TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2022-23 TCU  22-13 (0.629)  |  Big 12
All-Play Percentage: 0.942 (22nd)
Schedule Strength: 0.692 (33rd)
Record Quality: 0.302 (39th)
Avg. Season Rank: 33.34 (28th)
Pace: 69.28 (94th)
Momentum: -1.71 (256th)
Off. Momentum: -0.76 (261st)
Def. Momentum: -0.94 (196th)
Consistency: -8.97 (151st)
Res. Consistency: -13.05 (245th)
Away From Home: -0.97 (224th)
Paper Tiger Factor: 1.42 (19th)
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: 112.46 28.52 69.96 88.63 47.04 26.09 34.99 23.95 35.82 38.59 62.15 14.45 17.47 7.95 29.44 27.02 43.54 1.86
RANK: 36th 54th 250th 23rd 39th 328th 121st 183rd 280th 1st 84th 24th 31st 8th 336th 220th 4th 5th

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: 93.43 23.94 -- 82.17 40.95 30.18 29.80 22.57 36.13 29.41 56.09 9.95 12.94 4.91 36.73 27.47 35.80 2.01
RANK: 23rd 122nd -- 83rd 51st 143rd 11th 140th 95th 177th 82nd 109th 94th 122nd 187th 157th 226th 202nd

ANALYSIS:
Despite their unexceptional win percentage, TCU should be regarded as one of the better teams in college hoops. They have a record of 22-13 and are ranked 22nd overall (out of 363) in the latest Haslametrics ratings. Of the 10 schools in the Big 12 (average ranking 29.8), they're currently ranked as our #4 team in the conference.

TCU is one of the most menacing defensive teams in the country. Ranked 23rd in defensive efficiency, they will allow fewer than 94 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. TCU does an outstanding job shutting down the opposition from behind the arc. They rank 11th in the NCAA in defensive three-point percentage, allowing AO to make just 29.8% of their attempts from afar. TCU also thrives on scoring fast and easy points off of steals. They're ranked 24th in potential points off of breakaway steals vs. AO with a rating of 14.45.

TCU plays at about the same level on offense as they do on defense. The team ranks 36th nationally in offensive efficiency, scoring about 112 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. TCU will routinely look to penetrate, pound the ball inside, and score from as short a distance as possible. The ball-club is fourth in the NCAA in ratio of near-proximity attempts to total field goal attempts. If you do allow them to get to the inside, they are undoubtedly capable of making you pay. Presently rated in the top-100 in near-proximity shooting percentage, they make roughly 62.2% of their attempts from short-distance vs. AO. TCU also does an outstanding job finishing any scoring chances they obtain from offensive rebounds. Against AO, the team successfully converts 7.9% of all second-chance opportunities (ranked eighth nationally), and with a rating of 17.47, they're 31st in potential points scored off of the offensive glass as well. TCU is lastly one of the very best when it comes to maximizing field goal opportunities. The team is ranked 23rd in the NCAA in offensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of 88.63 vs. AO. And when they do shoot, they make a fair portion of their shots. Ranked in the top-50 in field goal shooting percentage, the squad converts about 47.0% of their total attempts vs. AO.
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:
When facing teams that convert well from outside the arc, TCU often performs better than normal. TCU is more efficient than usual 65% of the time when facing teams that have an offensive three-point field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 34.67%. In their other contests, TCU performs better than the norm 20% of the time.
TCU does better vs. clubs that are typically efficient on offense. When playing squads that have an offensive efficiency rating vs. AO greater than 107.47, TCU performs above average 63% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 25% of the time.
TCU performs better against squads that shoot the ball well from the field. When facing teams that have an offensive field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 45.19%, TCU is more efficient than normal 63% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 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
2024-2567th67th196th82ndBig 12259th35th18th326th356th63rd
2023-2445th45th104th69thBig 12100th106th77th340th315th26th
2022-2322nd22nd92nd39thBig 1294th151st33rd19th224th28th
2021-2228th28th115th48thBig 12246th50th13th16th61st73rd
2020-21155th155th207th127thBig 12264th336th65th196th36th108th
2019-2081st81st192nd108thBig 12322nd334th33rd338th349th68th
2018-1934th34th91st42ndBig 12151st46th28th281st139th33rd
2017-1825th25th84th37thBig 12179th97th22nd205th248th30th
2016-1734th34th98th47thBig 12270th108th19th331st298th39th
2015-16124th124th268th180thBig 12111th328th38th310th339th140th
2014-1559th59th147th112thBig 12237th248th86th347th333rd38th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25116th61st348th28th149th277th274th136th161st20th184th13th13th19th318th169th54th31st
2023-2440th32nd141st43rd83rd313th35th115th258th22nd135th10th2nd1st331st137th52nd25th
2022-2336th54th250th23rd39th328th121st183rd280th1st84th24th31st8th336th220th4th5th
2021-2248th74th304th45th35th307th213th111th155th11th41st78th33rd20th334th141st29th14th
2020-21153rd119th259th199th131st243rd118th161st317th130th67th177th58th62nd244th159th120th107th
2019-2099th275th337th56th100th59th21st220th213th164th142nd136th70th85th77th243rd207th262nd
2018-1953rd156th292nd96th25th212th94th284th151st15th79th57th52nd9th230th296th21st41st
2017-1814th98th218th108th7th247th20th307th2nd3rd97th103rd91st43rd258th314th3rd16th
2016-1732nd147th231st20th24th214th120th140th51st32nd40th64th83rd22nd253rd181st53rd48th
2015-16198th18th269th272nd231st298th109th110th284th148th257th139th57th102nd286th88th121st65th
2014-1566th3rd338th70th91st340th180th55th226th21st90th73rd41st33rd345th61st42nd9th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-2544th45th--64th86th261st41st77th53rd104th193rd72nd22nd42nd293rd101st136th90th
2023-2441st189th--18th134th57th86th48th43rd237th172nd55th37th41st112th101st310th301st
2022-2323rd122nd--83rd51st143rd11th140th95th177th82nd109th94th122nd187th157th226th202nd
2021-2220th89th--90th39th123rd26th198th44th138th74th107th54th47th159th227th167th198th
2020-21165th178th--209th171st147th161st205th164th226th183rd108th144th65th122nd195th217th229th
2019-2069th101st--118th120th48th237th280th150th167th55th82nd102nd142nd59th296th190th266th
2018-1931st17th--241st62nd114th9th262nd122nd228th101st110th273rd271st91st247th205th238th
2017-1880th72nd--151st115th69th233rd218th259th227th16th6th71st92nd74th230th238th271st
2016-1747th32nd--178th69th180th123rd162nd104th198th50th21st62nd82nd164th172nd193rd208th
2015-1679th173rd--19th147th191st131st42nd231st129th112th234th35th71st267th77th202nd131st
2014-1564th303rd--76th71st9th92nd208th112th293rd13th44th172nd99th11th243rd313th337th