TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2014-15 Princeton  16-14 (0.533)  |  Ivy
All-Play Percentage: 0.589 (146th)
Schedule Strength: 0.444 (227th)
Record Quality: -0.007 (175th)
Avg. Season Rank: 173.56 (169th)
Pace: 65.99 (150th)
Momentum: 6.45 (2nd)
Off. Momentum: 3.97 (16th)
Def. Momentum: 2.48 (17th)
Consistency: -9.87 (255th)
Res. Consistency: -11.57 (178th)
Away From Home: -0.14 (181st)
Paper Tiger Factor: -1.44 (225th)
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 6, 2015. 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: 102.90 32.88 69.93 73.47 46.17 32.92 36.66 14.98 36.16 25.58 64.26 7.26 10.72 4.21 44.81 20.38 34.81 2.10
RANK: 112th 41st 156th 351st 50th 36th 78th 349th 132nd 289th 34th 349th 341st 344th 9th 346th 168th 332nd

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: 102.85 31.42 -- 81.00 44.04 23.76 36.44 27.66 36.35 29.57 57.34 12.22 14.75 6.78 29.34 34.15 36.51 1.93
RANK: 207th 254th -- 128th 192nd 28th 270th 268th 208th 222nd 130th 234th 139th 179th 29th 281st 235th 294th

ANALYSIS:
Princeton is a fairly decent basketball team that, while likely better than average, isn't quite good enough to crack any top-25 rankings this year. They have a record of 16-14 and are ranked 146th overall (out of 351) in the latest Haslametrics ratings. They are also ranked by this site as the #3 team (out of eight) in the Ivy League (average ranking 181.4).

Princeton will likely rely on their offense more than anything else to win games. The team is ranked 112th in offensive efficiency and scores more than 102 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Princeton lives and dies by the three-ball and will launch from long-distance early and often. The team ranks ninth in ratio of three-point attempts to total field goal attempts. If you do allow them to shoot from long, they have the ability to punish you for it, too. Ranked in the top-100 in three-point shooting percentage, they make approximately 36.7% of their three-point attempts vs. AO. Princeton also has the potential to make you pay if you let them get close to the rim. The team is ranked 34th in the country in near-proximity field goal percentage, making approximately 64.3% of their attempts from up-close vs. AO. The squad likewise lands in the top-50 in overall offensive field goal percentage and makes good on about 46.2% of their total attempts vs. AO. If Princeton does have a glaring weakness offensively, it would have to be the team's difficulties in getting off a sufficient number of shots each possession. The squad has a field goal attempt rate of just 73.47 vs. AO, which ranks worst in college basketball.

Princeton doesn't perform as well defensively as they do offensively. The team is ranked 207th in defensive efficiency, allowing about 103 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Princeton is extremely underskilled to force steals that turn into quick and easy points. They're ranked #349 in potential points off of breakaway steals with a rating of only 7.26 vs. AO.

Princeton has been playing some of its most efficient basketball of the season recently and is presently ranked second in positive momentum.
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 facing teams that do not defend well on the perimeter, Princeton often performs better than normal. Princeton is more efficient than usual 70% of the time when facing teams that have a defensive three-point field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 33.70%. In their other contests, Princeton performs better than the norm 11% of the time.
Princeton does worse vs. clubs that convert well from outside the arc. When playing squads that have an offensive three-point field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 34.47%, Princeton performs above average 11% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 70% of the time.
Princeton performs worse against squads that are typically efficient on offense. When facing teams that have an offensive efficiency rating vs. AO greater than 98.63, Princeton is more efficient than normal 23% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 75% 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
2024-25182nd182nd92nd116thIvy League199th274th146th149th86th148th
2023-2488th88th8th38thIvy League265th54th145th148th71st63rd
2022-2374th74th44th65thIvy League201st122nd134th132nd46th109th
2021-22106th105th27th81stIvy League188th118th245th90th134th121st
2020-21171st171st--170thIvy League190th--------168th
2019-20153rd152nd182nd199thIvy League265th49th199th264th47th199th
2018-19180th179th129th132ndIvy League163rd47th131st204th16th191st
2017-18159th159th227th216thIvy League335th337th177th257th214th152nd
2016-1768th68th24th53rdIvy League345th246th185th305th190th94th
2015-1668th68th26th77thIvy League180th261st185th280th104th72nd
2014-15146th146th156th175thIvy League150th255th227th225th181st169th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25219th336th172nd129th278th3rd135th353rd264th202nd309th269th306th345th5th353rd218th344th
2023-2441st216th4th75th126th3rd152nd345th172nd218th63rd286th349th360th3rd348th246th352nd
2022-2385th247th205th51st108th43rd157th355th180th6th170th357th351st348th60th358th15th129th
2021-2241st355th354th14th40th9th11th355th264th5th122nd311th347th349th25th358th33rd224th
2020-21171st225th124th235th182nd30th180th351st236th94th188th249th329th268th24th352nd84th257th
2019-20121st303rd70th252nd86th22nd46th353rd346th26th172nd257th323rd284th14th353rd18th216th
2018-19256th265th47th217th270th94th321st309th339th100th189th316th303rd334th87th313th94th189th
2017-18130th332nd191st123rd143rd9th85th340th63rd205th224th325th343rd333rd7th346th225th330th
2016-1769th342nd68th10th154th4th71st335th218th122nd195th133rd335th343rd7th341st203rd332nd
2015-1653rd216th164th164th50th34th9th347th267th40th159th160th289th247th29th349th42nd237th
2014-15112th41st156th351st50th36th78th349th132nd289th34th349th341st344th9th346th168th332nd
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25171st157th--62nd255th103rd204th137th161st186th283rd77th56th159th149th177th242nd236th
2023-24169th39th--176th259th178th122nd221st225th161st339th39th50th96th173rd226th158th174th
2022-2362nd108th--226th76th29th52nd316th191st265th43rd11th10th1st22nd315th255th316th
2021-22232nd22nd--326th289th12th175th340th238th313th284th18th36th183rd5th335th281st342nd
2020-21187th141st--220th212th50th199th308th229th235th166th196th38th165th40th303rd220th295th
2019-20237th64th--236th300th5th301st343rd262nd268th201st222nd13th63rd4th344th237th334th
2018-19113th79th--244th132nd46th46th298th321st257th55th237th228th147th24th293rd240th297th
2017-18215th144th--249th181st111th226th191st262nd288th69th41st120th113th83rd163rd264th287th
2016-1752nd94th--113th94th47th106th252nd284th175th37th12th70th80th54th274th189th252nd
2015-1694th46th--294th168th7th70th284th318th338th38th142nd200th115th3rd268th332nd350th
2014-15207th254th--128th192nd28th270th268th208th222nd130th234th139th179th29th281st235th294th