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 SH RUTG
Points 61.2 72.6
Total Points   133.8
Points From 2-Pointers 28.3 36.6
Points From 3-Pointers 20.9 20.0
Points From Free Throws 12.0 16.0
Shooting SH RUTG
Field Goals Made 21.1 25.0
Field Goals Attempted 55.5 60.7
Field Goal % 38.0% 41.1%
2 Pointers Made 14.2 18.3
2 Pointers Attempted 35.2 39.7
2 Point Shooting % 40.2% 46.1%
3 Pointers Made 7.0 6.7
3 Pointers Attempted 20.3 21.1
3 Point Shooting % 34.2% 31.6%
Free Throws Made 12.0 16.0
Free Throws Attempted 17.1 23.7
Free Throw % 70.0% 67.7%
Ball Control SH RUTG
Rebounds 32.3 44.0
Rebounds - Defensive 24.6 28.8
Rebounds - Offensive 7.7 15.1
Turnovers 14.2 11.3
Blocked Shots 5.1 6.3
Steals 7.5 7.3
Fouls 15.9 12.9

Playing Style Advantage: Rutgers

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 SH RUTG
Total Possessions 71.7
Effective Scoring Chances 65.2 75.5
% of Possessions with SH RUTG
2 Point Attempt 43.0% 44.6%
3 Point Attempt 24.8% 23.7%
Player Fouled 18.0% 22.2%
Turnover 19.8% 15.8%
Opponent Steal 10.2% 10.4%
Odds Per Shot Taken SH RUTG
Shot Blocked 10.7% 9.4%
Offensive Rebound 21.0% 38.1%