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 116.1 114.6
Total Points   230.6
Points From 2-Pointers 56.2 52.2
Points From 3-Pointers 40.0 45.5
Points From Free Throws 19.8 16.9
Shooting UTA MEM
Field Goals Made 41.5 41.2
Field Goals Attempted 87.4 91.5
Field Goal % 47.4% 45.1%
2 Pointers Made 28.1 26.1
2 Pointers Attempted 50.8 51.4
2 Point Shooting % 55.4% 50.8%
3 Pointers Made 13.3 15.2
3 Pointers Attempted 36.7 40.2
3 Point Shooting % 36.4% 37.8%
Free Throws Made 19.8 16.9
Free Throws Attempted 23.7 22.1
Free Throw % 83.7% 76.6%
Ball Control UTA MEM
Rebounds 52.7 46.9
Rebounds - Defensive 38.8 33.3
Rebounds - Offensive 13.8 13.5
Turnovers 15.5 12.2
Blocked Shots 6.7 7.9
Steals 6.3 8.5
Fouls 16.6 17.3

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 UTA MEM
Total Possessions 102.6
Effective Scoring Chances 100.9 103.9
% of Possessions with UTA MEM
2 Point Attempt 42.5% 43.2%
3 Point Attempt 30.7% 33.8%
Player Fouled 16.9% 16.2%
Turnover 15.1% 11.9%
Opponent Steal 8.3% 6.1%
Odds Per Shot Taken UTA MEM
Shot Blocked 8.8% 7.9%
Offensive Rebound 29.3% 25.8%