Alabama A&M

18-15

GAME THAT MATTERSAT

24.4%Alabama A&M

75.6%Lipscomb

MMH WIN PROBABILITY

MODEL SPREADLipscomb -8.3

PROJECTED TOTAL148.9

MODEL MONEYLINELipscomb -310

Lipscomb

18-13

MMH MODEL PROJECTION

Projected ScoreAlabama A&M 70

Projected Total148.9

Projected ScoreLipscomb 79

Team Comparison

Alabama A&MMetricLipscomb

42.3MMH Power Index47.9

105.9Offensive Efficiency111.3

106.6Defensive Efficiency107.6

-0.7Net Efficiency3.7

-6.8Strength of Schedule-2.5

3.3Last 10 Net Efficiency-1.0

68.0Tempo68.8

49.7%Effective FG%54.8%

16.8%Turnover Rate16.0%

28.0%Offensive Rebound %25.9%

45.7%Free Throw Rate26.5%

-0.5Average Margin2.5

MMH GAME INTELLIGENCE

MODEL READ

Lipscomb HAS THE EDGE

WIN PROBABILITY75.6%

STATISTICAL ADVANTAGE

7–4

MMH comparison metrics

WHERE THE EDGE COMES FROMLipscomb holds the advantage in MMH Power Index (47.9–42.3), offensive efficiency (111.3–105.9), net efficiency (3.7–-0.7), strength of schedule (-2.5–-6.8).

Alabama A&M COUNTERS WITHdefensive efficiency (106.6–107.6), recent form (3.3–-1.0), offensive rebounding (28.0–25.9).

Final

Alabama A&M

58—92

Lipscomb

Lipscomb by 34 • 65.6 estimated possessions

Team Stats

Alabama A&MTEAM STATLipscomb

19-56FG37-62

34.0%FG%60.0%

5-143PT10-26

36.0%3PT%38.0%

15-21FT8-13

71.0%FT%62.0%

35Rebounds33

13Offensive Rebounds6

5Assists24

12Turnovers4

—Steals5

2Blocks6

15Fouls15

Player Box Score

Alabama A&M

Player	Pos	Min	FG	3PT	FT	REB	AST	BLK	PTS
Koron Davis	G	32	5-14	2-4	1-2	6	0	0	13
Sami Pissis	G	34	5-13	1-5	1-2	4	1	0	12
PJ Eason	F	19	4-6	0-0	1-3	2	0	2	9
Bilal Abdur-Rahman	G	19	1-3	1-2	6-6	3	0	0	9
James Flippin	F	13	2-3	0-0	4-6	3	1	0	8
James Graham III	G	22	1-7	1-2	0-0	2	0	0	3
Kintavious Dozier	G	25	0-5	0-1	2-2	5	2	0	2
Angok Anyang	F	9	1-1	0-0	0-0	3	0	0	2
Lou Hutchinson	G	18	0-3	0-0	0-0	3	1	0	0
Tajden Davis	G	6	0-1	0-0	0-0	0	0	0	0
Peyton Daniels Sr.	G	3	0-0	0-0	0-0	1	0	0	0

Lipscomb

Player	Pos	Min	FG	3PT	FT	REB	AST	STL	BLK	PTS
Kennedy Okpara	F	23	8-10	1-2	0-1	3	2	1	1	17
Grant Asman	F	23	7-13	1-6	0-0	8	2	1	2	15
Mateo Esmeraldo	G	22	5-5	2-2	2-2	7	6	0	0	14
Ethan Duncan	G	19	4-8	4-7	0-0	0	1	0	0	12
Titas Sargiunas	F	27	3-5	1-3	4-5	2	1	0	0	11
Ross Candelino	G	22	4-6	0-2	2-5	5	0	0	1	10
Charlie Williams	C	25	4-9	0-3	0-0	2	5	0	1	8
Luke Carter	G	4	1-2	1-1	0-0	1	0	0	0	3
Kellan Boylan	F	13	1-2	0-0	0-0	2	2	2	1	2
Or Ashkenazi	F	22	0-2	0-0	0-0	2	5	1	0	0

Advanced Game Stats

65.6Possessions65.6

88.4Offensive Efficiency140.2

140.2Defensive Efficiency88.4

-51.8Net Efficiency51.8

38.4%Effective FG%67.7%

44.0%True Shooting %67.5%

18.5%Turnover Rate6.0%

37.5%Free Throw Rate21.0%

25.0%3-Point Rate41.9%

0.42Assist / Turnover6.00

Game Summary

Lipscomb won by 34 points. The game played at approximately 65.6 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.