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 COFC TULN
Points 85.8 80.2
Total Points   165.9
Points From 2-Pointers 33.4 41.4
Points From 3-Pointers 38.2 21.5
Points From Free Throws 14.2 17.3
Shooting COFC TULN
Field Goals Made 29.4 27.8
Field Goals Attempted 68.4 57.2
Field Goal % 43.0% 48.7%
2 Pointers Made 16.7 20.7
2 Pointers Attempted 33.7 37.9
2 Point Shooting % 49.5% 54.6%
3 Pointers Made 12.7 7.2
3 Pointers Attempted 34.7 19.3
3 Point Shooting % 36.7% 37.1%
Free Throws Made 14.2 17.3
Free Throws Attempted 19.7 24.2
Free Throw % 72.3% 71.6%
Ball Control COFC TULN
Rebounds 42.1 32.9
Rebounds - Defensive 28.0 27.7
Rebounds - Offensive 14.1 5.1
Turnovers 9.2 9.9
Blocked Shots 3.6 3.6
Steals 5.7 6.3
Fouls 16.9 14.2

Playing Style Advantage: Col Charlestn

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 COFC TULN
Total Possessions 75.7
Effective Scoring Chances 80.6 71.0
% of Possessions with COFC TULN
2 Point Attempt 37.0% 46.1%
3 Point Attempt 38.0% 23.4%
Player Fouled 18.8% 22.4%
Turnover 12.1% 13.0%
Opponent Steal 8.3% 7.5%
Odds Per Shot Taken COFC TULN
Shot Blocked 6.4% 5.4%
Offensive Rebound 33.6% 15.5%