This is a real report. The names just aren’t.
Everything on these pages — every grade, every ranking, every projection — is actual certified data from a real Division I program’s incoming transfer class. We’ve retracted the player names, schools, and conferences to protect that team’s identity and their competitive edge. What you’re looking at is the engine, not their roster.
The headline finding from this sample: the player everyone was planning the offense around graded third on his own incoming class. The possessions, not the press release, told that story — and that’s the kind of edge a staff gets before the first practice instead of discovering it in January.
Take ten minutes with the pages that follow. Then ask yourself one question: do you know this much about the players you just brought in?
— The Possession Report, powered by PBiR
| PLAYER | POS · SIZE · CLASS | PREVIOUS PROGRAM | CERTIFIED RECORD |
|---|---|---|---|
| Player A | SAMPLE DATA | Mid-Major A (Mid-Major A) | 33/34 cert · 31 played |
| SAMPLE DATA | Mid-Major B (Mid-Major B) | 29/33 cert · 28 played | |
| Player C | SAMPLE DATA | Mid-Major C (Mid-Major C) | 30/32 cert · 30 played |
| Player D | SAMPLE DATA | Mid-Major D (Mid-Major D) | 29/34 cert · 29 played |
| Player E | SAMPLE DATA | Mid-Major E (Mid-Major E) | 29/31 cert · 29 played |
| Player F | SAMPLE DATA | Mid-Major F (Mid-Major F) | 33/35 cert · 31 played |
| Player G | SAMPLE DATA | Mid-Major B (Mid-Major B) | 34/34 cert · 34 played |
| Player H | SAMPLE DATA | Mid-Major G (Mid-Major G) | 28/32 cert · 17 played |
| Player I | SAMPLE DATA | Mid-Major H (Mid-Major H) | 29/31 cert · 28 played |
| Player J | SAMPLE DATA | High-Major (High-Major) | 40/40 cert · 14 played |
| PLAYER (PREV.) | GP | SEASON PBiR | PER GAME | PER MIN | LED TEAM | NEG. GAMES | HI / LO |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Player A (Mid-Major A) | 31 | +1,020 | +32.9 | +1.06 | 20 | 0 | +61 / +5 |
| (Mid-Major B) | 28 | +627 | +22.4 | +0.76 | 13 | 0 | +64 / +3 |
| Player C (Mid-Major C) | 30 | +471 | +15.7 | +0.86 | 3 | 2 | +40 / -4 |
| Player D (Mid-Major D) | 29 | +404 | +13.9 | +0.44 | 7 | 3 | +34 / -4 |
| Player E (Mid-Major E) | 29 | +391 | +13.5 | +0.41 | 6 | 4 | +40 / -10 |
| Player F (Mid-Major F) | 31 | +345 | +11.1 | +0.57 | 4 | 7 | +60 / -11 |
| Player G (Mid-Major B) | 34 | +231 | +6.8 | +0.18 | 3 | 9 | +41 / -17 |
| Player H (Mid-Major G) | 17 | +55 | +3.2 | +0.12 | 0 | 6 | +15 / -17 |
| Player I (Mid-Major H) | 28 | +47 | +1.7 | +0.08 | 0 | 14 | +18 / -13 |
| Player J (High-Major) | 14 | -6 | -0.4 | -0.17 | 0 | 4 | +2 / -5 |
| THE FINDING | THE EVIDENCE | WHAT IT MEANS FOR THE STAFF |
|---|---|---|
| 1. Player A is the jewel | +32.9/gm · 0 negative games · led his prior school 20 of 31 · +1.06/min | A floor-never-cracks season as a freshman — build the interior around him, not behind him |
| 2. is the steal | +22.4/gm · 0 negative games · led his prior school 13 times | The quietest signing certifies second in the class — play him early and often |
| 3. Player D certifies as volume | 20.6 ppg → +13.9/gm, +0.44/min, 3 negative nights | A good player, honestly graded — a weapon in the offense, not the engine of it |
| 4. Player C's rate is real | limited minutes — but +0.86/min, 2nd-best in the class | The center answer may already be on the roster; the minutes were the limit, not the player |
| 5. Player G is a swing piece | +41 high, −17 low, 9 negative games | Elite shooting nights and real cold ones — manage him, don't depend on him |
| PLAYER (LEAGUE) | LEAGUE RANK | PLAYERS HE FACED | LEAGUE PBiR/GM | BETTER THAN |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Player A (Mid-Major A) | #2 | 74 | +34.6 | 99% of them |
| (Mid-Major B) | #8 | 73 | +20.4 | 90% of them |
| Player C (Mid-Major C) | #9 | 52 | +20.3 | 85% of them |
| Player D (Mid-Major D) | #20 | 92 | +14.6 | 79% of them |
| Player E (Mid-Major E) | #16 | 61 | +11.9 | 75% of them |
| Player F (Mid-Major F) | #15 | 54 | +12.1 | 74% of them |
| Player G (Mid-Major B) | #29 | 68 | +8.8 | 59% of them |
| Player H (Mid-Major G) | #34 | 56 | +3.0 | 41% of them |
| Player I (Mid-Major H) | #49 | 55 | +2.2 | 13% of them |
| THE PATTERN | THE CERTIFIED SPLIT | WHAT THE STAFF DOES WITH IT |
|---|---|---|
| Player D is a closer | within game: 1st half +2.2 → 2nd half +11.7 PBiR per game | The data shows ~84% of his nightly impact lands after halftime — the numbers point to a second-half producer |
| The backcourt closes | Player E: 1st half +4.6 → 2nd half +8.7 · Player G: 1st half +0.7 → 2nd half +6.1 (PBiR per game) | The data shows both guards nearly double their impact after halftime — a certified finishing pair |
| Player A is a metronome | within game: 1st half +16.5, 2nd half +16.3 · across season: 1st half +31.9 → 2nd half +33.9 | The numbers show no fade in either split — the data points to a player you can leave on the floor |
| Player C was a rocket in flight | season halves: first half +8.9 → second half +22.5 · Jan onward +20.3 PBiR/gm | The data shows his per-game impact climbing all season — the trajectory points up, not flat |
| ’s load flag | season halves: first half +29.3 → second half +15.5 PBiR/gm (carried his prior school’s usage) | The numbers show a second-half-of-season dip that tracks with his heavy usage — the data flags load, not decline |
| Value beyond the scoreboard | in losses: Player A still +23.4 · Player E +21.7 in wins vs +8.4 in losses (PBiR/gm) | The data shows one holds his number regardless of result; the other’s rises with the team |
| THE UNIT | CERTIFIED PROFILE | THE READ |
|---|---|---|
| The frontcourt | Player A + + Player C + Player F = +2,463 combined | The quiet shock of the class: 69% of its certified impact lives up front — the opposite of the "guards-and-shooting" headline |
| The backcourt | Player D + Player E + Player G + Player I = +1,073 | Real and varied — a scorer, a steady two-way, a swing shooter, a connector — but the certified engine room is not out here |
| The wild cards | Player J, , , Player H — thin or no certified samples | Four bets on development — named as bets, which is what an honest intake does |
| THE HOLE | THE CERTIFIED EVIDENCE | THE MITIGATION ON THE ROSTER |
|---|---|---|
| Proven ACC-level size | Every certified season came against mid-major length; Player C's sample is one limited year | Player A's glass dominance is the most level-portable skill in the class — and Player C's rate earns the experiment |
| The primary ballhandler | No certified season here profiles as a lead guard's; Player I's connector sample is thin, Player D is a scorer | Player E's two-way steadiness is the bridge; the freshman class and Player J's passing book are the upside bets |
| Shooting reliability | Player G's 9 negative games; Player D' volume profile; class-wide 3-point counts modest outside those two | Volume exists — the question is variance. Roles, not talent, are the lever |
| Certified experience together | Ten programs, ten systems, zero shared possessions — the one thing no engine can grade yet | An older roster by design: five seniors/grads who've started over before |
| WHAT TO ANTICIPATE | THE BASIS | CONFIDENCE READ |
|---|---|---|
| Player A arrives ready | 0 negative games · +1.06/min as a freshman | Floor-based traits travel best across levels — the strongest pattern in the class |
| outplays his billing | +22.4/gm, never negative, led his team 13 times | Consistency at his size is system-independent |
| The frontcourt leads the team | 69% of the class's certified impact is up front | Strong — unless minutes are allocated to the headlines instead of the possessions |
| Player D' efficiency dips before his value does | volume profile vs new length; +0.44/min baseline | The shots get harder in the ACC; the playmaking growth (4.7 apg) is the adaptation path |
| Player G swings games both ways | +41 / −17 band, 9 negative nights | The variance is the most stable thing about him — plan rotations for it |
| The five spot stays the watch item | Player C's elite rate on a thin sample | The bet is honest and worth making — with Player F and Player A as the hedge |
Here's the truth of the class you built, every possession graded. Ten new players, ten prior programs, three hundred fourteen certified games — all of them measured by one engine, one yardstick, so for the first time this class can actually be compared.
The headline finding: your crown jewel is Player A. The his prior school freshman put up a season the engine almost never sees — thirty-three a night of certified impact, led his team twenty times, and not one negative game all year. And the steal is — twenty-two a night, led his prior school thirteen times, and he never graded negative either. Two floor-never-cracks seasons in one portal haul.
Player D — the name everybody knows — certifies as a real weapon, honestly priced: fourteen a night of impact, not twenty. Player C's minutes were limited but his rate was second-best in the class — the center answer may already be in the building. Player G swings, Player E steadies, Player F insures, and the thin samples are told as thin samples, because that's the product.
The bottom line: the press conference sold a backcourt. The possessions bought a frontcourt. Sixty-nine percent of this class's certified impact lives up front — and knowing that in June, before the first practice, is the whole reason this report exists.
| PLAYER | GAMES CERTIFIED | PLAYED | CERTIFIED PBiR | PER GAME | WITHHELD |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Player A | 33/34 | 31 | +1,020 | +32.9 | 1 |
| 29/33 | 28 | +627 | +22.4 | 4 | |
| Player C | 30/32 | 30 | +471 | +15.7 | 2 |
| Player D | 29/34 | 29 | +404 | +13.9 | 5 |
| Player E | 29/31 | 29 | +391 | +13.5 | 2 |
| Player F | 33/35 | 31 | +345 | +11.1 | 2 |
| Player G | 34/34 | 34 | +231 | +6.8 | — |
| Player H | 28/32 | 17 | +55 | +3.2 | 4 |
| Player I | 29/31 | 28 | +47 | +1.7 | 2 |
| Player J | 40/40 | 14 | -6 | -0.4 | — |