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.
Conference gameSavage Arena, Toledo, OH
E Michigan
Efficiency #247
2025-26: 10-21 · 4-14 conf
@
Toledo
Efficiency #115
2025-26: 19-15 · 13-8 conf
Wed, Dec 9 · TBD
69.7
win 24%
Projected
78.0
win 76%
No line posted yet.
Model: TOL −8.3 · total 147.7 · 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: Toledo 68.7, E Michigan 67.8 → 68.1 possessions
−0.4
Toledo offense vs E Michigan defense
+2.1
E Michigan offense vs Toledo defense
−2.2
Projected total
147.7
Axis starts at 146 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Toledo offense vs E Michigan defense
+2.1
E Michigan offense vs Toledo defense
+2.2
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Toledo by 8.3
8.3
E Michigan side ◂▸ Toledo side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +8.2 against +8.3. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Toledo.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 68.1, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Toledo is the faster team (69.5, #114 of 365) and E Michigan the slower (68.3, #184). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
68.1
per team, 40 min
Projected total
147.7
model
Projected team totals
69.7 / 78.0
E Michigan / Toledo
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.8#226
E Michigan
68.7#151
Toledo
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetClashToledo
Style match: 3-point volume
Toledo rarely shoots threes (32.5% of its shots); E Michigan runs teams off the line (35.6% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 31.4% — both habits push the same way.
AdvantageToledo
Where Toledo scores: ball control
Toledo turns it over on 14.7% of possessions (#51); E Michigan forces turnovers on 15.6% of opponent possessions (#244). Expect about 14.8%, 1.9 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.4 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Toledo) is close to a coin flip going forward — the study's model of next-game 3P% barely beats guessing the D1 average. Shot volume is what actually carries: expect E Michigan at about 33.6% of its shots from three, Toledo about 31.4%.
ClashE Michigan
Style match: paint scoring
E Michigan scores 49.7% of its points in the paint; Toledo gives up 48.9% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 46.6% — both habits push the same way.
ClashToledo
Style match: paint scoring
Toledo scores 47.8% of its points in the paint; E Michigan gives up 46.3% of opponents' points in the paint (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 45.2% — both habits push the same way.
E Michigan has the ball
OffenseToledo allowsvs D1 avg
49.6% #264
54.3% #308
+0.8 pt/100
17.4% #229
17.9% #103
-1.3 pt/100
27.8% #273
33.7% #313
-0.1 pt/100
29.3% #325
26.6% #16
-1.0 pt/100
73.2% #162
—
+0.1 pt/100
E Michigan net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -1.5 pts/100
Toledo has the ball
OffenseE Michigan allowsvs D1 avg
54.5% #50
50.3% #115
+1.9 pt/100
14.7% #51
15.6% #244
+2.4 pt/100
29.5% #220
29.1% #109
-0.8 pt/100
30.5% #298
35.5% #198
-0.2 pt/100
75.4% #70
—
+0.3 pt/100
Toledo net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +3.6 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersE Michiganoffense vsToledodefense
Share of shots by zone
E Michigan shoots
39.2
9.0
20.0
31.8
Toledo allows
42.6
6.8
11.0
39.6
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.7%#129 | 61.9%#299 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 36.4%#259 | 53.7%#363 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 32.5%#338 | 35.7%#98 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.4%#258 | 34.4%#215 | 33.7% |
Toledooffense vsE Michigandefense
Share of shots by zone
Toledo shoots
40.0
9.7
17.9
32.4
E Michigan allows
39.3
10.6
14.3
35.9
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.3%#220 | 57.0%#112 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 52.0%#6 | 35.7%#82 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 46.6%#5 | 42.0%#304 | 38.0% |
| Three | 37.0%#29 | 32.9%#111 | 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 numbersE Michigan
−3.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#305 of 365
Off reb %
27.8%
#273
Def reb %
70.9%
#109
Turnover %
17.4%
#229
Forced TO %
15.6%
#244
FT rate
29.3%
#325
FT allowed
35.5%
#198
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.8
Defensive rebounding+0.5
Ball security−0.4
Forcing turnovers−0.8
Foul shots drawn−1.5
Foul shots allowed−0.1
Toledo
+2.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#99 of 365
Off reb %
29.5%
#220
Def reb %
66.3%
#313
Turnover %
14.7%
#51
Forced TO %
17.9%
#103
FT rate
30.5%
#298
FT allowed
26.6%
#16
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.3
Defensive rebounding−1.0
Ball security+1.4
Forcing turnovers+0.8
Foul shots drawn−1.2
Foul shots allowed+2.2
Toledo has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.0 (#99 of 365) to E Michigan’s −3.0 (#305).
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
E Michigan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Mohammad Habhab | F | So | 6'10" | 30-30 | 36.0 | 14.2 | 8.3 | 3.1 | 2.3 | 41.1% | 22.2% | 1.2 | 74.3% | 28.6% | |
| 3 | Jabri Fitzpatrickat New Haven | G | Jr | 6'2" | 31-30 | 34.5 | 15.0 | 4.5 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 50.0% | 29.8% | 3.9 | 74.5% | 28.7% | |
| 2 | Emanuel Richardsat Longwood | G | Sr | 6'4" | 32-31 | 26.0 | 9.7 | 3.4 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 48.4% | 32.1% | 2.4 | 73.5% | 23.6% | |
| 14 | Kilian Brockhoffat William & Mary | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-31 | 21.7 | 10.7 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 54.1% | 32.3% | 4.0 | 75.0% | 28.7% | |
| 5 | Braelon Green | G | Sr | 6'3" | 28-14 | 20.4 | 4.6 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 49.2% | 36.4% | 1.6 | 56.5% | 15.9% | |
| 0 | Gregory Lawson II | G | So | 6'3" | 28-12 | 17.9 | 7.1 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 52.3% | 43.2% | 3.1 | 90.0% | 23.5% | |
| 8 | Sencire Harrisat Cincinnati | G | Sr | 6'4" | 31-8 | 16.9 | 5.7 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 40.5% | 18.2% | 1.1 | 62.5% | 24.1% | |
| 44 | Aviv Aronov | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | DaCory Porter | G | Sr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 30 | Jaiden Martin | G | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Jordan Wright | F | Jr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Kaden Johnson | F | Sr | 6'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 20 | Max Booher | G | So | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Omar Suleiman | F | So | 6'6" | 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: Kilian Brockhoff (from William & Mary), Jabri Fitzpatrick (from New Haven), Sencire Harris (from Cincinnati), Emanuel Richards (from Longwood)
Toledo2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Toledo's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Sonny Wilson | G | Jr | 6'1" | 34-34 | 36.2 | 17.0 | 3.7 | 4.6 | 1.6 | 53.7% | 37.8% | 3.3 | 69.4% | 26.5% | |
| 2 | Leroy Blyden Jr. | G | Fr | 6'1" | 34-32 | 33.4 | 16.4 | 4.0 | 4.5 | 1.9 | 55.4% | 40.7% | 5.6 | 84.6% | 26.9% | |
| 7 | Sean Craig | F | Sr | 6'7" | 34-32 | 31.6 | 11.6 | 7.3 | 1.5 | 1.1 | 55.2% | 35.6% | 3.1 | 75.0% | 20.0% | |
| 25 | Austin Parks | C | Jr | 6'10" | 34-34 | 25.2 | 10.7 | 5.6 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 62.4% | 27.3% | 0.3 | 71.3% | 22.8% | |
| 4 | Kyler Vanderjagt | G | Sr | 6'4" | 34-21 | 22.1 | 8.4 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 54.7% | 38.2% | 3.0 | 78.8% | 21.7% | |
| 32 | Jaylan Ouwinga | F | So | 6'9" | 34-2 | 18.6 | 6.3 | 3.4 | 0.6 | 0.9 | 53.0% | 30.8% | 1.1 | 63.6% | 20.4% | |
| 5 | Mynor Strong | G | So | 6'3" | 33-15 | 17.7 | 5.2 | 1.8 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 49.3% | 34.9% | 1.9 | 89.3% | 18.3% | |
| 11 | Will James Jr. | G | Fr | 6'4" | 34-0 | 9.4 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 0.8 | 0.6 | 54.3% | 29.4% | 0.5 | 88.2% | 19.7% | |
| 21 | London Praytor | F | Fr | 7'0" | 15-0 | 4.9 | 2.4 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 48.4% | 23.5% | 1.1 | 100.0% | 28.9% | |
| 22 | Tyler Ode | G | So | 6'5" | 12-0 | 3.8 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 45.5% | 25.0% | 0.7 | — | 13.8% | |
| 10 | Chris Riddle | F | So | 6'5" | 3-0 | 13.0 | 4.3 | 2.0 | 1.7 | 1.7 | 65.0% | 20.0% | 1.7 | — | 21.7% | |
| 0 | Toby Nwokolo | F | Fr | 6'6" | 6-0 | 2.7 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.2 | 0.0% | 22.0% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
E Michigan2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Mohammad Habhab | F | So | 6'10" | 30-30 | 36.0 | 14.2 | 8.3 | 3.1 | 2.3 | 41.1% | 22.2% | 1.2 | 74.3% | 28.6% | |
| 3 | Jabri Fitzpatrickat New Haven | G | Jr | 6'2" | 31-30 | 34.5 | 15.0 | 4.5 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 50.0% | 29.8% | 3.9 | 74.5% | 28.7% | |
| 2 | Emanuel Richardsat Longwood | G | Sr | 6'4" | 32-31 | 26.0 | 9.7 | 3.4 | 1.1 | 1.5 | 48.4% | 32.1% | 2.4 | 73.5% | 23.6% | |
| 14 | Kilian Brockhoffat William & Mary | F | Sr | 6'8" | 32-31 | 21.7 | 10.7 | 3.6 | 2.1 | 2.2 | 54.1% | 32.3% | 4.0 | 75.0% | 28.7% | |
| 5 | Braelon Green | G | Sr | 6'3" | 28-14 | 20.4 | 4.6 | 1.8 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 49.2% | 36.4% | 1.6 | 56.5% | 15.9% | |
| 0 | Gregory Lawson II | G | So | 6'3" | 28-12 | 17.9 | 7.1 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 52.3% | 43.2% | 3.1 | 90.0% | 23.5% | |
| 8 | Sencire Harrisat Cincinnati | G | Sr | 6'4" | 31-8 | 16.9 | 5.7 | 2.7 | 1.5 | 0.8 | 40.5% | 18.2% | 1.1 | 62.5% | 24.1% | |
| 44 | Aviv Aronov | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | DaCory Porter | G | Sr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 30 | Jaiden Martin | G | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Jordan Wright | F | Jr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Kaden Johnson | F | Sr | 6'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 20 | Max Booher | G | So | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Omar Suleiman | F | So | 6'6" | 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: Kilian Brockhoff (from William & Mary), Jabri Fitzpatrick (from New Haven), Sencire Harris (from Cincinnati), Emanuel Richards (from Longwood)
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26E Michigan
Against the spread
Season
20-10
Home
9-4
Road
11-6
Last 10
6-4
avg cover −0.3
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 8 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
10-20
Home
3-10
Road
7-10
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −2.2
Over in the last gameOver in 3 of 8 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6 | Bowling Green | H | L 69–77 | +5.0 | L−3.0 | 143.0 | O146 | 96.9 | 108.2 | 71.2 |
| Mar 3 | Buffalo | A | L 67–72 | +5.5 | W+0.5 | 143.0 | U139 | 100.7 | 108.2 | 66.5 |
| Feb 24 | #21Miami OH | H | L 64–74 | +9.0 | L−1.0 | 152.5 | U138 | 89.5 | 103.5 | 71.5 |
| Feb 21 | Toledo | A | L 75–94 | +8.5 | L−10.5 | 147.0 | O169 | 105.2 | 131.9 | 71.3 |
| Feb 17 | C Michigan | H | W 66–54 | −5.0 | W+7.0 | 143.0 | U120 | 99.5 | 81.4 | 66.3 |
| Feb 14 | W Michigan | H | L 62–76 | −6.5 | L−20.5 | 144.0 | U138 | 96.0 | 117.6 | 64.6 |
| Feb 11 | Kent State | A | L 91–95 | +10.0 | W+6.0 | 144.5 | O186 | 129.6 | 135.3 | 70.2 |
| Feb 7 | App State | A | L 60–65 | +7.5 | W+2.5 | 131.0 | U125 | 92.9 | 100.7 | 64.6 |
| Feb 3 | Akron | H | L 64–66 | +12.5 | W+10.5 | 153.0 | U130 | 92.2 | 95.1 | 69.4 |
| Jan 31 | UMass | A | L 67–70 | +8.0 | W+5.0 | 149.0 | U137 | 102.9 | 107.5 | 65.1 |
Toledo
Against the spread
Season
19-13
Home
6-7
Road
10-4
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +5.4
Covered 2 straightCovered 4 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
13-18-1
Home
6-7
Road
6-7-1
Last 10
4-5-1
avg vs total +1.0
Under 2 straightOver in 4 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 0 of 4 as an underdog, 1 push
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 14 | Akron | N | L 76–79 | +8.0 | W+5.0 | 157.5 | U155 | 111.4 | 115.8 | 68.2 |
| Mar 13 | UMass | N | W 77–67 | −3.0 | W+7.0 | 158.0 | U144 | 109.5 | 95.3 | 70.3 |
| Mar 12 | Bowling Green | N | W 77–76 | −1.5 | L−0.5 | 152.0 | O153 | 113.1 | 111.6 | 68.1 |
| Mar 6 | Buffalo | H | W 99–78 | −5.5 | W+15.5 | 156.5 | O177 | 151.8 | 119.6 | 65.2 |
| Mar 3 | #19Miami OH | A | L 72–74 | +8.0 | W+6.0 | 162.5 | U146 | 104.7 | 107.6 | 68.8 |
| Feb 28 | Ohio | A | W 79–67 | +2.5 | W+14.5 | 159.0 | U146 | 119.4 | 101.2 | 66.2 |
| Feb 24 | N Illinois | H | W 79–69 | −12.5 | L−2.5 | 150.0 | U148 | 119.5 | 104.3 | 66.1 |
| Feb 21 | E Michigan | H | W 94–75 | −8.5 | W+10.5 | 147.0 | O169 | 131.9 | 105.2 | 71.3 |
| Feb 14 | Bowling Green | A | L 70–80 | +4.0 | L−6.0 | 150.0 | P150 | 106.7 | 122.0 | 65.6 |
| Feb 11 | W Michigan | A | W 90–79 | −6.5 | W+4.5 | 154.5 | O169 | 131.0 | 115.0 | 68.7 |
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 homeE MichiganToledo
Efficiency
103.9
112.5
107.6
109.8
67.8
68.7
—
—
Shooting
49.6%
54.5%
50.0%
54.0%
32.4%
37.0%
73.2%
75.4%
29.3%
30.5%
Ball control & glass
17.4%
14.7%
15.6%
17.9%
27.8%
29.5%
29.1%
33.7%
9.5%
9.0%
9.7%
8.5%
Style
31.8%
32.5%
49.7%
47.8%
13.1%
16.8%
47.9%
53.1%
30.3%
23.9%
Roster
3.20
2.62
6'5.1"
6'4.7"
34.4%
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputE Michigan
Returning minutes: 34.4%Returning production: 32.0%
Lost
- Addison Patterson 29.7 mpg, 13.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Godslove Nwabude 18.7 mpg, 5.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Carlos Hart 18.7 mpg, 7.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jon Sanders II 14.9 mpg, 5.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Mak Manciel 13.0 mpg, 5.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Mehki Ellison 11.6 mpg, 3.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Jabri Fitzpatrick from New Haven · 34.5 mpg, 15.0 ppg last season
- Emanuel Richards from Longwood · 26.0 mpg, 9.7 ppg last season
- Kilian Brockhoff from William & Mary · 21.7 mpg, 10.7 ppg last season
- Sencire Harris from Cincinnati · 15.9 mpg, 5.4 ppg last season
- Omar Suleiman no D1 minutes last season
- Aviv Aronov no D1 minutes last season
Returns 34% 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).
Toledo
Returning minutes: 99.4%Returning production: 99.5%
ESPN hasn't posted Toledo's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.
Returns 99% of last season's minutes. 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). (ESPN hasn't posted this season's roster yet -- this may still be last season's list.)
Head-to-head
this season and last| Date | Season | Result |
|---|---|---|
| Sat, Feb 21 | 2025-26 | E Michigan 75 – 94 Toledo |
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.