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 61.5 71.3
Total Points   132.8
Points From 2-Pointers 30.0 35.9
Points From 3-Pointers 22.6 21.8
Points From Free Throws 8.9 13.6
Shooting NIAG QUIN
Field Goals Made 22.5 25.2
Field Goals Attempted 54.6 57.2
Field Goal % 41.3% 44.1%
2 Pointers Made 15.0 18.0
2 Pointers Attempted 33.9 36.4
2 Point Shooting % 44.3% 49.3%
3 Pointers Made 7.5 7.3
3 Pointers Attempted 20.7 20.8
3 Point Shooting % 36.4% 34.9%
Free Throws Made 8.9 13.6
Free Throws Attempted 12.6 19.3
Free Throw % 70.8% 70.5%
Ball Control NIAG QUIN
Rebounds 30.4 38.2
Rebounds - Defensive 23.4 26.6
Rebounds - Offensive 7.0 11.6
Turnovers 11.5 8.8
Blocked Shots 3.3 4.3
Steals 5.0 6.9
Fouls 12.8 13.2

Playing Style Advantage: Quinnipiac

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 66.3
Effective Scoring Chances 61.8 69.1
% of Possessions with NIAG QUIN
2 Point Attempt 45.2% 46.0%
3 Point Attempt 27.5% 26.3%
Player Fouled 19.9% 19.3%
Turnover 17.3% 13.3%
Opponent Steal 10.4% 7.5%
Odds Per Shot Taken NIAG QUIN
Shot Blocked 7.7% 6.1%
Offensive Rebound 20.9% 33.2%