Who will win Wright St vs Samford?
The model gives Wright State a 62% chance to beat Samford, with a projected score of Wright St 80, Samford 77. The spread is Wright St −1.5, with an over/under of 156.5. The model makes it Wright St by 3.7, 2.2 points toward Wright St, and projects 157 total points.
Half of games like thisFour in five
Calls of 60–70% have been right 64.8% of the time in 15,721 past games, and the typical miss on the margin is 8.8 points. After the final, the result is pinned to this strip. As of 2:23 AM ET on November 13, 2026. Updated three times a day until tip-off.
Players to watch
| Player | Pts | Reb | Ast | Last games | Chance of |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 Wright St | |||||
| PangonisG · 32 min | 14.2 | 3.4 | 1.8 | 15+ 44% | |
| PickettF · 30 min | 13.4 | 7.2 | 1.6 | 15+ 39% | |
| O'HaraG · 30 min | 13.0 | 3.9 | 1.6 | 15+ 37% | |
| HoldenG · 23 min | 12.8 | 7.2 | 1.5 | 15+ 35% | |
 Samford | |||||
| NoardG · 30 min | 15.5 | 3.4 | 1.9 | 15+ 52% | |
| NorrisG · 30 min | 12.3 | 4.1 | 2.6 | 10+ 64% | |
| ShaverC · 23 min | 9.9 | 6.3 | 1.2 | 10+ 47% | |
| Campbell-FinchG · 27 min | 9.6 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 10+ 45% | |
Bars: points in the player's latest games this season. Blue line: tonight's projection. Every regular's line
The game without one player
Without Kellen Pickett: Wright St 55%Samford 45%
The white mark is the call with him: Wright St 62%.
| Player | Points a game he adds | Wright St without him | Change | Projected score |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Wright St | ||||
| Kellen Pickett | 2.3 | 55% | −7 | 79–78 |
| Andrea Holden | 2.0 | 56% | −6 | 79–78 |
| C.J. O'Hara | 1.9 | 56% | −6 | 80–78 |
| Dominic Pangonis | 1.4 | 58% | −4 | 80–77 |
| Samford | ||||
| Cooper Noard | 2.1 | 69% | +7 | 81–76 |
| Ty Davis | 0.7 | 65% | +3 | 81–76 |
Change is in Wright St's win chance, in points. Scores read Wright St, then Samford. A player's value is what the team is better by with him than with a replacement, from the player ratings.
Model against the line
| Spread | Over/under | |
|---|---|---|
| Line | Wright St −1.5 | 156.5 |
| Model | Wright St −3.7 | 157.2 |
| Gap | 2.2 toward Wright St | 0.7 higher |
A gap is a difference of opinion, not a tip. When the model and the line have been 2 or more points apart, the model's side has covered 51.6% of 3,317 games. This season the model's side has covered 163 of 337 spreads (48%); over 11,507 games in the last two seasons it covered 50.6%. It takes about 52.4% to break even at standard odds. Scorecard
Your call
All of today's gamesPlay-by-play
Team numbers
Form
The spread and the total are the lines logged with each prediction. Form is what happened; the ratings above already count recent games more.
Offense against defense
| Wright St | Samford | |
|---|---|---|
| Points scored per 100 possessions | 112.0 75th | 105.8 147th |
| Points allowed per 100 | 106.1 131st | 109.6 212th |
| Possessions a game | 70.8 184th | 71.2 133rd |
| Shooting (effective field-goal %) | 54.6% 9th | 51.1% 138th |
| Opponents' shooting | 48.1% 38th | 50.6% 194th |
| Turnovers, share of possessions | 18.5% 235th | 17.0% 71st |
| Offensive rebounds, share of misses | 33.9% 65th | 29.6% 303rd |
| Free throws per shot | 0.29 62nd | 0.26 186th |
The widest gap: Wright St's offense (75th) against Samford's defense (212th), of 365 teams.
First half
- Projected halftime score
- Wright St 38, Samford 36
- First-half margin
- Wright St by 2.0
- First-half points, both teams
- 73.8
- Projected second half
- Wright St 43, Samford 41
- Second-half points, both teams
- 83.4
- Tied at the half
- 4%
- Wright St, first halves so far
- Led 3 of 3 · 47.7 scored, 30.0 allowed
- Samford, first halves so far
- Led 1 of 2 · 42.5 scored, 36.5 allowed
Our own projection, not a sportsbook's first-half line. On 11,516 past games it had not seen, the halftime leader was right 67.2% of the time and the first-half total was off by 8.1 points on average. This season: 366 of 476 halftime leaders right. Scorecard
Player projections
Wright St
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dominic PangonisG | 32 | 14.2 | 3.4 | 1.8 | 1.6 |
| 15+ pts 44% · 2+ ast 50% · 2+ threes 43% | |||||
| C.J. O'HaraG | 30 | 13.0 | 3.9 | 1.6 | 0.8 |
| 15+ pts 37% · 4+ reb 51% · 1+ threes 51% | |||||
| Kellen PickettF | 30 | 13.4 | 7.2 | 1.6 | 0.9 |
| 15+ pts 39% · 7+ reb 54% · 2+ ast 45% | |||||
| Chadlyn TraylorG | 27 | 9.4 | 2.0 | 3.7 | 1.0 |
| 46% to play · 10+ pts 43% · 2+ reb 55% · 4+ ast 48% | |||||
| Noah LewisF | 23 | 11.2 | 4.8 | 1.5 | 0.3 |
| 10+ pts 57% · 5+ reb 50% · 2+ ast 41% | |||||
| Andrea HoldenG | 23 | 12.8 | 7.2 | 1.5 | 0.4 |
| 15+ pts 35% · 7+ reb 55% · 2+ ast 43% | |||||
| Ilija MilijasevicG | 21 | 7.9 | 2.1 | 1.8 | 1.5 |
| 10+ pts 33% · 2+ reb 55% · 2+ ast 51% | |||||
| Isaiah WilliamsG | 17 | 5.8 | 2.7 | 1.3 | 0.4 |
| 5+ pts 54% · 3+ reb 46% · 2+ ast 35% | |||||
Missed the last game: Chadlyn Traylor (30 min a game).
Samford
| Player | Min | Pts | Reb | Ast | 3s |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cooper NoardG | 30 | 15.5 | 3.4 | 1.9 | 2.2 |
| 15+ pts 52% · 4+ reb 43% · 2+ ast 52% | |||||
| Cade NorrisG | 30 | 12.3 | 4.1 | 2.6 | 1.0 |
| 10+ pts 64% · 4+ reb 55% · 3+ ast 46% | |||||
| Isaiah Campbell-FinchG | 27 | 9.6 | 1.4 | 1.5 | 0.9 |
| 10+ pts 45% · 2+ ast 42% · 1+ threes 56% | |||||
| Ty DavisG | 26 | 5.7 | 3.2 | 3.1 | 0.4 |
| 5+ pts 53% · 3+ reb 56% · 3+ ast 56% | |||||
| Will ShaverC | 23 | 9.9 | 6.3 | 1.2 | 0.5 |
| 10+ pts 47% · 7+ reb 44% · 1+ threes 40% | |||||
| Najimi GeorgeG | 15 | 5.3 | 1.9 | 0.7 | 0.6 |
| 5+ pts 49% · 2+ reb 52% · 1+ threes 43% | |||||
| Brandon FussellG | 12 | 3.1 | 1.4 | 0.7 | 0.5 |
| 5+ pts 26% · 2+ reb 37% · 1+ threes 38% | |||||
| Braeden MacVicarF | 12 | 3.8 | 3.0 | 0.3 | 0.8 |
| 5+ pts 33% · 3+ reb 54% · 1+ threes 51% | |||||
Our own projections from each player's minutes and production, this opponent and the game's pace: not a sportsbook's lines. Under each name, the round numbers the player is about as likely as not to reach. How they have done
Win probability
Game chat
Loading the chat…