TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2023-24 Chattanooga  21-12 (0.636)  |  Southern
All-Play Percentage: 0.607 (142nd)
Schedule Strength: 0.382 (229th)
Record Quality: 0.095 (129th)
Avg. Season Rank: 174.43 (171st)
Pace: 67.51 (200th)
Momentum: -2.63 (282nd)
Off. Momentum: -0.53 (226th)
Def. Momentum: -2.10 (279th)
Consistency: -10.59 (321st)
Res. Consistency: -17.37 (356th)
Away From Home: 0.86 (81st)
Paper Tiger Factor: -1.81 (264th)
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: 109.75 23.63 76.39 85.19 45.14 41.15 35.96 19.47 44.93 24.57 60.69 11.68 11.26 3.94 48.30 22.85 28.84 2.19
RANK: 97th 289th 34th 200th 123rd 5th 86th 279th 15th 349th 88th 162nd 279th 324th 2nd 281st 347th 360th

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: 106.27 24.64 -- 90.11 42.69 35.89 35.17 25.55 36.62 28.68 57.52 13.97 15.09 5.54 39.82 28.36 31.82 2.08
RANK: 193rd 107th -- 343rd 100th 333rd 222nd 285th 79th 90th 164th 334th 298th 185th 299th 240th 46th 43rd

ANALYSIS:
They may not cause sleepless nights for opponents, but Chattanooga, as a slightly above-average team, cannot be totally ignored. Ranked 142nd overall (out of 362) in our most recent ratings, they presently have a record of 21-12. Of the 10 schools in the Southern (average ranking 187.8), they're currently ranked as our #3 team in the conference.

Chattanooga succeeds primarily through their offense. They are ranked 97th in offensive efficiency and score in excess of 109 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Chattanooga lives and dies by the three-ball and will launch from long-distance early and often. The team ranks second 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 36.0% of their three-point attempts vs. AO. Chattanooga is also superb at converting jumpers in between the three-point stripe and the low post. The squad is ranked 15th nationally in mid-range field goal percentage, making about 44.9% of their attempts from those locations vs. AO. If Chattanooga does have a weakness offensively, it would have to be the team's penchant for allowing too many easy buckets off of giveaways. The squad has a rating of 13.97 vs. AO in potential points allowed off of steals, which ranks 29th-worst in the college game.

Chattanooga doesn't perform as well defensively as they do offensively. The team is ranked 193rd in defensive efficiency, allowing about 106 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Chattanooga allows the opposition to get off far too many shots from the floor. The team is ranked 343rd in the nation in defensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of 90.11 vs. AO.

Chattanooga has been one of the more erratic teams in NCAA basketball this year (presently ranked 321st 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:
Chattanooga performs better against squads that typically allow more than a fair share of breakaway opportunities. When facing teams that have a potential point rate allowed off steals vs. AO greater than 12.27, Chattanooga is more efficient than normal 69% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 27% of the time.
When playing teams that convert well from outside the arc, Chattanooga usually performs worse than average. Chattanooga is more efficient than normal 20% of the time when facing clubs that have an offensive three-point field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 35.61%. In all other contests, Chattanooga performs better than average 62% of the time.
Chattanooga is typically better vs. teams that effectively clean the offensive glass. Against foes that have an offensive second-chance potential point rate vs. AO greater than 11.33, Chattanooga performs above their norm 62% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above average 20% 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
2024-2599th99th25th57thSouthern253rd50th169th21st7th154th
2023-24142nd142nd84th129thSouthern200th321st229th264th81st171st
2022-23155th155th191st203rdSouthern109th38th219th240th31st131st
2021-2288th88th21st55thSouthern291st60th153rd48th161st88th
2020-21146th146th56th94thSouthern299th42nd193rd28th29th170th
2019-20144th144th113th138thSouthern247th319th200th305th217th182nd
2018-19290th290th271st281stSouthern232nd145th181st249th98th300th
2017-18287th286th310th301stSouthern277th245th222nd225th62nd274th
2016-17105th105th99th111thSouthern303rd315th162nd16th186th72nd
2015-16121st121st8th49thSouthern258th31st224th267th211th104th
2014-15164th163rd53rd130thSouthern142nd142nd311th139th300th162nd
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-2541st284th15th104th42nd27th55th288th15th225th44th144th284th238th34th296th252nd328th
2023-2497th289th34th200th123rd5th86th279th15th349th88th162nd279th324th2nd281st347th360th
2022-23131st142nd191st228th228th3rd40th349th307th268th245th286th194th155th1st348th260th355th
2021-2291st211th58th64th120th140th193rd215th28th84th195th108th151st60th172nd235th118th156th
2020-21151st287th22nd73rd250th33rd111th196th117th270th311th213th306th350th57th208th293rd313th
2019-2095th227th168th82nd136th78th41st248th123rd121st236th349th234th141st98th262nd144th220th
2018-19277th345th316th110th242nd69th146th160th101st267th272nd350th179th130th80th170th287th299th
2017-18276th213th196th300th265th156th138th250th192nd204th328th337th204th226th118th236th163rd205th
2016-17136th129th144th181st144th140th254th300th209th55th125th184th226th105th135th301st56th138th
2015-16147th112th61st142nd214th122nd247th208th260th151st146th68th180th257th133rd220th167th200th
2014-15160th112th165th194th207th103rd159th153rd106th282nd207th332nd69th167th99th156th290th276th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25221st242nd--158th251st134th261st305th344th84th168th120th168th173rd139th313th88th139th
2023-24193rd107th--343rd100th333rd222nd285th79th90th164th334th298th185th299th240th46th43rd
2022-23227th204th--266th112th330th141st202nd287th72nd103rd240th197th167th312th185th49th35th
2021-2263rd148th--144th123rd79th2nd291st182nd144th254th151st44th46th94th303rd147th229th
2020-21157th90th--179th253rd30th183rd225th219th305th195th15th259th273rd27th218th308th332nd
2019-20219th125th--202nd296th67th116th208th268th291st277th124th64th231st57th200th296th314th
2018-19275th223rd--297th244th55th221st312th257th270th202nd321st331st249th22nd298th235th298th
2017-18294th77th--162nd341st39th216th268th318th217th348th269th89th323rd41st274th223rd292nd
2016-17130th244th--35th216th5th87th163rd261st288th137th215th223rd227th9th221st330th343rd
2015-16110th75th--91st241st66th92nd190th221st200th267th300th171st156th85th215th237th255th
2014-15178th321st--94th209th4th197th237th171st317th129th65th311th272nd3rd266th331st348th