TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2017-18 Binghamton  11-20 (0.355)  |  America East
All-Play Percentage: 0.129 (305th)
Schedule Strength: 0.340 (321st)
Record Quality: -0.323 (320th)
Avg. Season Rank: 276.41 (278th)
Pace: 68.87 (245th)
Momentum: -1.60 (245th)
Off. Momentum: -4.03 (344th)
Def. Momentum: 2.43 (32nd)
Consistency: -8.47 (104th)
Res. Consistency: -12.36 (222nd)
Away From Home: -0.20 (155th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -0.58 (145th)
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: 92.88 22.50 63.47 82.63 41.03 31.54 34.22 23.45 35.76 27.64 53.28 8.27 15.09 5.48 38.17 28.38 33.45 2.05
RANK: 318th 304th 346th 144th 311th 142nd 223rd 144th 237th 215th 325th 305th 156th 271st 142nd 143rd 224th 215th

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: 107.41 25.81 -- 83.18 46.59 28.65 38.98 25.27 40.17 29.25 59.59 10.29 13.10 6.67 34.45 30.39 35.17 1.99
RANK: 266th 158th -- 227th 271st 89th 329th 277th 294th 198th 153rd 124th 70th 152nd 72nd 270th 179th 240th

ANALYSIS:
Binghamton presently has one of the below-average teams in college basketball. Carrying a record of 11-20, they are currently rated #305 overall (out of 351) in All-Play Percentage this season. Of the nine schools in the America East (average ranking 230.3), they're currently ranked as our #8 team in the conference.

Binghamton is not one of the better offensive teams you will find. They are rated #318 in efficiency on that end of the court and only score about 93 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO. Binghamton has had serious struggles making their free throws this year. Converting just 63.5% of their attempts, the squad is ranked #346 overall in free throw percentage. Binghamton also won't provide opponents much of a scare with their shooting percentage from the inside. The team is ranked 325th in near-proximity field goal percentage, making only 53.3% 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.

Though they rate better on defense than they do on offense, Binghamton still isn't one of the more capable defensive teams in college hoops. Allowing roughly 107 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO, they are ranked #266 in the nation in defensive efficiency. Binghamton does an extremely poor job to deny the opposition behind the arc. They rank 329th nationally in defensive three-point percentage, allowing AO to make 39.0% of their attempts from afar. Binghamton also does a pretty inadequate job to provide chances for themselves to score quickly off of steals. They're ranked #305 in potential points off of breakaway steals with a rating of only 8.27 vs. AO.
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:
Binghamton does better vs. clubs that do not defend well on the perimeter. When playing squads that have a defensive three-point field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 35.83%, Binghamton performs above average 78% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 30% of the time.
Binghamton performs worse against squads that are typically efficient on offense. When facing teams that have an offensive efficiency rating vs. AO greater than 96.19, Binghamton is more efficient than normal 25% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 69% of the time.
When playing teams that prefer the outside shot, Binghamton usually performs worse than average. Binghamton is more efficient than normal 32% of the time when facing clubs that have an offensive shooting proximity score vs. AO greater than 1.98. In all other contests, Binghamton performs better than average 70% 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 East233rd146th349th274th270th330th
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
2024-25324th225th238th357th248th235th171st333rd316th77th322nd349th308th342nd165th320th25th86th
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--345th197th293rd145th165th227th286th208th352nd340th185th237th104th217th170th
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