TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2016-17 Miss. State  16-16 (0.500)  |  SEC
All-Play Percentage: 0.749 (89th)
Schedule Strength: 0.648 (71st)
Record Quality: 0.105 (108th)
Avg. Season Rank: 99.53 (97th)
Pace: 71.11 (122nd)
Momentum: -3.01 (294th)
Off. Momentum: -4.37 (346th)
Def. Momentum: 1.36 (51st)
Consistency: -10.39 (326th)
Res. Consistency: -14.47 (325th)
Away From Home: -0.91 (246th)
Paper Tiger Factor: -1.98 (271st)
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, 2017. 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: 103.08 25.60 69.20 81.42 46.02 30.02 34.71 21.71 34.04 29.70 66.22 14.16 14.19 8.34 36.87 26.66 36.47 2.00
RANK: 135th 238th 210th 194th 83rd 161st 194th 234th 284th 106th 31st 24th 197th 41st 157th 237th 106th 164th

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: 96.28 27.92 -- 79.75 42.10 28.60 32.29 25.64 37.66 25.51 57.57 7.91 12.94 5.04 35.86 32.15 31.99 2.04
RANK: 64th 180th -- 100th 75th 133rd 47th 257th 212th 58th 101st 10th 61st 32nd 166th 284th 80th 121st

ANALYSIS:
They may not cause sleepless nights for opponents, but Miss. State, as a slightly above-average team, cannot be totally ignored. They are ranked #89 (out of 351) in the most recent Haslametrics ratings and have a record of 16-16. Of the 14 schools in the SEC (average ranking 60.9), they're currently ranked as our #12 team in the conference.

Miss. State will mainly try to find success through their defense. They are ranked 64th in defensive efficiency and allow fewer than 97 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. Miss. State thrives on scoring fast and easy points off of steals. They're ranked 24th in potential points off of breakaway steals vs. AO with a rating of 14.16. Miss. State is also one of the better teams when it comes to not allowing opponents to convert scoring chances off of offensive rebounds. The squad allows AO to convert only 5.0% of all second-chance opportunities (ranked 32nd in the NCAA).

Miss. State is also a fairly decent team on the offensive end of the court. The team ranks 135th nationally in offensive efficiency, scoring about 103 points every 100 trips upcourt vs. AO. Miss. State allows very few breakaway opportunities for the opposition, which typically translates to fewer turnovers. The team's rating vs. AO for potential breakaway points allowed off of steals is 7.91, which ranks #10 in the country. Miss. State also has the potential to make you pay if you let them get close to the rim. The team is ranked 31st in the country in near-proximity field goal percentage, making approximately 66.2% of their attempts from up-close vs. AO.

Miss. State has been one of the more erratic teams in NCAA basketball this year (presently ranked 326th in the country in consistency), which makes forecasting the outcomes of their upcoming games tougher than most.
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:
Miss. State does better vs. clubs that do a nice job converting inside the paint. When playing squads that have an offensive near-proximity field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 63.93%, Miss. State performs above average 100% of the time. Against all other opponents, the team performs better than the norm 41% of the time.
Miss. State performs better against squads that fail to defend efficiently inside the paint. When facing teams that have a defensive near-proximity field goal percentage vs. AO greater than 56.41%, Miss. State is more efficient than normal 86% of the time. In their other contests, the team is more efficient 39% of the time.
When playing teams that tend to allow more shots on the perimeter, Miss. State usually performs better than average. Miss. State is more efficient than normal 81% of the time when facing clubs that have a defensive shooting proximity score vs. AO greater than 2.02. In all other contests, Miss. State performs better than average 38% 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
2024-2539th39th104th42ndSEC99th248th20th85th112th26th
2023-2431st29th121st64thSEC274th251st23rd133rd58th27th
2022-2368th68th103rd71stSEC338th127th72nd308th234th39th
2021-2251st51st176th94thSEC270th29th51st258th357th43rd
2020-2165th65th150th74thSEC291st296th60th239th202nd65th
2019-2035th35th80th42ndSEC261st193rd58th210th308th33rd
2018-1921st21st59th23rdSEC146th60th17th173rd301st18th
2017-1862nd62nd64th38thSEC248th249th65th85th146th83rd
2016-1789th88th179th108thSEC122nd326th71st271st246th97th
2015-1680th80th213th151stSEC116th47th78th225th269th94th
2014-15158th158th249th191stSEC195th276th80th69th122nd148th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-2532nd88th221st35th49th63rd203rd296th76th68th19th9th22nd9th88th311th113th207th
2023-2458th49th336th112th44th156th202nd316th108th21st52nd41st13th14th171st326th29th80th
2022-23163rd25th342nd73rd196th248th362nd214th345th25th62nd39th1st12th275th239th36th44th
2021-2259th5th163rd156th38th354th337th40th150th51st12th55th17th21st352nd39th59th7th
2020-2183rd65th278th137th42nd347th81st27th134th87th56th231st6th8th350th25th103rd20th
2019-2025th35th41st129th10th341st88th47th109th51st20th188th15th8th347th50th69th13th
2018-1919th62nd156th151st13th168th12th181st10th165th52nd23rd25th18th173rd176th169th180th
2017-1865th174th290th88th28th178th221st196th64th68th15th49th80th30th196th216th86th113th
2016-17135th238th210th194th83rd161st194th234th284th106th31st24th197th41st157th237th106th164th
2015-1693rd306th103rd112th36th187th184th88th16th225th24th72nd207th115th203rd92nd242nd193rd
2014-15193rd20th155th348th80th346th258th82nd60th258th63rd153rd213th201st335th26th153rd47th
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-2543rd48th--60th67th317th215th109th91st35th41st32nd52nd56th333rd140th47th28th
2023-2417th36th--70th42nd290th3rd225th150th13th215th154th31st74th329th251st19th21st
2022-2313th65th--75th17th321st47th153rd42nd15th54th79th80th95th339th175th29th18th
2021-2253rd65th--47th111th257th85th192nd187th19th213th110th23rd94th292nd240th29th34th
2020-2172nd29th--326th26th346th63rd271st7th52nd163rd210th138th7th319th215th22nd26th
2019-2087th75th--247th79th130th76th303rd107th139th118th243rd185th48th95th304th110th191st
2018-1952nd87th--145th58th144th133rd333rd102nd38th95th117th294th197th151st336th38th95th
2017-1852nd65th--226th60th219th105th271st69th105th84th56th196th135th186th265th94th114th
2016-1764th180th--100th75th133rd47th257th212th58th101st10th61st32nd166th284th80th121st
2015-1678th92nd--192nd80th207th110th280th205th75th66th49th107th58th194th282nd68th99th
2014-1598th174th--182nd95th301st132nd175th152nd67th113th298th201st104th303rd180th57th46th