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.

New Mexico St

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

Roster valuesβ

Roster values for New Mexico 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
Deshawndre Washington86.3%-0.5range -0.7 to -0.3Limited evidence+2.2range +1.9 to +2.5Limited evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Xavier Pinson81.5%+0.9range -0.1 to +1.8Limited evidence+2.5range +2.1 to +2.9Limited evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Issa Muhammad76.8%+1.2range +0.4 to +2.0Limited evidence+2.5range +2.1 to +2.9Limited evidenceNone: no budget that season—
DaJuan Gordon71.7%-0.4range -1.1 to +0.5Limited evidence+1.9range +1.5 to +2.3Limited evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Marchelus Avery54.1%-0.2range -0.8 to +0.4Limited evidence+1.5range +1.3 to +1.7Limited evidenceNone: no budget that season—
James Beck34.2%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidenceNot applicableNone: no budget that season—
Doctor Bradley27.4%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidenceNot applicableNone: no budget that season—
Kyle Feit27.4%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidenceNot applicableNone: no budget that season—
Anthony Roy18.7%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidenceNot applicableNone: no budget that season—
Mike Peake13.6%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidenceNot applicableNone: no budget that season—
Mady Traore8.3%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

5 of 21 games passed lineup acceptance (24%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.

  • 16 of 21 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 day2
2 days2
3 or more days16

Rest is capped at three days. Descriptive count.

Load summary

Mean games in prior 7 days1.4
Games with fewer rest days than the opponent1
Longest run of consecutive away games3

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