TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2016-17 CSU Northridge  11-19 (0.367)  |  Big West
All-Play Percentage: 0.194 (283rd)
Schedule Strength: 0.384 (296th)
Record Quality: -0.232 (283rd)
Avg. Season Rank: 259.36 (262nd)
Pace: 74.32 (16th)
Momentum: -3.62 (307th)
Off. Momentum: -0.71 (243rd)
Def. Momentum: -2.91 (307th)
Consistency: -9.93 (293rd)
Res. Consistency: -13.76 (310th)
Away From Home: 0.64 (83rd)
Paper Tiger Factor: -1.26 (205th)
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: 99.44 31.48 74.29 78.26 44.44 19.76 32.84 25.14 40.66 33.36 54.17 12.44 13.63 6.86 25.25 32.12 42.63 1.83
RANK: 199th 40th 62nd 319th 147th 350th 278th 123rd 22nd 22nd 310th 66th 229th 144th 349th 90th 7th 3rd

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: 112.64 31.22 -- 81.40 48.50 26.27 41.15 22.69 40.39 32.44 60.13 12.05 16.40 7.96 32.27 27.88 39.85 1.92
RANK: 331st 304th -- 151st 329th 41st 349th 134th 323rd 312th 178th 267th 291st 285th 44th 134th 320th 323rd

ANALYSIS:
CSU Northridge is not one of the better teams in Division I this year. Carrying a record of 11-19, they are currently rated #283 overall (out of 351) in All-Play Percentage this season. They are also ranked by this site as the #7 team (out of nine) in the Big West (average ranking 252.4).

CSU Northridge has a very sieve-like defense that gives up points way too easily. The team is ranked 331st in efficiency on that end of the court and gives up more than 112 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. CSU Northridge allows opposing teams far too many easy chances from the floor, ranking in the bottom-50 in three of the four main defensive field goal shooting categories. They are at their worst when defending outside the paint, allowing AO to convert 41.2% of their three-pointers (third from the bottom in the nation), 40.4% of their mid-range chances (323rd), and 48.5% of their total shots from the field (329th). CSU Northridge also commits too many fouls, which leads to plentiful free throw attempts for the opposition. With a defensive free throw attempt rate of 31.22 vs. AO, the squad is ranked #304 in the country in that category.

Even though the team ranks considerably higher in offensive efficiency, CSU Northridge isn't a powerhouse on that end of the floor either. Scoring roughly 99 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO, they are ranked #199 in the nation in offensive efficiency. CSU Northridge is one of the more inferior teams in the college game when it comes to maximizing opportunities to score on offense. The team is nationally ranked 319th in offensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of only 78.26 vs. AO. CSU Northridge also won't provide opponents much of a scare with their shooting percentage from the inside. The team is ranked 310th in near-proximity field goal percentage, making only 54.2% of their attempts from up-close vs. AO. If CSU Northridge does have a strength offensively, it would have to be the team's ability to successfully hit from mid-range locations on the court. The team makes 40.7% of their in-between field goal attempts vs. AO, which ranks 22nd in the NCAA.

CSU Northridge has recently performed below their norm from an efficiency standpoint. The team is currently ranked 307th in the country in positive momentum.
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:
CSU Northridge does better vs. clubs that tend to get off more shots. When playing squads that have an offensive field goal attempt rate vs. AO greater than 79.99, CSU Northridge performs above average 69% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 25% of the time.
CSU Northridge performs better against squads that fail to defend efficiently inside the paint. When facing teams that have a defensive near-proximity field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 62.34%, CSU Northridge is more efficient than normal 78% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 37% of the time.
When playing teams that convert more frequently off of offensive rebounds, CSU Northridge usually performs better than average. CSU Northridge is more efficient than normal 63% of the time when facing clubs that have an offensive second-chance conversion percentage vs. AO greater than 5.74%. In all other contests, CSU Northridge performs better than average 22% 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
2024-25123rd121st65th107thBig West11th102nd205th295th213th138th
2023-24242nd242nd156th178thBig West11th41st239th206th14th236th
2022-23326th326th348th341stBig West285th84th212th29th113th314th
2021-22332nd330th333rd316thBig West250th143rd188th309th100th312th
2020-21278th277th239th224thBig West92nd246th166th123rd208th307th
2019-20239th238th224th209thBig West74th282nd165th315th196th285th
2018-19242nd242nd270th270thBig West43rd7th261st31st68th258th
2017-18324th324th337th337thBig West301st258th238th213th22nd326th
2016-17283rd283rd272nd283rdBig West16th293rd296th205th83rd262nd
2015-16256th256th284th269thBig West68th61st129th266th23rd265th
2014-15237th237th325th290thBig West134th2nd117th45th45th252nd
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25138th132nd146th180th90th343rd160th144th67th23rd227th82nd23rd51st347th141st21st12th
2023-24298th155th325th301st189th351st344th145th60th45th273rd196th128th112th349th128th24th8th
2022-23338th105th101st304th348th291st329th81st215th289th359th312th92nd125th268th55th258th163rd
2021-22329th235th286th273rd302nd323rd304th13th249th332nd189th81st102nd39th312th9th328th178th
2020-21187th268th150th53rd243rd131st205th103rd152nd203rd262nd95th174th264th173rd131st246th228th
2019-20103rd260th143rd76th88th222nd44th53rd186th223rd62nd206th183rd80th255th62nd255th172nd
2018-19196th242nd347th78th166th291st162nd21st223rd199th87th158th23rd49th316th27th230th106th
2017-18280th321st157th167th233rd302nd174th40th260th196th222nd273rd292nd302nd310th41st203rd95th
2016-17199th40th62nd319th147th350th278th123rd22nd22nd310th66th229th144th349th90th7th3rd
2015-16259th140th80th266th206th350th297th240th209th1st310th205th224th264th350th221st1st1st
2014-15208th61st17th301st161st351st153rd37th205th53rd232nd243rd196th203rd351st16th28th1st
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25170th335th--24th78th353rd307th36th6th8th152nd316th26th24th361st68th15th5th
2023-24162nd301st--98th76th346th183rd69th143rd34th71st341st76th9th352nd81st45th10th
2022-23308th343rd--160th186th274th270th181st290th97th128th297th331st288th285th183rd87th76th
2021-22316th287th--169th267th278th204th38th248th245th307th249th343rd352nd267th33rd245th155th
2020-21341st244th--171st317th311th310th4th99th315th314th275th123rd220th314th1st319th180th
2019-20339th112th--336th301st341st343rd57th135th292nd257th130th290th266th311th17th227th126th
2018-19304th242nd--329th179th191st320th170th112th318th80th226th349th276th118th110th282nd270th
2017-18325th174th--340th282nd124th206th245th195th320th283rd313th339th343rd55th202nd270th308th
2016-17331st304th--151st329th41st349th134th323rd312th178th267th291st285th44th134th320th323rd
2015-16220th135th--187th253rd129th342nd3rd62nd344th82nd165th236th297th121st2nd348th330th
2014-15262nd202nd--223rd184th330th245th13th236th262nd111th335th258th187th327th4th245th103rd