This game · 135 FGA|Season model · 290 games · 39,575 shots
Indiana Fever won on finishing, not shot quality.

led the way with 15 points on 7-for-8 (88%), headlined by 3-for-3 in the paint — 5.7 more than expected overall with 63% of attempts from the rim or corner, with Caitlin Clark close behind (+4.8 on 26 points).
- Portland Fire created 3.3 more expected points from field-goal attempts.
- Indiana Fever outperformed expected value by 14.0 points on finishing.
- The game flipped in the fourth quarter — Portland Fire created a +7.9 expected-point edge in Q4.
Shot quality
Shot diet
Portland Fire got the cleaner diet — 51% rim or corner looks vs 31% for Indiana Fever.

carried the offense at the rim — 4/5 in the restricted area.
This is where the shot diets diverged most — 26% of Indiana's attempts came from the rim vs 34% of Portland's, with Portland leaning on the higher-value zone (34% vs 26%).
This is where the shot diets diverged most — 26% of Indiana's attempts came from the rim vs 34% of Portland's, with Portland leaning on the higher-value zone (34% vs 26%).
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 30.0 pts — SQ edge said POR.
Portland Fire got the better looks, but Indiana Fever won the full process battle by 30.0 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's strongest zone was Above — 71% from Above (5/7) vs. a 31% 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 →




