Golden State Valkyries
GSV32-12 · +9.2 net
half-courtlow-mistakesecond chancesdefensive backbone
Pace
0%
Shot profile
21%
Rim / FT
14%
Ball care
93%
Glass
86%
Defense
81%
Best read
ball security + glass
Scout note
pace lags
2026-27 · Regular season · public analysis
Scout Lab
A public-facing workbench for how teams and players actually play: style fingerprints, identity maps, and watchlists built from descriptive stats only.
No projections
15
team fingerprints
Fastest identity
Indiana Fever
tempo · shot quality · paint / FT pressure
Cleanest shot profile
Indiana Fever
tempo · shot quality · paint / FT pressure
Most defensive friction
Golden State Valkyries
half-court · low-mistake · second chances · defensive backbone
Best glass pressure
Atlanta Dream
tempo · paint / FT pressure · second chances · defensive backbone
Team identity map
Pace vs shot profile
Dots are teams. X-axis is tempo percentile, Y-axis is offensive shot-profile percentile, and bubble size/color tracks net rating.
Scout shorthand
Identity cards
The labels are intentionally descriptive: they are not predictions, just a quick read of what each team has put on tape statistically.
| Team | Style tags | Net | Scout note |
|---|---|---|---|
| GSV | half-court · low-mistake · second chances | +9.2 | ball security + glass |
| MIN | shot quality · second chances | +8.6 | shot diet + glass |
| ATL | tempo · paint / FT pressure · second chances | +8.4 | glass + rim/FT pressure |
| IND | tempo · shot quality · paint / FT pressure | +6.8 | pace + shot diet |
| LVA | half-court · shot quality · low-mistake | +6.8 | shot diet + ball security |
| DAL | low-mistake | +4.9 | ball security + shot diet |
| NYL | shot quality | +3.7 | shot diet + glass |
| WAS | paint / FT pressure · second chances | +1.1 | rim/FT pressure + glass |
| PHX | paint / FT pressure | -3.9 | rim/FT pressure + ball security |
| CHI | tempo · low-mistake | -4.4 | pace + ball security |
| LAS | tempo | -5.0 | pace + shot diet |
| PDX | balanced | -5.9 | pace + shot diet |
| SEA | half-court | -8.0 | defense + glass |
| TOR | balanced | -11.1 | pace + rim/FT pressure |
| CON | balanced | -11.5 | glass + rim/FT pressure |
Team fingerprints
Style cards
Minnesota Lynx
MIN33-11 · +8.6 net
shot qualitysecond chances
Pace
64%
Shot profile
86%
Rim / FT
0%
Ball care
64%
Glass
86%
Defense
64%
Best read
shot diet + glass
Scout note
rim/FT pressure lags
Atlanta Dream
ATL30-14 · +8.4 net
tempopaint / FT pressuresecond chancesdefensive backbone
Pace
79%
Shot profile
50%
Rim / FT
86%
Ball care
64%
Glass
100%
Defense
76%
Best read
glass + rim/FT pressure
Scout note
shot diet lags
Indiana Fever
IND28-16 · +6.8 net
temposhot qualitypaint / FT pressure
Pace
100%
Shot profile
100%
Rim / FT
79%
Ball care
50%
Glass
50%
Defense
45%
Best read
pace + shot diet
Scout note
defense lags
Las Vegas Aces
LVA31-13 · +6.8 net
half-courtshot qualitylow-mistake
Pace
7%
Shot profile
93%
Rim / FT
43%
Ball care
86%
Glass
0%
Defense
60%
Best read
shot diet + ball security
Scout note
glass lags
Dallas Wings
DAL27-17 · +4.9 net
low-mistake
Pace
29%
Shot profile
71%
Rim / FT
7%
Ball care
100%
Glass
57%
Defense
50%
Best read
ball security + shot diet
Scout note
rim/FT pressure lags
New York Liberty
NYL26-18 · +3.7 net
shot quality
Pace
50%
Shot profile
79%
Rim / FT
57%
Ball care
21%
Glass
71%
Defense
48%
Best read
shot diet + glass
Scout note
ball security lags
Washington Mystics
WAS28-16 · +1.1 net
paint / FT pressuresecond chances
Pace
29%
Shot profile
29%
Rim / FT
100%
Ball care
0%
Glass
93%
Defense
67%
Best read
rim/FT pressure + glass
Scout note
ball security lags
Phoenix Mercury
PHX16-28 · -3.9 net
paint / FT pressure
Pace
36%
Shot profile
43%
Rim / FT
93%
Ball care
57%
Glass
21%
Defense
43%
Best read
rim/FT pressure + ball security
Scout note
glass lags
Chicago Sky
CHI16-28 · -4.4 net
tempolow-mistake
Pace
100%
Shot profile
14%
Rim / FT
71%
Ball care
79%
Glass
7%
Defense
43%
Best read
pace + ball security
Scout note
glass lags
Los Angeles Sparks
LAS16-28 · -5.0 net
tempo
Pace
86%
Shot profile
71%
Rim / FT
36%
Ball care
29%
Glass
21%
Defense
31%
Best read
pace + shot diet
Scout note
glass lags
Portland Fire
PDX17-27 · -5.9 net
balanced
Pace
57%
Shot profile
57%
Rim / FT
29%
Ball care
7%
Glass
29%
Defense
31%
Best read
pace + shot diet
Scout note
ball security lags
Seattle Storm
SEA8-36 · -8.0 net
half-court
Pace
14%
Shot profile
7%
Rim / FT
21%
Ball care
14%
Glass
36%
Defense
52%
Best read
defense + glass
Scout note
shot diet lags
Toronto Tempo
TOR11-33 · -11.1 net
balanced
Pace
71%
Shot profile
43%
Rim / FT
64%
Ball care
43%
Glass
43%
Defense
7%
Best read
pace + rim/FT pressure
Scout note
defense lags
Connecticut Sun
CON11-33 · -11.5 net
balanced
Pace
43%
Shot profile
0%
Rim / FT
50%
Ball care
29%
Glass
64%
Defense
50%
Best read
glass + rim/FT pressure
Scout note
shot diet lags
Player scouting queues
League-wide public watchlists
These are descriptive leaderboards for analyst browsing. Minimum 15 MPG and 3 games to keep the tiny-sample goblins mostly outside.
Player watchlist
Advantage creators
Usage, assist involvement, self-created makes, and scoring efficiency.
#1
Caitlin Clark
IND · G · 31.1 MPG
USG
31.9%
AST%
40.6%
Self
68.8%
#2
Carla Leite
PDX · G · 26.1 MPG
USG
28.2%
AST%
39.1%
Self
72.7%
#3
Kelsey Plum
PHX · G · 30.6 MPG
USG
28.3%
AST%
17.6%
Self
59.5%
#4
Olivia Miles
MIN · G · 31.0 MPG
USG
27.2%
AST%
27.0%
Self
77.8%
#5
Jackie Young
LVA · G · 32.3 MPG
USG
24.6%
AST%
33.4%
Self
50.0%
#6
Paige Bueckers
DAL · G · 32.7 MPG
USG
25.9%
AST%
28.7%
Self
47.2%
Player watchlist
Rim / free-throw pressure
Who bends the defense with paint touches and whistle pressure.
#1
Emma Cechova
MIN · — · 17.3 MPG
Rim
81.3%
FTr
50.0
TS
64.0%
#2
Makayla Timpson
IND · F · 19.1 MPG
Rim
75.0%
FTr
39.7
TS
66.3%
#3
Olivia Nelson-Ododa
CON · C · 21.2 MPG
Rim
52.1%
FTr
56.7
TS
61.6%
#4
NaLyssa Smith
LVA · C · 24.3 MPG
Rim
44.3%
FTr
46.7
TS
64.2%
#5
Monique Billings
IND · F · 18.7 MPG
Rim
52.7%
FTr
57.5
TS
59.6%
#6
Dearica Hamby
LAS · C · 28.7 MPG
Rim
64.8%
FTr
46.4
TS
60.0%
Player watchlist
Floor spacers
Three-point rate, three-point accuracy, and true shooting.
#1
Julie Vanloo
NYL · — · 16.2 MPG
3PAr
82.4
3P%
50.0%
TS
77.3%
#2
Kara Dunn
PHX · — · 15.0 MPG
3PAr
73.7
3P%
57.1%
TS
65.4%
#3
Sophie Cunningham
IND · F · 22.3 MPG
3PAr
70.8
3P%
41.9%
TS
65.4%
#4
Julie Allemand
TOR · G · 28.4 MPG
3PAr
66.0
3P%
41.9%
TS
67.6%
#5
Charisma Osborne
PDX · — · 19.7 MPG
3PAr
52.6
3P%
50.0%
TS
65.7%
#6
Jovana Nogic
PHX · G · 20.1 MPG
3PAr
63.9
3P%
42.1%
TS
61.2%
Player watchlist
Defensive activity
Stocks, defensive activity, and possession-finishing indicators.
#1
A'ja Wilson
LVA · F · 32.0 MPG
Stocks36
3.8
Def Act
19.8
REB%
15.3%
#2
Aliyah Boston
IND · C · 27.1 MPG
Stocks36
3.6
Def Act
17.2
REB%
14.3%
#3
Angel Reese
ATL · C · 31.1 MPG
Stocks36
2.9
Def Act
15.5
REB%
19.4%
#4
Kiah Stokes
GSV · C · 22.3 MPG
Stocks36
3.7
Def Act
17.7
REB%
12.5%
#5
Emily Engstler
PDX · F · 24.7 MPG
Stocks36
4.1
Def Act
18.3
REB%
11.5%
#6
Natasha Mack
PHX · C · 22.7 MPG
Stocks36
3.6
Def Act
16.2
REB%
12.9%
Player watchlist
Connective decision-makers
Assist-to-turnover care with enough passing involvement to matter.
#1
Veronica Burton
GSV · G · 28.6 MPG
A:TO
3.8
AST%
33.7%
TOV%
8.5%
#2
Paige Bueckers
DAL · G · 32.7 MPG
A:TO
2.7
AST%
28.7%
TOV%
8.3%
#3
Rhyne Howard
ATL · F · 34.2 MPG
A:TO
2.9
AST%
17.4%
TOV%
6.6%
#4
Skylar Diggins
CHI · G · 29.1 MPG
A:TO
2.9
AST%
14.9%
TOV%
4.2%
#5
Mai Yamamoto
LVA · — · 15.2 MPG
A:TO
2.8
AST%
14.2%
TOV%
3.8%
#6
Courtney Vandersloot
CHI · G · 22.5 MPG
A:TO
2.6
AST%
24.1%
TOV%
8.6%