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 120.9 124.6
Total Points   245.5
Points From 2-Pointers 62.1 68.0
Points From 3-Pointers 42.9 34.9
Points From Free Throws 15.9 21.7
Shooting WAS UTA
Field Goals Made 45.4 45.6
Field Goals Attempted 93.6 91.1
Field Goal % 48.4% 50.1%
2 Pointers Made 31.1 34.0
2 Pointers Attempted 55.7 57.4
2 Point Shooting % 55.8% 59.2%
3 Pointers Made 14.3 11.6
3 Pointers Attempted 37.9 33.7
3 Point Shooting % 37.7% 34.5%
Free Throws Made 15.9 21.7
Free Throws Attempted 20.7 25.9
Free Throw % 76.8% 83.7%
Ball Control WAS UTA
Rebounds 43.1 54.3
Rebounds - Defensive 32.6 39.7
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 105.6
Effective Scoring Chances 104.8 106.3
% of Possessions with WAS UTA
2 Point Attempt 46.9% 46.8%
3 Point Attempt 32.0% 27.5%
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 7.3% 6.8%
Offensive Rebound 21.0% 31.0%