| | WNBA : Money Line Matchup |
| |
SAN ANTONIO CONNECTICUT |
|
| 150.5 | 51 Final 82 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | |
651 | SAN ANTONIO | +170 | 652 | CONNECTICUT | -200 |
|
|
| | |
|
| | | | One of the growing resources utilized by sports handicappers is the public betting information offered by a variety of sources. Leading the way in this is Sportsbook.com, who offers the data at its website in real-time. |
|
| | |
|
- Any team vs the money line (SAN ANTONIO) - in non-conference games, off a home loss. (292-202 since 1997.) (59.1%, +84.3 units. Rating = 2*) | - Home favorites vs. the money line (CONNECTICUT) - off a loss against a division rival, in August or September games. (247-89 since 1997.) (73.5%, +81.2 units. Rating = 2*) | - Favorites vs. the money line (CONNECTICUT) - after a loss by 10 points or more against opponent after scoring 75 points or more. (220-87 since 1997.) (71.7%, +64.7 units. Rating = 2*) | - Home favorites vs. the money line (CONNECTICUT) - after a loss by 10 points or more against opponent after scoring 75 points or more. (189-69 since 1997.) (73.3%, +63.4 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (SAN ANTONIO) - in non-conference games, off a home loss against a division rival. (166-117 since 1997.) (58.7%, +56.2 units. Rating = 2*) | - Home favorites of -165 to -500 vs. the money line (CONNECTICUT) - after a loss by 10 points or more against opponent after scoring 75 points or more. (122-29 since 1997.) (80.8%, +53.7 units. Rating = 2*) | - Favorites vs. the money line (CONNECTICUT) - after failing to cover 4 or 5 of their last 6 against the spread against opponent after having covered 3 of their last 4 against the spread. (150-54 since 1997.) (73.5%, +51.5 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (SAN ANTONIO) - in non-conference games, off 2 or more consecutive home losses. (73-28 since 1997.) (72.3%, +47.5 units. Rating = 4*) | - Home favorites vs. the money line (CONNECTICUT) - after failing to cover 4 or 5 of their last 6 against the spread against opponent after having covered 3 of their last 4 against the spread. (126-44 since 1997.) (74.1%, +44.1 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (CONNECTICUT) - poor defensive team (72-76 PPG) against a horrible defensive team (>=76 PPG), after a loss by 10 points or more. (76-41 since 1997.) (65%, +39.1 units. Rating = 3*) | - Any team vs the money line (SAN ANTONIO) - after going over the total by 30 or more points total in their last five games, a bad team, winning 25% to 40% of their games after 15 or more games. (91-40 since 1997.) (69.5%, +37.8 units. Rating = 2*) | - Road teams vs. the money line (SAN ANTONIO) - in non-conference games, off 2 or more consecutive home losses. (46-7 since 1997.) (86.8%, +37 units. Rating = 5*) | - Underdogs vs the money line (SAN ANTONIO) - in non-conference games, off 2 or more consecutive home losses. (53-9 since 1997.) (85.5%, +36.8 units. Rating = 3*) | - Any team vs the money line (SAN ANTONIO) - in non-conference games, off a close home loss by 3 points or less. (60-33 since 1997.) (64.5%, +34.3 units. Rating = 3*) | - Road underdogs vs. the money line (SAN ANTONIO) - in non-conference games, off 2 or more consecutive home losses. (40-5 since 1997.) (88.9%, +32 units. Rating = 4*) | - Home teams vs. the money line (CONNECTICUT) - after failing to cover 4 or 5 of their last 6 against the spread against opponent after having covered 3 of their last 4 against the spread. (50-21 over the last 5 seasons.) (70.4%, +24.1 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (CONNECTICUT) - poor defensive team (72-76 PPG) against a horrible defensive team (>=76 PPG) after 15+ games, after a loss by 10 points or more. (53-30 since 1997.) (63.9%, +24.8 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (SAN ANTONIO) - good FT shooting team (76-80%) against an average FT shooting team (71-76%) after 15+ games, after 2 straight games - allowing a shooting pct. of 45% or higher. (42-25 since 1997.) (62.7%, +24.4 units. Rating = 2*) | - Home favorites vs. the money line (CONNECTICUT) - in a game involving two good offensive teams (72-76 PPG) after 15+ games, after a loss by 10 points or more. (26-2 since 1997.) (92.9%, +23.6 units. Rating = 5*) | - Favorites vs. the money line (CONNECTICUT) - in a game involving two good offensive teams (72-76 PPG) after 15+ games, after a loss by 10 points or more. (28-4 since 1997.) (87.5%, +23.2 units. Rating = 4*) | - Any team vs the money line (SAN ANTONIO) - good free throw shooting team (76-80%) against an average free throw shooting team (71-76%), after a game - allowing a shooting pct. of 50% or higher. (53-31 since 1997.) (63.1%, +22 units. Rating = 1*) | - Any team vs the money line (SAN ANTONIO) - in non-conference games, off a home cover where the team lost straight up as an underdog. (22-7 since 1997.) (75.9%, +16.4 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (SAN ANTONIO) - in a game involving two average shooting teams (40.5-43.5%) after 15+ games, after 2 straight games - allowing a shooting pct. of 50% or higher. (22-8 since 1997.) (73.3%, +15.9 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (SAN ANTONIO) - after having covered 5 or 6 of their last 7 against the spread, with a losing record after 15 or more games. (45-17 over the last 5 seasons.) (72.6%, +28.3 units. Rating = 3*) |
|
|
- Home teams vs. the money line (CONNECTICUT) - after one or more consecutive overs, a good offensive team (72-76 PPG) against a horrible defensive team (>=76 PPG). (27-15 over the last 5 seasons.) (64.3%, +18 units. Rating = 1*) | - Road teams vs. the money line (SAN ANTONIO) - poor defensive team - allowing 73+ points/game on the season against opponent after allowing 80 points or more. (142-133 over the last 5 seasons.) (51.6%, +47 units. Rating = 2*) | - Home teams vs. the money line (CONNECTICUT) - after allowing 80 points or more against opponent after a combined score of 155 points or more. (112-91 over the last 5 seasons.) (55.2%, +39.1 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (SAN ANTONIO) - good ball handling team (<=14.5 TO's) against an average pressure defensive team (14.5-17.5 TO's). (213-163 over the last 5 seasons.) (56.6%, +58 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (SAN ANTONIO) - in a game involving 2 up-tempo teams (>=62 shots/game), good ball handling team (<=14.5 TO's) against an average pressure defensive team (14.5-17.5 TO's). (198-143 over the last 5 seasons.) (58.1%, +59 units. Rating = 2*) |
|
| | |
|
SAN ANTONIO | 68 | | 26-63 | 41.0% | 4-12 | 30.3% | 13-17 | 77.5% | 43 | 10 | 17 | CONNECTICUT | 78 | | 30-70 | 43.6% | 6-18 | 34.5% | 11-14 | 74.2% | 43 | 11 | 12 |
| The number of simulations in which each team won the game straight up are listed below. If one time held a significant advantage against the money line, the edge is indicated. | In 1000 simulated games, CONNECTICUT won the game straight up 752 times, while SAN ANTONIO won 222 times. Edge against the money line=CONNECTICUT |
|
|
| Potential StatFox Money Line Power Trends to watch out for:
| |
SAN ANTONIO is 17-14 against the money line (+12.9 Units) in games attempting around the same number of free throws as opponents over the last 3 seasons. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 75.8, OPPONENT 76.9 | SAN ANTONIO is 23-22 against the money line (+17.8 Units) in road games when they make 77% to 82% of their free throws in a game since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 76.7, OPPONENT 77.3 | SAN ANTONIO is 8-3 against the money line (+7.7 Units) when they grab 42 to 46 rebounds in a game over the last 2 seasons. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 80.0, OPPONENT 75.1 | CONNECTICUT is 8-20 against the money line (-14.5 Units) when they attempt 12 to 16 free throws in a game over the last 3 seasons. The average score was CONNECTICUT 74.2, OPPONENT 77.6 | CONNECTICUT is 12-31 against the money line (-19.8 Units) in games where they force 13 to 18 turnovers over the last 3 seasons. The average score was CONNECTICUT 70.5, OPPONENT 75.1 | CONNECTICUT is 4-11 against the money line (-10.2 Units) when they commit 3 to 6 fewer turnovers than their opponents over the last 3 seasons. The average score was CONNECTICUT 68.7, OPPONENT 73.2 |
|
SAN ANTONIO is 36-83 against the money line (-67.9 Units) when they make 40% to 44% of their shots in a game since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 73.2, OPPONENT 77.4 | SAN ANTONIO is 32-57 against the money line (-25.7 Units) when their opponents make 29% to 35% of their 3 pointers in a game since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 73.8, OPPONENT 76.6 | SAN ANTONIO is 13-30 against the money line (-17.8 Units) when they grab 8 to 12 offensive rebounds in a game over the last 3 seasons. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 73.5, OPPONENT 79.2 | SAN ANTONIO is 2-7 against the money line (-7.7 Units) when they allow 78 to 82 points in a game over the last 2 seasons. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 75.3, OPPONENT 79.8 | SAN ANTONIO is 4-27 against the money line (-27.9 Units) when they allow 78 or more points in a game over the last 2 seasons. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 76.9, OPPONENT 86.1 | SAN ANTONIO is 9-23 against the money line (-15.5 Units) in games where they force 12 or fewer turnovers over the last 2 seasons. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 75.6, OPPONENT 80.5 | SAN ANTONIO is 27-65 against the money line (-38.9 Units) when they commit 3 to 6 more turnovers than their opponents since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 71.2, OPPONENT 76.9 | SAN ANTONIO is 4-13 against the money line (-10.7 Units) when they score 66 to 71 points in a game over the last 3 seasons. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 68.9, OPPONENT 76.9 | SAN ANTONIO is 81-129 against the money line (-59.4 Units) in games where they commit 13 to 18 turnovers since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 71.4, OPPONENT 75.1 | CONNECTICUT is 6-2 against the money line (+7.8 Units) when their opponents make 29% to 35% of their 3 pointers in a game over the last 2 seasons. The average score was CONNECTICUT 82.0, OPPONENT 75.3 | CONNECTICUT is 136-97 against the money line (+26.5 Units) when they grab 8 to 12 offensive rebounds in a game since 1997. The average score was CONNECTICUT 75.3, OPPONENT 72.8 | CONNECTICUT is 77-37 against the money line (+38.3 Units) when they allow 66 to 71 points in a game since 1997. The average score was CONNECTICUT 73.5, OPPONENT 68.4 | CONNECTICUT is 6-1 against the money line (+6.7 Units) in home games when they score 78 to 82 points in a game over the last 3 seasons. The average score was CONNECTICUT 80.1, OPPONENT 74.3 | CONNECTICUT is 16-7 against the money line (+15.4 Units) when they score 78 or more points in a game over the last 2 seasons. The average score was CONNECTICUT 84.0, OPPONENT 79.3 |
|
| | |
|
CONNECTICUT is 3-15 against the money line (-12.6 Units) versus poor defensive teams - allowing 77+ points/game after 15+ games over the last 3 seasons. The average score was CONNECTICUT 70.4, OPPONENT 75.8 - (Rating = 1*) | CONNECTICUT is 7-19 against the money line (-12.9 Units) versus poor defensive teams - allowing 77+ points/game over the last 3 seasons. The average score was CONNECTICUT 73.4, OPPONENT 77.6 - (Rating = 0*) | CONNECTICUT is 19-29 against the money line (-19.4 Units) versus teams who average 7 or less steals/game on the season after 15+ games since 1997. The average score was CONNECTICUT 70.5, OPPONENT 73.3 - (Rating = 1*) |
|
|
SAN ANTONIO is 76-106 against the money line (-44.4 Units) versus good 3 point shooting teams - making >=33% of their attempts after 15+ games since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 74.5, OPPONENT 76.9 - (Rating = 1*) | SAN ANTONIO is 108-142 against the money line (-53.0 Units) versus good 3 point shooting teams - making >=33% of their attempts since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 74.1, OPPONENT 76.3 - (Rating = 0*) | SAN ANTONIO is 102-140 against the money line (-45.9 Units) versus poor foul drawing teams - attempting <=24 free throws/game after 15+ games since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 74.7, OPPONENT 76.7 - (Rating = 0*) | SAN ANTONIO is 153-204 against the money line (-62.5 Units) versus poor foul drawing teams - attempting <=24 free throws/game since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 73.7, OPPONENT 75.8 - (Rating = 0*) |
|
| | |
|
CONNECTICUT is 4-16 against the money line (-11.7 Units) after having lost 2 of their last 3 games over the last 2 seasons. The average score was CONNECTICUT 72.7, OPPONENT 78.6 - (Rating = 0*) | CONNECTICUT is 1-10 against the money line (-12.7 Units) after failing to cover 4 of their last 5 against the spread over the last 3 seasons. The average score was CONNECTICUT 68.9, OPPONENT 77.2 - (Rating = 5*) | CONNECTICUT is 4-13 against the money line (-12.0 Units) off a road loss by 10 points or more over the last 3 seasons. The average score was CONNECTICUT 73.8, OPPONENT 80.9 - (Rating = 2*) | CONNECTICUT is 14-32 against the money line (-18.0 Units) after allowing 75 points or more over the last 3 seasons. The average score was CONNECTICUT 73.1, OPPONENT 78.0 - (Rating = 1*) | CONNECTICUT is 8-18 against the money line (-12.5 Units) after a loss by 10 points or more over the last 3 seasons. The average score was CONNECTICUT 75.3, OPPONENT 79.4 - (Rating = 1*) |
|
|
SAN ANTONIO is 191-255 against the money line (-74.5 Units) in all games since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 73.5, OPPONENT 75.7 - (Rating = 0*) | SAN ANTONIO is 58-93 against the money line (-45.6 Units) in August or September games since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 75.2, OPPONENT 77.1 - (Rating = 1*) | SAN ANTONIO is 29-49 against the money line (-29.6 Units) on Tuesday since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 72.8, OPPONENT 76.2 - (Rating = 1*) | SAN ANTONIO is 68-90 against the money line (-38.1 Units) against Eastern conference opponents since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 72.2, OPPONENT 73.5 - (Rating = 0*) | SAN ANTONIO is 113-166 against the money line (-58.8 Units) after a division game since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 74.0, OPPONENT 76.4 - (Rating = 0*) | SAN ANTONIO is 92-142 against the money line (-58.7 Units) when playing 5 or less games in 14 days since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 72.4, OPPONENT 75.7 - (Rating = 1*) | SAN ANTONIO is 68-90 against the money line (-38.1 Units) in non-conference games since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 72.2, OPPONENT 73.5 - (Rating = 0*) | SAN ANTONIO is 87-129 against the money line (-57.6 Units) after one or more consecutive overs since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 73.6, OPPONENT 76.5 - (Rating = 1*) | SAN ANTONIO is 57-84 against the money line (-36.6 Units) after covering 2 of their last 3 against the spread since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 72.2, OPPONENT 75.4 - (Rating = 1*) | SAN ANTONIO is 3-13 against the money line (-11.9 Units) off a close home loss by 3 points or less since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 72.7, OPPONENT 78.3 - (Rating = 2*) | SAN ANTONIO is 63-90 against the money line (-38.3 Units) after allowing 80 points or more since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 74.3, OPPONENT 77.3 - (Rating = 1*) | SAN ANTONIO is 25-36 against the money line (-22.2 Units) after allowing 80 points or more in 2 straight games since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 77.1, OPPONENT 78.8 - (Rating = 1*) | SAN ANTONIO is 8-20 against the money line (-15.6 Units) after a close loss by 3 points or less since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 70.9, OPPONENT 76.4 - (Rating = 1*) | SAN ANTONIO is 65-93 against the money line (-35.8 Units) after a combined score of 155 points or more since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 75.8, OPPONENT 78.3 - (Rating = 0*) | SAN ANTONIO is 86-119 against the money line (-43.7 Units) after a game where they covered the spread since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 74.0, OPPONENT 76.3 - (Rating = 0*) | SAN ANTONIO is 12-46 against the money line (-29.6 Units) in road games after 2 or more consecutive losses since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 67.6, OPPONENT 78.1 - (Rating = 1*) | SAN ANTONIO is 11-25 against the money line (-17.0 Units) after a game where they committed 8 or less turnovers since 1997. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 73.2, OPPONENT 77.1 - (Rating = 1*) | CONNECTICUT is 6-1 against the money line (+7.8 Units) against Western conference opponents this season. The average score was CONNECTICUT 78.4, OPPONENT 72.6 - (Rating = 2*) | CONNECTICUT is 6-4 against the money line (+9.3 Units) after a division game this season. The average score was CONNECTICUT 75.9, OPPONENT 74.7 - (Rating = 0*) | CONNECTICUT is 6-1 against the money line (+7.8 Units) in non-conference games this season. The average score was CONNECTICUT 78.4, OPPONENT 72.6 - (Rating = 2*) | CONNECTICUT is 25-15 against the money line (+11.4 Units) in home games after having lost 5 or 6 of their last 7 games since 1997. The average score was CONNECTICUT 75.3, OPPONENT 72.9 - (Rating = 0*) | CONNECTICUT is 21-9 against the money line (+15.9 Units) in home games after having lost 6 or 7 of their last 8 games since 1997. The average score was CONNECTICUT 76.9, OPPONENT 73.2 - (Rating = 2*) | CONNECTICUT is 8-3 against the money line (+9.3 Units) in home games after having lost 8 or more of their last 10 games since 1997. The average score was CONNECTICUT 76.3, OPPONENT 74.5 - (Rating = 0*) | CONNECTICUT is 7-5 against the money line (+9.9 Units) after playing a game as an underdog this season. The average score was CONNECTICUT 76.2, OPPONENT 74.1 - (Rating = 1*) | CONNECTICUT is 62-37 against the money line (+27.7 Units) after failing to cover the spread in 2 or more consecutive games since 1997. The average score was CONNECTICUT 77.0, OPPONENT 74.4 - (Rating = 2*) |
|
| | |
|
|
All Games | 6-14 | -6.2 | 11-8 | 9-11 | 72.0 | 34.9 | 41.8% | 40.8 | 77.6 | 38.9 | 45.5% | 41.3 | Road Games | 0-9 | -8 | 5-3 | 5-4 | 70.6 | 31.9 | 40.3% | 38.6 | 81.4 | 39.7 | 48.0% | 42.3 | Last 5 Games | 2-3 | -1 | 4-1 | 3-2 | 79.0 | 41.2 | 47.4% | 36.6 | 81.6 | 42.2 | 48.8% | 38.2 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 72.0 | 34.9 | 26-63 | 41.8% | 4-12 | 30.9% | 15-19 | 78.4% | 41 | 8 | 16 | 16 | 6 | 13 | 4 | vs opponents surrendering | 75.6 | 37.4 | 28-65 | 42.2% | 5-15 | 33.2% | 15-19 | 79.0% | 42 | 9 | 16 | 19 | 7 | 13 | 4 | Team Stats (Road Games) | 70.6 | 31.9 | 26-65 | 40.3% | 4-13 | 27.3% | 15-18 | 81.5% | 39 | 8 | 14 | 15 | 6 | 13 | 4 | Stats Against (All Games) | 77.6 | 38.9 | 31-68 | 45.5% | 4-12 | 33.9% | 12-16 | 74.5% | 41 | 9 | 17 | 19 | 8 | 12 | 5 | vs opponents averaging | 76.3 | 38.4 | 28-66 | 42.5% | 5-15 | 33.4% | 15-19 | 80.2% | 42 | 9 | 16 | 19 | 7 | 13 | 5 | Stats Against (Road Games) | 81.4 | 39.7 | 33-68 | 48.0% | 4-12 | 32.1% | 12-16 | 77.5% | 42 | 9 | 17 | 19 | 8 | 11 | 6 |
|
|
| |
|
|
All Games | 9-9 | +6.9 | 10-8 | 10-8 | 75.4 | 37.2 | 41.6% | 41.3 | 75.3 | 38.0 | 42.5% | 43.5 | Home Games | 4-5 | -1.4 | 5-4 | 4-5 | 74.9 | 38.0 | 42.0% | 41.6 | 74.8 | 40.1 | 43.1% | 41.2 | Last 5 Games | 2-3 | +0.6 | 1-4 | 3-2 | 74.0 | 37.8 | 42.2% | 41.2 | 78.0 | 37.0 | 41.6% | 44.6 |
|
| |
|
|
Team Stats (All Games) | 75.4 | 37.2 | 29-69 | 41.6% | 6-18 | 33.6% | 12-17 | 73.8% | 41 | 9 | 15 | 20 | 10 | 13 | 3 | vs opponents surrendering | 75.8 | 38.2 | 28-66 | 42.3% | 5-15 | 33.0% | 15-19 | 78.9% | 42 | 9 | 17 | 19 | 7 | 13 | 4 | Team Stats (Home Games) | 74.9 | 38.0 | 28-68 | 42.0% | 6-17 | 34.0% | 12-16 | 75.2% | 42 | 9 | 15 | 18 | 9 | 14 | 3 | Stats Against (All Games) | 75.3 | 38.0 | 27-65 | 42.5% | 4-14 | 32.4% | 16-19 | 83.2% | 43 | 10 | 15 | 16 | 7 | 16 | 4 | vs opponents averaging | 76.3 | 38.3 | 28-65 | 43.2% | 5-14 | 33.2% | 15-19 | 80.2% | 41 | 9 | 17 | 19 | 7 | 13 | 5 | Stats Against (Home Games) | 74.8 | 40.1 | 28-66 | 43.1% | 4-13 | 31.0% | 14-17 | 86.6% | 41 | 9 | 14 | 16 | 8 | 16 | 3 |
|
| Average power rating of opponents played: SAN ANTONIO 71.1, CONNECTICUT 70.9 |
| | |
|
|
6/25/2015 | PHOENIX | 76-71 | W | +120 | 27-63 | 42.9% | 54 | 19 | 27-74 | 36.5% | 37 | 10 | 6/27/2015 | SEATTLE | 73-71 | W | -220 | 30-67 | 44.8% | 45 | 15 | 29-65 | 44.6% | 34 | 14 | 6/30/2015 | @ PHOENIX | 78-85 | L | +400 | 28-65 | 43.1% | 32 | 10 | 34-57 | 59.6% | 32 | 11 | 7/2/2015 | @ LOS ANGELES | 81-86 | L | +200 | 33-60 | 55.0% | 34 | 14 | 31-62 | 50.0% | 31 | 10 | 7/8/2015 | LOS ANGELES | 70-63 | W | +155 | 29-61 | 47.5% | 45 | 11 | 24-69 | 34.8% | 39 | 11 | 7/10/2015 | @ INDIANA | 76-83 | L | +250 | 28-66 | 42.4% | 44 | 13 | 31-61 | 50.8% | 37 | 10 | 7/12/2015 | @ MINNESOTA | 49-66 | L | | 20-69 | 29.0% | 49 | 13 | 29-70 | 41.4% | 44 | 10 | 7/15/2015 | @ NEW YORK | 68-84 | L | +325 | 23-62 | 37.1% | 38 | 11 | 35-73 | 47.9% | 47 | 12 | 7/17/2015 | TULSA | 65-58 | W | +170 | 21-55 | 38.2% | 54 | 15 | 21-68 | 30.9% | 45 | 11 | 7/19/2015 | @ CHICAGO | 82-93 | L | +500 | 32-67 | 47.8% | 32 | 9 | 40-74 | 54.1% | 43 | 12 | 7/21/2015 | INDIANA | 80-62 | W | +105 | 27-45 | 60.0% | 43 | 20 | 21-62 | 33.9% | 25 | 10 | 7/29/2015 | ATLANTA | 102-85 | W | -165 | 35-65 | 53.8% | 45 | 17 | 29-66 | 43.9% | 37 | 13 | 7/31/2015 | WASHINGTON | 53-88 | L | +100 | 22-63 | 34.9% | 30 | 12 | 36-63 | 57.1% | 47 | 14 | 8/2/2015 | LOS ANGELES | 78-80 | L | +175 | 28-64 | 43.7% | 33 | 7 | 35-65 | 53.8% | 39 | 10 | 8/4/2015 | @ CONNECTICUT | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/5/2015 | @ WASHINGTON | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/8/2015 | SEATTLE | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/11/2015 | @ MINNESOTA | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/16/2015 | @ SEATTLE | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/19/2015 | NEW YORK | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
| |
|
|
6/26/2015 | LOS ANGELES | 80-76 | W | -300 | 26-75 | 34.7% | 50 | 12 | 29-66 | 43.9% | 44 | 19 | 6/30/2015 | INDIANA | 84-92 | L | -200 | 33-66 | 50.0% | 31 | 10 | 31-56 | 55.4% | 36 | 19 | 7/2/2015 | CHICAGO | 74-77 | L | +155 | 30-74 | 40.5% | 43 | 14 | 29-62 | 46.8% | 36 | 15 | 7/12/2015 | @ CHICAGO | 76-96 | L | +280 | 28-62 | 45.2% | 30 | 9 | 38-67 | 56.7% | 41 | 10 | 7/14/2015 | MINNESOTA | 79-85 | L | +210 | 31-69 | 44.9% | 40 | 14 | 32-63 | 50.8% | 34 | 15 | 7/16/2015 | @ NEW YORK | 57-64 | L | +180 | 21-70 | 30.0% | 47 | 15 | 21-61 | 34.4% | 53 | 13 | 7/19/2015 | @ WASHINGTON | 82-89 | L | +210 | 32-74 | 43.2% | 47 | 15 | 28-58 | 48.3% | 38 | 12 | 7/22/2015 | @ MINNESOTA | 78-77 | W | +280 | 30-72 | 41.7% | 42 | 15 | 29-75 | 38.7% | 50 | 16 | 7/28/2015 | INDIANA | 73-75 | L | -115 | 28-65 | 43.1% | 37 | 18 | 33-81 | 40.7% | 52 | 13 | 7/31/2015 | SEATTLE | 67-66 | W | -300 | 24-63 | 38.1% | 47 | 16 | 24-61 | 39.3% | 40 | 15 | 8/2/2015 | @ INDIANA | 70-83 | L | +200 | 25-55 | 45.5% | 33 | 12 | 25-59 | 42.4% | 43 | 13 | 8/4/2015 | SAN ANTONIO | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/7/2015 | WASHINGTON | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/9/2015 | @ WASHINGTON | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/12/2015 | TULSA | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/14/2015 | NEW YORK | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/16/2015 | @ ATLANTA | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | |
CONNECTICUT is 16-13 (+1.7 Units) against the money line versus SAN ANTONIO since 1997 |
| |
CONNECTICUT is 2-2 (+0.1 Units) against the money line versus SAN ANTONIO over the last 3 seasons |
|
|
|
| |
CONNECTICUT is 9-5 (+0.0 Units) against the money line versus SAN ANTONIO since 1997 |
| |
SAN ANTONIO is 1-1 (+0.5 Units) against the money line versus CONNECTICUT over the last 3 seasons |
|
|
|
| |
|
8/1/2014 | CONNECTICUT | 89 | 156 | SU ATS | 43 | 35-65 | 53.8% | 5-12 | 41.7% | 14-20 | 70.0% | 44 | 9 | 13 | | SAN ANTONIO | 79 | -5 | Over | 30 | 32-78 | 41.0% | 7-23 | 30.4% | 8-9 | 88.9% | 39 | 12 | 11 | 7/1/2014 | SAN ANTONIO | 74 | 153.5 | SU ATS | 27 | 27-61 | 44.3% | 4-15 | 26.7% | 16-17 | 94.1% | 33 | 6 | 15 | | CONNECTICUT | 71 | -3.5 | Under | 30 | 31-73 | 42.5% | 5-17 | 29.4% | 4-7 | 57.1% | 47 | 10 | 19 |
|
| | |
|
Dan is 22-26 against the money line (+12.5 Units) in road games after a game where both teams scored 75 points or more as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 75.1, OPPONENT 76.7 - (Rating = 0*) | Dan is 30-27 against the money line (+11.5 Units) in road games versus teams who attempt 16 or more 3 point shots/game on the season as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 77.9, OPPONENT 76.6 - (Rating = 0*) | Anne is 8-30 against the money line (-24.4 Units) after having lost 2 of their last 3 games as the coach of CONNECTICUT. The average score was CONNECTICUT 71.2, OPPONENT 77.6 - (Rating = 4*) | Anne is 1-10 against the money line (-12.7 Units) after failing to cover 4 of their last 5 against the spread as the coach of CONNECTICUT. The average score was CONNECTICUT 68.9, OPPONENT 77.2 - (Rating = 5*) | Anne is 4-13 against the money line (-12.0 Units) off a road loss by 10 points or more as the coach of CONNECTICUT. The average score was CONNECTICUT 73.8, OPPONENT 80.9 - (Rating = 2*) | Anne is 14-32 against the money line (-18.0 Units) after allowing 75 points or more as the coach of CONNECTICUT. The average score was CONNECTICUT 73.1, OPPONENT 78.0 - (Rating = 1*) | Anne is 8-18 against the money line (-12.5 Units) after a loss by 10 points or more as the coach of CONNECTICUT. The average score was CONNECTICUT 75.3, OPPONENT 79.4 - (Rating = 1*) | Anne is 14-26 against the money line (-13.2 Units) after a game where they failed to cover the spread as the coach of CONNECTICUT. The average score was CONNECTICUT 75.3, OPPONENT 78.4 - (Rating = 0*) | Anne is 9-20 against the money line (-14.3 Units) vs. teams who are called for 2+ less fouls/game than their opponents after 15+ games in all games he has coached since 1997. The average score was Anne 67.3, OPPONENT 73.8 - (Rating = 1*) | Anne is 21-38 against the money line (-22.7 Units) vs. teams who are called for 2+ less fouls/game than their opponents in all games he has coached since 1997. The average score was Anne 70.7, OPPONENT 73.8 - (Rating = 1*) | Anne is 10-29 against the money line (-15.7 Units) versus terrible defensive teams - allowing 73+ points/game after 15+ games as the coach of CONNECTICUT. The average score was CONNECTICUT 71.9, OPPONENT 77.3 - (Rating = 0*) | Anne is 3-15 against the money line (-12.6 Units) versus poor defensive teams - allowing 77+ points/game after 15+ games as the coach of CONNECTICUT. The average score was CONNECTICUT 70.4, OPPONENT 75.8 - (Rating = 2*) | Anne is 7-19 against the money line (-12.9 Units) versus poor defensive teams - allowing 77+ points/game as the coach of CONNECTICUT. The average score was CONNECTICUT 73.4, OPPONENT 77.6 - (Rating = 1*) |
|
|
Dan is 156-185 against the money line (-40.7 Units) in all games as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 74.9, OPPONENT 76.2 - (Rating = 1*) | Dan is 47-75 against the money line (-42.7 Units) in August or September games as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 75.5, OPPONENT 77.2 - (Rating = 2*) | Dan is 26-36 against the money line (-21.3 Units) on Tuesday as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 73.4, OPPONENT 76.1 - (Rating = 1*) | Dan is 94-116 against the money line (-28.0 Units) after a division game as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 75.5, OPPONENT 76.9 - (Rating = 0*) | Dan is 77-100 against the money line (-32.1 Units) when playing 5 or less games in 14 days as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 74.1, OPPONENT 76.0 - (Rating = 1*) | Dan is 26-40 against the money line (-17.8 Units) after 3 straight games - allowing a shooting pct. of 42% or higher as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 75.0, OPPONENT 77.3 - (Rating = 1*) | Dan is 74-90 against the money line (-27.9 Units) after one or more consecutive overs as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 75.2, OPPONENT 76.6 - (Rating = 1*) | Dan is 48-62 against the money line (-25.2 Units) after covering 2 of their last 3 against the spread as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 73.7, OPPONENT 75.5 - (Rating = 1*) | Dan is 41-46 against the money line (-17.2 Units) after covering 4 or 5 of their last 6 against the spread as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 75.7, OPPONENT 77.1 - (Rating = 0*) | Dan is 3-10 against the money line (-8.5 Units) off a close home loss by 3 points or less as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 73.6, OPPONENT 79.3 - (Rating = 1*) | Dan is 81-100 against the money line (-25.4 Units) after allowing 75 points or more as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 74.7, OPPONENT 76.3 - (Rating = 0*) | Dan is 52-70 against the money line (-26.9 Units) after allowing 80 points or more as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 75.0, OPPONENT 77.3 - (Rating = 1*) | Dan is 22-29 against the money line (-14.0 Units) after allowing 80 points or more in 2 straight games as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 78.3, OPPONENT 79.1 - (Rating = 0*) | Dan is 60-75 against the money line (-21.0 Units) after a combined score of 155 points or more as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 75.9, OPPONENT 77.6 - (Rating = 0*) | Dan is 44-71 against the money line (-22.1 Units) after playing 2 consecutive games as an underdog as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 73.0, OPPONENT 76.9 - (Rating = 0*) | Dan is 73-86 against the money line (-27.2 Units) after a game where they covered the spread as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 75.0, OPPONENT 76.3 - (Rating = 1*) | Dan is 10-31 against the money line (-18.4 Units) in road games after 2 or more consecutive losses as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 69.2, OPPONENT 79.3 - (Rating = 1*) | Dan is 10-23 against the money line (-16.4 Units) after a game where they committed 8 or less turnovers as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 73.8, OPPONENT 77.9 - (Rating = 2*) | Dan is 27-36 against the money line (-16.5 Units) after 3 straight games forcing opponent to commit 14 or less turnovers as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 73.9, OPPONENT 75.9 - (Rating = 1*) | Dan is 18-27 against the money line (-14.1 Units) after 4 straight games forcing opponent to commit 14 or less turnovers as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 73.2, OPPONENT 74.5 - (Rating = 1*) | Dan is 12-20 against the money line (-11.1 Units) after 5 straight games forcing opponent to commit 14 or less turnovers as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 73.5, OPPONENT 75.1 - (Rating = 0*) | Dan is 60-74 against the money line (-29.9 Units) versus good 3 point shooting teams - making >=33% of their attempts after 15+ games as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 75.4, OPPONENT 77.0 - (Rating = 1*) | Dan is 86-97 against the money line (-32.9 Units) versus good 3 point shooting teams - making >=33% of their attempts as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 75.2, OPPONENT 76.3 - (Rating = 1*) | Dan is 79-83 against the money line (-21.5 Units) versus up-tempo teams averaging 62 or more shots/game after 15+ games as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 77.4, OPPONENT 77.8 - (Rating = 0*) | Dan is 114-123 against the money line (-37.5 Units) versus up-tempo teams averaging 62 or more shots/game as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 76.8, OPPONENT 77.4 - (Rating = 1*) | Dan is 47-64 against the money line (-23.9 Units) versus horrible foul drawing teams - attempting <=21 free throws/game after 15+ games as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 74.3, OPPONENT 75.5 - (Rating = 1*) | Dan is 83-102 against the money line (-30.2 Units) versus poor foul drawing teams - attempting <=24 free throws/game after 15+ games as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 75.6, OPPONENT 76.8 - (Rating = 1*) | Dan is 125-148 against the money line (-41.0 Units) versus poor foul drawing teams - attempting <=24 free throws/game as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 75.0, OPPONENT 76.1 - (Rating = 1*) | Dan is 109-108 against the money line (-30.1 Units) versus terrible defensive teams - allowing 73+ points/game as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 77.9, OPPONENT 77.8 - (Rating = 0*) | Dan is 71-79 against the money line (-24.2 Units) versus explosive offensive teams - scoring 73+ points/game after 15+ games as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 77.8, OPPONENT 78.5 - (Rating = 0*) | Dan is 101-113 against the money line (-31.9 Units) versus explosive offensive teams - scoring 73+ points/game as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 77.0, OPPONENT 78.0 - (Rating = 1*) | Dan is 19-38 against the money line (-20.4 Units) versus good ball handling teams - committing <=14 turnovers/game after 15+ games as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 75.5, OPPONENT 79.3 - (Rating = 1*) | Dan is 33-59 against the money line (-25.5 Units) versus good ball handling teams - committing <=14 turnovers/game as the coach of SAN ANTONIO. The average score was SAN ANTONIO 74.5, OPPONENT 77.9 - (Rating = 1*) | Anne is 73-38 against the money line (+26.8 Units) in home games after playing a game as an underdog in all games he has coached since 1997. The average score was Anne 74.7, OPPONENT 69.3 - (Rating = 1*) | Anne is 61-31 against the money line (+22.8 Units) in home games after playing a game as a road underdog in all games he has coached since 1997. The average score was Anne 74.7, OPPONENT 69.5 - (Rating = 1*) |
|
| | |
|
Since 1997, the home favorite won the game straight up 258 times, while the road underdog won straight up 135 times. No Edge. | Over the last 3 seasons, the home favorite won the game straight up 19 times, while the road underdog won straight up 13 times. No Edge. |
|
| | |
[F] 08/03/2015 - Danielle Adams probable Tuesday vs. Connecticut Sun ( Suspension Served ) | [F] 08/02/2015 - Dearica Hamby "?" Tuesday vs. Connecticut Sun ( Ankle ) | [G] 07/17/2015 - Alex Montgomery out indefinitely ( Knee ) | |
[G] 06/05/2015 - Allison Hightower out for season ( Suspension ) | [F] 06/05/2015 - Kelsey Griffin out for season ( Hip ) | [F] 06/04/2015 - Chiney Ogwumike out for season ( Knee ) |
|
|
| Last Updated: 5/19/2024 2:41:27 AM EST. |
|
|
| |
|