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-conferenceChiles Center, Portland, OR
Lamar
Efficiency #236
2025-26: 12-19 · 7-15 conf
@
Portland
Efficiency #259
2025-26: 15-19 · 8-13 conf
Thu, Dec 10 · 2:00 PM ET
70.2
win 41%
Projected
73.0
win 59%
No line posted yet.
Model: PORT −2.8 · 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: Portland 69.1, Lamar 67.0 → 67.8 possessions
−1.1
Portland offense vs Lamar defense
−2.5
Lamar offense vs Portland defense
−1.4
Projected total
143.2
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Portland offense vs Lamar defense
−2.5
Lamar offense vs Portland defense
+1.4
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Portland by 2.8
2.8
Lamar side ◂▸ Portland 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 Portland.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 67.8, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Portland is the faster team (69.7, #105 of 365) and Lamar the slower (65.8, #301). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
67.8
per team, 40 min
Projected total
143.2
model
Projected team totals
70.2 / 73.0
Lamar / Portland
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.0#287
Lamar
69.1#114
Portland
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageLamar
Where Lamar scores: the offensive glass
Lamar rebounds 35.7% of its own misses (#31); Portland lets opponents grab 32.5% of their own misses (#281). Expect about 35.1%, 4.7 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.9 points per 100 possessions.
ClashPortland
Style match: ball movement
Portland assists on 61.6% of its made baskets; Lamar allows assists on 57.7% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 61.8% — both habits push the same way.
AdvantagePortland
Where Portland struggles: ball control
Portland turns it over on 19.7% of possessions (#342); Lamar forces turnovers on 17.3% of opponent possessions (#130). Expect about 18.8%, 2.0 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -2.5 points per 100 possessions.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (Portland) 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 Lamar at about 39.0% of its shots from three, Portland about 34.9%.
ClashPortland
Strength vs strength: shot-blocking exposure
Portland (#11 in shot-blocking exposure) against Lamar (#31 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 10.5%. Historically Lamar's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.41 vs 0.68).
ClashLamar
Style clash: 3-point volume
Lamar rarely shoots threes (33.9% of its shots); Portland lets opponents take 45.6% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 39.0% — the offense's habit usually carries a bit more weight (0.80 vs 0.64).
Lamar has the ball
OffensePortland allowsvs D1 avg
47.8% #318
52.7% #255
-1.9 pt/100
18.1% #273
17.0% #151
-1.1 pt/100
35.7% #31
32.5% #281
+2.9 pt/100
27.9% #344
32.6% #118
-0.6 pt/100
70.7% #249
—
-0.2 pt/100
Lamar net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.8 pts/100
Portland has the ball
OffenseLamar allowsvs D1 avg
51.2% #188
50.9% #153
-0.3 pt/100
19.7% #342
17.3% #130
-2.5 pt/100
28.1% #266
29.4% #130
-1.3 pt/100
34.4% #197
44.4% #347
+0.7 pt/100
74.0% #131
—
+0.1 pt/100
Portland net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -3.2 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersLamaroffense vsPortlanddefense
Share of shots by zone
Lamar shoots
33.4
7.3
26.1
33.1
Portland allows
35.3
5.5
13.9
45.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 53.3%#337 | 59.2%#200 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 44.1%#77 | 29.5%#14 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.0%#188 | 37.2%#136 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.9%#238 | 36.1%#308 | 33.7% |
Portlandoffense vsLamardefense
Share of shots by zone
Portland shoots
41.7
8.2
15.3
34.8
Lamar allows
39.6
5.0
17.7
37.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 62.9%#53 | 59.0%#189 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 44.3%#74 | 32.9%#27 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 37.4%#208 | 33.6%#40 | 38.0% |
| Three | 29.9%#344 | 35.3%#266 | 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 numbersLamar
−2.5extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#284 of 365
Off reb %
35.7%
#31
Def reb %
70.6%
#130
Turnover %
18.1%
#273
Forced TO %
17.3%
#130
FT rate
27.9%
#344
FT allowed
44.4%
#347
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.7
Defensive rebounding+0.4
Ball security−0.9
Forcing turnovers+0.4
Foul shots drawn−1.8
Foul shots allowed−2.4
Portland
−2.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#290 of 365
Off reb %
28.1%
#266
Def reb %
67.5%
#281
Turnover %
19.7%
#342
Forced TO %
17.0%
#151
FT rate
34.4%
#197
FT allowed
32.6%
#118
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−0.7
Defensive rebounding−0.6
Ball security−2.0
Forcing turnovers+0.2
Foul shots drawn−0.2
Foul shots allowed+0.7
Lamar has more extra scoring chances per game: −2.5 (#284 of 365) to Portland’s −2.6 (#290).
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
Lamar2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | Rob Lee Jr. | G | Jr | 6'2" | 31-30 | 28.2 | 16.0 | 3.2 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 53.6% | 40.0% | 6.0 | 81.1% | 33.5% | |
| 0 | Cody Pennebaker | G | Sr | 6'5" | 31-31 | 27.5 | 7.1 | 4.3 | 2.5 | 1.3 | 50.7% | 26.5% | 1.1 | 51.9% | 18.2% | |
| 4 | Braden East | F | So | 6'9" | 30-28 | 23.9 | 12.8 | 9.1 | 0.7 | 1.7 | 54.2% | 31.3% | 0.5 | 70.6% | 32.7% | |
| 10 | Errol White | F | Sr | 6'7" | 31-15 | 22.3 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 47.4% | — | 0.0 | 56.9% | 17.4% | |
| 3 | King-Njhsanni Wilhite | G | Jr | 6'1" | 29-16 | 21.0 | 5.8 | 1.1 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 43.0% | 34.5% | 1.9 | 65.9% | 21.2% | |
| 11 | Eian Lowe | G | Fr | 5'10" | 30-2 | 17.9 | 4.3 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 43.5% | 34.9% | 1.4 | 63.6% | 19.3% | |
| 32 | Janko Bulajic | C | Sr | 6'10" | 31-2 | 11.8 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 60.0% | — | 0.0 | 43.5% | 10.4% | |
| 5 | Jayden Gambrell | G | Fr | 6'3" | 30-1 | 11.2 | 4.0 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 45.3% | 32.3% | 3.1 | 71.4% | 26.5% | |
| 8 | B.B. Knight | G | Jr | 6'6" | 20-0 | 8.1 | 2.7 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 28.7% | 13.9% | 1.8 | 95.0% | 30.7% | |
| 20 | Spencer Ezewiro | F | Jr | 6'9" | 20-0 | 5.7 | 0.5 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 30.8% | — | 0.0 | 10.0% | 11.4% | |
| 2 | Jayden Barrs | G | So | 6'1" | 7-0 | 11.7 | 3.1 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 42.3% | 28.6% | 1.0 | — | 21.5% | |
| 12 | Christian Thomas | PF | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 51 | Izuchukwu Emelife | C | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Quinton Sanders | 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.
Portland2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Portland'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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 23 | Joel Foxwell | G | Fr | 6'1" | 34-34 | 35.7 | 15.6 | 4.3 | 6.5 | 3.1 | 46.8% | 31.9% | 6.4 | 80.7% | 29.3% | |
| 10 | Garrett Nuckolls | G | Jr | 6'6" | 34-19 | 25.9 | 6.7 | 3.5 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 41.5% | 17.8% | 2.1 | 82.6% | 20.9% | |
| 14 | James O'Donnell | F | So | 6'10" | 34-23 | 22.5 | 10.0 | 4.4 | 1.1 | 1.9 | 65.1% | 0.0% | 0.0 | 60.5% | 24.2% | |
| 35 | Cameron Williams | F | Jr | 6'8" | 31-28 | 23.9 | 10.6 | 4.6 | 1.0 | 1.1 | 52.6% | 26.8% | 1.3 | 79.8% | 24.7% | |
| 44 | Mikah Ballew | G | So | 6'5" | 31-15 | 23.6 | 8.7 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 1.3 | 45.8% | 33.6% | 4.8 | 81.3% | 23.0% | |
| 5 | Dante Censori-Hercules | G | Fr | 6'7" | 33-12 | 20.5 | 3.2 | 3.5 | 1.4 | 0.6 | 53.2% | 14.3% | 0.4 | 58.5% | 10.0% | |
| 1 | Jermaine Ballisager Webb | C | Sr | 7'1" | 34-17 | 19.8 | 8.9 | 4.3 | 1.4 | 1.2 | 57.4% | 35.5% | 1.8 | 71.0% | 24.7% | |
| 7 | Matus Hronsky | F | Sr | 6'8" | 31-21 | 18.3 | 5.6 | 2.0 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 50.0% | 30.8% | 2.9 | 90.5% | 19.3% | |
| 3 | Timo George | F | Fr | 6'8" | 15-1 | 19.9 | 12.5 | 4.9 | 1.4 | 1.7 | 70.5% | 18.2% | 0.7 | 71.4% | 28.3% | |
| 21 | NaVaughn Long | G | Fr | 6'6" | 13-0 | 10.5 | 2.0 | 1.1 | 0.5 | 0.5 | 62.5% | 55.6% | 0.7 | 50.0% | 12.1% | |
| 12 | Kelson Gebbers | G | So | 6'7" | 15-0 | 5.2 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 0.1 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 22.2% | 0.6 | 50.0% | 13.1% | |
| 2 | Sam Noland | G | Sr | 6'1" | 13-0 | 4.1 | 0.7 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 0.0 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 83.3% | 7.7% | |
| 11 | Riley Parker | G | Sr | 6'2" | 1-0 | 19.0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 1.0 | 80.0% | 13.4% | |
| 8 | Preston Lee | G | Fr | 5'11" | 6-0 | 2.3 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 0.0 | 87.5% | 100.0% | 0.2 | 50.0% | 18.4% | |
| 9 | Carlin Briggs | G | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Marchelo Moreira | G | So | 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.
Lamar2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 24 | Rob Lee Jr. | G | Jr | 6'2" | 31-30 | 28.2 | 16.0 | 3.2 | 2.0 | 1.5 | 53.6% | 40.0% | 6.0 | 81.1% | 33.5% | |
| 0 | Cody Pennebaker | G | Sr | 6'5" | 31-31 | 27.5 | 7.1 | 4.3 | 2.5 | 1.3 | 50.7% | 26.5% | 1.1 | 51.9% | 18.2% | |
| 4 | Braden East | F | So | 6'9" | 30-28 | 23.9 | 12.8 | 9.1 | 0.7 | 1.7 | 54.2% | 31.3% | 0.5 | 70.6% | 32.7% | |
| 10 | Errol White | F | Sr | 6'7" | 31-15 | 22.3 | 5.0 | 4.9 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 47.4% | — | 0.0 | 56.9% | 17.4% | |
| 3 | King-Njhsanni Wilhite | G | Jr | 6'1" | 29-16 | 21.0 | 5.8 | 1.1 | 2.5 | 1.0 | 43.0% | 34.5% | 1.9 | 65.9% | 21.2% | |
| 11 | Eian Lowe | G | Fr | 5'10" | 30-2 | 17.9 | 4.3 | 1.5 | 2.5 | 1.2 | 43.5% | 34.9% | 1.4 | 63.6% | 19.3% | |
| 32 | Janko Bulajic | C | Sr | 6'10" | 31-2 | 11.8 | 1.5 | 3.1 | 0.9 | 0.7 | 60.0% | — | 0.0 | 43.5% | 10.4% | |
| 5 | Jayden Gambrell | G | Fr | 6'3" | 30-1 | 11.2 | 4.0 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 45.3% | 32.3% | 3.1 | 71.4% | 26.5% | |
| 8 | B.B. Knight | G | Jr | 6'6" | 20-0 | 8.1 | 2.7 | 0.6 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 28.7% | 13.9% | 1.8 | 95.0% | 30.7% | |
| 20 | Spencer Ezewiro | F | Jr | 6'9" | 20-0 | 5.7 | 0.5 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 30.8% | — | 0.0 | 10.0% | 11.4% | |
| 2 | Jayden Barrs | G | So | 6'1" | 7-0 | 11.7 | 3.1 | 1.3 | 1.1 | 0.7 | 42.3% | 28.6% | 1.0 | — | 21.5% | |
| 12 | Christian Thomas | PF | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 51 | Izuchukwu Emelife | C | Fr | 6'7" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Quinton Sanders | 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.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Lamar
Against the spread
Season
13-14-2
Home
5-7-1
Road
8-6-1
Last 10
3-7
avg cover −5.0
Missed the spread 4 straightCovered 1 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 5 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
14-15
Home
6-7
Road
7-8
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −5.7
Under 3 straightOver in 2 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 5 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 2 | Hou Christian | A | L 53–75 | −2.5 | L−24.5 | 134.0 | U128 | 79.4 | 112.3 | 66.8 |
| Feb 28 | Incarnate Word | A | L 60–72 | +1.0 | L−11.0 | 138.0 | U132 | 94.4 | 113.3 | 63.6 |
| Feb 23 | Nicholls | H | L 52–53 | −3.5 | L−4.5 | 143.5 | U105 | 80.3 | 81.8 | 64.8 |
| Feb 21 | LSU N Orleans | H | L 71–77 | −5.5 | L−11.5 | 146.5 | O148 | 101.3 | 109.8 | 70.1 |
| Feb 16 | UT Rio Grande | A | L 65–70 | +6.0 | W+1.0 | 142.0 | U135 | 108.8 | 117.1 | 59.8 |
| Feb 14 | Texas A&M-CC | A | L 63–76 | +2.5 | L−10.5 | 136.0 | O139 | 93.7 | 113.1 | 67.2 |
| Feb 9 | N'Western St | H | L 68–70 | −7.5 | L−9.5 | 136.5 | O138 | 103.1 | 106.1 | 66.0 |
| Feb 7 | SF Austin | A | L 74–84 | +8.0 | L−2.0 | 139.5 | O158 | 108.7 | 123.4 | 68.1 |
| Feb 2 | SE Louisiana | H | W 73–54 | −6.0 | W+13.0 | 133.5 | U127 | 120.3 | 89.0 | 60.7 |
| Jan 31 | McNeese | H | L 63–64 | +10.5 | W+9.5 | 144.0 | U127 | 109.8 | 111.6 | 57.4 |
Portland
Against the spread
Season
15-17
Home
11-5
Road
2-11
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +0.5
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 7 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
14-18
Home
10-6
Road
3-10
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −3.8
Over in the last gameOver in 2 of 7 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 7 | San Francisco | N | L 65–82 | +7.0 | L−10.0 | 144.5 | O147 | 97.0 | 122.3 | 67.0 |
| Mar 6 | Washington St | N | W 74–68 | +5.5 | W+11.5 | 150.0 | U142 | 106.3 | 97.7 | 69.6 |
| Mar 5 | Pepperdine | N | W 77–68 | −3.5 | W+5.5 | 154.0 | U145 | 111.2 | 98.2 | 69.3 |
| Feb 28 | San Diego | H | W 87–74 | −3.5 | W+9.5 | 148.5 | O161 | 125.8 | 107.0 | 69.2 |
| Feb 25 | #9Gonzaga | A | L 48–89 | +27.0 | L−14.0 | 150.0 | U137 | 71.2 | 131.9 | 67.5 |
| Feb 21 | Seattle U | A | L 59–71 | +6.5 | L−5.5 | 140.0 | U130 | 86.0 | 103.5 | 68.6 |
| Feb 18 | Pepperdine | H | L 87–95 | −7.0 | L−15.0 | 151.0 | O182 | 124.8 | 136.2 | 69.7 |
| Feb 11 | San Diego | A | L 58–71 | +2.5 | L−10.5 | 151.5 | U129 | 91.0 | 111.4 | 63.7 |
| Feb 7 | Seattle U | H | W 54–53 | +3.5 | W+4.5 | 143.0 | U107 | 86.5 | 84.9 | 62.5 |
| Feb 4 | #6Gonzaga | H | W 87–80 | +22.0 | W+29.0 | 152.5 | O167 | 117.7 | 108.2 | 73.9 |
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 homeLamarPortland
Efficiency
105.0
104.9
108.3
109.9
67.0
69.1
—
—
Shooting
47.8%
51.2%
47.0%
54.7%
32.9%
29.9%
70.7%
74.0%
27.9%
34.4%
Ball control & glass
18.1%
19.7%
17.3%
17.0%
35.7%
28.1%
29.4%
32.5%
11.4%
10.7%
8.5%
6.4%
Style
33.9%
35.4%
40.5%
49.2%
14.2%
10.6%
55.4%
61.6%
34.7%
31.8%
Roster
2.88
2.28
6'4.4"
6'6.7"
85.8%
—
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputLamar
Returning minutes: 85.8%Returning production: 84.0%
Lost
- Andrew Holifield 28.6 mpg, 11.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Christian Thomas no D1 minutes last season
- Izuchukwu Emelife no D1 minutes last season
- Quinton Sanders no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 86% of last season's minutes; lost 1 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).
Portland
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Portland'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.