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 SJU
Points 63.1 84.0
Total Points   147.1
Points From 2-Pointers 32.1 52.6
Points From 3-Pointers 16.4 15.7
Points From Free Throws 14.6 15.7
Shooting NIAG SJU
Field Goals Made 21.5 31.5
Field Goals Attempted 53.9 59.1
Field Goal % 39.9% 53.4%
2 Pointers Made 16.0 26.3
2 Pointers Attempted 38.0 44.6
2 Point Shooting % 42.2% 59.0%
3 Pointers Made 5.5 5.2
3 Pointers Attempted 15.9 14.5
3 Point Shooting % 34.4% 36.1%
Free Throws Made 14.6 15.7
Free Throws Attempted 19.7 21.1
Free Throw % 74.1% 74.2%
Ball Control NIAG SJU
Rebounds 26.9 38.5
Rebounds - Defensive 19.7 27.3
Rebounds - Offensive 7.2 11.1
Turnovers 12.3 8.6
Blocked Shots 1.4 6.2
Steals 4.7 6.7
Fouls 14.0 16.7

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 SJU
Total Possessions 70.0
Effective Scoring Chances 64.9 72.6
% of Possessions with NIAG SJU
2 Point Attempt 47.7% 54.6%
3 Point Attempt 20.0% 17.7%
Player Fouled 23.9% 20.0%
Turnover 17.6% 12.3%
Opponent Steal 9.6% 6.8%
Odds Per Shot Taken NIAG SJU
Shot Blocked 10.5% 2.6%
Offensive Rebound 20.9% 36.1%