UMass Lowell vs Stonehill — College Basketball, Nov 26, 2025

UMass Lowell beat Stonehill 75–64 at Stonehill on Nov 26, 2025.

FinalWed, Nov 26

UMass Lowell River Hawks

12-18 · 5-14 on the road

75

Stonehill Skyhawks

9-20 · 5-6 at home

64

RecapPropsStatsHead to head

Line score◷History

Team	1st	2nd	Final
UML	34	41	75
STO	23	41	64

Top performersiEach team's three leading scorers in this game, with rebounds and assists. The full box score is below.◷History

UMass Lowell River Hawks

• Austin GreenF

  14 pts · 6 reb
  6-7 FG
• Xavier SpencerG

  13 pts · 2 reb · 3 ast
  5-14 FG

  1-8 3PT
• Darrel YepdoG

  12 pts · 10 reb · 1 ast · Double-double
  3-10 FG

  2-4 3PT

Stonehill Skyhawks

• Davante HackettG

  15 pts · 8 reb · 1 ast
  5-10 FG

  5-8 3PT
• Hermann KoffiG

  15 pts · 2 reb · 1 ast
  5-18 FG

  2-9 3PT
• Rex SunderlandG

  13 pts · 8 reb · 2 ast
  5-9 FG

  2-5 3PT

Box score◷History

every player+

UML	MIN	PTS	REB	AST	STL	BLK	TO	FG	3PT	FT	+/-
Darrel Yepdo	32	12	10	1	0	0	1	3-10	2-4	4-5	—
Xavier Spencer	30	13	2	3	1	0	0	5-14	1-8	2-4	—
Austin Green	19	14	6	0	0	0	2	6-7	0-0	2-5	—
Shawn Simmons II	16	9	4	3	0	1	1	4-6	1-2	0-0	—
Jared Frey	11	0	2	3	0	1	2	0-3	0-1	0-0	—
Victor Okojie	32	7	12	2	0	0	0	3-6	1-3	0-2	—
Angel Montas Jr.	21	10	4	1	3	0	0	4-9	1-3	1-2	—
Isaiah Walter	20	8	2	0	1	0	0	3-6	1-3	1-3	—
JJ Massaquoi	12	2	0	0	0	0	0	0-1	0-1	2-2	—
Khalil Farmer	7	0	1	0	1	0	0	0-2	0-1	0-2	—
Totals		75	43	13	6	2	6	28-64	7-26	12-25

STO	MIN	PTS	REB	AST	STL	BLK	TO	FG	3PT	FT	+/-
Hermann Koffi	37	15	2	1	0	0	2	5-18	2-9	3-3	—
Rex Sunderland	28	13	8	2	1	0	3	5-9	2-5	1-2	—
Ridvan Tutic	23	2	10	2	0	1	0	1-6	0-0	0-0	—
Raymond Espinal-Guzman	20	4	8	1	0	1	1	2-7	0-1	0-1	—
Chas Stinson	18	4	3	1	2	0	1	2-5	0-0	0-0	—
Pearse McGuinn	30	11	2	1	0	1	1	3-11	2-6	3-3	—
Davante Hackett	25	15	8	1	0	0	0	5-10	5-8	0-0	—
Trenton Ruth	14	0	0	2	1	0	1	0-3	0-1	0-0	—
Cory Lovell	5	0	0	0	0	0	0	0-1	0-1	0-0	—
Totals		64	41	11	4	3	9	23-70	11-31	7-9

Starters first, then by minutes. +/- is the team's point margin while he was on the floor.

Team statsiTeam stats: green marks the better side; a longer bar is a bigger number, not always a better one.◷History

UMLSTO

43.8%

Field goals?Made-attempted: away 28-64, home 23-70.

32.9%

26.9%

Three-pointers?Made-attempted: away 7-26, home 11-31.

35.5%

48.0%

Free throws?Made-attempted: away 12-25, home 7-9.

77.8%

48

Rebounds

45

14

Offensive rebounds

15

13

Assists

11

7

Turnovers?Fewer is better.

9

6

Steals

4

2

Blocks

3

40

Points in the paint

16

10

Fast-break points

4

9

Fouls?Fewer is better.

16

This game's box score totals; green marks the better side (fewer turnovers and fouls are better).

See the model’s call (graded) →

Going into the game · matchup numbers, form, rest+

Offense vs defense: the four factorsiEach offense's league rank against the defense it faces in shooting, turnovers, rebounding and free throws; longer = better.◷History

ranks betterranks worseStronger72+ places apartleague middleLonger bar = better rank of 361 (#1 = best)

UML offensevsSTO defense

UML offense ranks better in 1 of 4 matchups (1 by a clear margin) · STO defense in 3 (2 by a clear margin)

Shooting · effective FG%?Field-goal percentage with threes counted at 1.5; the defense's number is what it allows.

49.8%

#243

48.0%

Stronger#40

Turnovers · per 100 plays?Turnovers the offense commits (fewer is better) and the turnovers the defense forces.

15.5%

#256Stronger

11.8%

#343

Offensive rebounding %?Share of its own misses the offense rebounds; the defense's number is what it allows.

32.7%

#97

27.2%

slight#44

Free throw rate?Free throws made per field-goal attempt; the defense's number is what it allows.

22.9%

#251

20.4%

Stronger#37

STO offensevsUML defense

STO offense ranks better in 0 of 4 matchups · UML defense in 4 (2 by a clear margin)

Shooting · effective FG%?Field-goal percentage with threes counted at 1.5; the defense's number is what it allows.

46.0%

#347

53.5%

slight#281

Turnovers · per 100 plays?Turnovers the offense commits (fewer is better) and the turnovers the defense forces.

16.9%

#326

12.5%

slight#324

Offensive rebounding %?Share of its own misses the offense rebounds; the defense's number is what it allows.

27.3%

#282

29.4%

Stronger#128

Free throw rate?Free throws made per field-goal attempt; the defense's number is what it allows.

18.2%

#357

20.3%

Stronger#34

Season box-score numbers; ranks of 361 teams. A defense ranks well for allowing less and forcing more turnovers.

Key numbers and mismatchesiHeadline ratings, then the biggest mismatches between one team's offense and the other's defense.◷History

UMLSTO

−8.4 287thNet rating?Points scored minus points allowed per 100 possessions302nd −9.7

105.2 264thOffensive rating?Points scored per 100 possessions355th 94.2

113.5 272ndDefensive rating?Points allowed per 100 possessions (rank 1 = allows least)59th 103.9

68.2 180thPace?Possessions per game (rank 1 = fastest)243rd 66.9

Expected pace: about 68 possessions a team (the two teams' average). Rank among 361 teams, 1st = best.

Where one side has the better of it

• 
  UML turnovers

  UML offense 15.5% (256th) vs STO defense allowing 11.8% (343rd)
  +87 spots

ContextiEach team's last ten days going into this game (filled = home, outline = road; travel distance is not tracked)◷History

last 10 days

MTWTFSSMTGame

UML

BRAD

SPU

STO

3 days rest5th straight road game

MTWTFSSMTGame

STO

ISU

LAF

UML

4 days rest

homeroadday offthis gameFrom the schedule; travel distance is not tracked.

UML · last 10

12-18 · 3 days rest

• Nov 22 @ SPUL 66–68
• Nov 19 @ BRADL 77–87
• Nov 16 @ WAKEL 75–109
• Nov 13 @ COLUL 72–86
• Nov 10 vs NHVNL 67–73
• Nov 7 @ CONNL 47–110
• Mar 8 @ ME2024–25L 64–72
• Mar 4 @ ME2024–25L 70–71
• Mar 1 vs BING2024–25W 79–53
• Feb 27 vs BRY2024–25L 78–79

1-9 in these

STO · last 10

9-20 · 4 days rest

• Nov 21 vs LAFW 74–70
• Nov 17 @ ISUL 57–96
• Nov 15 vs L-MDL 63–74
• Nov 14 @ FAIRL 71–73
• Nov 11 @ URIL 57–80
• Nov 7 @ DEPL 64–72
• Mar 5 @ FDU2024–25L 56–71
• Mar 1 vs LEM2024–25W 85–79
• Feb 27 @ FDU2024–25L 69–82
• Feb 22 @ CCSU2024–25L 41–67

2-8 in these

From box scores. Ratings are per 100 possessions (possessions estimated from box scores). Prop lines from DraftKings, FanDuel, BetMGM and Caesars; hit rates are past games against a number, not a forecast or a pick. For information only, not betting advice. 21+ only. Gambling problem? Call or text 1-800-GAMBLER.