Lindenwood Lions vs New Haven Chargers basketball preview & prediction
Tue, Nov 24 · 1:00 PM ET · Stony Brook Arena, Stony Brook, NY (neutral site)
Neutral siteNon-conferenceStony Brook Arena, Stony Brook, NY
Lindenwood
2-1 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #280
vs
New Haven
0-2 · 0-0 conf
Efficiency #326
Tue, Nov 24 · 1:00 PM ET
Our projected score shows once the market opens.
No line posted yet.
Our play
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 70.2, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw season pace, Lindenwood is the faster team (75.5, #58 of 365) and New Haven the slower (64.6, #331). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
70.2
per team, 40 min
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
74.2#28
Lindenwood
66.6#355
New Haven
How this game plays
points this game from the four factors, vs an average D-I matchupFrom the four factors
New Haven has the ball−0.5
Lindenwood has the ball−4.1
New Haven has the ball
✗Coughs it upTO% 23.2% #315 · LIN forces 17.2% #203 · ~14 turnovers−1.9
✓Shoots it welleFG% 48.1% #219 · LIN allows 54.7% #254+1.0
✓Gets to the lineFTR 16.3% #353 · LIN allows 59.4% #338 · FT 70.6% #165+0.3
✓Wins second chancesOR% 21.9% #322 · LIN allows 46.2% #347+0.2
Lindenwood has the ball
✗Tough shooting lookeFG% 44.2% #279 · NHVN allows 51.7% #200−2.8
✗Few trips to the lineFTR 35.0% #201 · NHVN allows 35.5% #171 · FT 28.6% #359−2.7
✓Wins second chancesOR% 36.4% #92 · NHVN allows 36.0% #267+2.4
✗Coughs it upTO% 26.5% #344 · NHVN forces 12.4% #324 · ~13 turnovers−0.9
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shootLindenwoodoffense vsNew Havendefense
Share of shots by zone
Lindenwood shoots
33.3
7.7
15.4
43.6
New Haven allows
31.3
6.3
16.3
46.3
D-I average
37.8
8.0
12.4
41.8
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 69.2%#60 | 68.0%#285 | 58.0% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 33.3%#183 | 60.0%#305 | 38.2% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 50.0%#45 | 30.8%#138 | 34.7% |
| Three | 23.8%#317 | 33.3%#185 | 32.5% |
New Havenoffense vsLindenwooddefense
Share of shots by zone
New Haven shoots
30.2
7.9
20.6
41.3
Lindenwood allows
52.6
5.3
10.5
31.6
D-I average
37.8
8.0
12.4
41.8
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 42.1%#328 | 60.0%#195 | 58.0% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 40.0%#153 | 50.0%#243 | 38.2% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 23.1%#267 | 0.0%#1 | 34.7% |
| Three | 34.1%#147 | 52.6%#355 | 32.5% |
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 lineLindenwood
−15.9extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#350 of 365
Off reb %
36.4%
#92
Def reb %
53.8%
#347
Turnover %
26.5%
#344
Forced TO %
17.2%
#203
FT rate
35.0%
#201
FT allowed
59.4%
#338
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.6
Defensive rebounding−4.8
Ball security−5.9
Forcing turnovers−0.6
Foul shots drawn−0.6
Foul shots allowed−5.6
New Haven
−17.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#354 of 365
Off reb %
21.9%
#322
Def reb %
64.0%
#267
Turnover %
23.2%
#315
Forced TO %
12.4%
#324
FT rate
16.3%
#353
FT allowed
35.5%
#171
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−3.2
Defensive rebounding−1.5
Ball security−3.5
Forcing turnovers−4.0
Foul shots drawn−5.5
Foul shots allowed+0.6
Lindenwood has more extra scoring chances per game: −15.9 (#350 of 365) to New Haven’s −17.1 (#354).
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 notLindenwood2026-27 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | G | Sr | 6'1" | 3-3 | 24.0 | 8.3 | 3.0 | 4.3 | 2.7 | 75.0% | 60.0% | 1.7 | 66.7% | 18.5% | Active | |
| 1 | G | Jr | 6'2" | 3-1 | 21.3 | 12.3 | 7.3 | 5.3 | 1.7 | 66.0% | 50.0% | 0.7 | 50.0% | 28.5% | Active | |
| 7 | G | Sr | 6'4" | 3-0 | 21.3 | 10.3 | 2.7 | 1.7 | 2.0 | 62.5% | 35.3% | 5.7 | 50.0% | 26.0% | Active | |
| 14 | G | So | 6'3" | 3-2 | 19.7 | 8.7 | 3.3 | 2.0 | 0.7 | 45.8% | 28.6% | 4.7 | 100.0% | 25.4% | Active | |
| 42 | F | Fr | 6'5" | 3-1 | 18.0 | 9.7 | 5.3 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 83.3% | 100.0% | 1.0 | 66.7% | 19.7% | Active | |
| 3 | G | Jr | 6'4" | 3-3 | 16.0 | 12.3 | 2.3 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 68.0% | 53.3% | 5.0 | 75.0% | 33.5% | Active | |
| 21 | F | Sr | 6'10" | 3-3 | 15.3 | 3.7 | 5.3 | 0.7 | 0.7 | 80.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 33.3% | 13.2% | Active | |
| 41 | C | Fr | 6'10" | 3-0 | 14.7 | 3.7 | 5.7 | 1.3 | 0.7 | 44.4% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 50.0% | 17.0% | Active | |
| 23 | C | Fr | 6'10" | 3-0 | 12.3 | 3.7 | 2.7 | 2.7 | 0.7 | 50.0% | — | 0.0 | 50.0% | 18.8% | Active | |
| 35 | F | Jr | 6'11" | 2-1 | 18.0 | 15.5 | 7.0 | 0.0 | 1.5 | 65.2% | — | 0.0 | 100.0% | 39.5% | Active | |
| 4 | G | So | 6'3" | 2-0 | 14.0 | 12.5 | 1.5 | 3.0 | 0.0 | 57.1% | 66.7% | 1.5 | 50.0% | 42.2% | Active | |
| 10 | F | Jr | 6'6" | 1-1 | 23.0 | 10.0 | 7.0 | 0.0 | 2.0 | 45.0% | 25.0% | 4.0 | 14.3% | 36.0% | Missed last | |
| 0 | G | Fr | 6'4" | 3-0 | 4.3 | 1.7 | 1.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 50.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 50.0% | 24.7% | Active | |
| 2 | G | Fr | 6'3" | 3-0 | 4.0 | 1.7 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 50.0% | 100.0% | 0.3 | — | 22.4% | Active |
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.
Trends
Results against the closing spread and total, last ten gamesLindenwood
Against the spread
Season
0-1
Home
0-0
Road
0-1
Last 10
0-1
avg cover −9.5
Missed the spread in the last game
Over / under
Season
1-0
Home
0-0
Road
1-0
Last 10
1-0
avg vs total +2.5
Over in the last game
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 7 | East West Phantoms | H | W 115–44 | — | — | — | — | 158.0 | 60.4 | 72.8 |
| Nov 5 | Central Bible Saints | H | W 120–46 | — | — | — | — | 155.9 | 59.8 | 77.0 |
| Nov 2 | TCU | A | L 59–98 | +29.5 | L−9.5 | 154.5 | O157 | 78.1 | 129.8 | 75.5 |
| Mar 5 | SE Missouri | N | L 66–68 | +3.0 | W+1.0 | 149.0 | U134 | 97.2 | 100.1 | 67.9 |
| Mar 4 | Little Rock | N | W 72–62 | −4.5 | W+5.5 | 148.5 | U134 | 93.0 | 80.1 | 77.4 |
| Feb 28 | W Illinois | A | W 91–69 | −11.5 | W+10.5 | 150.5 | O160 | 129.0 | 97.8 | 70.5 |
| Feb 26 | E Illinois | H | L 67–71 | −7.5 | L−11.5 | 144.0 | U138 | 96.9 | 102.7 | 69.2 |
| Feb 21 | Tennessee Tech | A | L 57–72 | −2.0 | L−17.0 | 152.0 | U129 | 86.1 | 108.8 | 66.2 |
| Feb 19 | Tennessee St | A | L 80–89 | +3.5 | L−5.5 | 159.0 | O169 | 100.9 | 112.2 | 79.3 |
| Feb 14 | SE Missouri | H | L 61–73 | −2.0 | L−14.0 | 156.5 | U134 | 84.2 | 100.8 | 72.4 |
New Haven
Against the spread
Season
1-1
Home
0-0
Road
1-1
Last 10
1-1
avg cover +3.8
Missed the spread in the last game
Over / under
Season
1-1
Home
0-0
Road
1-1
Last 10
1-1
avg vs total −1.2
Under in the last game
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nov 10 | Army | H | W 63–55 | +1.5 | W+9.5 | 134.5 | U118 | 102.1 | 89.2 | 61.7 |
| Nov 6 | Rutgers | A | L 54–81 | +24.0 | L−3.0 | 138.5 | U135 | 82.9 | 124.3 | 65.2 |
| Nov 2 | Syracuse | A | L 58–74 | +26.5 | W+10.5 | 131.0 | O132 | 90.5 | 115.5 | 64.1 |
| Feb 28 | Le Moyne | H | W 66–59 | +2.0 | W+9.0 | 136.0 | U125 | 96.8 | 86.5 | 68.2 |
| Feb 26 | Wagner | A | L 62–65 | +2.0 | L−1.0 | 131.5 | U127 | 99.5 | 104.3 | 62.3 |
| Feb 24 | Saint Francis Red Wolves | H | L 67–73 | −7.0 | L−13.0 | 141.0 | U140 | 106.6 | 116.2 | 62.8 |
| Feb 21 | FDU | A | W 84–77 | +2.5 | W+9.5 | 124.5 | O161 | 133.7 | 122.6 | 62.8 |
| Feb 19 | Stonehill | H | W 64–51 | −3.0 | W+10.0 | 121.0 | U115 | 97.8 | 77.9 | 65.5 |
| Feb 14 | Long Island | H | W 55–52 | +7.0 | W+10.0 | 129.5 | U107 | 88.9 | 84.1 | 61.8 |
| Feb 12 | C Connecticut | H | L 76–81 | +3.0 | L−2.0 | 129.0 | O157 | 110.2 | 117.5 | 69.0 |
Records vs the closing line describe the past; ten games is a small sample.
Team comparison
national rank toned left for away, right for homeLindenwoodNew Haven
Efficiency
99.6
96.3
106.6
108.5
74.2
66.6
18.9
7.3
Shooting
44.2%
48.1%
48.7%
46.0%
23.8%
34.1%
28.6%
70.6%
35.0%
16.3%
Ball control & glass
26.5%
23.2%
17.2%
12.4%
36.4%
21.9%
46.2%
36.0%
19.9%
14.7%
7.7%
11.1%
Style
35.0%
39.4%
57.6%
44.6%
22.0%
15.2%
41.7%
51.2%
51.5%
28.7%
Roster
2.63
2.36
6'5.1"
6'5.4"
0.0%
15.8%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputLindenwood
Returning minutes: 0.0%Returning production: 0.0%
Lost
- Anias Futrell 30.6 mpg, 16.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Mekhi Cooper 29.9 mpg, 6.4 ppg · transferred to Louisiana
- Dontrez Williams 28.2 mpg, 13.3 ppg · transferred to UNLV
- Jadis Jones 27.9 mpg, 13.0 ppg · transferred to USC
- Milos Nenadic 27.5 mpg, 12.0 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Clayton Jackson 25.0 mpg, 7.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Xavier Spencer from UMass Lowell · 33.9 mpg, 11.9 ppg last season
- Noah Taitz from Utah Valley · 17.3 mpg, 4.4 ppg last season
- Matar Diop from Stetson · 12.0 mpg, 2.6 ppg last season
- Makhan Diouf from Fresno St · 2.7 mpg, 0.6 ppg last season
- Malek Archie from Tarleton St · 0.7 mpg, 0.4 ppg last season
- Marko Lukanoski no D1 minutes last season
Returns 0% of last season's minutes; lost 5 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).
New Haven
Returning minutes: 24.1%Returning production: 25.6%
Lost
- Jabri Fitzpatrick 34.5 mpg, 15.0 ppg · transferred to E Michigan
- Najimi George 32.6 mpg, 10.9 ppg · transferred to Samford
- Andre Pasha 31.7 mpg, 10.7 ppg · transferred to Bryant
- Stefano Faloppa 26.1 mpg, 6.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Maison Adeleye 15.9 mpg, 4.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Vere Anthony 6.1 mpg, 1.2 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Moussa Camara no D1 minutes last season
- Matiss Ogle no D1 minutes last season
- Andy Ramirez no D1 minutes last season
- Tim Walker no D1 minutes last season
- Justice Hanna no D1 minutes last season
- Isiah Rose no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 24% 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).
Head-to-head
this season and lastNo meetings the last two seasons.
More games on Tue, Nov 24
- Wright St vs St Bonaventure · 10:00 AM ET
- Ohio vs New Mexico St · 11:00 AM ET
- SE Louisiana vs N Colorado · 12:30 PM ET
- Belmont vs Akron · 12:30 PM ET
- Southern Utah at FIU · 1:00 PM ET
- Oklahoma vs Pitt · 1:30 PM ET
- Rice vs UIC · 1:30 PM ET
- Oregon St vs San Francisco · 2:00 PM ET
- Tennessee vs Maryland · 3:00 PM ET
- Miami vs TCU · 3:00 PM ET
- North Dakota vs Detroit Mercy · 3:00 PM ET
- App State vs Yale · 3:00 PM ET
- Long Beach St vs Arkansas St · 3:30 PM ET
- Air Force vs Army · 4:00 PM ET
- Tulsa vs Illinois St · 4:30 PM ET
- Creighton vs Michigan · 5:30 PM ET
- San Diego St vs Iowa State · 5:30 PM ET
- Wyoming vs Kent State · 5:30 PM ET
- DePaul vs Purdue · 6:00 PM ET
- E Michigan vs Kennesaw St · 6:00 PM ET
- Queens at Wofford · 6:00 PM ET
- Mercer at FAU · 6:00 PM ET
- S Indiana at VMI · 6:00 PM ET
- Sacred Heart at Rutgers · 6:00 PM ET
- Elon at Furman · 6:30 PM ET
- Robert Morris vs Lamar · 6:30 PM ET
- Milwaukee at Florida · 7:00 PM ET
- Gardner-Webb at Bowling Green · 7:00 PM ET
- Binghamton at Lehigh · 7:00 PM ET
- Charleston So at James Madison · 7:00 PM ET
- Nevada vs Santa Clara · 7:00 PM ET
- Jacksonville at Indiana · 7:00 PM ET
- Vanderbilt at Ohio State · 7:00 PM ET
- Stetson at South Florida · 7:00 PM ET
- Samford at Georgia Tech · 7:00 PM ET
- Boston U at Harvard · 7:00 PM ET
- Vermont at Siena · 7:00 PM ET
- UMBC at Iowa · 7:00 PM ET
- Campbell at Coastal · 7:00 PM ET
- New Hampshire at Seton Hall · 7:00 PM ET
- Mount St Marys at Morgan St · 7:00 PM ET
- Delaware St at Chattanooga · 7:00 PM ET
- Rider at Loyola MD · 7:00 PM ET
- Coppin St at Villanova · 7:00 PM ET
- Bryant at Marist · 7:00 PM ET
- Tarleton St at Weber St · 7:00 PM ET
- Hampton at Old Dominion · 7:00 PM ET
- West Georgia at Tennessee Tech · 7:30 PM ET
- Hou Christian at UL Monroe · 7:30 PM ET
- High Point vs Duquesne · 7:30 PM ET
- Alcorn St at Louisiana Tech · 7:30 PM ET
- Purdue FW at SE Missouri · 7:30 PM ET
- C Michigan at Notre Dame · 8:00 PM ET
- Texas Tech vs Louisville · 8:00 PM ET
- Lipscomb at Auburn · 8:00 PM ET
- Green Bay at Kansas City · 8:00 PM ET
- Drexel at Penn · 8:00 PM ET
- Bucknell at Cornell · 8:00 PM ET
- Alabama A&M at North Alabama · 8:00 PM ET
- Oral Roberts at UT Arlington · 8:00 PM ET
- Florida A&M at South Alabama · 8:00 PM ET
- Charleston vs UTEP · 8:30 PM ET
- UNC Asheville at Florida St · 9:00 PM ET
- Evansville at Missouri · 9:00 PM ET
- Idaho St at Boise St · 9:00 PM ET
- UNC Greensboro at Santa Barbara · 9:00 PM ET
- Sam Houston at Washington St · 9:00 PM ET
- Grand Canyon vs Saint Louis · 9:30 PM ET
- Baylor vs Alabama · 10:00 PM ET
- Oregon vs St John's · 10:30 PM ET
- Stanford vs Colorado · 11:59 PM ET
- Gonzaga vs Kansas St · 12:30 AM ET
- Bellarmine vs GA Southern · TBD
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.