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-conferenceLawler Arena, North Andover, MAAmerica East-Metro Challenge
UMass Lowell
Efficiency #308
2025-26: 15-18 · 10-8 conf
@
Merrimack
Efficiency #158
2025-26: 23-11 · 19-4 conf
Thu, Nov 5 · TBD
67.1
win 20%
Projected
76.8
win 80%
No line posted yet.
Model: MRMK −9.8 · total 143.9 · 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: Merrimack 65.8, UMass Lowell 69.5 → 67.0 possessions
−2.8
Merrimack offense vs UMass Lowell defense
+2.2
UMass Lowell offense vs Merrimack defense
−3.7
Projected total
143.9
Axis starts at 142 pointsPoints added or removed at each step
Projected margin
Even game
0.0
Merrimack offense vs UMass Lowell defense
+2.2
UMass Lowell offense vs Merrimack defense
+3.7
Home court+2.9 points per 100 possessions to the home offense, −2.9 to the visitors
+3.9
Merrimack by 9.8
9.8
UMass Lowell side ◂▸ Merrimack side
Steps are rounded to one decimal, so they can differ from the total by 0.1. The margin is the same build seen from the home side; positive numbers help Merrimack.
Pace & total
possessions per 40 minutesTempo, possessions per 40 minutes
Projected possessions: 67.0, from each team's opponent-adjusted tempo. On raw 2025-26 season pace, UMass Lowell is the faster team (68.9, #157 of 365) and Merrimack the slower (63.7, #359). When tempos clash, the slower team usually pulls the pace harder (study weights 0.80 vs 0.66).
Projected possessions
67.0
per team, 40 min
Projected total
143.9
model
Projected team totals
67.1 / 76.8
UMass Lowell / Merrimack
Adjusted tempo, vs an average opponent
69.5#80
UMass Lowell
65.8#347
Merrimack
How this game plays
what the study found each side's numbers actually do when these two teams meetAdvantageUMass Lowell
Where UMass Lowell struggles: shooting
UMass Lowell shoots an effective 49.8% (#247); Merrimack allows 46.7% (#17). Expect about 48.1%, 3.2 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly -4.6 points per 100 possessions.
GlassUMass Lowell
UMass Lowell owns the glass
Projected offensive rebound rate of 36.6% is worth roughly +3.8 points per 100 possessions for UMass Lowell's offense.
TurnoversUMass Lowell
UMass Lowell turns it over
Projected turnover rate of 19.8% is worth roughly -3.7 points per 100 possessions against UMass Lowell's offense.
AdvantageMerrimack
Where Merrimack scores: ball control
Merrimack turns it over on 14.8% of possessions (#56); UMass Lowell forces turnovers on 14.2% of opponent possessions (#329). Expect about 14.0%, 2.8 points below an average D1 matchup — worth roughly +3.4 points per 100 possessions.
DefenseMerrimack
Merrimack's shot-blocking
Merrimack ranks #15 nationally in block rate — one of the few defensive numbers that travels. Expect about 12.8% of UMass Lowell's two-point attempts to get blocked against this defense.
ClashUMass Lowell
Style match: 3-point volume
UMass Lowell rarely shoots threes (31.3% of its shots); Merrimack runs teams off the line (32.6% of shots allowed from three) (D1 average 39.5%). Expect about 28.5% — both habits push the same way.
UMass Lowell has the ball
OffenseMerrimack allowsvs D1 avg
49.8% #247
46.7% #17
-4.6 pt/100
18.0% #271
20.4% #16
-3.7 pt/100
32.7% #98
39.9% #365
+3.8 pt/100
34.9% #183
37.1% #239
+0.1 pt/100
65.7% #355
—
-0.6 pt/100
UMass Lowell net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: -4.9 pts/100
Merrimack has the ball
OffenseUMass Lowell allowsvs D1 avg
49.1% #288
53.5% #284
-0.2 pt/100
14.8% #56
14.2% #329
+3.4 pt/100
24.8% #343
29.4% #126
-2.7 pt/100
38.2% #99
28.3% #34
-0.3 pt/100
78.8% #8
—
+0.6 pt/100
Merrimack net across the four factors + FT%, vs. a D1-average matchup: +0.8 pts/100
Shot diet
Where each offense shoots from and where each defense lets teams shoot · 2025-26 numbersUMass Lowelloffense vsMerrimackdefense
Share of shots by zone
UMass Lowell shoots
47.5
6.4
14.7
31.4
Merrimack allows
41.9
4.9
20.8
32.4
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 53.5%#326 | 51.4%#11 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 48.5%#18 | 42.9%#247 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 38.6%#166 | 38.7%#188 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.2%#269 | 30.3%#12 | 33.7% |
Merrimackoffense vsUMass Lowelldefense
Share of shots by zone
Merrimack shoots
41.7
2.3
9.4
46.6
UMass Lowell allows
45.4
4.3
15.6
34.7
D-I average
38.5
6.4
15.8
39.3
FG% by zone
| Zone | D-I avg | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| Rim | 53.4%#332 | 58.2%#153 | 58.6% |
| Short 2 (≤9 ft) | 38.5%#208 | 41.2%#213 | 39.5% |
| Mid 2 (10 ft+) | 33.5%#321 | 43.1%#330 | 38.0% |
| Three | 32.7%#243 | 34.6%#226 | 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 numbersUMass Lowell
+0.3extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#167 of 365
Off reb %
32.7%
#98
Def reb %
70.6%
#126
Turnover %
18.0%
#271
Forced TO %
14.2%
#329
FT rate
34.9%
#183
FT allowed
28.3%
#34
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding+0.7
Defensive rebounding+0.4
Ball security−0.8
Forcing turnovers−1.7
Foul shots drawn0.0
Foul shots allowed+1.8
Merrimack
−0.6extra scoring chances per game vs a D-I average team#206 of 365
Off reb %
24.8%
#343
Def reb %
60.1%
#365
Turnover %
14.8%
#56
Forced TO %
20.4%
#16
FT rate
38.2%
#99
FT allowed
37.1%
#239
Where the chances come from (per game)
Offensive rebounding−1.8
Defensive rebounding−3.0
Ball security+1.3
Forcing turnovers+2.5
Foul shots drawn+0.8
Foul shots allowed−0.5
UMass Lowell has more extra scoring chances per game: +0.3 (#167 of 365) to Merrimack’s −0.6 (#206).
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
UMass Lowell2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Xavier Spencer | G | Jr | 6'1" | 33-33 | 33.9 | 11.9 | 4.4 | 2.9 | 1.9 | 52.0% | 34.9% | 4.4 | 77.3% | 21.8% | |
| 3 | Darrel Yepdo | G | Jr | 6'0" | 33-33 | 31.4 | 10.3 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 2.3 | 48.0% | 36.3% | 4.4 | 75.0% | 22.8% | |
| 9 | Angel Montas Jr. | G | Jr | 6'6" | 30-23 | 29.2 | 15.8 | 5.1 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 55.0% | 31.3% | 3.2 | 64.4% | 31.6% | |
| 10 | Austin Green | F | Sr | 6'8" | 27-26 | 27.4 | 13.2 | 8.0 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 56.7% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 60.9% | 26.6% | |
| 13 | Shawn Simmons II | F | Jr | 6'6" | 27-26 | 25.7 | 6.7 | 5.1 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 51.1% | 33.3% | 0.8 | 66.2% | 17.3% | |
| 23 | Victor Okojie | F | Fr | 6'8" | 29-6 | 18.1 | 5.0 | 4.8 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 45.7% | 28.8% | 1.8 | 55.1% | 19.6% | |
| 55 | JJ Massaquoi | G | Fr | 6'6" | 30-8 | 16.7 | 8.5 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 50.5% | 8.3% | 0.4 | 66.2% | 31.1% | |
| 14 | Jared Frey | G | Jr | 6'6" | 25-10 | 13.6 | 4.0 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 50.0% | 32.7% | 2.1 | 100.0% | 17.3% | |
| 6 | Isaiah Walter | G | Fr | 6'7" | 13-0 | 9.2 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 40.6% | 11.1% | 1.4 | 68.4% | 25.6% | |
| 15 | Jerrell Roberson II | F | Jr | 6'9" | 12-0 | 7.8 | 3.4 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 53.6% | — | 0.0 | 55.0% | 24.8% | |
| 2 | Keenan Bey | F | Fr | 6'7" | 8-0 | 5.8 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 58.3% | 50.0% | 0.3 | 50.0% | 11.6% | |
| 1 | Kris Johnson | G | Fr | 6'5" | 6-0 | 6.5 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 30.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 100.0% | 18.3% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Merrimack2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 4 | Tye Dorset | G | Jr | 6'3" | 34-34 | 36.3 | 11.7 | 3.1 | 2.2 | 0.9 | 49.3% | 32.2% | 5.4 | 77.3% | 21.0% | |
| 20 | Todd Brogna | F | Sr | 6'7" | 34-34 | 29.2 | 6.1 | 4.7 | 2.4 | 1.5 | 51.6% | 35.1% | 3.9 | 70.8% | 15.5% | |
| 2 | Denver Anglinat Iona | G | Sr | 6'1" | 31-29 | 28.1 | 9.3 | 2.1 | 1.9 | 1.0 | 44.0% | 29.8% | 6.1 | 79.5% | 23.0% | |
| 5 | Elijah Wilbornat James Madison | F | Sr | 6'8" | 31-0 | 8.5 | 2.4 | 2.9 | 0.3 | 0.7 | 63.0% | — | 0.0 | 25.0% | 19.2% | |
| 0 | Dylan Veillette | F | So | 6'7" | 33-0 | 8.2 | 1.9 | 1.8 | 0.2 | 0.3 | 47.1% | 9.1% | 0.3 | 68.2% | 16.4% | |
| 7 | Aram Vladimir Soqui Urbanoat Fresno St | G | So | 6'4" | 13-2 | 9.5 | 2.2 | 0.5 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 41.4% | 27.3% | 1.7 | 66.7% | 16.3% | |
| 33 | AJ Lesburt Jr.at Brown | G | Sr | 6'5" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 12 | David Munro | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 14 | Jacob Moore | F | Fr | 6'9" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 11 | Quinn Kwasniak | G | Fr | 6'4" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 24 | Amare Guerra | G | Fr | 5'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 3 | Ayden Johnson | G | Fr | 5'10" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 1 | Jeremiah Anderson | G | Sr | 6'1" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 10 | JP Skoric | F | Fr | 6'8" | 0-0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | 0.0 | — | — | 0.0 | — | — | |
| 13 | Rocco Westfield | G | Fr | 6'2" | 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.
Transfers in: Denver Anglin (from Iona), AJ Lesburt Jr. (from Brown), Aram Vladimir Soqui Urbano (from Fresno St), Elijah Wilborn (from James Madison)
UMass Lowell2025-26 numbers
| # | Player | Pos | Cl | Ht | GP-GS | MPG | PPG | RPG | APG | TOV | eFG% | 3P% | 3PA/g | FT% | Usage | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 11 | Xavier Spencer | G | Jr | 6'1" | 33-33 | 33.9 | 11.9 | 4.4 | 2.9 | 1.9 | 52.0% | 34.9% | 4.4 | 77.3% | 21.8% | |
| 3 | Darrel Yepdo | G | Jr | 6'0" | 33-33 | 31.4 | 10.3 | 3.1 | 3.2 | 2.3 | 48.0% | 36.3% | 4.4 | 75.0% | 22.8% | |
| 9 | Angel Montas Jr. | G | Jr | 6'6" | 30-23 | 29.2 | 15.8 | 5.1 | 1.7 | 1.8 | 55.0% | 31.3% | 3.2 | 64.4% | 31.6% | |
| 10 | Austin Green | F | Sr | 6'8" | 27-26 | 27.4 | 13.2 | 8.0 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 56.7% | 0.0% | 0.1 | 60.9% | 26.6% | |
| 13 | Shawn Simmons II | F | Jr | 6'6" | 27-26 | 25.7 | 6.7 | 5.1 | 1.1 | 1.4 | 51.1% | 33.3% | 0.8 | 66.2% | 17.3% | |
| 23 | Victor Okojie | F | Fr | 6'8" | 29-6 | 18.1 | 5.0 | 4.8 | 0.7 | 0.9 | 45.7% | 28.8% | 1.8 | 55.1% | 19.6% | |
| 55 | JJ Massaquoi | G | Fr | 6'6" | 30-8 | 16.7 | 8.5 | 2.8 | 0.4 | 1.1 | 50.5% | 8.3% | 0.4 | 66.2% | 31.1% | |
| 14 | Jared Frey | G | Jr | 6'6" | 25-10 | 13.6 | 4.0 | 1.2 | 1.2 | 0.6 | 50.0% | 32.7% | 2.1 | 100.0% | 17.3% | |
| 6 | Isaiah Walter | G | Fr | 6'7" | 13-0 | 9.2 | 3.0 | 1.5 | 0.9 | 1.2 | 40.6% | 11.1% | 1.4 | 68.4% | 25.6% | |
| 15 | Jerrell Roberson II | F | Jr | 6'9" | 12-0 | 7.8 | 3.4 | 2.4 | 0.0 | 0.5 | 53.6% | — | 0.0 | 55.0% | 24.8% | |
| 2 | Keenan Bey | F | Fr | 6'7" | 8-0 | 5.8 | 1.3 | 0.9 | 0.5 | 0.1 | 58.3% | 50.0% | 0.3 | 50.0% | 11.6% | |
| 1 | Kris Johnson | G | Fr | 6'5" | 6-0 | 6.5 | 1.7 | 0.3 | 0.2 | 0.2 | 30.0% | 0.0% | 0.3 | 100.0% | 18.3% |
Rosters come from ESPN and are still filling in; incoming transfers and freshmen may be missing.
Trends
Last 10 games of 2025-26UMass Lowell
Against the spread
Season
16-14
Home
7-4
Road
9-10
Last 10
7-3
avg cover +0.8
Missed the spread in the last gameCovered 5 of 5 as a favoriteCovered 2 of 5 as an underdog
Over / under
Season
14-16
Home
6-5
Road
8-11
Last 10
5-5
avg vs total +1.4
Over 2 straightOver in 3 of 5 as a favoriteOver in 2 of 5 as an underdog
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10 | UMBC | A | L 69–91 | +7.0 | L−15.0 | 148.0 | O160 | 101.7 | 134.1 | 67.8 |
| Mar 7 | UAlbany | H | W 81–76 | −3.0 | W+2.0 | 147.5 | O157 | 120.1 | 112.7 | 67.5 |
| Mar 3 | Maine | A | W 67–56 | −1.0 | W+10.0 | 140.5 | U123 | 102.0 | 85.2 | 65.7 |
| Feb 28 | UMBC | H | L 60–84 | +2.0 | L−22.0 | 151.5 | U144 | 91.7 | 128.4 | 65.4 |
| Feb 26 | Vermont | A | L 64–66 | +9.0 | W+7.0 | 146.5 | U130 | 98.4 | 101.5 | 65.0 |
| Feb 21 | Binghamton | H | W 92–79 | −9.0 | W+4.0 | 146.5 | O171 | 142.1 | 122.0 | 64.7 |
| Feb 19 | New Hampshire | H | W 78–56 | −3.5 | W+18.5 | 151.0 | U134 | 110.7 | 79.5 | 70.5 |
| Feb 12 | Bryant | H | W 88–69 | −4.5 | W+14.5 | 142.0 | O157 | 134.7 | 105.6 | 65.3 |
| Feb 7 | UAlbany | A | W 89–79 | +3.5 | W+13.5 | 145.0 | O168 | 128.0 | 113.6 | 69.5 |
| Feb 5 | NJIT | A | L 56–81 | +1.0 | L−24.0 | 149.0 | U137 | 82.1 | 118.7 | 68.2 |
Merrimack
Against the spread
Season
20-14
Home
9-2
Road
9-8
Last 10
5-5
avg cover +3.8
Missed the spread 2 straightCovered 4 of 9 as a favorite
Over / under
Season
11-22-1
Home
5-6
Road
6-11
Last 10
4-6
avg vs total −3.0
Under 3 straightOver in 4 of 9 as a favorite
Last 10 games, newest first
| Date | Opponent | Site | Result | Total | PPP for | PPP vs | Pace | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mar 10 | Siena | N | L 54–64 | −1.5 | L−11.5 | 128.5 | U118 | 84.9 | 100.7 | 63.6 |
| Mar 8 | Marist | N | W 58–57 | −3.0 | L−2.0 | 128.5 | U115 | 90.7 | 89.2 | 63.9 |
| Mar 6 | Sacred Heart | N | W 70–48 | −7.0 | W+15.0 | 143.0 | U118 | 114.6 | 78.6 | 61.1 |
| Mar 1 | Niagara | A | W 73–66 | −7.5 | L−0.5 | 127.0 | O139 | 120.5 | 108.9 | 60.6 |
| Feb 27 | Canisius | A | L 62–67 | −9.0 | L−14.0 | 130.0 | U129 | 102.1 | 110.3 | 60.7 |
| Feb 22 | Iona | H | W 88–86 2OT | −6.5 | L−4.5 | 137.0 | O174 | 119.0 | 116.3 | 73.9 |
| Feb 20 | Siena | H | W 79–72 OT | −2.5 | W+4.5 | 133.0 | O151 | 124.7 | 113.6 | 63.4 |
| Feb 15 | Quinnipiac | A | W 56–49 | +3.5 | W+10.5 | 142.0 | U105 | 85.8 | 75.1 | 65.3 |
| Feb 12 | Marist | H | W 81–56 | −2.5 | W+22.5 | 129.5 | O137 | 122.2 | 84.5 | 66.3 |
| Feb 7 | Rider | A | W 73–47 | −8.5 | W+17.5 | 137.5 | U120 | 127.1 | 81.8 | 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 homeUMass LowellMerrimack
Efficiency
105.1
107.2
113.0
106.3
69.5
65.8
—
—
Shooting
49.8%
49.1%
50.5%
49.1%
32.2%
32.7%
65.7%
78.8%
34.9%
38.2%
Ball control & glass
18.0%
14.8%
14.2%
20.4%
32.7%
24.8%
29.4%
39.9%
11.9%
7.2%
10.4%
13.0%
Style
31.3%
46.1%
51.8%
38.0%
11.9%
13.5%
45.4%
56.0%
25.5%
17.6%
Roster
2.72
3.46
6'4.6"
6'4.3"
92.9%
36.3%
Offseason
roster movement into this season — descriptive, not a model inputUMass Lowell
Returning minutes: 92.9%Returning production: 96.0%
Lost
- Khalil Farmer 14.2 mpg, 3.8 ppg · transferred to Rider
Added
Nobody of note.
No incoming D1 transfers are listed on ESPN's roster yet — until they are, returning shares read high.
Returns 93% 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).
Merrimack
Returning minutes: 36.3%Returning production: 32.9%
Lost
- Ernest Shelton 36.9 mpg, 15.9 ppg · transferred to Boston College
- Kevair Kennedy 36.8 mpg, 18.4 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Andrés Marrero 27.4 mpg, 7.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- KC Ugwuakazi 17.8 mpg, 4.9 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Jaylen Stinson 3.8 mpg, 0.7 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
- Aliou Cisse 2.7 mpg, 0.5 ppg · not on a D1 roster yet
Added
- Denver Anglin from Iona · 27.2 mpg, 9.0 ppg last season
- Elijah Wilborn from James Madison · 8.0 mpg, 2.2 ppg last season
- Aram Vladimir Soqui Urbano from Fresno St · 3.9 mpg, 0.9 ppg last season
- Rocco Westfield no D1 minutes last season
- JP Skoric no D1 minutes last season
- Jacob Moore no D1 minutes last season
Returns 36% of last season's minutes; lost 3 of its top 5 (1 transferred). Teams returning under 40% of last season's minutes have historically fallen about 0.8 points of AdjEM (n=716 team-seasons, 2022-2026).
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.