TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2022-23 Tenn. Tech  16-17 (0.485)  |  Ohio Valley
All-Play Percentage: 0.298 (255th)
Schedule Strength: 0.281 (333rd)
Record Quality: -0.200 (283rd)
Avg. Season Rank: 269.58 (273rd)
Pace: 67.53 (197th)
Momentum: 2.33 (73rd)
Off. Momentum: 2.40 (78th)
Def. Momentum: -0.07 (138th)
Consistency: -8.93 (144th)
Res. Consistency: -12.48 (206th)
Away From Home: -1.44 (278th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -1.30 (226th)
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: 100.49 22.63 72.04 83.75 42.62 34.37 37.25 24.05 38.68 25.33 53.65 9.41 11.56 4.50 41.03 28.72 30.24 2.11
RANK: 222nd 295th 166th 220th 244th 73rd 30th 178th 131st 331st 322nd 250th 298th 271st 62nd 169th 329th 334th

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: 108.39 22.86 -- 87.79 45.68 32.81 34.01 22.56 38.65 32.42 62.39 11.10 17.03 6.62 37.37 25.70 36.93 2.00
RANK: 287th 82nd -- 316th 276th 258th 173rd 138th 217th 305th 299th 211th 342nd 322nd 211th 80th 266th 216th

ANALYSIS:
While not an atrocious team by any means, Tenn. Tech is not exactly one that should appear in many top-100 rankings either. Carrying a record of 16-17, they are currently rated #255 overall (out of 363) in All-Play Percentage this season. They are also ranked by this site as the #3 team (out of 10) in the OVC (average ranking 281.9).

Defense is not exactly a strength for Tenn. Tech this year. The team is ranked 287th in defensive efficiency and allows more than 108 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO. Tenn. Tech gives up far too many offensive rebounds and second chances to their opponents. The club has a rating of 17.03 vs. AO in potential points allowed off of second chances (342nd nationally), and they let AO convert a healthy 6.6% of all second-chance opportunities (ranked 322nd) as well. Tenn. Tech also struggles on occasion to deny opponents opportunities to shoot from the floor. The team is ranked 316th in the nation in defensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of 87.79 vs. AO.

Though they rate better on offense than they do on defense, Tenn. Tech still isn't one of the more capable offensive teams in college hoops. Scoring roughly 100 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO, they are ranked #222 in the nation in offensive efficiency. Tenn. Tech won't provide opponents much of a scare with their shooting percentage from the inside. The team is ranked 322nd in near-proximity field goal percentage, making only 53.6% of their attempts from up-close vs. AO. If Tenn. Tech does have a strength offensively, it would have to be the team's ability to sink threes. The squad converts 37.3% of their three-point attempts vs. AO, which ranks 30th in the nation.
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:
Tenn. Tech does better vs. clubs that fail to defend efficiently inside the paint. When playing squads that have a defensive near-proximity field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 59.07%, Tenn. Tech performs above average 67% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 22% of the time.
Tenn. Tech performs better against squads that do not defend well on the perimeter. When facing teams that have a defensive three-point field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 34.26%, Tenn. Tech is more efficient than normal 75% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 39% of the time.
When playing teams that typically allow more than a fair share of breakaway opportunities, Tenn. Tech usually performs better than average. Tenn. Tech is more efficient than normal 65% of the time when facing clubs that have a potential point rate allowed off steals vs. AO greater than 10.51. In all other contests, Tenn. Tech performs better than average 30% 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
2024-25284th284th218th287thOVC109th26th339th24th88th269th
2023-24330th330th312th329thOVC281st324th300th48th339th326th
2022-23255th255th207th283rdOVC197th144th333rd226th278th273rd
2021-22243rd243rd290th288thOVC47th177th204th92nd157th243rd
2020-21327th327th334th334thOVC120th76th202nd236th231st328th
2019-20327th327th310th323rdOVC220th219th255th133rd292nd334th
2018-19326th326th329th331stOVC110th53rd230th166th142nd340th
2017-18225th225th131st165thOVC50th108th231st157th195th212th
2016-17243rd243rd269th267thOVC121st29th224th7th21st269th
2015-16224th224th110th146thOVC112th267th218th312th337th194th
2014-15238th238th258th270thOVC90th191st212th121st271st222nd
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25294th347th266th217th284th68th156th248th193rd288th308th208th273rd321st54th246th282nd320th
2023-24337th338th248th315th272nd280th277th223rd237th110th302nd302nd305th335th258th197th70th78th
2022-23222nd295th166th220th244th73rd30th178th131st331st322nd250th298th271st62nd169th329th334th
2021-22233rd319th344th80th163rd277th155th108th138th60th246th120th36th199th292nd123rd77th51st
2020-21283rd334th246th221st260th63rd303rd274th164th222nd194th149th245th342nd54th274th215th286th
2019-20330th343rd274th132nd336th48th231st285th345th179th329th146th178th226th52nd294th184th272nd
2018-19344th133rd343rd332nd338th317th288th99th332nd249th334th224th131st263rd280th60th193rd117th
2017-18286th88th274th241st308th237th286th224th335th85th297th43rd34th130th223rd218th68th86th
2016-17290th162nd150th264th303rd115th316th279th130th187th320th176th150th170th95th273rd156th220th
2015-16143rd92nd63rd289th181st64th135th307th36th236th277th193rd196th248th49th297th197th283rd
2014-15171st242nd190th48th191st229th244th89th23rd97th276th157th13th32nd255th113th146th105th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25258th25th--357th247th201st113th319th276th272nd293rd201st312th342nd96th272nd175th225th
2023-24321st74th--288th313th267th251st203rd189th190th355th343rd38th241st233rd175th154th141st
2022-23287th82nd--316th276th258th173rd138th217th305th299th211th342nd322nd211th80th266th216th
2021-22252nd56th--307th235th279th119th141st293rd265th272nd185th257th313th224th104th217th179th
2020-21323rd105th--227th342nd217th288th117th275th252nd347th201st183rd256th201st101st239th201st
2019-20304th108th--199th321st166th323rd234th311th138th310th281st243rd325th158th236th131st162nd
2018-19212th222nd--176th231st70th132nd188th296th286th176th351st348th344th62nd180th286th300th
2017-18148th261st--84th184th121st89th37th289th285th112th87th279th276th153rd39th304th276th
2016-17218th280th--61st221st199th183rd79th192nd156th239th165th257th306th248th90th196th157th
2015-16289th168th--311th259th258th297th98th298th306th122nd206th308th296th202nd54th270th234th
2014-15275th319th--63rd311th70th282nd6th286th336th170th283rd219th339th98th7th345th325th