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 UTA MEM
Points 116.4 114.8
Total Points   231.2
Points From 2-Pointers 56.1 52.1
Points From 3-Pointers 40.4 45.9
Points From Free Throws 19.8 16.9
Shooting UTA MEM
Field Goals Made 41.5 41.3
Field Goals Attempted 87.5 91.6
Field Goal % 47.5% 45.1%
2 Pointers Made 28.1 26.0
2 Pointers Attempted 50.7 51.3
2 Point Shooting % 55.3% 50.7%
3 Pointers Made 13.5 15.3
3 Pointers Attempted 36.8 40.3
3 Point Shooting % 36.7% 38.0%
Free Throws Made 19.8 16.9
Free Throws Attempted 23.7 22.0
Free Throw % 83.7% 76.6%
Ball Control UTA MEM
Rebounds 52.6 46.8
Rebounds - Defensive 38.9 33.4
Rebounds - Offensive 13.8 13.5
Turnovers 15.5 12.2
Blocked Shots 6.7 7.9
Steals 6.3 8.6
Fouls 16.4 17.2

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 UTA MEM
Total Possessions 102.7
Effective Scoring Chances 101.0 103.9
% of Possessions with UTA MEM
2 Point Attempt 42.4% 43.2%
3 Point Attempt 30.7% 33.9%
Player Fouled 16.7% 16.0%
Turnover 15.1% 11.9%
Opponent Steal 8.4% 6.1%
Odds Per Shot Taken UTA MEM
Shot Blocked 8.8% 7.9%
Offensive Rebound 29.2% 25.7%