Algosys College Basketball

Search teams and players

Type a team or player name. Results are alphabetical; players show their 2026 team. Up and Down move, Enter opens the highlighted result or the first one, Esc closes.

Michigan St

2023 · evaluation season · nil-value-v3 · Team results

Roster valuesβ

Roster values for Michigan St, 2023: retrospective net points per 100 possessions and, for 2025–26 only, a speculative compensation best guess. Players are listed by possession share, not by value or dollars.
PlayerPossession shareNet and rangeWins above replacement and rangeSpeculative compensation (best guess)Compensation 80% range
Tyson Walker83.9%+1.0range -0.2 to +2.1Sufficient evidence+5.0range +4.1 to +5.7Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Joey Hauser83.1%+2.6range +1.3 to +3.6Sufficient evidence+5.9range +5.1 to +6.7Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
A.J. Hoggard76.4%+3.2range +1.9 to +4.7Sufficient evidence+5.9range +5.0 to +6.8Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Jaden Akins64.1%+2.0range +0.8 to +3.1Sufficient evidence+4.3range +3.6 to +4.9Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Mady Sissoko53.6%+2.7range +1.7 to +3.9Sufficient evidence+3.9range +3.3 to +4.5Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Malik Hall44.7%+1.4range -0.0 to +2.9Sufficient evidence+2.8range +2.3 to +3.5Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Pierre Brooks27.9%-0.1range -1.1 to +1.3Sufficient evidence+1.4range +1.1 to +1.8Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Jaxon Kohler26.3%-0.2range -1.6 to +1.0Sufficient evidence+1.3range +1.0 to +1.6Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Tre Holloman20.3%-0.8range -1.8 to -0.0Sufficient evidence+0.9range +0.7 to +1.1Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Carson Cooper13.9%+0.1range -0.8 to +1.0Limited evidence+0.7range +0.6 to +0.9Limited evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Jason Whitens4.0%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidenceNot applicableNone: no budget that season—
Davis Smith1.1%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidenceNot applicableNone: no budget that season—
Steven Izzo0.3%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidenceNot applicableNone: no budget that season—
Nick Sanders0.3%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidenceNot applicableNone: no budget that season—

Ranges are the 10th to 90th percentile of whole-game resampling draws. They are not calibrated intervals. Compensation is a speculative best guess of a share of the school's own revenue-sharing budget, not observed pay.

Coverage and exclusions

30 of 34 games passed lineup acceptance (88%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.

  • 4 of 34 audited games did not pass lineup acceptance; per-game reasons are counted for the whole season (see methodology), not per team

Program revenueβ

No program revenue was published for this team.

Schedule loadβ

Counts are descriptive and associational, with neutral formatting. Consecutive away games is the only travel proxy; distance, time zones and injuries are not modeled.

Rest days before each game

Rest daysGames
First game (no rest value)1
1 day1
2 days2
3 or more days30

Rest is capped at three days. Descriptive count.

Load summary

Mean games in prior 7 days1.5
Games with fewer rest days than the opponent0
Longest run of consecutive away games2

Association between rest and margin, all teams

Pooled association passes the declared test (gate S1); not causal and not specific to this team · 0.86 points of margin associated with each extra rest day, range +0.33 to +1.41

This is an association, not a causal lever, pooled across Division I and not specific to this team.

Manifest 13921361a27d · NIL methodology