| | | WNBA : Money Line Matchup |
| |
MINNESOTA
TULSA |
|
|
151.5
| 86
Final
80 |
|
|
| | |
|
| |  | |
| 651 | MINNESOTA | -210 | | 652 | TULSA | +175 |
|
|
|  | |
|
| | | | 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. |
|
| | |
|
 - Home teams vs. the money line (TULSA) - revenging a same season loss versus opponent, well rested team - playing 5 or less games in 14 days.
(368-225 since 1997.) (62.1%, +90.7 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (TULSA) - after being beaten by the spread by 18 or more points total in their last three games, winning between 51% and 60% of their games on the season.
(23-11 over the last 5 seasons.) (67.6%, +19.5 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (TULSA) - after failing to cover 4 or 5 of their last 6 against the spread, winning between 51% and 60% of their games after 15 or more games.
(31-13 over the last 5 seasons.) (70.5%, +22.7 units. Rating = 3*) | - Any team vs the money line (TULSA) - after failing to cover 4 or 5 of their last 6 against the spread, winning between 51% and 60% of their games on the season.
(45-22 over the last 5 seasons.) (67.2%, +26.7 units. Rating = 3*) |
|
|
- Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - top level team, winning 75% or more of their games, after 15 or more games.
(306-112 since 1997.) (73.2%, +93.3 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - after a game where they covered the spread, top level team, winning 75% or more of their games, after 15 or more games.
(197-60 since 1997.) (76.7%, +93.3 units. Rating = 4*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - after 1 or more consecutive wins, top level team, winning 75% or more of their games, after 15 or more games.
(253-87 since 1997.) (74.4%, +91.2 units. Rating = 3*) | - Favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - after a game where they covered the spread, top level team, winning 75% or more of their games, after 15 or more games.
(174-37 since 1997.) (82.5%, +87 units. Rating = 4*) | - Favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - top level team, winning 75% or more of their games, after 15 or more games.
(270-74 since 1997.) (78.5%, +86.1 units. Rating = 2*) | - Favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - after 1 or more consecutive wins, top level team, winning 75% or more of their games, after 15 or more games.
(223-58 since 1997.) (79.4%, +81.9 units. Rating = 3*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - after 2 or more consecutive wins, top level team, winning 75% or more of their games, after 15 or more games.
(211-72 since 1997.) (74.6%, +76 units. Rating = 3*) | - Road teams vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - excellent free throw shooting team - making >=80% of their free throws.
(278-264 since 1997.) (51.3%, +74.6 units. Rating = 2*) | - Road favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - good offensive team - scoring 73+ points/game on the season, after scoring 75 points or more.
(262-108 since 1997.) (70.8%, +74.2 units. Rating = 2*) |  - Home underdogs vs. the money line (TULSA) - poor defensive team - allowing 73+ points/game on the season, after allowing 75 points or more.
(263-109 since 1997.) (70.7%, +71.9 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - hot team - having won 8 or more of their last 10 games, top level team, winning 75% or more of their games, after 15 or more games.
(220-77 since 1997.) (74.1%, +71.8 units. Rating = 2*) | - Road favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - good offensive team - scoring 73+ points/game on the season against opponent after allowing 75 points or more.
(245-95 since 1997.) (72.1%, +71.5 units. Rating = 2*) | - Favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - vs. division opponents, playing on back-to-back days.
(186-63 since 1997.) (74.7%, +69.9 units. Rating = 3*) | - Favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - after 2 or more consecutive wins, top level team, winning 75% or more of their games, after 15 or more games.
(185-46 since 1997.) (80.1%, +69.2 units. Rating = 2*) | - Underdogs vs the money line (TULSA) - good 3 point shooting team - making >=33% of their attempts, on Saturday games.
(54-13 over the last 5 seasons.) (80.6%, +33 units. Rating = 3*) | - Underdogs vs the money line (TULSA) - after a loss by 10 points or more against opponent after scoring 75 points or more in 3 straight games.
(143-35 since 1997.) (80.3%, +65.3 units. Rating = 3*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - a very good team (>=+7 PPG differential) against an average team (+/- 3 PPG differential).
(204-73 since 1997.) (73.6%, +63 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - very good team - outscoring their opponents by 6+ points/game, in August or September games.
(196-73 since 1997.) (72.9%, +62.5 units. Rating = 2*) | - Favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - good free throw shooting team - making >=76% of their free throws, on Saturday games.
(65-15 over the last 5 seasons.) (81.2%, +37.5 units. Rating = 3*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - a very good team (>=+7 PPG diff.) against an average team (+/- 3 PPG diff.) after 15 or more games.
(136-34 since 1997.) (80%, +60.6 units. Rating = 3*) | - Road favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - good offensive team - scoring 73+ points/game on the season, after a combined score of 155 points or more.
(191-73 since 1997.) (72.3%, +60.2 units. Rating = 2*) | - Road favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - excellent free throw shooting team - making >=80% of their free throws.
(151-57 since 1997.) (72.6%, +56.4 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - a very good team (>=+7 PPG differential) against an average team (+/- 3 PPG differential), after scoring 75 points or more.
(130-39 since 1997.) (76.9%, +53.7 units. Rating = 2*) | - Road favorites of -165 to -500 vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - good ball handling team - committing <=14 turnovers/game.
(130-36 since 1997.) (78.3%, +53.1 units. Rating = 2*) | - Favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - a very good team (>=+7 PPG differential) against an average team (+/- 3 PPG differential), after scoring 75 points or more.
(117-24 since 1997.) (83%, +53.1 units. Rating = 2*) | - Road favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - excellent free throw shooting team - making >=80% of their free throws, up-tempo team averaging 62 or more shots/game on the season.
(119-39 since 1997.) (75.3%, +52.1 units. Rating = 3*) | - Home underdogs of +145 to +350 vs. the money line (TULSA) - poor defensive team - allowing 73+ points/game on the season, after allowing 75 points or more.
(156-48 since 1997.) (76.5%, +50.7 units. Rating = 2*) | - Home underdogs vs. the money line (TULSA) - after allowing 75 points or more in 2 straight games against opponent after scoring 75 points or more.
(126-43 since 1997.) (74.6%, +49.5 units. Rating = 2*) | - Road favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - very good team - outscoring their opponents by 6+ points/game, after scoring 75 points or more.
(123-39 since 1997.) (75.9%, +49.5 units. Rating = 2*) | - Road teams vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - after a game where they covered the spread, top level team, winning 75% or more of their games, after 15 or more games.
(94-39 since 1997.) (70.7%, +47.3 units. Rating = 3*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - after 1 or more consecutive wins, a top-level team (>=75%) playing a team with a winning record after 15 or more games.
(125-53 since 1997.) (70.2%, +47.1 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - after a game where they covered the spread, a top-level team (>=75%) playing a team with a winning record after 15 or more games.
(98-37 since 1997.) (72.6%, +46 units. Rating = 3*) | - Home underdogs vs. the money line (TULSA) - after 2 or more consecutive losses against opponent after 2 or more consecutive wins.
(132-53 since 1997.) (71.4%, +45.8 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - a very good team (>=+7 PPG diff.) against an average team (+/- 3 PPG diff.) after 15 or more games, after scoring 75 points or more.
(87-18 since 1997.) (82.9%, +45.7 units. Rating = 2*) | - Favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - after failing to cover 2 of their last 3 against the spread, playing on back-to-back days.
(90-30 since 1997.) (75%, +44.3 units. Rating = 3*) | - Road teams vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - after 1 or more consecutive wins, top level team, winning 75% or more of their games, after 15 or more games.
(117-57 since 1997.) (67.2%, +44.1 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - after 2 or more consecutive wins, a top-level team (>=75%) playing a team with a winning record after 15 or more games.
(105-43 since 1997.) (70.9%, +43.8 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - a very good team (>=+7 PPG differential) against an average team (+/- 3 PPG differential), after scoring 80 points or more.
(46-9 over the last 5 seasons.) (83.6%, +32.2 units. Rating = 3*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - a very good team (>=+7 PPG differential) against an average team (+/- 3 PPG differential), after scoring 75 points or more in 2 straight games.
(95-27 since 1997.) (77.9%, +42.4 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - excellent free throw shooting team (>=80%) against a good free throw shooting team (76-80%), in a game involving two good ball handling team (<=14.5 TO's).
(90-61 since 1997.) (59.6%, +41 units. Rating = 2*) | - Road favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - good ball handling team - committing <=14 turnovers/game.
(111-39 over the last 5 seasons.) (74%, +41.4 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - a very good team (>=+7 PPG differential) against an average team (+/- 3 PPG differential), after a combined score of 155 points or more.
(38-5 over the last 5 seasons.) (88.4%, +30.3 units. Rating = 4*) | - Road favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - after a game where they covered the spread, top level team, winning 75% or more of their games, after 15 or more games.
(73-18 since 1997.) (80.2%, +40.8 units. Rating = 3*) | - Favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - a very good team (>=+7 PPG differential) against an average team (+/- 3 PPG differential), after scoring 80 points or more.
(43-7 over the last 5 seasons.) (86%, +30.1 units. Rating = 3*) | - Home teams vs. the money line (TULSA) - after allowing 75 points or more against opponent after 2 straight games where both teams scored 70 points or more.
(91-76 over the last 5 seasons.) (54.5%, +38.7 units. Rating = 2*) | - Home underdogs of +145 to +350 vs. the money line (TULSA) - after being beaten by the spread by 18 or more points total in their last three games.
(71-16 since 1997.) (81.6%, +38.3 units. Rating = 2*) | - Road favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - excellent free throw shooting team - making >=80% of their free throws, in August or September games.
(55-13 since 1997.) (80.9%, +34.8 units. Rating = 3*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - a very good team (>=+7 PPG diff.) against an average team (+/- 3 PPG diff.) after 15 or more games, after a combined score of 155 points or more.
(26-2 over the last 5 seasons.) (92.9%, +23 units. Rating = 3*) | - Road teams vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - off a home win, top level team, winning 75% or more of their games, after 15 or more games.
(74-32 since 1997.) (69.8%, +34.3 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - after one or more consecutive overs, a very good team (>=+7 PPG differential) against an average team (+/- 3 PPG differential).
(27-3 over the last 5 seasons.) (90%, +22.8 units. Rating = 3*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - excellent free throw shooting team (>=80%) against a good free throw shooting team (76-80%), in a game involving two good ball handling team (<=14.5 TO's) after 15+ games.
(64-43 since 1997.) (59.8%, +33.5 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - excellent FT shooting team (>=80%) against a good FT shooting team (76-80%) after 15+ games, in a game involving two good ball handling team (<=14.5 TO's).
(64-43 since 1997.) (59.8%, +33.5 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - excellent FT shooting team (>=80%) against a good FT shooting team (76-80%) after 15+ games, in a game involving two good ball handling team (<=14.5 TO's) after 15+ games.
(64-43 since 1997.) (59.8%, +33.5 units. Rating = 2*) | - Home teams vs. the money line (TULSA) - after allowing 75 points or more in 2 straight games against opponent after a combined score of 155 points or more.
(96-70 over the last 5 seasons.) (57.8%, +44 units. Rating = 2*) | - Road favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - top level team, winning 75% or more of their games on the season, on Saturday games.
(38-5 since 1997.) (88.4%, +31.5 units. Rating = 5*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - a very good team (>=+7 PPG differential) against an average team (+/- 3 PPG differential), after scoring 40 points or more in the first half in 2 straight games.
(30-5 over the last 5 seasons.) (85.7%, +23.5 units. Rating = 3*) | - Road teams vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - top level team, winning 75% or more of their games on the season, on Saturday games.
(46-20 since 1997.) (69.7%, +28.4 units. Rating = 3*) | - Road teams vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - after a game where they covered the spread, a top-level team (>=75%) playing a team with a winning record after 15 or more games.
(49-25 since 1997.) (66.2%, +27.5 units. Rating = 2*) | - Home teams vs. the money line (TULSA) - after allowing 75 points or more in 2 straight games against opponent after a blowout win by 15 points or more.
(72-48 since 1997.) (60%, +27.3 units. Rating = 2*) | - Road teams vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - after going over the total by 18 or more points total in their last three games, top level team, winning 75% or more of their games on the season.
(51-24 since 1997.) (68%, +26.5 units. Rating = 2*) | - Road teams vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - explosive offensive team - scoring 77+ points/game on the season, after leading in their previous game by 15 or more points at the half.
(52-29 since 1997.) (64.2%, +24.6 units. Rating = 2*) | - Road teams vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - after a game where they covered the spread, a top-level team (>= 75%) playing a marginal winning team (51% to 60%).
(39-16 since 1997.) (70.9%, +24.3 units. Rating = 3*) | - Home teams vs. the money line (TULSA) - after allowing 75 points or more in 2 straight games against opponent after 2 straight games where both teams scored 70 points or more.
(54-37 over the last 5 seasons.) (59.3%, +31 units. Rating = 2*) | - Road teams vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - top level team, winning 75% or more of their games, after 15 or more games, on Saturday games.
(26-5 since 1997.) (83.9%, +23.1 units. Rating = 4*) | - Favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - good shooting team - shooting >=44% on the season against opponent after a game where a team made 30% of their shots or worse.
(24-2 since 1997.) (92.3%, +21.6 units. Rating = 4*) | - Road teams vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - after going over the total by 18 or more points total in their last three games, top level team, winning 75% or more of their games, after 15 or more games.
(29-8 since 1997.) (78.4%, +21.5 units. Rating = 3*) | - Road teams vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - a very good team (>=+7 PPG differential) against an average team (+/- 3 PPG differential), after a combined score of 155 points or more.
(33-10 since 1997.) (76.7%, +21.3 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - good 3PT shooting team (>=35%) against an average 3PT defense (30-35%), good ball handling team (<=14.5 TO's) against a poor pressure defensive team (<=14.5 TO's).
(78-40 over the last 5 seasons.) (66.1%, +37 units. Rating = 3*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - a very good team (>=+7 PPG differential) against an average team (+/- 3 PPG differential), after a combined score of 155 points or more in 2 straight games.
(30-8 since 1997.) (78.9%, +21.2 units. Rating = 3*) | - Road favorites vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - after going over the total by 18 or more points total in their last three games, on Saturday games.
(30-7 since 1997.) (81.1%, +21.1 units. Rating = 2*) | - Home teams vs. the money line (TULSA) - after allowing 75 points or more against opponent after 3 straight games where both teams scored 70 points or more.
(55-41 over the last 5 seasons.) (57.3%, +25.7 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - good shooting team - shooting >=44% on the season against opponent after a game where a team made 30% of their shots or worse.
(31-13 since 1997.) (70.5%, +19.2 units. Rating = 2*) | - Road teams vs. the money line (MINNESOTA) - after a game where they covered the spread, a top-level team (>= 75%) playing a marginal winning team (51% to 60%) after 15 or more games.
(25-7 since 1997.) (78.1%, +17.9 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - a very good team (>=+7 PPG differential) against an average team (+/- 3 PPG differential), after scoring 45 points or more in the first half last game.
(26-3 over the last 5 seasons.) (89.7%, +21.4 units. Rating = 2*) | - Home teams vs. the money line (TULSA) - after allowing 70 points or more in 3 straight games against opponent after 2 straight games where both teams scored 70 points or more.
(66-56 over the last 5 seasons.) (54.1%, +27.5 units. Rating = 1*) | - Home teams vs. the money line (TULSA) - after allowing 75 points or more in 2 straight games against opponent after a combined score of 155 points or more in 2 straight games.
(45-27 over the last 5 seasons.) (62.5%, +31.8 units. Rating = 3*) | - Home teams vs. the money line (TULSA) - after allowing 75 points or more in 2 straight games against opponent after 3 straight games where both teams scored 70 points or more.
(37-19 over the last 5 seasons.) (66.1%, +25.7 units. Rating = 3*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - good 3PT shooting team (>=35%) against an average 3PT defense (30-35%), good ball handling team (<=14.5 TO's) against a poor pressure defense (<=14.5 TO's) after 15+ games.
(57-28 over the last 5 seasons.) (67.1%, +30.1 units. Rating = 3*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - good 3PT shooting team (>=35%) against an average 3PT defense (30-35%) after 15+ games, good ball handling team (<=14.5 TO's) against a poor pressure defensive team (<=14.5 TO's).
(57-28 over the last 5 seasons.) (67.1%, +30.1 units. Rating = 3*) | - Any team vs the money line (MINNESOTA) - good 3PT shooting team (>=35%) against an average 3PT defense (30-35%) after 15+ games, good ball handling team (<=14.5 TO's) against a poor pressure defense (<=14.5 TO's) after 15+ games.
(57-28 over the last 5 seasons.) (67.1%, +30.1 units. Rating = 3*) | - Home teams vs. the money line (TULSA) - after allowing 75 points or more in 3 straight games against opponent after a combined score of 155 points or more.
(57-35 over the last 5 seasons.) (62%, +33.8 units. Rating = 3*) | - Home teams vs. the money line (TULSA) - after allowing 70 points or more in 3 straight games against opponent after a combined score of 155 points or more in 2 straight games.
(52-42 over the last 5 seasons.) (55.3%, +23.7 units. Rating = 1*) | - Home teams vs. the money line (TULSA) - after allowing 75 points or more in 3 straight games against opponent after 3 straight games where both teams scored 70 points or more.
(27-12 over the last 5 seasons.) (69.2%, +20.2 units. Rating = 2*) | - Home teams vs. the money line (TULSA) - after allowing 75 points or more in 2 straight games against opponent after a combined score of 155 points or more in 3 straight games.
(28-13 over the last 5 seasons.) (68.3%, +22.8 units. Rating = 3*) | - Home teams vs. the money line (TULSA) - after allowing 75 points or more in 3 straight games against opponent after a combined score of 155 points or more in 2 straight games.
(31-14 over the last 5 seasons.) (68.9%, +27.9 units. Rating = 4*) | - Home teams vs. the money line (TULSA) - after allowing 75 points or more in 3 straight games against opponent after 2 straight games where both teams scored 70 points or more.
(36-23 over the last 5 seasons.) (61%, +23.1 units. Rating = 2*) | - Any team vs the money line (TULSA) - after allowing 75 points or more in 3 straight games against opponent after 4 straight games where both teams scored 70 points or more.
(28-11 over the last 5 seasons.) (71.8%, +20.3 units. Rating = 2*) |
|
| | |
|
| MINNESOTA | 77 | | 30-66 | 45.3% | 4-12 | 34.6% | 14-16 | 83.2% | 45 | 8 | 14 | | TULSA | 74 | | 27-71 | 38.0% | 7-20 | 34.2% | 14-17 | 78.7% | 44 | 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, MINNESOTA won the game straight up 570 times, while TULSA won 400 times.
Edge against the money line=TULSA |
|
|
| Potential StatFox Money Line Power Trends to watch out for:
| |
MINNESOTA is 11-2 against the money line (+9.3 Units) when they make 45% to 48% of their shots in a game over the last 2 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.8, OPPONENT 76.5 | MINNESOTA is 22-1 against the money line (+20.0 Units) when their opponents make 36% to 39% of their shots in a game over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.4, OPPONENT 67.5 | MINNESOTA is 30-7 against the money line (+16.2 Units) when they make 83% or more of their free throws in a game over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.9, OPPONENT 75.6 | MINNESOTA is 13-0 against the money line (+13.5 Units) when they allow 72 to 77 points in a game over the last 2 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 83.3, OPPONENT 74.4 | TULSA is 19-43 against the money line (-24.7 Units) in up-tempo games where they attempt 84 or more shots over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was TULSA 79.3, OPPONENT 82.8 | TULSA is 7-29 against the money line (-25.1 Units) when they make 36% to 39% of their shots in a game since 1997.
The average score was TULSA 72.5, OPPONENT 82.5 | TULSA is 4-13 against the money line (-11.8 Units) when their opponents make 45% to 48% of their shots in a game over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was TULSA 78.2, OPPONENT 82.2 | TULSA is 5-16 against the money line (-11.9 Units) when they make 29% to 35% of their three point attempts in a game over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was TULSA 75.8, OPPONENT 79.4 | TULSA is 4-15 against the money line (-11.7 Units) when their opponents make 29% to 35% of their 3 pointers in a game over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was TULSA 77.3, OPPONENT 81.5 | TULSA is 8-22 against the money line (-15.9 Units) when they attempt 17 to 22 free throws in a game over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was TULSA 75.8, OPPONENT 80.5 | TULSA is 22-61 against the money line (-30.3 Units) in games where they force 13 to 18 turnovers since 1997.
The average score was TULSA 76.7, OPPONENT 84.1 | TULSA is 2-13 against the money line (-11.9 Units) when they score 72 to 77 points in a game over the last 2 seasons.
The average score was TULSA 75.0, OPPONENT 80.5 |
|
MINNESOTA is 52-84 against the money line (-35.2 Units) in road games in up-tempo games where they attempt 84 or more shots since 1997.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.3, OPPONENT 74.3 | MINNESOTA is 57-75 against the money line (-45.2 Units) when they make 29% to 35% of their three point attempts in a game since 1997.
The average score was MINNESOTA 73.6, OPPONENT 74.2 |
|
| | |
|
MINNESOTA is 20-7 against the money line (+10.4 Units) versus good 3 point shooting teams - making >=33% of their attempts after 15+ games over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 79.4, OPPONENT 73.6 - (Rating = 0*) | MINNESOTA is 20-2 against the money line (+16.1 Units) versus teams who attempt 16 or more 3 point shots/game on the season after 15+ games over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.7, OPPONENT 73.7 - (Rating = 3*) | MINNESOTA is 24-6 against the money line (+15.9 Units) versus teams who make 5 or more 3 point shots/game on the season after 15+ games over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.5, OPPONENT 75.3 - (Rating = 2*) | MINNESOTA is 31-9 against the money line (+17.8 Units) versus up-tempo teams averaging 62 or more shots/game after 15+ games over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.5, OPPONENT 75.6 - (Rating = 2*) | MINNESOTA is 46-17 against the money line (+18.5 Units) versus up-tempo teams averaging 62 or more shots/game over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.7, OPPONENT 75.2 - (Rating = 1*) | MINNESOTA is 30-8 against the money line (+17.3 Units) vs. good free throw shooting teams - making >=76% of their attempts after 15+ games over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 80.0, OPPONENT 74.0 - (Rating = 2*) | MINNESOTA is 43-13 against the money line (+20.1 Units) vs. good free throw shooting teams - making >=76% of their attempts over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 79.9, OPPONENT 73.0 - (Rating = 1*) | MINNESOTA is 38-10 against the money line (+22.1 Units) versus poor foul drawing teams - attempting <=24 free throws/game after 15+ games over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.7, OPPONENT 74.0 - (Rating = 2*) | MINNESOTA is 54-19 against the money line (+21.3 Units) versus poor foul drawing teams - attempting <=24 free throws/game over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 80.9, OPPONENT 73.8 - (Rating = 1*) | MINNESOTA is 24-7 against the money line (+14.1 Units) versus poor pressure defensive teams - forcing <=14 turnovers/game after 15+ games over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 80.5, OPPONENT 73.0 - (Rating = 1*) | MINNESOTA is 16-3 against the money line (+11.6 Units) versus teams who average 42 or more rebounds/game on the season after 15+ games over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 83.7, OPPONENT 73.3 - (Rating = 1*) | MINNESOTA is 36-10 against the money line (+20.1 Units) versus terrible defensive teams - allowing 73+ points/game after 15+ games over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.3, OPPONENT 74.0 - (Rating = 2*) | MINNESOTA is 50-18 against the money line (+20.6 Units) versus terrible defensive teams - allowing 73+ points/game over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 80.6, OPPONENT 74.0 - (Rating = 1*) | MINNESOTA is 26-9 against the money line (+12.8 Units) versus explosive offensive teams - scoring 73+ points/game after 15+ games over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.1, OPPONENT 76.9 - (Rating = 1*) | MINNESOTA is 12-2 against the money line (+9.3 Units) versus excellent ball handling teams - committing <=12 turnovers/game after 15+ games since 1997.
The average score was MINNESOTA 79.3, OPPONENT 74.7 - (Rating = 0*) | TULSA is 3-12 against the money line (-10.9 Units) vs. excellent free throw shooting teams - making >=80% of their shots after 15+ games over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was TULSA 76.9, OPPONENT 82.1 - (Rating = 2*) | TULSA is 11-36 against the money line (-22.8 Units) vs. excellent free throw shooting teams - making >=80% of their shots since 1997.
The average score was TULSA 77.4, OPPONENT 85.1 - (Rating = 1*) | TULSA is 10-24 against the money line (-15.7 Units) versus poor foul drawing teams - attempting <=24 free throws/game after 15+ games over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was TULSA 77.9, OPPONENT 80.6 - (Rating = 1*) | TULSA is 6-16 against the money line (-13.7 Units) versus poor pressure defensive teams - forcing <=14 turnovers/game after 15+ games over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was TULSA 75.1, OPPONENT 78.5 - (Rating = 2*) |
|
|
MINNESOTA is 6-12 against the money line (-14.8 Units) in road games when playing against a team with a winning record over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 77.9, OPPONENT 83.7 - (Rating = 2*) | MINNESOTA is 38-55 against the money line (-26.5 Units) versus good rebounding teams - outrebounding opponents by 3+ per game since 1997.
The average score was MINNESOTA 73.5, OPPONENT 75.8 - (Rating = 0*) |
|
| | |
|
MINNESOTA is 66-21 against the money line (+21.2 Units) in all games over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.3, OPPONENT 74.1 - (Rating = 0*) | MINNESOTA is 64-13 against the money line (+26.8 Units) as a favorite over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.0, OPPONENT 72.8 - (Rating = 1*) | MINNESOTA is 44-14 against the money line (+18.4 Units) vs. division opponents over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 80.7, OPPONENT 73.8 - (Rating = 1*) | MINNESOTA is 21-5 against the money line (+12.5 Units) after a non-conference game over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.5, OPPONENT 73.9 - (Rating = 0*) | MINNESOTA is 24-7 against the money line (+14.9 Units) when playing 3 or less games in 10 days over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.2, OPPONENT 72.2 - (Rating = 2*) | MINNESOTA is 44-13 against the money line (+24.4 Units) when playing 5 or less games in 14 days over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.3, OPPONENT 73.7 - (Rating = 3*) | MINNESOTA is 14-4 against the money line (+9.6 Units) when playing their 3rd game in 5 days over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.3, OPPONENT 77.4 - (Rating = 1*) | MINNESOTA is 9-1 against the money line (+8.0 Units) after 2 straight games where they were called for 15 or less fouls over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.5, OPPONENT 68.1 - (Rating = 2*) | MINNESOTA is 35-22 against the money line (+16.1 Units) in road games after having won 5 or 6 of their last 7 games since 1997.
The average score was MINNESOTA 74.7, OPPONENT 73.5 - (Rating = 1*) | MINNESOTA is 28-17 against the money line (+12.4 Units) in road games after having won 6 or 7 of their last 8 games since 1997.
The average score was MINNESOTA 76.4, OPPONENT 74.9 - (Rating = 0*) | MINNESOTA is 39-13 against the money line (+15.6 Units) after scoring 70 points or more in 3 straight games over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.0, OPPONENT 74.2 - (Rating = 0*) | MINNESOTA is 34-11 against the money line (+17.8 Units) after scoring 70 points or more in 4 straight games over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 80.7, OPPONENT 74.3 - (Rating = 2*) | MINNESOTA is 29-9 against the money line (+14.8 Units) after scoring 70 points or more in 5 straight games over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 80.7, OPPONENT 74.2 - (Rating = 1*) | MINNESOTA is 11-1 against the money line (+10.0 Units) after scoring 77 points or more in 4 straight games over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 83.6, OPPONENT 75.7 - (Rating = 4*) | MINNESOTA is 53-28 against the money line (+16.5 Units) after scoring 45 points or more in the first half last game since 1997.
The average score was MINNESOTA 79.8, OPPONENT 75.7 - (Rating = 0*) | MINNESOTA is 29-16 against the money line (+15.9 Units) after a combined score of 150 points or more in 4 straight games since 1997.
The average score was MINNESOTA 80.3, OPPONENT 76.8 - (Rating = 1*) | MINNESOTA is 9-1 against the money line (+8.0 Units) after a combined score of 155 points or more in 3 straight games over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 80.8, OPPONENT 72.3 - (Rating = 2*) | MINNESOTA is 58-18 against the money line (+20.0 Units) after playing a game as favorite over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.3, OPPONENT 74.2 - (Rating = 0*) | MINNESOTA is 46-11 against the money line (+25.9 Units) after playing 3 consecutive games as favorite over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.4, OPPONENT 73.2 - (Rating = 3*) | MINNESOTA is 40-10 against the money line (+23.1 Units) after playing 4 consecutive games as favorite over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.2, OPPONENT 73.0 - (Rating = 2*) | MINNESOTA is 33-10 against the money line (+16.1 Units) after playing 5 consecutive games as favorite over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.2, OPPONENT 73.1 - (Rating = 1*) | TULSA is 6-22 against the money line (-16.7 Units) on Saturday games since 1997.
The average score was TULSA 75.6, OPPONENT 84.7 - (Rating = 1*) | TULSA is 14-40 against the money line (-21.9 Units) when playing 3 or less games in 10 days since 1997.
The average score was TULSA 74.0, OPPONENT 80.7 - (Rating = 0*) | TULSA is 6-22 against the money line (-17.2 Units) in home games after a game - allowing a shooting pct. of 50% or higher since 1997.
The average score was TULSA 76.4, OPPONENT 82.1 - (Rating = 2*) | TULSA is 2-13 against the money line (-11.9 Units) after failing to cover 4 of their last 5 against the spread since 1997.
The average score was TULSA 73.9, OPPONENT 84.4 - (Rating = 1*) | TULSA is 8-29 against the money line (-21.6 Units) in home games off a loss against a division rival since 1997.
The average score was TULSA 79.7, OPPONENT 86.5 - (Rating = 2*) | TULSA is 0-7 against the money line (-8.5 Units) in home games off a home loss over the last 2 seasons.
The average score was TULSA 74.6, OPPONENT 82.6 - (Rating = 0*) | TULSA is 18-37 against the money line (-18.2 Units) after allowing 75 points or more over the last 3 seasons.
The average score was TULSA 79.0, OPPONENT 81.2 - (Rating = 0*) | TULSA is 3-17 against the money line (-14.2 Units) after a game where they failed to cover the spread over the last 2 seasons.
The average score was TULSA 76.9, OPPONENT 84.2 - (Rating = 2*) |
|
|
MINNESOTA is 13-27 against the money line (-18.3 Units) after playing 3 consecutive home games since 1997.
The average score was MINNESOTA 73.0, OPPONENT 77.2 - (Rating = 1*) |
|
| | |
|
|
| All Games | 14-4 | -0.1 | 10-8 | 8-10 | 78.4 | 37.7 | 45.5% | 41.7 | 69.9 | 34.7 | 40.6% | 38.6 | | Road Games | 6-2 | +0.8 | 4-4 | 3-5 | 76.0 | 36.2 | 45.7% | 39.7 | 71.9 | 37.2 | 42.3% | 37.9 | | Last 5 Games | 4-1 | -0.6 | 3-2 | 3-2 | 81.6 | 36.6 | 43.7% | 43.4 | 72.4 | 33.4 | 42.4% | 39.8 | | Division Games | 10-2 | +2.1 | 7-5 | 4-8 | 76.5 | 37.2 | 46.9% | 40.1 | 67.2 | 35.1 | 39.4% | 37.1 |
|
| |
|
|
| Team Stats (All Games) | 78.4 | 37.7 | 30-66 | 45.5% | 4-12 | 35.2% | 14-17 | 82.7% | 42 | 9 | 18 | 16 | 7 | 13 | 5 | | vs opponents surrendering | 76.7 | 38.1 | 28-66 | 43.3% | 5-14 | 33.2% | 15-19 | 78.2% | 42 | 9 | 16 | 19 | 7 | 13 | 5 | | Team Stats (Road Games) | 76.0 | 36.2 | 29-63 | 45.7% | 3-11 | 28.7% | 15-18 | 84.4% | 40 | 8 | 17 | 17 | 8 | 13 | 4 | | Stats Against (All Games) | 69.9 | 34.7 | 27-66 | 40.6% | 6-18 | 32.3% | 11-13 | 82.5% | 39 | 7 | 16 | 18 | 6 | 13 | 3 | | vs opponents averaging | 75.3 | 37.6 | 28-66 | 42.1% | 5-16 | 33.0% | 15-18 | 79.8% | 41 | 8 | 16 | 19 | 7 | 13 | 4 | | Stats Against (Road Games) | 71.9 | 37.2 | 27-64 | 42.3% | 6-19 | 34.2% | 11-15 | 76.9% | 38 | 7 | 15 | 19 | 6 | 13 | 3 |
|
|
| |
|
|
| All Games | 10-9 | +2.2 | 10-7 | 7-12 | 77.5 | 41.4 | 38.3% | 45.3 | 75.6 | 36.5 | 43.8% | 41.4 | | Home Games | 6-3 | +2.4 | 4-4 | 2-7 | 78.9 | 43.4 | 39.1% | 45.7 | 72.2 | 33.0 | 42.3% | 37.7 | | Last 5 Games | 0-5 | -6.6 | 0-4 | 1-4 | 69.0 | 38.8 | 34.1% | 47.4 | 76.2 | 36.0 | 45.3% | 43.2 | | Division Games | 6-7 | -0.3 | 7-6 | 3-10 | 75.4 | 38.9 | 37.9% | 45.6 | 74.2 | 34.0 | 43.6% | 41.3 |
|
| |
|
|
| Team Stats (All Games) | 77.5 | 41.4 | 27-70 | 38.3% | 7-20 | 34.4% | 17-22 | 78.3% | 45 | 12 | 14 | 20 | 7 | 12 | 4 | | vs opponents surrendering | 74.9 | 37.6 | 28-66 | 42.3% | 5-15 | 32.8% | 14-18 | 78.6% | 41 | 9 | 16 | 19 | 7 | 13 | 4 | | Team Stats (Home Games) | 78.9 | 43.4 | 26-68 | 39.1% | 7-20 | 36.2% | 19-23 | 82.5% | 46 | 11 | 15 | 19 | 8 | 12 | 4 | | Stats Against (All Games) | 75.6 | 36.5 | 28-63 | 43.8% | 4-14 | 32.3% | 16-20 | 79.1% | 41 | 8 | 16 | 21 | 7 | 14 | 5 | | vs opponents averaging | 74.6 | 36.9 | 28-64 | 43.1% | 5-14 | 32.8% | 15-18 | 80.1% | 41 | 8 | 17 | 18 | 7 | 13 | 4 | | Stats Against (Home Games) | 72.2 | 33.0 | 26-61 | 42.3% | 5-14 | 34.4% | 16-18 | 84.8% | 38 | 7 | 15 | 22 | 7 | 14 | 6 |
|
| | Average power rating of opponents played: MINNESOTA 69.7, TULSA 70.8 |
| | |
|
|
| 6/25/2015 | @ SEATTLE | 76-73 | W | -600 | 29-64 | 45.3% | 40 | 14 | 28-62 | 45.2% | 36 | 17 | | 6/27/2015 | PHOENIX | 71-56 | W | -270 | 27-64 | 42.2% | 40 | 12 | 19-57 | 33.3% | 42 | 20 | | 7/3/2015 | SEATTLE | 82-57 | W | -950 | 33-64 | 51.6% | 42 | 13 | 24-62 | 38.7% | 28 | 12 | | 7/10/2015 | @ CHICAGO | 83-90 | L | -165 | 34-78 | 43.6% | 41 | 9 | 32-63 | 50.8% | 40 | 10 | | 7/12/2015 | SAN ANTONIO | 66-49 | W | | 29-70 | 41.4% | 44 | 10 | 20-69 | 29.0% | 49 | 13 | | 7/14/2015 | @ CONNECTICUT | 85-79 | W | -270 | 32-63 | 50.8% | 34 | 15 | 31-69 | 44.9% | 40 | 14 | | 7/17/2015 | CHICAGO | 84-66 | W | -210 | 33-74 | 44.6% | 46 | 10 | 26-73 | 35.6% | 47 | 12 | | 7/19/2015 | @ TULSA | 79-72 | W | -155 | 28-61 | 45.9% | 41 | 11 | 25-64 | 39.1% | 38 | 13 | | 7/22/2015 | CONNECTICUT | 77-78 | L | -360 | 29-75 | 38.7% | 50 | 16 | 30-72 | 41.7% | 42 | 15 | | 7/29/2015 | LOS ANGELES | 82-76 | W | -400 | 29-61 | 47.5% | 31 | 12 | 31-55 | 56.4% | 32 | 21 | | 7/31/2015 | ATLANTA | 86-70 | W | | 33-77 | 42.9% | 49 | 15 | 27-64 | 42.2% | 40 | 19 | | 8/1/2015 | @ TULSA | | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/4/2015 | @ LOS ANGELES | | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/7/2015 | @ PHOENIX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/9/2015 | LOS ANGELES | | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/11/2015 | SAN ANTONIO | | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/14/2015 | @ ATLANTA | | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/16/2015 | @ WASHINGTON | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
|
| |
|
|
| 6/26/2015 | NEW YORK | 71-62 | W | -450 | 21-62 | 33.9% | 34 | 13 | 22-52 | 42.3% | 44 | 26 | | 6/28/2015 | SEATTLE | 93-89 | W | -850 | 29-65 | 44.6% | 43 | 13 | 35-69 | 50.7% | 30 | 9 | | 6/30/2015 | @ SEATTLE | 69-74 | L | -140 | 23-65 | 35.4% | 43 | 10 | 29-62 | 46.8% | 42 | 9 | | 7/2/2015 | @ PHOENIX | 55-86 | L | +250 | 20-71 | 28.2% | 43 | 13 | 35-63 | 55.6% | 43 | 13 | | 7/3/2015 | @ LOS ANGELES | 95-98 | L | +180 | 32-71 | 45.1% | 40 | 10 | 33-63 | 52.4% | 41 | 9 | | 7/7/2015 | @ ATLANTA | 85-75 | W | +175 | 25-63 | 39.7% | 48 | 18 | 31-80 | 38.7% | 54 | 17 | | 7/11/2015 | LOS ANGELES | 82-67 | W | -210 | 26-69 | 37.7% | 41 | 5 | 24-61 | 39.3% | 42 | 13 | | 7/15/2015 | @ INDIANA | 80-83 | L | +135 | 30-75 | 40.0% | 48 | 12 | 28-61 | 45.9% | 50 | 13 | | 7/17/2015 | @ SAN ANTONIO | 58-65 | L | -200 | 21-68 | 30.9% | 45 | 11 | 21-55 | 38.2% | 54 | 15 | | 7/19/2015 | MINNESOTA | 72-79 | L | +135 | 25-64 | 39.1% | 38 | 13 | 28-61 | 45.9% | 41 | 11 | | 7/21/2015 | WASHINGTON | 69-76 | L | -165 | 23-73 | 31.5% | 60 | 14 | 25-56 | 44.6% | 31 | 8 | | 7/30/2015 | PHOENIX | 66-78 | L | +105 | 21-72 | 29.2% | 46 | 12 | 28-54 | 51.9% | 40 | 16 | | 8/1/2015 | MINNESOTA | | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/4/2015 | @ PHOENIX | | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/6/2015 | @ LOS ANGELES | | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/9/2015 | ATLANTA | | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/12/2015 | @ CONNECTICUT | | | | | | | | | | | | | 8/15/2015 | @ NEW YORK | | | | | | | | | | | |
|
| | |
| MINNESOTA is 26-12 (+12.4 Units) against the money line versus TULSA since 1997 |
| |
| MINNESOTA is 9-1 (+5.7 Units) against the money line versus TULSA over the last 3 seasons |
|
|
|
| |
| MINNESOTA is 13-8 (+7.7 Units) against the money line versus TULSA since 1997 |
| |
| MINNESOTA is 6-0 (+6.0 Units) against the money line versus TULSA over the last 3 seasons |
|
|
|
| |
|
7/19/2015 | MINNESOTA | 79 | -3 | SU ATS | 27 | 28-61 | 45.9% | 5-11 | 45.5% | 18-22 | 81.8% | 41 | 8 | 11 | | | TULSA | 72 | 152 | Under | 34 | 25-64 | 39.1% | 9-23 | 39.1% | 13-16 | 81.2% | 38 | 6 | 13 | 6/21/2015 | TULSA | 86 | 157.5 | SU ATS | 38 | 33-74 | 44.6% | 7-19 | 36.8% | 13-17 | 76.5% | 44 | 14 | 11 | | | MINNESOTA | 78 | -7.5 | Over | 38 | 30-60 | 50.0% | 2-10 | 20.0% | 16-17 | 94.1% | 32 | 8 | 16 | 6/5/2015 | TULSA | 75 | 162.5 | ATS | 44 | 28-79 | 35.4% | 7-24 | 29.2% | 12-12 | 100.0% | 38 | 9 | 6 | | | MINNESOTA | 83 | -10.5 | SU Under | 45 | 31-69 | 44.9% | 5-13 | 38.5% | 16-18 | 88.9% | 53 | 10 | 16 | 8/16/2014 | TULSA | 63 | 163 | Under | 43 | 23-73 | 31.5% | 6-26 | 23.1% | 11-13 | 84.6% | 44 | 13 | 15 | | | MINNESOTA | 80 | -7.5 | SU ATS | 37 | 30-75 | 40.0% | 2-9 | 22.2% | 18-25 | 72.0% | 60 | 18 | 11 | 8/2/2014 | MINNESOTA | 84 | -7 | SU ATS | 33 | 33-69 | 47.8% | 6-11 | 54.5% | 12-12 | 100.0% | 43 | 8 | 11 | | | TULSA | 75 | 166.5 | Under | 32 | 27-61 | 44.3% | 6-15 | 40.0% | 15-22 | 68.2% | 34 | 5 | 12 | 7/16/2014 | TULSA | 82 | 166.5 | Over | 39 | 27-66 | 40.9% | 4-17 | 23.5% | 24-28 | 85.7% | 44 | 13 | 16 | | | MINNESOTA | 93 | -8.5 | SU ATS | 40 | 34-70 | 48.6% | 2-10 | 20.0% | 23-27 | 85.2% | 39 | 8 | 8 | 7/10/2014 | MINNESOTA | 91 | -3 | SU ATS | 55 | 33-60 | 55.0% | 3-12 | 25.0% | 22-28 | 78.6% | 40 | 7 | 12 | | | TULSA | 85 | 164.5 | Over | 49 | 31-72 | 43.1% | 6-21 | 28.6% | 17-19 | 89.5% | 36 | 7 | 10 | 5/23/2014 | MINNESOTA | 94 | -6.5 | SU Over | 60 | 35-66 | 53.0% | 6-11 | 54.5% | 18-22 | 81.8% | 37 | 8 | 14 | | | TULSA | 93 | 161.5 | ATS | 48 | 32-67 | 47.8% | 9-23 | 39.1% | 20-27 | 74.1% | 40 | 7 | 10 |
|
| | |
|
Cheryl is 134-61 against the money line (+29.5 Units) in all games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.7, OPPONENT 75.8 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 112-35 against the money line (+20.9 Units) as a favorite as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.6, OPPONENT 74.3 - (Rating = 0*) | Cheryl is 52-21 against the money line (+25.0 Units) in August or September games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.0, OPPONENT 74.7 - (Rating = 3*) | Cheryl is 87-39 against the money line (+24.5 Units) vs. division opponents as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.2, OPPONENT 75.7 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 45-17 against the money line (+24.0 Units) after a non-conference game as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.9, OPPONENT 74.8 - (Rating = 3*) | Cheryl is 83-37 against the money line (+22.9 Units) when playing 5 or less games in 14 days as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.0, OPPONENT 75.7 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 30-11 against the money line (+17.2 Units) when playing their 3rd game in 5 days as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 80.4, OPPONENT 75.0 - (Rating = 3*) | Cheryl is 36-16 against the money line (+13.6 Units) after failing to cover 2 of their last 3 against the spread as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.1, OPPONENT 75.9 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 49-20 against the money line (+17.4 Units) after having won 2 of their last 3 games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.4, OPPONENT 74.3 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 57-21 against the money line (+16.2 Units) after having won 5 or 6 of their last 7 games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.0, OPPONENT 74.2 - (Rating = 0*) | Cheryl is 53-17 against the money line (+22.5 Units) after having won 6 or 7 of their last 8 games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.3, OPPONENT 74.2 - (Rating = 2*) | Cheryl is 36-9 against the money line (+15.8 Units) off an home win scoring 85 or more points as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 84.2, OPPONENT 77.3 - (Rating = 0*) | Cheryl is 60-20 against the money line (+23.7 Units) off a home win as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 83.4, OPPONENT 77.0 - (Rating = 2*) | Cheryl is 15-6 against the money line (+9.6 Units) in road games after 3 straight games where both teams scored 70 points or more as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 80.4, OPPONENT 76.7 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 68-29 against the money line (+16.2 Units) after scoring 70 points or more in 4 straight games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 80.2, OPPONENT 74.6 - (Rating = 0*) | Cheryl is 99-45 against the money line (+17.1 Units) after scoring 75 points or more as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 80.8, OPPONENT 75.3 - (Rating = 0*) | Cheryl is 44-16 against the money line (+14.0 Units) after scoring 75 points or more in 4 straight games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.2, OPPONENT 75.0 - (Rating = 0*) | Cheryl is 32-6 against the money line (+16.6 Units) after scoring 77 points or more in 4 straight games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 83.6, OPPONENT 75.0 - (Rating = 0*) | Cheryl is 77-34 against the money line (+15.3 Units) after scoring 80 points or more as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.0, OPPONENT 76.1 - (Rating = 0*) | Cheryl is 40-10 against the money line (+18.8 Units) after scoring 45 points or more in the first half last game as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.5, OPPONENT 73.6 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 20-4 against the money line (+16.8 Units) after a combined score of 150 points or more in 4 straight games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.5, OPPONENT 73.6 - (Rating = 5*) | Cheryl is 75-31 against the money line (+18.1 Units) after a combined score of 155 points or more as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.0, OPPONENT 75.1 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 21-5 against the money line (+12.7 Units) after a combined score of 155 points or more in 3 straight games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.9, OPPONENT 74.7 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 107-39 against the money line (+34.0 Units) after playing a game as favorite as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.4, OPPONENT 75.4 - (Rating = 2*) | Cheryl is 87-30 against the money line (+21.7 Units) after playing 2 consecutive games as favorite as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.7, OPPONENT 74.5 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 75-22 against the money line (+29.1 Units) after playing 3 consecutive games as favorite as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.8, OPPONENT 74.3 - (Rating = 2*) | Cheryl is 66-16 against the money line (+31.7 Units) after playing 4 consecutive games as favorite as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.7, OPPONENT 73.4 - (Rating = 3*) | Cheryl is 53-16 against the money line (+18.0 Units) after playing 5 consecutive games as favorite as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 83.1, OPPONENT 73.7 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 67-26 against the money line (+22.6 Units) after playing a game as a home favorite as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 83.6, OPPONENT 77.4 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 70-30 against the money line (+22.3 Units) after playing a home game as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 83.6, OPPONENT 77.8 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 97-38 against the money line (+26.3 Units) after 1 or more consecutive wins as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.8, OPPONENT 75.5 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 72-27 against the money line (+17.1 Units) after 2 or more consecutive wins as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.4, OPPONENT 75.2 - (Rating = 0*) | Cheryl is 20-6 against the money line (+11.8 Units) when playing against a marginal winning team (Win Pct. 51% to 60%) after 15+ games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 84.3, OPPONENT 75.6 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 55-27 against the money line (+17.4 Units) versus good 3 point shooting teams - making >=33% of their attempts after 15+ games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 80.1, OPPONENT 75.9 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 51-22 against the money line (+16.4 Units) versus teams who attempt 16 or more 3 point shots/game on the season after 15+ games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.0, OPPONENT 76.2 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 59-26 against the money line (+21.7 Units) versus teams who make 5 or more 3 point shots/game on the season after 15+ games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.7, OPPONENT 76.5 - (Rating = 2*) | Cheryl is 78-40 against the money line (+12.5 Units) versus teams who make 5 or more 3 point shots/game on the season as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.3, OPPONENT 75.9 - (Rating = 0*) | Cheryl is 70-31 against the money line (+23.6 Units) versus up-tempo teams averaging 62 or more shots/game after 15+ games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.2, OPPONENT 76.7 - (Rating = 2*) | Cheryl is 93-48 against the money line (+20.4 Units) versus up-tempo teams averaging 62 or more shots/game as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.1, OPPONENT 76.7 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 80-32 against the money line (+28.5 Units) versus poor foul drawing teams - attempting <=24 free throws/game after 15+ games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.9, OPPONENT 75.7 - (Rating = 2*) | Cheryl is 107-50 against the money line (+24.4 Units) versus poor foul drawing teams - attempting <=24 free throws/game as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.1, OPPONENT 75.1 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 36-15 against the money line (+12.6 Units) versus poor pressure defensive teams - forcing <=14 turnovers/game after 15+ games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.4, OPPONENT 75.6 - (Rating = 0*) | Cheryl is 74-30 against the money line (+29.2 Units) versus terrible defensive teams - allowing 73+ points/game after 15+ games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.9, OPPONENT 75.8 - (Rating = 2*) | Cheryl is 97-47 against the money line (+22.9 Units) versus terrible defensive teams - allowing 73+ points/game as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.8, OPPONENT 75.8 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 63-32 against the money line (+14.4 Units) versus explosive offensive teams - scoring 73+ points/game after 15+ games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 81.9, OPPONENT 77.9 - (Rating = 0*) | Cheryl is 50-26 against the money line (+14.3 Units) versus good offensive teams - scoring 77+ points/game after 15+ games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 82.9, OPPONENT 79.4 - (Rating = 1*) | Cheryl is 12-2 against the money line (+9.3 Units) versus excellent ball handling teams - committing <=12 turnovers/game after 15+ games as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 79.3, OPPONENT 74.7 - (Rating = 1*) | Fred is 2-8 against the money line (-9.7 Units) after a game - shooting 37% or lower, allowing 48% or higher in all games he has coached since 1997.
The average score was Fred 74.3, OPPONENT 82.0 - (Rating = 1*) | Fred is 14-25 against the money line (-17.9 Units) off a loss against a division rival in all games he has coached since 1997.
The average score was Fred 79.3, OPPONENT 82.1 - (Rating = 1*) | Fred is 0-7 against the money line (-8.5 Units) in home games off a home loss as the coach of TULSA.
The average score was TULSA 74.6, OPPONENT 82.6 - (Rating = 0*) | Fred is 3-17 against the money line (-14.2 Units) after a game where they failed to cover the spread as the coach of TULSA.
The average score was TULSA 76.9, OPPONENT 84.2 - (Rating = 2*) | Fred is 10-20 against the money line (-13.9 Units) after failing to cover the spread in 2 or more consecutive games in all games he has coached since 1997.
The average score was Fred 78.0, OPPONENT 81.3 - (Rating = 0*) | Fred is 22-42 against the money line (-33.0 Units) after 1 or more consecutive losses in all games he has coached since 1997.
The average score was Fred 77.5, OPPONENT 80.4 - (Rating = 2*) | Fred is 19-33 against the money line (-26.4 Units) versus up-tempo teams averaging 62 or more shots/game after 15+ games in all games he has coached since 1997.
The average score was Fred 76.7, OPPONENT 79.2 - (Rating = 2*) | Fred is 33-45 against the money line (-22.5 Units) versus up-tempo teams averaging 62 or more shots/game in all games he has coached since 1997.
The average score was Fred 77.9, OPPONENT 78.9 - (Rating = 0*) | Fred is 3-12 against the money line (-11.4 Units) vs. excellent free throw shooting teams - making >=80% of their shots after 15+ games in all games he has coached since 1997.
The average score was Fred 77.2, OPPONENT 82.3 - (Rating = 2*) | Fred is 8-23 against the money line (-15.9 Units) vs. excellent free throw shooting teams - making >=80% of their shots in all games he has coached since 1997.
The average score was Fred 76.3, OPPONENT 81.2 - (Rating = 1*) | Fred is 11-25 against the money line (-26.8 Units) versus poor pressure defensive teams - forcing <=14 turnovers/game after 15+ games in all games he has coached since 1997.
The average score was Fred 74.0, OPPONENT 77.3 - (Rating = 4*) | Fred is 22-36 against the money line (-27.1 Units) versus poor pressure defensive teams - forcing <=14 turnovers/game in all games he has coached since 1997.
The average score was Fred 75.9, OPPONENT 77.4 - (Rating = 2*) | Fred is 9-17 against the money line (-13.4 Units) versus teams who are called for 18 or less fouls/game after 15+ games in all games he has coached since 1997.
The average score was Fred 77.8, OPPONENT 80.5 - (Rating = 0*) | Fred is 12-26 against the money line (-19.8 Units) versus explosive offensive teams - scoring 73+ points/game after 15+ games in all games he has coached since 1997.
The average score was Fred 76.3, OPPONENT 80.2 - (Rating = 2*) | Fred is 21-41 against the money line (-24.4 Units) versus explosive offensive teams - scoring 73+ points/game in all games he has coached since 1997.
The average score was Fred 77.8, OPPONENT 81.4 - (Rating = 1*) | Fred is 5-18 against the money line (-14.2 Units) versus good offensive teams - scoring 77+ points/game after 15+ games in all games he has coached since 1997.
The average score was Fred 76.4, OPPONENT 83.5 - (Rating = 1*) |
|
|
Cheryl is 20-27 against the money line (-14.8 Units) in road games when playing against a team with a winning record as the coach of MINNESOTA.
The average score was MINNESOTA 78.1, OPPONENT 81.6 - (Rating = 1*) |
|
| | |
|
| Since 1997, the road favorite won the game straight up 48 times, while the home underdog won straight up 24 times. No Edge. | | Over the last 3 seasons, the road favorite won the game straight up 10 times, while the home underdog won straight up 5 times. No Edge. |
|
| | |
| [G] 07/31/2015 - Anna Cruz "?" Saturday vs. Tulsa Shock ( Ankle ) | | [G] 07/18/2015 - Seimone Augustus expected to miss a month ( Knee ) | |
| No significant injuries. |
|
|
| | Last Updated: 4/27/2024 11:55:22 PM EST. |
|
|
| |
|