TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2015-16 Wright State  22-13 (0.629)  |  Horizon
All-Play Percentage: 0.609 (138th)
Schedule Strength: 0.473 (199th)
Record Quality: 0.101 (125th)
Avg. Season Rank: 176.70 (178th)
Pace: 67.37 (298th)
Momentum: 2.26 (66th)
Off. Momentum: 0.26 (188th)
Def. Momentum: 1.99 (41st)
Consistency: -9.09 (199th)
Res. Consistency: -15.54 (344th)
Away From Home: -1.48 (307th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -0.87 (183rd)
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 4, 2016. 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: 98.80 24.67 68.94 80.52 44.05 28.98 37.48 26.98 38.16 24.55 58.27 9.48 8.86 3.65 35.99 33.51 30.50 2.05
RANK: 206th 315th 209th 252nd 144th 171st 50th 87th 69th 327th 185th 252nd 346th 347th 153rd 67th 319th 278th

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: 97.43 33.49 -- 74.56 43.37 26.72 33.30 23.05 33.34 24.79 63.54 8.76 11.53 5.38 35.83 30.92 33.24 2.03
RANK: 77th 317th -- 4th 143rd 73rd 84th 137th 65th 33rd 287th 33rd 13th 48th 201st 241st 112th 122nd

ANALYSIS:
Wright State is a fairly decent basketball team that, while likely better than average, isn't quite good enough to crack any top-25 rankings this year. They have a record of 22-13 and are ranked 138th overall (out of 351) in the latest Haslametrics ratings. They are also ranked by this site as the #5 team (out of 10) in the Horizon League (average ranking 183.6).

Wright State will mainly try to find success through their defense. They are ranked 77th in defensive efficiency and allow fewer than 98 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Wright State has extremely pesky defenders that ceaselessly attempt to deny opponents ample opportunity to shoot. The club is ranked fourth in Division I in defensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of 74.56 vs. AO. Wright State also does a super job to deny opponents offensive rebounds and second chances. They have a rating of 11.53 vs. AO in potential points allowed off of second chances (ranked 13th in the country), and they allow AO to convert just 5.4% of their second-chance opportunities (ranked 48th) as well. If Wright State does exhibit a weakness on the defensive end of the floor, it'd likely be the team's tendency to send opponents to the line too much by fouling. The squad has a rating of 33.49 in defensive free throw attempt rate vs. AO, which ranks 35th-worst in the country.

The offense for Wright State, on the other hand, isn't nearly as efficient as the defense is. The team is ranked 206th in offensive efficiency, scoring about 99 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Wright State does a terrible job to take advantage of scoring chances off of offensive rebounds. Against AO, the team converts only 3.6% of all second-chance opportunities (fifth from the bottom nationally), and with a rating of 8.86, they're sixth from the bottom in potential points scored off of the offensive boards as well. Wright State also struggles to draw fouls and earn opportunities at the free throw line. With a free throw attempt rate of just 24.67 vs. AO, they are 315th in the overall rankings for that category. If Wright State does have a strength offensively, it would have to be the team's care for the ball. The squad has a rating of 8.76 in potential points allowed off of steals vs. AO, which ranks 33rd in the college game.

When playing on the road, Wright State performs somewhat worse than they normally do on their home court. The club is nationally ranked 307th in our site's away-from-home metric.
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 find ways to get to the free throw line, Wright State often performs worse than normal. Wright State is more efficient than usual 36% of the time when facing teams that have an offensive free throw attempt rate vs. AO greater than 26.91. In their other contests, Wright State performs better than the norm 73% of the time.
Wright State does better vs. clubs that typically allow more than a fair share of breakaway opportunities. When playing squads that have a potential point rate allowed off steals vs. AO greater than 10.95, Wright State performs above average 67% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 33% 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
2024-25205th205th231st236thHorizon League156th148th213th178th249th173rd
2023-24155th155th150th165thHorizon League17th10th210th179th25th157th
2022-23199th199th155th211thHorizon League21st237th295th235th45th198th
2021-22159th158th121st159thHorizon League70th150th266th205th143rd192nd
2020-2163rd62nd25th113thHorizon League40th346th300th142nd3rd63rd
2019-20142nd142nd17th101stHorizon League25th68th322nd189th306th136th
2018-1989th89th106th133rdHorizon League290th195th173rd232nd343rd101st
2017-18140th140th41st97thHorizon League186th112th244th196th93rd143rd
2016-17150th147th85th125thHorizon League120th240th195th209th299th174th
2015-16138th137th95th125thHorizon League298th199th199th183rd307th178th
2014-15236th236th280th274thHorizon League246th288th135th189th43rd192nd
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25122nd341st242nd151st57th191st42nd205th55th121st112th242nd253rd270th199th208th130th131st
2023-2438th191st53rd263rd4th344th11th54th17th171st13th202nd250th137th345th43rd146th36th
2022-23181st344th98th166th64th341st194th30th13th140th173rd216th267th107th340th26th153rd35th
2021-22114th99th27th171st128th285th209th57th72nd199th146th235th25th71st285th52nd198th108th
2020-2195th114th138th120th98th265th100th180th133rd43rd207th239th18th24th278th189th50th49th
2019-20156th29th286th185th180th256th119th256th287th30th264th157th32nd43rd260th254th29th42nd
2018-19100th120th77th120th181st86th143rd233rd196th159th191st243rd159th246th98th248th176th231st
2017-18233rd109th158th182nd277th157th279th135th298th248th194th254th224th244th146th120th242nd224th
2016-17133rd155th20th303rd173rd52nd96th270th170th322nd158th310th255th274th27th256th305th329th
2015-16206th315th209th252nd144th171st50th87th69th327th185th252nd346th347th153rd67th319th278th
2014-15257th332nd176th227th166th191st236th112th12th285th222nd236th340th296th179th94th284th227th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25292nd244th--184th323rd54th343rd301st240th195th307th177th230th277th52nd303rd202nd276th
2023-24333rd110th--172nd357th169th360th173rd260th221st345th310th88th266th160th172nd220th218th
2022-23195th110th--254th208th198th213th257th152nd181st278th315th263rd287th169th239th148th172nd
2021-22231st55th--245th285th46th266th337th317th149th229th141st283rd291st29th339th121st263rd
2020-2152nd8th--289th87th41st71st342nd172nd190th54th281st246th267th21st335th152nd280th
2019-20164th105th--280th163rd59th101st318th250th256th125th69th293rd328th32nd308th211th293rd
2018-1989th69th--55th212th38th158th349th322nd11th304th29th4th48th61st351st16th112th
2017-1867th89th--103rd107th155th179th315th103rd13th220th31st125th164th194th331st19th55th
2016-17190th231st--43rd244th182nd184th275th308th16th321st272nd17th159th235th315th32nd48th
2015-1677th317th--4th143rd73rd84th137th65th33rd287th33rd13th48th201st241st112th122nd
2014-15211th280th--48th249th63rd166th215th219th117th300th50th225th271st95th262nd163rd214th