TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2017-18 CSU Bakersfield  12-18 (0.400)  |  WAC
All-Play Percentage: 0.291 (249th)
Schedule Strength: 0.527 (134th)
Record Quality: -0.159 (255th)
Avg. Season Rank: 248.35 (253rd)
Pace: 68.08 (296th)
Momentum: 0.93 (130th)
Off. Momentum: 1.25 (118th)
Def. Momentum: -0.32 (164th)
Consistency: -9.37 (216th)
Res. Consistency: -14.70 (324th)
Away From Home: -1.48 (280th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -1.09 (200th)
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 2, 2018. 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: 93.09 23.53 69.61 80.47 41.78 30.57 30.98 22.84 36.37 27.06 58.54 10.46 11.42 5.29 37.99 28.38 33.63 2.04
RANK: 315th 270th 260th 249th 284th 171st 330th 157th 205th 237th 208th 206th 307th 287th 148th 144th 216th 206th

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: 101.63 31.38 -- 78.22 43.28 32.73 35.50 20.92 35.23 24.57 60.48 11.42 14.55 5.80 41.85 26.74 31.41 2.10
RANK: 156th 327th -- 33rd 123rd 268th 178th 107th 92nd 48th 181st 230th 169th 72nd 318th 146th 76th 41st

ANALYSIS:
CSU Bakersfield has a squad that most likely falls somewhere in the bottom half of NCAA Division I teams this year. Their record this season is 12-18, and the club is ranked 249th overall (out of 351) in Haslametrics' most recent ratings. They are also ranked by this site as the #5 team (out of eight) in the WAC (average ranking 203.6).

If there is a strength for CSU Bakersfield this year, it's probably on the defensive end of the court. The team is rated 156th in defensive efficiency, allowing fewer than 102 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO. CSU Bakersfield does a really good job to prevent opponents from getting off shots from the field. The club is ranked 33rd in Division I in defensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of 78.22 vs. AO. CSU Bakersfield also does an adequate job to prevent opponents from scoring off of offensive rebounds. The squad allows AO to convert only 5.8% of all second-chance opportunities (ranked 72nd in the NCAA). If CSU Bakersfield does exhibit a noticeable 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 31.38 in defensive free throw attempt rate vs. AO, which ranks 25th-worst in the country.

Unfortunately, CSU Bakersfield is not even remotely close to being as good on offense as they are on defense. The team is ranked 315th in offensive efficiency, scoring about 93 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. CSU Bakersfield is one of the least accurate teams when shooting from long-distance. They are ranked 330th in three-point field goal percentage nationally and make just 31.0% of their attempts from long vs. AO. CSU Bakersfield also does a fairly poor job cleaning the offensive glass. Against AO, the ball-club has a rating of 11.42 in potential points scored off of second chances (307th nationally).
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:
CSU Bakersfield does better vs. clubs that prefer the outside shot. When playing squads that have an offensive shooting proximity score vs. AO greater than 2.01, CSU Bakersfield performs above average 88% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 32% of the time.
CSU Bakersfield performs better against squads that are likely to allow more second chances off of offensive rebounds. When facing teams that have a defensive second-chance potential point rate vs. AO greater than 13.76, CSU Bakersfield is more efficient than normal 67% 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, CSU Bakersfield usually performs better than average. CSU Bakersfield is more efficient than normal 65% of the time when facing clubs that have an offensive second-chance potential point rate vs. AO greater than 14.97. In all other contests, CSU Bakersfield performs better than average 20% 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
2024-25263rd263rd256th240thBig West218th167th169th290th339th234th
2023-24210th210th271st263rdBig West315th139th196th210th303rd249th
2022-23299th298th306th286thBig West334th112th190th254th173rd298th
2021-22269th267th315th307thBig West320th91st192nd35th103rd252nd
2020-21138th138th128th143rdBig West334th339th154th103rd113th165th
2019-20266th265th274th291stWAC305th152nd226th175th117th239th
2018-19218th217th156th188thWAC325th172nd203rd29th189th178th
2017-18249th249th261st255thWAC296th216th134th200th280th253rd
2016-1791st91st46th74thWAC205th283rd167th33rd100th110th
2015-16110th110th47th106thWAC176th2nd283rd248th190th109th
2014-15240th240th237th294thWAC325th157th326th71st94th254th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25227th104th52nd230th231st356th72nd8th187th284th318th246th44th143rd355th7th277th63rd
2023-24250th199th159th136th236th352nd245th7th80th267th318th283rd58th34th354th7th280th69th
2022-23347th306th34th244th321st357th340th1st178th322nd318th294th232nd264th354th2nd304th61st
2021-22289th69th217th128th300th356th351st2nd179th238th297th303rd62nd66th357th2nd249th21st
2020-21136th304th191st15th139th332nd126th5th206th90th141st342nd74th53rd345th12th173rd39th
2019-20307th309th267th50th294th319th325th31st270th85th282nd229th127th142nd337th41st122nd35th
2018-19208th203rd259th4th307th262nd330th2nd153rd286th231st207th2nd61st325th4th332nd187th
2017-18315th270th260th249th284th171st330th157th205th237th208th206th307th287th148th144th216th206th
2016-17228th70th330th284th200th302nd49th141st302nd125th256th29th192nd231st276th118th84th56th
2015-16189th186th259th147th133rd343rd183rd170th236th3rd244th77th66th67th343rd187th3rd3rd
2014-15262nd137th117th181st290th245th266th99th244th221st288th313th149th141st240th86th211th142nd
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25299th361st--18th284th173rd274th44th147th117th324th175th164th262nd277th81st196th134th
2023-24159th359th--14th129th102nd200th145th169th74th108th240th153rd109th204th217th141st151st
2022-23172nd349th--7th184th289th280th32nd68th5th314th148th79th4th344th99th38th17th
2021-22250th356th--28th190th242nd222nd46th201st93rd185th211th41st68th290th84th138th84th
2020-21147th336th--17th137th206th219th49th60th76th225th194th235th258th304th82nd141st86th
2019-20217th345th--14th158th193rd302nd52nd103rd51st151st53rd10th25th296th105th119th74th
2018-19268th352nd--31st151st226th251st220th187th18th212th40th142nd140th292nd276th33rd30th
2017-18156th327th--33rd123rd268th178th107th92nd48th181st230th169th72nd318th146th76th41st
2016-1716th322nd--41st4th195th25th49th30th157th2nd200th290th125th258th73rd214th164th
2015-1640th287th--20th57th58th130th16th68th277th11th148th293rd239th138th33rd325th303rd
2014-15192nd332nd--23rd161st248th311th96th135th30th167th52nd11th36th310th154th60th44th