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 UTM UNI
Points 72.9 81.3
Total Points   154.2
Points From 2-Pointers 33.0 39.6
Points From 3-Pointers 26.5 27.1
Points From Free Throws 13.4 14.6
Shooting UTM UNI
Field Goals Made 25.3 28.8
Field Goals Attempted 60.2 61.7
Field Goal % 42.0% 46.7%
2 Pointers Made 16.5 19.8
2 Pointers Attempted 35.5 35.0
2 Point Shooting % 46.5% 56.5%
3 Pointers Made 8.8 9.0
3 Pointers Attempted 24.8 26.7
3 Point Shooting % 35.7% 33.9%
Free Throws Made 13.4 14.6
Free Throws Attempted 17.8 20.6
Free Throw % 75.6% 70.8%
Ball Control UTM UNI
Rebounds 36.3 37.1
Rebounds - Defensive 28.7 29.5
Rebounds - Offensive 7.6 7.6
Turnovers 10.1 7.0
Blocked Shots 2.4 3.5
Steals 4.4 6.1
Fouls 14.9 14.8

Playing Style Advantage: TN Martin

Expected Effect: +0.4 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 UTM UNI
Total Possessions 73.2
Effective Scoring Chances 70.7 73.8
% of Possessions with UTM UNI
2 Point Attempt 43.2% 42.8%
3 Point Attempt 30.1% 32.6%
Player Fouled 20.2% 20.4%
Turnover 13.8% 9.5%
Opponent Steal 8.3% 6.1%
Odds Per Shot Taken UTM UNI
Shot Blocked 5.7% 4.0%
Offensive Rebound 20.5% 20.9%