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 ECU CIN
Points 61.3 77.5
Total Points   138.8
Points From 2-Pointers 31.4 40.4
Points From 3-Pointers 17.7 25.6
Points From Free Throws 12.3 11.5
Shooting ECU CIN
Field Goals Made 21.6 28.7
Field Goals Attempted 58.2 60.9
Field Goal % 37.1% 47.2%
2 Pointers Made 15.7 20.2
2 Pointers Attempted 39.2 35.2
2 Point Shooting % 40.1% 57.5%
3 Pointers Made 5.9 8.5
3 Pointers Attempted 19.0 25.7
3 Point Shooting % 30.9% 33.1%
Free Throws Made 12.3 11.5
Free Throws Attempted 17.9 16.7
Free Throw % 68.6% 68.9%
Ball Control ECU CIN
Rebounds 30.7 43.6
Rebounds - Defensive 21.1 29.6
Rebounds - Offensive 9.6 14.0
Turnovers 9.9 10.6
Blocked Shots 2.4 5.0
Steals 6.6 5.4
Fouls 12.6 12.6

Playing Style Advantage: Cincinnati

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 ECU CIN
Total Possessions 68.8
Effective Scoring Chances 68.5 72.2
% of Possessions with ECU CIN
2 Point Attempt 48.7% 42.0%
3 Point Attempt 23.7% 30.7%
Player Fouled 18.3% 18.3%
Turnover 14.4% 15.4%
Opponent Steal 7.8% 9.6%
Odds Per Shot Taken ECU CIN
Shot Blocked 8.3% 4.3%
Offensive Rebound 24.5% 39.9%