TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2020-21 Charleston So.  3-18 (0.143)  |  Big South
All-Play Percentage: 0.076 (330th)
Schedule Strength: 0.412 (232nd)
Record Quality: -0.505 (350th)
Avg. Season Rank: 310.07 (314th)
Pace: 71.63 (85th)
Momentum: 3.73 (29th)
Off. Momentum: 2.97 (28th)
Def. Momentum: 0.76 (95th)
Consistency: -9.13 (162nd)
Res. Consistency: -9.97 (59th)
Away From Home: 1.77 (41st)
Paper Tiger Factor: 1.33 (39th)
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 5, 2021. 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: 88.34 22.11 71.68 79.14 39.15 33.49 31.42 22.99 33.28 22.66 56.53 10.57 11.20 3.14 42.32 29.06 28.63 2.14
RANK: 337th 286th 165th 287th 340th 87th 285th 185th 322nd 341st 239th 193rd 257th 331st 60th 154th 333rd 327th

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: 104.60 28.55 -- 85.29 44.06 32.30 33.31 24.14 33.70 28.85 64.78 16.42 16.22 5.78 37.87 28.30 33.83 2.04
RANK: 281st 308th -- 313th 184th 256th 143rd 228th 35th 202nd 328th 355th 342nd 275th 205th 190th 156th 153rd

ANALYSIS:
Charleston So. presently has one of the below-average teams in college basketball. Haslametrics has them ranked 330th overall (out of 357) in All-Play Percentage, and the team holds a record of 3-18. Of the 11 schools in the Big South (average ranking 239.6), they're currently ranked as the worst team in the conference.

Charleston So. has one of the most anemic offenses around. They rank 337th in efficiency on that end of the court and score fewer than 89 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Charleston So. 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 16.42, which ranks third from the bottom in D1. Charleston So. is also among the worst of the worst when it comes to field goal shooting. The team is rated #340 in the country in field goal percentage, making good on a meager 39.2% of their attempts vs. AO.

Though they rate better on defense than they do on offense, Charleston So. still isn't one of the more capable defensive teams in college hoops. Allowing roughly 105 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO, they are ranked #281 in the nation in defensive efficiency. Charleston So. gives up far too many offensive rebounds and second chances to their opponents. The club has a rating of 16.22 vs. AO in potential points allowed off of second chances (342nd nationally). Charleston So. has also done a pretty poor job this season to prevent opponents from making shots from the inside. The team is ranked 328th in the country in defensive near-proximity percentage, allowing AO to make good on 64.8% of their attempts from close-up. If Charleston So. does have a bright spot on defense, it would have to be their ability to prevent opponents from draining shot attempts in between the three-point line and the low post. AO will convert just 33.7% of their mid-range field goal attempts, and the team is nationally ranked 35th-best in that category as a result.

Charleston So. has been playing better basketball in their most recent outings, as evidenced by the team's #29 ranking in positive momentum. On the road, Charleston So. performs somewhat better than their norm, as the squad is nationally ranked 41st 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:
Charleston So. performs better against squads that have trouble defending the mid-range shot. When facing teams that have a defensive mid-range field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 37.32%, Charleston So. is more efficient than normal 100% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 22% of the time.
When playing teams that allow a greater number of field goal opportunities, Charleston So. usually performs worse than average. Charleston So. is more efficient than normal 33% of the time when facing clubs that have a defensive field goal attempt rate vs. AO greater than 83.05. In all other contests, Charleston So. performs better than average 91% of the time.
Charleston So. is typically better vs. teams that are typically efficient on offense. Against foes that have an offensive efficiency rating vs. AO greater than 95.87, Charleston So. performs above their norm 90% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above average 40% of the time.
LATEST NEWS ITEMS:
Fleming buzzer beater lifts Charleston Southern to OT win
(2/22/2021 9:28:04 PM) CLINTON, S.C. (AP) — Phlandrous Fleming Jr. drilled a long 3-pointer in the final second and scored a career-high 35 points to give Charleston Southern a 78-77 overtime win over Presbyterian on Monday night.
Wright lifts High Point past Charleston Southern 77-73
(2/11/2021 9:26:48 PM) HIGH POINT, N.C. (AP) — John-Michael Wright had 24 points as High Point edged past Charleston Southern 77-73 on Thursday night.
Cornwall leads Gardner-Webb over Charleston Southern 80-71
(1/25/2021 8:21:19 PM) BOILING SPRINGS, N.C. (AP) — Jaheam Cornwall matched his season high with 21 points as Gardner-Webb defeated Charleston Southern 80-71 on Monday.
Williams carries Gardner-Webb over Charleston Southern 74-62
(1/24/2021 4:33:19 PM) BOILING SPRINGS, N.C. (AP) -- D'Maurian Williams had a career-best 21 points as Gardner-Webb beat Charleston Southern 74-62 on Sunday.
Jones leads UNC Asheville over Charleston Southern 83-75
(1/15/2021 5:52:29 PM) ASHEVILLE, N.C. (AP) — Tajion Jones had 20 points as UNC Asheville topped Charleston Southern 83-75 on Friday.
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
2024-25315th315th319th310thBig South147th135th174th46th125th296th
2023-24318th318th309th309thBig South189th162nd181st79th111th328th
2022-23307th306th313th318thBig South247th265th271st302nd237th303rd
2021-22341st341st344th352ndBig South90th138th261st147th281st342nd
2020-21330th330th340th350thBig South85th162nd232nd39th41st314th
2019-20316th316th242nd300thBig South226th346th335th289th31st323rd
2018-19162nd162nd156th195thBig South79th292nd224th331st213th212th
2017-18251st251st201st269thBig South262nd268th299th274th251st293rd
2016-17306th306th264th297thBig South159th115th302nd112th44th298th
2015-16299th299th300th310thBig South187th23rd219th127th111th296th
2014-15202nd202nd103rd160thBig South104th309th258th226th220th230th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25320th40th331st358th311th179th334th305th121st203rd334th351st255th313th110th290th126th197th
2023-24340th329th147th152nd349th197th304th16th188th357th355th356th265th298th207th16th354th309th
2022-23214th312th187th43rd262nd131st234th49th32nd292nd324th182nd52nd25th179th69th322nd271st
2021-22331st329th303rd214th342nd45th261st262nd280th300th334th172nd60th51st39th260th304th327th
2020-21337th286th165th287th340th87th285th185th322nd341st239th193rd257th331st60th154th333rd327th
2019-20300th352nd32nd75th318th45th277th36th225th348th112th314th352nd353rd61st44th351st346th
2018-19235th329th295th75th235th73rd145th93rd84th298th260th40th291st332nd96th110th314th307th
2017-18264th250th112th104th292nd248th291st28th252nd285th216th48th286th280th260th28th290th185th
2016-17227th145th275th132nd251st220th288th23rd71st328th211th249th306th299th226th24th330th248th
2015-16276th349th343rd73rd262nd23rd239th131st163rd337th147th298th292nd296th35th161st341st339th
2014-15173rd227th149th64th289th8th205th248th175th325th252nd170th224th286th11th276th336th347th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25276th174th--280th330th5th85th351st359th302nd235th337th16th122nd1st349th272nd351st
2023-24222nd177th--324th210th79th20th337th350th242nd157th307th149th148th44th315th172nd266th
2022-23353rd298th--238th316th328th284th98th325th158th306th226th268th286th316th65th129th65th
2021-22337th208th--134th345th244th307th59th288th216th352nd188th138th290th250th69th229th166th
2020-21281st308th--313th184th256th143rd228th35th202nd328th355th342nd275th205th190th156th153rd
2019-20303rd78th--259th319th187th234th227th315th219th324th312th306th333rd148th213th176th198th
2018-19105th205th--62nd121st147th182nd117th35th130th145th328th118th171st190th147th184th185th
2017-18241st217th--36th255th290th323rd39th310th89th165th222nd175th251st324th52nd127th69th
2016-17340th333rd--162nd316th258th288th173rd325th104th319th112th194th268th262nd185th104th79th
2015-16313th213th--182nd295th298th296th210th191st61st344th184th157th152nd290th205th56th45th
2014-15268th107th--193rd234th325th279th243rd290th14th310th193rd224th305th326th235th13th9th