TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2023-24 Charleston  27-8 (0.771)  |  CAA
All-Play Percentage: 0.706 (107th)
Schedule Strength: 0.421 (186th)
Record Quality: 0.259 (66th)
Avg. Season Rank: 114.08 (112th)
Pace: 69.90 (58th)
Momentum: 1.65 (97th)
Off. Momentum: 1.96 (84th)
Def. Momentum: -0.32 (168th)
Consistency: -9.46 (209th)
Res. Consistency: -11.70 (145th)
Away From Home: 0.66 (101st)
Paper Tiger Factor: -0.49 (129th)
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: 112.86 25.07 72.35 90.44 44.54 39.45 35.88 19.36 32.66 31.63 62.62 11.06 16.36 6.71 43.62 21.40 34.98 2.09
RANK: 59th 237th 165th 16th 151st 14th 92nd 282nd 355th 146th 60th 201st 56th 68th 31st 317th 225th 308th

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: 106.34 23.65 -- 86.40 45.48 30.78 35.48 25.52 34.71 30.10 64.84 11.44 12.45 5.44 35.62 29.54 34.84 2.01
RANK: 195th 76th -- 226th 243rd 151st 241st 280th 20th 146th 356th 180th 100th 172nd 114th 285th 128th 182nd

ANALYSIS:
Charleston 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. Ranked 107th overall (out of 362) in our most recent ratings, they presently have a record of 27-8. They are also ranked by this site as the #2 team (out of 14) in the CAA (average ranking 215.7).

Charleston has a reasonably potent offensive attack. Occupying the #59 slot in our offensive efficiency rankings, they will score about 113 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Charleston is one of the very best when it comes to maximizing field goal opportunities. The team is ranked 16th in the NCAA in offensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of 90.44 vs. AO. As far as making those field goal attempts goes, the team is somewhat middle-of-the-road, converting about 44.5% of them vs. AO. Charleston will also 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-100 in three-point shooting percentage, they make approximately 35.9% of their three-point attempts vs. AO. If Charleston does have a glaring weakness offensively, it would have to be the team's inability to drain mid-range jumpers. The squad makes just 32.7% of their mid-range field goal attempts vs. AO, which ranks eighth-worst in the nation.

The defense for Charleston, on the other hand, isn't nearly as efficient as the offense is. The team is ranked 195th in defensive efficiency, allowing about 106 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Charleston fares terribly when attempting to stop opponents from converting from the inside. The team is ranked seventh from the bottom in the country in defensive near-proximity percentage, allowing AO to make good on 64.8% of their attempts from close-up. If Charleston does have a bright spot on defense, it would have to be their ability to prevent opponents from draining shot attempts in between the three-point line and the low post. AO will convert just 34.7% of their mid-range field goal attempts, and the team is nationally ranked 20th-best in that category as a result.
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:
Charleston does worse vs. clubs that allow more chances at the line. When playing squads that have a defensive free throw attempt rate vs. AO greater than 24.70, Charleston performs above average 30% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 79% of the time.
Charleston performs better against squads that convert well from outside the arc. When facing teams that have an offensive three-point field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 32.77%, Charleston is more efficient than normal 67% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 23% of the time.
When playing teams that fail to defend efficiently inside the paint, Charleston usually performs worse than average. Charleston is more efficient than normal 20% of the time when facing clubs that have a defensive near-proximity field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 60.41%. In all other contests, Charleston performs better than average 63% 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
2024-25152nd152nd39th81stCAA50th141st219th97th241st142nd
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
2024-25184th153rd251st289th154th164th91st223rd239th239th132nd174th271st259th131st205th210th235th
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
2024-25153rd48th--304th164th260th102nd233rd76th192nd302nd193rd289th289th206th209th145th141st
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