TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2016-17 Binghamton  12-20 (0.375)  |  America East
All-Play Percentage: 0.094 (318th)
Schedule Strength: 0.396 (283rd)
Record Quality: -0.278 (306th)
Avg. Season Rank: 300.76 (304th)
Pace: 68.18 (279th)
Momentum: -4.66 (334th)
Off. Momentum: -3.96 (340th)
Def. Momentum: -0.69 (188th)
Consistency: -8.97 (176th)
Res. Consistency: -11.50 (184th)
Away From Home: -0.57 (214th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -3.35 (324th)
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 3, 2017. 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: 92.53 23.87 70.53 80.17 40.62 32.09 32.95 22.74 36.87 25.34 53.70 9.48 12.28 4.38 40.03 28.36 31.61 2.08
RANK: 317th 298th 168th 251st 310th 92nd 272nd 206th 153rd 291st 318th 250th 291st 334th 73rd 193rd 276th 289th

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: 109.52 27.50 -- 83.55 47.07 30.73 38.24 23.67 39.15 29.16 62.81 11.41 15.28 7.71 36.78 28.32 34.90 2.02
RANK: 302nd 167th -- 247th 287th 231st 301st 169th 289th 204th 260th 223rd 233rd 264th 201st 157th 175th 173rd

ANALYSIS:
Binghamton is not one of the better teams in Division I this year. Haslametrics has them ranked 318th overall (out of 351) in All-Play Percentage, and the team holds a record of 12-20. Of the nine schools in the America East (average ranking 228.9), they're currently ranked as our #7 team in the conference.

Binghamton is not one of the most productive teams on offense. Scoring fewer than 93 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO, they are rated at #317 in offensive efficiency. Binghamton does a terrible job to take advantage of scoring chances off of offensive rebounds. Against AO, the team converts only 4.4% of all second-chance opportunities (334th nationally). Binghamton also won't provide opponents much of a scare with their shooting percentage from the inside. The team is ranked 318th in near-proximity field goal percentage, making only 53.7% of their attempts from up-close vs. AO. Moreover, they find themselves in the bottom-50 in overall offensive field goal percentage, converting just 40.6% of their total attempts vs. AO.

Binghamton doesn't rate much better on defense than they do on offense. Allowing roughly 110 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO, they are ranked #302 in the nation in defensive efficiency. Binghamton tends to struggle a bit against teams that shoot the three. They rank 301st nationally in defensive three-point percentage, allowing AO to make 38.2% of their attempts from afar.

Binghamton has been playing some of their worst basketball of the season as of late, and they're presently ranked 334th in positive momentum because of it.
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 playing teams that are typically efficient on offense, Binghamton usually performs worse than average. Binghamton is more efficient than normal 11% of the time when facing clubs that have an offensive efficiency rating vs. AO greater than 100.91. In all other contests, Binghamton performs better than average 55% of the time.
Binghamton is typically worse vs. teams that shoot the ball well from the field. Against foes that have an offensive field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 43.94%, Binghamton performs above their norm 17% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above average 59% of the time.
When facing teams that allow opponents to shoot well from the field, Binghamton often performs better than normal. Binghamton is more efficient than usual 56% of the time when facing teams that have a defensive field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 44.64%. In their other contests, Binghamton performs better than the norm 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
2024-25326th326th218th306thAmerica East235th147th349th274th270th329th
2023-24269th269th193rd240thAmerica East255th201st315th322nd272nd290th
2022-23300th300th260th290thAmerica East229th217th290th268th103rd318th
2021-22294th294th253rd308thAmerica East167th35th341st241st29th296th
2020-21296th296th318th340thAmerica East243rd340th270th295th2nd322nd
2019-20339th339th291st325thAmerica East157th72nd277th194th327th338th
2018-19337th337th314th324thAmerica East238th320th270th260th38th342nd
2017-18305th305th282nd320thAmerica East245th104th321st145th155th278th
2016-17318th318th269th306thAmerica East279th176th283rd324th214th304th
2015-16313th313th318th316thAmerica East318th209th306th197th136th316th
2014-15319th319th342nd333rdAmerica East248th196th220th222nd232nd333rd
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25324th225th238th357th249th235th172nd333rd317th77th322nd349th308th342nd165th320th27th86th
2023-24253rd184th307th297th157th308th272nd214th193rd64th174th348th223rd142nd283rd201st48th38th
2022-23303rd279th257th211th249th321st304th3rd118th359th137th316th237th243rd313th4th356th223rd
2021-22307th320th317th184th301st197th156th60th250th313th284th302nd252nd301st200th55th316th252nd
2020-21260th338th307th192nd246th24th135th117th130th354th176th291st190th205th19th111th354th355th
2019-20245th337th51st121st311th8th227th222nd79th341st293rd304th328th352nd7th231st344th352nd
2018-19322nd349th345th148th304th32nd225th218th225th294th265th300th308th325th40th226th296th324th
2017-18318th304th346th144th311th142nd223rd144th237th215th325th305th156th271st142nd143rd224th215th
2016-17317th298th168th251st310th92nd272nd206th153rd291st318th250th291st334th73rd193rd276th289th
2015-16341st230th261st308th340th140th343rd213th287th309th295th262nd218th274th95th180th268th277th
2014-15320th119th279th313th309th228th305th232nd304th203rd290th287th137th208th184th197th138th149th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25302nd256th--345th197th292nd144th163rd230th286th208th352nd340th182nd239th104th218th171st
2023-24261st316th--237th177th120th273rd309th171st121st158th254th200th230th93rd306th111th179th
2022-23271st329th--199th232nd24th138th357th320th78th234th180th333rd278th21st360th63rd241st
2021-22233rd257th--254th208th132nd148th338th321st64th203rd328th272nd278th106th338th45th137th
2020-21316th85th--341st281st156th351st323rd278th263rd119th277th319th212th75th279th189th248th
2019-20347th258th--352nd330th238th310th258th345th320th236th315th338th330th117th180th231st245th
2018-19319th53rd--348th291st183rd351st315th155th256th229th325th339th335th89th281st163rd221st
2017-18266th158th--227th271st89th329th277th294th198th153rd124th70th152nd72nd270th179th240th
2016-17302nd167th--247th287th231st301st169th289th204th260th223rd233rd264th201st157th175th173rd
2015-16183rd146th--243rd189th195th87th218th223rd213th230th310th267th241st164th193rd193rd191st
2014-15278th141st--213th268th264th326th75th172nd241st227th328th190th158th252nd61st225th175th