This game · 124 FGA|Season model · 290 games · 39,575 shots
Indiana Fever won by getting the better shots.
made every look count with 16 points on 4-for-4 (100%), headlined by 3-for-3 from the corner — 7.3 more than expected overall with 75% of attempts from the rim or corner.
- Indiana Fever created 5.0 more expected points from field-goal attempts.
- Both teams finished below expectation — Indiana Fever held up better (3.9 pts below expected).
- Q2 swung the look battle — Indiana Fever built a +8.4 expected-point edge in that period.
Shot quality
Shot diet
Indiana Fever (53% good looks) and Portland Fire (48% good looks) ran comparable diets with small zone-by-zone differences.
carried the offense at the rim — 5/5 in the restricted area.
This is where the shot diets diverged most — 19% of Portland's attempts came from above-arc threes vs 32% of Indiana's; Indiana tilted here more (32% vs 19%).
This is where the shot diets diverged most — 19% of Portland's attempts came from above-arc threes vs 32% of Indiana's; Indiana tilted here more (32% vs 19%).
Possession context
Inferred from ESPN play-by-play — transition, steals, and offensive rebounds before each FGA. Not official possession tracking.
Process scorecard
Full process edge
Indiana Fever won by 25.1 pts
Indiana Fever won 2 of 3 process categories outside the shot log.
Free throws, turnovers, and offensive rebounds come from ESPN box scores — complementary to FGA-only shot quality above.
Tracked FGA
ESPN box score
Process value (pts)
Process total = expected pts from shots + finishing + free throws − turnover cost + second-chance value (1.05 expected pts per OReb). SQ edge alone ignores the last three terms.
Player shots
Key insightJohnson's strongest zone was Rim — 100% from Rim (2/2) vs. a 59% expectation.
Expected value is an estimate from public shot data — location, shooter history, and shot clock. No defender distance, closeout speed, spacing, or proprietary tracking.
Learn how it works →