Notre Dame logo

Notre Dame

13-17
GAME THAT MATTERSAT
10.8%Notre Dame
89.2%Georgia
MMH WIN PROBABILITY
MODEL SPREADGeorgia -15.3
PROJECTED TOTAL164.3
MODEL MONEYLINEGeorgia -826
Georgia logo

Georgia

22-11
MMH MODEL PROJECTION
Projected ScoreNotre Dame 75
Projected Total164.3
Projected ScoreGeorgia 90

Team Comparison

49.7MMH Power Index64.1
110.3Offensive Efficiency119.7
111.2Defensive Efficiency106.9
-0.9Net Efficiency12.8
4.7Strength of Schedule4.9
-11.6Last 10 Net Efficiency-2.7
68.0Tempo74.7
53.0%Effective FG%54.4%
17.0%Turnover Rate14.3%
31.4%Offensive Rebound %34.5%
34.7%Free Throw Rate37.6%
-0.6Average Margin9.6
MMH GAME INTELLIGENCE
MODEL READ

Georgia HAS THE EDGE

WIN PROBABILITY89.2%
STATISTICAL ADVANTAGE
11–0
MMH comparison metrics
WHERE THE EDGE COMES FROMGeorgia holds the advantage in MMH Power Index (64.1–49.7), offensive efficiency (119.7–110.3), defensive efficiency (106.9–111.2), net efficiency (12.8–-0.9).
Final
Notre Dame logo
Notre Dame
48—69
Georgia logo
Georgia
Georgia by 21 • 58.8 estimated possessions

Team Stats

Notre DameTEAM STATGeorgia
19-52FG28-63
37.0%FG%44.0%
4-193PT6-26
21.0%3PT%23.0%
6-9FT7-9
67.0%FT%78.0%
27Rebounds40
7Offensive Rebounds14
5Assists19
10Turnovers5
3Steals7
1Blocks3
11Fouls13

Player Box Score

Notre Dame
PlayerPosMinFG3PTFTREBASTSTLBLKTOPFPTS
Braeden ShrewsberryG396-162-70-012000014
Tae DavisF355-130-24-660200014
Matt AlloccoGuard382-81-30-06300005
Garrett SundraF222-31-20-02001005
Nikita KonstantynovskyiForward122-30-01-13010005
Kebba NjieF212-40-10-02000004
Julian Roper IIGuard240-10-11-24000001
J.R. KoniecznyF50-30-20-02000000
Logan ImesG40-10-10-00000000
Georgia
PlayerPosMinFG3PTFTREBASTSTLBLKTOPFPTS
Asa NewellForward288-160-24-5112100020
Dakota LeffewGuard256-124-90-043010016
Silas Demary Jr.G365-71-30-032500011
Tyrin LawrenceGuard362-71-42-25700007
RJ GodfreyF263-60-10-04201006
Somtochukwu CyrilC92-20-01-22001005
Blue CainG201-90-50-03110002
Dylan JamesF141-40-20-04100002
Justin AbsonF60-00-00-02100000

Advanced Game Stats

58.8Possessions58.8
81.6Offensive Efficiency117.3
117.3Defensive Efficiency81.6
-35.7Net Efficiency35.7
40.4%Effective FG%49.2%
42.6%True Shooting %51.3%
16.9%Turnover Rate8.6%
17.3%Free Throw Rate14.3%
36.5%3-Point Rate41.3%
0.50Assist / Turnover3.80
Game Summary
Georgia won by 21 points. The game played at approximately 58.8 possessions. The largest advanced-stat separations came in Net Efficiency, Offensive Efficiency, Defensive Efficiency.

Advanced game metrics are calculated by Mid-Major Hoops from team box-score totals. Possessions are estimated. Highlighted advanced values indicate the stronger result for that metric; lower is better for defensive efficiency and turnover rate.