Wright State Raiders vs Samford Bulldogs basketball preview & prediction

Fri, Nov 13 · 8:00 PM ET · Pete Hanna Center, Homewood, AL

Non-conferenceESPN+Pete Hanna Center, Homewood, AL
Wright St
2-0 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #77
@
Samford
1-1 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #186
Fri, Nov 13 · 8:00 PM ET
Our projected score shows once the market opens.
No line posted yet.

Our play

Pace & total

possessions per 40 minutes
Tempo, possessions per 40 minutes

Projected possessions: 71.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw season pace, Samford is the faster team (76.1, #51 of 365) and Wright St the slower (72.1, #130). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
71.2
per team, 40 min
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
70.1#216
Wright St
71.6#114
Samford

How this game plays

points this game from the four factors, vs an average D-I matchup
From the four factors
Samford has the ball−4.5
Wright St has the ball+18.5
Samford has the ball
✗Few second chancesOR% 15.6% #353 · WRST allows 37.1% #282−3.6
✗Tough shooting lookeFG% 52.4% #149 · WRST allows 42.2% #46−2.9
✓Takes care of the ballTO% 14.5% #70 · WRST forces 18.7% #142 · ~12 turnovers+1.6
✓Gets to the lineFTR 30.6% #244 · WRST allows 47.5% #284 · FT 73.7% #122+0.5
Wright St has the ball
✓Shoots it welleFG% 65.2% #10 · SAM allows 54.3% #245+10.8
✓Wins second chancesOR% 45.3% #13 · SAM allows 32.4% #202+4.3
✓Gets to the lineFTR 39.3% #144 · SAM allows 55.2% #327 · FT 83.3% #21+1.9
✓Takes care of the ballTO% 16.6% #137 · SAM forces 17.1% #208 · ~12 turnovers+1.4

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot
Wright Stoffense vsSamforddefense
Share of shots by zone
Wright St shoots
Samford allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim82.8%#363.0%#23758.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)44.4%#13137.5%#17838.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)42.9%#9450.0%#28534.7%
Three39.5%#6533.3%#18532.5%
Samfordoffense vsWright Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
Samford shoots
Wright St allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim67.6%#7543.3%#2958.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)0.0%#32333.3%#12538.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)28.6%#22433.3%#15534.7%
Three25.0%#29933.3%#18532.5%
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
Wright St
+2.4extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#144 of 365
Off reb %
45.3%
#13
Def reb %
62.9%
#282
Turnover %
16.6%
#137
Forced TO %
18.7%
#142
FT rate
39.3%
#144
FT allowed
47.5%
#284
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+4.6
Defensive rebounding−1.8
Ball security+1.1
Forcing turnovers+0.5
Foul shots drawn+0.5
Foul shots allowed−2.5
Samford
−9.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#311 of 365
Off reb %
15.6%
#353
Def reb %
67.6%
#202
Turnover %
14.5%
#70
Forced TO %
17.1%
#208
FT rate
30.6%
#244
FT allowed
55.2%
#327
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−5.3
Defensive rebounding−0.3
Ball security+2.7
Forcing turnovers−0.7
Foul shots drawn−1.8
Foul shots allowed−4.5

Wright St has more extra scoring chances per game: +2.4 (#144 of 365) to Samford’s −9.8 (#311).

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

Who has been playing, and who has not
Wright St2026-27 numbers · last game: FAU, Nov 6
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGMin/40, last 8Last 3 vs beforeStatusPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%Usage
3GJr6'7"2-231.034—Started last21.04.02.01.0113.3%80.0%5.080.0%19.3%
1GSo6'3"2-230.534—Started last13.02.55.03.057.1%28.6%3.5100.0%25.2%
10GJr6'4"2-226.023—Started last15.04.02.01.045.2%12.5%4.091.7%30.4%
4FSo6'9"2-224.521—Started last11.05.02.01.563.3%25.0%2.0100.0%21.7%
20GJr6'6"2-221.531—Started last19.511.02.01.571.1%33.3%1.585.7%36.9%
6GJr6'2"2-021.521—Bench4.51.03.01.537.5%30.0%5.00.0%19.8%
5FFr6'7"2-021.015—Bench11.05.01.00.573.1%100.0%0.575.0%20.8%
15GFr6'3"2-012.09—Bench3.02.00.51.075.0%—0.0—13.6%
23CSr6'11"2-010.011—Bench1.51.50.00.550.0%—0.050.0%10.9%
12GFr6'4"1-02.00—Missed last game0.01.00.01.0——0.0—26.4%

Competitive minutes leave out garbage time (provisional rule: a second-half lead of 25+ inside 15:00, 20+ inside 10:00, 15+ inside 5:00 or 10+ inside 2:00, held to the end) and are shown per 40 minutes. Status says only whether a player appeared; the reason is not published.

Team comparison

national rank toned left for away, right for home
Wright StSamford
Efficiency
114.5
106.4
106.2
108.1
70.1
71.6
-8.4
2.4
Shooting
65.2%
52.4%
68.4%
59.5%
39.5%
25.0%
83.3%
73.7%
39.3%
30.6%
Ball control & glass
16.6%
14.5%
18.7%
17.1%
45.3%
15.6%
37.1%
32.4%
10.4%
7.9%
2.5%
16.7%
Style
35.2%
32.3%
47.2%
63.3%
19.6%
19.0%
49.3%
53.3%
32.9%
36.3%
Roster
2.43
3.09
6'5.5"
6'4.3"
31.6%
35.6%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
Wright St
Returning minutes: 31.6%Returning production: 31.7%
Lost
  • Solomon Callaghan 26.5 mpg, 9.6 ppg · transferred to Utah State
  • TJ Burch 24.0 mpg, 12.1 ppg · transferred to Utah
  • Michael Imariagbe 23.5 mpg, 11.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Michael Cooper 23.4 mpg, 11.9 ppg · transferred to California
  • Logan Woods 18.4 mpg, 5.3 ppg · transferred to Niagara
  • Sam Alamutu 11.6 mpg, 2.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • C.J. O'Hara from Green Bay · 32.6 mpg, 14.1 ppg last season
  • Chadlyn Traylor from Charleston · 17.3 mpg, 3.8 ppg last season
  • Nikola Djapa from Colorado St · 5.2 mpg, 1.3 ppg last season
  • Tahj Martin no D1 minutes last season
  • Terrence Hayes Jr. no D1 minutes last season
  • Sam Johnson no D1 minutes last season

Returns 32% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5 (3 transferred). Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).

Samford
Returning minutes: 35.6%Returning production: 27.2%
Lost
  • Jadin Booth 34.2 mpg, 20.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Keaton Norris 28.8 mpg, 8.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Dylan Faulkner 24.5 mpg, 16.1 ppg · transferred to Clemson
  • Kam Martin 16.6 mpg, 5.7 ppg · transferred to Denver
  • Zion Wilburn 16.0 mpg, 4.3 ppg · transferred to Georgia St
  • Jaxon Pollard 10.2 mpg, 2.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
  • Najimi George from New Haven · 32.6 mpg, 10.9 ppg last season
  • Cooper Noard from Cornell · 27.5 mpg, 18.2 ppg last season
  • Ty Davis from Creighton · 10.9 mpg, 1.2 ppg last season
  • Win Miller from Belmont · 7.3 mpg, 2.5 ppg last season
  • Braeden MacVicar from Coastal · 5.4 mpg, 2.0 ppg last season
  • Brandon Fussell no D1 minutes last season

Returns 36% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5 (1 transferred). 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 last
No meetings the last two seasons.

More games on Fri, Nov 13

← Thu, Nov 12 · Sat, Nov 14 → · Full season schedule

The CBB Matchups tab lays out the day's Division I slate: matchup, tip time, records and rank, and — once posted — the market spread and total (the median across books when no market line is up). 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, from our line: the same view our bets are made from.

What these numbers mean: line shopping.