Utah Jazz at Golden State Warriors, NBA forecast
Win probability
Starts from the pregame forecast, then moves with every score and the time left. Above the line favors GS; hover for each play.
Game center
From the ESPN box score.
Top performers
- Keyonte GeorgePoints21
- Kenneth Lofton Jr.Assists6
- Omer YurtsevenRebounds18
- Klay ThompsonPoints25
- Jonathan KumingaAssists7
- Brandin PodziemskiRebounds9
Last plays
- Q40.0End of Game116–123
- Q40.0End of the 4th Quarter116–123
- Q414.0
Pat Spencer defensive rebound116–123 - Q416.1
Taylor Hendricks misses 22-foot three point shot116–123 - Q420.1
Omer Yurtseven defensive rebound116–123 - Q424.0
Lester Quinones misses 26-foot step back jumpshot116–123 - Q443.1
Pat Spencer defensive rebound116–123 - Q446.1
Usman Garuba blocks Omer Yurtseven 's 4-foot two point shot116–123 - Q449.1
Omer Yurtseven offensive rebound116–123 - Q449.1
Kira Lewis Jr. misses two point shot116–123
Turning points
The 5 plays that swung the win chance most, each judged at its own moment: the chance with the score just before it against just after.
- Q34:19
Moses Moody makes 11-foot pullup jump shot (Lester Quinones assists)UTAH 83 – 83 GS · GS 55% → 69% +14GS 55% → 69%+14 pts - Q44:10
Luka Samanic makes driving layupUTAH 113 – 113 GS · UTAH 27% → 40% +13UTAH 27% → 40%+13 pts - Q43:24
Jerome Robinson makes driving layup (Gui Santos assists)UTAH 114 – 117 GS · GS 66% → 79% +13GS 66% → 79%+13 pts - Q43:09
Kira Lewis Jr. makes 5-foot driving floating jump shotUTAH 116 – 117 GS · UTAH 20% → 34% +13UTAH 20% → 34%+13 pts - Q41:29
Jerome Robinson makes two point shot (Pat Spencer assists)UTAH 116 – 120 GS · GS 77% → 91% +14GS 77% → 91%+14 pts
The pick
Reconstructed from what was known before the game: the ratings at that point.
Warriors 80%
Forecast Elo ratings alone
How often that comes true: NBA favorites the forecast gave 75–80% have won 75.8% of 293 graded games.
- Market
- No line yet
- Pre-line forecast
- GS 80%
- Elo + market-implied
- Elo ratings
- GS -13
- GS 89%
- Fair odds
- GS -398
- UTAH +398 · the forecast as odds, no margin
- Pregame projection
- UTAH 111.8 – 122.3 GS
- Margin from the forecast, total from team scoring ratings
How the number is built
Elo inputs in rating points (higher favors that team; 25–28 Elo is about a point of spread in football and basketball), then how the pieces combine.
| Factor | UTAH | GS | Why |
|---|---|---|---|
| Team rating | 1365 | 1602 | Elo entering the game; 1500 is league average |
| Home field | — | +36 | Worth 36 Elo in the NBA |
| Lineups | −95 | −12 | UTAH: Weaker than its recent lineups · GS: Weaker than its recent lineups (from the box score) |
| Elo ratings | GS +357 Elo | GS 88.7% | |
| Market-implied ratings | GS 78.7% | Team strength as past closing lines priced it, same game context | |
| Pre-line forecast | GS 79.9% | 10% Elo, 90% market-implied (log-odds blend) | |
Tale of the tape
This season coming into the game, regular season, each number with its league rank (the longer the bar, the higher). Home and road: the host's record at home against the visitor's on the road. Offense and defense are points per 100 possessions, which sets aside how fast a team plays.
| UTAH | Stat | |
|---|---|---|
| 12th of 30115.7 | Points scored | 117.78th of 30 |
| 29th of 30120.5 | Points allowed | 115.117th of 30 |
| 23rd of 30−4.9 | Margin | +2.613th of 30 |
| 18th of 30113.2 | Offense rating | 115.510th of 30 |
| 29th of 30118.0 | Defense rating | 113.014th of 30 |
| 8th of 30101.5 | Pace | 101.012th of 30 |
| 26th of 302–8 | Last 10 | 8–21st of 30 |
| 25th of 3010–30 | Road vs home | 20–2021st of 30 |
Who's playing
Who sat out, from the box score, and what each absence cost against the lineups the team had been playing.
Jazz
−95 EloFull strength: nobody who matters sat out.
Warriors
−12 EloFull strength: nobody who matters sat out.
Rating history
Each team's Elo over the last two seasons. Hover or drag to compare on any date.
Recent form
Last five results, and whether the forecast hit.
Head to head
UTAH 0–3 GS in their last 3 meetings; the forecast called 1 of 3.



