This game · 137 FGA|Season model · 290 games · 39,575 shots
Dallas Wings won by getting the better shots.
led the way with 24 points on 8-for-12 (67%), headlined by 3-for-3 from long midrange — 8.1 more than expected overall on a night most other looks were tougher.
- Dallas Wings created 9.4 more expected points from field-goal attempts.
- Portland Fire outperformed expected value by 22.5 points on finishing.
- Q3 swung the look battle — Dallas Wings built a +8.9 expected-point edge in that period.
Shot quality
Shot diet
Dallas Wings lived in the midrange (35%) while Portland Fire was at 18% — a cleaner profile for Portland Fire.
bailed out the offense from the midrange — 3/3 from long midrange, a zone most players avoid for good reason.
This is where the shot diets diverged most — 14% of Dallas's attempts came from the paint vs 28% of Portland's; Portland tilted here more (28% vs 14%).
This is where the shot diets diverged most — 14% of Dallas's attempts came from the paint vs 28% of Portland's; Portland tilted here more (28% vs 14%).
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 1.7 pts — SQ edge said DAL.
Dallas Wings 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 insightCarleton's strongest zone was L.Mid — 50% from L.Mid (2/4) vs. a 37% 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 →