TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2022-23 Texas State  16-19 (0.457)  |  Sun Belt
All-Play Percentage: 0.461 (196th)
Schedule Strength: 0.472 (149th)
Record Quality: -0.041 (198th)
Avg. Season Rank: 208.75 (212th)
Pace: 64.77 (339th)
Momentum: 3.65 (35th)
Off. Momentum: 3.03 (48th)
Def. Momentum: 0.61 (101st)
Consistency: -9.14 (174th)
Res. Consistency: -9.73 (37th)
Away From Home: 2.39 (4th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -0.32 (136th)
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: 102.27 26.26 73.57 85.79 44.20 22.66 31.39 30.20 36.10 32.92 60.45 11.22 14.65 6.17 26.42 35.21 38.37 1.88
RANK: 177th 126th 117th 123rd 155th 352nd 314th 27th 272nd 56th 124th 149th 151st 89th 356th 28th 68th 11th

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: 103.44 30.83 -- 79.12 45.10 27.64 37.52 21.02 37.05 30.46 57.55 9.99 11.38 4.90 34.94 26.57 38.49 1.96
RANK: 185th 344th -- 16th 239th 53rd 338th 61st 140th 222nd 124th 111th 27th 121st 109th 122nd 314th 290th

ANALYSIS:
While not an atrocious team by any means, Texas State is not exactly one that should appear in many top-100 rankings either. They have a record of 16-19 and are ranked 196th overall (out of 363) in the latest Haslametrics ratings. They are also ranked by this site as the #9 team (out of 14) in the Sun Belt (average ranking 178.6).

Based on the data, Texas State will likely find more success on offense than on defense. Scoring about 102 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO, they currently occupy the #177 slot in the rankings for offensive efficiency. Texas State favors the mid-range jumper over any of the others. The club is ranked 28th in ratio of mid-range attempts to total field goal attempts. That being said, though they shoot a fair amount of in-between jumpers, they don't really make a whole lot of them and convert just 36.1% of their mid-range attempts vs. AO. If Texas State does have a weakness offensively, it would have to be the team's ability (or lack thereof) to sink threes. The squad converts just 31.4% of their three-point attempts vs. AO, which ranks 50th-worst in the nation.

Texas State is not quite as good on the defensive end of the floor. The team is ranked 185th in defensive efficiency, allowing about 103 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Texas State fouls far too much and sends the opposition to the line way too often. With a defensive free throw attempt rate of 30.83 vs. AO, the squad is ranked #344 in the country in that category. Texas State also does a very lackluster job preventing opponents from draining threes. They rank 338th nationally in defensive three-point percentage, allowing AO to make 37.5% of their attempts from afar. If Texas State does have a bright spot on defense, it would have to be their ability to limit the number of shot attempts by the opposition. The team has a defensive field goal attempt rate of 79.12 vs. AO, which ranks 16th-best in college basketball.

Texas State has been playing better basketball in their most recent outings, as evidenced by the team's #35 ranking in positive momentum. When playing on the road, Texas State has played their best basketball this season. The team is currently ranked fourth in the country in the away-from-home metric our site tracks.
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:
Texas State performs worse against squads that prefer the outside shot. When facing teams that have an offensive shooting proximity score vs. AO greater than 2.00, Texas State is more efficient than normal 21% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 72% of the time.
When playing teams that have trouble defending the mid-range shot, Texas State usually performs worse than average. Texas State is more efficient than normal 20% of the time when facing clubs that have a defensive mid-range field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 39.30%. In all other contests, Texas State performs better than average 64% of the time.
Texas State is typically better vs. teams that allow opponents to shoot well from the field. Against foes that have a defensive field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 42.25%, Texas State performs above their norm 64% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above 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
2024-25197th197th196th220thSun Belt225th146th211th101st185th165th
2023-24184th184th205th200thSun Belt232nd211th136th132nd125th202nd
2022-23196th196th228th198thSun Belt339th174th149th136th4th212th
2021-22131st130th44th109thSun Belt322nd30th251st346th265th129th
2020-21179th179th35th120thSun Belt353rd25th305th148th85th177th
2019-2084th84th72nd109thSun Belt318th12th167th55th192nd111th
2018-19142nd142nd49th91stSun Belt293rd23rd217th210th52nd90th
2017-18232nd232nd214th221stSun Belt343rd311th199th228th28th210th
2016-17140th138th101st157thSun Belt336th111th268th94th125th189th
2015-16210th210th199th208thSun Belt344th294th211th235th98th219th
2014-15203rd203rd219th253rdSun Belt320th220th206th235th44th187th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25142nd131st33rd157th124th357th83rd77th248th22nd230th96th76th51st358th70th22nd6th
2023-24285th133rd290th259th205th358th270th94th336th20th213th87th126th102nd358th79th12th1st
2022-23177th126th117th123rd155th352nd314th27th272nd56th124th149th151st89th356th28th68th11th
2021-22112th101st73rd205th97th336th38th18th98th239th173rd258th158th94th342nd16th232nd67th
2020-21229th256th147th223rd107th356th97th31st163rd70th218th140th232nd192nd356th19th58th4th
2019-2092nd167th67th20th111th338th189th4th14th148th263rd155th121st84th350th7th211th38th
2018-19207th157th234th115th230th215th302nd106th195th162nd176th128th35th44th223rd113th179th148th
2017-18257th209th316th173rd241st191st256th104th236th234th189th295th132nd128th185th105th234th186th
2016-17238th197th296th192nd184th264th300th95th132nd154th156th228th240th131st263rd94th151st98th
2015-16255th189th308th111th208th345th325th22nd240th64th143rd171st236th201st347th23rd87th17th
2014-15313th150th147th216th319th306th306th34th251st261st321st116th313th339th302nd23rd256th118th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25279th358th--81st215th73rd346th107th224th276th55th188th338th132nd100th126th311th310th
2023-24101st274th--23rd168th84th123rd73rd173rd187th161st221st87th98th151st121st268th250th
2022-23185th344th--16th239th53rd338th61st140th222nd124th111th27th121st109th122nd314th290th
2021-22180th189th--94th186th282nd280th12th247th214th67th85th208th294th300th13th247th124th
2020-21126th193rd--39th168th323rd286th5th169th106th110th246th32nd95th350th11th169th38th
2019-2075th209th--51st98th128th81st55th175th229th59th55th101st146th190th81st278th229th
2018-1987th262nd--28th119th160th38th153rd204th67th201st215th64th57th235th214th106th113th
2017-18192nd84th--152nd268th210th172nd186th269th143rd311th325th48th118th215th201st141st132nd
2016-1781st184th--96th101st97th52nd192nd34th139th234th159th237th186th126th225th164th207th
2015-16172nd123rd--87th208th223rd292nd59th212th199th118th78th21st31st249th67th239th172nd
2014-15101st136th--54th152nd203rd87th70th268th127th136th107th133rd90th264th104th172nd132nd