TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2023-24 Pittsburgh  22-11 (0.667)  |  ACC
All-Play Percentage: 0.934 (25th)
Schedule Strength: 0.639 (80th)
Record Quality: 0.315 (42nd)
Avg. Season Rank: 43.71 (39th)
Pace: 66.00 (300th)
Momentum: 3.52 (45th)
Off. Momentum: 4.06 (22nd)
Def. Momentum: -0.54 (187th)
Consistency: -10.15 (283rd)
Res. Consistency: -16.22 (350th)
Away From Home: 1.28 (47th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -4.46 (351st)
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 8, 2024. 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: 115.94 26.68 70.79 91.90 44.90 38.70 37.54 20.45 37.59 32.75 58.15 12.50 15.16 6.02 42.11 22.25 35.64 2.06
RANK: 28th 170th 242nd 4th 134th 19th 36th 256th 244th 102nd 159th 115th 95th 129th 48th 299th 197th 288th

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: 97.96 23.42 -- 83.44 42.06 32.33 31.01 21.28 38.80 29.83 56.37 9.01 11.28 4.23 38.75 25.51 35.74 2.03
RANK: 46th 66th -- 80th 81st 225th 24th 117th 170th 129th 119th 27th 39th 37th 263rd 135th 166th 127th

ANALYSIS:
Pittsburgh is one of the teams in the upper echelon of college basketball this year. They have a record of 22-11 and are ranked 25th overall (out of 362) in the latest Haslametrics ratings. They are also ranked by this site as the #4 team (out of 15) in the ACC (average ranking 63.7).

Pittsburgh has a reasonably potent offensive attack. Occupying the #28 slot in our offensive efficiency rankings, they will score about 116 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Pittsburgh is one of the very best when it comes to maximizing field goal opportunities. The team is ranked fourth in the NCAA in offensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of 91.90 vs. AO. As far as making those field goal attempts goes, the team is somewhat middle-of-the-road, converting about 44.9% of them vs. AO. Pittsburgh also does a pretty good job of protecting the ball when they have possession and not allowing quick and easy baskets off of their own turnovers. The team's rating vs. AO for potential breakaway points allowed off of steals is 9.01, which ranks #27 in the country.

Pittsburgh plays at roughly the same level defensively as they do offensively. The team ranks 46th nationally in defensive efficiency, allowing about 98 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Pittsburgh does an outstanding job shutting down the opposition from behind the arc. They rank 24th in the NCAA in defensive three-point percentage, allowing AO to make just 31.0% of their attempts from afar. Pittsburgh is also one of the better teams when it comes to not allowing opponents to convert scoring chances off of offensive rebounds. The squad allows AO to convert only 4.2% of all second-chance opportunities (ranked 37th in the NCAA), and with a rating of 11.28, they're 39th in potential points allowed off of the offensive glass as well.

Pittsburgh has been playing better basketball in their most recent outings, as evidenced by the team's #45 ranking in positive momentum. On the road, Pittsburgh performs somewhat better than their norm, as the squad is nationally ranked 47th 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:
When playing teams that are typically efficient on offense, Pittsburgh usually performs worse than average. Pittsburgh is more efficient than normal 30% of the time when facing clubs that have an offensive efficiency rating vs. AO greater than 116.08. In all other contests, Pittsburgh performs better than average 74% of the time.
Pittsburgh is typically worse vs. teams that convert well from the charity stripe. Against foes that have an adjusted free throw percentage vs. AO greater than 0.75%, Pittsburgh performs above their norm 30% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above average 74% of the time.
When facing teams that are more proficient at draining the mid-range shot, Pittsburgh often performs worse than normal. Pittsburgh is more efficient than usual 48% of the time when facing teams that have an offensive mid-range field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 39.31%. In their other contests, Pittsburgh performs better than the norm 90% 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
2024-2560th60th164th85thACC276th312th63rd278th361st39th
2023-2425th25th65th42ndACC300th283rd80th351st47th39th
2022-2361st61st63rd43rdACC174th241st84th283rd216th78th
2021-22200th200th290th187thACC316th278th60th41st294th195th
2020-2192nd92nd212th132ndACC173rd166th80th32nd93rd80th
2019-20102nd102nd211th113thACC295th92nd57th157th166th91st
2018-19108th108th242nd173rdACC199th290th64th311th328th88th
2017-18244th244th324th254thACC318th150th45th329th156th227th
2016-1779th79th195th91stACC302nd309th24th93rd7th68th
2015-1635th35th90th47thACC319th342nd40th339th222nd24th
2014-1570th70th140th76thACC322nd291st51st146th290th87th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-2556th67th11th104th113th102nd133rd164th71st261st82nd47th162nd122nd119th176th281st276th
2023-2428th170th242nd4th134th19th36th256th244th102nd159th115th95th129th48th299th197th288th
2022-2325th20th36th185th78th90th18th221st135th252nd97th266th182nd212th84th217th250th286th
2021-22231st2nd223rd338th216th328th264th105th86th212th287th279th73rd239th299th67th145th71st
2020-2179th4th309th133rd99th297th131st219th240th18th174th91st26th28th303rd232nd13th19th
2019-20143rd46th160th55th222nd290th270th45th290th115th160th26th61st196th311th58th150th70th
2018-19162nd4th212th270th228th275th202nd305th327th20th293rd47th63rd150th246th302nd9th23rd
2017-18284th264th206th323rd243rd42nd262nd330th291st278th141st328th342nd313th18th317th230th311th
2016-1751st47th71st233rd70th105th50th156th56th307th63rd321st290th257th92nd145th299th291st
2015-1631st110th21st47th47th253rd117th31st4th189th123rd248th103rd100th278th45th244th130th
2014-1539th81st191st59th29th318th116th2nd3rd332nd51st228th54th54th329th2nd340th157th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-2579th103rd--76th98th255th243rd129th199th81st40th114th53rd83rd288th159th111th81st
2023-2446th66th--80th81st225th24th117th170th129th119th27th39th37th263rd135th166th127th
2022-23104th178th--236th57th318th94th131st62nd161st80th21st91st31st300th102nd132nd83rd
2021-22155th149th--102nd155th326th316th105th160th39th117th175th31st13th343rd115th49th22nd
2020-21116th233rd--105th102nd263rd91st87th211th136th103rd84th35th82nd293rd98th147th99th
2019-2086th35th--142nd124th265th193rd120th184th115th104th28th166th132nd272nd135th122nd89th
2018-1984th204th--102nd52nd235th223rd217th15th54th81st11th340th264th269th242nd54th59th
2017-18194th181st--311th121st303rd77th86th215th271st79th153rd324th180th263rd50th230th152nd
2016-17136th19th--330th116th294th122nd122nd198th297th59th81st211th184th229th69th245th198th
2015-1641st27th--130th102nd181st207th194th122nd145th72nd67th2nd4th191st209th150th146th
2014-15158th199th--136th158th93rd203rd253rd207th148th121st26th72nd124th99th264th162nd211th