Stonehill vs Quinnipiac — College Basketball, Nov 30, 2025

Quinnipiac beat Stonehill 76–62 at home on Nov 30, 2025.

FinalSun, Nov 30

Stonehill Skyhawks

9-20 · 4-14 on the road

62

Quinnipiac Bobcats

18-13 · 9-6 at home

76

RecapPropsStatsHead to head

Line score◷History

Team	1st	2nd	Final
STO	32	30	62
QUIN	41	35	76

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

Stonehill Skyhawks

• Raymond Espinal-GuzmanF

  17 pts · 6 reb
  6-13 FG

  3-5 3PT
• Hermann KoffiG

  15 pts · 4 reb
  6-11 FG

  3-5 3PT
• Davante HackettG

  13 pts · 9 reb · 2 ast
  6-20 FG

  1-8 3PT

Quinnipiac Bobcats

• Jaden ZimmermanG

  22 pts · 2 reb · 1 ast
  7-12 FG

  3-5 3PT
• Amarri MonroeF

  18 pts · 7 reb · 1 ast · 5 stl
  9-16 FG

  0-2 3PT
• Asim JonesG

  18 pts · 3 reb · 4 ast
  7-15 FG

  2-3 3PT

Box score◷History

every player+

STO	MIN	PTS	REB	AST	STL	BLK	TO	FG	3PT	FT	+/-
Raymond Espinal-Guzman	38	17	6	0	0	2	4	6-13	3-5	2-4	—
Davante Hackett	38	13	9	2	2	0	2	6-20	1-8	0-0	—
Hermann Koffi	33	15	4	0	0	0	1	6-11	3-5	0-0	—
Rex Sunderland	31	3	4	2	0	0	3	1-6	0-5	1-2	—
Chas Stinson	30	7	11	5	1	2	3	3-6	0-0	1-2	—
Trenton Ruth	12	4	2	1	1	0	2	2-5	0-1	0-0	—
Pearse McGuinn	9	0	1	1	0	0	0	0-1	0-0	0-0	—
Anthony Holden	5	3	0	0	0	0	0	1-2	1-2	0-0	—
Cory Lovell	4	0	0	0	1	0	0	0-0	0-0	0-0	—
Totals		62	37	11	5	4	15	25-64	8-26	4-8

QUIN	MIN	PTS	REB	AST	STL	BLK	TO	FG	3PT	FT	+/-
Jaden Zimmerman	37	22	2	1	1	1	4	7-12	3-5	5-6	—
Amarri Monroe	32	18	7	1	5	1	1	9-16	0-2	0-0	—
Asim Jones	31	18	3	4	1	1	1	7-15	2-3	2-2	—
Grant Randall	27	6	4	0	1	0	0	2-5	1-3	1-2	—
Spence Wewe	12	0	3	0	0	2	1	0-1	0-0	0-0	—
Keith McKnight	21	4	5	2	1	0	0	1-5	0-0	2-2	—
Nate Guerengomba	15	0	2	1	1	0	1	0-0	0-0	0-0	—
Tai Turnage	11	5	3	0	1	1	0	2-5	1-2	0-0	—
Samson Reilly	9	3	0	0	0	0	0	1-2	1-1	0-0	—
Sam Nosakhare	3	0	0	0	1	0	1	0-0	0-0	0-0	—
Ronell Giles Jr.	2	0	0	0	0	0	0	0-0	0-0	0-0	—
Totals		76	29	9	12	6	9	29-61	8-16	10-12

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

STOQUIN

39.1%

Field goals?Made-attempted: away 25-64, home 29-61.

47.5%

30.8%

Three-pointers?Made-attempted: away 8-26, home 8-16.

50.0%

50.0%

Free throws?Made-attempted: away 4-8, home 10-12.

83.3%

37

Rebounds

29

14

Offensive rebounds

7

11

Assists

9

15

Turnovers?Fewer is better.

10

5

Steals

12

4

Blocks

6

28

Points in the paint

42

3

Fast-break points

21

11

Fouls?Fewer is better.

14

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)

STO offensevsQUIN defense

STO offense ranks better in 0 of 4 matchups · QUIN defense in 4 (3 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

48.9%

Stronger#66

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

16.9%

#326

15.1%

Stronger#132

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

27.3%

#282

32.0%

slight#249

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

18.2%

#357

22.4%

Stronger#83

QUIN offensevsSTO defense

QUIN 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.

48.2%

#307

48.0%

Stronger#40

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

13.6%

#99Stronger

11.8%

#343

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

34.1%

#64

27.2%

slight#44

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

23.4%

#236

20.4%

Stronger#37

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

STOQUIN

−9.7 302ndNet rating?Points scored minus points allowed per 100 possessions140th +2.2

94.2 355thOffensive rating?Points scored per 100 possessions241st 106.5

103.9 59thDefensive rating?Points allowed per 100 possessions (rank 1 = allows least)63rd 104.3

66.9 243rdPace?Possessions per game (rank 1 = fastest)97th 69.6

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

• 
  QUIN turnovers

  QUIN offense 13.6% (99th) vs STO defense allowing 11.8% (343rd)
  +244 spots

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

last 10 days

FSSMTWTFSGame

STO

LAF

UML

QUIN

3 days rest

FSSMTWTFSGame

QUIN

PITT

UCF

STO

4 days rest

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

STO · last 10

9-20 · 3 days rest

• Nov 26 vs UMLL 64–75
• 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

2-8 in these

QUIN · last 10

18-13 · 4 days rest

• Nov 25 @ UCFL 91–102
• Nov 23 @ PITTW 83–75
• Nov 16 @ MEW 70–64
• Nov 11 vs YALEL 60–97
• Nov 6 vs CCSUW 71–49
• Nov 3 @ SJUL 74–108
• Mar 14 vs IONA2024–25L 73–81
• Mar 12 vs RID2024–25W 78–64
• Mar 8 @ FAIR2024–25L 74–83
• Mar 6 vs MSM2024–25W 79–70

5-5 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.