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 MIZZ VAN
Points 74.4 71.5
Total Points   145.9
Points From 2-Pointers 36.1 32.2
Points From 3-Pointers 25.0 21.3
Points From Free Throws 13.2 18.0
Shooting MIZZ VAN
Field Goals Made 26.4 23.2
Field Goals Attempted 58.0 56.8
Field Goal % 45.5% 40.8%
2 Pointers Made 18.1 16.1
2 Pointers Attempted 33.5 32.9
2 Point Shooting % 53.9% 48.9%
3 Pointers Made 8.3 7.1
3 Pointers Attempted 24.5 24.0
3 Point Shooting % 34.1% 29.7%
Free Throws Made 13.2 18.0
Free Throws Attempted 16.8 25.5
Free Throw % 78.9% 70.7%
Ball Control MIZZ VAN
Rebounds 34.1 37.0
Rebounds - Defensive 25.4 24.7
Rebounds - Offensive 8.7 12.4
Turnovers 10.3 9.9
Blocked Shots 3.7 2.7
Steals 5.4 5.6
Fouls 17.4 14.0

Playing Style Advantage: Vanderbilt

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 MIZZ VAN
Total Possessions 70.0
Effective Scoring Chances 68.4 72.5
% of Possessions with MIZZ VAN
2 Point Attempt 42.0% 39.2%
3 Point Attempt 30.7% 28.6%
Player Fouled 20.0% 24.9%
Turnover 14.8% 14.1%
Opponent Steal 8.0% 7.7%
Odds Per Shot Taken MIZZ VAN
Shot Blocked 4.8% 6.4%
Offensive Rebound 26.1% 32.7%