TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2016-17 Longwood  6-24 (0.200)  |  Big South
All-Play Percentage: 0.011 (347th)
Schedule Strength: 0.366 (308th)
Record Quality: -0.490 (346th)
Avg. Season Rank: 347.02 (348th)
Pace: 72.11 (70th)
Momentum: 2.67 (51st)
Off. Momentum: 1.54 (119th)
Def. Momentum: 1.13 (59th)
Consistency: -9.76 (273rd)
Res. Consistency: -10.84 (133rd)
Away From Home: 0.77 (73rd)
Paper Tiger Factor: -2.46 (296th)
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, 2017. 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: 88.85 20.70 74.77 77.42 42.24 25.53 31.22 25.61 35.62 26.28 59.40 9.01 9.57 4.77 32.98 33.08 33.95 1.99
RANK: 338th 344th 51st 338th 250th 297th 322nd 108th 214th 263rd 173rd 271st 342nd 321st 254th 73rd 205th 130th

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: 116.64 28.43 -- 85.80 49.59 29.54 41.36 19.85 42.35 36.40 60.21 15.55 17.68 10.09 34.43 23.14 42.43 1.92
RANK: 347th 201st -- 321st 342nd 187th 351st 35th 344th 350th 184th 348th 338th 347th 106th 15th 343rd 327th

ANALYSIS:
As one of the worst teams in NCAA basketball, Longwood should be a pushover for the average-to-good squads in Division I. Ranked fifth from the bottom overall (out of 351) in our most recent ratings, they presently have a record of 6-24. Of the 10 schools in the Big South (average ranking 252.1), they're currently ranked as our #9 team in the conference.

Longwood has one of the most inept defenses in the NCAA. Allowing about 117 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO, they're ranked way down at #347 in defensive efficiency. Longwood allows the opposition far too many easy shots from the floor and ranks in the bottom-25 in three of our four major defensive field goal shooting categories. They are at their worst when defending outside the paint, allowing AO to convert 41.4% of their three-pointers (last in the nation), 42.3% of their mid-range chances (eighth from the bottom), and 49.6% of their total shots from the field (tenth from the bottom). Longwood 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 10.1% of all second-chance opportunities (fifth from the bottom nationally), and with a rating of 17.68, they're 338th in potential points surrendered off of the offensive boards as well.

Longwood doesn't rate much better on offense than they do on defense. Scoring roughly 89 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO, they are ranked #338 in the nation in offensive efficiency. Longwood 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 15.55, which ranks fourth from the bottom in D1. Longwood also does an extremely poor job drawing fouls and getting to the free throw line. With a free throw attempt rate of just 20.70 vs. AO, they are eighth from the bottom in the overall rankings for that category. Longwood lastly poses no threat whatsoever to grab rebounds off their own misses. Against AO, the ball-club has a rating of 9.57 in potential points scored off of second chances (tenth from the bottom nationally), and they convert just 4.8% of their second-chance opportunities (ranked 321st) as well.
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 are typically efficient on offense, Longwood often performs worse than normal. Longwood is more efficient than usual 25% of the time when facing teams that have an offensive efficiency rating vs. AO greater than 97.78. In their other contests, Longwood performs better than the norm 70% of the time.
Longwood 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 44.20%, Longwood performs above average 70% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 25% of the time.
Longwood performs worse against squads that convert more frequently off of offensive rebounds. When facing teams that have an offensive second-chance conversion percentage vs. AO greater than 5.27%, Longwood is more efficient than normal 45% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 88% 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
2024-25227th227th142nd200thBig South73rd231st271st205th61st197th
2023-24182nd182nd121st180thBig South242nd222nd258th164th87th187th
2022-23160th160th96th169thBig South223rd240th329th222nd254th154th
2021-22169th169th16th107thBig South231st337th316th342nd329th184th
2020-21219th219th235th256thBig South326th156th253rd255th317th243rd
2019-20313th312th242nd316thBig South211th66th352nd168th123rd307th
2018-19241st239th207th240thBig South160th332nd275th33rd204th274th
2017-18339th339th335th341stBig South100th214th267th153rd96th340th
2016-17347th347th340th346thBig South70th273rd308th296th73rd348th
2015-16285th283rd298th329thBig South73rd180th276th30th82nd299th
2014-15315th315th297th311thBig South66th45th275th172nd62nd322nd
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25195th7th181st342nd182nd328th220th199th186th110th250th159th227th226th307th173rd62nd41st
2023-24211th79th308th188th203rd339th50th33rd181st216th309th157th68th154th341st31st214th73rd
2022-23194th178th186th106th254th172nd252nd101st113th240th260th234th177th159th204th114th261st221st
2021-22158th153rd174th97th222nd204th14th132nd311th155th318th85th179th314th222nd149th165th146th
2020-21227th192nd229th207th240th166th105th205th220th167th305th255th231st252nd167th206th152nd179th
2019-20343rd305th138th235th349th18th220th310th352nd300th351st161st294th345th11th311th289th337th
2018-19257th232nd95th327th263rd46th109th328th104th284th326th198th327th345th13th317th235th321st
2017-18345th286th254th340th339th228th326th249th283rd199th338th118th275th308th154th221st128th155th
2016-17338th344th51st338th250th297th322nd108th214th263rd173rd271st342nd321st254th73rd205th130th
2015-16266th278th120th292nd213th224th202nd222nd230th143rd222nd199th262nd101st197th201st113th122nd
2014-15308th326th144th302nd270th121st104th321st347th118th291st70th311th298th82nd314th65th176th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25255th167th--29th344th303rd233rd8th295th128th364th226th23rd257th336th9th195th78th
2023-24161st171st--33rd267th283rd256th229th220th3rd360th171st34th156th332nd270th8th12th
2022-23153rd184th--56th204th247th254th34th77th133rd268th160th42nd11th301st52nd188th102nd
2021-22225th79th--73rd295th310th171st19th307th129th348th64th9th85th335th21st162nd57th
2020-21233rd198th--153rd254th317th46th104th296th88th349th204th136th236th325th104th90th37th
2019-20199th189th--59th261st290th322nd6th158th199th183rd185th177th232nd331st4th235th111th
2018-19266th304th--79th186th342nd164th13th200th60th279th146th81st179th350th21st79th13th
2017-18299th290th--163rd252nd281st185th69th301st192nd242nd335th189th277th289th61st189th123rd
2016-17347th201st--321st342nd187th351st35th344th350th184th348th338th347th106th15th343rd327th
2015-16307th204th--133rd267th340th322nd96th185th47th313th330th168th282nd341st106th48th12th
2014-15289th323rd--73rd275th207th296th18th292nd260th153rd341st332nd335th255th18th296th210th