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.

Detroit

2024 · evaluation season · nil-value-v3 · Team results

Roster valuesβ

Roster values for Detroit, 2024: 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
Marcus Tankersley88.7%-2.6range -3.5 to -1.7Sufficient evidence+1.1range +0.8 to +1.5Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Jayden Stone74.8%-1.8range -2.7 to -1.0Sufficient evidence+1.2range +0.9 to +1.5Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Edoardo Del Cadia67.5%-2.5range -3.6 to -1.4Sufficient evidence+0.9range +0.6 to +1.3Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Kyle LeGreair52.1%-3.5range -4.7 to -2.3Sufficient evidence+0.5range +0.2 to +0.9Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Mak Manciel50.4%-3.6range -4.9 to -2.0Sufficient evidence+0.5range +0.2 to +0.8Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Emmanuel Kuac32.8%-1.6range -2.9 to -0.3Sufficient evidence+0.6range +0.4 to +0.7Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Abdullah Olajuwon28.0%-1.7range -2.6 to -0.7Sufficient evidence+0.5range +0.3 to +0.6Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Jamail Pink23.0%-3.2range -4.1 to -2.2Sufficient evidence+0.3range +0.1 to +0.4Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Tyree Davis21.4%-0.9range -2.0 to +0.2Sufficient evidence+0.4range +0.3 to +0.5Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Donovann Toatley20.4%-2.6range -3.8 to -1.5Sufficient evidence+0.3range +0.2 to +0.4Sufficient evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Trenton Johnson9.7%-0.5range -1.2 to +0.0Limited evidence+0.2range +0.2 to +0.3Limited evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Tobin Schwannecke8.6%+0.5range -0.2 to +1.1Limited evidence+0.2range +0.2 to +0.3Limited evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Oton Jankovic7.8%-3.1range -4.1 to -2.0Limited evidence+0.1range +0.1 to +0.1Limited evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Ryan Hurst7.8%-0.7range -1.1 to -0.2Limited evidence+0.2range +0.1 to +0.2Limited evidenceNone: no budget that season—
Michael Oaks6.1%Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidenceNot applicableNone: no budget that season—
Jonathan Ammori1.0%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

28 of 32 games passed lineup acceptance (88%). 100% of accepted on-court possessions are bound to registered players.

  • 4 of 32 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
2 days6
3 or more days25

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 games6

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