TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2018-19 Rider  16-15 (0.516)  |  MAAC
All-Play Percentage: 0.409 (208th)
Schedule Strength: 0.337 (320th)
Record Quality: -0.113 (227th)
Avg. Season Rank: 195.92 (196th)
Pace: 73.88 (7th)
Momentum: 0.16 (168th)
Off. Momentum: 1.05 (134th)
Def. Momentum: -0.89 (194th)
Consistency: -9.79 (216th)
Res. Consistency: -10.10 (53rd)
Away From Home: 0.30 (132nd)
Paper Tiger Factor: -1.64 (240th)
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 8, 2019. Data shown on this page is based on time-independent ratings.
OFFENSE Eff Upc FTAR FT% FGAR FGMR FG% 3PAR 3PMR 3P% MRAR MRMR MR% NPAR NPMR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
RATING: 100.46 29.92 63.74 82.77 43.61 28.71 32.05 16.74 32.66 37.31 57.42 16.14 15.43 8.16 34.69 20.23 45.08 1.90
RANK: 213th 34th 346th 202nd 192nd 291st 301st 295th 293rd 8th 235th 11th 80th 17th 290th 298th 6th 7th

DEFENSE Eff Upc FTAR FT% FGAR FGMR FG% 3PAR 3PMR 3P% MRAR MRMR MR% NPAR NPMR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
RATING: 104.51 27.07 -- 79.00 47.16 31.55 36.76 16.23 37.39 31.22 62.75 11.59 12.59 6.75 39.93 20.55 39.52 2.00
RANK: 187th 226th -- 22nd 304th 152nd 290th 13th 233rd 213th 263rd 171st 93rd 259th 234th 26th 286th 210th

ANALYSIS:
Rider has a squad that most likely falls somewhere in the bottom half of NCAA Division I teams this year. They are ranked #208 (out of 353) in the most recent Haslametrics ratings and have a record of 16-15. Of the 11 schools in the MAAC (average ranking 271.7), they're currently ranked as our #2 team in the conference.

Though their offense is far from the worst in the game, Rider is not terribly gifted on that end of the court either. Scoring about 100 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO, they are ranked at #213 in offensive efficiency. Rider has had serious struggles making their free throws this year. Converting just 63.7% of their attempts, the squad is ranked #346 overall in free throw percentage. If Rider does have a strength offensively, it would have to be the team's ability to obtain and convert second-chance opportunities from offensive rebounds. The squad has a second-chance conversion percentage of 8.2% vs. AO, which ranks 17th in the nation.

Rider doesn't rate much better on defense than they do on offense. Allowing roughly 105 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO, they are ranked #187 in the nation in defensive efficiency. Rider allows opponents' field goal percentages to get far too high. The ball-club ranks #304 nationally in field goal percentage allowed, as AO will convert approximately 47.2% of their total attempts from the floor. If Rider does have a bright spot on defense, it would have to be their willingness to take risks in order to score fast points off of steals. The team has a solid rating of 16.14 in potential points scored off of steals vs. AO, which ranks 11th-best in college basketball.
SORTABLE SCHEDULE / RESULTS:
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 are more proficient at draining the mid-range shot, Rider usually performs worse than average. Rider is more efficient than normal 20% of the time when facing clubs that have an offensive mid-range field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 35.07%. In all other contests, Rider performs better than average 63% of the time.
Rider 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 5.51%, Rider performs above their norm 21% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above average 59% of the time.
When facing teams that do a nice job converting inside the paint, Rider often performs worse than normal. Rider is more efficient than usual 18% of the time when facing teams that have an offensive near-proximity field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 57.81%. In their other contests, Rider performs better than the norm 55% of the time.
LATEST NEWS ITEMS:
Fragala, Robb help NU snap skid
(2/17/2019 10:10:00 PM) Big man Tyere Marshall had 25 points and 14 rebounds as preseason favorite Rider bounced back from a five-game skit to beat cellar-dwelling Saint Peter's, 71-65. • Brian Parker had 15 points as Marist best Monmouth, 75-67, in New Jersey.
Rider Basketball: Broncs keep MAAC title hopes alive with Monmouth win
(2/16/2019 6:28:00 PM) Rider basketball kept their quest for a second consecutive MAAC regular season title alive by downing rival Monmouth 81-72 on Friday, ending a five-game losing streak “What happened this time?”
St. Pete’s looks to end streak vs Rider
(2/16/2019 6:57:00 AM) BOTTOM LINE: Rider ... Broncs 22nd among Division I teams. St. Peter’s has turned the ball over on 24 percent of its possessions (ranking the Peacocks 349th, nationally). For more AP college ...
Scott scores 21 to lift Rider past Monmouth 81-72
(2/15/2019 11:02:00 PM) The Broncs evened the season series against the Hawks with the win. Monmouth defeated Rider 75-71 on Feb. 2. Rider faces St. Peter's on the road on Sunday. Monmouth faces Marist at home on Sunday. For more AP college basketball coverage: https://apnews.com ...
Rider coach Kevin Baggett unhappy with MAAC scheduling
(2/10/2019 6:16:00 PM) The Broncs are in the midst of a stretch where they are playing ... broadcaster Daryl Fein with a plaque commemorating his 25th year as the voice of Rider basketball. Fein works the ESPN+ and ESPN3 telecasts for home games and calls road games on the ...
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