TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2017-18 Lipscomb  23-10 (0.697)  |  Atlantic Sun
All-Play Percentage: 0.497 (177th)
Schedule Strength: 0.408 (272nd)
Record Quality: 0.102 (118th)
Avg. Season Rank: 178.45 (182nd)
Pace: 76.01 (5th)
Momentum: 3.23 (39th)
Off. Momentum: 3.37 (35th)
Def. Momentum: -0.14 (148th)
Consistency: -7.25 (12th)
Res. Consistency: -10.30 (78th)
Away From Home: 0.27 (107th)
Paper Tiger Factor: 2.28 (4th)
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: 99.71 28.50 72.30 78.31 44.00 30.93 32.94 18.04 34.29 29.35 61.63 11.59 14.30 6.63 39.49 23.03 37.47 2.02
RANK: 202nd 73rd 149th 320th 180th 162nd 290th 304th 285th 140th 102nd 129th 192nd 173rd 114th 290th 85th 165th

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: 100.89 28.70 -- 75.88 46.71 28.66 35.59 19.84 39.85 27.38 63.33 10.31 12.86 8.06 37.77 26.14 36.09 2.02
RANK: 141st 283rd -- 8th 273rd 90th 183rd 70th 285th 118th 270th 125th 57th 287th 198th 128th 213th 183rd

ANALYSIS:
Regardless of what the win percentage says, Lipscomb isn't a very good team this year. Ranked 177th overall (out of 351) in our most recent ratings, they presently have a record of 23-10. Of the eight schools in the Atlantic Sun (average ranking 264.8), they're currently ranked as our #2 team in the conference.

Based on their performances this year, Lipscomb will likely find more success on defense than they will on offense. Allowing about 101 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO and favoring one of the game's most blistering paces (the fifth-fastest in D1), they currently occupy the #141 slot in the ratings for defensive efficiency. Lipscomb has extremely pesky defenders that ceaselessly attempt to deny opponents ample opportunity to shoot. The club is ranked eighth in Division I in defensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of 75.88 vs. AO. Lipscomb also does a fairly satisfactory job to deny opponents chances to score off of the offensive glass. They have a rating of 12.86 vs. AO in potential points allowed off of second chances (ranked 57th in the country).

Lipscomb doesn't perform as well offensively as they do defensively. The team is ranked 202nd in offensive efficiency, scoring about 100 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Lipscomb is one of the more inferior teams in the college game when it comes to maximizing opportunities to score on offense. The team is nationally ranked 320th in offensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of only 78.31 vs. AO.

Lipscomb has been playing better basketball in their most recent outings, as evidenced by the team's #39 ranking in positive momentum. Lipscomb is also one of the most consistent teams in NCAA basketball (currently ranked 12th in consistency), which makes the outcomes of their upcoming games far easier to predict.
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 tend to allow more shots on the perimeter, Lipscomb often performs better than normal. Lipscomb is more efficient than usual 57% of the time when facing teams that have a defensive shooting proximity score vs. AO greater than 1.97. In their other contests, Lipscomb performs better than the norm 11% of the time.
Lipscomb does worse vs. clubs that are likely to allow more second chances off of offensive rebounds. When playing squads that have a defensive second-chance potential point rate vs. AO greater than 14.16, Lipscomb performs above average 30% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 70% of the time.
Lipscomb performs worse against squads that allow a higher number of conversions off of the offensive glass. When facing teams that have a defensive second-chance conversion percentage vs. AO greater than 7.14%, Lipscomb is more efficient than normal 23% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 59% 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
2024-25121st121st43rd93rdAtlantic Sun255th252nd251st318th103rd107th
2023-24176th176th94th167thAtlantic Sun88th316th264th81st198th154th
2022-23147th147th111th162ndAtlantic Sun91st209th238th81st212th180th
2021-22262nd262nd242nd265thAtlantic Sun81st230th207th118th93rd269th
2020-21256th256th142nd230thAtlantic Sun212th19th263rd128th172nd238th
2019-20230th230th192nd226thAtlantic Sun151st9th241st76th172nd236th
2018-1935th35th25th40thAtlantic Sun11th264th143rd72nd3rd34th
2017-18177th177th49th118thAtlantic Sun5th12th272nd4th107th182nd
2016-17167th167th105th180thAtlantic Sun7th225th271st156th182nd193rd
2015-16260th260th268th290thAtlantic Sun14th190th234th59th11th248th
2014-15304th304th219th258thAtlantic Sun27th33rd246th191st173rd296th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25112th207th10th262nd133rd40th136th262nd68th332nd73rd156th336th298th24th263rd319th346th
2023-2493rd348th19th120th50th108th46th225th154th150th54th170th347th270th119th234th168th211th
2022-23155th360th37th149th92nd166th59th258th264th77th128th300th308th252nd180th266th85th121st
2021-22190th116th168th309th150th141st199th339th92nd70th214th340th237th324th100th330th45th142nd
2020-21240th112th290th326th174th215th190th285th126th128th245th318th330th281st174th263rd72nd122nd
2019-20191st218th198th224th118th239th142nd240th86th66th220th332nd220th170th231st226th66th78th
2018-1931st91st25th259th24th127th23rd275th35th164th95th136th211th219th103rd266th144th205th
2017-18202nd73rd149th320th180th162nd290th304th285th140th102nd129th192nd173rd114th290th85th165th
2016-17148th181st116th313th126th19th156th348th324th185th83rd107th208th236th10th346th126th306th
2015-16221st222nd225th296th241st24th155th332nd261st279th208th166th226th216th11th329th238th330th
2014-15265th144th146th293rd295th32nd288th332nd319th238th231st314th180th335th20th326th189th314th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25115th19th--315th196th101st111th359th325th71st209th31st108th52nd62nd360th45th153rd
2023-24294th19th--302nd329th211th329th260th325th202nd300th50th194th291st153rd232nd160th186th
2022-23166th37th--310th149th202nd104th229th150th258th196th317th84th157th154th201st213th217th
2021-22307th123rd--346th199th319th333rd298th183rd123rd178th314th293rd206th257th241st55th55th
2020-21273rd81st--305th249th325th196th239th276th100th304th274th313th290th299th200th62nd44th
2019-20277th100th--293rd267th249th251st255th267th153rd262nd278th81st236th200th231st104th127th
2018-1954th47th--101st95th151st50th280th254th65th117th234th77th162nd176th295th68th117th
2017-18141st283rd--8th273rd90th183rd70th285th118th270th125th57th287th198th128th213th183rd
2016-17191st329th--24th254th20th292nd140th238th213th154th306th312th299th46th203rd282nd308th
2015-16294th209th--239th236th303rd222nd118th140th187th283rd220th260th195th281st104th163rd109th
2014-15305th336th--52nd291st263rd319th69th263rd83rd298th256th15th68th306th102nd116th62nd