CBB Matchups
Every D1 game with tempo-free ratings, four factors and market lines, one place.
College basketball is being built for the 2026-27 season (tip-off Nov 3). What's here fills in as games are played.
Non-conferenceMackey Arena, West Lafayette, IN
Lipscomb
Efficiency #179
2025-26: 19-13 · 12-7 conf
@
Purdue
Efficiency #9
2025-26: 30-9 · 17-7 conf
Tue, Nov 17 · TBD
67.7
win 7%
Projected
84.7
win 93%
No line posted yet.
Model: PUR −17.0 · total 152.5 · ratings as of Sat, Oct 3
Preseason ratings start from 2025-26's final adjusted ratings, regressed toward the D1 average. The stats below are 2025-26's too; both update once 2026-27 games are played.
How the projection is built
each step, from an average D-I game to this oneProjected total
Average D-I game
148.2
PaceAdjusted tempo: Purdue 66.3, Lipscomb 69.7 → 67.7 possessions
−1.3
Purdue offense vs Lipscomb defense
+9.3
Lipscomb offense vs Purdue defense
−3.8
Projected total
152.5
Axis starts at 140 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Purdue offense vs Lipscomb defense
+9.3
Lipscomb offense vs Purdue defense
+3.8
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Purdue by 17.0
17.0
Lipscomb side ◂▸ Purdue side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1: the total steps add to 152.4 against a projected 152.5. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Purdue.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 67.7, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, Lipscomb is the faster team (70.5, #76 of 365) and Purdue the slower (65.2, #324). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
67.7
per team, 40 min
Projected total
152.5
model
Projected team totals
67.7 / 84.7
Lipscomb / Purdue
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.7#69
Lipscomb
66.3#329
Purdue
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantagePurdue
Where Purdue scores: shooting
Purdue shoots an effective 57.6% (#10); Lipscomb allows 53.2% (#273). Expect about 55.9%, 4.6 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +6.6 points per 100 possessions.
AdvantageLipscomb
Where Lipscomb scores: shooting
Lipscomb shoots an effective 54.1% (#67); Purdue allows 52.4% (#232). Expect about 53.4%, 2.2 points above an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.1 points per 100 possessions.
GlassLipscomb
Lipscomb gets out-rebounded
Projected offensive rebound rate of 25.6% is worth roughly -2.9 points per 100 possessions against Lipscomb's offense.
ClashLipscomb
Style match: 3-point volume
Lipscomb takes 47.9% of its shots from three; Purdue lets opponents take 43.8% of their shots from three (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 49.0% — both habits push the same way.
ClashLipscomb
Style match: ball movement
Lipscomb assists on 62.3% of its made baskets; Purdue allows assists on 57.2% of opponents' baskets (D1 average 52.4%). Expect about 61.9% — both habits push the same way.
Pace
Tempo tug-of-war
Purdue averages 65.2 possessions per 40, Lipscomb 70.5. Slower teams pull the pace toward themselves more than fast teams push it (0.80 vs 0.66 in five seasons of games), so expect about 67 — more possessions mean more points in the total and more chances for the better team to separate.
Lipscomb has the ball
OffensePurdue allowsvs D1 avg
54.1% #67
52.4% #232
+3.1 pt/100
16.0% #142
15.3% #263
+1.7 pt/100
25.8% #327
27.1% #39
-2.9 pt/100
26.0% #357
25.5% #9
-1.2 pt/100
74.9% #85
—
+0.2 pt/100
Lipscomb net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.8 pts/100
Purdue has the ball
OffenseLipscomb allowsvs D1 avg
57.6% #10
53.2% #273
+6.6 pt/100
13.7% #17
17.7% #112
+1.4 pt/100
36.4% #19
30.2% #171
+2.5 pt/100
28.6% #336
29.0% #45
-0.8 pt/100
74.6% #99
—
+0.2 pt/100
Purdue net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +9.9 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersLipscomboffense vsPurduedefense
Share of shots by zone
Lipscomb shoots
39.4
5.7
7.1
47.8
Purdue allows
28.2
7.0
20.0
44.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 60.2%#114 | 62.6%#316 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 36.8%#246 | 44.3%#276 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 29.1%#361 | 43.0%#329 | 38.0% |
| Three | 35.7%#75 | 34.1%#192 | 33.7% |
Purdueoffense vsLipscombdefense
Share of shots by zone
Purdue shoots
28.0
8.8
23.5
39.7
Lipscomb allows
36.4
9.7
13.7
40.3
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 71.4%#1 | 62.9%#322 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 44.6%#70 | 43.8%#264 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 45.2%#13 | 35.8%#102 | 38.0% |
| Three | 38.3%#11 | 34.3%#207 | 33.7% |
RimShort 2 (≤9 ft)Mid 2 (10 ft+)Three
Zones from play-by-play shot descriptions; garbage time removed. Bars show the share of field-goal attempts in each zone; where a slice is too thin for its number, the shares are listed under the bar. FG% ranks: #1 = best for that side (most accurate shooting, stingiest defense).
Shot volume
Extra scoring chances from rebounds, turnovers and the foul line · 2025-26 numbersLipscomb
−0.8extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#220 of 365
Off reb %
25.8%
#327
Def reb %
69.8%
#171
Turnover %
16.0%
#142
Forced TO %
17.7%
#112
FT rate
26.0%
#357
FT allowed
29.0%
#45
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.5
Defensive rebounding+0.1
Ball security+0.5
Forcing turnovers+0.7
Foul shots drawn−2.3
Foul shots allowed+1.6
Purdue
+5.1extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#20 of 365
Off reb %
36.4%
#19
Def reb %
72.9%
#39
Turnover %
13.7%
#17
Forced TO %
15.3%
#263
FT rate
28.6%
#336
FT allowed
25.5%
#9
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+1.9
Defensive rebounding+1.1
Ball security+2.1
Forcing turnovers−0.9
Foul shots drawn−1.7
Foul shots allowed+2.5
Purdue has more extra scoring chances per game: +5.1 (#20 of 365) to Lipscomb’s −0.8 (#220).
Grade = extra shots and foul-line trips per game compared with a D-I average team, built from six season rates. Cell shading is the national rank for each rate (greener = better for that team).
Rotation
Lipscomb2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Lipscomb's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mateo Esmeraldo | G | Jr | 6'1" | 32-32 | 30.1 | 9.9 | 3.8 | 7.0 | 1.6 | 53.2% | 36.8% | 2.7 | 82.9% | 19.0% | |
| 35 | Grant Asman | F | Sr | 6'11" | 32-32 | 27.8 | 14.3 | 5.8 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 60.8% | 36.2% | 5.1 | 76.8% | 26.3% | |
| 26 | Titas Sargiunas | F | Jr | 6'4" | 32-20 | 23.7 | 9.7 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 51.8% | 34.0% | 4.4 | 73.3% | 24.6% | |
| 30 | Ross Candelino | G | Jr | 6'5" | 28-13 | 24.9 | 11.2 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 62.4% | 42.6% | 5.5 | 69.8% | 22.3% | |
| 33 | Charlie Williams | C | Sr | 6'10" | 32-32 | 21.3 | 10.1 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 53.2% | 33.7% | 3.2 | 79.2% | 28.9% | |
| 7 | Ethan Duncan | G | Jr | 6'0" | 31-7 | 21.2 | 10.5 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 55.7% | 36.7% | 5.7 | 92.3% | 26.0% | |
| 6 | Or Ashkenazi | F | Fr | 6'5" | 31-24 | 19.5 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 50.7% | 39.4% | 1.1 | 75.0% | 9.4% | |
| 3 | Kennedy Okpara | F | Fr | 6'7" | 30-0 | 13.7 | 5.1 | 2.7 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 50.4% | 30.2% | 1.8 | 54.5% | 23.3% | |
| 23 | Kellan Boylan | F | Sr | 6'7" | 32-0 | 12.2 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 47.0% | 6.3% | 0.5 | 67.3% | 17.2% | |
| 24 | Cole Middleton | F | Sr | 6'6" | 29-0 | 11.9 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 46.3% | 29.4% | 0.6 | 80.0% | 26.5% | |
| 12 | Luke Carter | G | Jr | 6'1" | 7-0 | 4.0 | 2.7 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 79.2% | 71.4% | 1.0 | — | 23.1% | |
| 2 | Devyn Martin | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Josh Scott | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Logan Suber | G | So | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Luke Jack | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Miles White | G | Sr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Purdue2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 0 | C.J. Cox | G | So | 6'3" | 39-39 | 24.4 | 8.5 | 2.8 | 1.3 | 0.3 | 57.8% | 37.3% | 4.3 | 84.2% | 18.6% | |
| 24 | Gicarri Harris | G | So | 6'3" | 39-0 | 15.8 | 4.6 | 1.6 | 0.8 | 0.3 | 51.8% | 35.5% | 2.4 | 86.1% | 16.9% | |
| 17 | Omer Mayer | G | Fr | 6'4" | 39-0 | 14.3 | 5.5 | 1.1 | 1.2 | 0.9 | 51.3% | 35.5% | 2.8 | 65.2% | 26.2% | |
| 14 | Jack Benter | G | Fr | 6'6" | 38-2 | 14.7 | 4.4 | 2.6 | 0.8 | 0.4 | 62.8% | 40.9% | 2.3 | 60.9% | 16.4% | |
| 12 | Daniel Jacobsen | C | So | 7'4" | 39-0 | 12.9 | 5.5 | 3.0 | 0.3 | 0.6 | 65.7% | 37.5% | 0.2 | 62.7% | 22.4% | |
| 5 | Liam Murphy | F | Sr | 6'8" | 12-0 | 7.3 | 2.3 | 0.9 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 51.9% | 34.8% | 1.9 | — | 18.6% | |
| 9 | Jack Lusk | G | Jr | 6'4" | 9-0 | 2.0 | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.0 | 0.1 | — | — | 0.0 | — | 3.2% | |
| 32 | Jace Rayl | G | Jr | 5'11" | 8-0 | 2.1 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0% | — | 0.0 | — | 6.9% | |
| 1 | Antione West Jr | G | Fr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 34 | Raleigh Burgess | F | So | 6'11" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 7 | Sam King | F | Sr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Lipscomb2025-26 numbers
ESPN hasn't posted Lipscomb's 2026-27 roster yet — these are last season's players.
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Mateo Esmeraldo | G | Jr | 6'1" | 32-32 | 30.1 | 9.9 | 3.8 | 7.0 | 1.6 | 53.2% | 36.8% | 2.7 | 82.9% | 19.0% | |
| 35 | Grant Asman | F | Sr | 6'11" | 32-32 | 27.8 | 14.3 | 5.8 | 1.8 | 1.6 | 60.8% | 36.2% | 5.1 | 76.8% | 26.3% | |
| 26 | Titas Sargiunas | F | Jr | 6'4" | 32-20 | 23.7 | 9.7 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.5 | 51.8% | 34.0% | 4.4 | 73.3% | 24.6% | |
| 30 | Ross Candelino | G | Jr | 6'5" | 28-13 | 24.9 | 11.2 | 5.2 | 1.4 | 0.9 | 62.4% | 42.6% | 5.5 | 69.8% | 22.3% | |
| 33 | Charlie Williams | C | Sr | 6'10" | 32-32 | 21.3 | 10.1 | 2.6 | 2.3 | 1.7 | 53.2% | 33.7% | 3.2 | 79.2% | 28.9% | |
| 7 | Ethan Duncan | G | Jr | 6'0" | 31-7 | 21.2 | 10.5 | 2.0 | 1.0 | 0.6 | 55.7% | 36.7% | 5.7 | 92.3% | 26.0% | |
| 6 | Or Ashkenazi | F | Fr | 6'5" | 31-24 | 19.5 | 2.9 | 2.8 | 1.5 | 0.5 | 50.7% | 39.4% | 1.1 | 75.0% | 9.4% | |
| 3 | Kennedy Okpara | F | Fr | 6'7" | 30-0 | 13.7 | 5.1 | 2.7 | 0.4 | 0.8 | 50.4% | 30.2% | 1.8 | 54.5% | 23.3% | |
| 23 | Kellan Boylan | F | Sr | 6'7" | 32-0 | 12.2 | 3.4 | 3.6 | 0.7 | 0.4 | 47.0% | 6.3% | 0.5 | 67.3% | 17.2% | |
| 24 | Cole Middleton | F | Sr | 6'6" | 29-0 | 11.9 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 0.5 | 1.2 | 46.3% | 29.4% | 0.6 | 80.0% | 26.5% | |
| 12 | Luke Carter | G | Jr | 6'1" | 7-0 | 4.0 | 2.7 | 0.6 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 79.2% | 71.4% | 1.0 | — | 23.1% | |
| 2 | Devyn Martin | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 15 | Josh Scott | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Logan Suber | G | So | 6'0" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 0 | Luke Jack | F | Fr | 6'6" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 5 | Miles White | G | Sr | 6'3" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26Lipscomb
Against the spread
Season
15-15
Home
8-4
Road
7-10
Last 10
3-7
avg cover −4.8
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 3 of 8 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
16-14
Home
5-7
Road
11-6
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total −2.8
Under 2 straightOver in 3 of 8 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 6 | FGCU | N | L 53–77 | −4.5 | L−28.5 | 150.0 | U130 | 84.1 | 122.2 | 63.0 |
| Feb 28 | E Kentucky | A | W 80–77 | −2.5 | W+0.5 | 159.0 | U157 | 122.3 | 117.7 | 65.4 |
| Feb 25 | West Georgia | A | L 78–84 | −5.5 | L−11.5 | 153.0 | O162 | 110.6 | 119.1 | 70.5 |
| Feb 21 | North Alabama | H | W 73–51 | −12.0 | W+10.0 | 149.5 | U124 | 116.8 | 81.6 | 62.5 |
| Feb 18 | Bellarmine | A | W 75–72 | −3.5 | L−0.5 | 155.5 | U147 | 117.2 | 112.5 | 64.0 |
| Feb 14 | Queens | A | L 81–87 | +3.0 | L−3.0 | 165.5 | O168 | 103.2 | 110.9 | 78.5 |
| Feb 11 | E Kentucky | H | W 75–61 | −6.0 | W+8.0 | 161.0 | U136 | 114.6 | 93.2 | 65.5 |
| Feb 7 | C Arkansas | H | L 78–86 | −4.0 | L−12.0 | 155.5 | O164 | 107.3 | 118.3 | 72.7 |
| Feb 4 | Austin Peay | A | L 76–87 | +4.5 | L−6.5 | 157.0 | O163 | 105.6 | 120.9 | 71.9 |
| Jan 31 | North Florida | A | W 100–94 | −11.0 | L−5.0 | 166.5 | O194 | 137.2 | 129.0 | 72.9 |
Purdue
Against the spread
Season
17-21-1
Home
5-12
Road
6-5
Last 10
4-5-1
avg cover −0.2
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 3 of 8 as a favorite, 1 push
Over / under
Season
22-17
Home
12-5
Road
5-6
Last 10
6-4
avg vs total +3.5
Under in the last gameOver in 5 of 8 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 28 | #1Arizona | N | L 64–79 | +5.0 | L−10.0 | 152.5 | U143 | 98.0 | 121.0 | 65.3 |
| Mar 26 | #11Texas | N | W 79–77 | −8.5 | L−6.5 | 146.5 | O156 | 129.9 | 126.6 | 60.8 |
| Mar 22 | #7Miami | N | W 79–69 | −8.0 | W+2.0 | 146.5 | O148 | 120.4 | 105.2 | 65.6 |
| Mar 20 | #15Queens | N | W 104–71 | −25.5 | W+7.5 | 159.5 | O175 | 154.0 | 105.1 | 67.5 |
| Mar 15 | #3Michigan | N | W 80–72 | +5.5 | W+13.5 | 149.5 | O152 | 127.7 | 114.9 | 62.7 |
| Mar 14 | UCLA | N | W 73–66 | −7.0 | P0.0 | 145.0 | U139 | 122.4 | 110.7 | 59.6 |
| Mar 13 | #11Nebraska | N | W 74–58 | −4.5 | W+11.5 | 146.0 | U132 | 122.4 | 95.9 | 60.5 |
| Mar 12 | Northwestern | N | W 81–68 | −13.5 | L−0.5 | 140.0 | O149 | 136.3 | 114.4 | 59.4 |
| Mar 7 | Wisconsin | H | L 93–97 | −9.5 | L−13.5 | 154.0 | O190 | 141.5 | 147.6 | 65.7 |
| Mar 4 | Northwestern | A | W 70–66 | −10.5 | L−6.5 | 145.5 | U136 | 121.8 | 114.9 | 57.5 |
Records vs the closing line describe the past; ten games is a small sample.
Tale of the tape
national rank toned left for away, right for homeLipscombPurdue
Efficiency
107.8
122.7
108.1
103.6
69.7
66.3
—
—
Shooting
54.1%
57.6%
54.5%
57.7%
35.7%
38.3%
74.9%
74.6%
26.0%
28.6%
Ball control & glass
16.0%
13.7%
17.7%
15.3%
25.8%
36.4%
30.2%
27.1%
9.3%
8.0%
10.1%
6.4%
Style
47.9%
40.2%
42.5%
40.7%
16.2%
9.4%
62.3%
65.6%
36.9%
29.8%
Roster
3.04
1.73
6'5.4"
6'5.8"
—
42.3%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputLipscomb
Returning minutes: 100.0%Returning production: 100.0%
ESPN hasn't posted Lipscomb's roster for this season yet — no movement to show.
Returns 100% of last season's minutes. Teams returning at least 65% of last season's minutes have historically gained about 2.2 points of AdjEM (n=156 team-seasons, 2022-2026). (ESPN hasn't posted this season's roster yet -- this may still be last season's list.)
Purdue
Returning minutes: 42.3%Returning production: 32.3%
Lost
- Braden Smith 34.5 mpg, 14.3 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Fletcher Loyer 29.3 mpg, 14.1 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Trey Kaufman-Renn 26.7 mpg, 13.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Oscar Cluff 24.7 mpg, 10.6 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Aaron Fine 0.6 mpg, 0.3 ppg · transferred to Ball State
Added
- Antione West Jr no D1 minutes last season
- Raleigh Burgess no D1 minutes last season
- Sam King no D1 minutes last season
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 42% of last season's minutes; lost 4 of its top 5.
Head-to-head
this season and lastNo meetings the last two seasons.
The CBB Matchups tab lays out the day's Division I slate: matchup, tip time, records and rank, and — once posted — Pinnacle's spread and total (the median across books when Pinnacle has no line). Three views switch the table between projected scores, pace and totals, and each team's offensive and defensive tendencies. Each game opens into opponent-adjusted possessions, efficiency and four-factor tendencies for both teams, plus recent form, rotation and head-to-head history. Every game also carries our projected score, spread and total, built bottom-up from those same numbers: expected possessions times each side's opponent-adjusted points per possession, plus home court.
What these numbers mean: line shopping.