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 WAS UTA
Points 121.2 124.9
Total Points   246.2
Points From 2-Pointers 62.4 68.2
Points From 3-Pointers 43.0 35.0
Points From Free Throws 15.9 21.7
Shooting WAS UTA
Field Goals Made 45.5 45.8
Field Goals Attempted 93.7 91.1
Field Goal % 48.6% 50.2%
2 Pointers Made 31.2 34.1
2 Pointers Attempted 55.7 57.4
2 Point Shooting % 55.9% 59.4%
3 Pointers Made 14.3 11.7
3 Pointers Attempted 37.9 33.7
3 Point Shooting % 37.8% 34.6%
Free Throws Made 15.9 21.7
Free Throws Attempted 20.7 26.0
Free Throw % 76.8% 83.7%
Ball Control WAS UTA
Rebounds 43.0 54.2
Rebounds - Defensive 32.5 39.6
Rebounds - Offensive 10.5 14.6
Turnovers 11.4 13.9
Blocked Shots 6.2 6.5
Steals 7.5 6.2
Fouls 18.2 16.1

Playing Style Advantage: Utah

Expected Effect: +0.3 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 WAS UTA
Total Possessions 105.7
Effective Scoring Chances 104.8 106.4
% of Possessions with WAS UTA
2 Point Attempt 46.9% 46.8%
3 Point Attempt 31.9% 27.4%
Player Fouled 15.2% 17.2%
Turnover 10.8% 13.2%
Opponent Steal 5.8% 7.1%
Odds Per Shot Taken WAS UTA
Shot Blocked 7.2% 6.7%
Offensive Rebound 20.9% 31.0%