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 VAN CIN
Points 63.5 79.2
Total Points   142.7
Points From 2-Pointers 33.0 41.8
Points From 3-Pointers 17.7 26.8
Points From Free Throws 12.8 10.6
Shooting VAN CIN
Field Goals Made 22.4 29.9
Field Goals Attempted 59.8 64.2
Field Goal % 37.5% 46.5%
2 Pointers Made 16.5 20.9
2 Pointers Attempted 38.8 39.0
2 Point Shooting % 42.5% 53.7%
3 Pointers Made 5.9 8.9
3 Pointers Attempted 21.0 25.2
3 Point Shooting % 28.2% 35.5%
Free Throws Made 12.8 10.6
Free Throws Attempted 18.0 15.4
Free Throw % 70.7% 68.9%
Ball Control VAN CIN
Rebounds 32.5 44.3
Rebounds - Defensive 23.3 30.7
Rebounds - Offensive 9.2 13.6
Turnovers 9.3 9.8
Blocked Shots 2.9 4.0
Steals 5.5 4.7
Fouls 11.9 13.4

Playing Style Advantage: Vanderbilt

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 VAN CIN
Total Possessions 70.4
Effective Scoring Chances 70.3 74.2
% of Possessions with VAN CIN
2 Point Attempt 47.8% 45.8%
3 Point Attempt 25.8% 29.6%
Player Fouled 19.0% 16.8%
Turnover 13.2% 13.9%
Opponent Steal 6.6% 7.8%
Odds Per Shot Taken VAN CIN
Shot Blocked 6.2% 4.9%
Offensive Rebound 23.1% 36.8%