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 PEAY UTM
Points 81.6 81.3
Total Points   163.0
Points From 2-Pointers 40.3 41.0
Points From 3-Pointers 28.8 22.2
Points From Free Throws 12.5 18.1
Shooting PEAY UTM
Field Goals Made 29.8 27.9
Field Goals Attempted 66.0 59.7
Field Goal % 45.1% 46.8%
2 Pointers Made 20.2 20.5
2 Pointers Attempted 38.6 38.8
2 Point Shooting % 52.3% 52.9%
3 Pointers Made 9.6 7.4
3 Pointers Attempted 27.5 20.9
3 Point Shooting % 34.9% 35.4%
Free Throws Made 12.5 18.1
Free Throws Attempted 17.6 23.9
Free Throw % 70.9% 75.6%
Ball Control PEAY UTM
Rebounds 34.9 39.1
Rebounds - Defensive 25.2 29.4
Rebounds - Offensive 9.7 9.7
Turnovers 6.3 8.9
Blocked Shots 3.3 2.6
Steals 5.9 3.3
Fouls 16.2 13.1

Playing Style Advantage: TN Martin

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 PEAY UTM
Total Possessions 73.1
Effective Scoring Chances 76.4 73.9
% of Possessions with PEAY UTM
2 Point Attempt 46.0% 46.1%
3 Point Attempt 32.8% 24.8%
Player Fouled 17.9% 22.2%
Turnover 8.7% 12.2%
Opponent Steal 4.6% 8.1%
Odds Per Shot Taken PEAY UTM
Shot Blocked 4.5% 5.0%
Offensive Rebound 24.7% 27.8%