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 NEV
Points 67.4 75.1
Total Points   142.5
Points From 2-Pointers 26.0 33.0
Points From 3-Pointers 24.0 19.6
Points From Free Throws 17.3 22.6
Shooting UTA NEV
Field Goals Made 21.0 23.0
Field Goals Attempted 53.4 49.3
Field Goal % 39.3% 46.6%
2 Pointers Made 13.0 16.5
2 Pointers Attempted 28.3 32.1
2 Point Shooting % 45.9% 51.3%
3 Pointers Made 8.0 6.5
3 Pointers Attempted 25.1 17.2
3 Point Shooting % 31.9% 37.9%
Free Throws Made 17.3 22.6
Free Throws Attempted 23.6 31.7
Free Throw % 73.6% 71.2%
Ball Control UTA NEV
Rebounds 33.9 33.7
Rebounds - Defensive 23.4 25.3
Rebounds - Offensive 10.5 8.3
Turnovers 13.5 11.0
Blocked Shots 2.5 3.5
Steals 5.3 6.4
Fouls 23.9 18.1

Playing Style Advantage: Nevada

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 UTA NEV
Total Possessions 71.3
Effective Scoring Chances 68.3 68.7
% of Possessions with UTA NEV
2 Point Attempt 34.1% 39.8%
3 Point Attempt 30.2% 21.3%
Player Fouled 25.4% 33.5%
Turnover 18.9% 15.4%
Opponent Steal 9.0% 7.4%
Odds Per Shot Taken UTA NEV
Shot Blocked 7.1% 4.8%
Offensive Rebound 29.3% 26.3%