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 SMU
Points 70.0 77.7
Total Points   147.7
Points From 2-Pointers 36.0 40.4
Points From 3-Pointers 19.6 25.4
Points From Free Throws 14.3 11.9
Shooting VAN SMU
Field Goals Made 24.6 28.7
Field Goals Attempted 59.5 64.7
Field Goal % 41.3% 44.3%
2 Pointers Made 18.0 20.2
2 Pointers Attempted 37.0 41.0
2 Point Shooting % 48.7% 49.3%
3 Pointers Made 6.5 8.5
3 Pointers Attempted 22.6 23.8
3 Point Shooting % 29.0% 35.6%
Free Throws Made 14.3 11.9
Free Throws Attempted 20.2 17.4
Free Throw % 70.7% 68.6%
Ball Control VAN SMU
Rebounds 35.9 40.9
Rebounds - Defensive 24.5 26.7
Rebounds - Offensive 11.3 14.2
Turnovers 9.9 9.2
Blocked Shots 4.7 3.9
Steals 5.7 5.9
Fouls 11.9 15.1

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 VAN SMU
Total Possessions 70.4
Effective Scoring Chances 71.8 75.3
% of Possessions with VAN SMU
2 Point Attempt 44.4% 47.4%
3 Point Attempt 27.1% 27.5%
Player Fouled 21.4% 16.9%
Turnover 14.1% 13.1%
Opponent Steal 8.3% 8.1%
Odds Per Shot Taken VAN SMU
Shot Blocked 6.1% 8.1%
Offensive Rebound 29.8% 36.6%