This game · 131 FGA|Season model · 290 games · 39,575 shots
Portland Fire won by getting the better shots.

led the way with 12 points on 5-for-6 (83%), headlined by 4-for-5 at the rim — 3.4 more than expected overall with 83% of attempts from the rim or corner, with Sarah Ashlee Barker close behind (+2.4 on 10 points).
- Portland Fire created 5.8 more expected points from field-goal attempts.
- Both teams finished below expectation — Portland Fire held up better (1.2 pts below expected).
- Q1 swung the look battle — Portland Fire built a +4.9 expected-point edge in that period.
Shot quality
Shot diet
Washington Mystics (30% good looks) and Portland Fire (33% good looks) ran comparable diets with small zone-by-zone differences.

carried the offense at the rim — 4/5 in the restricted area.
This is where the shot diets diverged most — 40% of Portland's attempts came from above-arc threes vs 27% of Washington's; Portland tilted here more (40% vs 27%).
This is where the shot diets diverged most — 40% of Portland's attempts came from above-arc threes vs 27% of Washington's; Portland tilted here more (40% vs 27%).
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 19.5 pts
Portland Fire got the better looks, but Washington Mystics carried the process scorecard.
Washington Mystics won the free-throw line by 9 pts and the turnover battle by 9. 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 insightAustin's strongest zone was Rim — 80% from Rim (4/5) vs. a 61% 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 →




