TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2017-18 Austin Peay  19-15 (0.559)  |  Ohio Valley
All-Play Percentage: 0.460 (192nd)
Schedule Strength: 0.449 (225th)
Record Quality: -0.004 (177th)
Avg. Season Rank: 181.04 (183rd)
Pace: 71.61 (87th)
Momentum: -0.07 (170th)
Off. Momentum: 1.77 (86th)
Def. Momentum: -1.83 (248th)
Consistency: -10.23 (302nd)
Res. Consistency: -12.16 (213th)
Away From Home: -1.87 (303rd)
Paper Tiger Factor: -3.58 (326th)
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 2, 2018. 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: 101.06 28.14 66.43 82.29 44.65 25.28 35.13 27.59 35.97 29.42 60.98 10.78 16.93 8.55 30.72 33.53 35.75 1.95
RANK: 184th 85th 324th 160th 147th 322nd 169th 47th 228th 138th 125th 186th 63rd 49th 326th 47th 141st 57th

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: 105.24 29.41 -- 76.30 47.66 28.22 37.68 18.52 39.41 29.56 62.35 10.14 11.78 6.81 36.98 24.27 38.74 1.98
RANK: 221st 293rd -- 11th 304th 73rd 290th 36th 271st 212th 243rd 113th 17th 171st 152nd 64th 284th 260th

ANALYSIS:
While not an atrocious team by any means, Austin Peay is not exactly one that should appear in many top-100 rankings either. Haslametrics has them ranked 192nd overall (out of 351) in All-Play Percentage, and the team holds a record of 19-15. Of the 12 schools in the OVC (average ranking 222.0), they're currently ranked as our #4 team in the conference.

Defensively, Austin Peay finds itself in the lower half of our ratings. The team is ranked 221st in defensive efficiency, giving up more than 105 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Austin Peay 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 47.7% of their total attempts from the floor. If Austin Peay does have a bright spot on defense, it would have to be their ability to limit the number of shot attempts by the opposition. The team has a defensive field goal attempt rate of 76.30 vs. AO, which ranks 11th-best in college basketball.

Austin Peay doesn't rate much better on offense than they do on defense. Scoring roughly 101 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO, they are ranked #184 in the nation in offensive efficiency. Austin Peay is not one of the better teams when it comes to sinking foul shots. Converting just 66.4% of their attempts, the squad is ranked #324 overall in free throw percentage. If Austin Peay 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 8.5% vs. AO, which ranks 49th in the nation.

Austin Peay has been one of the more erratic teams in NCAA basketball this year (presently ranked 302nd in the country in consistency), which makes forecasting the outcomes of their upcoming games tougher than most. When playing on the road, Austin Peay performs somewhat worse than they normally do on their home court. The club is nationally ranked 303rd in our site's away-from-home metric.
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:
Austin Peay is typically worse vs. teams that convert well from the charity stripe. Against foes that have an adjusted free throw percentage vs. AO greater than 71.98%, Austin Peay performs above their norm 18% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above average 73% of the time.
When facing teams that are more proficient at draining the mid-range shot, Austin Peay often performs worse than normal. Austin Peay is more efficient than usual 14% of the time when facing teams that have an offensive mid-range field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 37.25%. In their other contests, Austin Peay performs better than the norm 67% of the time.
Austin Peay does worse vs. clubs that shoot the ball well from the field. When playing squads that have an offensive field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 44.70%, Austin Peay performs above average 10% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 59% 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
2024-25287th287th256th258thAtlantic Sun216th362nd211th155th244th286th
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
2024-25275th290th216th106th312th129th257th278th281st59th351st191st236th215th151st289th73rd128th
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
2024-25285th267th--88th321st24th360th63rd108th351st196th148th106th136th30th72nd362nd358th
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