TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2022-23 Cent. Michigan  10-21 (0.323)  |  Mid-American
All-Play Percentage: 0.036 (350th)
Schedule Strength: 0.390 (247th)
Record Quality: -0.285 (321st)
Avg. Season Rank: 317.32 (326th)
Pace: 68.35 (150th)
Momentum: -5.99 (354th)
Off. Momentum: -1.79 (315th)
Def. Momentum: -4.20 (347th)
Consistency: -9.47 (218th)
Res. Consistency: -15.38 (339th)
Away From Home: 0.44 (63rd)
Paper Tiger Factor: -0.61 (162nd)
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, 2023. 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: 88.74 25.55 70.85 79.08 39.00 30.32 29.56 25.68 37.74 23.09 52.79 9.27 13.94 4.16 38.34 32.47 29.19 2.09
RANK: 358th 170th 217th 354th 351st 225th 354th 128th 187th 360th 338th 267th 191st 299th 128th 70th 342nd 316th

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: 107.38 32.35 -- 81.24 45.50 31.69 37.49 20.89 41.47 28.65 57.30 15.41 15.79 7.45 39.02 25.72 35.27 2.04
RANK: 270th 358th -- 52nd 264th 218th 337th 54th 324th 135th 112th 362nd 302nd 358th 273rd 81st 194th 129th

ANALYSIS:
Cent. Michigan presently has one of the below-average teams in college basketball. Carrying a record of 10-21, they are currently rated #350 overall (out of 363) in All-Play Percentage this season. They are also ranked by this site as the worst team (out of 12) in the MAC (average ranking 217.0).

Offense comes as a real struggle to Cent. Michigan this year. The team is rated sixth from the bottom in offensive efficiency and scores fewer than 89 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Cent. Michigan tends to be very careless with the ball and allows far too many breakaway opportunities off of their own turnovers. The team's rating for potential breakaway points allowed off of steals vs. AO is 15.41, which ranks second from the bottom in D1. Cent. Michigan also happens to be one of the very worst in the game when it comes to maximizing the number of shot attempts they get off from the floor. The team is nationally ranked tenth from the bottom in offensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of only 79.08 vs. AO. Cent. Michigan lastly struggles to drain shots consistently from most spots on the floor, ranking in the bottom-50 in three of the four primary field goal shooting categories. They only convert 29.6% of their three-pointers (tenth from the bottom in the nation), 52.8% of their near-proximity attempts (338th), and 39.0% of their total shots from the field (351st) vs. AO.

Though they rate better on defense than they do on offense, Cent. Michigan 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 #270 in the nation in defensive efficiency. Cent. Michigan fouls far too much and sends the opposition to the line way too often. With a defensive free throw attempt rate of 32.35 vs. AO, the squad is ranked #358 in the country in that category. Cent. Michigan 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 (sixth from the bottom nationally).

Cent. Michigan has been playing some of their worst basketball of the season as of late, and they're presently ranked tenth from the bottom 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:
Cent. Michigan does better vs. clubs that allow a higher number of conversions off of the offensive glass. When playing squads that have a defensive second-chance conversion percentage vs. AO greater than 5.14%, Cent. Michigan performs above average 74% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 20% of the time.
Cent. Michigan performs worse against squads that tend to capitalize off breakaway opportunities. When facing teams that have a potential point rate off steals vs. AO greater than 9.17, Cent. Michigan is more efficient than normal 40% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 89% of the time.
When playing teams that convert well from outside the arc, Cent. Michigan usually performs worse than average. Cent. Michigan is more efficient than normal 33% of the time when facing clubs that have an offensive three-point field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 32.21%. In all other contests, Cent. Michigan performs better than average 79% 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
2024-25203rd203rd236th270thMAC168th169th186th35th169th219th
2023-24272nd272nd150th199thMAC330th216th255th269th218th293rd
2022-23350th350th313th321stMAC150th218th247th162nd63rd326th
2021-22324th323rd333rd315thMAC150th260th190th87th47th340th
2020-21317th317th299th323rdMAC11th293rd224th37th17th301st
2019-20215th215th242nd224thMAC9th67th131st267th246th197th
2018-19144th144th69th103rdMAC36th26th155th81st36th149th
2017-18170th170th126th181stMAC213th70th245th66th210th158th
2016-17244th244th179th201stMAC8th160th194th147th97th218th
2015-16152nd151st181st186thMAC266th318th189th43rd208th179th
2014-1594th94th43rd74thMAC209th350th176th91st298th85th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25206th127th154th152nd191st315th319th159th299th43rd140th98th51st54th322nd163rd52nd30th
2023-24322nd318th347th53rd336th143rd346th130th215th163rd319th264th161st253rd181st151st202nd194th
2022-23358th170th217th354th351st225th354th128th187th360th338th267th191st299th128th70th342nd316th
2021-22316th190th200th300th324th158th250th130th204th329th325th262nd186th300th118th107th323rd304th
2020-21278th91st240th322nd249th303rd255th72nd113th299th283rd124th200th216th271st54th260th160th
2019-20183rd132nd47th161st241st162nd272nd81st13th302nd294th5th129th194th159th79th300th269th
2018-1983rd24th293rd107th152nd158th46th242nd297th63rd216th52nd86th147th180th256th78th114th
2017-1886th149th3rd42nd249th8th213th336th222nd157th254th104th59th214th13th340th202nd319th
2016-1783rd219th7th30th289th2nd147th291st73rd339th308th227th93rd175th3rd306th345th351st
2015-1678th280th22nd10th203rd6th224th234th120th295th89th256th160th198th14th265th328th341st
2014-1525th157th47th34th115th6th100th312th36th245th133rd85th172nd264th10th324th293rd344th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25203rd109th--128th240th312th316th64th120th106th271st55th144th242nd321st71st118th68th
2023-24166th170th--348th45th335th92nd136th108th271st31st229th346th333rd289th75th183rd112th
2022-23270th358th--52nd264th218th337th54th324th135th112th362nd302nd358th273rd81st194th129th
2021-22310th321st--204th238th299th297th39th34th233rd318th142nd209th92nd285th29th220th115th
2020-21350th161st--238th337th230th335th282nd343rd99th325th117th130th289th211th269th77th97th
2019-20258th111th--64th326th84th352nd206th326th131st180th127th223rd291st112th238th177th216th
2018-19182nd100th--285th230th119th18th97th211th343rd259th100th327th296th84th71st335th319th
2017-18274th73rd--286th278th306th171st78th264th246th305th75th320th307th279th53rd208th134th
2016-17343rd146th--349th317th293rd258th235th329th261st310th197th277th333rd200th164th171st168th
2015-16264th181st--297th219th212th175th186th174th271st238th20th272nd221st157th149th242nd231st
2014-15235th187th--85th301st185th278th63rd117th194th327th39th199th295th236th79th228th180th