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 NO
Points 112.3 121.6
Total Points   233.9
Points From 2-Pointers 53.8 62.2
Points From 3-Pointers 40.1 41.8
Points From Free Throws 18.4 17.5
Shooting UTA NO
Field Goals Made 40.3 45.1
Field Goals Attempted 86.5 89.9
Field Goal % 46.5% 50.1%
2 Pointers Made 26.9 31.1
2 Pointers Attempted 47.6 55.4
2 Point Shooting % 56.5% 56.2%
3 Pointers Made 13.4 13.9
3 Pointers Attempted 38.9 34.6
3 Point Shooting % 34.3% 40.3%
Free Throws Made 18.4 17.5
Free Throws Attempted 22.0 22.6
Free Throw % 83.7% 77.6%
Ball Control UTA NO
Rebounds 47.8 47.1
Rebounds - Defensive 35.3 35.1
Rebounds - Offensive 12.5 11.9
Turnovers 14.5 10.6
Blocked Shots 5.2 5.8
Steals 5.1 8.3
Fouls 16.1 16.8

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 NO
Total Possessions 101.4
Effective Scoring Chances 99.4 102.8
% of Possessions with UTA NO
2 Point Attempt 41.0% 48.0%
3 Point Attempt 33.5% 30.0%
Player Fouled 16.6% 15.9%
Turnover 14.3% 10.4%
Opponent Steal 8.2% 5.0%
Odds Per Shot Taken UTA NO
Shot Blocked 6.6% 6.1%
Offensive Rebound 26.2% 25.3%