This game · 140 FGA|Season model · 290 games · 39,575 shots
Minnesota Lynx won on finishing, not shot quality.

led the way with 16 points on 6-for-12 (50%), headlined by 2-for-2 from the corner — 3.4 more than expected overall (42% from the rim or corner), with Nia Coffey close behind (+3.7 on 8 points, 4-for-4 on tough looks).
- Toronto Tempo created 1.7 more expected points from field-goal attempts.
- Minnesota Lynx outperformed expected value by 11.8 points on makes and misses.
- Toronto Tempo created volume from above the break (49%) without the same value as rim or corner looks.
Shot quality
Shot diet
Minnesota Lynx got the cleaner diet — 54% rim or corner looks vs 34% for Toronto Tempo.

carried the offense at the rim — 4/4 in the restricted area.
This is where the shot diets diverged most — 49% of Toronto's attempts came from above-arc threes vs 22% of Minnesota's; Toronto tilted here more (49% vs 22%).

This is where the shot diets diverged most — 49% of Toronto's attempts came from above-arc threes vs 22% of Minnesota's; Toronto tilted here more (49% vs 22%).
Possession context

MIN ran more early offense in this game.
Minnesota Lynx got 32% of FGA in transition (1.04 expected pts/att) vs 17% for Toronto Tempo (0.96 expected pts/att).
Inferred from ESPN play-by-play — transition, steals, and offensive rebounds before each FGA. Not official possession tracking.
Process scorecard

Full process edge
Minnesota Lynx won by 40.3 pts — SQ edge said TOR.
Toronto Tempo got the better looks, but Minnesota Lynx won the full process battle by 40.3 pts.
Process edge blends expected points from shots, finishing, free throws, turnover cost, and second-chance value — not just who found the better offense.
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 insightWilliams lived in the midrange — 47% of attempts from tough spots, dragging shot quality down.
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 →




