Stonehill

12-21

GAME THAT MATTERSAT

13.9%Stonehill

86.1%Notre Dame

MMH WIN PROBABILITY

MODEL SPREADNotre Dame -11.2

PROJECTED TOTAL143.0

MODEL MONEYLINENotre Dame -619

Notre Dame

13-17

MMH MODEL PROJECTION

Projected ScoreStonehill 66

Projected Total143.0

Projected ScoreNotre Dame 77

Team Comparison

StonehillMetricNotre Dame

37.9MMH Power Index49.7

97.5Offensive Efficiency110.3

100.7Defensive Efficiency111.2

-3.2Net Efficiency-0.9

-5.4Strength of Schedule4.7

-3.4Last 10 Net Efficiency-11.6

68.1Tempo68.0

48.0%Effective FG%53.0%

19.1%Turnover Rate17.0%

28.4%Offensive Rebound %31.4%

29.2%Free Throw Rate34.7%

-2.2Average Margin-0.6

MMH GAME INTELLIGENCE

MODEL READ

Notre Dame HAS THE EDGE

WIN PROBABILITY86.1%

STATISTICAL ADVANTAGE

9–2

MMH comparison metrics

WHERE THE EDGE COMES FROMNotre Dame holds the advantage in MMH Power Index (49.7–37.9), offensive efficiency (110.3–97.5), net efficiency (-0.9–-3.2), strength of schedule (4.7–-5.4).

Stonehill COUNTERS WITHdefensive efficiency (100.7–111.2), recent form (-3.4–-11.6).

Final

Stonehill

60—89

Notre Dame

Notre Dame by 29 • 68.1 estimated possessions

Team Stats

StonehillTEAM STATNotre Dame

17-56FG31-61

30.0%FG%51.0%

11-313PT11-23

35.0%3PT%48.0%

15-18FT16-22

83.0%FT%73.0%

23Rebounds50

7Offensive Rebounds17

12Assists14

10Turnovers14

9Steals5

6Blocks1

20Fouls16

Player Box Score

Stonehill

Player	Pos	Min	FG	3PT	FT	REB	AST	STL	BLK	PTS
Todd Brogna	F	25	3-5	2-2	8-9	4	2	0	0	16
Louie Semona	F	29	4-11	3-9	0-1	2	0	0	0	11
Ethan Meuser	F	22	4-8	3-6	0-0	5	1	3	2	11
Josh Morgan	Guard	24	1-7	1-4	5-6	1	1	0	0	8
Hermann Koffi	G	29	2-5	2-3	0-0	1	1	1	0	6
Amir Nesbitt	Guard	24	3-10	0-3	0-0	2	3	4	0	6
Chas Stinson	G	28	0-5	0-1	2-2	4	1	0	4	2
Christopher Melis	Forward	12	0-2	0-0	0-0	1	2	1	0	0
Alex Bates IV	Guard	7	0-3	0-3	0-0	1	1	0	0	0

Notre Dame

Player	Pos	Min	FG	3PT	FT	REB	AST	STL	BLK	PTS
Markus Burton	G	32	6-17	2-6	4-4	3	5	1	0	18
Braeden Shrewsberry	G	28	6-9	4-5	2-2	4	1	1	1	18
Matt Allocco	Guard	24	3-3	2-2	2-2	3	2	1	0	10
Kebba Njie	F	19	4-5	0-0	1-1	10	0	0	0	9
Tae Davis	F	18	2-6	0-1	5-7	5	1	1	0	9
J.R. Konieczny	F	15	2-5	1-2	1-4	2	1	0	0	6
Sir Mohammed	G	17	2-7	0-3	1-2	6	3	0	0	5
Logan Imes	G	15	2-2	1-1	0-0	2	0	0	0	5
Nikita Konstantynovskyi	Forward	13	2-3	0-0	0-0	6	0	0	0	4
Burke Chebuhar	Forward	5	1-2	1-2	0-0	1	0	0	0	3
Garrett Sundra	F	2	1-1	0-0	0-0	0	0	0	0	2
Julian Roper II	Guard	10	0-1	0-1	0-0	2	1	1	0	0
Cole Certa	G	2	0-0	0-0	0-0	1	0	0	0	0

Advanced Game Stats

68.1Possessions68.1

88.1Offensive Efficiency130.7

130.7Defensive Efficiency88.1

-42.6Net Efficiency42.6

40.2%Effective FG%59.8%

46.5%True Shooting %62.3%

14.8%Turnover Rate20.5%

32.1%Free Throw Rate36.1%

55.4%3-Point Rate37.7%

1.20Assist / Turnover1.00

Game Summary

Notre Dame won by 29 points. The game played at approximately 68.1 possessions. The largest advanced-stat separations came in Net Efficiency, Offensive Efficiency, Defensive Efficiency.

Advanced game metrics are calculated by Mid-Major Hoops from team box-score totals. Possessions are estimated. Highlighted advanced values indicate the stronger result for that metric; lower is better for defensive efficiency and turnover rate.