|
Automated 2024-25 Game Preview
Fordham 8-9 (0.471) | Atlantic 10
-- AT --
Duquesne 7-9 (0.438) | Atlantic 10
|
|
Includes games through January 11, 2025. Data shown on this page is based on time-dependent ratings.
|
0.333 (242nd)
|
|
0.595 (148th)
|
0.471 (173rd)
|
|
0.503 (129th)
|
-0.056 (203rd)
|
|
-0.071 (210th)
|
199.29 (201st)
|
|
175.80 (174th)
|
-1.35 (247th)
|
|
7.20 (1st)
|
-8.91 (151st)
|
|
-10.24 (282nd)
|
-1.17 (232nd)
|
|
1.55 (107th)
|
69.80 (44th)
|
|
63.81 (345th)
|
|
|
IN POSSESSION
|
FORD
|
DUQ
|
Cat |
Rtg |
Rk |
Rtg |
Rk |
Eff |
101.57 |
250 |
105.62 |
144 |
FTAR |
24.66 |
275 |
32.74 |
328 |
FT% |
72.16 |
180 |
-- |
-- |
FGAR |
86.51 |
166 |
84.21 |
82 |
FG% |
41.74 |
274 |
42.41 |
113 |
3P% |
32.35 |
233 |
36.84 |
318 |
MR% |
38.21 |
282 |
40.83 |
171 |
NP% |
53.88 |
271 |
50.56 |
29 |
PPSt |
15.34 |
55 |
12.22 |
175 |
SCC% |
4.70 |
283 |
4.39 |
52 |
Prox |
2.03 |
174 |
2.05 |
158 |
|
|
IN POSSESSION
|
DUQ
|
FORD
|
Cat |
Rtg |
Rk |
Rtg |
Rk |
Eff |
106.84 |
173 |
108.27 |
198 |
FTAR |
26.49 |
210 |
27.55 |
191 |
FT% |
61.26 |
356 |
-- |
-- |
FGAR |
90.67 |
32 |
85.36 |
122 |
FG% |
42.49 |
238 |
46.30 |
281 |
3P% |
34.76 |
113 |
36.34 |
303 |
MR% |
42.79 |
116 |
44.43 |
278 |
NP% |
54.91 |
242 |
54.34 |
97 |
PPSt |
12.05 |
192 |
14.56 |
308 |
SCC% |
4.86 |
266 |
6.03 |
211 |
Prox |
2.17 |
348 |
1.87 |
364 |
|
|
FORDHAM IN POSSESSION: The Fordham offense appears to be at an analytical disadvantage when matched up against the Duquesne defense. Duquesne is currently 144th in the country in defensive efficiency, while Fordham nationally comes in at #250 in offensive efficiency. | SHOT SELECTION: These two units prefer similar shot locations on this end of the court. The Fordham offense exhibits a slight preference for perimeter shots over inside ones, while the Duquesne defense similarly tends to allow more opportunities from the outside. Against the Duquesne defense, this site projects that the shot makeup of the Fordham offense will be 37.8% three-pointers (0.8% below the D1 average), 28.5% mid-range jumpers (2.0% above the D1 average), and 33.7% near-proximity twos (1.2% below the D1 average). | | SHOOTING PERCENTAGE: Fordham has been a below-average team in floor shooting this season and is ranked #274 in overall field goal conversion rate. Meanwhile, the Duquesne defense has performed a bit better than average in defensive field goal percentage (rated our #113 team nationally in that category). On this end of the court, the Fordham offense has a notable advantage in three-point shooting, while the Duquesne defense has the edge in both mid-range shooting and near-proximity shooting. This site expects Fordham to shoot 34.9% from three (1.4% above the D1 average), 38.3% from the mid-range (2.8% below the D1 average), 46.2% from near-proximity locations (11.2% below the D1 average), and 39.7% overall (4.2% below the D1 average). | | REBOUNDING: Duquesne would appear to have a comfortable rebounding advantage on this end. Fordham is really nothing special on the offensive glass. They are somewhat below-average at turning second-chance opportunities into points (rated 283rd nationally in second-chance conversion percentage). Duquesne, meanwhile, has the markings of a team that's above-average on the defensive glass, and they've likewise been proficient preventing foes from scoring via putbacks (ranked #52 in the NCAA in defensive second-chance conversion rate). | | TURNOVERS: The Duquesne defense has a small advantage over the Fordham offense in the turnover battle on this end. On offense, Fordham isn't the sloppiest team in the world, but they've definitely got some ball-security issues. Their rating for potential quick points allowed off steals is particularly inadequate, as the team places 308th in the nation in that category. As for the opposition, the Duquesne D is neither aggressive nor conservative from a turnovers perspective. | | FREE THROWS: There's a bit of a push here in this category. Fordham is a team that isn't all that great at getting to the charity stripe (275th in the country in free throw attempt rate), though they're more mediocre converting their shots from there (72.2%, 180th in the country). As for the opposition, the Duquesne D sends opposing offenses to the foul line non-stop and ranks 328th nationally in defensive free throw attempt rate. |
DUQUESNE IN POSSESSION: The Duquesne offense appears to have a bit of an edge on the Fordham defense at this end of the floor. This site rates Duquesne to be 173rd in the nation in offensive efficiency, while Fordham is currently our #198 squad in defensive efficiency. | SHOT SELECTION: The shot preferences of these two teams contrast somewhat on this end of the floor. The Duquesne offense leans strongly toward putting up more outside shots, while the Fordham defense conversely tends to give up a few more chances from the paint. Against the Fordham defense, this site forecasts that the shot breakdown of the Duquesne offense will be 36.4% three-pointers (2.2% below the D1 average), 28.6% mid-range jumpers (2.1% above the D1 average), and 35.1% near-proximity twos (0.1% above the D1 average). | | SHOOTING PERCENTAGE: Duquesne rates in the middle of the Division I pack when it comes to floor shooting and is currently ranked #238 in overall field goal conversion rate. The Fordham defense, meanwhile, is currently rated a bit worse than the D1 average in defensive field goal percentage (#281 in the country). On this end of the court, the Duquesne offense has a notable advantage in both three-point shooting and mid-range shooting, while the Fordham defense has the edge in near-proximity shooting. We expect Duquesne to shoot 37.8% from behind the arc (4.3% above the D1 average), 46.1% from mid-range locations (5.1% above the D1 average), 52.7% from near-proximity (4.7% below the D1 average), and 45.4% overall (1.5% above the D1 average). | | REBOUNDING: The rebounding edge doesn't significantly go to either team in this contest. Duquesne lies somewhere in the middle of the D1 pack in the category of offensive rebounding. They are considered to be somewhat below-average in second-chance conversion percentage (nationally rated #266 in that department). The opposition here, Fordham, should be considered slightly inferior in the category of defensive rebounding, but they perform slightly better in defensive second-chance conversion percentage (ranked #211 in that category). | | TURNOVERS: The Fordham defense is likely to force a few takeaways on this end of the floor. When in possession, Duquesne rates somewhat close to the Division I norm when it comes to protecting the basketball. Meanwhile, the Fordham D is probably a bit more aggressive than average in Division I basketball. They rate well in our analytics on this front, landing at #55 in the nation in potential quick points scored off steals and #122 in defensive field goal attempt rate. | | FREE THROWS: This looks to be somewhat of a stalemate. Duquesne obtains a fairly average number of chances from the charity stripe (nationally ranked #210 in free throw attempt rate), though they're absolutely pitiful marksmen from the line (61.3%, ranked #356 in Division I). Meanwhile, the contentious Fordham defense sports a fairly mediocre defensive free throw attempt rate, one that rates 191st in the NCAA this season. |
THE X-FACTORS:
| PACE: We'd forecast a fairly average tempo by Division I standards here. There are contrasting tastes between these two units. Fordham (44th in the country in game pace) prefers more of an up-and-down game, while Duquesne (345th) is happy to put the brakes on if need be. | | AWAY/HOME COURT: Duquesne may exceed expectations here, as their performances at home have been, on average, superior to their performances away from home. | | MOMENTUM: Duquesne appears to have a noteworthy momentum advantage. They come into this game playing above their norm (first in the country in positive momentum), while Fordham (247th) has been more inefficient than normal in recent contests. | | CONSISTENCY: Duquesne is one of Division I's more erratic squads, ranking 282nd in the country in consistency. Fordham places closer to the middle of the pack in this category. |
THE VERDICT: We like Duquesne here, but don't count Fordham out entirely. They'll have a fighting chance. Duquesne 73.98, Fordham 65.44. |
|
|
|