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 QUIN NIAG
Points 77.1 71.0
Total Points   148.2
Points From 2-Pointers 46.8 37.6
Points From 3-Pointers 16.9 19.4
Points From Free Throws 13.4 14.0
Shooting QUIN NIAG
Field Goals Made 29.1 25.3
Field Goals Attempted 59.5 55.0
Field Goal % 48.8% 46.0%
2 Pointers Made 23.4 18.8
2 Pointers Attempted 43.8 36.6
2 Point Shooting % 53.5% 51.4%
3 Pointers Made 5.6 6.5
3 Pointers Attempted 15.7 18.4
3 Point Shooting % 36.0% 35.2%
Free Throws Made 13.4 14.0
Free Throws Attempted 17.5 18.9
Free Throw % 76.5% 74.1%
Ball Control QUIN NIAG
Rebounds 34.6 30.4
Rebounds - Defensive 25.1 23.2
Rebounds - Offensive 9.5 7.2
Turnovers 9.9 11.7
Blocked Shots 3.3 2.3
Steals 7.2 5.0
Fouls 15.9 12.3

Playing Style Advantage: Niagara

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 QUIN NIAG
Total Possessions 70.8
Effective Scoring Chances 70.4 66.3
% of Possessions with QUIN NIAG
2 Point Attempt 53.9% 46.2%
3 Point Attempt 19.3% 23.2%
Player Fouled 17.4% 22.5%
Turnover 13.9% 16.5%
Opponent Steal 7.1% 10.2%
Odds Per Shot Taken QUIN NIAG
Shot Blocked 4.3% 5.6%
Offensive Rebound 29.0% 22.2%