Binghamton

8-22

GAME THAT MATTERSAT

6.7%Binghamton

93.3%Georgetown

MMH WIN PROBABILITY

MODEL SPREADGeorgetown -16.9

PROJECTED TOTAL133.4

MODEL MONEYLINEGeorgetown -1393

Georgetown

13-18

MMH MODEL PROJECTION

Projected ScoreBinghamton 58

Projected Total133.4

Projected ScoreGeorgetown 75

Team Comparison

BinghamtonMetricGeorgetown

32.4MMH Power Index51.5

102.2Offensive Efficiency107.2

112.3Defensive Efficiency107.4

-10.1Net Efficiency-0.2

-6.0Strength of Schedule4.4

-6.2Last 10 Net Efficiency-4.8

64.2Tempo61.7

51.3%Effective FG%49.2%

18.5%Turnover Rate16.4%

21.5%Offensive Rebound %32.3%

42.8%Free Throw Rate38.3%

-6.5Average Margin-0.1

MMH GAME INTELLIGENCE

MODEL READ

Georgetown HAS THE EDGE

WIN PROBABILITY93.3%

STATISTICAL ADVANTAGE

9–2

MMH comparison metrics

WHERE THE EDGE COMES FROMGeorgetown holds the advantage in MMH Power Index (51.5–32.4), offensive efficiency (107.2–102.2), defensive efficiency (107.4–112.3), net efficiency (-0.2–-10.1).

Binghamton COUNTERS WITHshooting efficiency (51.3–49.2), free throw rate (42.8–38.3).

Final

Binghamton

0—0

Georgetown

Tied • 0.0 estimated possessions

Team Stats

BinghamtonTEAM STATGeorgetown

null-nullFGnull-null

0.0%FG%0.0%

null-null3PTnull-null

0.0%3PT%0.0%

null-nullFTnull-null

0.0%FT%0.0%

—Rebounds—

—Offensive Rebounds—

—Assists—

—Turnovers—

—Steals—

—Blocks—

—Fouls—

Advanced Game Stats

0.0Possessions0.0

0.0Offensive Efficiency0.0

0.0Defensive Efficiency0.0

0.0Net Efficiency0.0

0.0%Effective FG%0.0%

0.0%True Shooting %0.0%

0.0%Turnover Rate0.0%

0.0%Free Throw Rate0.0%

0.0%3-Point Rate0.0%

0.00Assist / Turnover0.00

Game Summary

Neither team finished level. The game played at approximately 0.0 possessions.

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.