This game · 143 FGA|Season model · 290 games · 39,575 shots
Seattle Storm won on finishing, not shot quality.

led the way with 26 points on 9-for-14 (64%), headlined by 3-for-4 from above the break — 6.6 more than expected overall.
- Chicago Sky created 3.3 more expected points from field-goal attempts.
- Seattle Storm outperformed expected value by 2.2 points on makes and misses.
- The game flipped in the fourth quarter — Chicago Sky created a +6.3 expected-point edge in Q4.
Shot quality
Shot diet
Chicago Sky got the cleaner diet — 42% rim or corner looks vs 27% for Seattle Storm.

bailed out the offense from the midrange — 4/6 from short midrange, a zone most players avoid for good reason.
This is where the shot diets diverged most — 38% of Chicago's attempts came from the rim vs 21% of Seattle's, with Chicago leaning on the higher-value zone (38% vs 21%).
This is where the shot diets diverged most — 38% of Chicago's attempts came from the rim vs 21% of Seattle's, with Chicago leaning on the higher-value zone (38% vs 21%).
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
Seattle Storm won by 17.8 pts — SQ edge said CHI.
Chicago Sky got the better looks, but Seattle Storm won the full process battle by 17.8 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 insightMalonga created in difficult areas and delivered — 75% from Above (3/4) well above the 37% baseline for that zone.
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 →





