Quinnipiac

19-13

GAME THAT MATTERSAT

19.3%Quinnipiac

80.7%Hofstra

MMH WIN PROBABILITY

MODEL SPREADHofstra -9.8

PROJECTED TOTAL145.6

MODEL MONEYLINEHofstra -418

Hofstra

24-11

MMH MODEL PROJECTION

Projected ScoreQuinnipiac 68

Projected Total145.6

Projected ScoreHofstra 78

Team Comparison

QuinnipiacMetricHofstra

51MMH Power Index59.3

106.8Offensive Efficiency114.0

102.1Defensive Efficiency100.9

4.7Net Efficiency13.1

-2.3Strength of Schedule-2.9

2.2Last 10 Net Efficiency14.0

70.5Tempo66.2

48.9%Effective FG%52.2%

15.6%Turnover Rate16.1%

34.1%Offensive Rebound %35.0%

34.1%Free Throw Rate32.0%

3.4Average Margin8.7

MMH GAME INTELLIGENCE

MODEL READ

Hofstra HAS THE EDGE

WIN PROBABILITY80.7%

STATISTICAL ADVANTAGE

8–3

MMH comparison metrics

WHERE THE EDGE COMES FROMHofstra holds the advantage in MMH Power Index (59.3–51.0), offensive efficiency (114.0–106.8), defensive efficiency (100.9–102.1), net efficiency (13.1–4.7).

Quinnipiac COUNTERS WITHstrength of schedule (-2.3–-2.9), ball security (15.6–16.1), free throw rate (34.1–32.0).

Final

Quinnipiac

66—74

Hofstra

Hofstra by 8 • 67.2 estimated possessions

Team Stats

QuinnipiacTEAM STATHofstra

23-61FG24-64

38.0%FG%38.0%

5-243PT9-29

21.0%3PT%31.0%

15-20FT17-23

75.0%FT%74.0%

34Rebounds51

11Offensive Rebounds21

9Assists9

8Turnovers13

9Steals2

7Blocks4

19Fouls15

Player Box Score

Quinnipiac

Player	Pos	Min	FG	3PT	FT	REB	AST	STL	BLK	PTS
Keith McKnight	G	28	6-13	0-2	7-10	7	1	1	0	19
Tai Turnage	G	29	3-9	1-4	5-5	1	2	1	0	12
Amarri Monroe	F	37	5-13	1-7	0-0	10	2	3	3	11
Grant Randall	F	35	3-11	2-8	0-0	4	1	2	0	8
Asim Jones	G	14	2-5	0-0	2-2	1	1	0	0	6
Nate Guerengomba	G	32	2-5	0-1	1-2	3	2	0	1	5
Samson Reilly	G	9	1-3	1-2	0-1	0	0	0	0	3
Sam Nosakhare	F	11	1-1	0-0	0-0	2	0	1	1	2
Spence Wewe	F	5	0-1	0-0	0-0	3	0	1	2	0

Hofstra

Player	Pos	Min	FG	3PT	FT	REB	AST	STL	BLK	PTS
Cruz Davis	G	40	10-20	3-8	4-5	4	3	0	0	27
Preston Edmead	G	35	6-20	3-12	3-4	1	4	1	0	18
German Plotnikov	G	40	2-6	2-4	6-6	7	1	0	0	12
Biggie Patterson	G	25	4-10	1-5	2-2	5	0	0	0	11
Victory Onuetu	F	28	1-4	0-0	0-4	11	0	0	4	2
Joshua DeCady	F	16	0-3	0-0	2-2	7	0	0	0	2
Silas Sunday	F	11	1-1	0-0	0-0	5	0	1	0	2
Jaeden Roberts	G	5	0-0	0-0	0-0	0	1	0	0	0

Advanced Game Stats

67.2Possessions67.2

98.2Offensive Efficiency110.1

110.1Defensive Efficiency98.2

-11.9Net Efficiency11.9

41.8%Effective FG%44.5%

46.8%True Shooting %49.4%

11.9%Turnover Rate19.4%

32.8%Free Throw Rate35.9%

39.3%3-Point Rate45.3%

1.13Assist / Turnover0.69

Game Summary

Hofstra won by 8 points. The game played at approximately 67.2 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.