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 SMU CIN
Points 67.3 76.8
Total Points   144.1
Points From 2-Pointers 35.7 41.8
Points From 3-Pointers 19.3 22.7
Points From Free Throws 12.3 12.2
Shooting SMU CIN
Field Goals Made 24.3 28.5
Field Goals Attempted 64.0 63.5
Field Goal % 37.9% 44.9%
2 Pointers Made 17.8 20.9
2 Pointers Attempted 44.3 40.9
2 Point Shooting % 40.2% 51.1%
3 Pointers Made 6.4 7.6
3 Pointers Attempted 19.7 22.6
3 Point Shooting % 32.6% 33.5%
Free Throws Made 12.3 12.2
Free Throws Attempted 18.0 17.8
Free Throw % 68.6% 68.9%
Ball Control SMU CIN
Rebounds 35.6 44.2
Rebounds - Defensive 22.8 29.1
Rebounds - Offensive 12.8 15.0
Turnovers 9.8 11.1
Blocked Shots 4.3 7.1
Steals 7.1 5.8
Fouls 13.5 12.0

Playing Style Advantage: Cincinnati

Expected Effect: +0.7 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 SMU CIN
Total Possessions 71.0
Effective Scoring Chances 74.0 75.0
% of Possessions with SMU CIN
2 Point Attempt 51.1% 46.6%
3 Point Attempt 22.7% 25.7%
Player Fouled 16.9% 18.9%
Turnover 13.8% 15.6%
Opponent Steal 8.2% 10.0%
Odds Per Shot Taken SMU CIN
Shot Blocked 11.5% 6.9%
Offensive Rebound 30.5% 39.8%