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-conferenceUPMC Cooper Fieldhouse, Pittsburgh, PA
Binghamton
Efficiency #354
2025-26: 8-23 · 4-12 conf
@
Duquesne
Efficiency #131
2025-26: 18-15 · 10-10 conf
Sat, Nov 14 · TBD
66.5
win 9%
Projected
81.8
win 91%
No line posted yet.
Model: DUQ −15.3 · total 148.3 · 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: Duquesne 69.3, Binghamton 67.1 → 68.0 possessions
−0.6
Duquesne offense vs Binghamton defense
+6.1
Binghamton offense vs Duquesne defense
−5.4
Projected total
148.3
Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Duquesne offense vs Binghamton defense
+6.1
Binghamton offense vs Duquesne defense
+5.4
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Duquesne by 15.3
15.3
Binghamton side ◂▸ Duquesne side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the margin steps add to +15.4 against +15.3. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Duquesne.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 68.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Duquesne is the faster team (69.3, #127 of 365) and Binghamton the slower (65.1, #331). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
68.0
per team, 40 min
Projected total
148.3
model
Projected team totals
66.5 / 81.8
Binghamton / Duquesne
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.1#281
Binghamton
69.3#101
Duquesne
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageBinghamton
Where Binghamton struggles: the offensive glass
Binghamton rebounds 20.9% of its own misses (#361); Duquesne lets opponents grab 29.6% of their own misses (#142). Expect about 23.4%, 7.0 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.3 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageDuquesne
Where Duquesne scores: shooting
Duquesne shoots an effective 52.3% (#131); Binghamton allows 54.3% (#309). Expect about 53.4%, 2.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.1 points per 100 possessions.
TurnoversBinghamton
Binghamton turns it over
Projected turnover rate of 18.9% is worth roughly -2.6 points per 100 possessions against Binghamton's offense.
TurnoversDuquesne
Duquesne protects the ball
Projected turnover rate of 15.0% is worth roughly +2.1 points per 100 possessions for Duquesne's offense.
ClashBinghamton
Style clash: paint scoring
Binghamton scores 47.2% of its points in the paint; Duquesne protects the paint (39.1% of opponents' points) (D1 average 42.8%). Expect about 42.6% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.25 vs 0.34).
Binghamton has the ball
OffenseDuquesne allowsvs D1 avg
50.0% #234
52.5% #241
-0.2 pt/100
18.8% #312
18.3% #84
-2.6 pt/100
20.9% #361
29.6% #142
-4.3 pt/100
41.5% #37
39.9% #300
+0.7 pt/100
75.3% #75
—
+0.3 pt/100
Binghamton net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -6.1 pts/100
Duquesne has the ball
OffenseBinghamton allowsvs D1 avg
52.3% #131
54.3% #309
+3.1 pt/100
17.6% #245
13.3% #349
+2.1 pt/100
30.4% #184
29.4% #128
-0.3 pt/100
38.3% #94
34.6% #167
+0.2 pt/100
71.5% #220
—
-0.1 pt/100
Duquesne net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +5.0 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersBinghamtonoffense vsDuquesnedefense
Share of shots by zone
Binghamton shoots
44.6
8.1
16.3
31.0
Duquesne allows
38.6
5.7
15.0
40.8
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 55.9%#275 | 56.2%#90 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 37.7%#228 | 45.7%#319 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 41.0%#78 | 39.4%#216 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.5%#254 | 36.2%#314 | 33.7% |
Duquesneoffense vsBinghamtondefense
Share of shots by zone
Duquesne shoots
42.0
5.0
8.9
44.1
Binghamton allows
42.2
6.8
11.7
39.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 59.1%#158 | 58.7%#174 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 36.5%#258 | 45.5%#314 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.7%#161 | 42.0%#300 | 38.0% |
| Three | 33.1%#223 | 35.8%#294 | 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 numbersBinghamton
−4.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#340 of 365
Off reb %
20.9%
#361
Def reb %
70.6%
#128
Turnover %
18.8%
#312
Forced TO %
13.3%
#349
FT rate
41.5%
#37
FT allowed
34.6%
#167
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−3.1
Defensive rebounding+0.4
Ball security−1.4
Forcing turnovers−2.3
Foul shots drawn+1.7
Foul shots allowed+0.2
Duquesne
+0.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#161 of 365
Off reb %
30.4%
#184
Def reb %
70.4%
#142
Turnover %
17.6%
#245
Forced TO %
18.3%
#84
FT rate
38.3%
#94
FT allowed
39.9%
#300
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding0.0
Defensive rebounding+0.3
Ball security−0.6
Forcing turnovers+1.1
Foul shots drawn+0.9
Foul shots allowed−1.2
Duquesne has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.5 (#161 of 365) to Binghamton’s −4.6 (#340).
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
Binghamton2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Jeremiah Quigley | G | Jr | 5'11" | 30-30 | 37.1 | 14.5 | 4.9 | 6.4 | 3.3 | 47.7% | 17.4% | 1.5 | 78.4% | 27.5% | |
| 5 | Wes Peterson Jr. | G | Sr | 6'6" | 28-26 | 35.7 | 10.7 | 4.4 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 47.3% | 39.8% | 3.0 | 77.5% | 21.0% | |
| 24 | Jackson Benigni | G | Sr | 6'1" | 30-21 | 31.5 | 10.1 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 62.0% | 40.1% | 5.1 | 89.2% | 16.4% | |
| 10 | Zyier Beverly | F | Jr | 6'9" | 29-18 | 25.0 | 11.8 | 4.9 | 0.4 | 1.7 | 61.0% | 30.0% | 0.3 | 64.4% | 27.7% | |
| 4 | Ryan Richardson | G | Jr | 6'5" | 22-12 | 25.2 | 4.2 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 39.8% | 31.0% | 3.2 | 35.3% | 16.2% | |
| 13 | Stephan Snagg | F | So | 6'8" | 27-14 | 19.9 | 4.0 | 2.9 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 61.6% | — | 0.0 | 56.3% | 11.3% | |
| 14 | Demetrius Lilley | C | Sr | 6'9" | 11-11 | 33.5 | 14.6 | 9.4 | 0.9 | 2.7 | 44.3% | 14.3% | 2.5 | 80.8% | 29.5% | |
| 30 | Jake Blackburn | G | Fr | 6'5" | 14-1 | 16.4 | 5.5 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 62.9% | 39.5% | 3.1 | 66.7% | 18.1% | |
| 2 | Jayden Kelsey | G | Fr | 6'7" | 2-0 | 17.5 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 2.5 | 50.0% | 9.9% | |
| 12 | Nevin Ibroci | G | Fr | 6'2" | 10-0 | 3.2 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 45.0% | 30.0% | 1.0 | 0.0% | 20.7% | |
| 3 | Evan Ashe | G | Jr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Jayden Lemond | G | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 33 | Sayerr Senghore | F | Sr | 6'8" | 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.
Duquesne2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Duquesne'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Tarence Guinyard | G | Sr | 6'2" | 32-32 | 33.3 | 16.6 | 3.3 | 4.7 | 2.2 | 54.6% | 36.0% | 6.2 | 71.4% | 28.2% | |
| 3 | Jimmie Williams | G | Jr | 6'5" | 33-33 | 29.7 | 15.1 | 4.5 | 2.6 | 1.7 | 54.5% | 33.9% | 5.5 | 75.7% | 28.8% | |
| 9 | Jakub Necas | F | Jr | 6'10" | 32-32 | 24.5 | 6.9 | 5.1 | 1.1 | 1.3 | 55.3% | 36.4% | 1.4 | 69.7% | 16.8% | |
| 2 | David Dixon | F | Sr | 6'9" | 33-23 | 22.4 | 8.2 | 5.5 | 1.3 | 1.7 | 61.1% | 20.0% | 0.5 | 71.8% | 20.8% | |
| 5 | Cam Crawford | G | Sr | 6'5" | 32-20 | 18.6 | 4.6 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 0.7 | 47.2% | 33.7% | 2.8 | 57.9% | 16.4% | |
| 6 | Alex Williams | F | Sr | 6'5" | 31-1 | 17.9 | 9.2 | 3.5 | 0.9 | 1.1 | 54.5% | 39.6% | 3.4 | 81.0% | 28.9% | |
| 0 | Brandon Hall | G | Jr | 6'4" | 26-14 | 18.9 | 3.4 | 1.3 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 44.3% | 33.3% | 1.6 | 50.0% | 14.7% | |
| 4 | John Hugley IV | F | Sr | 6'11" | 27-10 | 16.0 | 7.7 | 3.5 | 1.3 | 1.4 | 52.5% | 27.3% | 1.2 | 74.7% | 27.6% | |
| 22 | Maximus Edwards | G | Sr | 6'5" | 23-0 | 16.0 | 6.3 | 2.8 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 46.9% | 28.4% | 2.9 | 64.7% | 25.3% | |
| 44 | Jake DiMichele | G | So | 6'4" | 25-0 | 14.4 | 3.8 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 49.4% | 29.5% | 1.8 | 81.3% | 15.7% | |
| 7 | Dom Aekins | G | Fr | 5'10" | 14-0 | 7.8 | 3.0 | 0.8 | 0.7 | 0.6 | 47.5% | 28.6% | 1.0 | 57.1% | 25.9% | |
| 18 | Stef van Bussel | C | So | 6'10" | 17-0 | 5.9 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 83.3% | — | 0.0 | 30.0% | 17.1% | |
| 27 | Lazar Milosevic | F | Fr | 6'10" | 12-0 | 7.6 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 0.4 | 0.3 | 59.4% | 20.0% | 0.4 | 62.5% | 14.8% | |
| 33 | Lucas Prolla | G | Jr | 6'2" | 4-0 | 2.8 | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 75.0% | 50.0% | 0.5 | 50.0% | 24.4% | |
| 32 | Ethan Anish | G | So | 6'1" | 4-0 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 75.0% | 23.4% | |
| 31 | Seamus McDermott | G | Jr | 6'2" | 3-0 | 2.7 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.7 | — | 34.0% | |
| 8 | Arness Lawson | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 17 | Frederik Jellum | F | Fr | 6'10" | 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.
Binghamton2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | Jeremiah Quigley | G | Jr | 5'11" | 30-30 | 37.1 | 14.5 | 4.9 | 6.4 | 3.3 | 47.7% | 17.4% | 1.5 | 78.4% | 27.5% | |
| 5 | Wes Peterson Jr. | G | Sr | 6'6" | 28-26 | 35.7 | 10.7 | 4.4 | 1.4 | 1.8 | 47.3% | 39.8% | 3.0 | 77.5% | 21.0% | |
| 24 | Jackson Benigni | G | Sr | 6'1" | 30-21 | 31.5 | 10.1 | 2.8 | 0.8 | 0.9 | 62.0% | 40.1% | 5.1 | 89.2% | 16.4% | |
| 10 | Zyier Beverly | F | Jr | 6'9" | 29-18 | 25.0 | 11.8 | 4.9 | 0.4 | 1.7 | 61.0% | 30.0% | 0.3 | 64.4% | 27.7% | |
| 4 | Ryan Richardson | G | Jr | 6'5" | 22-12 | 25.2 | 4.2 | 2.1 | 1.6 | 1.4 | 39.8% | 31.0% | 3.2 | 35.3% | 16.2% | |
| 13 | Stephan Snagg | F | So | 6'8" | 27-14 | 19.9 | 4.0 | 2.9 | 0.4 | 0.4 | 61.6% | — | 0.0 | 56.3% | 11.3% | |
| 14 | Demetrius Lilley | C | Sr | 6'9" | 11-11 | 33.5 | 14.6 | 9.4 | 0.9 | 2.7 | 44.3% | 14.3% | 2.5 | 80.8% | 29.5% | |
| 30 | Jake Blackburn | G | Fr | 6'5" | 14-1 | 16.4 | 5.5 | 1.3 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 62.9% | 39.5% | 3.1 | 66.7% | 18.1% | |
| 2 | Jayden Kelsey | G | Fr | 6'7" | 2-0 | 17.5 | 0.5 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 0.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 2.5 | 50.0% | 9.9% | |
| 12 | Nevin Ibroci | G | Fr | 6'2" | 10-0 | 3.2 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 45.0% | 30.0% | 1.0 | 0.0% | 20.7% | |
| 3 | Evan Ashe | G | Jr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Jayden Lemond | G | Jr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 33 | Sayerr Senghore | F | Sr | 6'8" | 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 2025-26Binghamton
Against the spread
Season
14-14
Home
7-5
Road
7-8
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +1.9
Covered 2 straightCovered 6 of 9 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
16-12
Home
5-7
Road
11-4
Last 10
7-3
avg vs total +5.5
Over in the last gameOver in 6 of 9 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Feb 28 | Maine | H | W 74–67 | −1.0 | W+6.0 | 134.0 | O141 | 112.4 | 101.8 | 65.8 |
| Feb 26 | New Hampshire | H | W 65–63 | +3.0 | W+5.0 | 141.5 | U128 | 103.7 | 100.5 | 62.7 |
| Feb 21 | UMass Lowell | A | L 79–92 | +9.0 | L−4.0 | 146.5 | O171 | 122.0 | 142.1 | 64.7 |
| Feb 19 | Bryant | A | W 79–67 | +5.5 | W+17.5 | 135.0 | O146 | 130.4 | 110.6 | 60.6 |
| Feb 14 | UAlbany | H | L 74–77 | +4.5 | W+1.5 | 137.0 | O151 | 108.0 | 112.4 | 68.5 |
| Feb 12 | Vermont | H | L 65–73 | +11.0 | W+3.0 | 136.0 | O138 | 99.1 | 111.3 | 65.6 |
| Feb 7 | NJIT | A | L 64–73 | +9.5 | W+0.5 | 140.5 | U137 | 96.9 | 110.5 | 66.0 |
| Feb 5 | UMBC | A | L 62–79 | +11.0 | L−6.0 | 138.0 | O141 | 93.5 | 119.2 | 66.3 |
| Jan 29 | Bryant | H | W 63–60 | +2.0 | W+5.0 | 130.5 | U123 | 106.7 | 101.7 | 59.0 |
| Jan 24 | Maine | A | L 63–79 | +6.0 | L−10.0 | 124.0 | O142 | 102.2 | 128.1 | 61.7 |
Duquesne
Against the spread
Season
14-17
Home
5-11
Road
7-5
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −2.7
Covered 2 straightCovered 1 of 4 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 6 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
16-14-1
Home
10-6
Road
5-6-1
Last 10
3-7
avg vs total −7.1
Under 2 straightOver in 1 of 4 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 6 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 13 | VCU | N | L 66–71 | +7.0 | W+2.0 | 153.0 | U137 | 101.9 | 109.6 | 64.8 |
| Mar 12 | Rhode Island | N | W 67–61 | −1.5 | W+4.5 | 138.5 | U128 | 112.4 | 102.3 | 59.6 |
| Mar 7 | Richmond | H | W 79–77 | −4.5 | L−2.5 | 148.0 | O156 | 119.9 | 116.8 | 65.9 |
| Mar 4 | Rhode Island | A | L 52–64 | +2.5 | L−9.5 | 143.0 | U116 | 79.7 | 98.1 | 65.3 |
| Feb 28 | #23Saint Louis | A | L 76–91 | +13.5 | L−1.5 | 160.0 | O167 | 115.7 | 138.6 | 65.7 |
| Feb 25 | Davidson | H | L 56–67 | −3.5 | L−14.5 | 143.0 | U123 | 85.4 | 102.2 | 65.6 |
| Feb 21 | Dayton | A | L 66–78 | +6.5 | L−5.5 | 148.5 | U144 | 102.6 | 121.3 | 64.3 |
| Feb 18 | La Salle | H | W 62–61 | −11.0 | L−10.0 | 146.0 | U123 | 89.5 | 88.1 | 69.2 |
| Feb 14 | St Bonaventure | A | W 78–73 | +2.0 | W+7.0 | 152.5 | U151 | 113.0 | 105.8 | 69.0 |
| Feb 7 | G Washington | H | W 88–86 | +1.0 | W+3.0 | 157.5 | O174 | 129.2 | 126.2 | 68.1 |
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 homeBinghamtonDuquesne
Efficiency
101.6
109.6
116.3
107.5
67.1
69.3
—
—
Shooting
50.0%
52.3%
50.6%
54.5%
32.5%
33.1%
75.3%
71.5%
41.5%
38.3%
Ball control & glass
18.8%
17.6%
13.3%
18.3%
20.9%
30.4%
29.4%
29.6%
10.9%
9.8%
8.8%
12.5%
Style
30.9%
44.4%
47.2%
42.9%
9.5%
15.7%
48.7%
55.9%
21.1%
31.8%
Roster
3.21
3.43
6'4.4"
6'5.8"
87.5%
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputBinghamton
Returning minutes: 87.5%Returning production: 88.7%
Lost
- Bryson Wilson 25.4 mpg, 8.9 ppg · transferred to Saint Peter's
Added
- Evan Ashe no D1 minutes last season
- Jayden Lemond no D1 minutes last season
- Sayerr Senghore no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 88% 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).
Duquesne
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Duquesne's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.
Returns 100% 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 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.