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 HOF RUTG
Points 64.0 62.8
Total Points   126.8
Points From 2-Pointers 26.5 30.6
Points From 3-Pointers 27.9 19.6
Points From Free Throws 9.6 12.6
Shooting HOF RUTG
Field Goals Made 22.6 21.8
Field Goals Attempted 55.1 58.5
Field Goal % 40.9% 37.3%
2 Pointers Made 13.3 15.3
2 Pointers Attempted 28.3 36.8
2 Point Shooting % 46.8% 41.5%
3 Pointers Made 9.3 6.5
3 Pointers Attempted 26.8 21.7
3 Point Shooting % 34.7% 30.1%
Free Throws Made 9.6 12.6
Free Throws Attempted 13.1 18.6
Free Throw % 73.2% 67.7%
Ball Control HOF RUTG
Rebounds 35.3 38.5
Rebounds - Defensive 28.1 26.8
Rebounds - Offensive 7.1 11.7
Turnovers 13.2 10.4
Blocked Shots 3.8 4.6
Steals 5.9 6.7
Fouls 13.1 12.4

Playing Style Advantage: Hofstra

Expected Effect: +0.3 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 HOF RUTG
Total Possessions 68.8
Effective Scoring Chances 62.8 70.1
% of Possessions with HOF RUTG
2 Point Attempt 36.4% 44.9%
3 Point Attempt 34.5% 26.5%
Player Fouled 18.0% 19.0%
Turnover 19.1% 15.1%
Opponent Steal 9.8% 8.6%
Odds Per Shot Taken HOF RUTG
Shot Blocked 8.1% 7.0%
Offensive Rebound 21.0% 29.3%