Los Angeles 95, Washington 75
Team Comparison:
Total Possessions: Los Angeles 72, Washington 72
Rebound Percentage: Los Angeles .651, Washington .349
Points Off Turnovers: Los Angeles 13, Washington 16
Points in the Paint: Los Angeles 30, Washington 34
2nd-Chance Points: Los Angeles 17, Washington 8
Fast Break Points: Los Angeles 6, Washington 4
Four Factors:
Offensive Efficiency: Los Angeles 131.9, Washington 104.2
Effective FG%: Los Angeles .623, Washington .516
Turnover Pct: Los Angeles .153, Washington .139
Offensive Reb%: Los Angeles .385, Washington .083
Free Throw Rate: Los Angeles .311, Washington .159
Individual Plus/Minus:
Los Angeles: Carson +12 (56-44), Ogwumike +26 (71-45), Parker +15 (56-41), Beard +24 (59-35), Toliver +25 (70-45), Belyakova +11 (61-50), Lavender +5 (43-38), Gray -4 (30-34), Wauters -8 (20-28), Knight -6 (9-15)
Washington: Ruffin-Pratt -15 (45-60), Meesseman -12 (47-59), Vaughn -18 (39-57), Cloud -21 (47-68), Latta -16 (39-55), Dolson -11 (33-44), Copper -10 (44-54), Hartley 0 (31-31), Hawkins +1 (31-30), Weisner -4 (4-8), Malott +6 (15-9)
Atlanta 93, Dallas 88
Team Comparison:
Total Possessions: Dallas 84, Atlanta 84
Rebound Percentage: Dallas .436, Atlanta .563
Points Off Turnovers: Dallas 17, Atlanta 12
Points in the Paint: Dallas 40, Atlanta 52
2nd-Chance Points: Dallas 11, Atlanta 18
Fast Break Points: Dallas 16, Atlanta 22
Four Factors:
Offensive Efficiency: Dallas 104.8, Atlanta 110.7
Effective FG%: Dallas .453, Atlanta .507
Turnover Pct: Dallas .119, Atlanta .179
Offensive Reb%: Dallas .273, Atlanta .400
Free Throw Rate: Dallas .267, Atlanta .373
Individual Plus/Minus:
Dallas: Christmas +1 (66-65), Pierson -10 (71-81), Paris -2 (70-72), Sims -7 (81-88), Diggins -7 (66-73), Plaisance -1 (27-28), Powers -3 (28-31), Bias 0 (23-23), Hooper +4 (8-4)
Atlanta: Holmes -10 (50-60), Williams -2 (51-53), Gatling -3 (22-25), Hayes +2 (42-40), Clarendon +6 (75-69), Gray +17 (74-57), McCoughtry +16 (82-66), Ajavon +2 (12-10), Simmons -5 (9-14), Hollivay +1 (27-26), Cortijo +1 (21-20)
Minnesota 79, Seattle 72
Team Comparison:
Total Possessions: Seattle 74, Minnesota 76
Rebound Percentage: Seattle .416, Minnesota .583
Points Off Turnovers: Seattle 15, Minnesota 17
Points in the Paint: Seattle 20, Minnesota 44
2nd-Chance Points: Seattle 9, Minnesota 18
Fast Break Points: Seattle 10, Minnesota 7
Four Factors:
Offensive Efficiency: Seattle 97.3, Minnesota 103.9
Effective FG%: Seattle .456, Minnesota .455
Turnover Pct: Seattle .216, Minnesota .158
Offensive Reb%: Seattle .233, Minnesota .400
Free Throw Rate: Seattle .351, Minnesota .269
Individual Plus/Minus:
Seattle: Clark +11 (62-51), Stewart -7 (70-77), Langhorne +13 (62-49), Loyd -13 (54-67), Bird +9 (68-59), Thomas -20 (10-30), Quinn -22 (10-32), Mosqueda-Lewis -6 (22-28), Bishop 0 (2-2)
Minnesota: Moore -4 (61-65), Brunson -9 (43-52), Fowles -1 (57-58), Augustus -5 (33-38), Whalen -4 (35-39), Montgomery +11 (44-33), Perkins +12 (46-34), Howard +12 (38-26), Hampton +11 (18-7), McCarville +12 (20-8)
Connecticut 94, Chicago 89
Team Comparison:
Total Possessions: Connecticut 82, Chicago 80
Rebound Percentage: Connecticut .518, Chicago .482
Points Off Turnovers: Connecticut 21, Chicago 8
Points in the Paint: Connecticut 44, Chicago 34
2nd-Chance Points: Connecticut 11, Chicago 13
Fast Break Points: Connecticut 9, Chicago 8
Four Factors:
Offensive Efficiency: Connecticut 114.6, Chicago 111.3
Effective FG%: Connecticut .486, Chicago .562
Turnover Pct: Connecticut .085, Chicago .225
Offensive Reb%: Connecticut .258, Chicago .222
Free Throw Rate: Connecticut .371, Chicago .246
Individual Plus/Minus:
Connecticut: A.Thomas +6 (87-81), Ogwumike -5 (37-42), Little +4 (53-49), Bentley +7 (69-62), J.Thomas +1 (80-79), Williams -6 (3-9), Jones +9 (71-62), Tuck +2 (27-25), Stricklen -1 (7-8), Faris +8 (36-28)
Chicago: Young -6 (60-66), Delle Donne -5 (83-88), Boyette -4 (43-47), Pondexter -7 (66-73), Faulkner -4 (27-31), Breland -8 (61-69), Quigley +10 (43-33), Vandersloot -1 (62-63)
– – –
You can view/download PDFs of the current league reports (through July 22) here or here.