Golden State Valkyries
GSV29-11 · +9.5 net
half-courtlow-mistakesecond chancesdefensive backbone
Pace
0%
Shot profile
43%
Rim / FT
21%
Ball care
93%
Glass
86%
Defense
81%
Best read
ball security + glass
Scout note
pace lags
2026-27 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
Cleanest shot profile
Indiana Fever
tempo · shot quality
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
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 | +9.5 | ball security + glass |
| MIN | shot quality · second chances | +9.4 | shot diet + glass |
| IND | tempo · shot quality | +7.6 | pace + shot diet |
| ATL | tempo · paint / FT pressure · second chances | +6.1 | glass + rim/FT pressure |
| LVA | half-court · shot quality · low-mistake | +4.9 | ball security + shot diet |
| DAL | half-court · low-mistake | +4.5 | ball security + shot diet |
| NYL | shot quality | +3.6 | shot diet + pace |
| WAS | paint / FT pressure · second chances | -0.7 | rim/FT pressure + glass |
| CHI | tempo · paint / FT pressure · low-mistake | -3.4 | pace + rim/FT pressure |
| PHX | paint / FT pressure | -3.9 | rim/FT pressure + ball security |
| LAS | tempo | -5.3 | pace + shot diet |
| PDX | balanced | -5.3 | shot diet + pace |
| SEA | half-court | -6.4 | defense + glass |
| TOR | balanced | -9.7 | pace + shot diet |
| CON | balanced | -10.9 | glass + rim/FT pressure |
Team fingerprints
Style cards
Minnesota Lynx
MIN31-9 · +9.4 net
shot qualitysecond chances
Pace
57%
Shot profile
93%
Rim / FT
0%
Ball care
71%
Glass
79%
Defense
62%
Best read
shot diet + glass
Scout note
rim/FT pressure lags
Indiana Fever
IND26-14 · +7.6 net
temposhot quality
Pace
100%
Shot profile
100%
Rim / FT
71%
Ball care
50%
Glass
64%
Defense
48%
Best read
pace + shot diet
Scout note
defense lags
Atlanta Dream
ATL26-14 · +6.1 net
tempopaint / FT pressuresecond chances
Pace
79%
Shot profile
29%
Rim / FT
86%
Ball care
57%
Glass
100%
Defense
64%
Best read
glass + rim/FT pressure
Scout note
shot diet lags
Las Vegas Aces
LVA27-13 · +4.9 net
half-courtshot qualitylow-mistake
Pace
7%
Shot profile
86%
Rim / FT
43%
Ball care
86%
Glass
0%
Defense
55%
Best read
ball security + shot diet
Scout note
glass lags
Dallas Wings
DAL24-16 · +4.5 net
half-courtlow-mistake
Pace
14%
Shot profile
57%
Rim / FT
7%
Ball care
93%
Glass
50%
Defense
55%
Best read
ball security + shot diet
Scout note
rim/FT pressure lags
New York Liberty
NYL24-16 · +3.6 net
shot quality
Pace
64%
Shot profile
79%
Rim / FT
57%
Ball care
29%
Glass
57%
Defense
48%
Best read
shot diet + pace
Scout note
ball security lags
Washington Mystics
WAS24-16 · -0.7 net
paint / FT pressuresecond chances
Pace
36%
Shot profile
21%
Rim / FT
100%
Ball care
0%
Glass
93%
Defense
62%
Best read
rim/FT pressure + glass
Scout note
ball security lags
Chicago Sky
CHI15-25 · -3.4 net
tempopaint / FT pressurelow-mistake
Pace
93%
Shot profile
14%
Rim / FT
79%
Ball care
79%
Glass
21%
Defense
48%
Best read
pace + rim/FT pressure
Scout note
shot diet lags
Phoenix Mercury
PHX14-26 · -3.9 net
paint / FT pressure
Pace
36%
Shot profile
36%
Rim / FT
93%
Ball care
64%
Glass
7%
Defense
48%
Best read
rim/FT pressure + ball security
Scout note
glass lags
Los Angeles Sparks
LAS15-25 · -5.3 net
tempo
Pace
86%
Shot profile
64%
Rim / FT
36%
Ball care
14%
Glass
14%
Defense
36%
Best read
pace + shot diet
Scout note
glass lags
Portland Fire
PDX16-24 · -5.3 net
balanced
Pace
57%
Shot profile
71%
Rim / FT
14%
Ball care
7%
Glass
36%
Defense
33%
Best read
shot diet + pace
Scout note
ball security lags
Seattle Storm
SEA8-32 · -6.4 net
half-court
Pace
21%
Shot profile
7%
Rim / FT
29%
Ball care
21%
Glass
43%
Defense
55%
Best read
defense + glass
Scout note
shot diet lags
Toronto Tempo
TOR11-29 · -9.7 net
balanced
Pace
71%
Shot profile
50%
Rim / FT
50%
Ball care
36%
Glass
29%
Defense
10%
Best read
pace + shot diet
Scout note
defense lags
Connecticut Sun
CON10-30 · -10.9 net
balanced
Pace
43%
Shot profile
0%
Rim / FT
64%
Ball care
36%
Glass
71%
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 · 31.3 MPG
USG
31.5%
AST%
40.3%
Self
70.3%
#2
Carla Leite
PDX · G · 26.0 MPG
USG
28.2%
AST%
38.9%
Self
72.8%
#3
Kelsey Plum
PHX · G · 30.6 MPG
USG
28.3%
AST%
19.6%
Self
59.5%
#4
Olivia Miles
MIN · G · 31.0 MPG
USG
27.2%
AST%
28.4%
Self
77.5%
#5
Jackie Young
LVA · G · 32.3 MPG
USG
24.5%
AST%
32.9%
Self
48.9%
#6
Paige Bueckers
DAL · G · 33.0 MPG
USG
25.4%
AST%
28.2%
Self
49.3%
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
NaLyssa Smith
LVA · C · 24.3 MPG
Rim
44.3%
FTr
46.7
TS
64.2%
#3
Olivia Nelson-Ododa
CON · C · 21.4 MPG
Rim
53.1%
FTr
56.9
TS
60.8%
#4
Makayla Timpson
IND · F · 19.3 MPG
Rim
76.2%
FTr
36.4
TS
65.1%
#5
Kamilla Cardoso
CHI · C · 26.7 MPG
Rim
78.8%
FTr
46.5
TS
59.9%
#6
Monique Billings
IND · F · 19.6 MPG
Rim
52.5%
FTr
58.2
TS
59.8%
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
Sophie Cunningham
IND · F · 22.7 MPG
3PAr
69.4
3P%
43.4%
TS
66.9%
#3
Julie Allemand
TOR · G · 28.7 MPG
3PAr
66.9
3P%
42.4%
TS
69.3%
#4
Leonie Fiebich
NYL · F · 29.5 MPG
3PAr
59.2
3P%
43.2%
TS
62.6%
#5
Jovana Nogic
PHX · G · 20.1 MPG
3PAr
63.9
3P%
42.1%
TS
61.2%
#6
Kayla McBride
MIN · F · 32.6 MPG
3PAr
54.5
3P%
41.7%
TS
63.0%
Player watchlist
Defensive activity
Stocks, defensive activity, and possession-finishing indicators.
#1
A'ja Wilson
LVA · C · 32.1 MPG
Stocks36
3.9
Def Act
20.2
REB%
15.3%
#2
Aliyah Boston
IND · C · 27.6 MPG
Stocks36
3.6
Def Act
17.4
REB%
14.4%
#3
Emily Engstler
PDX · F · 24.5 MPG
Stocks36
4.3
Def Act
19.1
REB%
11.3%
#4
Angel Reese
ATL · C · 31.6 MPG
Stocks36
2.9
Def Act
15.1
REB%
19.6%
#5
Kiah Stokes
GSV · C · 21.9 MPG
Stocks36
3.7
Def Act
17.7
REB%
12.0%
#6
Cameron Brink
LAS · F · 19.1 MPG
Stocks36
4.3
Def Act
17.0
REB%
11.2%
Player watchlist
Connective decision-makers
Assist-to-turnover care with enough passing involvement to matter.
#1
Mai Yamamoto
LVA · — · 15.2 MPG
A:TO
4.5
AST%
17.0%
TOV%
2.0%
#2
Veronica Burton
GSV · G · 28.4 MPG
A:TO
4.1
AST%
34.2%
TOV%
8.0%
#3
Paige Bueckers
DAL · G · 33.0 MPG
A:TO
2.8
AST%
28.2%
TOV%
8.1%
#4
Skylar Diggins
CHI · G · 29.1 MPG
A:TO
2.9
AST%
16.5%
TOV%
4.7%
#5
Rhyne Howard
ATL · F · 34.6 MPG
A:TO
2.6
AST%
17.1%
TOV%
6.9%
#6
Courtney Vandersloot
CHI · G · 22.0 MPG
A:TO
2.6
AST%
22.5%
TOV%
8.2%