Jabril Durham

Arkansas · 20 available appearances · 2016–2016 · Linked seasons and observed career performance

Available player-season logs · Partial career coverage

Logged performance

542:05 minutes logged

Games logged: 20
Minutes per game: 27:06
Points per game: 5.9
Rebounds / assists per game: 3.1 / 6.3

Box line on three bases
Basis	Pts	Reb	Ast	Stl	Blk	TO	PF
Per game	5.9	3.1	6.3	1.1	0.1	1.8	2.3
Per 40 minutes	8.7	4.6	9.3	1.6	0.1	2.7	3.3
Season totals	118	62	126	22	1	36	45

Shooting with attempts
Shot	Made–att.	Pct	Att/G	Att/40
FG	35–100	35.0%	5.0	7.4
2P	25–59	42.4%†	3.0	4.4
3P	10–41	24.4%†	2.0	3.0
FT	38–47	80.9%	2.4	3.5

Derived rates (computed here from the box line, not published statistics)
eFG%	Estimated TS%	3PA / FGA	FTA / FGA	AST / TO
40.0%	48.9%	41.0%	47.0%	3.50

Accepted logged appearances only; absent games are not zeroes. † marks a rate on fewer attempts than the floor (field goal 100, three-point 50, free throw 25). Floors are descriptive, not model output. Definitions

Speculative compensationβ

No revenue-sharing budget existed before the 2025–26 season, so no compensation figure is modelled for earlier seasons. The logs on this page are from seasons before 2025–26. A speculative best guess with an 80% range exists for 2025–26 only, for players on a modelled team; this player's by-season table below shows it for 2025–26 if one is published, and the linked athlete page has the full card.

Model-implied value and speculative compensation by seasonβ

No model-implied value is published for this player: fewer than 300 on-court possessions in every season, or the team’s games were outside the lineup audit.

Seasons played, with no model-implied value published
Season	Team	Speculative compensation (best guess)	Compensation 80% range	Split role	Value
2016	Not applicable	training: in model fit	No model-implied value is published.

NIL methodology

Game log

Trend over the 20 listed games, oldest to newest. Horizontal position follows the date. Minutes and points start at zero; game eFG% scales to its own range. Each row has its own vertical scale, so compare the printed values, not the graphics. Faint line: five-game rolling mean.
Measure	Last five	Listed games	Range
Minutes	26:14	27:06	17:20–35:47
Points	6.2	5.9	0.0–17.0
Game eFG%	36.8%	37.8%	0.0%–75.0%

Game log, box line per game. eFG% is computed for the game from field goals and three-pointers; it is blank without a field-goal attempt.
Season and date	Opponent	Result	Min	Pts	Reb	Ast	Stl	Blk	TO	PF	FG	3P	FT	eFG
2016 · 2016-03-02	Alabama	W 62–61	29:49	0	3	3	0	0	1	2	0-1	0-1	0-0	0.0%
2016 · 2016-02-27	Tennessee	W 75–65	22:58	6	5	3	0	0	0	2	2-4	1-3	1-2	62.5%
2016 · 2016-02-23	LSU	W 85–65	24:30	3	6	6	0	0	0	1	1-4	1-2	0-0	37.5%
2016 · 2016-02-20	Missouri	W 84–72	27:40	17	4	6	2	0	0	2	5-11	3-6	4-6	59.1%
2016 · 2016-02-06	Tennessee	W 85–67	26:13	5	3	4	0	1	3	1	1-6	1-6	2-2	25.0%
2016 · 2016-01-30	Texas Tech	W 75–68	33:09	8	2	5	1	0	4	2	2-4	0-1	4-4	50.0%
2016 · 2016-01-27	Texas A&M	W 74–71	28:24	3	2	7	1	0	3	3	1-2	1-1	0-0	75.0%
2016 · 2016-01-23	Georgia	L 73–76	18:49	5	3	6	1	0	1	5	1-4	1-3	2-2	37.5%
2016 · 2016-01-21	Kentucky	L 66–80	23:19	3	2	5	0	0	0	2	1-5	0-1	1-2	20.0%
2016 · 2016-01-16	LSU	L 74–76	23:48	7	0	6	1	0	1	4	3-6	0-1	1-1	50.0%
2016 · 2016-01-02	Texas A&M	L 69–92	17:20	4	1	5	0	0	2	2	2-5	0-1	0-0	40.0%
2016 · 2015-12-30	Dayton	L 81–85	30:12	12	2	5	1	0	4	2	2-5	0-0	8-9	40.0%
2016 · 2015-12-22	North Florida	W 97–72	23:30	2	2	7	2	0	1	2	1-3	0-0	0-0	33.3%
2016 · 2015-12-12	Tennessee Tech	W 83–57	24:03	4	5	10	1	0	2	2	2-5	0-2	0-0	40.0%
2016 · 2015-12-01	Northwestern LA	W 117–78	27:37	14	2	10	5	0	1	1	4-8	1-3	5-6	56.3%
2016 · 2015-11-27	Stanford	L 66–69	35:47	2	2	7	0	0	2	2	1-8	0-2	0-0	12.5%
2016 · 2015-11-26	Georgia Tech	L 73–83	32:58	5	5	6	1	0	2	2	2-6	0-3	1-3	33.3%
2016 · 2015-11-20	Charleston So	W 93–75	27:54	7	4	11	0	0	3	2	1-4	0-1	5-6	25.0%
2016 · 2015-11-18	Akron	L 80–88	28:58	4	5	4	1	0	0	4	0-3	0-2	4-4	0.0%
2016 · 2015-11-13	Southern Univ	W 86–68	35:07	7	4	10	5	0	6	2	3-6	1-2	0-0	58.3%

Secondary NCAA-derived SportsDataverse archive; reconstructed player statistics. Corroborated against Kaggle dates, participants, scores and overtime; incomplete identity coverage is retained.