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 NEOM MTU
Points 68.5 68.8
Total Points   137.3
Points From 2-Pointers 37.4 29.7
Points From 3-Pointers 15.0 24.7
Points From Free Throws 16.2 14.4
Shooting NEOM MTU
Field Goals Made 23.7 23.1
Field Goals Attempted 56.7 54.9
Field Goal % 41.8% 42.0%
2 Pointers Made 18.7 14.8
2 Pointers Attempted 40.4 30.3
2 Point Shooting % 46.3% 49.0%
3 Pointers Made 5.0 8.2
3 Pointers Attempted 16.3 24.7
3 Point Shooting % 30.6% 33.4%
Free Throws Made 16.2 14.4
Free Throws Attempted 21.5 20.2
Free Throw % 75.0% 71.4%
Ball Control NEOM MTU
Rebounds 34.5 36.6
Rebounds - Defensive 25.9 27.4
Rebounds - Offensive 8.5 9.2
Turnovers 8.4 10.9
Blocked Shots 2.3 3.1
Steals 4.8 3.9
Fouls 15.3 15.3

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 NEOM MTU
Total Possessions 69.3
Effective Scoring Chances 69.5 67.6
% of Possessions with NEOM MTU
2 Point Attempt 51.1% 38.1%
3 Point Attempt 20.6% 31.0%
Player Fouled 22.0% 22.1%
Turnover 12.1% 15.7%
Opponent Steal 5.7% 6.9%
Odds Per Shot Taken NEOM MTU
Shot Blocked 5.6% 4.1%
Offensive Rebound 23.8% 26.1%