Hastings was very involved in the offense, as evidenced by his 70th percentile usage rate. And he made the most of his opportunities, with a 72nd percentile individual player efficiency. It’s one thing to get a lot of touches, but what we really care about is how much value did you create with those chances. And on that note, the 72nd percentile suggests that he was in the upper third of players nationally in this regard.
The most striking aspect of Hastings’ contributions, however, came in the form of his playmaking abilities. An 88th percentile assist rate coupled with an 89th percentile share of the team’s assists underscored his vision and solid decision-making, often setting up scoring opportunities for others and enhancing the team’s overall offensive dynamics.
During Hastings’ best four-game stretch from February 11 to March 4, which included matchups against Ferrum, Saint Mary’s (MD), Cabrini, and Salisbury, his performance peaked, with Lynchburg notching an impressive 3-1 record. His individual efficiency rating finished this stretch in the 81st percentile. Crucially, his shooting efficiency was exceptional, ranking in the 95th percentile, and his assist rate remained stellar at the 95th percentile. These games showcased Hastings at his best, where he took a smaller 7.8% share of the team’s shots, suggesting a more selective and effective approach to shooting.
Conversely, Hastings experienced a dip in form during his worst stretch from March 14 to March 25, facing tough opponents such as Tufts, St. Lawrence, Franklin & Marshall, and Washington and Lee. Despite the Hornets splitting the results with a 2-2 record, Hastings’ individual efficiency plummeted to the 23rd percentile. Notably, his shooting efficiency dramatically dropped to the 8th percentile, a stark contrast to his best games. His ball security slightly improved to the 71st percentile, and his assist rate dipped to the 61st percentile, reflecting a reduction in the effectiveness of his playmaking. During this challenging stretch, Hastings took an increased 18.0% share of the team’s shots, which, alongside his low shooting efficiency, could suggest a possible overextension in his offensive responsibilities.
The stark contrast between Hastings’ best and worst performances highlights shooting efficiency as the most pivotal factor for his seasonal success. When his shot selection and execution were at their peak, his overall impact on the game was significantly more positive, benefitting not just his individual stats but the team’s fortunes as well. Throughout the season, despite the fluctuations, Hastings proved to be a key asset for the Hornets, especially in creating opportunities for his teammates, which remained a consistent thread in his play.
This was originally published in our daily newsletter, Expected Goals. If you want to get more coverage and analysis like this, straight in your inbox every morning, sign up here.
P.S. What did I miss? Data-centric analyses like this can miss things that don’t show up in the stats (i.e. injuries/coaching changes). If you can help explain any of the above, put it in the comments.