Haslametrics.com

Automated Team Capsule for 2016-17 Cincinnati 30-6 (0.833) | American

All-Play Percentage: 0.957 (16^th)	Schedule Strength: 0.625 (81^st)	Record Quality: 0.449 (16^th)	Avg. Season Rank: 16.11 (14^th)
Pace: 66.11 (331^st)	Momentum: -1.55 (245^th)	Off. Momentum: 2.10 (85^th)	Def. Momentum: -3.65 (328^th)
Consistency: -10.89 (339^th)	Res. Consistency: -12.13 (236^th)	Away From Home: -2.18 (326^th)	Paper Tiger Factor: -3.32 (322^nd)

NOTE: All data below reflects predicted performance against the "AO" (average opponent), a fictitious opponent who represents the average in every stat category.
Hover over column headers or visit "ABOUT" page for an explanation of each measurement.
Includes games through April 3, 2017. Data shown on this page is based on time-independent ratings.

OFFENSE

Eff

FTAR

FT%

FGAR

FG%

3PAR

3P%

MRAR

MR%

NPAR

NP%

PPSt

PPSC

SCC%

%3PA

%MRA

%NPA

Prox

RATING:

113.65

29.91

69.13

87.53

47.02

30.27

35.19

32.61

41.53

24.65

68.83

13.09

16.27

8.63

34.58

37.26

28.16

2.06

RANK:

30^th

72^nd

212^th

3^rd

53^rd

154^th

171^st

6^th

10^th

310^th

8^th

42^nd

82^nd

29^th

222^nd

21^st

334^th

262^nd

DEFENSE

Eff

FTAR

FT%

FGAR

FG%

3PAR

3P%

MRAR

MR%

NPAR

NP%

PPSt

PPSC

SCC%

%3PA

%MRA

%NPA

Prox

RATING:

90.37

22.01

82.98

38.31

31.16

33.58

25.87

32.40

25.95

49.87

7.93

13.62

4.76

37.55

31.18

31.28

2.06

RANK:

14^th

20^th

231^st

8^th

256^th

78^th

263^rd

26^th

75^th

3^rd

12^th

118^th

16^th

236^th

259^th

57^th

72^nd

ANALYSIS:
When listing some of the better squads you will find in NCAA basketball this year, one can definitely make a case for Cincinnati. Their record this season is 30-6, and the club is ranked 16th overall (out of 351) in Haslametrics' most recent ratings. They are also ranked by this site as the #2 team (out of 11) in the AAC (average ranking 117.5).

Preferring a more deliberate, half-court style of play (the 21st-slowest pace in D1), Cincinnati is one of the most menacing defensive teams in the country. Ranked 14th in defensive efficiency, they will allow fewer than 91 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Cincinnati will take a bite out of many opponents' shooting percentages, based on the fact that the team ranks in the top-50 in three of our four primary defensive field goal categories. They're most likely to shut you down inside the three-point arc, considering the team limits AO to converting just 32.4% of their mid-range jumpers (26th in the nation), 49.9% of their near-proximity chances (third), and 38.3% of their total shots from the field (eighth). Cincinnati also does a fantastic job to prevent opposing teams from capitalizing on chances from offensive rebounds. The squad allows AO to convert only 4.8% of all second-chance opportunities (ranked 16th in the NCAA). Cincinnati is lastly a superior unit when it comes to preventing opponents from getting to the foul line. With a defensive free throw attempt rate of 22.01 vs. AO, they are currently rated 20th in the country in that category.

Cincinnati plays at about the same level on offense as they do on defense. The team ranks 30th nationally in offensive efficiency, scoring about 114 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Cincinnati is one of the very best when it comes to maximizing field goal opportunities. The team is ranked third in the NCAA in offensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of 87.53 vs. AO. And when they do shoot, they make a fair portion of their shots. Ranked in the top-75 in field goal shooting percentage, the squad converts about 47.0% of their total attempts vs. AO. Cincinnati is also one of the nation's most effective teams finishing close to the iron. The team is ranked eighth in the country in near-proximity field goal percentage, making approximately 68.8% of their attempts from up-close vs. AO. However, considering their success when shooting from the inside, this team is oddly much more likely to shoot from long-distance. Only 28.2% of the team's field goal attempts vs. AO are from up-close (the 18th-lowest percentage nationally). Cincinnati is lastly superb at converting jumpers in between the three-point stripe and the low post. The squad is ranked tenth nationally in mid-range field goal percentage, making about 41.5% of their attempts from those locations vs. AO.

Cincinnati has been one of the most erratic teams in college basketball this year (currently ranked 339th overall in consistency), which makes the outcomes of their future games far more difficult to predict. When playing on the road, Cincinnati performs somewhat worse than they normally do on their home court. The club is nationally ranked 326th in our site's away-from-home metric.

SORTABLE SCHEDULE / RESULTS:


					ADJ. OFF. EFFICIENCY			ADJ. DEF. EFFICIENCY
Date	Opponent	Should	Did	Record	Should	Did	Diff.	Should	Did	Diff.	Rating
Fri 11/11/2016	vs Brown₂₇₂	W 86.41 - 58.50	W 84-55	1-0	123.20	120.01	▼ 3.19	87.63	76.29	▲ 11.34	▲ 8.15
Mon 11/14/2016	vs Albany₁₁₈	W 73.05 - 56.23	W 74-51	2-0	113.96	109.85	▼ 4.11	91.51	81.53	▲ 9.98	▲ 5.87
Sat 11/19/2016	vs URI₄₄ *	W 68.05 - 62.77	L 71-76	2-1	105.31	114.12	▲ 8.81	97.36	122.16	▼ 24.80	▼ 15.99
Sun 11/20/2016	vs Penn State₉₆ *	W 73.62 - 60.99	W 71-50	3-1	108.20	100.00	▼ 8.20	90.16	58.33	▲ 31.83	▲ 23.63
Wed 11/23/2016	vs Samford₁₅₁	W 78.45 - 59.13	W 70-55	4-1	115.61	109.26	▼ 6.35	91.41	88.66	▲ 2.75	▼ 3.60
Sat 11/26/2016	vs Lipscomb₁₇₁	W 84.87 - 62.99	W 91-68	5-1	115.54	127.47	▲ 11.93	90.02	97.45	▼ 7.43	▲ 4.50
Thu 12/1/2016	@ Iowa State₁₇	L 67.44 - 69.89	W 55-54 (OT)	6-1	104.26	89.93	▼ 14.33	103.78	82.53	▲ 21.25	▲ 6.92
Sun 12/4/2016	vs Bowling Green₂₄₆	W 80.45 - 55.24	W 85-56	7-1	115.88	134.32	▲ 18.44	83.94	89.01	▼ 5.07	▲ 13.37
Sat 12/10/2016	@ Butler₂₅	L 66.33 - 67.12	L 65-75	7-2	106.55	100.70	▼ 5.85	103.55	109.91	▼ 6.36	▼ 12.21
Tue 12/13/2016	vs Texas Southern₂₂₆	W 79.94 - 56.04	W 96-58	8-2	118.43	124.10	▲ 5.67	87.15	81.53	▲ 5.62	▲ 11.29
Sat 12/17/2016	vs Fair. Dickinson₂₆₃	W 84.14 - 57.35	W 119-68	9-2	122.13	152.55	▲ 30.42	88.05	60.75	▲ 27.30	▲ 57.72
Thu 12/22/2016	vs Marshall₁₆₁	W 90.18 - 68.37	W 93-91 (OT)	10-2	119.62	104.45	▼ 15.17	95.03	110.32	▼ 15.29	▼ 30.46
Wed 12/28/2016	@ Temple₁₀₈	W 72.05 - 61.62	W 56-50	11-2	112.62	83.37	▼ 29.25	92.55	69.21	▲ 23.34	▼ 5.91
Sun 1/1/2017	vs Tulane₂₄₃	W 83.01 - 57.45	W 92-56	12-2	119.09	140.64	▲ 21.55	86.72	80.94	▲ 5.78	▲ 27.33
Sat 1/7/2017	@ Houston₄₇	W 67.14 - 63.93	W 67-58	13-2	107.28	100.74	▼ 6.54	98.30	83.08	▲ 15.22	▲ 8.68
Thu 1/12/2017	vs SMU₁₅	W 65.64 - 63.35	W 66-64	14-2	104.16	109.65	▲ 5.49	104.80	112.56	▼ 7.76	▼ 2.27
Sun 1/15/2017	@ ECU₁₈₀	W 69.87 - 54.99	W 55-46	15-2	108.33	88.15	▼ 20.18	81.95	70.80	▲ 11.15	▼ 9.03
Wed 1/18/2017	vs Temple₁₀₈	W 74.88 - 58.76	W 81-74	16-2	112.62	120.51	▲ 7.89	92.55	116.06	▼ 23.51	▼ 15.62
Sat 1/21/2017	@ Tulane₂₄₃	W 80.04 - 60.41	W 78-61	17-2	119.09	115.85	▼ 3.24	86.72	83.94	▲ 2.78	▼ 0.46
Thu 1/26/2017	vs Xavier₃₈	W 72.23 - 64.31	W 86-78	18-2	107.77	124.26	▲ 16.49	100.53	117.14	▼ 16.61	▼ 0.12
Sun 1/29/2017	vs USF₂₈₉	W 80.04 - 52.82	W 94-53	19-2	117.94	142.23	▲ 24.29	82.21	71.10	▲ 11.11	▲ 35.40
Wed 2/1/2017	@ Tulsa₁₄₆	W 73.42 - 60.34	W 57-55	20-2	113.11	95.66	▼ 17.45	89.95	89.45	▲ 0.50	▼ 16.95
Sat 2/4/2017	vs UConn₈₀	W 69.91 - 56.43	W 82-68	21-2	107.97	129.45	▲ 21.48	91.31	95.55	▼ 4.24	▲ 17.24
Wed 2/8/2017	vs UCF₆₉	W 67.86 - 55.92	W 60-50	22-2	103.75	97.78	▼ 5.97	89.65	86.96	▲ 2.69	▼ 3.28
Sun 2/12/2017	@ SMU₁₅	L 62.96 - 66.03	L 51-60	22-3	104.16	96.66	▼ 7.50	104.80	106.88	▼ 2.08	▼ 9.58
Wed 2/15/2017	@ USF₂₈₉	W 77.15 - 55.57	W 68-54	23-3	117.94	114.50	▼ 3.44	82.21	71.47	▲ 10.74	▲ 7.30
Sat 2/18/2017	vs Tulsa₁₄₆	W 76.29 - 57.46	W 80-60	24-3	113.11	123.65	▲ 10.54	89.95	91.69	▼ 1.74	▲ 8.80
Thu 2/23/2017	vs Memphis₁₀₀	W 75.32 - 59.98	W 87-74	25-3	111.36	133.72	▲ 22.36	92.80	116.50	▼ 23.70	▼ 1.34
Sun 2/26/2017	@ UCF₆₉	W 65.09 - 58.61	L 49-53	25-4	103.75	82.54	▼ 21.21	89.65	84.67	▲ 4.98	▼ 16.23
Thu 3/2/2017	vs Houston₄₇	W 69.91 - 61.11	W 65-47	26-4	107.28	103.24	▼ 4.04	98.30	64.03	▲ 34.27	▲ 30.23
Sun 3/5/2017	@ UConn₈₀	W 67.16 - 59.22	W 67-47	27-4	107.97	114.72	▲ 6.75	91.31	72.78	▲ 18.53	▲ 25.28
Fri 3/10/2017	vs Tulsa₁₄₆ *	W 74.86 - 58.90	W 80-61	28-4	113.11	130.51	▲ 17.40	89.95	94.92	▼ 4.97	▲ 12.43
Sat 3/11/2017	vs UConn₈₀ *	W 68.53 - 57.82	W 81-71	29-4	107.97	124.62	▲ 16.65	91.31	109.23	▼ 17.92	▼ 1.27
Sun 3/12/2017	vs SMU₁₅ *	L 64.30 - 64.69	L 56-71	29-5	104.16	94.92	▼ 9.24	104.80	118.97	▼ 14.17	▼ 23.41
Fri 3/17/2017	vs Kansas State₂₈ *	W 66.37 - 63.64	W 75-61	30-5	103.90	127.12	▲ 23.22	99.65	101.72	▼ 2.07	▲ 21.15
Sun 3/19/2017	vs UCLA₁₉ *	W 77.06 - 76.11	L 67-79	30-6	110.29	108.06	▼ 2.23	108.90	125.40	▼ 16.50	▼ 18.73
		---			---	---	---	---	---	---	---
		---			---	---	---	---	---	---	---
		---			---	---	---	---	---	---	---
		---			---	---	---	---	---	---	---
		---			---	---	---	---	---	---	---
		---			---	---	---	---	---	---	---
		---			---	---	---	---	---	---	---
		---			---	---	---	---	---	---	---
		---			---	---	---	---	---	---	---
		---			---	---	---	---	---	---	---
		---			---	---	---	---	---	---	---
		---			---	---	---	---	---	---	---
		---			---	---	---	---	---	---	---
		---			---	---	---	---	---	---	---

Projections are based on present-day ratings. Stars indicate games played at a neutral location.
Game efficiencies only account for data before a contest has gone analytically final and are adjusted to extract home-court advantage.

CURIOUS TRENDS:

	When playing teams that allow a greater number of field goal opportunities, Cincinnati usually performs worse than average. Cincinnati is more efficient than normal 14% of the time when facing clubs that have a defensive field goal attempt rate vs. AO greater than 83.88. In all other contests, Cincinnati performs better than average 73% of the time.
	Cincinnati is typically worse vs. teams that convert more frequently off of offensive rebounds. Against foes that have an offensive second-chance conversion percentage vs. AO greater than 7.76%, Cincinnati performs above their norm 17% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above average 67% of the time.
	When facing teams that do not defend well on the perimeter, Cincinnati often performs better than normal. Cincinnati is more efficient than usual 79% of the time when facing teams that have a defensive three-point field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 35.84%. In their other contests, Cincinnati performs better than the norm 32% of the time.

HASLAMETRICS ALL-PLAY PERCENTAGE RANKING BY DAY: Select data to plot:

HASLAMETRICS TEAM HISTORY: Select data to view:

SUMMARY	Rk	AP%	Rec (WinPct)		RQ	Conference	Pace	Con	SOS	PTF	AFH	ASR

OFFENSE	Eff	FTAR	FT%	FGAR	FG%	3PAR	3P%	MRAR	MR%	NPAR	NP%	PPSt	PPSC	SCC%	%3PA	%MRA	%NPA	Prox

DEFENSE	Eff	FTAR	FT%	FGAR	FG%	3PAR	3P%	MRAR	MR%	NPAR	NP%	PPSt	PPSC	SCC%	%3PA	%MRA	%NPA	Prox

SUMMARY	Rk		AP%		Rec (WinPct)		RQ		Conference		Pace		Con		SOS		PTF		AFH		ASR

OFFENSE	Eff		FTAR		FT%		FGAR		FG%		3PAR		3P%		MRAR		MR%		NPAR		NP%		PPSt		PPSC		SCC%		%3PA		%MRA		%NPA		Prox

DEFENSE	Eff		FTAR		FT%		FGAR		FG%		3PAR		3P%		MRAR		MR%		NPAR		NP%		PPSt		PPSC		SCC%		%3PA		%MRA		%NPA		Prox