TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2015-16 Lamar  11-19 (0.367)  |  Southland
All-Play Percentage: 0.080 (323rd)
Schedule Strength: 0.271 (349th)
Record Quality: -0.432 (341st)
Avg. Season Rank: 292.28 (297th)
Pace: 73.27 (31st)
Momentum: -1.82 (259th)
Off. Momentum: 0.18 (191st)
Def. Momentum: -2.00 (267th)
Consistency: -8.80 (153rd)
Res. Consistency: -11.84 (202nd)
Away From Home: 0.35 (133rd)
Paper Tiger Factor: -2.21 (278th)
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 4, 2016. 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: 93.26 30.77 67.39 81.30 39.52 27.14 30.45 25.74 35.21 28.42 52.10 14.34 15.83 5.34 33.38 31.66 34.96 1.98
RANK: 311th 87th 268th 212th 319th 234th 327th 116th 188th 186th 327th 18th 121st 302nd 229th 111th 186th 137th

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: 111.15 34.42 -- 80.10 47.72 27.47 36.88 21.31 40.33 31.33 62.27 11.60 17.86 8.56 34.29 26.60 39.11 1.95
RANK: 323rd 332nd -- 86th 321st 105th 269th 69th 325th 268th 256th 237th 316th 303rd 146th 86th 289th 277th

ANALYSIS:
Lamar presently has one of the below-average teams in college basketball. They are ranked #323 (out of 351) in the most recent Haslametrics ratings and have a record of 11-19. They are also ranked by this site as the #8 team (out of 13) in the Southland (average ranking 283.8). With a strength-of-schedule rating of 0.271 (which ranks third from the bottom in the nation), Lamar has faced some of the easiest opponents in all of college basketball.

Lamar does not provide much of a challenge on defense. They are ranked at #323 in efficiency on that end of the court and give up about 111 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO. Lamar fouls far too much and sends the opposition to the line way too often. With a defensive free throw attempt rate of 34.42 vs. AO, the squad is ranked #332 in the country in that category. Lamar has also 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 40.3% of their attempts from those in-between spots on the floor. If Lamar does have a bright spot on defense, it would have to be their willingness to take risks in order to score fast points off of steals. The team has a solid rating of 14.34 in potential points scored off of steals vs. AO, which ranks 18th-best in college basketball.

Lamar doesn't rate much better on offense than they do on defense. Scoring roughly 93 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO, they are ranked #311 in the nation in offensive efficiency. Lamar 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 30.4% of their three-pointers (327th in the nation), 52.1% of their near-proximity attempts (327th), and 39.5% of their total shots from the field (319th) vs. AO. Lamar is also one of the more deficient teams in the nation as it pertains to scoring off of offensive rebounds. Against AO, the team converts only 5.3% of all second-chance opportunities (302nd nationally).
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 convert well from the charity stripe, Lamar often performs worse than normal. Lamar never performs above average when facing teams that have an adjusted free throw percentage vs. AO greater than 72.74%. In their other contests, Lamar performs better than the norm 56% of the time.
Lamar does worse 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 47.43%, Lamar performs above average 10% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 56% of the time.
Lamar 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 9.67, Lamar is more efficient than normal 15% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 62% 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
2024-25183rd183rd113th167thSouthland283rd214th203rd268th34th228th
2023-24228th228th140th218thSouthland173rd24th346th316th336th261st
2022-23358th358th327th359thSouthland298th304th355th16th59th357th
2021-22345th345th358th355thWAC202nd326th228th33rd171st338th
2020-21311th311th274th284thSouthland210th142nd273rd283rd257th329th
2019-20228th228th166th222ndSouthland80th249th269th249th121st223rd
2018-19217th217th101st208thSouthland109th28th327th291st175th225th
2017-18220th220th131st214thSouthland185th20th318th15th128th198th
2016-17240th240th143rd243rdSouthland192nd120th332nd294th340th257th
2015-16323rd322nd266th341stSouthland31st153rd349th278th133rd297th
2014-15305th305th179th264thSouthland76th100th296th342nd320th310th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25259th294th258th25th314th297th163rd31st344th119th311th130th21st88th331st41st174th77th
2023-24231st282nd127th97th235th252nd207th64th223rd209th221st107th116th230th276th69th232nd148th
2022-23343rd278th229th135th336th323rd335th100th289th67th351st240th44th134th325th105th77th29th
2021-22343rd340th250th90th315th343rd334th10th305th203rd288th245th130th217th345th12th225th55th
2020-21310th323rd106th121st292nd349th235th10th308th143rd284th98th274th307th353rd9th156th25th
2019-20256th249th153rd133rd268th311th166th28th279th205th259th17th297th316th321st30th220th87th
2018-19223rd69th253rd97th288th297th226th61st146th94th335th65th8th91st317th66th125th63rd
2017-18251st214th322nd25th306th186th300th209th295th20th321st41st30th108th235th244th42nd64th
2016-17205th103rd250th189th235th204th219th299th213th28th309th87th125th197th203rd300th29th45th
2015-16311th87th268th212th319th234th327th116th188th186th327th18th121st302nd229th111th186th137th
2014-15278th152nd219th309th239th164th298th223rd201st276th160th183rd204th104th115th191st231st236th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-2591st276th--119th93rd232nd112th73rd87th192nd86th270th173rd58th260th79th220th159th
2023-24227th249th--131st227th302nd171st146th292nd81st290th289th127th254th319th157th90th54th
2022-23355th273rd--296th314th356th228th3rd238th262nd350th347th321st351st349th1st228th45th
2021-22327th334th--105th268th345th323rd27th294th63rd288th346th252nd231st350th27th82nd19th
2020-21267th89th--265th277th213th348th156th154th253rd201st267th247th315th182nd125th230th206th
2019-20193rd72nd--206th231st224th236th63rd234th281st149th253rd163rd230th216th45th286th222nd
2018-19228th236th--66th286th228th232nd24th287th177th274th228th43rd183rd281st32nd233rd160th
2017-18188th274th--10th301st95th254th71st331st126th265th72nd154th142nd200th127th215th184th
2016-17266th295th--45th320th85th170th23rd299th291st295th59th175th269th136th37th327th298th
2015-16323rd332nd--86th321st105th269th69th325th268th256th237th316th303rd146th86th289th277th
2014-15303rd326th--44th312th129th346th25th116th263rd264th345th123rd260th191st32nd304th262nd