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.

Wright St

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

Roster valuesβ

Roster values for Wright 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
Trey Calvin86.1%+0.6range -0.5 to +1.8Sufficient evidence+4.3range +3.4 to +5.2Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Tim Finke85.3%+0.1range -1.0 to +1.3Sufficient evidence+3.9range +3.1 to +4.8Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Brandon Noel72.9%-0.1range -1.3 to +1.1Sufficient evidence+3.2range +2.4 to +4.0Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Alex Huibregtse59.7%+0.7range -0.4 to +1.8Sufficient evidence+3.0range +2.4 to +3.6Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
AJ Braun52.1%+0.8range -0.3 to +1.8Sufficient evidence+2.7range +2.1 to +3.2Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Keaton Norris46.1%-1.7range -2.9 to -0.5Sufficient evidence+1.5range +1.1 to +2.0Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Amari Davis44.0%-1.0range -2.2 to +0.4Sufficient evidence+1.7range +1.2 to +2.2Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Andrew Welage42.5%+3.3range +1.8 to +4.8Sufficient evidence+2.9range +2.4 to +3.4Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Blake Sisley9.7%-0.3range -1.3 to +0.7Limited evidence+0.4range +0.3 to +0.5Limited evidenceNone: no budget that season—
C.J. Wilbourn0.9%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidenceNot applicableNone: no budget that season—
Andy Neff0.7%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

25 of 31 games passed lineup acceptance (81%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.

  • 6 of 31 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 days9
3 or more days19

Rest is capped at three days. Descriptive count.

Load summary

Mean games in prior 7 days1.5
Games with fewer rest days than the opponent2
Longest run of consecutive away games5

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