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 SAC
Points 115.4 124.7
Total Points   240.2
Points From 2-Pointers 56.1 59.5
Points From 3-Pointers 38.7 49.4
Points From Free Throws 20.6 15.9
Shooting UTA SAC
Field Goals Made 41.0 46.2
Field Goals Attempted 86.0 93.2
Field Goal % 47.6% 49.6%
2 Pointers Made 28.1 29.7
2 Pointers Attempted 51.5 52.1
2 Point Shooting % 54.5% 57.1%
3 Pointers Made 12.9 16.5
3 Pointers Attempted 34.5 41.1
3 Point Shooting % 37.4% 40.0%
Free Throws Made 20.6 15.9
Free Throws Attempted 24.6 21.3
Free Throw % 83.7% 74.6%
Ball Control UTA SAC
Rebounds 48.4 48.0
Rebounds - Defensive 36.9 35.2
Rebounds - Offensive 11.5 12.9
Turnovers 14.4 10.4
Blocked Shots 4.3 5.6
Steals 5.6 8.1
Fouls 16.1 18.1

Playing Style Advantage: Utah

Expected Effect: Less than 0.1 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 SAC
Total Possessions 103.2
Effective Scoring Chances 100.3 105.6
% of Possessions with UTA SAC
2 Point Attempt 44.0% 44.2%
3 Point Attempt 29.5% 34.9%
Player Fouled 17.6% 15.6%
Turnover 13.9% 10.1%
Opponent Steal 7.8% 5.4%
Odds Per Shot Taken UTA SAC
Shot Blocked 6.1% 5.1%
Offensive Rebound 24.6% 25.8%