Maine logo

Maine

8-24
GAME THAT MATTERSAT
7.4%Maine
92.6%Merrimack
MMH WIN PROBABILITY
MODEL SPREADMerrimack -16.0
PROJECTED TOTAL130.8
MODEL MONEYLINEMerrimack -1251
Merrimack logo

Merrimack

23-11
MMH MODEL PROJECTION
Projected ScoreMaine 57
Projected Total130.8
Projected ScoreMerrimack 73

Team Comparison

35.6MMH Power Index53.7
95.6Offensive Efficiency106.4
104.6Defensive Efficiency103.2
-9.0Net Efficiency3.2
-1.8Strength of Schedule0.7
-6.8Last 10 Net Efficiency12.9
65.4Tempo64.4
50.5%Effective FG%49.3%
19.0%Turnover Rate14.8%
19.4%Offensive Rebound %24.7%
38.5%Free Throw Rate39.5%
-5.9Average Margin2.1
MMH GAME INTELLIGENCE
MODEL READ

Merrimack HAS THE EDGE

WIN PROBABILITY92.6%
STATISTICAL ADVANTAGE
10–1
MMH comparison metrics
WHERE THE EDGE COMES FROMMerrimack holds the advantage in MMH Power Index (53.7–35.6), offensive efficiency (106.4–95.6), defensive efficiency (103.2–104.6), net efficiency (3.2–-9.0).
Maine COUNTERS WITHshooting efficiency (50.5–49.3).
Final
Maine logo
Maine
65—65
Merrimack logo
Merrimack
Tied • 60.3 estimated possessions

Team Stats

MaineTEAM STATMerrimack
20-43FG20-43
47.0%FG%47.0%
4-153PT4-15
27.0%3PT%27.0%
21-30FT21-30
70.0%FT%70.0%
35Rebounds35
14Offensive Rebounds14
12Assists12
17Turnovers17
6Steals6
2Blocks2
24Fouls24

Player Box Score

Maine
PlayerPosMinFG3PTFTREBASTSTLBLKTOPFPTS
TJ BielF368-120-22-472010018
Keelan SteeleF232-70-19-1271200013
Ryan MabreyG293-72-60-02100008
Logan CareyG172-51-23-56000008
Mekhi GrayG281-20-03-44510005
Ace FlaggF210-20-04-54201004
Caleb CrawfordG202-50-20-01020004
Isaac BonillaG121-21-20-01000003
Bashir N'GalangG141-10-00-00110002
Merrimack
PlayerPosMinFG3PTFTREBASTSTLBLKTOPFPTS
TJ BielF368-120-22-472010018
Keelan SteeleF232-70-19-1271200013
Ryan MabreyG293-72-60-02100008
Logan CareyG172-51-23-56000008
Mekhi GrayG281-20-03-44510005
Ace FlaggF210-20-04-54201004
Caleb CrawfordG202-50-20-01020004
Isaac BonillaG121-21-20-01000003
Bashir N'GalangG141-10-00-00110002

Advanced Game Stats

60.3Possessions60.3
107.8Offensive Efficiency107.8
107.8Defensive Efficiency107.8
0.0Net Efficiency0.0
51.2%Effective FG%51.2%
56.8%True Shooting %56.8%
28.2%Turnover Rate28.2%
69.8%Free Throw Rate69.8%
34.9%3-Point Rate34.9%
0.71Assist / Turnover0.71
Game Summary
Neither team finished level. The game played at approximately 60.3 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.