Detroit Mercy

Horz · 2025–26 · Raw net rank 232 · Raw net -3.5 · Tempo 69.7 · 30 Division I games · Through 2026-03-10

Record: 15–15; 15 wins
AdjNet: -4.0β; rank 228 of 365
AdjO: 107.5β; rank 191 of 365
AdjD: 111.4β; rank 257 of 365
AdjT: 69.5β
SOS: -1.1β; rank 202 of 363
NCSOS: 6.7β
WAB: -8.8β; rank 204 of 363
RR: 1.7β
Exp. W: 13.3β

Scouting Report

Scouting report with national ranks
Category	Offense	Defense	D-I Average
Efficiency
Efficiency / 100 poss.	109.4147	112.9287	108.5
Four Factors
Effective FG%	49.5267	52.2223	51.4
TO / 100 poss.	16.0143	14.4324	16.7
Offensive rebound %	33.381	30.8194	30.6
FTA / FGA %	32.6247	37.6254	35.0
Shooting
3P%	35.1108	33.3139	33.9
2P%	48.1308	53.8270	51.7
FT%	78.94	71.9150	72.5
Style
3PA / FGA %	30.7	42.6	39.5
Assists / FGM %	48.5	58.3	52.6
Blocks / opp. 2PA %	9.5	8.0	9.5
Point Distribution
3-pointers %	26.0	32.4	31.4
2-pointers %	53.4	47.0	48.8
Free throws %	20.6	20.6	19.8

Best · Median · Worst · Mark: further right is a better national rank, of 365 teams.

Rotation Depth

Effective Rotation Size: 9.6
Top Three Share of Minutes: 41%
Bench Share of Minutes: 37%
Players with Logged Minutes: 14

Bench: players outside the top five in minutes. Definitions

Schedule and Results

Schedule and results
Date	Opponent	Result	Poss.	Site	Record
11-03	UIC	L 71–91	79.3	Away	0–1
11-07	Notre Dame	L 70–102	76.1	Away	0–2
11-15	Toledo	L 83–90	76.2	Away	0–3
11-18	Eastern Mich.	L 62–72	69.7	Home	0–4
11-21	Michigan St.	L 56–84	68.6	Away	0–5
11-23	DePaul	L 75–95	67.2	Away	0–6
11-29	Niagara	W 70–66	65.5	Away	1–6
12-03	IU Indy	W 92–78	71.1	Home	2–6
12-06	Cleveland St.	W 71–59	63.3	Away	3–6
12-14	Purdue Fort Wayne	L 77–81	68.2	Away	3–7
12-29	Youngstown St.	W 73–68	69.7	Away	4–7
01-02	Robert Morris	L 77–85	68.3	Home	4–8
01-09	Wright St.	L 82–84	70.5	Home	4–9
01-11	Cleveland St.	W 94–84	75.6	Home	5–9
01-15	Northern Ky.	L 71–96	75.0	Away	5–10
01-17	IU Indy	W 80–77	75.0	Away	6–10
01-21	Purdue Fort Wayne	L 76–83	72.0	Home	6–11
01-24	Oakland	L 87–95	69.1	Home	6–12
01-30	Northern Ky.	W 90–77	70.6	Home	7–12
02-04	Milwaukee	W 76–63	63.9	Away	8–12
02-07	Green Bay	L 63–76	66.5	Away	8–13
02-12	Wright St.	W 77–74	66.2	Away	9–13
02-15	Youngstown St.	W 76–70	71.5	Home	10–13
02-20	Milwaukee	W 91–86	70.2	Home	11–13
02-22	Green Bay	W 74–70	69.0	Home	12–13
02-25	Robert Morris	L 62–73	63.6	Away	12–14
02-28	Oakland	W 95–89	72.1	Away	13–14
03-04	Milwaukee	W 84–63	67.2	Home	14–14
03-09	Robert Morris	W 70–64	63.0	Neutral	15–14
03-10	Wright St.	L 63–66	68.2	Neutral	15–15

Roster · 14 players

Player logs in 30 of 30 team games

Team roster, per game
Column groups	Minutes			Per Game							Shooting									Last Five Team Games
Player	G	MPG	Team Min%	Pts	Reb	Ast	Stl	Blk	TO	PF	2P	2P%	3P	3P%	FT	FT%	eFG%	TS%	FTA/FGA	G	MPG	Min%	Pts/G
Orlando Lovejoy	30	31:17	78.2%	16.0	3.6	3.7	1.6	0.1	2.0	2.1	165–351	47.0%	4–27	14.8%†	139–156	89.1%	45.2%	53.8%	41.3%	5	35:20 +4:02	88.3%	21.6 +5.6
TJ Nadeau	29	26:55	65.1%	13.5	3.1	1.1	0.6	0.2	1.0	2.4	69–137	50.4%	65–140	46.4%	58–68	85.3%	60.1%	63.7%	24.5%	5	30:35 +3:40	76.4%	17.0 +3.5
Tyler Spratt	30	24:24	61.0%	10.1	3.5	1.5	0.7	0.3	0.9	2.2	45–99	45.5%	53–137	38.7%	53–65	81.5%	52.8%	57.1%	27.5%	5	28:04 +3:40	70.1%	8.6 −1.5
Legend Geeter	28	25:38	59.8%	8.4	6.5	2.4	0.6	0.3	1.6	2.6	75–143	52.4%	9–32	28.1%†	58–83	69.9%	50.6%	55.6%	47.4%	5	30:26 +4:48	76.1%	10.8 +2.4
Ryan Kalambay	30	20:25	51.0%	4.3	5.4	0.5	0.8	1.4	0.6	2.3	49–84	58.3%†	0–0	—	30–42	71.4%	58.3%†	62.5%†	50.0%†	5	30:28 +10:03	76.2%	5.4 +1.1
Lance Stone	30	20:13	50.6%	6.6	1.1	1.9	0.3	0.0	1.1	1.2	27–92	29.3%	32–94	34.0%	49–57	86.0%	40.3%	47.1%	30.6%	5	22:37 +2:24	56.5%	6.0 −0.6
London Maiden	29	15:36	37.7%	6.5	3.0	0.4	0.2	0.2	1.1	2.5	76–134	56.7%	0–0	—	36–56	64.3%	56.7%	59.3%	41.8%	5	11:35 −4:01	29.0%	4.0 −2.5
Nate Johnson	24	9:36	19.2%	2.1	1.8	0.4	0.3	0.1	0.5	1.1	16–48	33.3%†	4–21	19.0%†	7–10	70.0%†	31.9%†	34.7%†	14.5%†	5	5:34 −4:02	13.9%	0.8 −1.3
Jared Lary	24	9:10	18.3%	2.3	1.6	0.6	0.2	0.2	0.7	1.3	13–40	32.5%†	6–22	27.3%†	11–15	73.3%†	35.5%†	40.1%†	24.2%†	—	—	—	—
Keshawn Fisher	18	10:49	16.2%	4.6	2.0	0.7	0.3	0.3	1.1	1.4	20–46	43.5%†	11–36	30.6%†	10–12	83.3%†	44.5%†	47.5%†	14.6%†	—	—	—	—
Je'kel Cotton	26	6:53	14.9%	2.0	2.2	0.2	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.9	9–21	42.9%†	10–37	27.0%†	4–8	50.0%†	41.4%†	42.3%†	13.8%†	5	4:44 −2:08	11.8%	0.6 −1.4
Ayden CarterFew games	8	21:06	14.1%	11.9	3.9	1.4	1.1	0.1	2.1	1.8	34–53	64.2%†	4–18	22.2%†	15–19	78.9%†	56.3%†	59.9%†	26.8%†	—	—	—	—
Xavier Istomin-Monroe	17	7:54	11.2%	1.6	1.5	0.1	0.0	0.4	0.5	0.6	13–22	59.1%†	0–0	—	2–7	28.6%†	59.1%†	55.8%†	31.8%†	1	1:39 −6:15	0.8%	0.0 −1.6
Zak AbdallaFew gamesUnder 100 minutes	2	0:50	0.1%	0.0	0.0	0.0	0.5	0.0	0.0	0.0	0–1	0.0%†	0–0	—	0–0	—	0.0%†	0.0%†	0.0%†	—	—	—	—
Team, games with logs · per game	30 games			76.3	36.7	13.1	not published	3.3	11.2	not published	611–1271	48.1%	198–564	35.1%	472–598	78.9%	49.5%	54.5%	32.6%
Sum of players				76.3	33.4	13.1	5.8	3.3	10.8	19.4	Shooting residuals: see Player Lines Against Team Totals.
Residual: team minus players				0.0	+3.3	0.0	not published	0.0	+0.4	not published

G: logged games. Team Min%: share of team minutes on court (40 per game plus overtime). 2P, 3P and FT show made–attempted. † Few attempts: under 100 FGA, 50 3PA or 25 FTA. Few G: under 10 games. <100 min: under 100 minutes. Last Five Team Games columns show change from the season value and hide on narrow screens.

Speculative Compensation · 2025–26β

Estimated share of the school's revenue-sharing budget for men's basketball. Not observed pay.

Team Pool: $200K; 80% Range $72K to $525K
Tier: Low and other; low evidence
Team Pool, Scenarios Z1 to Z4: $180K to $265K; Scenario medians
Players with Figures: 14; 1 floor only

The widest scenario range, $100K to $700K, is wider than the 80% Range above (soft check S5). Methodology

Players in possession-share order
Player	Poss. Share	Speculative Best Guess	80% Range	Median % of Team Pool	Scenarios Z1 to Z4	Floor Part	Evidence and Flags
Orlando Lovejoy	78.9%	$24K	$4K to $75K	14.5%	$22K to $32K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
TJ Nadeau	65.1%	$18K	$3K to $60K	11.5%	$17K to $25K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Tyler Spratt	61.4%	$21K	$5K to $65K	12.1%	$20K to $29K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Legend Geeter	59.1%	$22K	$5K to $66K	11.9%	$20K to $30K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ryan Kalambay	50.1%	$45K	$13K to $160K	20.1%	$40K to $60K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Lance Stone	50.0%	$11K	$1K to $41K	7.5%	$10K to $15K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
London Maiden	39.0%	$9K	$1K to $32K	6.0%	$8K to $12K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Nate Johnson	19.8%	$3K	$1K to $12K	1.9%	$3K to $4K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Jared Lary	18.4%	$3K	$1K to $10K	1.1%	$2K to $3K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Keshawn Fisher	16.7%	$5K	$1K to $16K	3.0%	$4K to $6K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Je'kel Cotton	15.1%	$3K	$1K to $12K	2.3%	$3K to $5K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Ayden Carter	15.1%	$4K	$1K to $13K	2.4%	$3K to $5K	$1K	Sufficient evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Xavier Istomin-Monroe	11.2%	$3K	$1K to $11K	2.1%	$3K to $5K	$1K	Limited evidenceRange driven by assumption, not data
Zak Abdalla	0.2%	$1K	$0 to $4K	0.7%	$1K to $2K	$1K	Floor only: below 300 possessions, no value estimateRange driven by assumption, not data
Team Pool	—	$200K	$72K to $525K	100%	$180K to $265K	—

What-If Calculator · Speculativeβ

Re-runs the 4,000 joint draws with your inputs. The address saves your inputs.

School Finances · School-Reported (EADA)

Self-reported to the U.S. Department of Education. Expenses cover coaching, travel, aid and operations, not player pay.

School-reported finances, 2024-25, University of Detroit Mercy (NCAA Division I without football)
Measure	School-Reported Amount	Note
Men's basketball revenue	$3,100,195
Men's basketball expenses	$3,090,652
Athletics department expenses	$14,112,173
Athletics department revenue	$14,894,727

Team Totalsβ

Season per game, 30 games, 2,092 possessions. Observed box-score sums, unadjusted. Definitions

Team and opponent season totals
Statistic	Team	Opponents
Points	76.3	78.7
Field goals made	27.0	27.0
Field goals attempted	61.2	59.9
3-pointers made	6.6	8.5
3-pointers attempted	18.8	25.5
Free throws made	15.7	16.2
Free throws attempted	19.9	22.5
Offensive rebounds	12.0	11.0
Defensive rebounds	24.7	24.0
Total rebounds	36.7	35.0
Assists	13.1	15.7
Blocks	3.3	3.4
Turnovers	11.2	10.0
Steals	No team figure. Players sum to 173.
Personal fouls	No team figure. Players sum to 582.
Minutes (derived)	200.0	not published

30 of 30 games have player logs. Residual is team total minus sum of players. Team rebounds and team turnovers have no player owner, so a residual is expected. Definitions

Player lines against team totals
Statistic	Status	Team Total, Logged Games	Sum of Players	Residual	Tolerance	Team Total, Games Without Logs
Points	Reconciled	2,288	2,288	0	±11.4	0
Field goals made	Reconciled	809	809	0	±4.0	0
Field goals attempted	Reconciled	1,835	1,835	0	±9.2	0
3-pointers made	Reconciled	198	198	0	±2.0	0
3-pointers attempted	Reconciled	564	564	0	±2.8	0
Free throws made	Reconciled	472	472	0	±2.4	0
Free throws attempted	Reconciled	598	598	0	±3.0	0
Offensive rebounds	No player split	not published	not published	not published	not published	not published
Defensive rebounds	No player split	not published	not published	not published	not published	not published
Total rebounds	Residual shown	1,100	1,001	+99	±88.0	0
Assists	Reconciled	392	392	0	±2.0	0
Blocks	Reconciled	98	98	0	±2.0	0
Turnovers	Residual shown	335	324	+11	±10.0	0
Steals	No team figure	not published	173	not published	not published	not published
Personal fouls	No team figure	not published	582	not published	not published	not published
Minutes (derived)	Reconciled	6,000	5,970	+30.2	±120.0	0

Model-Implied Player Valueβ

Ranges are the 10th to 90th percentile of whole-game resampling draws. They are not calibrated intervals.

Open circle: limited evidence. Filled circle: sufficient evidence. Line: zero. No graphic: insufficient evidence.

Net points per 100 possessions, in possession-share order.
Player	Poss. Share	Net and Rangeβ
Orlando Lovejoy	78.9%	+0.3range -0.7 to +1.4Sufficient evidence
TJ Nadeau	65.1%	+0.1range -1.0 to +1.1Sufficient evidence
Tyler Spratt	61.4%	+0.5range -0.5 to +1.6Sufficient evidence
Legend Geeter	59.1%	+0.5range -0.5 to +1.7Sufficient evidence
Ryan Kalambay	50.1%	+3.0range +1.6 to +4.4Sufficient evidence
Lance Stone	50.0%	-0.6range -1.8 to +0.9Sufficient evidence
London Maiden	39.0%	-0.4range -1.7 to +0.9Sufficient evidence
Nate Johnson	19.8%	-2.0range -3.2 to -0.5Sufficient evidence
Jared Lary	18.4%	-2.7range -3.5 to -1.8Sufficient evidence
Keshawn Fisher	16.7%	-0.3range -1.5 to +0.8Sufficient evidence
Je'kel Cotton	15.1%	-0.9range -1.8 to -0.1Sufficient evidence
Ayden Carter	15.1%	-0.8range -1.5 to +0.1Sufficient evidence
Xavier Istomin-Monroe	11.2%	-0.5range -1.4 to +0.4Limited evidence
Zak Abdalla	0.2%	Fewer than 300 on-court possessions; no value is estimated. Insufficient evidence

Team Aggregate of Player Values, 2026β

Summary of the player values below. Split role: descriptive: not used in fit or gates. Model nil-value-v3. Definitions · NIL Methodology

Average value over five on-court slots, net points per 100 possessions: +9.6range +8.8 to +10.5Sufficient evidence

200 joint draws. The range is the 10th to 90th percentile. Player ranges cannot be added.

13 valued players hold 100.0% of on-court time. 1 without a value (under 300 possessions) holds 0.0%, counted at replacement level -9.5. Limited-evidence players hold 2.2%.

NIL Methodology · Scheduling and Model-Implied Value