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 MTST QUIN
Points 75.1 76.6
Total Points   151.7
Points From 2-Pointers 34.1 42.4
Points From 3-Pointers 28.9 19.0
Points From Free Throws 12.1 15.3
Shooting MTST QUIN
Field Goals Made 26.7 27.5
Field Goals Attempted 57.5 59.9
Field Goal % 46.4% 45.9%
2 Pointers Made 17.1 21.2
2 Pointers Attempted 32.5 41.3
2 Point Shooting % 52.4% 51.3%
3 Pointers Made 9.6 6.3
3 Pointers Attempted 24.9 18.6
3 Point Shooting % 38.6% 34.1%
Free Throws Made 12.1 15.3
Free Throws Attempted 16.8 20.0
Free Throw % 72.4% 76.5%
Ball Control MTST QUIN
Rebounds 30.2 37.9
Rebounds - Defensive 23.7 26.7
Rebounds - Offensive 6.5 11.2
Turnovers 11.8 11.4
Blocked Shots 2.8 3.0
Steals 7.1 6.6
Fouls 14.5 15.5

Playing Style Advantage: Quinnipiac

Expected Effect: Less than 0.1 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 MTST QUIN
Total Possessions 72.8
Effective Scoring Chances 67.5 72.6
% of Possessions with MTST QUIN
2 Point Attempt 40.4% 48.6%
3 Point Attempt 31.0% 21.8%
Player Fouled 21.2% 19.9%
Turnover 16.2% 15.7%
Opponent Steal 9.1% 9.7%
Odds Per Shot Taken MTST QUIN
Shot Blocked 5.0% 4.9%
Offensive Rebound 19.7% 32.1%