TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2022-23 PV A&M  13-19 (0.406)  |  SWAC
All-Play Percentage: 0.191 (294th)
Schedule Strength: 0.297 (323rd)
Record Quality: -0.279 (319th)
Avg. Season Rank: 261.34 (261st)
Pace: 68.28 (159th)
Momentum: -0.15 (185th)
Off. Momentum: 0.58 (183rd)
Def. Momentum: -0.73 (182nd)
Consistency: -8.54 (91st)
Res. Consistency: -8.51 (12th)
Away From Home: -0.73 (196th)
Paper Tiger Factor: 1.27 (27th)
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: 91.34 23.46 66.24 86.83 38.94 26.63 30.72 29.50 36.34 30.70 48.57 10.55 15.31 4.27 30.67 33.97 35.36 1.95
RANK: 349th 265th 333rd 84th 352nd 320th 337th 39th 260th 123rd 362nd 187th 107th 292nd 328th 41st 166th 63rd

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: 101.44 29.28 -- 79.12 44.54 29.31 35.02 19.95 42.71 29.87 55.12 9.01 13.44 4.82 37.04 25.21 37.75 1.99
RANK: 138th 324th -- 15th 205th 113th 241st 24th 344th 189th 58th 49th 147th 111th 199th 57th 292nd 243rd

ANALYSIS:
PV A&M presently has one of the below-average teams in college basketball. Carrying a record of 13-19, they are currently rated #294 overall (out of 363) in All-Play Percentage this season. They are also ranked by this site as the #4 team (out of 12) in the SWAC (average ranking 307.8).

Based on their performances this year, PV A&M will likely find more success on defense than they will on offense. Allowing about 101 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO, they currently occupy the #138 slot in the ratings for defensive efficiency. PV A&M has extremely pesky defenders that ceaselessly attempt to deny opponents ample opportunity to shoot. The club is ranked 15th in Division I in defensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of 79.12 vs. AO. PV A&M has also been pretty good preventing teams from hitting shots in the paint. They are ranked 58th in the country in defensive near-proximity percentage, allowing AO to make good on only 55.1% of their attempts from close-up. If PV A&M does exhibit a noticeable weakness on the defensive end of the floor, it'd likely be the team's troubles stopping opponents from converting mid-range jumpers. AO will make good on 42.7% of their mid-range field goal attempts, and the squad ranks 20th-worst in that category because of it.

Unfortunately, PV A&M is not even remotely close to being as good on offense as they are on defense. The team is ranked 349th in offensive efficiency, scoring about 91 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. PV A&M struggles to drain shots consistently from most spots on the floor, ranking in the bottom-50 in three of the four primary field goal shooting categories. They only convert 30.7% of their three-pointers (337th in the nation), 48.6% of their near-proximity attempts (second from the bottom), and 38.9% of their total shots from the field (352nd) vs. AO. PV A&M is also not one of the better teams when it comes to sinking foul shots. Converting just 66.2% of their attempts, the squad is ranked #333 overall in free throw percentage. If PV A&M does have a strength offensively, it would have to be the team's care for the ball. The squad has a rating of 9.01 in potential points allowed off of steals vs. AO, which ranks 49th in the college game.
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:
PV A&M performs worse against squads that allow a higher number of conversions off of the offensive glass. When facing teams that have a defensive second-chance conversion percentage vs. AO greater than 5.39%, PV A&M is more efficient than normal 23% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 71% of the time.
When playing teams that shoot the ball well from the field, PV A&M usually performs better than average. PV A&M is more efficient than normal 75% of the time when facing clubs that have an offensive field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 41.66%. In all other contests, PV A&M performs better than average 33% of the time.
PV A&M is typically better vs. teams that do a nice job converting inside the paint. Against foes that have an offensive near-proximity field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 55.17%, PV A&M performs above their norm 67% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above average 25% 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
2024-25355th355th358th358thSWAC70th219th297th1st65th338th
2023-24334th334th312th333rdSWAC23rd174th316th18th74th304th
2022-23294th293rd264th319thSWAC159th91st323rd27th196th261st
2021-22287th287th315th304thSWAC28th113th196th263rd240th295th
2020-21290th290th19th115thSWAC81st140th345th293rd185th292nd
2019-20249th249th122nd198thSWAC50th8th316th14th132nd218th
2018-19234th234th88th166thSWAC18th222nd324th182nd145th256th
2017-18296th296th203rd242ndSWAC30th62nd315th30th140th262nd
2016-17316th315th261st303rdSWAC149th167th325th148th210th316th
2015-16328th326th333rd336thSWAC155th248th277th92nd209th328th
2014-15310th310th216th268thSWAC22nd232nd331st29th171st313th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25331st265th295th233rd268th341st342nd127th238th74th290th193rd329th275th338th109th60th25th
2023-24332nd162nd157th320th284th362nd336th23rd326th173rd224th22nd246th181st362nd13th122nd9th
2022-23349th265th333rd84th352nd320th337th39th260th123rd362nd187th107th292nd328th41st166th63rd
2021-22293rd111th190th346th235th322nd106th164th316th166th290th90th94th96th289th118th91st58th
2020-21305th353rd336th106th224th223rd345th242nd289th25th139th55th115th184th247th256th32nd51st
2019-20305th131st178th270th265th343rd339th43rd59th171st318th143rd201st198th340th28th129th29th
2018-19268th34th273rd299th262nd298th256th84th137th234th278th27th178th125th269th58th205th129th
2017-18296th121st311th257th266th243rd332nd205th305th104th197th52nd234th277th225th188th88th97th
2016-17320th299th203rd213th316th142nd221st168th313th256th316th61st307th344th128th160th246th239th
2015-16345th259th241st165th345th336th340th55th322nd73rd347th145th161st212th336th55th81st25th
2014-15301st336th291st62nd253rd309th284th46th139th78th302nd40th267th279th321st54th111th48th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25358th331st--183rd362nd123rd321st31st342nd344th345th113th363rd364th119th31st348th325th
2023-24309th350th--7th360th76th320th18th277th183rd362nd157th330th338th189th53rd300th253rd
2022-23138th324th--15th205th113th241st24th344th189th58th49th147th111th199th57th292nd243rd
2021-22251st352nd--60th217th221st226th5th50th280th236th334th355th338th262nd6th320th224th
2020-21160th352nd--15th270th109th186th3rd216th302nd219th216th321st134th195th6th345th311th
2019-20159th350th--3rd271st140th112th4th201st92nd317th100th86th36th306th16th234th131st
2018-19181st341st--3rd314th106th75th12th319th121st339th36th196th332nd242nd41st260th191st
2017-18259th336th--4th333rd129th201st4th335th210th334th128th33rd218th270th6th302nd216th
2016-17295th340th--4th344th90th338th6th347th202nd278th97th55th273rd231st16th309th241st
2015-16229th346th--6th306th100th62nd9th346th196th273rd232nd318th333rd230th27th286th239th
2014-15267th342nd--45th305th92nd177th80th209th207th325th80th343rd343rd138th117th265th250th