Automated Team Capsule for 2020-21 Incarnate Word8-14 (0.364) | Southland
All-Play Percentage: 0.051 (339th)
Schedule Strength: 0.319 (318th)
Record Quality: -0.397 (342nd)
Avg. Season Rank: 323.05 (332nd)
Pace: 67.19 (300th)
Momentum: -6.68 (344th)
Off. Momentum: -1.96 (309th)
Def. Momentum: -4.72 (340th)
Consistency: -9.55 (205th)
Res. Consistency: -15.81 (314th)
Away From Home: 1.27 (73rd)
Paper Tiger Factor: -0.11 (121st)
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 5, 2021. 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:
89.83
67.22
23.44
70.36
78.41
31.28
39.89
29.76
10.78
36.22
27.12
10.14
37.39
21.53
10.36
48.11
7.13
8.25
1.97
37.95
34.58
27.46
2.10
RANK:
317th
298th
224th
204th
311th
340th
320th
208th
145th
66th
66th
82nd
198th
348th
356th
357th
348th
349th
356th
169th
43rd
345th
297th
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:
110.70
67.16
27.11
--
84.55
40.51
47.91
31.75
10.40
32.74
26.08
12.43
47.67
26.73
17.68
66.15
12.11
17.12
6.47
37.55
30.84
31.61
2.06
RANK:
339th
50th
267th
--
292nd
345th
330th
228th
190th
110th
302nd
352nd
354th
117th
241st
342nd
247th
352nd
319th
186th
278th
87th
110th
ANALYSIS: Not one of the better ball-clubs in college basketball, Incarnate Word should be a fairly easy win for most capable opponents. They have a record of 8-14 and are ranked 339th overall (out of 357) in the latest Haslametrics ratings. They are also ranked by this site as the #10 team (out of 13) in the Southland (average ranking 265.5).
Defense is the farthest thing from a strength for Incarnate Word this year. The team ranks 339th in defensive efficiency, allowing more than 110 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Incarnate Word allows opposing teams far too many easy chances from the floor, ranking in the bottom-50 in three of the four main defensive field goal shooting categories. They are exceptionally deficient defending inside the three-point line, allowing AO to make good on 47.7% of their mid-range jumpers (fourth from the bottom in the nation), 66.2% of their near-proximity chances (342nd), and 47.9% of their total shots from the field (330th). Incarnate Word also gives up far too many offensive rebounds and second chances to their opponents. The club has a rating of 17.12 vs. AO in potential points allowed off of second chances (sixth from the bottom nationally), and they let AO convert a healthy 6.5% of all second-chance opportunities (ranked 319th) as well. Incarnate Word is lastly extremely underskilled to force steals that turn into quick and easy points. They're ranked #348 in potential points off of breakaway steals with a rating of only 7.13 vs. AO.
Incarnate Word doesn't rate much better on offense than they do on defense. Scoring roughly 90 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO, they are ranked #317 in the nation in offensive efficiency. Incarnate Word will have a really tough time winning games when taking into consideration their shooting percentage near the basket. The team is ranked last in near-proximity field goal percentage, making only 48.1% of their attempts from up-close vs. AO. Moreover, they find themselves in the bottom-50 in overall offensive field goal percentage, converting just 39.9% of their total attempts vs. AO. Incarnate Word also does a terrible job to take advantage of scoring chances off of offensive rebounds. Against AO, the team converts only 2.0% of all second-chance opportunities (second from the bottom nationally), and with a rating of 8.25, they're ninth from the bottom in potential points scored off of the offensive boards as well.
Incarnate Word has been playing some of their worst basketball of the season as of late, and they're presently ranked 344th in positive momentum because of it.
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:
Incarnate Word performs worse against squads that tend to capitalize off breakaway opportunities. When facing teams that have a potential point rate off steals vs. AO greater than 11.69, Incarnate Word is more efficient than normal 18% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 88% of the time.
When playing teams that convert well from the charity stripe, Incarnate Word usually performs worse than average. Incarnate Word is more efficient than normal 11% of the time when facing clubs that have an adjusted free throw percentage vs. AO greater than 0.72%. In all other contests, Incarnate Word performs better than average 80% of the time.
Incarnate Word is typically better vs. teams that convert well from outside the arc. Against foes that have an offensive three-point field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 32.89%, Incarnate Word performs above their norm 73% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above average 13% of the time.
LATEST NEWS ITEMS:
Willis leads Incarnate Word over Texas A&M-CC 58-53 (2/6/2021 6:59:56 PM) CORPUS CHRISTI, Texas (AP) — Keaston Willis posted 17 points and Incarnate Word narrowly defeated Texas A&M-Corpus Christi 58-53 on Saturday.
Larsson leads Incarnate Word past McMurry 81-54 (1/1/2021 4:48:15 PM) SAN ANTONIO (AP) — Marcus Larsson had a career-high 20 points plus 13 rebounds as Incarnate Word easily defeated McMurry 81-54 on Friday.
Note: Haslametrics.com does not own any of the logos depicted within this site, we do not have the power to grant usage rights
to anyone. All team logos and names contained within this site are properties of the NCAA. Please source any information
obtained from this site by providing a link back.