TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2024-25 Austin Peay  14-19 (0.424)  |  Atlantic Sun
All-Play Percentage: 0.215 (286th)
Schedule Strength: 0.400 (211th)
Record Quality: -0.156 (258th)
Avg. Season Rank: 280.94 (286th)
Pace: 66.12 (216th)
Momentum: -0.65 (209th)
Off. Momentum: 4.45 (12th)
Def. Momentum: -5.10 (356th)
Consistency: -12.90 (362nd)
Res. Consistency: -17.26 (351st)
Away From Home: -0.98 (244th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -0.73 (156th)
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: 101.53 24.45 71.49 88.57 40.97 35.14 32.63 18.02 34.63 35.41 52.48 12.01 13.46 5.64 39.67 20.35 39.98 2.00
RANK: 275th 290th 216th 107th 315th 131st 257th 278th 281st 58th 350th 190th 234th 217th 150th 289th 76th 130th

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: 113.32 29.30 -- 85.34 47.20 29.14 39.02 18.79 35.69 37.41 59.35 11.74 13.58 5.67 34.14 22.02 43.84 1.90
RANK: 283rd 266th -- 87th 320th 23rd 359th 63rd 108th 351st 197th 146th 106th 135th 31st 72nd 362nd 359th

ANALYSIS:
If you're looking for a squad in the bottom quartile of all Division I basketball teams this year, Austin Peay likely fits the bill. Haslametrics has them ranked 286th overall (out of 364) in All-Play Percentage, and the team holds a record of 14-19. Of the 12 schools in the Atlantic Sun (average ranking 249.6), they're currently ranked as our #8 team in the conference.

Defense is not exactly a strength for Austin Peay this year. The team is ranked 283rd in defensive efficiency and allows more than 113 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO. Austin Peay does an extremely poor job to deny the opposition behind the arc. They rank sixth from the bottom nationally in defensive three-point percentage, allowing AO to make 39.0% of their attempts from afar. Luckily, AO will take nowhere near as many threes as they typically would, and only 34.1% of AO's field goal attempts will come from downtown. Austin Peay also allows opponents' field goal percentages to get far too high. The ball-club ranks #320 nationally in field goal percentage allowed, as AO will convert approximately 47.2% of their total attempts from the floor.

Austin Peay doesn't rate much better on offense than they do on defense. Scoring roughly 102 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO, they are ranked #275 in the nation in offensive efficiency. Austin Peay will have a really tough time winning games when taking into consideration their shooting percentage near the basket. The team is ranked 350th in near-proximity field goal percentage, making only 52.5% of their attempts from up-close vs. AO. Moreover, they find themselves in the bottom-50 in overall offensive field goal percentage, converting just 41.0% of their total attempts vs. AO.

Austin Peay has been one of the most erratic teams in college basketball this year (currently ranked third from the bottom overall in consistency), which makes the outcomes of their future games far more difficult 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:
When facing teams that allow a greater number of field goal opportunities, Austin Peay often performs better than normal. Austin Peay is more efficient than usual 57% of the time when facing teams that have a defensive field goal attempt rate vs. AO greater than 86.37. In their other contests, Austin Peay never performs above average.
Austin Peay does worse vs. clubs that allow more chances at the line. When playing squads that have a defensive free throw attempt rate vs. AO greater than 28.81, Austin Peay never performs above average. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 55% of the time.
Austin Peay performs better against squads that are likely to allow more second chances off of offensive rebounds. When facing teams that have a defensive second-chance potential point rate vs. AO greater than 14.18, Austin Peay is more efficient than normal 64% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 18% 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
2024-25286th286th256th258thAtlantic Sun216th362nd211th156th244th286th
2023-24271st271st170th214thAtlantic Sun301st299th261st187th211th280th
2022-23334th333rd327th332ndAtlantic Sun312th296th207th304th294th302nd
2021-22307th307th253rd253rdOVC305th156th203rd311th191st292nd
2020-21214th214th175th237thOVC255th32nd315th171st210th205th
2019-20157th157th88th145thOVC202nd96th253rd343rd273rd163rd
2018-19115th115th64th122ndOVC88th91st254th104th316th137th
2017-18192nd191st147th177thOVC87th302nd225th326th303rd183rd
2016-17294th294th272nd269thOVC98th93rd184th262nd234th301st
2015-16236th236th186th204thOVC80th202nd214th315th68th258th
2014-15311th311th328th318thOVC61st13th183rd140th124th305th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25275th290th216th107th315th131st257th278th281st58th350th190th234th217th150th289th76th130th
2023-24163rd182nd255th48th216th173rd171st106th204th172nd229th212th117th186th222nd124th218th179th
2022-23323rd323rd196th143rd333rd145th298th92nd353rd305th198th176th160th219th153rd96th310th273rd
2021-22325th321st273rd185th336th40th285th90th252nd356th204th180th137th153rd37th87th357th351st
2020-21156th267th57th29th223rd164th241st47th278th241st86th221st31st36th223rd63rd287th222nd
2019-2094th48th202nd89th154th252nd86th57th272nd192nd107th154th42nd39th277th63rd221st125th
2018-1960th71st166th31st128th236th50th33rd71st170th215th193rd24th43rd283rd50th219th133rd
2017-18184th85th324th160th147th322nd169th47th228th138th125th186th63rd49th326th47th141st57th
2016-17163rd104th182nd267th138th186th183rd135th13th283rd206th295th278th265th165th112th261st228th
2015-16186th31st311th333rd106th314th169th199th190th114th132nd124th102nd31st281st157th48th44th
2014-15314th106th258th193rd321st270th338th138th339th110th269th207th77th61st269th130th91st79th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25283rd266th--87th320th23rd359th63rd108th351st197th146th106th135th31st72nd362nd359th
2023-24347th341st--153rd352nd56th243rd218th259th277th354th20th342nd353rd56th227th282nd315th
2022-23324th337th--89th351st26th169th74th241st346th344th291st236th264th49th93rd359th352nd
2021-22248th320th--50th306th124th163rd140th274th147th350th233rd148th244th177th180th192nd201st
2020-21285th228th--35th349th83rd342nd79th304th200th326th294th234th344th131st117th276th265th
2019-20225th136th--96th309th88th324th112th251st266th221st101st171st292nd100th137th295th282nd
2018-19200th221st--71st287th93rd192nd146th210th171st320th57th189th329th133rd182nd215th227th
2017-18221st293rd--11th304th73rd290th36th271st212th243rd113th17th171st152nd64th284th260th
2016-17345th131st--331st336th267th275th102nd348th332nd284th256th350th350th187th54th286th244th
2015-16272nd102nd--222nd294th271st188th75th283rd246th308th326th203rd302nd257th58th236th158th
2014-15279th186th--53rd328th110th331st19th220th295th283rd340th105th331st158th23rd322nd288th