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 121.6 125.2
Total Points   246.8
Points From 2-Pointers 62.3 68.2
Points From 3-Pointers 43.4 35.3
Points From Free Throws 15.9 21.7
Shooting WAS UTA
Field Goals Made 45.6 45.9
Field Goals Attempted 93.8 91.2
Field Goal % 48.6% 50.3%
2 Pointers Made 31.1 34.1
2 Pointers Attempted 55.7 57.4
2 Point Shooting % 55.9% 59.3%
3 Pointers Made 14.5 11.8
3 Pointers Attempted 38.1 33.8
3 Point Shooting % 38.0% 34.9%
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 43.0 54.2
Rebounds - Defensive 32.5 39.7
Rebounds - Offensive 10.5 14.6
Turnovers 11.4 13.9
Blocked Shots 6.2 6.5
Steals 7.6 6.2
Fouls 18.0 15.9

Playing Style Advantage: Utah

Expected Effect: +0.2 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 105.8
Effective Scoring Chances 104.9 106.4
% of Possessions with WAS UTA
2 Point Attempt 46.8% 46.8%
3 Point Attempt 32.1% 27.5%
Player Fouled 15.0% 17.0%
Turnover 10.7% 13.2%
Opponent Steal 5.9% 7.2%
Odds Per Shot Taken WAS UTA
Shot Blocked 7.2% 6.8%
Offensive Rebound 20.9% 30.9%