TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2014-15 Alabama  19-15 (0.559)  |  SEC
All-Play Percentage: 0.846 (55th)
Schedule Strength: 0.685 (40th)
Record Quality: 0.170 (78th)
Avg. Season Rank: 60.77 (53rd)
Pace: 63.61 (292nd)
Momentum: 1.66 (84th)
Off. Momentum: 2.83 (43rd)
Def. Momentum: -1.18 (204th)
Consistency: -9.18 (174th)
Res. Consistency: -10.15 (75th)
Away From Home: 1.44 (40th)
Paper Tiger Factor: 0.60 (55th)
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 6, 2015. 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: 108.28 34.54 70.70 79.33 46.43 30.47 33.46 23.21 41.14 25.66 66.61 12.69 11.11 6.14 38.41 29.26 32.34 2.06
RANK: 44th 16th 123rd 287th 40th 82nd 220th 251st 10th 283rd 17th 88th 337th 229th 61st 227th 267th 291st

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: 96.13 30.26 -- 81.44 39.57 31.69 32.25 26.40 33.00 23.35 56.91 9.31 12.01 4.72 38.91 32.41 28.67 2.10
RANK: 83rd 219th -- 145th 40th 307th 56th 219th 62nd 19th 114th 34th 14th 12th 320th 226th 19th 16th

ANALYSIS:
While this site doesn't quite consider them to be in the national title hunt, Alabama has the potential to be a formidable opponent for many in Division I. They have a record of 19-15 and are ranked 55th overall (out of 351) in the latest Haslametrics ratings. They are also ranked by this site as the #8 team (out of 14) in the SEC (average ranking 68.6).

Alabama has a reasonably potent offensive attack. Occupying the #44 slot in our offensive efficiency rankings, they will score about 108 points for every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Alabama is an excellent shooting team, capable of converting from multiple locations on the court and ranking in the top-50 in three of our four primary field goal categories. They are most proficient from two-point range, making good on 41.1% of their mid-range jumpers (tenth in the nation), 66.6% of their near-proximity chances (17th), and 46.4% of their total shots from the field (40th) vs. AO. Alabama also does a super job in their efforts to get to the free throw line. With a free throw attempt rate of 34.54 vs. AO, they are ranked 16th in the nation at getting to the charity stripe, where the team shoots a rather mediocre 70.7%. If Alabama does have a glaring weakness offensively, it would have to be the team's difficulties obtaining second-chance opportunities from offensive rebounds. The squad only has a rating of 11.11 vs. AO in potential points off of second chances, which ranks 15th-worst in college hoops.

Alabama plays at roughly the same level defensively as they do offensively. The team ranks 83rd nationally in defensive efficiency, allowing about 96 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Alabama does a fantastic job to prevent opposing teams from capitalizing on chances from offensive rebounds. The squad allows AO to convert only 4.7% of all second-chance opportunities (ranked 12th in the NCAA), and with a rating of 12.01, they're 14th in potential points allowed off of the offensive glass as well. Alabama also boasts one of the better overall defensive field goal percentages in the country. The team ranks #40 nationally in field goal percentage allowed, as AO only makes good on about 39.6% of their total attempts from the floor.

On the road, Alabama performs somewhat better than their norm, as the squad is nationally ranked 40th 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:
When facing teams that shoot the ball well from the field, Alabama often performs worse than normal. Alabama is more efficient than usual 10% of the time when facing teams that have an offensive field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 46.25%. In their other contests, Alabama performs better than the norm 56% of the time.
Alabama does worse vs. clubs that are more proficient at draining the mid-range shot. When playing squads that have an offensive mid-range field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 35.24%, Alabama performs above average 27% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 73% of the time.
Alabama performs worse against squads that allow a greater number of field goal opportunities. When facing teams that have a defensive field goal attempt rate vs. AO greater than 82.56, Alabama is more efficient than normal 15% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 60% 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
2024-258th8th26th7thSEC1st69th1st58th180th10th
2023-2414th14th62nd13thSEC13th319th1st344th342nd7th
2022-233rd3rd5th1stSEC15th338th10th126th322nd9th
2021-2242nd42nd143rd50thSEC10th229th2nd12th215th23rd
2020-216th6th16th5thSEC23rd280th18th23rd246th17th
2019-2058th57th183rd81stSEC6th74th36th56th181st56th
2018-1963rd63rd156th70thSEC89th30th23rd16th129th60th
2017-1861st61st152nd54thSEC156th119th4th63rd238th57th
2016-1750th50th143rd76thSEC308th101st51st220th148th60th
2015-16105th105th157th82ndSEC323rd97th27th45th228th102nd
2014-1555th55th140th78thSEC292nd174th40th55th40th53rd
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-259th10th183rd218th5th54th24th357th1st33rd36th117th72nd38th45th357th25th185th
2023-245th76th31st102nd12th8th12th361st101st36th38th86th60th45th11th361st50th271st
2022-2320th30th175th72nd86th7th151st359th137th41st100th215th109th65th12th361st62nd272nd
2021-2220th22nd138th67th66th19th252nd353rd191st22nd36th72nd88th69th34th356th41st218th
2020-2117th135th159th23rd50th17th51st355th102nd9th166th6th16th7th36th357th21st178th
2019-2039th45th266th124th89th11th80th346th96th134th118th98th109th218th9th348th147th316th
2018-19120th52nd319th242nd77th248th125th130th108th189th57th297th151st57th234th116th163rd138th
2017-1891st7th309th324th30th283rd204th237th100th98th20th88th165th53rd240th212th57th68th
2016-17114th62nd325th117th118th177th260th169th196th115th62nd142nd138th100th191st179th139th156th
2015-16148th83rd336th263rd119th52nd158th275th142nd298th52nd184th300th269th36th272nd276th321st
2014-1544th16th123rd287th40th82nd220th251st10th283rd17th88th337th229th61st227th267th291st
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-2524th121st--236th17th25th7th361st90th87th33rd98th103rd35th14th362nd70th241st
2023-2485th250th--198th52nd157th8th262nd93rd157th115th239th135th116th136th261st146th188th
2022-232nd123rd--286th1st23rd3rd362nd13th46th1st86th20th5th14th363rd28th206th
2021-2287th246th--58th87th121st230th162nd40th148th56th93rd78th216th170th191st188th204th
2020-212nd61st--145th6th132nd3rd312th24th66th65th141st92nd98th128th319th73rd131st
2019-20116th219th--164th85th113th124th269th110th130th85th288th133rd165th109th266th133rd195th
2018-1939th39th--264th51st54th26th346th82nd94th115th247th269th155th26th345th73rd209th
2017-1827th197th--118th19th225th79th289th94th23rd27th51st259th40th246th301st27th48th
2016-1710th226th--59th14th67th65th285th7th52nd27th142nd66th11th102nd319th85th163rd
2015-1649th244th--221st21st148th53rd317th139th59th13th75th250th67th135th314th46th117th
2014-1583rd219th--145th40th307th56th219th62nd19th114th34th14th12th320th226th19th16th