TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2022-23 Charleston So.  10-21 (0.323)  |  Big South
All-Play Percentage: 0.157 (307th)
Schedule Strength: 0.356 (271st)
Record Quality: -0.274 (318th)
Avg. Season Rank: 297.40 (303rd)
Pace: 66.74 (247th)
Momentum: -0.64 (213th)
Off. Momentum: -2.88 (345th)
Def. Momentum: 2.24 (25th)
Consistency: -9.89 (265th)
Res. Consistency: -13.22 (254th)
Away From Home: -1.09 (237th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -2.54 (302nd)
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: 100.75 22.28 71.57 87.72 42.24 32.38 33.02 28.54 42.11 26.79 53.54 10.60 16.61 7.14 36.92 32.54 30.54 2.06
RANK: 214th 312th 187th 43rd 262nd 131st 234th 49th 32nd 292nd 324th 182nd 52nd 25th 179th 69th 322nd 271st

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: 112.88 28.14 -- 85.99 46.46 35.11 36.04 21.83 41.57 29.05 62.72 11.32 14.97 6.09 40.83 25.39 33.78 2.07
RANK: 353rd 298th -- 238th 316th 328th 284th 98th 325th 158th 306th 226th 268th 286th 316th 65th 129th 65th

ANALYSIS:
Charleston So. is not one of the better teams in Division I this year. Carrying a record of 10-21, they are currently rated #307 overall (out of 363) in All-Play Percentage this season. Of the 10 schools in the Big South (average ranking 231.4), they're currently ranked as our #9 team in the conference.

Defense is the farthest thing from a strength for Charleston So. this year. The team ranks 353rd in defensive efficiency, allowing more than 112 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Charleston So. has done a lackluster job this year when defending the mid-range shot. The squad is ranked 325th nationally in defensive mid-range field goal percentage, allowing AO to make good on 41.6% of their attempts from those in-between spots on the floor. Charleston So. also allows opponents' field goal percentages to get far too high. The ball-club ranks #316 nationally in field goal percentage allowed, as AO will convert approximately 46.5% of their total attempts from the floor.

Even though the team ranks considerably higher in offensive efficiency, Charleston So. isn't a powerhouse on that end of the floor either. Scoring roughly 101 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO, they are ranked #214 in the nation in offensive efficiency. Charleston So. won't provide opponents much of a scare with their shooting percentage from the inside. The team is ranked 324th in near-proximity field goal percentage, making only 53.5% of their attempts from up-close vs. AO. If Charleston So. does have a strength offensively, it would have to be the team's ability to obtain and convert second-chance opportunities from offensive rebounds. The squad has a second-chance conversion percentage of 7.1% vs. AO, which ranks 25th in the nation.
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 facing teams that shoot the ball well from the field, Charleston So. often performs worse than normal. Charleston So. is more efficient than usual 26% of the time when facing teams that have an offensive field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 42.38%. In their other contests, Charleston So. performs better than the norm 80% of the time.
Charleston So. does better vs. clubs that allow opponents to shoot well from the field. When playing squads that have a defensive field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 43.21%, Charleston So. performs above average 63% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 10% of the time.
Charleston So. performs worse against squads that allow a greater number of field goal opportunities. When facing teams that have a defensive field goal attempt rate vs. AO greater than 85.49, Charleston So. is more efficient than normal 11% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 60% 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
2024-25315th314th319th310thBig South147th135th174th48th124th296th
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
2024-25320th41st331st358th310th180th334th306th121st204th334th351st255th312th112th290th126th196th
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--281st330th5th85th351st358th301st236th337th16th122nd1st349th271st351st
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