TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2022-23 Wright State  18-15 (0.545)  |  Horizon
All-Play Percentage: 0.450 (199th)
Schedule Strength: 0.335 (295th)
Record Quality: -0.057 (211th)
Avg. Season Rank: 199.62 (198th)
Pace: 71.56 (21st)
Momentum: -2.79 (297th)
Off. Momentum: -0.15 (223rd)
Def. Momentum: -2.64 (297th)
Consistency: -9.66 (237th)
Res. Consistency: -12.59 (213th)
Away From Home: 0.74 (45th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -1.43 (235th)
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: 102.13 20.84 74.16 84.91 46.14 24.67 33.69 30.02 43.48 30.22 58.96 10.14 12.37 5.87 29.06 35.35 35.59 1.93
RANK: 181st 344th 98th 166th 64th 341st 194th 30th 13th 140th 173rd 216th 267th 107th 340th 26th 153rd 35th

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: 103.90 23.64 -- 86.36 44.60 31.37 34.44 25.46 37.32 29.53 61.66 12.57 14.93 6.09 36.32 29.48 34.20 2.02
RANK: 195th 110th -- 254th 208th 198th 213th 257th 152nd 181st 278th 315th 263rd 287th 169th 239th 148th 172nd

ANALYSIS:
They're far from the worst of the worst, but Wright State should not be a terribly frightening opponent for most clubs. Carrying a record of 18-15, they are currently rated #199 overall (out of 363) in All-Play Percentage this season. Of the 11 schools in the Horizon League (average ranking 231.8), they're currently ranked as our #5 team in the conference.

Based on the data, Wright State will likely find more success on offense than on defense. Scoring about 102 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO and utilizing a very up-tempo style of play (the 21st-fastest pace in D1), they currently occupy the #181 slot in the rankings for offensive efficiency. Wright State is superb at converting jumpers in between the three-point stripe and the low post. The squad is ranked 13th nationally in mid-range field goal percentage, making about 43.5% of their attempts from those locations vs. AO. The team will take a fair amount of shots from those in-between locations, too. Approximately 35.4% of their attempts vs. AO are of the mid-range variety, which puts the team in the top-50 in that category nationally. Wright State has also been fairly successful when shooting from the field. The squad is ranked 64th in the country in field goal percentage, making approximately 46.1% of their attempts vs. AO. If Wright State does have a glaring weakness offensively, it would have to be the team's inability to get to the free throw line. The squad has a free throw attempt rate of only 20.84 vs. AO, which ranks 20th-worst in the country.

Wright State is not quite as good on the defensive end of the floor. The team is ranked 195th in defensive efficiency, allowing about 104 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Wright State does a less-than-adequate job to prevent opponents from scoring off of the offensive glass. The team allows AO to convert 6.1% of all second-chance opportunities (287th nationally).

On the road, Wright State performs somewhat better than their norm, as the squad is nationally ranked 45th in our 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:
Wright State does worse vs. clubs that tend to capitalize off breakaway opportunities. When playing squads that have a potential point rate off steals vs. AO greater than 10.68, Wright State performs above average 22% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 69% of the time.
Wright State performs better against squads that have trouble defending the mid-range shot. When facing teams that have a defensive mid-range field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 36.53%, Wright State is more efficient than normal 55% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 11% of the time.
When playing teams that effectively clean the offensive glass, Wright State usually performs worse than average. Wright State is more efficient than normal 11% of the time when facing clubs that have an offensive second-chance potential point rate vs. AO greater than 15.02. In all other contests, Wright State performs better than average 55% 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