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 MEM UTA
Points 114.8 116.3
Total Points   231.1
Points From 2-Pointers 52.1 56.2
Points From 3-Pointers 45.8 40.3
Points From Free Throws 16.9 19.8
Shooting MEM UTA
Field Goals Made 41.3 41.5
Field Goals Attempted 91.6 87.4
Field Goal % 45.1% 47.5%
2 Pointers Made 26.1 28.1
2 Pointers Attempted 51.4 50.7
2 Point Shooting % 50.8% 55.4%
3 Pointers Made 15.3 13.4
3 Pointers Attempted 40.2 36.7
3 Point Shooting % 38.0% 36.6%
Free Throws Made 16.9 19.8
Free Throws Attempted 22.0 23.7
Free Throw % 76.6% 83.7%
Ball Control MEM UTA
Rebounds 46.8 52.6
Rebounds - Defensive 33.4 38.9
Rebounds - Offensive 13.5 13.7
Turnovers 12.2 15.5
Blocked Shots 7.9 6.7
Steals 8.6 6.3
Fouls 17.2 16.5

Playing Style Advantage: Memphis

Expected Effect: +0.6 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 MEM UTA
Total Possessions 102.7
Effective Scoring Chances 103.9 100.9
% of Possessions with MEM UTA
2 Point Attempt 43.2% 42.4%
3 Point Attempt 33.8% 30.7%
Player Fouled 16.0% 16.7%
Turnover 11.9% 15.1%
Opponent Steal 6.1% 8.4%
Odds Per Shot Taken MEM UTA
Shot Blocked 7.9% 8.8%
Offensive Rebound 25.7% 29.2%