PythiaBasketballBETA
| Split | Scored | Allowed | Total | Margin | Win % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Season (43) | 105.5 | 108.6 | 214.1 | -3.2 | 42% |
| Season at home (22) | 107.2 | 111.0 | 218.2 | -3.7 | 41% |
| Season away (21) | 103.6 | 106.2 | 209.8 | -2.6 | 43% |
| Last 10 (10) | 106.7 | 108.5 | 215.2 | -1.8 | 60% |
| Last 5 (5) | 113.0 | 113.6 | 226.6 | -0.6 | 60% |
| Last 30 games by opponent strength | |||||
| vs Stronger ◀ (11) | 106.9 | 110.5 | 217.5 | -3.6 | 36% |
| vs Similar (16) | 103.1 | 108.5 | 211.6 | -5.4 | 38% |
| vs Weaker (3) | 110.0 | 116.7 | 226.7 | -6.7 | 33% |
| Split | Scored | Allowed | Total | Margin | Win % |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Season (44) | 109.7 | 107.2 | 216.9 | +2.5 | 61% |
| Season at home (22) | 111.1 | 106.6 | 217.8 | +4.5 | 68% |
| Season away (22) | 108.2 | 107.8 | 216.0 | +0.4 | 55% |
| Last 10 (10) | 109.1 | 110.6 | 219.7 | -1.5 | 50% |
| Last 5 (5) | 102.4 | 111.6 | 214.0 | -9.2 | 40% |
| Last 30 games by opponent strength | |||||
| vs Stronger | no games | ||||
| vs Similar (12) | 109.8 | 111.6 | 221.3 | -1.8 | 50% |
| vs Weaker ◀ (18) | 112.4 | 104.5 | 216.9 | +7.9 | 78% |
| 1st half | Scored | Allowed | Total | Margin | Won the half | Over main line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Last 30 (30) | 52.3 | 55.9 | 108.2 | -3.6 | 33% | - |
| Last 30 at home (16) | 51.4 | 55.7 | 107.1 | -4.2 | 25% | - |
| Last 30 away (14) | 53.3 | 56.1 | 109.4 | -2.8 | 43% | - |
| Last 10 (10) | 54.2 | 56.5 | 110.7 | -2.3 | 30% | - |
| Last 5 (5) | 55.4 | 58.4 | 113.8 | -3.0 | 0% | - |
| Last 30 games by opponent strength | ||||||
| vs Stronger ◀ (11) | 53.9 | 56.1 | 110.0 | -2.2 | 36% | - |
| vs Similar (16) | 50.3 | 54.8 | 105.1 | -4.5 | 31% | - |
| vs Weaker (3) | 57.0 | 60.7 | 117.7 | -3.7 | 33% | - |
| 1st half | Scored | Allowed | Total | Margin | Won the half | Over main line |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Last 30 (30) | 56.1 | 51.9 | 107.9 | +4.2 | 73% | - |
| Last 30 at home (14) | 60.5 | 52.4 | 112.9 | +8.1 | 93% | - |
| Last 30 away (16) | 52.2 | 51.4 | 103.6 | +0.8 | 56% | - |
| Last 10 (10) | 57.3 | 52.7 | 110.0 | +4.6 | 80% | - |
| Last 5 (5) | 53.8 | 55.6 | 109.4 | -1.8 | 60% | - |
| Last 30 games by opponent strength | ||||||
| vs Stronger | no games | |||||
| vs Similar (12) | 56.1 | 54.7 | 110.8 | +1.4 | 58% | - |
| vs Weaker ◀ (18) | 56.1 | 50.0 | 106.1 | +6.1 | 83% | - |
| Date | Game | Score |
|---|---|---|
| 24/01/19 | Osceola Magic v Canton Charge | 116-104 |
| 13/03/18 | Canton Charge v Osceola Magic | 97-114 |
| 27/01/18 | Canton Charge v Osceola Magic | 103-97 OT |
| 11/11/17 | Osceola Magic v Canton Charge | 105-100 |
| 14/03/17 | Canton Charge v Osceola Magic | 113-102 |
| 05/02/17 | Osceola Magic v Canton Charge | 121-108 |
| 31/12/16 | Osceola Magic v Canton Charge | 106-123 |
| 11/12/16 | Canton Charge v Osceola Magic | 100-90 |
| 26/03/16 | Osceola Magic v Canton Charge | 111-122 |
| 13/03/16 | Canton Charge v Osceola Magic | 117-99 |
| Date | H/A | Opponent | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/03/19 | H | Wisconsin Herd | 119-116 |
| 05/03/19 | A | Long Island Nets | 102-106 |
| 03/03/19 | H | Austin Toros Spurs | 106-117 |
| 01/03/19 | H | Raptors 905 | 116-114 OT |
| 27/02/19 | H | IPFW | 122-115 |
| 24/02/19 | A | IPFW | 100-99 |
| 23/02/19 | A | Erie BayHawks | 104-95 |
| 21/02/19 | H | Greensboro Swarm | 96-94 |
| 10/02/19 | A | Wisconsin Herd | 106-117 |
| 09/02/19 | A | Westchester | 96-112 |
| Date | H/A | Opponent | Score |
|---|---|---|---|
| 09/03/19 | A | IPFW | 98-110 |
| 03/03/19 | H | Erie BayHawks | 111-108 |
| 02/03/19 | A | Windy City Bulls | 102-130 |
| 26/02/19 | A | Capital City Go-Go | 109-98 |
| 24/02/19 | A | Westchester | 92-112 |
| 23/02/19 | H | Salt Lake City Stars | 107-112 |
| 21/02/19 | H | Capital City Go-Go | 120-109 |
| 14/02/19 | H | IPFW | 123-127 |
| 12/02/19 | H | Long Island Nets | 112-109 |
| 10/02/19 | A | Capital City Go-Go | 117-91 |
| Form | Last 5 | Win % |
|---|---|---|
| Overall | WWLLW | 42% |
| Home | WWWLW | 41% |
| Away | LLWWL | 43% |
| Stats | Overall | Home | Away |
|---|---|---|---|
| Games | 43 | 22 | 21 |
| Win % | 42% | 41% | 43% |
| Points / game | 105.5 | 107.2 | 103.6 |
| Allowed / game | 108.6 | 111.0 | 106.2 |
| Point differential | -3.2 | -3.7 | -2.6 |
| Avg total | 214.1 | 218.2 | 209.8 |
| Over main line | - | - | - |
| Win by 10+ | 16% | 9% | 24% |
| Close games (≤5 pts) won | 55% (11) | 57% (7) | 50% (4) |
| Overtime % | 7% | 9% | 5% |
| Form | Last 5 | Win % |
|---|---|---|
| Overall | LWLWL | 61% |
| Home | WLWLW | 68% |
| Away | WLWLL | 55% |
| Stats | Overall | Home | Away |
|---|---|---|---|
| Games | 44 | 22 | 22 |
| Win % | 61% | 68% | 55% |
| Points / game | 109.7 | 111.1 | 108.2 |
| Allowed / game | 107.2 | 106.6 | 107.8 |
| Point differential | +2.5 | +4.5 | +0.4 |
| Avg total | 216.9 | 217.8 | 216.0 |
| Over main line | - | - | - |
| Win by 10+ | 39% | 36% | 41% |
| Close games (≤5 pts) won | 56% (9) | 67% (6) | 33% (3) |
| Overtime % | 0% | 0% | 0% |
| # | Team | GP | W | L | Win % | PF/g | PA/g | Diff |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 |  Santa Cruz Warriors | 44 | 30 | 14 | 68% | 104.9 | 100.7 | +4.2 |
| 2 |  Rio Grande Valley Vipers | 47 | 32 | 15 | 68% | 114.2 | 109.9 | +4.3 |
| 3 |  Oklahoma City Blue | 44 | 29 | 15 | 66% | 113.3 | 109.0 | +4.3 |
| 4 |  Long Island Nets | 44 | 29 | 15 | 66% | 116.9 | 113.0 | +3.9 |
| 5 | Osceola Magic | 44 | 27 | 17 | 61% | 109.7 | 107.2 | +2.5 |
| 6 |  Westchester | 46 | 28 | 18 | 61% | 108.5 | 104.4 | +4.0 |
| 7 |  Raptors 905 | 45 | 27 | 18 | 60% | 112.5 | 108.6 | +3.9 |
| 8 |  Stockton Kings | 45 | 27 | 18 | 60% | 111.3 | 109.8 | +1.5 |
| 9 |  Windy City Bulls | 45 | 25 | 20 | 56% | 106.3 | 105.0 | +1.4 |
| 10 |  Grand Rapids Drive | 44 | 24 | 20 | 55% | 108.0 | 107.1 | +0.8 |
| 11 |  Memphis Hustle | 45 | 24 | 21 | 53% | 113.8 | 110.4 | +3.4 |
| 12 |  Salt Lake City Stars | 45 | 24 | 21 | 53% | 109.0 | 106.6 | +2.4 |
| 13 |  Sioux Falls Skyforce | 44 | 23 | 21 | 52% | 116.1 | 114.4 | +1.7 |
| 14 |  San Diego Clippers | 44 | 23 | 21 | 52% | 111.8 | 111.8 | +0.0 |
| 15 |  Greensboro Swarm | 44 | 22 | 22 | 50% | 109.5 | 110.3 | -0.8 |
| 16 |  Capital City Go-Go | 44 | 22 | 22 | 50% | 112.3 | 113.7 | -1.4 |
| 17 |  Erie BayHawks | 43 | 20 | 23 | 47% | 117.4 | 116.0 | +1.4 |
| 18 |  IPFW | 44 | 20 | 24 | 45% | 110.4 | 112.0 | -1.6 |
| 19 |  Delaware Blue Coats | 42 | 18 | 24 | 43% | 112.2 | 112.7 | -0.5 |
| 20 | Canton Charge | 43 | 18 | 25 | 42% | 105.5 | 108.6 | -3.2 |
| 21 |  Maine Red Claws | 44 | 18 | 26 | 41% | 106.4 | 108.6 | -2.2 |
| 22 |  Austin Toros Spurs | 44 | 18 | 26 | 41% | 106.1 | 110.7 | -4.6 |
| 23 |  South Bay Lakers | 44 | 17 | 27 | 39% | 109.9 | 113.8 | -3.9 |
| 24 |  Iowa Wolves | 45 | 17 | 28 | 38% | 112.6 | 114.8 | -2.2 |
| 25 |  Texas Legends | 44 | 15 | 29 | 34% | 110.2 | 115.0 | -4.7 |
| 26 |  Wisconsin Herd | 43 | 10 | 33 | 23% | 108.5 | 116.4 | -7.9 |
| 27 |  Northern Arizona Suns | 44 | 10 | 34 | 23% | 101.3 | 109.0 | -7.7 |
| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Final |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Canton Charge | 27 | 16 | 34 | 20 | 97 |
| Osceola Magic | 25 | 26 | 29 | 23 | 103 |
We use cookies to keep the site working, to remember your settings, to understand which predictions people read, and to improve what we show you. For more information, see our Cookie Policy.
Cookies required to use the site and the features you have asked for. They provide the pages, predictions and account functions you requested. These are essential for the operation of our website.
Cookies that remember the preferences and settings from your last visit, so the site behaves the way you left it. They do not tell us who you are and they are not used to build a profile of you.
Cookies used to collect information about your usage of the site. These are used to produce aggregated statistics about visits to our pages. We use these statistics internally to test and improve the site and to give you a better experience. Without them our ability to provide a smoother experience may be degraded.
Cookies used to deliver adverts relevant to you based on your interests. This can include limiting the number of times you see an advert as well as helping us measure the effectiveness of an advert. Without these cookies you will still see adverts, but they will not be adjusted to your interests.
