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 NO UTA
Points 122.0 112.1
Total Points   234.1
Points From 2-Pointers 62.2 53.7
Points From 3-Pointers 42.2 40.0
Points From Free Throws 17.5 18.4
Shooting NO UTA
Field Goals Made 45.2 40.2
Field Goals Attempted 90.2 86.6
Field Goal % 50.1% 46.4%
2 Pointers Made 31.1 26.8
2 Pointers Attempted 55.4 47.6
2 Point Shooting % 56.1% 56.4%
3 Pointers Made 14.1 13.3
3 Pointers Attempted 34.7 39.0
3 Point Shooting % 40.5% 34.1%
Free Throws Made 17.5 18.4
Free Throws Attempted 22.6 22.0
Free Throw % 77.4% 83.7%
Ball Control NO UTA
Rebounds 47.2 47.9
Rebounds - Defensive 35.2 35.3
Rebounds - Offensive 12.0 12.5
Turnovers 10.5 14.5
Blocked Shots 5.9 5.3
Steals 8.4 5.1
Fouls 16.7 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 NO UTA
Total Possessions 101.5
Effective Scoring Chances 103.0 99.5
% of Possessions with NO UTA
2 Point Attempt 48.0% 40.9%
3 Point Attempt 30.0% 33.6%
Player Fouled 15.8% 16.5%
Turnover 10.4% 14.3%
Opponent Steal 5.0% 8.3%
Odds Per Shot Taken NO UTA
Shot Blocked 6.2% 6.6%
Offensive Rebound 25.3% 26.2%