This game · 140 FGA|Season model · 357 games · 48,742 shots
Portland Fire won by getting the better shots.
led the way with 26 points on 9-for-21 (43%), headlined by 3-for-3 from the corner — 2.5 more than expected overall on a night most other looks were tougher, with Player 4433293 close behind (+2.3 on 11 points).
- Portland Fire created 7.3 more expected points from field-goal attempts.
- Both teams finished close to expectation on makes and misses.
- Q2 swung the look battle — Portland Fire built a +10.1 expected-point edge in that period.
Shot quality
Shot diet
Golden State Valkyries lived in the midrange (27%) while Portland Fire was at 15% — a cleaner profile for Portland Fire.
found the right spots — 3 attempts from the corner — but couldn't convert, going 1/3.
This is where the shot diets diverged most — 33% of Golden State's attempts came from above-arc threes vs 38% of Portland's; Portland tilted here more (38% vs 33%).
This is where the shot diets diverged most — 33% of Golden State's attempts came from above-arc threes vs 38% of Portland's; Portland tilted here more (38% vs 33%).
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 12.1 pts
Portland Fire 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 Cor 3 — 100% from Cor 3 (3/3) vs. a 45% 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 →