This game · 164 FGA|Season model · 290 games · 39,575 shots
Indiana Fever won by getting the better shots.
scored with 4 points on 2-for-3 (67%) — 1.2 more than expected.
- Indiana Fever created 15.7 more expected points from field-goal attempts.
- Both teams finished below expectation — Chicago Sky held up better (3.6 pts below expected).
- The game flipped in the fourth quarter — Indiana Fever created a +4.1 expected-point edge in Q4.
Shot quality
Shot diet
Indiana Fever got the cleaner diet — 62% rim or corner looks vs 47% for Chicago Sky.
carried the offense at the rim — 6/8 in the restricted area.
This is where the shot diets diverged most — 44% of Chicago's attempts came from the rim vs 51% of Indiana's, with Indiana leaning on the higher-value zone (51% vs 44%).
This is where the shot diets diverged most — 44% of Chicago's attempts came from the rim vs 51% of Indiana's, with Indiana leaning on the higher-value zone (51% vs 44%).
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 23.3 pts
Chicago Sky 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 insightBoston found the right spots (58% from the rim or corner) but couldn't finish — +0.0 below expected on those looks.
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 →