TIME-DEPENDENT RATINGS
TIME-INDEPENDENT RATINGS
   Automated Team Capsule for 2022-23 California  3-29 (0.094)  |  Pac-12
All-Play Percentage: 0.246 (274th)
Schedule Strength: 0.673 (45th)
Record Quality: -0.286 (323rd)
Avg. Season Rank: 233.91 (234th)
Pace: 65.04 (328th)
Momentum: -1.63 (254th)
Consistency: -11.03 (347th)
Away From Home: -0.58 (175th)
Includes games through April 3, 2023. Data shown on this page is based on time-dependent ratings.
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.
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: 93.82 26.34 71.49 81.59 40.79 25.03 33.67 27.32 32.47 29.24 54.66 6.68 13.52 5.55 30.68 33.49 35.83 1.95
RANK: 326th 124th 195th 318th 322nd 337th 197th 74th 354th 184th 302nd 355th 214th 137th 326th 48th 141st 55th

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: 102.89 26.11 -- 86.64 42.52 32.98 32.23 22.49 39.80 31.17 55.37 10.48 14.51 4.39 38.07 25.96 35.97 2.02
RANK: 174th 218th -- 265th 100th 267th 80th 134th 260th 257th 61st 161st 233rd 64th 240th 94th 233rd 174th

ANALYSIS:
Not one of the better ball-clubs in college basketball, California should be a fairly easy win for most capable opponents. Carrying a record of 3-29, they are currently rated #274 overall (out of 363) in All-Play Percentage this season. Of the 12 schools in the Pac-12 (average ranking 86.0), they're currently ranked as the worst team in the conference.

Based on their performances this year, California will likely find more success on defense than they will on offense. Allowing about 103 points for every 100 possessions vs. AO, they currently occupy the #174 slot in the ratings for defensive efficiency. California has been pretty good preventing teams from hitting shots in the paint. They are ranked 61st in the country in defensive near-proximity percentage, allowing AO to make good on only 55.4% of their attempts from close-up. California also does an adequate job to prevent opponents from scoring off of offensive rebounds. The squad allows AO to convert only 4.4% of all second-chance opportunities (ranked 64th in the NCAA). If California does exhibit a noticeable weakness on the defensive end of the floor, it'd likely be the team's unwillingness to take risks in order to score fast points off of the opposition's turnovers. The squad only has a rating of 6.68 in potential points scored off of steals vs. AO, which ranks ninth-worst in the college game.

Unfortunately, California is not even remotely close to being as good on offense as they are on defense. The team is ranked 326th in offensive efficiency, scoring about 94 points every 100 possessions vs. AO. California is downright rotten when shooting the mid-range jumper. The team is ranked tenth from the bottom in field goal percentage from that distance, making only 32.5% of their mid-range attempts vs. AO. Exacerbating the situation, they find themselves in the bottom-50 in overall offensive field goal percentage, converting only 40.8% of all their attempts from the floor vs. AO. California is also 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 318th in offensive field goal attempt rate with a rating of only 81.59 vs. AO.

California has been one of the most erratic teams in college basketball this year (currently ranked 347th overall in consistency), which makes the outcomes of their future games far more difficult 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 playing teams that convert more frequently off of offensive rebounds, California usually performs worse than average. California is more efficient than normal 18% of the time when facing clubs that have an offensive second-chance conversion percentage vs. AO greater than 6.59%. In all other contests, California performs better than average 62% of the time.
California is typically better vs. teams that favor a faster tempo. Against foes that have a pace vs. AO greater than 68.28, California performs above their norm 71% of the time. Against the remaining opposition, the team performs above average 28% of the time.
When facing teams that allow more chances at the line, California often performs better than normal. California is more efficient than usual 59% of the time when facing teams that have a defensive free throw attempt rate vs. AO greater than 21.14. In their other contests, California performs better than the norm 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 Mom Con SOS AFH ASR
2024-25105th105th93rd58thACC92nd----159th--122nd
2023-24118th118th271st141stPac-1292nd284th20th51st203rd136th
2022-23274th274th362nd323rdPac-12328th254th347th45th175th234th
2021-22132nd130th272nd193rdPac-12321st215th211th82nd270th117th
2020-2194th94th296th196thPac-12324th58th185th15th281st136th
2019-20145th145th242nd129thPac-12315th83rd297th31st341st171st
2018-19232nd232nd329th231stPac-12282nd37th328th70th64th227th
2017-18243rd243rd324th236thPac-12190th273rd247th71st7th224th
2016-1771st71st94th69thPac-12293rd299th62nd74th253rd66th
2015-1624th24th65th35thPac-12167th243rd82nd50th345th30th
2014-15114th114th147th94thPac-1296th100th111th70th52nd107th
OFFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-25112th150th91st152nd134th164th143rd213th247th145th105th173rd164th175th161st214th145th169th
2023-24136th222nd172nd88th193rd53rd138th186th257th241st128th130th145th103rd75th206th265th296th
2022-23326th124th195th318th322nd337th197th74th354th184th302nd355th214th137th326th48th141st55th
2021-22219th256th152nd93rd190th287th297th19th119th271st125th316th225th145th295th23rd292nd143rd
2020-21100th90th224th260th71st129th103rd163rd52nd311th49th304th198th258th95th142nd307th295th
2019-20175th65th35th284th153rd333rd120th60th189th196th176th291st145th132nd329th40th149th55th
2018-19191st110th104th275th180th289th92nd155th336th140th161st46th339th342nd268th137th110th82nd
2017-18290th46th297th226th273rd334th343rd60th334th103rd143rd170th28th41st333rd50th92nd28th
2016-17139th38th290th206th157th238th126th129th193rd160th183rd325th74th63rd236th124th154th123rd
2015-1649th6th303rd237th28th240th40th190th98th95th54th314th64th4th232nd193rd83rd87th
2014-15174th274th307th138th85th308th83rd6th68th309th59th260th198th114th313th5th319th151st
DEFENSE Eff FTAR FT% FGAR FG% 3PAR 3P% MRAR MR% NPAR NP% PPSt PPSC SCC% %3PA %MRA %NPA Prox
2024-2583rd172nd--148th89th137th267th285th71st78th58th64th30th19th143rd295th88th142nd
2023-24105th213th--274th59th207th132nd326th77th71st86th98th170th124th168th314th52nd96th
2022-23174th218th--265th100th267th80th134th260th257th61st161st233rd64th240th94th233rd174th
2021-2294th273rd--122nd63rd66th30th257th194th193rd51st213th2nd1st89th279th204th258th
2020-2193rd222nd--65th118th38th176th297th29th116th241st160th52nd63rd57th321st148th244th
2019-20139th224th--163rd77th168th250th276th29th76th107th11th121st96th182nd272nd69th118th
2018-19303rd167th--157th283rd318th312th68th337th106th213th16th125th67th322nd64th118th55th
2017-18189th254th--94th180th173rd294th236th26th70th288th279th36th128th217th255th90th99th
2016-1725th162nd--195th21st99th64th341st82nd36th21st66th6th1st92nd340th38th98th
2015-1612th136th--240th7th13th52nd350th4th127th37th41st37th39th7th351st103rd288th
2014-1577th151st--224th85th14th115th346th84th146th96th94th39th107th7th347th129th290th