Tulane logo

Tulane

18-15
GAME THAT MATTERSAT
12.9%Tulane
87.1%UAB
MMH WIN PROBABILITY
MODEL SPREADUAB -13.2
PROJECTED TOTAL152.6
MODEL MONEYLINEUAB -675
UAB logo

UAB

20-12
MMH MODEL PROJECTION
Projected ScoreTulane 70
Projected Total152.6
Projected ScoreUAB 83

Team Comparison

TulaneMetricUAB
44.3MMH Power Index56.9
105.3Offensive Efficiency110.5
109.9Defensive Efficiency102.9
-4.6Net Efficiency7.6
2.7Strength of Schedule0.4
-10.3Last 10 Net Efficiency2.9
68.7Tempo71.7
49.6%Effective FG%48.8%
15.6%Turnover Rate12.4%
22.8%Offensive Rebound %32.7%
44.8%Free Throw Rate36.9%
-3.2Average Margin5.4
MMH GAME INTELLIGENCE
MODEL READ

UAB HAS THE EDGE

WIN PROBABILITY87.1%
STATISTICAL ADVANTAGE
83
MMH comparison metrics
WHERE THE EDGE COMES FROMUAB holds the advantage in MMH Power Index (56.9–44.3), offensive efficiency (110.5–105.3), defensive efficiency (102.9–109.9), net efficiency (7.6–-4.6).
Tulane COUNTERS WITHstrength of schedule (2.7–0.4), shooting efficiency (49.6–48.8), free throw rate (44.8–36.9).
Final
Tulane logo
Tulane
5554
UAB logo
UAB
Tulane by 162.8 estimated possessions

Team Stats

TulaneTEAM STATUAB
21-58FG20-63
36.0%FG%32.0%
8-283PT4-27
29.0%3PT%15.0%
5-5FT10-17
100.0%FT%59.0%
36Rebounds47
7Offensive Rebounds17
9Assists7
10Turnovers8
5Steals5
6Blocks1
11Fouls8

Player Box Score

Tulane
PlayerPosMinFG3PTFTREBASTSTLBLKTOPFPTS
Rowan BrumbaughG387-141-42-284100017
Asher WoodsG315-171-63-353200014
Scotty MiddletonF254-94-70-090120012
Curtis Williams Jr.G262-92-60-06002006
Tyler RinggoldF142-40-10-01000004
KJ GreeneG121-20-10-01100002
Luke RasmussenG320-30-30-00111000
Percy DanielsC220-00-00-04001000
UAB
PlayerPosMinFG3PTFTREBASTSTLBLKTOPFPTS
Dayjaun AndersonG356-164-120-070100016
Evan ChatmanF404-110-24-6131100012
Daniel RiveraF375-150-12-7111110012
Chance WestryG353-100-62-24400008
Salim LondonG341-90-52-25020004
Quaran McPhersonG91-20-10-02100002
Ari GoochG70-00-00-01000000
Lance CarrF20-00-00-00000000
KyeRon Lindsay-MartinF10-00-00-01000000

Advanced Game Stats

62.8Possessions62.8
87.6Offensive Efficiency86.0
86.0Defensive Efficiency87.6
1.6Net Efficiency-1.6
43.1%Effective FG%34.9%
45.5%True Shooting %38.0%
15.8%Turnover Rate12.9%
8.6%Free Throw Rate27.0%
48.3%3-Point Rate42.9%
0.90Assist / Turnover0.88
Game Summary
Tulane won by 1 points. The game played at approximately 62.8 possessions. The largest advanced-stat separations came in Free Throw Rate, Effective FG%, True Shooting %.

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.