TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2022-23 UNC Asheville  27-8 (0.771)  |  Big South
All-Play Percentage: 0.569 (157th)
Schedule Strength: 0.366 (264th)
Record Quality: 0.197 (83rd)
Avg. Season Rank: 186.95 (186th)
Pace: 68.69 (124th)
Momentum: 0.57 (147th)
Off. Momentum: 1.35 (137th)
Def. Momentum: -0.78 (186th)
Consistency: -8.61 (100th)
Res. Consistency: -8.90 (17th)
Away From Home: -1.04 (229th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -1.25 (215th)
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: 101.67 28.47 69.99 79.35 44.92 28.02 37.31 24.68 37.78 26.66 59.52 10.06 12.33 5.46 35.31 31.10 33.59 2.02
RANK: 191st 57th 247th 352nd 119th 288th 27th 159th 184th 299th 156th 219th 270th 154th 241st 108th 227th 174th

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: 101.63 22.96 -- 87.08 43.21 30.62 32.25 26.54 38.16 29.92 58.90 12.80 16.56 6.25 35.17 30.47 34.36 2.01
RANK: 142nd 83rd -- 285th 134th 161st 84th 289th 199th 192nd 177th 324th 332nd 297th 119th 269th 153rd 205th

ANALYSIS:
UNC Asheville 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 157th overall (out of 363) in our most recent ratings, they presently have a record of 27-8. They are also ranked by this site as the best team (out of 10) in the Big South (average ranking 231.4).

If there is a strength for UNC Asheville this year, it's probably on the defensive end of the court. The team is rated 142nd in defensive efficiency, allowing fewer than 102 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO. UNC Asheville makes a point to avoid fouls and prevent opponents from getting to the free throw line. With a defensive free throw attempt rate of 22.96 vs. AO, they are currently rated 83rd in the country in that category. If UNC Asheville does exhibit a weakness on the defensive end of the floor, it'd likely be the team's difficulties stopping opponents from obtaining second-chance opportunities via offensive rebounds. The squad has a rating of 16.56 in potential points allowed off of second chances vs. AO, which ranks 32nd-worst in college hoops.

UNC Asheville is not quite as good on the offensive end of the floor. The team is ranked 191st in offensive efficiency, scoring about 102 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. UNC Asheville happens to be one of the very worst in the game when it comes to maximizing the number of shot attempts they get off from the floor. The team is nationally ranked 352nd in offensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of only 79.35 vs. AO. UNC Asheville also has some difficulty protecting the ball efficiently when in possession, which leads to some quick and easy baskets for the opposition. The team's rating for potential breakaway points allowed off of steals vs. AO is 12.80, which ranks 324th in D1. If UNC Asheville does have a strength offensively, it would have to be the team's ability to sink threes. The squad converts 37.3% of their three-point attempts vs. AO, which ranks 27th in the nation.
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:
UNC Asheville is typically better vs. teams that tend to get off more shots. Against foes that have an offensive field goal attempt rate vs. AO greater than 85.00, UNC Asheville performs above their norm 90% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above average 35% of the time.
When facing teams that are typically efficient on offense, UNC Asheville often performs better than normal. UNC Asheville is more efficient than usual 74% of the time when facing teams that have an offensive efficiency rating vs. AO greater than 99.26. In their other contests, UNC Asheville performs better than the norm 21% of the time.
UNC Asheville does worse vs. clubs that typically allow more than a fair share of breakaway opportunities. When playing squads that have a potential point rate allowed off steals vs. AO greater than 11.78, UNC Asheville performs above average 23% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 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
2024-25207th205th75th152ndBig South124th289th268th212th137th190th
2023-24169th169th78th130thBig South131st92nd208th218th255th161st
2022-23157th157th18th83rdBig South124th100th264th215th229th186th
2021-22209th209th171st239thBig South160th208th282nd132nd80th225th
2020-21250th249th179th212thBig South83rd144th275th139th78th233rd
2019-20317th317th217th282ndBig South40th4th350th106th176th257th
2018-19348th348th350th343rdBig South341st340th179th286th254th350th
2017-18194th194th98th148thBig South88th156th240th79th269th187th
2016-17134th134th54th103rdBig South161st60th286th192nd173rd130th
2015-16129th129th81st138thBig South57th132nd262nd240th61st124th
2014-15247th245th195th246thBig South23rd169th265th166th158th210th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25145th143rd199th101st159th216th210th23rd39th343rd136th176th182nd184th233rd24th345th258th
2023-24161st109th37th327th145th188th80th125th64th333rd183rd275th316th301st137th94th313th287th
2022-23191st57th247th352nd119th288th27th159th184th299th156th219th270th154th241st108th227th174th
2021-22189th102nd147th255th198th210th147th213th99th174th281st234th121st203rd194th190th147th160th
2020-21248th261st352nd344th68th212th79th313th115th104th145th240th333rd176th160th296th52nd109th
2019-20257th160th308th275th207th255th222nd148th85th201st276th50th305th349th235th115th160th131st
2018-19337th348th20th264th330th171st241st168th202nd246th346th245th160th181st149th149th232nd230th
2017-18171st267th62nd284th109th233rd42nd190th221st166th155th62nd226th139th203rd159th131st126th
2016-17122nd201st263rd222nd68th226th60th114th46th229th105th18th271st280th213th105th214th182nd
2015-16195th155th132nd231st160th312th274th96th48th101st233rd6th89th73rd307th84th91st46th
2014-15231st277th53rd260th203rd150th189th230th78th219th242nd292nd118th67th122nd213th185th212th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25275th292nd--169th272nd160th301st228th319th147th192nd102nd250th311th166th230th149th165th
2023-24206th188th--228th200th199th178th93rd132nd305th187th188th77th257th175th71st296th257th
2022-23142nd83rd--285th134th161st84th289th199th192nd177th324th332nd297th119th269th153rd205th
2021-22213th141st--237th286th48th55th90th351st353rd155th207th342nd321st32nd75th354th351st
2020-21272nd192nd--278th292nd13th150th233rd120th348th295th197th357th357th9th204th344th351st
2019-20316th289th--26th353rd14th337th68th353rd311th309th197th284th336th31st111th343rd341st
2018-19349th312th--302nd308th322nd214th29th332nd291st290th344th350th341st300th12th258th155th
2017-18219th260th--128th242nd127th114th20th327th330th123rd85th253rd269th137th20th336th318th
2016-17160th107th--73rd257th206th228th69th146th169th281st50th246th253rd253rd87th210th166th
2015-1683rd114th--76th173rd77th9th87th314th260th150th297th220th199th104th113th285th287th
2014-15249th313th--147th223rd165th150th43rd284th298th140th243rd252nd283rd172nd41st305th267th