NOTE: This model has not been backtested for historical accuracy. We publish it in large part to give an idea of stylistic trends that can be expected (fast/slow, one team dominating the boards and the other shooting a lot of threes, etc).

Box Score Projection

Scoring CIN TULN
Points 84.7 69.8
Total Points   154.5
Points From 2-Pointers 42.6 34.4
Points From 3-Pointers 28.8 18.8
Points From Free Throws 13.3 16.6
Shooting CIN TULN
Field Goals Made 30.9 23.5
Field Goals Attempted 68.0 57.2
Field Goal % 45.5% 41.0%
2 Pointers Made 21.3 17.2
2 Pointers Attempted 40.7 39.0
2 Point Shooting % 52.4% 44.1%
3 Pointers Made 9.6 6.3
3 Pointers Attempted 27.3 18.2
3 Point Shooting % 35.1% 34.5%
Free Throws Made 13.3 16.6
Free Throws Attempted 19.3 23.2
Free Throw % 68.9% 71.6%
Ball Control CIN TULN
Rebounds 47.2 30.0
Rebounds - Defensive 31.5 24.6
Rebounds - Offensive 15.8 5.4
Turnovers 10.1 10.5
Blocked Shots 6.1 3.1
Steals 5.9 6.2
Fouls 15.6 13.6

Playing Style Advantage: Tulane

Expected Effect: +0.3 points
Our simulation model uses tempo-free statistics to project a detailed box score for this game. This analysis also indicates which team (if any) is expected to gain a relative advantage based on the specific matchup of paces and playing styles.

NOTE: Our simulation model assumes a neutral court setting.

Tempo-Free Projection

Possession Stats CIN TULN
Total Possessions 74.8
Effective Scoring Chances 80.5 69.7
% of Possessions with CIN TULN
2 Point Attempt 44.3% 47.2%
3 Point Attempt 29.8% 22.0%
Player Fouled 18.1% 20.9%
Turnover 13.4% 14.1%
Opponent Steal 8.2% 7.9%
Odds Per Shot Taken CIN TULN
Shot Blocked 5.6% 9.1%
Offensive Rebound 39.1% 14.6%