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 MTU USM
Points 65.7 67.6
Total Points   133.4
Points From 2-Pointers 28.3 37.4
Points From 3-Pointers 22.6 16.1
Points From Free Throws 14.8 14.1
Shooting MTU USM
Field Goals Made 21.7 24.1
Field Goals Attempted 57.3 58.4
Field Goal % 37.8% 41.2%
2 Pointers Made 14.2 18.7
2 Pointers Attempted 34.1 42.6
2 Point Shooting % 41.6% 43.9%
3 Pointers Made 7.5 5.4
3 Pointers Attempted 23.3 15.9
3 Point Shooting % 32.4% 33.9%
Free Throws Made 14.8 14.1
Free Throws Attempted 20.8 20.0
Free Throw % 71.4% 70.5%
Ball Control MTU USM
Rebounds 38.4 37.6
Rebounds - Defensive 27.7 27.7
Rebounds - Offensive 10.7 9.9
Turnovers 11.7 9.9
Blocked Shots 3.1 5.3
Steals 5.4 5.7
Fouls 13.9 15.4

Playing Style Advantage: Middle Tenn

Expected Effect: +0.2 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 MTU USM
Total Possessions 70.7
Effective Scoring Chances 69.7 70.7
% of Possessions with MTU USM
2 Point Attempt 40.8% 52.0%
3 Point Attempt 27.9% 19.4%
Player Fouled 21.8% 19.6%
Turnover 16.5% 14.0%
Opponent Steal 8.1% 7.7%
Odds Per Shot Taken MTU USM
Shot Blocked 9.2% 5.5%
Offensive Rebound 27.9% 26.4%