Hannes Steinbach
Washington · 2025–26 · 30 available game logs · Speculative compensation · Model-implied values by season · Linked seasons and observed career performance
Logged performance
1038:30 minutes logged
- Games logged
- 30
- Minutes per game
- 34:37
- Points per game
- 18.5
- Rebounds / assists per game
- 11.8 / 1.6
| Basis | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Per game | 18.5 | 11.8 | 1.6 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 2.0 | 2.4 |
| Per 40 minutes | 21.4 | 13.6 | 1.8 | 1.2 | 1.4 | 2.3 | 2.7 |
| Season totals | 556 | 353 | 47 | 32 | 37 | 59 | 71 |
| Shot | Made–att. | Pct | Att/G | Att/40 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| FG | 209–362 | 57.7% | 12.1 | 13.9 |
| 2P | 191–309 | 61.8% | 10.3 | 11.9 |
| 3P | 18–53 | 34.0% | 1.8 | 2.0 |
| FT | 120–158 | 75.9% | 5.3 | 6.1 |
| eFG% | Estimated TS% | 3PA / FGA | FTA / FGA | AST / TO |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 60.2% | 64.4% | 14.6% | 43.6% | 0.80 |
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 compensation · 2025–26β
Washington · Power 4 · 2025–26 · a best guess at this player's part of the school's own revenue-sharing budget for men's basketball.
- Speculative best guess
- $940K
- 80% range $575K to $1.60M
- Median share of team pool
- 25.5%
- team pool $3.55M, 80% range $2.60M to $4.95M
- Across scenarios Z1 to Z4
- $940K in all four
- the elasticity disagreement is carried, not resolved
- Floor part
- $25K
- shared by every player with possessions
- Possession share
- 80.2%
- Sufficient evidence
Speculative best guess, not observed pay. It is not a contract, not an offer and not a market price, and it is unvalidated: no pay is held to check it against. Point is the median and the range is the 10th to 90th percentile of 4,000 joint draws of budget and player value; a mixture of assumptions, not a calibrated interval.
Budget anchor. House-settlement $20.5M cap (College Sports Commission, 2026-10-01) times a modelled utilisation of about 97 percent times a men's basketball share of about 18 percent (school statements and an industry study); Power 4 schools are at or near the cap nationally.
Assumptions. modelled pool; split by possession share times value over replacement; convexity; shared floor; replacement level; four elasticity scenarios; closure to the national total; opt-out list; exclusions. Each is a declared judgement, not an estimate. Numbers, anchors and checks
Not included. Third-party and collective NIL deals, including deals cleared through NIL Go. Non-cash benefits such as scholarship, cost of attendance, Alston awards and housing. Bonuses and incentive terms. Anything outside the school's own revenue-sharing channel.
Washington: whole-roster table and pool · School finances (school-reported) · What-if calculator for this player
No revenue-sharing budget existed before the 2025–26 season, so no compensation figure is modelled for earlier seasons.
What-If Calculator · Speculativeβ
Re-runs the 4,000 joint draws with your inputs. The address saves your inputs.
Model-implied value and speculative compensation by seasonβ
| Season | Team | Speculative compensation (best guess) | Compensation 80% range | Split role | Net | Range | Evidence | Range graphic. Position on one axis | Offense | Defense | Wins above replacement | On-court possessions | Sample and flags |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026 | Washington | $940Kspeculative | $575K to $1.60M | descriptive: not used in fit or gates | +4.3 | +3.2 to +5.2 | Sufficient evidence | +2.4 | +1.9 | +7.0range +6.4 to +7.5 | 3,524 | Season detail |
Open circle: limited evidence. Filled circle: sufficient evidence. Vertical line: zero. This table makes no claim about change over time, so it has no change column or trend. Seasons 2011 to 2017 have a point value but no range, so none is shown. Compensation exists for 2025–26 only; earlier rows say that no budget existed. NIL methodology · Compensation methodology
Game log
| Measure | Graphic | Last five | Listed games | Range |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Minutes | 36:25 | 34:37 | 22:24–42:46 | |
| Points | 21.0 | 18.5 | 10.0–29.0 | |
| Game eFG% | 67.8% | 61.9% | 18.8%–91.7% |
| Date | Opponent | Result | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | Stl | Blk | TO | PF | FG | 3P | FT | eFG |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2026-03-12 | Wisconsin | L 82–85 | 38:09 | 25 | 16 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 10-19 | 1-6 | 4-6 | 55.3% |
| 2026-03-11 | Southern California | W 83–79 | 42:46 | 10 | 11 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 4-10 | 1-2 | 1-2 | 45.0% |
| 2026-03-07 | Oregon | L 79–85 | 30:02 | 26 | 13 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 4 | 9-11 | 2-3 | 6-6 | 90.9% |
| 2026-03-04 | Southern California | W 91–72 | 38:28 | 22 | 24 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 9-12 | 0-0 | 4-5 | 75.0% |
| 2026-02-28 | Wisconsin | L 73–90 | 32:42 | 22 | 11 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 8-11 | 0-1 | 6-9 | 72.7% |
| 2026-02-24 | Rutgers | W 79–72 | 37:45 | 24 | 16 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 3 | 9-13 | 0-2 | 6-7 | 69.2% |
| 2026-02-21 | Maryland | L 60–64 | 37:30 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 7-8 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 87.5% |
| 2026-02-14 | Minnesota | W 69–57 | 39:33 | 26 | 9 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 12-17 | 0-0 | 2-3 | 70.6% |
| 2026-02-11 | Penn St. | L 60–63 | 38:48 | 19 | 14 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 6-12 | 1-2 | 6-8 | 54.2% |
| 2026-02-07 | UCLA | L 73–77 | 37:17 | 13 | 7 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 5 | 4 | 5-7 | 0-0 | 3-5 | 71.4% |
| 2026-02-04 | Iowa | L 74–84 | 38:47 | 20 | 12 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 8-13 | 0-2 | 4-5 | 61.5% |
| 2026-01-31 | Northwestern | W 76–62 | 38:41 | 22 | 14 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2 | 8-13 | 3-4 | 3-3 | 73.1% |
| 2026-01-29 | Illinois | L 66–75 | 38:15 | 15 | 12 | 0 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 6-10 | 1-3 | 2-2 | 65.0% |
| 2026-01-25 | Oregon | W 72–57 | 32:13 | 10 | 13 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3-16 | 0-1 | 4-6 | 18.8% |
| 2026-01-21 | Nebraska | L 66–76 | 31:57 | 21 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 3 | 3 | 7-12 | 2-2 | 5-8 | 66.7% |
| 2026-01-17 | Michigan St. | L 63–80 | 38:22 | 17 | 9 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 6-14 | 0-2 | 5-7 | 42.9% |
| 2026-01-14 | Michigan | L 72–82 | 25:44 | 11 | 14 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 4 | 5-14 | 0-2 | 1-1 | 35.7% |
| 2026-01-11 | Ohio St. | W 81–74 | 35:06 | 21 | 9 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 9-19 | 0-3 | 3-3 | 47.4% |
| 2026-01-07 | Purdue | L 73–81 | 29:39 | 17 | 4 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 2 | 3 | 7-11 | 1-3 | 2-4 | 68.2% |
| 2026-01-04 | Indiana | L 80–90 | 35:22 | 20 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 6-9 | 0-2 | 8-9 | 66.7% |
| 2025-12-29 | Utah | W 74–65 | 37:30 | 20 | 11 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 4 | 1 | 6-11 | 0-2 | 8-9 | 54.5% |
| 2025-12-22 | San Diego | W 86–56 | 27:09 | 21 | 14 | 1 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 6-13 | 1-2 | 8-10 | 50.0% |
| 2025-12-19 | Seattle U | L 66–70 | 36:46 | 15 | 12 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 3 | 5-13 | 1-3 | 4-6 | 42.3% |
| 2025-12-13 | Southern Utah | W 105–69 | 22:24 | 14 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 7-9 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 77.8% |
| 2025-12-06 | Southern California | W 84–76 | 38:11 | 24 | 16 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 7-12 | 2-3 | 8-10 | 66.7% |
| 2025-12-03 | UCLA | L 80–82 | 32:36 | 29 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 11-12 | 0-0 | 7-8 | 91.7% |
| 2025-11-14 | Washington St. | W 81–69 | 31:15 | 14 | 13 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 5-11 | 1-2 | 3-5 | 50.0% |
| 2025-11-09 | Baylor | L 69–78 | 31:46 | 10 | 15 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 4-7 | 0-0 | 2-3 | 57.1% |
| 2025-11-06 | Denver | W 84–70 | 34:57 | 13 | 16 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 5-12 | 0-0 | 3-5 | 41.7% |
| 2025-11-03 | Ark.-Pine Bluff | W 94–50 | 28:50 | 21 | 7 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 2 | 9-11 | 1-1 | 2-3 | 86.4% |