This game · 122 FGA|Season model · 290 games · 39,575 shots
Las Vegas Aces won on finishing, not shot quality.

led the way with 19 points on 8-for-11 (73%), headlined by 4-for-4 from short midrange — 8.2 more than expected overall on a night most other looks were tougher.
- Portland Fire created 0.4 more expected points from field-goal attempts.
- Las Vegas Aces outperformed expected value by 9.6 points on finishing.
- Q2 swung the look battle — Portland Fire built a +5.6 expected-point edge in that period.
Shot quality
Shot diet
Las Vegas Aces lived in the midrange (28%) while Portland Fire was at 8% — a cleaner profile for Portland Fire.

bailed out the offense from the midrange — 4/4 from short midrange, a zone most players avoid for good reason.
This is where the shot diets diverged most — 25% of Las Vegas's attempts came from above-arc threes vs 46% of Portland's; Portland tilted here more (46% vs 25%).
This is where the shot diets diverged most — 25% of Las Vegas's attempts came from above-arc threes vs 46% of Portland's; Portland tilted here more (46% vs 25%).
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
Las Vegas Aces won by 10.9 pts — SQ edge said POR.
Portland Fire got the better looks, but Las Vegas Aces won the full process battle by 10.9 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 insightCarleton went 3/10 (30% FG), -1.1 vs expected — 0% from the rim or corner.
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 →








