TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2022-23 Portland  14-19 (0.424)  |  West Coast
All-Play Percentage: 0.481 (189th)
Schedule Strength: 0.572 (98th)
Record Quality: -0.055 (209th)
Avg. Season Rank: 163.59 (160th)
Pace: 69.03 (105th)
Momentum: -0.39 (201st)
Off. Momentum: 3.68 (28th)
Def. Momentum: -4.07 (345th)
Consistency: -11.08 (349th)
Res. Consistency: -14.79 (324th)
Away From Home: 0.20 (88th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -4.54 (349th)
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: 106.81 29.40 75.28 80.57 44.17 37.12 36.37 19.79 42.21 23.67 58.03 9.34 13.11 4.85 46.07 24.56 29.37 2.17
RANK: 107th 29th 59th 340th 158th 24th 57th 305th 28th 354th 201st 256th 234th 233rd 7th 287th 340th 359th

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: 107.81 23.41 -- 87.49 44.97 36.09 36.67 22.96 40.79 28.44 58.88 11.95 13.42 4.41 41.25 26.24 32.51 2.09
RANK: 279th 100th -- 305th 230th 344th 312th 163rd 301st 126th 175th 278th 146th 66th 323rd 110th 77th 43rd

ANALYSIS:
If you see Portland on the schedule, you will likely get one of the average to below-average teams in college hoops. They have a record of 14-19 and are ranked 189th overall (out of 363) in the latest Haslametrics ratings. Of the 10 schools in the WCC (average ranking 126.0), they're currently ranked as our #7 team in the conference.

If there is a strength for Portland this year, it's probably on the offensive end of the court. The team is rated 107th in offensive efficiency, scoring more than 106 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Portland lives and dies by the three-ball and will launch from long-distance early and often. The team ranks seventh 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-75 in three-point shooting percentage, they make approximately 36.4% of their three-point attempts vs. AO. Portland also has a keen ability to drain field goals between the three-point line and the low post. The squad is ranked 28th nationally in mid-range field goal percentage, making about 42.2% of their attempts from those locations vs. AO. If Portland does have a glaring weakness offensively, it would have to be the team's difficulties in getting off a sufficient number of shots each possession. The squad has a field goal attempt rate of just 80.57 vs. AO, which ranks 24th-worst in college basketball.

Unfortunately, Portland is not even remotely close to being as good on defense as they are on offense. The team is ranked 279th in defensive efficiency, allowing about 108 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Portland tends to struggle a bit against teams that shoot the three. They rank 312th nationally in defensive three-point percentage, allowing AO to make 36.7% of their attempts from afar. And to expose that weakness, AO will gladly launch the three all day and all night. Of AO's total field goals, a large chunk of them (41.3%) will be from long-distance.

Portland has been one of the most erratic teams in college basketball this year (currently ranked 349th overall in consistency), which makes the outcomes of their future games far more difficult 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:
Portland does better vs. clubs that are likely to allow more second chances off of offensive rebounds. When playing squads that have a defensive second-chance potential point rate vs. AO greater than 11.47, Portland performs above average 64% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 11% of the time.
Portland performs better against squads that have trouble defending the mid-range shot. When facing teams that have a defensive mid-range field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 36.38%, Portland is more efficient than normal 65% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 18% of the time.
When playing teams that allow a higher number of conversions off of the offensive glass, Portland usually performs better than average. Portland is more efficient than normal 65% of the time when facing clubs that have a defensive second-chance conversion percentage vs. AO greater than 4.20%. In all other contests, Portland performs better than average 18% 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
2024-25258th258th294th253rdWCC144th255th131st182nd26th291st
2023-24296th296th296th273rdWCC205th356th125th315th344th273rd
2022-23189th189th253rd209thWCC105th349th98th349th88th160th
2021-22143rd141st153rd176thWCC95th179th182nd211th138th227th
2020-21316th315th301st290thWCC64th215th88th231st26th319th
2019-20287th287th316th293rdWCC124th172nd116th121st69th265th
2018-19316th314th336th323rdWCC271st42nd136th269th41st302nd
2017-18271st271st304th283rdWCC209th68th107th220th76th268th
2016-17293rd293rd288th277thWCC291st348th140th297th5th250th
2015-16177th177th254th244thWCC33rd270th161st192nd270th181st
2014-15132nd132nd172nd153rdWCC171st181st112th198th89th119th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25200th293rd26th290th172nd84th124th256th168th290th158th344th258th268th64th250th266th303rd
2023-24206th284th181st212th219th25th143rd321st196th260th214th352nd266th261st23rd321st249th336th
2022-23107th29th59th340th158th24th57th305th28th354th201st256th234th233rd7th287th340th359th
2021-22118th118th3rd292nd148th142nd49th89th57th348th169th313th313th271st108th63rd343rd321st
2020-21242nd253rd7th284th248th172nd117th292nd259th125th307th258th315th343rd137th276th86th157th
2019-20306th274th284th319th232nd227th185th163rd128th270th271st196th313th259th188th119th227th198th
2018-19315th159th305th334th292nd180th144th265th324th230th299th266th314th351st113th241st167th217th
2017-18268th208th254th335th205th206th63rd197th255th276th267th287th345th340th147th147th211th208th
2016-17293rd165th66th332nd283rd310th121st120th276th222nd323rd313th308th262nd270th87th160th94th
2015-16108th239th38th84th147th72nd97th128th9th276th275th111th202nd129th91st148th300th290th
2014-15114th127th67th170th140th248th69th67th128th252nd182nd269th197th177th250th56th253rd153rd
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25314th3rd--362nd251st347th334th191st320th274th113th327th198th113th290th100th148th101st
2023-24341st9th--361st252nd362nd353rd105th163rd167th263rd259th255th183rd353rd33rd83rd17th
2022-23279th100th--305th230th344th312th163rd301st126th175th278th146th66th323rd110th77th43rd
2021-22186th88th--287th122nd309th252nd286th196th57th75th182nd186th110th269th267th37th46th
2020-21351st22nd--291st354th280th350th18th227th334th344th221st151st270th243rd9th323rd258th
2019-20206th191st--230th179th301st222nd115th292nd162nd121st350th279th60th285th100th141st90th
2018-19294th226th--330th164th314th266th53rd175th299th86th316th240th178th274th26th252nd175th
2017-18238th232nd--276th166th301st117th168th149th167th254th212th91st146th273rd133rd132nd104th
2016-17252nd103rd--335th141st333rd259th189th115th140th147th286th256th278th318th129th77th46th
2015-16270th298th--211th195th227th307th157th30th206th225th276th344th254th209th153rd194th169th
2014-15175th182nd--198th159th144th88th191st245th230th132nd315th182nd232nd134th182nd216th220th