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 RUTG PSU
Points 64.3 68.7
Total Points   132.9
Points From 2-Pointers 36.3 29.6
Points From 3-Pointers 12.9 23.2
Points From Free Throws 15.1 15.9
Shooting RUTG PSU
Field Goals Made 22.4 22.5
Field Goals Attempted 57.5 55.6
Field Goal % 39.1% 40.5%
2 Pointers Made 18.2 14.8
2 Pointers Attempted 40.4 32.5
2 Point Shooting % 45.0% 45.6%
3 Pointers Made 4.3 7.7
3 Pointers Attempted 17.1 23.1
3 Point Shooting % 25.1% 33.4%
Free Throws Made 15.1 15.9
Free Throws Attempted 22.3 21.2
Free Throw % 67.7% 74.9%
Ball Control RUTG PSU
Rebounds 38.2 36.3
Rebounds - Defensive 26.2 26.9
Rebounds - Offensive 12.0 9.4
Turnovers 12.5 12.9
Blocked Shots 4.5 4.2
Steals 6.7 7.6
Fouls 15.1 15.5

Playing Style Advantage: Penn St

Expected Effect: Less than 0.1 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 RUTG PSU
Total Possessions 71.9
Effective Scoring Chances 71.4 68.4
% of Possessions with RUTG PSU
2 Point Attempt 47.2% 39.1%
3 Point Attempt 20.0% 27.8%
Player Fouled 21.6% 21.0%
Turnover 17.3% 18.0%
Opponent Steal 10.5% 9.4%
Odds Per Shot Taken RUTG PSU
Shot Blocked 7.7% 8.0%
Offensive Rebound 30.8% 26.4%