TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2016-17 Furman  23-12 (0.657)  |  Southern
All-Play Percentage: 0.700 (106th)
Schedule Strength: 0.487 (176th)
Record Quality: 0.134 (96th)
Avg. Season Rank: 102.72 (102nd)
Pace: 68.69 (263rd)
Momentum: -1.33 (240th)
Off. Momentum: -0.72 (244th)
Def. Momentum: -0.61 (179th)
Consistency: -10.23 (314th)
Res. Consistency: -13.37 (300th)
Away From Home: -0.52 (207th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -1.43 (227th)
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: 103.84 23.13 70.47 81.58 45.41 35.02 38.42 18.91 35.33 27.66 61.15 12.93 13.05 6.04 42.92 23.18 33.90 2.09
RANK: 118th 319th 172nd 183rd 104th 29th 37th 309th 225th 210th 119th 49th 254th 235th 31st 311th 207th 296th

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: 99.45 26.85 -- 79.88 44.19 30.26 32.38 21.89 38.67 27.73 61.43 9.52 14.92 7.35 37.88 27.40 34.71 2.03
RANK: 111th 144th -- 107th 164th 216th 51st 106th 271st 144th 213th 75th 210th 238th 252nd 112th 169th 139th

ANALYSIS:
Furman is a fairly decent basketball team that, while likely better than average, isn't quite good enough to crack any top-25 rankings this year. They have a record of 23-12 and are ranked 106th overall (out of 351) in the latest Haslametrics ratings. They are also ranked by this site as the #3 team (out of 10) in the Southern (average ranking 177.7).

If there is a strength for Furman this year, it's probably on the defensive end of the court. The team is rated 111th in defensive efficiency, allowing fewer than 100 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO. Furman does a pretty solid job providing themselves chances to score quickly off of steals. They're ranked 49th in potential points off of breakaway steals vs. AO with a rating of 12.93. Furman also owns a pretty good track record against teams that shoot the three. They rank 51st in the NCAA in defensive three-point percentage, allowing AO to make just 32.4% of their attempts from afar.

Furman plays at about the same level on offense as they do on defense. The team ranks 118th nationally in offensive efficiency, scoring about 104 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Furman will make a concerted effort to fire off quite a few three-pointers each game. The team ranks 31st in ratio of three-point attempts to total field goal attempts. If you do allow them to shoot from long, they have the ability to punish you for it, too. Ranked in the top-50 in three-point shooting percentage, they make approximately 38.4% of their three-point attempts vs. AO. Furman is also fairly competent protecting the ball on offense, which minimizes opportunities for the opponent to score quickly off of steals. The team's rating vs. AO for potential breakaway points allowed off of steals is 9.52, which ranks #75 in the country. If Furman does have a weakness offensively, it would have to be the team's inability to get to the free throw line. The squad has a free throw attempt rate of only 23.13 vs. AO, which ranks 33rd-worst in the country.

Furman has been one of the more erratic teams in NCAA basketball this year (presently ranked 314th in the country in consistency), which makes forecasting the outcomes of their upcoming games tougher than most.
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:
Furman does better vs. clubs that are more proficient at draining the mid-range shot. When playing squads that have an offensive mid-range field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 35.68%, Furman performs above average 62% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 17% of the time.
Furman performs better against squads that tend to get off more shots. When facing teams that have an offensive field goal attempt rate vs. AO greater than 83.33, Furman is more efficient than normal 73% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 32% of the time.
When playing teams that typically allow more than a fair share of breakaway opportunities, Furman usually performs better than average. Furman is more efficient than normal 73% of the time when facing clubs that have a potential point rate allowed off steals vs. AO greater than 12.11. In all other contests, Furman performs better than average 32% 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
2024-25148th148th43rd77thSouthern240th148th177th250th154th135th
2023-24149th149th184th157thSouthern133rd115th165th56th326th133rd
2022-2391st91st16th72ndSouthern147th82nd208th199th74th99th
2021-2275th75th87th108thSouthern308th292nd183rd287th127th86th
2020-2190th90th94th116thSouthern224th43rd140th258th311th82nd
2019-2082nd81st17th53rdSouthern210th248th163rd302nd44th54th
2018-1978th78th28th67thSouthern225th208th220th299th130th95th
2017-1889th89th49th106thSouthern135th196th262nd342nd69th94th
2016-17106th106th66th96thSouthern263rd314th176th227th207th102nd
2015-16178th178th163rd189thSouthern293rd109th238th239th310th200th
2014-15299th299th290th310thSouthern287th337th256th6th175th308th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25144th245th304th179th172nd5th79th332nd277th282nd122nd311th188th200th8th332nd289th353rd
2023-24111th233rd115th78th201st4th241st353rd84th128th168th158th113th155th6th356th161st335th
2022-2343rd26th105th191st90th19th162nd357th283rd84th59th186th243rd190th16th357th82nd277th
2021-2228th336th28th29th81st2nd25th348th58th200th129th110th320th304th3rd352nd256th348th
2020-2161st314th127th80th58th4th142nd347th40th189th24th42nd261st191st4th350th217th338th
2019-2087th190th174th117th138th21st121st321st25th155th198th4th298th280th24th327th170th290th
2018-19113th344th146th82nd87th21st134th327th121st105th62nd28th253rd77th30th330th141st269th
2017-1892nd296th247th37th114th16th134th278th65th160th118th11th250th265th37th302nd207th297th
2016-17118th319th172nd183rd104th29th37th309th225th210th119th49th254th235th31st311th207th296th
2015-16164th124th148th226th177th50th310th336th141st106th107th165th240th125th40th334th95th256th
2014-15264th149th263rd304th266th39th219th326th269th244th259th288th290th265th28th322nd194th311th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25196th143rd--244th196th42nd224th251st263rd321st82nd266th324th318th28th240th302nd330th
2023-24201st134th--201st286th62nd137th128th156th342nd293rd237th123rd270th49th119th342nd341st
2022-23152nd179th--163rd222nd60th36th174th130th325th287th125th190th325th60th163rd331st341st
2021-22144th52nd--176th232nd49th106th207th147th304th278th113th158th276th45th203rd309th320th
2020-21124th147th--74th242nd26th181st135th228th304th161st231st200th269th36th170th328th335th
2019-2074th48th--47th225th146th47th45th203rd221st281st272nd221st251st210th66th274th213th
2018-1950th40th--213th92nd108th24th260th149th219th123rd175th306th219th92nd251st202nd236th
2017-1887th96th--101st200th40th21st194th126th230th296th62nd59th191st53rd224th257th297th
2016-17111th144th--107th164th216th51st106th271st144th213th75th210th238th252nd112th169th139th
2015-16191st296th--54th256th70th247th94th284th229th153rd192nd95th209th112th126th269th271st
2014-15298th261st--257th280th148th172nd228th231st240th305th303rd320th297th119th204th210th232nd