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 114.2 115.7
Total Points   229.9
Points From 2-Pointers 52.0 56.0
Points From 3-Pointers 45.3 39.9
Points From Free Throws 16.9 19.8
Shooting MEM UTA
Field Goals Made 41.1 41.3
Field Goals Attempted 91.5 87.4
Field Goal % 44.9% 47.3%
2 Pointers Made 26.0 28.0
2 Pointers Attempted 51.3 50.8
2 Point Shooting % 50.6% 55.2%
3 Pointers Made 15.1 13.3
3 Pointers Attempted 40.2 36.6
3 Point Shooting % 37.6% 36.3%
Free Throws Made 16.9 19.8
Free Throws Attempted 22.0 23.6
Free Throw % 76.6% 83.7%
Ball Control MEM UTA
Rebounds 47.0 52.8
Rebounds - Defensive 33.4 38.9
Rebounds - Offensive 13.6 13.9
Turnovers 12.2 15.5
Blocked Shots 7.9 6.7
Steals 8.5 6.3
Fouls 17.3 16.6

Playing Style Advantage: Memphis

Expected Effect: +0.5 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 102.5
Effective Scoring Chances 103.8 100.9
% of Possessions with MEM UTA
2 Point Attempt 43.2% 42.5%
3 Point Attempt 33.8% 30.7%
Player Fouled 16.2% 16.9%
Turnover 11.9% 15.1%
Opponent Steal 6.1% 8.3%
Odds Per Shot Taken MEM UTA
Shot Blocked 7.9% 8.8%
Offensive Rebound 25.9% 29.3%