This game · 128 FGA|Season model · 290 games · 39,575 shots
Portland Fire won by getting the better shots.
led the way with 22 points on 8-for-8 (100%), headlined by 7-for-7 in the interior — 9.2 more than expected overall.
- Portland Fire created 10.7 more expected points from field-goal attempts.
- Portland Fire outperformed expected value by 14.1 points on makes and misses.
- Q1 swung the look battle — Portland Fire built a +7.2 expected-point edge in that period.
Shot quality
Shot diet
Portland Fire (23% good looks) and Indiana Fever (26% good looks) ran comparable diets with small zone-by-zone differences.
carried the offense at the rim — 3/4 in the restricted area.
This is where the shot diets diverged most — 29% of Indiana's attempts came from the paint vs 36% of Portland's; Portland tilted here more (36% vs 29%).
This is where the shot diets diverged most — 29% of Indiana's attempts came from the paint vs 36% of Portland's; Portland tilted here more (36% vs 29%).
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
Portland Fire won by 17.0 pts
Portland Fire got the better looks, but Indiana Fever carried the process scorecard.
Indiana Fever won the free-throw line by 12 pts and the turnover battle by 6. Those stops never show up in expected pts per attempt.
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 insightCarleton lived in the midrange — 40% 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 →