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 TULN COFC
Points 80.2 85.8
Total Points   166.0
Points From 2-Pointers 41.4 33.4
Points From 3-Pointers 21.5 38.2
Points From Free Throws 17.3 14.2
Shooting TULN COFC
Field Goals Made 27.9 29.4
Field Goals Attempted 57.2 68.5
Field Goal % 48.7% 43.0%
2 Pointers Made 20.7 16.7
2 Pointers Attempted 38.0 33.7
2 Point Shooting % 54.5% 49.4%
3 Pointers Made 7.2 12.7
3 Pointers Attempted 19.3 34.7
3 Point Shooting % 37.2% 36.7%
Free Throws Made 17.3 14.2
Free Throws Attempted 24.1 19.6
Free Throw % 71.6% 72.3%
Ball Control TULN COFC
Rebounds 32.9 42.1
Rebounds - Defensive 27.8 28.0
Rebounds - Offensive 5.2 14.1
Turnovers 9.9 9.2
Blocked Shots 3.6 3.6
Steals 6.3 5.6
Fouls 14.2 16.9

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 TULN COFC
Total Possessions 75.7
Effective Scoring Chances 71.0 80.6
% of Possessions with TULN COFC
2 Point Attempt 46.1% 37.0%
3 Point Attempt 23.4% 38.1%
Player Fouled 22.4% 18.7%
Turnover 13.0% 12.1%
Opponent Steal 7.5% 8.3%
Odds Per Shot Taken TULN COFC
Shot Blocked 5.4% 6.5%
Offensive Rebound 15.6% 33.7%