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 SAC UTA
Points 124.9 117.8
Total Points   242.8
Points From 2-Pointers 60.9 57.3
Points From 3-Pointers 47.8 39.9
Points From Free Throws 16.2 20.6
Shooting SAC UTA
Field Goals Made 46.4 42.0
Field Goals Attempted 92.8 87.3
Field Goal % 50.0% 48.0%
2 Pointers Made 30.5 28.6
2 Pointers Attempted 52.6 52.3
2 Point Shooting % 57.9% 54.8%
3 Pointers Made 15.9 13.3
3 Pointers Attempted 40.1 35.1
3 Point Shooting % 39.7% 38.0%
Free Throws Made 16.2 20.6
Free Throws Attempted 21.7 24.6
Free Throw % 74.8% 83.8%
Ball Control SAC UTA
Rebounds 47.3 48.9
Rebounds - Defensive 35.4 37.2
Rebounds - Offensive 11.9 11.7
Turnovers 10.7 14.1
Blocked Shots 5.4 4.5
Steals 7.7 5.9
Fouls 18.6 16.7

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 SAC UTA
Total Possessions 104.1
Effective Scoring Chances 105.3 101.7
% of Possessions with SAC UTA
2 Point Attempt 44.7% 44.3%
3 Point Attempt 34.1% 29.7%
Player Fouled 16.1% 17.8%
Turnover 10.3% 13.5%
Opponent Steal 5.6% 7.4%
Odds Per Shot Taken SAC UTA
Shot Blocked 5.2% 5.9%
Offensive Rebound 24.3% 24.8%