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 NIAG QUIN
Points 68.0 75.3
Total Points   143.3
Points From 2-Pointers 32.2 39.9
Points From 3-Pointers 24.0 21.3
Points From Free Throws 11.8 14.1
Shooting NIAG QUIN
Field Goals Made 24.1 27.1
Field Goals Attempted 55.0 57.1
Field Goal % 43.8% 47.4%
2 Pointers Made 16.1 20.0
2 Pointers Attempted 33.7 36.4
2 Point Shooting % 47.7% 54.8%
3 Pointers Made 8.0 7.1
3 Pointers Attempted 21.3 20.7
3 Point Shooting % 37.5% 34.4%
Free Throws Made 11.8 14.1
Free Throws Attempted 15.9 18.4
Free Throw % 74.4% 76.4%
Ball Control NIAG QUIN
Rebounds 29.0 36.2
Rebounds - Defensive 23.4 27.2
Rebounds - Offensive 5.6 9.0
Turnovers 11.5 10.3
Blocked Shots 2.4 4.2
Steals 6.4 7.4
Fouls 13.3 14.9

Playing Style Advantage: Niagara

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 NIAG QUIN
Total Possessions 69.9
Effective Scoring Chances 64.0 68.6
% of Possessions with NIAG QUIN
2 Point Attempt 43.6% 45.6%
3 Point Attempt 27.6% 25.9%
Player Fouled 21.4% 19.1%
Turnover 16.5% 14.8%
Opponent Steal 10.6% 9.1%
Odds Per Shot Taken NIAG QUIN
Shot Blocked 7.5% 4.4%
Offensive Rebound 17.2% 27.9%