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 124.6 115.3
Total Points   239.9
Points From 2-Pointers 59.6 56.2
Points From 3-Pointers 49.2 38.6
Points From Free Throws 15.9 20.6
Shooting SAC UTA
Field Goals Made 46.2 40.9
Field Goals Attempted 93.2 85.9
Field Goal % 49.6% 47.6%
2 Pointers Made 29.8 28.1
2 Pointers Attempted 52.1 51.5
2 Point Shooting % 57.1% 54.5%
3 Pointers Made 16.4 12.9
3 Pointers Attempted 41.0 34.4
3 Point Shooting % 39.9% 37.4%
Free Throws Made 15.9 20.6
Free Throws Attempted 21.3 24.6
Free Throw % 74.6% 83.7%
Ball Control SAC UTA
Rebounds 48.0 48.3
Rebounds - Defensive 35.1 36.8
Rebounds - Offensive 12.9 11.5
Turnovers 10.4 14.4
Blocked Shots 5.6 4.3
Steals 8.1 5.6
Fouls 18.2 16.1

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 SAC UTA
Total Possessions 103.1
Effective Scoring Chances 105.6 100.2
% of Possessions with SAC UTA
2 Point Attempt 44.3% 44.1%
3 Point Attempt 34.9% 29.4%
Player Fouled 15.7% 17.6%
Turnover 10.1% 13.9%
Opponent Steal 5.4% 7.8%
Odds Per Shot Taken SAC UTA
Shot Blocked 5.1% 6.1%
Offensive Rebound 25.9% 24.7%