TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2022-23 Charleston  31-4 (0.886)  |  Colonial
All-Play Percentage: 0.785 (79th)
Schedule Strength: 0.352 (275th)
Record Quality: 0.341 (30th)
Avg. Season Rank: 90.45 (90th)
Pace: 71.29 (27th)
Momentum: 1.55 (100th)
Off. Momentum: -1.21 (293rd)
Def. Momentum: 2.77 (18th)
Consistency: -6.45 (3rd)
Res. Consistency: -8.93 (18th)
Away From Home: -1.34 (274th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -1.56 (248th)
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: 107.19 28.74 74.46 87.15 42.08 39.07 31.88 17.35 35.69 30.74 58.65 13.30 16.66 4.76 44.82 19.91 35.27 2.10
RANK: 98th 44th 81st 68th 271st 8th 293rd 342nd 282nd 120th 183rd 50th 50th 244th 13th 347th 171st 322nd

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: 95.87 20.37 -- 84.59 43.67 26.27 30.90 28.94 36.48 29.37 62.16 8.36 12.39 5.05 31.06 34.22 34.73 1.96
RANK: 51st 19th -- 168th 152nd 15th 38th 341st 115th 175th 291st 20th 59th 146th 16th 345th 169th 291st

ANALYSIS:
Despite having one of the better win percentages in Division I, Charleston doesn't quite make it into our list of college basketball's best 25 teams. Carrying a record of 31-4, they are currently rated #79 overall (out of 363) in All-Play Percentage this season. Of the 13 schools in the Colonial (average ranking 250.7), they're currently ranked as the best team in the conference.

Charleston will mainly try to find success through their defense. They are ranked 51st in defensive efficiency and allow fewer than 96 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Charleston is a superior unit when it comes to preventing opponents from getting to the foul line. With a defensive free throw attempt rate of 20.37 vs. AO, they are currently rated 19th in the country in that category. Charleston has also done a very good job to prevent opponents from draining threes this year. They rank 38th in the NCAA in defensive three-point percentage, allowing AO to make just 30.9% of their attempts from afar. For this reason, AO takes nowhere near as many threes as they typically would -- just 31.1% of AO's field goal attempts will be from downtown.

Charleston plays at about the same level on offense as they do on defense. The team ranks 98th nationally in offensive efficiency, scoring about 107 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Charleston lives and dies by the three-ball and will launch from long-distance early and often. The team ranks 13th in ratio of three-point attempts to total field goal attempts. Strangely enough, though they shoot a fair amount of threes, they really don't make a whole lot, converting only about 31.9% of their attempts from behind the arc vs. AO. Charleston also allows very few breakaway opportunities for the opposition, which typically translates to fewer turnovers. The team's rating vs. AO for potential breakaway points allowed off of steals is 8.36, which ranks #20 in the country.

Charleston is one of the most consistent teams in NCAA basketball (currently ranked third in consistency), which makes the outcomes of their upcoming games far easier to predict.
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 more frequently off of offensive rebounds, Charleston often performs worse than normal. Charleston is more efficient than usual 25% of the time when facing teams that have an offensive second-chance conversion percentage vs. AO greater than 4.40%. In their other contests, Charleston performs better than the norm 80% of the time.
Charleston does worse vs. clubs that shoot the ball well from the field. When playing squads that have an offensive field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 40.92%, Charleston performs above average 29% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 70% of the time.
Charleston performs worse against squads that effectively clean the offensive glass. When facing teams that have an offensive second-chance potential point rate vs. AO greater than 12.65, Charleston is more efficient than normal 29% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 70% 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
2024-25152nd152nd39th81stCAA50th141st219th96th240th142nd
2023-24107th107th16th66thCAA58th209th186th129th101st112th
2022-2379th79th3rd30thColonial27th3rd275th248th274th90th
2021-22128th128th171st145thColonial1st83rd139th36th23rd148th
2020-21195th195th203rd218thColonial309th172nd211th229th244th183rd
2019-20178th178th148th157thColonial264th22nd160th88th110th134th
2018-19135th135th39th83rdColonial275th84th233rd82nd118th128th
2017-18124th123rd24th85thColonial329th239th268th22nd181st161st
2016-17104th104th46th65thColonial312th237th128th151st88th111th
2015-16143rd143rd152nd136thColonial326th16th144th51st138th123rd
2014-15300th300th325th300thColonial296th343rd189th251st47th265th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25184th153rd251st288th153rd163rd92nd223rd237th239th131st174th271st260th132nd205th211th234th
2023-2459th237th165th16th151st14th92nd282nd355th146th60th201st56th68th31st317th225th308th
2022-2398th44th81st68th271st8th293rd342nd282nd120th183rd50th50th244th13th347th171st322nd
2021-22124th117th150th151st136th205th166th216th69th94th211th30th7th48th209th213th101st119th
2020-21133rd299th87th132nd185th27th28th107th318th347th32nd261st342nd309th38th115th349th348th
2019-20157th202nd25th223rd187th95th71st172nd258th311th127th96th272nd179th80th157th297th295th
2018-19114th123rd29th249th80th243rd265th213th56th102nd71st146th245th239th226th201st86th94th
2017-18118th123rd41st150th158th148th193rd204th203rd131st135th256th230th176th150th208th143rd168th
2016-17132nd43rd65th237th188th205th229th201st121st150th214th168th256th213th193rd184th134th150th
2015-16283rd227th294th141st297th167th187th130th313th196th301st36th177th241st171st133rd218th195th
2014-15333rd311th295th215th328th167th227th98th318th314th314th305th154th305th154th79th313th269th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25152nd47th--304th163rd259th101st234th76th190th302nd193rd290th289th209th209th143rd142nd
2023-24195th76th--226th243rd151st241st280th20th146th356th180th100th172nd114th285th128th182nd
2022-2351st19th--168th152nd15th38th341st115th175th291st20th59th146th16th345th169th291st
2021-22139th316th--9th241st28th248th276th250th37th258th195th172nd163rd87th327th98th203rd
2020-21282nd210th--175th245th216th293rd293rd14th49th356th156th167th121st226th295th45th69th
2019-20236th196th--260th159th202nd144th176th55th262nd238th80th334th347th160th151st225th220th
2018-19159th26th--200th190th303rd120th124th208th110th275th221st79th192nd307th112th113th67th
2017-18165th133rd--219th147th140th147th283rd133rd124th203rd4th150th91st123rd280th113th151st
2016-1783rd97th--224th104th214th53rd259th155th111th187th18th143rd77th191st249th98th105th
2015-1632nd210th--7th138th20th65th229th142nd67th212th119th17th88th58th299th155th232nd
2014-15173rd328th--88th144th62nd214th260th108th125th158th218th328th285th78th289th150th218th