TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2023-24 Austin Peay  19-16 (0.543)  |  Atlantic Sun
All-Play Percentage: 0.252 (271st)
Schedule Strength: 0.350 (261st)
Record Quality: -0.063 (214th)
Avg. Season Rank: 273.53 (280th)
Pace: 65.99 (301st)
Momentum: -1.88 (254th)
Off. Momentum: 3.64 (26th)
Def. Momentum: -5.52 (361st)
Consistency: -10.29 (299th)
Res. Consistency: -10.81 (85th)
Away From Home: -0.31 (211th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -1.05 (187th)
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 8, 2024. 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: 105.94 26.36 70.46 88.39 43.24 31.70 34.45 25.68 38.51 31.01 56.15 10.85 14.68 5.35 35.87 29.05 35.08 2.01
RANK: 163rd 182nd 255th 48th 216th 173rd 171st 106th 204th 172nd 229th 212th 117th 186th 222nd 124th 218th 179th

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: 114.47 31.77 -- 85.05 48.15 28.56 35.50 23.53 40.53 32.96 64.55 8.91 16.35 7.54 33.58 27.67 38.75 1.95
RANK: 347th 341st -- 153rd 352nd 56th 243rd 218th 259th 277th 354th 20th 342nd 353rd 56th 227th 282nd 315th

ANALYSIS:
They're far from the worst of the worst, but Austin Peay should not be a terribly frightening opponent for most clubs. Their record this season is 19-16, and the club is ranked 271st overall (out of 362) in Haslametrics' most recent ratings. They are also ranked by this site as the #8 team (out of 12) in the Atlantic Sun (average ranking 253.2).

Based on the data, Austin Peay will likely find more success on offense than on defense. Scoring about 106 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO, they currently occupy the #163 slot in the rankings for offensive efficiency. Austin Peay allows very few breakaway opportunities for the opposition, which typically translates to fewer turnovers. The team's rating vs. AO for potential breakaway points allowed off of steals is 8.91, which ranks #20 in the country. Austin Peay also has one of the better squads in the college game when it comes to maximizing opportunities to score. The team is ranked 48th in the NCAA in offensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of 88.39 vs. AO. As far as making those field goal attempts goes, the team is somewhat middle-of-the-road, converting about 43.2% of them vs. AO.

Unfortunately, Austin Peay is not even remotely close to being as good on defense as they are on offense. The team is ranked 347th in defensive efficiency, allowing about 114 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Austin Peay fares terribly when attempting to stop opponents from converting from the inside. The team is ranked ninth from the bottom in the country in defensive near-proximity percentage, allowing AO to make good on 64.6% of their attempts from close-up. Austin Peay is also one of the very worst teams in the game when it comes to preventing opponents from scoring off of offensive rebounds. The team allows AO to convert 7.5% of all second-chance opportunities (tenth from the bottom nationally), and with a rating of 16.35, they're 342nd in potential points surrendered off of the offensive boards as well. Austin Peay is lastly one of the very worst teams in the country in terms of overall defensive field goal percentage. The ball-club ranks #352 nationally in field goal percentage allowed, as AO will convert approximately 48.1% of their total attempts from the floor.
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 worse than normal. Austin Peay is more efficient than usual 27% of the time when facing teams that have a defensive field goal attempt rate vs. AO greater than 85.56. In their other contests, Austin Peay performs better than the norm 71% of the time.
Austin Peay does worse vs. clubs that do a nice job converting inside the paint. When playing squads that have an offensive near-proximity field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 57.54%, Austin Peay performs above average 25% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 65% of the time.
Austin Peay performs better against squads that do not defend well on the perimeter. When facing teams that have a defensive three-point field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 35.80%, Austin Peay is more efficient than normal 73% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 38% 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 Sun216th362nd210th155th244th286th
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
2024-25275th289th216th107th315th131st257th278th281st58th351st189th235th216th150th289th75th129th
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
2024-25284th267th--87th321st23rd359th63rd107th351st197th147th106th134th31st72nd362nd359th
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