The Hoop Ledger 2026-27 season
← Forecasts for Oct 21

2026-27 · Regular Season · Final

Utah Jazz at Memphis Grizzlies

Wednesday, October 21, 2026 · tip-off 8:00 PM ET

UTA 0–0@MEM 0–0 records going into the game NBA.com recap ↗

Win probability as a share of the court: UTA 36 percent, MEM 64 percent. UTA Jazz 36% proj. 122 · final 103 MEM Grizzlies · home 64% proj. 127 · final 123
Each team's share of the floor is its pregame win probability. The line starts at midcourt and moves to the split.

Forecast and result

TeamProjectedFinalDifference
UTA Utah Jazz 122 103 −19
MEM Memphis Grizzlies (home) 127 123 −4

Forecast: Memphis Grizzlies to win, 64% win probability, projected margin 5.

Inside the Forecast

How the inputs are built

Why the model leans MEM

  • Home court+2.1 MEMWhat the model gives the home team on an average night.
  • Recent form+2.9 MEMLast 10 games, per 100 possessions: MEM scores 108.7 and allows 128.1; UTA scores 108.5 and allows 122.8.
  • Team strength+0.7 UTAElo MEM 1330, UTA 1337; season margin MEM −6.1, UTA −8.4.

Together: MEM by 5, a 64% chance. Smaller inputs make up the rest; the chart below has all of them.

Team-by-team notes from the box scores

MEM hasn't played this season yet; last season they were a −6 team. Their offense rebounds 13% of its own misses (league 26%), which alone costs about 6 points per 100 possessions. Their offense is below average at everything: shooting, turnovers, rebounding and free throws. Their defense lets opponents rebound 54% of their misses (league 26%), which alone costs about 13 points per 100 possessions. Smaller factors: shooting defense −9.

UTA hasn't played this season yet; last season they were a −8 team. Their offense makes 15 free throws per 100 shots (league 21), which alone costs about 1.8 points per 100 possessions. Smaller factors: shooting −1.4. Their defense lets opponents shoot 60% eFG against a 55% league average, which alone costs about 8 points per 100 possessions. Smaller factors: defensive rebounding −1.1.

Written from the numbers in Built from the box scores, using only values that rebuild exactly.

How the projected margin was built

Points of home margin. Right of zero favors MEM; left favors UTA.

Projected margin built from a baseline of +2.1 plus Recent form +2.9, Team strength −0.7, No playoff context +0.3, Rest and schedule +0.3, Player availability −0.0, giving +4.8 for MEM. -8-40+4+8 Model baseline +2.1 Recent form +2.9 Team strength −0.7 No playoff context +0.3 Rest and schedule +0.3 Player availability −0.0 Projected margin +4.8
Baseline +2.1 plus the bars equals the projected margin +4.8. The 64% win probability comes from a separate curve on that margin. This shows how the model used its inputs, not what will decide the game. How it's calculated
Every input the model received, with its effect
InputUTAMEMEffect, pts
Elo ratingMargin-of-victory Elo; 1500 is average. 13371330 −0.6
Elo gap, home minus road, incl. home court +63 +0.2
Season scoring marginPoints per game, blended with last season early in the year. −8.4−6.1 +1.1
Games played this season 00 −1.5
Offensive rating, last 10Points scored per 100 possessions. 108.5108.7 +0.2
Defensive rating, last 10Points allowed per 100 possessions; lower is better. 122.8128.1 +3.5
Combined pace, last 10Possessions per game, both teams. 106.1 −0.7
Rotation points missingPoints per game of rotation players listed Out or Doubtful. 0.00.0 −0.0
Rest days 55 +0.2
Second night of a back-to-back NoNo +0.0
All 21 raw inputs, in points for each team
InputValueMEM ptsUTA ptsMargin
Defensive rating, last 10 (home)128.1+4.65+2.83+1.82
Season scoring margin (away)-8.4+0.93−0.83+1.76
Defensive rating, last 10 (away)122.8+1.64±0.00+1.64
Games played (away)0.0+0.20+1.57−1.36
Elo rating (home)1329.6−0.10+0.76−0.86
Combined pace, last 10106.1+5.27+5.95−0.68
Rotation points missing (away)0.0−0.15+0.51−0.66
Rotation points missing (home)0.0+0.64−0.01+0.65
Season scoring margin (home)-6.1−0.44+0.20−0.64
Offensive rating, last 10 (away)108.5−0.19−0.77+0.58
Rest days (home)5.0+0.35−0.10+0.45
Offensive rating, last 10 (home)108.7−0.63−0.21−0.41
Elo rating (away)1336.5+0.00−0.28+0.28
Home series wins0.0+0.28+0.03+0.25
Rest days (away)5.0−0.23−0.02−0.22
Elo gap incl. home court63.1−0.69−0.91+0.22
Games played (home)0.0+0.82+0.97−0.14
Series pressure0.0+0.04+0.01+0.03
Back-to-back (home)0+0.01−0.01+0.03
Elimination game0±0.00−0.01+0.01
Back-to-back (away)0±0.00±0.00±0.00
Baseline (average output)114.4112.4+2.10

Built from the box scores

How the breakdowns work

Where each input came from. Open a row to see the games and box-score stats behind it. A breakdown is shown only when rebuilding it from the stored stats gives exactly the number the model received.

Elo ratingUTA1337MEM13300.4 pts toward UTA

Updated after every game from the final score only: wins, losses and margin. Each season starts by keeping 75% of last season's distance from the 1500 average.

UTA1337

1500
  1. Ended last season at 1282 → started this one at 1337
  2. No games played yet this season.

MEM1330

1500
  1. Ended last season at 1273 → started this one at 1330
  2. No games played yet this season.
Season scoring marginUTA−8.4MEM−6.10.4 pts toward UTA

Points scored minus points allowed per game this season, mixed with last season's margin until 20 games are played.

UTA−8.4

No games played yet this season.

0% this season (±0.0) + 100% last season (−8.4) = −8.4

MEM−6.1

No games played yet this season.

0% this season (±0.0) + 100% last season (−6.1) = −6.1

Offensive rating, last 10UTA108.5MEM108.70.2 pts toward MEM

Points scored per 100 possessions. Split into the four factors: right of center helps the team, left hurts, in points per 100 possessions compared with the league average (2025-26: 114.6).

UTA108.5scored, −6.1 vs league

FactorUTALeaguehurtshelpsPts
Shooting (eFG%)53.6%54.5%−1.4
Turnovers (TOV%)11.8%12.2%+0.6
Offensive rebounding (OREB%)25.9%26.1%−0.1
Free throws (FTM per FGA)0.1490.210−1.8
Everything else−3.4

MEM108.7scored, −5.9 vs league

FactorMEMLeaguehurtshelpsPts
Shooting (eFG%)53.0%54.5%−2.3
Turnovers (TOV%)12.7%12.2%−0.7
Offensive rebounding (OREB%)13.1%26.1%−5.8
Free throws (FTM per FGA)0.1730.210−1.1
Everything else+3.9
Defensive rating, last 10UTA122.8MEM128.13.5 pts toward MEM

Points allowed per 100 possessions, built from what opponents did in those games. Bars point right when the defense held opponents below average. Split into the four factors: right of center helps the team, left hurts, in points per 100 possessions compared with the league average (2025-26: 114.6).

UTA122.8allowed, +8.2 vs league

FactorOpponentsLeaguehurtshelpsPts
Shooting (eFG%)59.6%54.5%−7.6
Turnovers (TOV%)11.8%12.2%−0.6
Offensive rebounding (OREB%)28.4%26.1%−1.1
Free throws (FTM per FGA)0.1910.210+0.5
Everything else+0.5

MEM128.1allowed, +13.5 vs league

FactorOpponentsLeaguehurtshelpsPts
Shooting (eFG%)60.6%54.5%−9.2
Turnovers (TOV%)12.6%12.2%+0.6
Offensive rebounding (OREB%)54.2%26.1%−12.6
Free throws (FTM per FGA)0.2170.210−0.2
Everything else+7.8
Pace, last 10average 106.10.7 pts toward UTA

Possessions per 48 minutes. The model uses the average of the two teams. Faster games mean more points for both sides, so pace mostly moves the projected total, not the margin.

UTA 108.8 and MEM 103.3 → average 106.1 (league 2025-26: 100.0)

Rotation points missingUTA0.0MEM0.0no effect on the margin

Points per game of rotation players (two or more of the last 10 games this season, 15+ minutes) listed Out or Doubtful on the official injury report.

UTA0.0pts/g missing

Every rotation player was available.

Source: official injury report, 2026-10-21 17:30 ET. 0 rotation players.

MEM0.0pts/g missing

Every rotation player was available.

Source: official injury report, 2026-10-21 17:30 ET. 0 rotation players.

RestUTA5 daysMEM5 days0.3 pts toward MEM

Days since the team's previous game, capped at 5. One day means the second night of a back-to-back.

UTA5days

Last played Apr 12 against LAL (192 days, capped at 5).

MEM5days

Last played Apr 12 against HOU (192 days, capped at 5).

The last 10 games behind these numbers, box-score totals

UTA

DateOppScoreFG3PFTTOVOREBOffDefPace
Apr 12@LAL107–13141-947-3418-271614101.9123.6105.5
Apr 10MEM147–10162-11015-358-17168121.583.5121.0
Apr 7@NOP137–15653-10410-3221-24167112.3127.9122.0
Apr 5@OKC111–14643-10014-3911-151614101.8136.4108.0
Apr 3@HOU106–14043-965-2715-221317102.9138.6102.0
Apr 1DEN117–13044-9512-3717-251210109.3121.5107.0
Mar 30CLE113–12242-8815-2914-20158110.8119.6102.0
Mar 28@PHX109–13443-9210-2313-191410103.8127.6105.0
Mar 27@DEN129–13553-959-3314-19108121.7128.6105.5
Mar 25WAS110–13345-967-2913-25141099.1120.9110.5

MEM

DateOppScoreFG3PFTTOVOREBOffDefPace
Apr 12@HOU101–13239-9513-4910-1013398.1128.2103.0
Apr 10@UTA101–14741-10911-528-919483.5121.5121.0
Apr 8@DEN119–13642-9219-5016-2363119.0136.0100.0
Apr 6CLE126–14245-9429-597-10133122.3137.9103.0
Apr 5@MIL115–13138-9217-4622-28149112.7129.7101.5
Apr 3TOR96–12834-8511-4217-2620893.2125.5102.5
Apr 1NYK119–13039-7616-3625-30133126.6136.894.5
Mar 30PHX105–13138-7511-3018-20224106.1132.399.0
Mar 28CHI125–12450-10712-3813-17148112.6110.7111.5
Mar 27HOU109–11940-9113-3716-18119112.4122.797.0

Off and Def are points scored and allowed per 100 possessions in each game; their averages are the 10-game ratings above. OREB is missing (–) where the source data didn't record it.

The result against the forecast

2026-27 surprise games
64%
pregame chance the forecast gave MEM, the winner
MEM was the forecast favorite
15 pts
margin miss
forecast +5, actual +20 for MEM
85th
most surprising result of 2026-27
of 146 graded games so far
42nd
largest margin miss of 2026-27
outcome surprise 0.44 nats

Surprise is measured against this model's forecast, not against what other observers expected. Outcome surprise is −ln(winner's pregame probability): 0.69 for a coin flip, 2.3 for a 10% winner.

Team box score

What happened in the game. These numbers are not used by the forecast, and they are not offered as the reason it missed.

Team statUTAMEM
Final score103123
Field goals35–75 · 46.7%44–93 · 47.3%
Three-pointers11–32 · 34.4%13–34 · 38.2%
Free throws22–33 · 66.7%22–28 · 78.6%
Rebounds3855
Assists2523
Turnovers1813
Steals98
Blocks127

How the model does with these teams over time: Utah Jazz · Memphis Grizzlies

Where the forecast differed from the result

MeasureForecastActualActual − forecast
Home margin (MEM)+5+20+15
Total points249226−23
UTA points122103−19
MEM points127123−4

Recent form before this game

Utah Jazz

DateOpponentResult
Apr 12 at LAL L 107–131
Apr 10 vs MEM W 147–101
Apr 7 at NOP L 137–156
Apr 5 at OKC L 111–146
Apr 3 at HOU L 106–140

Memphis Grizzlies

DateOpponentResult
Apr 12 at HOU L 101–132
Apr 10 at UTA L 101–147
Apr 8 at DEN L 119–136
Apr 6 vs CLE L 126–142
Apr 5 at MIL L 115–131

Previous meetings

DateMatchupScore
Apr 10 2025-26 MEM at UTA MEM 101 – 147 UTA
Feb 20 2025-26 UTA at MEM UTA 114 – 123 MEM
Dec 23 2025-26 MEM at UTA MEM 137 – 128 UTA
Dec 12 2025-26 UTA at MEM UTA 130 – 126 MEM
Mar 25 2024-25 MEM at UTA MEM 140 – 103 UTA