TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2016-17 Texas Southern  23-12 (0.657)  |  SWAC
All-Play Percentage: 0.300 (246th)
Schedule Strength: 0.340 (324th)
Record Quality: 0.076 (127th)
Avg. Season Rank: 187.50 (186th)
Pace: 70.43 (166th)
Momentum: -3.89 (317th)
Off. Momentum: -3.52 (335th)
Def. Momentum: -0.37 (164th)
Consistency: -9.24 (212th)
Res. Consistency: -10.06 (89th)
Away From Home: -1.39 (285th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -3.18 (317th)
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, 2017. 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: 97.91 29.20 72.67 83.99 40.91 27.28 29.23 26.33 29.46 30.37 61.34 12.06 16.95 6.46 32.48 31.35 36.16 1.96
RANK: 223rd 97th 103rd 61st 301st 241st 342nd 89th 349th 77th 111th 89th 46th 176th 267th 107th 113th 76th

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: 105.71 27.48 -- 83.60 46.44 26.49 36.80 26.01 38.32 31.10 61.45 9.95 17.87 8.78 31.69 31.11 37.20 1.94
RANK: 240th 166th -- 248th 266th 48th 245th 271st 252nd 278th 215th 106th 342nd 325th 33rd 255th 258th 307th

ANALYSIS:
Regardless of what the win percentage says, Texas Southern isn't a very good team this year. Carrying a record of 23-12, they are currently rated #246 overall (out of 351) in All-Play Percentage this season. They are also ranked by this site as the best team (out of 10) in the SWAC (average ranking 325.1).

Defensively, Texas Southern finds itself in the lower half of our ratings. The team is ranked 240th in defensive efficiency, giving up more than 105 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Texas Southern gives up far too many offensive rebounds and second chances to their opponents. The club has a rating of 17.87 vs. AO in potential points allowed off of second chances (tenth from the bottom nationally), and they let AO convert a healthy 8.8% of all second-chance opportunities (ranked 325th) as well.

Texas Southern doesn't rate much better on offense than they do on defense. Scoring roughly 98 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO, they are ranked #223 in the nation in offensive efficiency. Texas Southern is downright rotten when shooting the mid-range jumper. The team is ranked third from the bottom in field goal percentage from that distance, making only 29.5% of their mid-range attempts vs. AO. Texas Southern is also one of the least accurate teams when shooting from long-distance. They are ranked tenth from the bottom in three-point field goal percentage nationally and make just 29.2% of their attempts from long vs. AO. If Texas Southern does have a strength offensively, it would have to be the team's knack for obtaining second-chance opportunities from offensive rebounds. The squad has a rating of 16.95 in potential points off of second chances vs. AO, which ranks 46th in all of college hoops.

Texas Southern has recently performed below their norm from an efficiency standpoint. The team is currently ranked 317th in the country in positive momentum.
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:
Texas Southern does worse vs. clubs that tend to get off more shots. When playing squads that have an offensive field goal attempt rate vs. AO greater than 81.97, Texas Southern performs above average 29% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 82% of the time.
Texas Southern performs worse against squads that convert more frequently off of offensive rebounds. When facing teams that have an offensive second-chance conversion percentage vs. AO greater than 7.73%, Texas Southern is more efficient than normal 20% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 65% of the time.
When playing teams that effectively clean the offensive glass, Texas Southern usually performs worse than average. Texas Southern is more efficient than normal 33% of the time when facing clubs that have an offensive second-chance potential point rate vs. AO greater than 14.76. In all other contests, Texas Southern performs better than average 73% 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
2024-25292nd292nd218th281stSWAC56th258th309th344th198th299th
2023-24267th267th208th272ndSWAC99th107th325th328th195th284th
2022-23290th290th268th305thSWAC66th95th278th171st72nd281st
2021-22201st201st131st170thSWAC55th61st276th328th227th177th
2020-21236th236th79th157thSWAC31st73rd322nd2nd30th246th
2019-20284th283rd192nd225thSWAC27th300th263rd41st251st249th
2018-19207th207th86th156thSWAC4th58th289th7th144th207th
2017-18238th238th228th237thSWAC68th176th294th162nd161st211th
2016-17246th246th66th127thSWAC166th212th324th317th285th186th
2015-16171st171st165th191stSWAC168th104th271st245th314th210th
2014-15250th250th92nd129thSWAC213th168th291st94th68th269th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25336th344th246th117th318th312th314th3rd165th358th233rd16th188th236th321st3rd359th250th
2023-24299th272nd124th123rd324th182nd315th40th207th339th266th105th234th278th204th41st344th289th
2022-23335th255th331st153rd279th359th361st23rd322nd47th218th131st62nd63rd363rd20th43rd4th
2021-22273rd243rd319th206th203rd330th227th91st271st61st227th254th63rd18th338th85th62nd24th
2020-21250th121st174th220th196th344th347th93rd231st47th151st273rd80th19th341st84th47th15th
2019-20253rd67th213th205th263rd346th290th64th337th61st228th170th45th79th348th54th62nd9th
2018-19180th48th287th237th154th307th179th240th278th27th209th39th31st56th299th240th25th22nd
2017-18153rd34th71st225th221st245th113th142nd311th158th228th188th227th187th230th125th146th122nd
2016-17223rd97th103rd61st301st241st342nd89th349th77th111th89th46th176th267th107th113th76th
2015-16128th113th322nd101st129th184th189th203rd254th56th116th237th37th72nd204th226th71st98th
2014-15218th77th322nd214th157th294th267th97th50th166th198th181st171st147th284th77th154th88th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25142nd289th--241st73rd343rd152nd324th177th3rd149th291st349th194th335th315th3rd7th
2023-24205th324th--53rd188th271st127th162nd347th38th173rd186th319th104th316th194th59th44th
2022-23197th325th--26th234th201st221st67th210th71st290th200th52nd85th288th123rd141st98th
2021-2285th283rd--120th75th237th132nd77th167th190th35th293rd201st98th248th85th201st152nd
2020-21210th303rd--115th157th304th226th56th141st118th180th291st86th203rd323rd63rd130th56th
2019-20313th252nd--162nd303rd225th296th171st232nd127th319th140th127th183rd229th170th130th125th
2018-19222nd128th--199th274th247th178th79th303rd236th268th194th254th223rd237th72nd217th183rd
2017-18300th184th--344th223rd169th281st337th224th148th248th73rd351st335th78th324th89th155th
2016-17240th166th--248th266th48th245th271st252nd278th215th106th342nd325th33rd255th258th307th
2015-16271st36th--315th266th184th202nd245th253rd265th261st227th286th291st108th207th223rd240th
2014-15266th162nd--244th295th112th256th277th343rd206th204th300th150th243rd87th259th181st229th