TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2024-25 Rutgers  15-17 (0.469)  |  Big Ten
All-Play Percentage: 0.804 (72nd)
Schedule Strength: 0.726 (35th)
Record Quality: 0.126 (110th)
Avg. Season Rank: 81.55 (80th)
Pace: 67.61 (116th)
Momentum: -0.86 (217th)
Off. Momentum: 1.28 (118th)
Def. Momentum: -2.14 (279th)
Consistency: -7.81 (8th)
Res. Consistency: -8.95 (12th)
Away From Home: -0.04 (161st)
Paper Tiger Factor: 1.22 (24th)
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 7, 2025. 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: 117.00 32.25 71.43 88.42 46.77 31.57 35.65 24.65 39.92 32.20 62.92 13.77 18.64 8.04 35.70 27.88 36.42 1.99
RANK: 55th 32nd 219th 114th 62nd 250th 91st 97th 80th 166th 61st 89th 29th 27th 266th 101st 177th 123rd

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: 104.85 24.17 -- 88.01 43.47 33.83 33.97 20.53 34.35 33.66 58.59 9.86 16.37 7.40 38.43 23.32 38.24 2.00
RANK: 106th 70th -- 224th 142nd 191st 172nd 144th 69th 255th 170th 39th 307th 332nd 169th 130th 246th 224th

ANALYSIS:
Despite what their win percentage might indicate, Rutgers is a good team that can cause more than enough trouble for most opponents. Carrying a record of 15-17, they are currently rated #72 overall (out of 364) in All-Play Percentage this season. Of the 18 schools in the Big Ten (average ranking 41.3), they're currently ranked as our #16 team in the conference.

Rutgers has a reasonably potent offensive attack. Occupying the #55 slot in our offensive efficiency rankings, they will score about 117 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Rutgers is one of the better teams in the country when it comes to converting scoring chances off of offensive rebounds. Against AO, the team successfully converts 8.0% of all second-chance opportunities (ranked 27th nationally), and with a rating of 18.64, they're 29th in potential points scored off of the offensive glass as well. Rutgers also does a really good job to acquire opportunities from the free throw line. With a free throw attempt rate of 32.25 vs. AO, they are ranked 32nd in the nation at getting to the charity stripe, where the team shoots a rather mediocre 71.4%.

Rutgers is also a fairly decent team on the defensive end of the court. The team ranks 106th nationally in defensive efficiency, allowing about 105 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Rutgers has been fairly decent in preventing teams from draining shots from between the three-point stripe and the low post. They're ranked 69th in Division I in defensive mid-range field goal percentage, allowing AO to make good on only 34.4% of their attempts from that distance. Rutgers also makes a point to avoid fouls and prevent opponents from getting to the free throw line. With a defensive free throw attempt rate of 24.17 vs. AO, they are currently rated 70th in the country in that category. If Rutgers does exhibit a weakness on the defensive end of the floor, it'd likely be the team's issues trying to stop opponents from obtaining and converting second-chance opportunities via offensive rebounds. The squad has a defensive second-chance conversion percentage of 7.4% vs. AO, which ranks 33rd-worst in the nation.

Rutgers is one of the most consistent teams in NCAA basketball (currently ranked eighth in consistency), which makes the outcomes of their upcoming games far easier to predict.
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:
Rutgers is typically worse vs. teams that allow opponents to shoot well from the field. Against foes that have a defensive field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 40.20%, Rutgers performs above their norm 35% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above average 83% of the time.
When facing teams that aren't terribly skilled defensively, Rutgers often performs worse than normal. Rutgers is more efficient than usual 37% of the time when facing teams that have a defensive efficiency rating vs. AO greater than 98.70. In their other contests, Rutgers performs better than the norm 77% of the time.
Rutgers does worse vs. clubs that fail to defend efficiently inside the paint. When playing squads that have a defensive near-proximity field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 54.48%, Rutgers performs above average 41% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 80% 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
2024-2572nd72nd218th110thBig Ten116th8th35th24th161st80th
2023-24121st121st226th118thBig Ten139th82nd43rd265th335th94th
2022-2352nd52nd147th74thBig Ten255th146th55th332nd324th34th
2021-2263rd62nd148th72ndBig Ten264th343rd58th2nd303rd89th
2020-2150th50th130th47thBig Ten242nd143rd16th91st292nd41st
2019-2024th24th80th46thBig Ten229th234th41st90th328th34th
2018-1984th84th223rd118thBig Ten230th318th29th132nd292nd94th
2017-18121st121st229th173rdBig Ten297th113th79th160th231st115th
2016-17127th125th223rd147thBig Ten258th166th65th276th36th113th
2015-16288th288th335th277thBig Ten83rd160th63rd335th321st291st
2014-15199th199th304th194thBig Ten130th313th16th135th98th175th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-2555th32nd219th114th62nd250th91st97th80th166th61st89th29th27th266th101st177th123rd
2023-24282nd112th345th69th315th301st309th86th349th72nd267th42nd12th78th313th103rd101st51st
2022-23146th114th266th85th156th312th201st103rd278th55th153rd23rd11th5th323rd122nd71st31st
2021-2287th154th188th216th33rd291st95th77th107th178th19th88th95th105th283rd75th164th91st
2020-2189th199th345th69th35th230th249th147th11th53rd80th21st145th80th264th174th81st75th
2019-2065th86th341st41st38th293rd180th164th99th8th119th139th12th34th315th200th20th14th
2018-19123rd80th341st47th144th238th231st195th269th23rd147th79th46th123rd272nd213th42nd44th
2017-18237th165th270th11th279th337th334th11th263rd66th264th198th14th47th344th20th124th20th
2016-17217th189th345th8th240th335th298th209th339th1st290th137th1st2nd346th261st1st1st
2015-16269th203rd267th258th195th338th243rd210th291st16th247th218th159th186th331st200th8th7th
2014-15258th223rd303rd131st232nd267th300th27th174th260th143rd294th131st73rd277th29th281st146th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25106th70th--224th142nd191st172nd144th69th255th170th39th307th332nd169th130th246th224th
2023-2413th141st--48th21st194th121st78th33rd152nd10th152nd322nd292nd247th113th201st157th
2022-236th41st--88th13th319th25th143rd54th31st34th43rd200th62nd336th156th40th25th
2021-2257th83rd--198th44th238th124th191st26th142nd50th131st227th114th223rd181st127th114th
2020-2127th152nd--241st14th103rd18th304th12th191st49th287th339th206th73rd294th178th242nd
2019-206th58th--151st6th280th25th153rd3rd84th34th16th242nd128th290th165th73rd61st
2018-1973rd203rd--180th50th182nd181st199th36th174th35th114th58th32nd170th198th165th188th
2017-1840th104th--121st46th158th27th183rd68th146th75th92nd74th78th175th207th152nd147th
2016-1766th109th--232nd50th252nd31st64th138th282nd34th273rd174th56th233rd47th267th211th
2015-16282nd74th--350th163rd259th298th185th9th333rd145th279th345th304th131st95th292nd286th
2014-15122nd84th--231st121st262nd76th53rd247th282nd70th205th257th66th248th35th270th196th