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 UAB VAN
Points 78.4 71.8
Total Points   150.2
Points From 2-Pointers 41.4 37.7
Points From 3-Pointers 21.0 20.4
Points From Free Throws 16.0 13.7
Shooting UAB VAN
Field Goals Made 27.7 25.7
Field Goals Attempted 59.7 61.3
Field Goal % 46.4% 41.9%
2 Pointers Made 20.7 18.9
2 Pointers Attempted 40.0 38.1
2 Point Shooting % 51.8% 49.6%
3 Pointers Made 7.0 6.8
3 Pointers Attempted 19.7 23.2
3 Point Shooting % 35.6% 29.3%
Free Throws Made 16.0 13.7
Free Throws Attempted 21.5 19.3
Free Throw % 74.3% 70.7%
Ball Control UAB VAN
Rebounds 39.2 34.2
Rebounds - Defensive 27.8 23.4
Rebounds - Offensive 11.4 10.7
Turnovers 9.8 8.9
Blocked Shots 3.4 4.0
Steals 4.7 5.9
Fouls 14.3 14.5

Playing Style Advantage: Vanderbilt

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 UAB VAN
Total Possessions 71.1
Effective Scoring Chances 72.7 72.9
% of Possessions with UAB VAN
2 Point Attempt 47.6% 45.8%
3 Point Attempt 23.4% 27.9%
Player Fouled 20.4% 20.0%
Turnover 13.8% 12.5%
Opponent Steal 8.3% 6.6%
Odds Per Shot Taken UAB VAN
Shot Blocked 6.6% 5.8%
Offensive Rebound 32.7% 27.8%