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 USM MTU
Points 67.6 65.7
Total Points   133.3
Points From 2-Pointers 37.4 28.3
Points From 3-Pointers 16.1 22.6
Points From Free Throws 14.1 14.8
Shooting USM MTU
Field Goals Made 24.1 21.7
Field Goals Attempted 58.4 57.3
Field Goal % 41.2% 37.8%
2 Pointers Made 18.7 14.2
2 Pointers Attempted 42.6 34.1
2 Point Shooting % 43.9% 41.5%
3 Pointers Made 5.4 7.5
3 Pointers Attempted 15.9 23.3
3 Point Shooting % 33.9% 32.4%
Free Throws Made 14.1 14.8
Free Throws Attempted 20.0 20.8
Free Throw % 70.5% 71.4%
Ball Control USM MTU
Rebounds 37.7 38.4
Rebounds - Defensive 27.7 27.7
Rebounds - Offensive 9.9 10.7
Turnovers 9.9 11.7
Blocked Shots 5.3 3.1
Steals 5.7 5.4
Fouls 15.4 13.9

Playing Style Advantage: Middle Tenn

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 USM MTU
Total Possessions 70.7
Effective Scoring Chances 70.7 69.7
% of Possessions with USM MTU
2 Point Attempt 52.0% 40.8%
3 Point Attempt 19.4% 27.8%
Player Fouled 19.6% 21.8%
Turnover 14.1% 16.5%
Opponent Steal 7.7% 8.1%
Odds Per Shot Taken USM MTU
Shot Blocked 5.5% 9.2%
Offensive Rebound 26.4% 27.8%