | 1.4 | 49.0% | 34.7% | 7.0 | 89.8% | 27.3% | |
| 7 | Keonte Jones | G | Sr | 6'6" | 37-37 | 30.2 | 7.7 | 5.3 | 2.2 | 1.4 | 53.9% | 31.7% | 1.1 | 63.1% | 16.1% | |
| 29 | Amael L'Etang | F | So | 7'1" | 33-31 | 25.5 | 11.9 | 5.9 | 1.6 | 2.1 | 55.7% | 36.1% | 2.9 | 76.5% | 27.6% | |
| 4 | Jordan Derkack | G | Sr | 6'5" | 32-14 | 24.8 | 9.2 | 4.8 | 2.5 | 1.7 | 40.9% | 27.6% | 1.8 | 72.2% | 24.8% | |
| 10 | Bryce Heard | G | So | 6'6" | 36-6 | 18.4 | 6.6 | 2.4 | 0.8 | 0.8 | 51.9% | 36.6% | 2.0 | 79.1% | 20.5% | |
| 3 | Jaiun Simon | F | So | 6'6" | 36-16 | 18.3 | 5.6 | 3.3 | 1.2 | 0.8 | 53.7% | 40.0% | 1.0 | 80.5% | 17.7% | |
| 24 | Jacob Conner | F | Sr | 6'10" | 36-8 | 17.0 | 3.2 | 2.3 | 1.1 | 0.6 | 50.0% | 29.7% | 1.8 | 63.0% | 12.8% | |
| 1 | Malcolm Thomas | F | Fr | 6'8" | 26-0 | 8.7 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 54.8% | 33.3% | 0.7 | 56.8% | 29.2% | |
| 22 | Damon Friery | F | Fr | 6'9" | 16-0 | 5.6 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 44.4% | 35.3% | 1.1 | 50.0% | 22.5% | |
| 50 | Sean Pouedet | G | Fr | 6'2" | 14-0 | 5.4 | 0.6 | 0.2 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 38.9% | 25.0% | 0.3 | 100.0% | 12.9% | |
| 11 | Evan Dickey | G | Jr | 6'3" | 4-0 | 2.0 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 100.0% | 14.6% | |
| 33 | Makai Grant | G | Jr | 6'1" | 6-0 | 1.2 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 37.5% | 33.3% | 0.5 | — | 33.9% | |
| 25 | Will Maxwell | G | Jr | 6'4" | 4-0 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | — | 15.6% | |
| 8 | Jaron McKie | G | Fr | 6'3" | 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.
C Michigan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 5 | Jayson Pettyat Kansas City | G | Sr | 6'3" | 31-31 | 31.1 | 11.1 | 4.0 | 1.6 | 1.9 | 49.0% | 33.5% | 5.3 | 83.3% | 22.2% | |
| 10 | Phat Phat Brooks | G | Jr | 6'3" | 31-27 | 28.1 | 11.0 | 2.9 | 3.9 | 2.3 | 43.2% | 17.6% | 1.1 | 73.3% | 27.3% | |
| 13 | Keenan Garner | F | Jr | 6'7" | 31-18 | 24.2 | 7.5 | 5.5 | 1.6 | 1.7 | 56.1% | 47.1% | 0.5 | 59.2% | 19.9% | |
| 3 | Jaxson Whitaker | G | Jr | 6'4" | 31-6 | 18.2 | 5.4 | 1.3 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 52.3% | 34.5% | 3.7 | 83.3% | 17.8% | |
| 2 | Jalen Kampen | G | So | 6'4" | 20-0 | 13.9 | 4.0 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 49.3% | 31.3% | 1.6 | 68.8% | 18.3% | |
| 4 | Kareem Aburashed | C | Sr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Nsikan Usen | F | So | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Uchenna Amene | G | So | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 21 | Brock Mendoza | C | Sr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 55 | Conrad Luczynski | C | Sr | 7'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 23 | Jacob Wrencher | G | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Jake Bascom | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 20 | Jayden Hackett | G | Sr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 40 | Travis Ambrose | F | Jr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Tyre Acuff | G | Fr | 6'3" | 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: Jayson Petty (from Kansas City)
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26C Michigan
Against the spread
Season
15-13-1
Home
7-3-1
Road
6-10
Last 10
6-4
avg cover +6.0
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 4 of 8 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
13-16
Home
5-6
Road
8-8
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total +0.5
Over in the last gameOver in 4 of 8 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6 | Ball State | A | L 69–85 | +2.0 | L−14.0 | 135.0 | O154 | 102.1 | 125.8 | 67.6 |
| Mar 3 | Akron | H | L 64–77 | +11.5 | L−1.5 | 158.5 | U141 | 94.1 | 113.2 | 68.0 |
| Feb 28 | Buffalo | A | W 75–70 | +6.0 | W+11.0 | 149.5 | U145 | 117.8 | 109.9 | 63.7 |
| Feb 24 | Kent State | A | L 81–83 | +12.0 | W+10.0 | 157.0 | O164 | 121.1 | 124.1 | 66.9 |
| Feb 21 | W Michigan | H | W 83–70 | −3.5 | W+9.5 | 151.5 | O153 | 111.5 | 94.0 | 74.5 |
| Feb 17 | E Michigan | A | L 54–66 | +5.0 | L−7.0 | 143.0 | U120 | 81.4 | 99.5 | 66.3 |
| Feb 14 | N Illinois | H | W 88–46 | −4.5 | W+37.5 | 146.0 | U134 | 128.9 | 67.4 | 68.3 |
| Feb 7 | Louisiana | A | L 80–85 | +2.5 | L−2.5 | 134.0 | O165 | 125.0 | 132.8 | 64.0 |
| Feb 3 | UMass | A | L 89–95 | +11.5 | W+5.5 | 152.5 | O184 | 127.4 | 136.0 | 69.8 |
| Jan 31 | Bowling Green | H | W 62–59 | +9.0 | W+12.0 | 149.0 | U121 | 88.1 | 83.8 | 70.4 |
Dayton
Against the spread
Season
17-18-2
Home
8-10
Road
6-6-1
Last 10
5-3-2
avg cover +3.0
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 2 of 6 as a favorite, 2 pushesCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
13-24
Home
4-14
Road
6-7
Last 10
2-8
avg vs total −11.4
Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 0 of 4 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 25 | Illinois St | H | L 55–61 | −7.0 | L−13.0 | 140.0 | U116 | 87.6 | 97.2 | 62.8 |
| Mar 21 | UNC Wilmington | A | W 80–61 | −3.5 | W+15.5 | 138.5 | O141 | 125.8 | 95.9 | 63.6 |
| Mar 18 | Bradley | A | W 80–66 | −2.5 | W+11.5 | 141.0 | O146 | 133.9 | 110.4 | 59.8 |
| Mar 15 | VCU | N | L 62–70 | +2.5 | L−5.5 | 138.5 | U132 | 96.0 | 108.4 | 64.6 |
| Mar 14 | Saint Louis | N | W 70–69 | +5.0 | W+6.0 | 145.5 | U139 | 102.3 | 100.8 | 68.4 |
| Mar 13 | St Bonaventure | N | W 68–63 | −5.0 | P0.0 | 142.0 | U131 | 103.3 | 95.7 | 65.8 |
| Mar 6 | VCU | H | L 62–68 | −1.5 | L−7.5 | 147.0 | U130 | 102.2 | 112.1 | 60.6 |
| Mar 3 | Richmond | A | W 65–60 | −5.0 | P0.0 | 145.0 | U125 | 105.1 | 97.0 | 61.8 |
| Feb 27 | G Washington | A | W 68–66 | +2.5 | W+4.5 | 152.0 | U134 | 101.7 | 98.7 | 66.9 |
| Feb 24 | #23Saint Louis | H | W 77–62 | +3.5 | W+18.5 | 157.5 | U139 | 110.9 | 89.3 | 69.4 |
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 homeC MichiganDayton
Efficiency
106.1
109.9
112.3
102.2
68.1
67.8
—
—
Shooting
51.8%
51.6%
52.2%
52.1%
33.9%
33.9%
69.7%
75.4%
31.4%
46.2%
Ball control & glass
18.1%
16.9%
17.0%
21.0%
29.2%
26.9%
34.3%
28.8%
11.1%
9.9%
8.8%
11.4%
Style
34.0%
41.4%
47.8%
41.6%
15.0%
14.1%
54.9%
59.1%
31.5%
27.4%
Roster
3.20
3.13
6'4.1"
6'5.6"
39.7%
85.2%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputC Michigan
Returning minutes: 39.7%Returning production: 34.3%
Lost
- Nathan Claerbaut 29.1 mpg, 12.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Tamario Adley 29.0 mpg, 12.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Logan McIntire 23.8 mpg, 10.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Nick Mullen 19.0 mpg, 5.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Will Ashford 9.9 mpg, 2.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Rodney Johnson Jr. 5.0 mpg, 2.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Jayson Petty from Kansas City · 31.1 mpg, 11.1 ppg last season
- Conrad Luczynski no D1 minutes last season
- Uchenna Amene no D1 minutes last season
- Tyre Acuff no D1 minutes last season
- Jacob Wrencher no D1 minutes last season
- Kareem Aburashed no D1 minutes last season
Returns 40% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5. Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
Dayton
Returning minutes: 85.2%Returning production: 82.2%
Lost
- De'Shayne Montgomery 29.8 mpg, 13.0 ppg · transferred to Louisville
Added
- Jaron McKie no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 85% of last season's minutes; lost 1 of its top 5 (1 transferred). 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).
Head-to-head
this season and lastNo meetings the last two seasons.
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.