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 CAN NIAG
Points 69.8 69.6
Total Points   139.5
Points From 2-Pointers 44.6 40.1
Points From 3-Pointers 16.0 16.7
Points From Free Throws 9.2 12.9
Shooting CAN NIAG
Field Goals Made 27.6 25.6
Field Goals Attempted 58.3 54.7
Field Goal % 47.4% 46.8%
2 Pointers Made 22.3 20.0
2 Pointers Attempted 42.2 39.0
2 Point Shooting % 52.8% 51.3%
3 Pointers Made 5.3 5.6
3 Pointers Attempted 16.0 15.7
3 Point Shooting % 33.3% 35.4%
Free Throws Made 9.2 12.9
Free Throws Attempted 15.4 17.4
Free Throw % 59.8% 74.1%
Ball Control CAN NIAG
Rebounds 35.1 30.6
Rebounds - Defensive 24.9 24.1
Rebounds - Offensive 10.3 6.6
Turnovers 10.5 10.4
Blocked Shots 3.5 1.6
Steals 5.6 4.9
Fouls 15.8 12.0

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 CAN NIAG
Total Possessions 68.7
Effective Scoring Chances 68.5 64.9
% of Possessions with CAN NIAG
2 Point Attempt 53.1% 50.9%
3 Point Attempt 20.1% 20.5%
Player Fouled 17.4% 23.0%
Turnover 15.3% 15.1%
Opponent Steal 7.1% 8.2%
Odds Per Shot Taken CAN NIAG
Shot Blocked 3.0% 6.0%
Offensive Rebound 29.9% 20.9%