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-conferenceHaas Pavilion, Berkeley, CA
Vanderbilt
Efficiency #12
2025-26: 27-9 · 13-8 conf
@
California
Efficiency #79
2025-26: 22-12 · 9-10 conf
Sun, Dec 6 · TBD
78.8
win 61%
Projected
75.5
win 39%
No line posted yet.
Model: VAN −3.3 · total 154.3 · 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: California 68.7, Vanderbilt 69.2 → 69.6 possessions
+2.9
California offense vs Vanderbilt defense
−2.0
Vanderbilt offense vs California defense
+5.3
Projected total
154.3
Axis starts at 145 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
California offense vs Vanderbilt defense
−2.0
Vanderbilt offense vs California defense
−5.3
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+4.0
Vanderbilt by 3.3
3.3
Vanderbilt side ◂▸ California side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 154.4 against a projected 154.3. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help California.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 69.6, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Vanderbilt is the faster team (70.4, #77 of 365) and California the slower (69.3, #125). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
69.6
per team, 40 min
Projected total
154.3
model
Projected team totals
78.8 / 75.5
Vanderbilt / California
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.2#105
Vanderbilt
68.7#141
California
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageVanderbilt
Where Vanderbilt scores: ball control
Vanderbilt turns it over on 13.5% of possessions (#15); California forces turnovers on 16.1% of opponent possessions (#218). Expect about 14.5%, 2.3 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +2.8 points per 100 possessions.
DefenseVanderbilt
Vanderbilt's shot-blocking
Vanderbilt ranks #40 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.2% of California's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
Watch for noise
3-point caution
A notable season 3-point number here (California, California's defense) 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 Vanderbilt at about 44.1% of its shots from three, California about 41.3%.
AdvantageCalifornia
Where California struggles: the offensive glass
California rebounds 26.0% of its own misses (#322); Vanderbilt lets opponents grab 31.5% of their own misses (#231). Expect about 27.9%, 2.5 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -1.5 points per 100 possessions.
ClashCalifornia
Strength vs strength: live-ball turnovers
California (#17 in live-ball turnovers) against Vanderbilt (#55 in the same stat allowed) — both rank inside the national top 60. Expect about 9.8%. Historically Vanderbilt's own number has carried a bit more weight in that exchange (0.40 vs 0.65).
Vanderbilt has the ball
OffenseCalifornia allowsvs D1 avg
55.3% #31
49.8% #91
+2.2 pt/100
13.5% #15
16.1% #218
+2.8 pt/100
31.2% #158
30.5% #180
+0.4 pt/100
38.1% #101
36.3% #220
+0.3 pt/100
78.9% #5
—
+0.6 pt/100
Vanderbilt net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +6.3 pts/100
California has the ball
OffenseVanderbilt allowsvs D1 avg
52.7% #119
49.0% #67
-0.6 pt/100
15.1% #76
17.7% #111
+0.4 pt/100
26.0% #322
31.5% #231
-1.5 pt/100
36.2% #146
39.5% #295
+0.4 pt/100
77.4% #25
—
+0.4 pt/100
California net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -0.8 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersVanderbiltoffense vsCaliforniadefense
Share of shots by zone
Vanderbilt shoots
35.2
5.1
15.3
44.4
California allows
40.5
5.1
13.9
40.5
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 65.2%#19 | 60.8%#260 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 43.3%#97 | 35.2%#63 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 39.2%#139 | 36.7%#123 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.6%#86 | 31.0%#34 | 33.7% |
Californiaoffense vsVanderbiltdefense
Share of shots by zone
California shoots
32.3
3.8
20.8
43.0
Vanderbilt allows
37.6
6.5
19.0
37.0
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 57.8%#202 | 55.2%#65 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 26.9%#363 | 39.3%#166 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 40.2%#105 | 34.1%#52 | 38.0% |
| Three | 36.9%#30 | 32.6%#96 | 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 numbersVanderbilt
+2.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#73 of 365
Off reb %
31.2%
#158
Def reb %
68.5%
#231
Turnover %
13.5%
#15
Forced TO %
17.7%
#111
FT rate
38.1%
#101
FT allowed
39.5%
#295
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.3
Defensive rebounding−0.3
Ball security+2.3
Forcing turnovers+0.7
Foul shots drawn+0.8
Foul shots allowed−1.1
California
−0.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#208 of 365
Off reb %
26.0%
#322
Def reb %
69.5%
#180
Turnover %
15.1%
#76
Forced TO %
16.1%
#218
FT rate
36.2%
#146
FT allowed
36.3%
#220
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.4
Defensive rebounding+0.1
Ball security+1.1
Forcing turnovers−0.4
Foul shots drawn+0.3
Foul shots allowed−0.3
Vanderbilt has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.6 (#73 of 365) to California’s −0.6 (#208).
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
Vanderbilt2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Tyler Tanner | G | So | 6'0" | 36-36 | 33.5 | 19.5 | 3.6 | 5.1 | 1.9 | 54.9% | 36.8% | 4.5 | 85.3% | 30.4% | |
| 7 | Chandler Bing | G | Fr | 6'5" | 35-0 | 15.3 | 3.7 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 53.9% | 28.9% | 1.1 | 63.5% | 14.8% | |
| 8 | Tyler Harris | F | Jr | 6'7" | 29-2 | 13.2 | 5.7 | 2.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 47.8% | 28.7% | 2.8 | 53.3% | 26.4% | |
| 0 | Mike James | G | Jr | 6'5" | 21-0 | 11.2 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 41.2% | 33.3% | 1.1 | 57.1% | 10.7% | |
| 1 | Frankie Collins | G | Sr | 6'1" | 9-0 | 20.9 | 7.8 | 4.2 | 4.7 | 2.2 | 41.8% | 25.0% | 1.8 | 66.7% | 26.4% | |
| 34 | Jayden Leverett | C | Fr | 6'11" | 26-0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 61.8% | 50.0% | 0.1 | 57.1% | 11.8% | |
| 12 | Jaylon Dean-Vines | G | Fr | 6'4" | 10-0 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 90.0% | 50.0% | 0.2 | 0.0% | 16.5% | |
| 25 | Miles Keeffe | G | Sr | 6'5" | 11-0 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 31.3% | 33.3% | 0.3 | — | 27.0% | |
| 50 | Mason Nicholson | F | Sr | 6'9" | 5-0 | 4.0 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 7.9% | |
| 15 | Coleson Messer | G | So | 6'4" | 7-0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | — | 18.9% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
California2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 25 | Nojus Indrusaitisat Pitt | G | Jr | 6'5" | 33-6 | 23.6 | 9.1 | 3.1 | 1.7 | 1.2 | 50.8% | 38.7% | 4.3 | 63.5% | 25.8% | |
| 55 | Michael Cooperat Wright St | G | So | 6'3" | 31-15 | 26.5 | 13.4 | 2.7 | 2.2 | 1.2 | 51.3% | 35.6% | 4.4 | 80.5% | 29.6% | |
| 2 | Jordan Rossat Georgia | G | Sr | 6'3" | 32-25 | 20.8 | 6.7 | 2.5 | 2.3 | 0.9 | 46.3% | 31.0% | 1.3 | 77.9% | 18.2% | |
| 34 | Lee Dort | F | Sr | 6'10" | 27-26 | 23.1 | 8.1 | 7.8 | 0.9 | 1.0 | 59.7% | — | 0.0 | 65.0% | 18.8% | |
| 3 | Semetri Carr | G | So | 6'1" | 32-2 | 16.5 | 3.8 | 2.6 | 2.2 | 0.6 | 40.7% | 25.7% | 1.1 | 74.6% | 15.8% | |
| 21 | Jake Wilkinsat Georgia | F | So | 6'9" | 32-0 | 10.2 | 4.9 | 1.8 | 0.4 | 0.5 | 51.7% | 21.1% | 1.8 | 77.6% | 25.4% | |
| 17 | Mantas Kocanas | C | Jr | 6'11" | 22-0 | 6.9 | 1.7 | 1.5 | 0.1 | 0.5 | 55.0% | 37.5% | 0.4 | 40.0% | 17.5% | |
| 14 | Amier Aliat Mississippi St | F | Jr | 6'8" | 12-0 | 7.3 | 3.2 | 1.7 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 44.7% | 30.8% | 2.2 | 57.1% | 27.2% | |
| 12 | Dhiaukuei Manyiel Dut | F | Jr | 7'0" | 12-0 | 3.8 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 40.0% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 50.0% | 9.5% | |
| 23 | Sammie Yeanay | F | Jr | 6'9" | 9-0 | 4.6 | 1.1 | 1.0 | 0.2 | 0.1 | 40.9% | 25.0% | 0.4 | 50.0% | 18.3% | |
| 26 | BJ Fisher | G | Jr | 6'1" | 7-0 | 1.4 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 33.3% | 0.0% | 0.1 | — | 22.1% | |
| 15 | Luke Butler | G | So | 6'4" | 7-0 | 1.1 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 7.0% | |
| 6 | Jorell Clark | G | Fr | 6'2" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Jovani Ruff | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 19 | Dionycius Bakare | G | Fr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 8 | Dominykas Daubaris | C | Fr | 6'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 77 | Gabriel Sularski | G | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | Nicolas Mitrovic | C | Fr | 7'0" | 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: Amier Ali (from Mississippi St), Michael Cooper (from Wright St), Nojus Indrusaitis (from Pitt), Jordan Ross (from Georgia), Jake Wilkins (from Georgia)
Vanderbilt2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 3 | Tyler Tanner | G | So | 6'0" | 36-36 | 33.5 | 19.5 | 3.6 | 5.1 | 1.9 | 54.9% | 36.8% | 4.5 | 85.3% | 30.4% | |
| 7 | Chandler Bing | G | Fr | 6'5" | 35-0 | 15.3 | 3.7 | 1.6 | 0.4 | 0.6 | 53.9% | 28.9% | 1.1 | 63.5% | 14.8% | |
| 8 | Tyler Harris | F | Jr | 6'7" | 29-2 | 13.2 | 5.7 | 2.4 | 0.3 | 0.4 | 47.8% | 28.7% | 2.8 | 53.3% | 26.4% | |
| 0 | Mike James | G | Jr | 6'5" | 21-0 | 11.2 | 1.5 | 2.0 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 41.2% | 33.3% | 1.1 | 57.1% | 10.7% | |
| 1 | Frankie Collins | G | Sr | 6'1" | 9-0 | 20.9 | 7.8 | 4.2 | 4.7 | 2.2 | 41.8% | 25.0% | 1.8 | 66.7% | 26.4% | |
| 34 | Jayden Leverett | C | Fr | 6'11" | 26-0 | 4.0 | 1.0 | 1.2 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 61.8% | 50.0% | 0.1 | 57.1% | 11.8% | |
| 12 | Jaylon Dean-Vines | G | Fr | 6'4" | 10-0 | 2.5 | 0.9 | 0.4 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 90.0% | 50.0% | 0.2 | 0.0% | 16.5% | |
| 25 | Miles Keeffe | G | Sr | 6'5" | 11-0 | 1.9 | 0.5 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 0.2 | 31.3% | 33.3% | 0.3 | — | 27.0% | |
| 50 | Mason Nicholson | F | Sr | 6'9" | 5-0 | 4.0 | 0.4 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.2 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 7.9% | |
| 15 | Coleson Messer | G | So | 6'4" | 7-0 | 1.3 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.1 | 0.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | — | 18.9% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Vanderbilt
Against the spread
Season
17-18-1
Home
8-8
Road
5-6-1
Last 10
4-6
avg cover −0.2
Missed the spread 3 straightCovered 1 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 3 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
17-19
Home
8-8
Road
6-6
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total +3.5
Under 3 straightOver in 2 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 3 of 4 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 21 | #4Nebraska | N | L 72–74 | −2.0 | L−4.0 | 147.5 | U146 | 112.7 | 115.8 | 63.9 |
| Mar 19 | #12McNeese | N | W 78–68 | −12.0 | L−2.0 | 148.0 | U146 | 122.1 | 106.4 | 63.9 |
| Mar 15 | #17Arkansas | N | L 75–86 | −2.0 | L−13.0 | 164.5 | U161 | 107.0 | 122.6 | 70.1 |
| Mar 14 | #4Florida | N | W 91–74 | +7.0 | W+24.0 | 160.0 | O165 | 142.4 | 115.8 | 63.9 |
| Mar 13 | #25Tennessee | N | W 75–68 | +2.0 | W+9.0 | 147.0 | U143 | 120.3 | 109.1 | 62.4 |
| Mar 7 | #23Tennessee | A | W 86–82 | +3.0 | W+7.0 | 145.5 | O168 | 117.7 | 112.2 | 73.1 |
| Mar 3 | Ole Miss | A | W 89–86 OT | −7.0 | L−4.0 | 155.5 | O175 | 115.6 | 111.7 | 77.0 |
| Feb 28 | Kentucky | A | L 77–91 | +1.0 | L−13.0 | 157.5 | O168 | 113.2 | 133.7 | 68.0 |
| Feb 25 | Georgia | H | W 88–80 | −7.5 | W+0.5 | 163.0 | O168 | 133.2 | 121.1 | 66.1 |
| Feb 21 | Tennessee | H | L 65–69 | −3.0 | L−7.0 | 150.0 | U134 | 102.7 | 109.1 | 63.3 |
California
Against the spread
Season
17-16
Home
9-12
Road
7-3
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +0.7
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 4 of 6 as a favoriteCovered 1 of 4 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
13-19-1
Home
6-14-1
Road
5-5
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total +5.7
Under in the last gameOver in 2 of 6 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 4 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 22 | Saint Joseph's | H | L 75–76 | −5.5 | L−6.5 | 151.5 | U151 | 110.4 | 111.9 | 67.9 |
| Mar 18 | UIC | H | W 91–73 | −6.5 | W+11.5 | 151.0 | O164 | 127.9 | 102.6 | 71.2 |
| Mar 11 | Florida St | N | L 89–95 | +3.0 | L−3.0 | 155.0 | O184 | 127.7 | 136.3 | 69.7 |
| Mar 7 | Wake Forest | A | L 73–80 | +6.0 | L−1.0 | 154.0 | U153 | 100.1 | 109.6 | 73.0 |
| Mar 4 | Georgia Tech | A | W 76–65 | −2.0 | W+9.0 | 156.0 | U141 | 101.1 | 86.5 | 75.2 |
| Feb 28 | Pitt | H | L 56–72 | −7.5 | L−23.5 | 143.5 | U128 | 83.6 | 107.5 | 67.0 |
| Feb 25 | SMU | H | W 73–69 | +4.0 | W+8.0 | 163.0 | U142 | 104.7 | 98.9 | 69.7 |
| Feb 21 | Stanford | H | W 72–66 | −1.0 | W+5.0 | 148.0 | U138 | 103.8 | 95.2 | 69.3 |
| Feb 14 | Boston College | A | W 86–75 | −3.5 | W+7.5 | 141.0 | O161 | 133.1 | 116.1 | 64.6 |
| Feb 11 | Syracuse | A | L 100–107 2OT | +6.5 | L−0.5 | 149.0 | O207 | 110.6 | 118.3 | 90.4 |
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 homeVanderbiltCalifornia
Efficiency
119.5
111.2
102.9
105.0
69.2
68.7
—
—
Shooting
55.3%
52.7%
56.9%
50.6%
35.6%
36.9%
78.9%
77.4%
38.1%
36.2%
Ball control & glass
13.5%
15.1%
17.7%
16.1%
31.2%
26.0%
31.5%
30.5%
7.4%
7.5%
7.4%
11.1%
Style
44.2%
43.1%
40.4%
35.6%
13.8%
12.1%
56.4%
54.1%
28.8%
27.5%
Roster
2.15
2.90
6'3"
6'5.2"
37.6%
20.5%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputVanderbilt
Returning minutes: 37.6%Returning production: 36.1%
Lost
- Tyler Nickel 30.5 mpg, 13.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- AK Okereke 26.2 mpg, 9.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Devin McGlockton 25.3 mpg, 9.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Duke Miles 23.0 mpg, 12.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jalen Washington 20.6 mpg, 8.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
Nobody of note.
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 38% of last season's minutes; lost 4 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).
California
Returning minutes: 20.5%Returning production: 20.2%
Lost
- Dai Dai Ames 31.9 mpg, 16.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- John Camden 30.6 mpg, 13.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Justin Pippen 29.0 mpg, 13.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Chris Bell 27.8 mpg, 14.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Milos Ilic 17.3 mpg, 3.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- DeJuan Campbell 10.3 mpg, 2.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Nojus Indrusaitis from Pitt · 23.6 mpg, 9.1 ppg last season
- Michael Cooper from Wright St · 23.4 mpg, 11.9 ppg last season
- Jordan Ross from Georgia · 20.2 mpg, 6.5 ppg last season
- Jake Wilkins from Georgia · 9.9 mpg, 4.8 ppg last season
- Amier Ali from Mississippi St · 2.7 mpg, 1.2 ppg last season
- Jorell Clark no D1 minutes last season
Returns 21% of last season's minutes; lost 4 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).
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.