TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2016-17 Canisius  18-16 (0.529)  |  MAAC
All-Play Percentage: 0.469 (187th)
Schedule Strength: 0.456 (214th)
Record Quality: 0.004 (171st)
Avg. Season Rank: 181.13 (178th)
Pace: 71.95 (74th)
Momentum: -1.32 (239th)
Off. Momentum: -2.30 (309th)
Def. Momentum: 0.98 (66th)
Consistency: -6.70 (4th)
Res. Consistency: -9.74 (73rd)
Away From Home: 1.45 (31st)
Paper Tiger Factor: 1.70 (18th)
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: 103.50 23.16 72.88 83.23 44.65 34.32 35.86 18.63 36.80 30.28 59.43 10.80 14.33 6.20 41.23 22.39 36.38 2.05
RANK: 126th 318th 96th 90th 133rd 37th 143rd 312th 155th 79th 172nd 163rd 188th 216th 60th 319th 107th 234th

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: 107.10 26.97 -- 78.90 49.83 25.32 34.11 21.64 41.60 31.94 67.86 10.80 15.16 9.33 32.10 27.42 40.48 1.92
RANK: 269th 148th -- 64th 343rd 25th 96th 99th 335th 301st 335th 176th 226th 337th 37th 114th 332nd 333rd

ANALYSIS:
They're far from the worst of the worst, but Canisius should not be a terribly frightening opponent for most clubs. They are ranked #187 (out of 351) in the most recent Haslametrics ratings and have a record of 18-16. They are also ranked by this site as the #5 team (out of 11) in the MAAC (average ranking 200.5).

Based on the data, Canisius will likely find more success on offense than on defense. Scoring about 103 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO, they currently occupy the #126 slot in the rankings for offensive efficiency. Canisius will likely shoot a fair share of three-pointers each contest. The team ranks 60th in ratio of three-point attempts to total field goal attempts. When it comes to actually making their three-point attempts, the squad shoots a so-so 35.9% from beyond the arc vs. AO. If Canisius does have a weakness offensively, it would have to be the team's inability to get to the free throw line. The squad has a free throw attempt rate of only 23.16 vs. AO, which ranks 34th-worst in the country.

The defense for Canisius, on the other hand, isn't nearly as efficient as the offense is. The team is ranked 269th in defensive efficiency, allowing about 107 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Canisius allows the opposition far too many easy shots from the floor and ranks in the bottom-25 in three of our four major defensive field goal shooting categories. They are exceptionally deficient defending inside the three-point line, allowing AO to make good on 41.6% of their mid-range jumpers (335th in the nation), 67.9% of their near-proximity chances (335th), and 49.8% of their total shots from the field (ninth from the bottom). Canisius 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 9.3% of all second-chance opportunities (337th nationally).

Canisius is one of the most consistent teams in NCAA basketball (currently ranked fourth in consistency), which makes the outcomes of their upcoming games far easier to predict. On the road, Canisius performs somewhat better than their norm, as the squad is nationally ranked 31st in our 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:
Canisius is typically better vs. teams that are typically efficient on offense. Against foes that have an offensive efficiency rating vs. AO greater than 97.58, Canisius performs above their norm 65% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above average 21% of the time.
When facing teams that allow a higher number of conversions off of the offensive glass, Canisius often performs worse than normal. Canisius is more efficient than usual 18% of the time when facing teams that have a defensive second-chance conversion percentage vs. AO greater than 7.44%. In their other contests, Canisius performs better than the norm 61% of the time.
Canisius does better vs. clubs that shoot the ball well from the field. When playing squads that have an offensive field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 41.98%, Canisius performs above average 61% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team 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
2024-25354th354th363rd360thMAAC214th364th300th292nd202nd354th
2023-24297th297th249th254thMAAC223rd180th256th16th156th250th
2022-23252nd252nd306th315thMAAC153rd137th254th232nd144th277th
2021-22256th256th290th273rdMAAC111th31st185th37th149th287th
2020-21261st261st156th253rdMAAC128th337th320th55th282nd247th
2019-20273rd273rd278th290thMAAC69th265th268th1st10th241st
2018-19262nd261st212th248thMAAC183rd56th288th26th15th259th
2017-18120th120th84th140thMAAC97th19th284th156th79th138th
2016-17187th187th164th171stMAAC74th4th214th18th31st178th
2015-16239th238th233rd231stMAAC205th18th235th195th105th204th
2014-15155th154th147th162ndMAAC197th117th195th97th104th156th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25323rd364th39th331st223rd139th58th110th176th355th251st210th363rd361st104th81st351st336th
2023-24303rd337th359th58th271st155th307th107th142nd204th253rd299th80th90th196th121st239th204th
2022-23240th359th142nd93rd245th71st170th78th150th339th164th203rd342nd245th88th97th351st337th
2021-22272nd160th252nd117th319th133rd306th139th261st236th298th261st220th317th150th152nd252nd234th
2020-21268th206th223rd185th299th34th318th182nd145th338th198th225th305th348th35th180th339th342nd
2019-20282nd254th229th179th251st258th338th38th160th309th94th239th206th190th266th32nd298th199th
2018-19211th230th199th169th207th91st305th223rd105th212th139th83rd228th160th88th228th212th249th
2017-18120th238th195th139th115th25th245th331st71st127th85th40th160th164th30th331st144th278th
2016-17126th318th96th90th133rd37th143rd312th155th79th172nd163rd188th216th60th319th107th234th
2015-16149th194th43rd78th257th29th200th325th155th74th314th200th97th223rd41st332nd115th259th
2014-15175th275th118th32nd237th58th281st222nd203rd93rd211th72nd22nd50th102nd266th147th206th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25362nd211th--216th364th272nd348th6th348th346th357th264th155th317th266th4th344th266th
2023-24249th122nd--230th309th36th308th153rd179th349th250th263rd157th179th34th143rd349th352nd
2022-23259th119th--162nd327th57th305th99th142nd353rd281st215th35th175th59th89th353rd350th
2021-22222nd227th--121st290th24th81st232nd152nd286th345th95th39th59th25th252nd312th331st
2020-21251st271st--91st302nd11th298th40th82nd354th207th87th46th197th15th51st357th355th
2019-20249th237th--36th325th56th283rd139th272nd196th316th265th83rd139th83rd191st251st271st
2018-19292nd259th--128th325th48th313th171st224th285th280th71st329th319th44th175th303rd312th
2017-18151st223rd--74th215th38th29th62nd189th306th212th163rd314th272nd59th75th329th323rd
2016-17269th148th--64th343rd25th96th99th335th301st335th176th226th337th37th114th332nd333rd
2015-16335th205th--138th339th213th332nd25th241st299th295th71st144th245th226th21st304th251st
2014-15136th233rd--87th147th226th121st49th68th173rd189th255th245th143rd266th62nd208th156th