TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2016-17 UMass  15-18 (0.455)  |  Atlantic 10
All-Play Percentage: 0.526 (168th)
Schedule Strength: 0.567 (107th)
Record Quality: 0.013 (162nd)
Avg. Season Rank: 131.77 (131st)
Pace: 73.71 (22nd)
Momentum: -2.32 (274th)
Off. Momentum: -0.97 (261st)
Def. Momentum: -1.34 (231st)
Consistency: -8.87 (165th)
Res. Consistency: -11.65 (194th)
Away From Home: -0.25 (175th)
Paper Tiger Factor: 1.21 (26th)
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-dependent 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: 97.88 26.44 65.70 79.94 44.44 31.24 30.24 14.77 36.58 33.94 60.95 13.98 15.99 7.81 39.07 18.47 42.45 1.97
RANK: 224th 208th 308th 262nd 146th 118th 332nd 345th 168th 15th 123rd 26th 95th 68th 99th 344th 8th 83rd

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: 98.59 31.35 -- 78.46 42.61 26.16 36.71 20.07 36.58 32.23 51.14 10.09 15.83 7.29 33.34 25.58 41.08 1.92
RANK: 98th 311th -- 46th 95th 38th 240th 45th 154th 306th 13th 118th 260th 233rd 65th 63rd 335th 325th

ANALYSIS:
As an average to slightly above-average foe, UMass should probably not be discounted by opponents this year. They are ranked #168 (out of 351) in the most recent Haslametrics ratings and have a record of 15-18. They are also ranked by this site as the #10 team (out of 14) in the A-10 (average ranking 126.9).

While favoring a very up-tempo style of play (the 22nd-fastest pace in D1), the primary strength for UMass is defense. The team is ranked 98th in efficiency, allowing fewer than 99 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. UMass does tremendous work shutting down the opposition from the inside. They are ranked 13th in the country in defensive near-proximity percentage, allowing AO to make good on only 51.1% of their attempts from close-up. And to capitalize on that weakness, this team will make AO shoot from the inside more than they usually would. Of AO's total field goals, a big portion of them (41.1%) will be from short-distance. UMass also does a pretty solid job providing themselves chances to score quickly off of steals. They're ranked 26th in potential points off of breakaway steals vs. AO with a rating of 13.98. (Predictably, this aggressive style of play tends to result in too many fouls -- the team has a defensive free throw attempt rate of 31.35, ranked #311 in the country -- so they need to be wary of opponents that can convert from the foul line.)

The offense for UMass, on the other hand, isn't nearly as efficient as the defense is. The team is ranked 224th in offensive efficiency, scoring about 98 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. UMass is one of the least accurate teams when shooting from long-distance. They are ranked 332nd in three-point field goal percentage nationally and make just 30.2% of their attempts from long vs. AO. UMass is also not one of the better teams when it comes to sinking foul shots. Converting just 65.7% of their attempts, the squad is ranked #308 overall in free throw percentage.
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:
UMass is typically better vs. teams that tend to capitalize off breakaway opportunities. Against foes that have a potential point rate off steals vs. AO greater than 9.01, UMass performs above their norm 68% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above average 18% of the time.
When facing teams that allow a greater number of field goal opportunities, UMass often performs worse than normal. UMass is more efficient than usual 20% of the time when facing teams that have a defensive field goal attempt rate vs. AO greater than 81.79. In their other contests, UMass performs better than the norm 65% of the time.
UMass does worse vs. clubs that allow opponents to shoot well from the field. When playing squads that have a defensive field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 42.85%, UMass performs above average 35% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 77% 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
2024-25222nd222nd294th237thA-1058th94th136th136th36th188th
2023-2485th83rd81st88thA-10149th236th137th53rd224th95th
2022-23204th204th216th155thA-1042nd284th129th234th167th152nd
2021-22199th198th209th186thA-1073rd94th128th57th234th181st
2020-21104th104th162nd133rdA-1046th248th126th331st5th103rd
2019-20179th179th237th174thA-10187th41st96th310th348th184th
2018-19215th213th289th253rdA-10175th326th182nd78th84th155th
2017-18187th186th264th206thA-10251st309th136th78th313th157th
2016-17168th167th223rd162ndA-1022nd165th107th26th175th131st
2015-16148th148th224th163rdA-1074th58th94th172nd81st142nd
2014-15138th138th159th87thA-1052nd35th66th79th193rd132nd
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25245th71st326th21st335th270th358th81st268th52nd326th88th33rd159th317th111th109th52nd
2023-2478th31st271st54th116th167th280th161st276th96th31st108th18th92nd211th179th130th139th
2022-23249th169th174th131st280th314th196th84th313th93rd284th157th35th58th318th92nd102nd49th
2021-2268th62nd45th113th178th55th80th224th133rd259th202nd175th259th343rd66th236th272nd306th
2020-2197th138th120th172nd129th47th134th276th74th207th156th38th236th101st49th284th203rd287th
2019-20182nd263rd208th111th197th72nd223rd264th277th130th135th66th217th137th85th276th146th236th
2018-19230th223rd267th214th209th143rd196th295th109th71st285th256th40th41st132nd293rd65th140th
2017-18126th333rd39th56th157th112th16th245th296th55th280th264th198th104th138th274th80th142nd
2016-17224th208th308th262nd146th118th332nd345th168th15th123rd26th95th68th99th344th8th83rd
2015-16180th180th221st199th198th102nd246th296th264th99th155th43rd238th259th99th292nd99th187th
2014-15142nd37th181st236th119th304th315th235th267th20th92nd75th119th53rd291st224th18th16th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25181st242nd--228th135th178th197th58th58th332nd99th161st320th196th162nd45th324th285th
2023-24109th297th--120th78th117th54th71st180th299th37th247th325th265th131st77th319th297th
2022-23163rd226th--153rd137th243rd119th87th46th209th229th356th64th93rd259th75th225th154th
2021-22332nd210th--216th338th127th330th172nd265th281st333rd205th145th318th112th161st280th274th
2020-21105th159th--84th221st5th117th115th57th349th187th96th61st21st6th141st354th356th
2019-20156th160th--115th270th30th218th48th113th347th158th231st204th295th35th47th352nd349th
2018-19241st336th--53rd256th23rd263rd190th133rd224th225th323rd158th173rd39th232nd271st302nd
2017-18284th207th--234th270th46th243rd189th142nd318th222nd240th297th319th36th168th306th321st
2016-1798th311th--46th95th38th240th45th154th306th13th118th260th233rd65th63rd335th325th
2015-16134th283rd--151st86th127th31st79th79th291st79th125th289th261st139th83rd296th285th
2014-15138th142nd--230th135th82nd260th210th52nd289th95th219th99th109th56th191st282nd292nd