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 UTA GRC
Points 69.1 76.9
Total Points   146.1
Points From 2-Pointers 28.6 31.2
Points From 3-Pointers 23.0 20.6
Points From Free Throws 17.5 25.2
Shooting UTA GRC
Field Goals Made 22.0 22.4
Field Goals Attempted 55.9 52.7
Field Goal % 39.3% 42.6%
2 Pointers Made 14.3 15.6
2 Pointers Attempted 33.0 32.4
2 Point Shooting % 43.3% 48.1%
3 Pointers Made 7.7 6.9
3 Pointers Attempted 22.9 20.3
3 Point Shooting % 33.6% 33.8%
Free Throws Made 17.5 25.2
Free Throws Attempted 23.8 33.1
Free Throw % 73.6% 76.0%
Ball Control UTA GRC
Rebounds 35.1 36.8
Rebounds - Defensive 23.6 25.6
Rebounds - Offensive 11.4 11.2
Turnovers 15.0 12.3
Blocked Shots 3.3 4.9
Steals 6.0 7.8
Fouls 21.5 17.9

Playing Style Advantage: Grd Canyon

Expected Effect: +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 UTA GRC
Total Possessions 74.3
Effective Scoring Chances 70.8 73.2
% of Possessions with UTA GRC
2 Point Attempt 37.7% 37.3%
3 Point Attempt 26.1% 23.4%
Player Fouled 24.1% 28.9%
Turnover 20.1% 16.5%
Opponent Steal 10.5% 8.0%
Odds Per Shot Taken UTA GRC
Shot Blocked 9.5% 6.0%
Offensive Rebound 30.9% 32.1%