Hofstra Pride vs Murray State Racers basketball preview & prediction

Tue, Nov 17 · 12:00 PM ET · Landers Center, Southaven, MS (neutral site)

Neutral siteNon-conferenceESPN+Landers Center, Southaven, MS
Hofstra
1-1 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #105
vs
Murray St
2-0 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #78
Tue, Nov 17 · 12:00 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: 72.4, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw season pace, Murray St is the faster team (78.3, #26 of 365) and Hofstra the slower (62.9, #347). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (weights 0.80 vs 0.66).

Projected possessions
72.4
per team, 40 min
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
67.5#340
Hofstra
75.4#9
Murray St

How this game plays

points this game from the four factors, vs an average D-I matchup
From the four factors
Murray St has the ball+3.5
Hofstra has the ball−12.9
Murray St has the ball
✓Takes care of the ballTO% 19.1% #220 · HOF forces 12.7% #319 · ~11 turnovers+2.7
✓Shoots it welleFG% 59.3% #43 · HOF allows 40.7% #32+0.3
✓Gets to the lineFTR 43.1% #103 · HOF allows 28.8% #86 · FT 77.4% #69+0.3
✓Wins second chancesOR% 33.8% #130 · HOF allows 29.3% #147+0.2
Hofstra has the ball
✗Coughs it upTO% 28.6% #352 · MUR forces 28.1% #10 · ~22 turnovers−10.9
✗Tough shooting lookeFG% 52.0% #155 · MUR allows 45.8% #92−1.3
✗Few second chancesOR% 33.3% #135 · MUR allows 26.1% #85−0.6
✗Few trips to the lineFTR 16.0% #354 · MUR allows 47.7% #286 · FT 75.0% #980.0

Shot diet

Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot
Hofstraoffense vsMurray Stdefense
Share of shots by zone
Hofstra shoots
Murray St allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim81.3%#550.0%#7558.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)0.0%#32357.1%#29538.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)50.0%#4523.1%#7634.7%
Three23.5%#32035.3%#23532.5%
Murray Stoffense vsHofstradefense
Share of shots by zone
Murray St shoots
Hofstra allows
D-I average
FG% by zone
ZoneD-I avg
Rim62.2%#12444.4%#3458.0%
Short 2 (≤9 ft)25.0%#2500.0%#138.2%
Mid 2 (10 ft+)44.4%#890.0%#134.7%
Three38.5%#7730.0%#12632.5%
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
Hofstra
−13.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#330 of 365
Off reb %
33.3%
#135
Def reb %
70.7%
#147
Turnover %
28.6%
#352
Forced TO %
12.7%
#319
FT rate
16.0%
#354
FT allowed
28.8%
#86
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.6
Defensive rebounding+0.8
Ball security−7.4
Forcing turnovers−3.8
Foul shots drawn−5.6
Foul shots allowed+2.4
Murray St
+8.0extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#72 of 365
Off reb %
33.8%
#130
Def reb %
73.9%
#85
Turnover %
19.1%
#220
Forced TO %
28.1%
#10
FT rate
43.1%
#103
FT allowed
47.7%
#286
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.8
Defensive rebounding+1.8
Ball security−0.6
Forcing turnovers+7.1
Foul shots drawn+1.5
Foul shots allowed−2.5

Murray St has more extra scoring chances per game: +8.0 (#72 of 365) to Hofstra’s −13.0 (#330).

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
Hofstra2026-27 numbers
#PlayerPosClHtGP-GSMPGPPGRPGAPGTOVeFG%3P%3PA/gFT%UsageStatus
2GSo6'2"2-027.510.52.54.03.047.2%25.0%2.066.7%28.2%Active
4FJr6'8"2-226.08.06.01.02.059.1%100.0%0.560.0%19.1%Active
1GSr6'3"2-226.08.57.04.03.034.1%12.5%4.0100.0%33.5%Active
25GSr6'6"2-226.012.08.00.52.563.2%33.3%3.00.0%28.2%Active
3GSr6'4"2-225.012.03.01.01.560.0%54.5%5.5—26.5%Active
15FSr7'0"2-015.58.55.00.01.0100.0%—0.062.5%22.3%Active
12FJr7'0"2-214.55.03.00.00.0100.0%—0.066.7%10.7%Active
5GSr6'2"2-013.05.04.00.50.550.0%28.6%3.550.0%23.7%Active
9FJr7'0"2-011.01.05.00.50.050.0%—0.00.0%7.5%Active
20GFr6'4"1-012.08.04.00.01.050.0%33.3%6.0—39.0%Missed last
19GSo6'6"1-010.04.01.00.01.033.3%0.0%2.0100.0%25.8%Missed last
0GFr6'1"1-06.02.00.02.00.033.3%—0.0—26.0%Missed last
23GFr6'2"1-05.00.00.00.00.0——0.0—0.0%Missed last

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
HofstraMurray St
Efficiency
107.8
112.2
101.9
104.2
67.5
75.4
-4.3
-7.8
Shooting
52.0%
59.3%
60.6%
60.6%
23.5%
38.5%
75.0%
77.4%
16.0%
43.1%
Ball control & glass
28.6%
19.1%
12.7%
28.1%
33.3%
33.8%
29.3%
26.1%
15.9%
9.6%
0.0%
5.6%
Style
34.0%
42.3%
51.7%
42.8%
0.0%
24.6%
41.7%
57.1%
41.5%
41.5%
Roster
3.25
2.52
6'5.9"
6'6.3"
11.3%
27.6%

Offseason

roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model input
Hofstra
Returning minutes: 11.3%Returning production: 6.6%
Lost
  • Cruz Davis 37.9 mpg, 20.1 ppg · transferred to Texas Tech
  • Preston Edmead 33.9 mpg, 16.1 ppg · transferred to NC State
  • German Plotnikov 30.4 mpg, 8.8 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Silas Sunday 19.7 mpg, 5.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Biggie Patterson 18.5 mpg, 8.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Victory Onuetu 17.9 mpg, 4.7 ppg · transferred to Wisconsin
Added
  • Deywilk Tavarez from Loyola Chicago · 22.9 mpg, 8.9 ppg last season
  • Justin Moore from Loyola Chicago · 20.0 mpg, 7.3 ppg last season
  • Spence Wewe from Quinnipiac · 16.5 mpg, 2.6 ppg last season
  • Imanuel Zorgvol from Youngstown St · 14.7 mpg, 5.7 ppg last season
  • Benjamin Onwughai no D1 minutes last season
  • Anthony Stennett no D1 minutes last season

Returns 11% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5 (2 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).

Murray St
Returning minutes: 27.6%Returning production: 26.9%
Lost
  • Javon Jackson 25.6 mpg, 16.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • Fredrick King 24.0 mpg, 12.7 ppg · transferred to Creighton
  • Layne Taylor 23.2 mpg, 7.5 ppg · transferred to Arkansas St
  • Mason Miller 22.1 mpg, 5.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • JJ Traynor 21.9 mpg, 7.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
  • KJ Tenner 16.5 mpg, 6.0 ppg · transferred to UTSA
Added
  • Christian Jones from G Washington · 25.6 mpg, 9.7 ppg last season
  • Shon Tupuola from Valparaiso · 24.6 mpg, 6.4 ppg last season
  • Brigham Rogers from Belmont · 18.2 mpg, 7.1 ppg last season
  • Kaden Magwood from Auburn · 5.6 mpg, 1.9 ppg last season
  • Mark Padjen no D1 minutes last season
  • Lachlan Crate no D1 minutes last season

Returns 28% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5 (2 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 Tue, Nov 17

← Mon, Nov 16 · Wed, Nov 18 → · 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.