🐻⬇️🏀

Seattle Storm

Season: 2026 2025 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017
Also known as: Seattle Storm
Program History

2011 Team Stats (37 games)

72.2
PPG
-
Opp
-
Margin
43.5%
FG%
35.9%
3P%
79.6%
FT%
32.0
RPG
15.8
APG
14.0
TO
73.5
Est. poss./game
68.6
Adj PPG
67.2
Adj Opp PPG
#8
Scoring Rank

Model Outputs

2011
Catalog

Output is shown as model rating with league rank in parentheses when available.

Model Output Notes
Elo Elo Streaming paired-comparison rating with recency baked into sequential updates. More → 1058 (#5) -
Bradley-Terry Bradley-Terry Static logistic paired-comparison model with one team strength parameter. More → 1066 (#4) -
Bradley-Terry Recency Bradley-Terry Recency Static Bradley-Terry with exponential recency weights on newer games. HCA +109 elo More → 1043 (#3) HCA +109 elo
Margin Margin Linear team-strength model fit on point differential instead of binary wins. HCA +3.8 More → +1.4 (#8) HCA +3.8
Margin Recency Margin Recency Margin regression with exponential recency weights on newer games. HCA +4.0 More → +1.5 (#6) HCA +4.0
Pythagorean Pythagorean Pythagorean win expectation from raw points scored and allowed. More → 0.575 (#4) -
Adjusted Efficiency Adjusted Efficiency Opponent-adjusted efficiency model with separate offensive and defensive components. AdjNet +2.1 More → 0.559 (#6) AdjNet +2.1
Log Adjusted Log Adjusted Log-scale adjusted efficiency model that downweights blowout leverage. AdjNet +2.0 More → 0.559 (#6) AdjNet +2.0
Points Off/Def Points Off/Def Raw points regression with separate offensive and defensive team parameters. AdjO 68.6 | AdjD 67.2 More → 0.532 (#8) AdjO 68.6 | AdjD 67.2
Points Off/Def Recency Points Off/Def Recency Off/def points regression with exponential recency weights. AdjO 68.7 | AdjD 67.3 More → 0.533 (#6) AdjO 68.7 | AdjD 67.3
Core Ensemble Core Ensemble Equal-logit blend of Elo, recency BT, recency margin, log-adjusted pyth, and points off/def. Blend of Elo, BT, Margin, PythLog, PtsOD More → 0.557 (#5) Blend of Elo, BT, Margin, PythLog, PtsOD
Recency Ensemble Recency Ensemble Equal-logit blend of Elo, recency BT, recency margin, log-adjusted pyth, and recency points off/def. Blend of Elo, BT, Margin, PythLog, PtsOD More → 0.557 (#5) Blend of Elo, BT, Margin, PythLog, PtsOD
Dynamic Bradley-Terry Dynamic Bradley-Terry Time-evolving paired-comparison model with latent team strength drift. RD 104 | GP 37 More → 1064 (#4) RD 104 | GP 37

2011 Schedule & Results

Date Vs/At Opponent Result Score
2011-06-04 vs Phoenix Mercury W 78 - 71
2011-06-09 vs Minnesota Lynx L 74 - 81
2011-06-17 vs Indiana Fever W 68 - 54
2011-06-19 @ Los Angeles Sparks L 50 - 74
2011-06-21 @ Tulsa Shock W 82 - 77
2011-06-24 vs Minnesota Lynx W 65 - 55
2011-07-01 @ Connecticut Sun L 70 - 75
2011-07-03 @ Washington Mystics W 73 - 63
2011-07-05 @ Indiana Fever L 61 - 78
2011-07-09 vs Los Angeles Sparks W 99 - 80
2011-07-12 vs Washington Mystics W 79 - 71
2011-07-14 @ San Antonio Silver Stars L 66 - 69
2011-07-16 @ Minnesota Lynx L 62 - 69
2011-07-19 @ Chicago Sky L 69 - 78
2011-07-21 vs San Antonio Silver Stars W 73 - 55
2011-07-26 @ Phoenix Mercury W 83 - 77
2011-07-29 @ Minnesota Lynx L 67 - 92
2011-07-30 @ Tulsa Shock W 89 - 72
2011-08-02 vs San Antonio Silver Stars W 78 - 64
2011-08-05 vs Connecticut Sun W 81 - 79
2011-08-07 @ Atlanta Dream L 53 - 70
2011-08-09 @ New York Liberty L 56 - 58
2011-08-11 vs Tulsa Shock W 77 - 63
2011-08-13 vs Atlanta Dream L 63 - 92
2011-08-16 @ Phoenix Mercury L 79 - 81
2011-08-20 vs New York Liberty W 63 - 62
2011-08-23 vs San Antonio Silver Stars W 63 - 55
2011-08-25 vs Tulsa Shock W 74 - 57
2011-08-28 vs Los Angeles Sparks W 65 - 63
2011-08-30 @ Los Angeles Sparks L 62 - 68
2011-09-02 @ Tulsa Shock W 78 - 72
2011-09-03 @ San Antonio Silver Stars W 70 - 60
2011-09-09 vs Phoenix Mercury W 85 - 70
2011-09-11 vs Chicago Sky W 81 - 70
2011-09-15 vs Phoenix Mercury W 80 - 61
2011-09-17 @ Phoenix Mercury L 83 - 92
2011-09-19 vs Phoenix Mercury L 75 - 77

2011 Roster

Minutes by Position

The surface stays filled across the five on-court roles. Use the labels or legend to isolate how each player absorbs guard-to-big minutes.

Player Pos GP MIN PTS REB AST STL BLK TO FGA Numbers PM PM GP PM/G PM/40 FG% 3P% FT% RAPM TS% eFG%
E. Brand E. Brand - 38 33.1 14.5 2.9 4.8 1.4 0.2 2.2 11.8 9.7 - - - - 44.7 43.5 86.4 - 56.8 53.6
S. Cash S. Cash F 39 33.1 12.8 7.0 2.4 1.0 0.6 2.8 10.9 10.2 - - - - 39.4 29.6 84.1 - 51.1 44.1
L. Jackson L. Jackson F 17 25.4 12.8 4.6 0.4 1.0 0.9 1.4 10.7 7.8 - - - - 39.0 34.3 81.5 - 51.8 45.3
Seamus Boxley Seamus Boxley - 38 28.7 10.7 3.4 3.0 1.3 0.1 2.8 7.7 8.0 - - - - 49.5 39.7 88.3 - 60.3 54.1
C. Little C. Little F 38 26.7 10.0 5.2 1.6 1.3 0.6 2.3 8.4 8.1 - - - - 47.2 21.4 69.4 - 52.1 48.1
K. Smith K. Smith G 37 25.1 7.3 2.4 2.0 0.7 0.1 1.3 6.6 4.6 - - - - 37.4 38.4 87.2 - 51.5 48.2
S. Nash S. Nash - 39 18.7 6.1 4.0 1.0 0.5 0.2 1.4 5.4 5.1 - - - - 45.5 28.3 65.5 - 51.2 48.6
A. Robinson A. Robinson C 39 16.6 3.6 3.7 0.6 0.6 1.0 1.2 3.5 4.8 - - - - 47.1 0.0 46.4 - 47.5 47.1
B. Snell B. Snell F 23 7.0 2.3 0.7 0.3 0.1 0.1 0.5 1.6 1.5 - - - - 41.7 44.0 85.7 - 62.9 56.9
I. Ibekwe I. Ibekwe F 5 7.8 2.2 2.4 0.2 1.0 0.0 0.2 3.2 2.4 - - - - 25.0 33.3 50.0 - 31.0 28.1
P. Stojakovic P. Stojakovic - 1 15.0 2.0 3.0 4.0 1.0 0.0 2.0 3.0 5.0 - - - - 33.3 0.0 0 - 33.3 33.3
J. Monroe J. Monroe NA 2 6.5 2.0 0.5 0.0 0.0 0.5 1.0 1.5 0.5 - - - - 33.3 0 100.0 - 51.5 33.3
E. Kobryn E. Kobryn C 18 7.2 1.6 1.3 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.4 1.7 1.7 - - - - 38.7 28.6 60.0 - 43.7 41.9
Allie Quigley Allie Quigley G 7 2.4 0.6 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.9 0.6 - - - - 16.7 0.0 100.0 - 29.1 16.7
K. Thomas K. Thomas C 8 4.5 0.2 0.8 0.1 0.2 0.2 1.1 0.1 0.4 - - - - 100.0 0 0 - 100.0 100.0

Numbers/Game vs RAPM

Not enough players with both Numbers/Game and RAPM to plot.

Advanced: Numbers = PTS+REB+AST+STL+BLK-TO-FGA, PM = total +/-, PM/G = per game, PM/40 = per 40 minutes, RAPM = Regularized Adj Plus-Minus, TS% = True Shooting, eFG% = Effective FG

2011 Shot Zones

2291 located field-goal attempts in 38 games (ESPN). Each zone is coloured by the player with the largest share of the team's made-shot points there (left) and of its misses there (right).

Little23% Little23% Brand48% Brand58% Brand33% Cash25% Boxley46% Brand44% Brand41% Smith29%
Points: who the team's points here most likely come from
Cash26% Little22% Brand40% Brand43% Brand22% Cash47% Cash37% Brand25% Brand28% Smith25%
Misses: who misses most here

E. BrandS. CashSeamus BoxleyC. LittleK. Smith

Zone FGM-FGA FG% Pts Top scorer Runner-up Most misses Runner-up
Restricted area 416-657 63.3 832 C. Little 23% (192 pts) S. Cash 21% (172 pts) S. Cash 26% (63 misses) C. Little 25% (60 misses)
Paint (non-RA) 180-510 35.3 360 C. Little 23% (82 pts) E. Brand 17% (60 pts) C. Little 22% (73 misses) S. Cash 17% (57 misses)
Mid-range left 80-206 38.8 160 E. Brand 48% (76 pts) K. Smith 14% (22 pts) E. Brand 40% (51 misses) K. Smith 18% (23 misses)
Mid-range center 24-73 32.9 48 E. Brand 58% (28 pts) Seamus Boxley 21% (10 pts) E. Brand 43% (21 misses) Seamus Boxley 20% (10 misses)
Mid-range right 49-165 29.7 98 E. Brand 33% (32 pts) Seamus Boxley 27% (26 pts) E. Brand 22% (26 misses) K. Smith 19% (22 misses)
Left corner 3 12-42 28.6 36 S. Cash 25% (9 pts) L. Jackson 17% (6 pts) S. Cash 47% (14 misses) E. Brand 20% (6 misses)
Right corner 3 13-32 40.6 39 Seamus Boxley 46% (18 pts) E. Brand 23% (9 pts) S. Cash 37% (7 misses) K. Smith 32% (6 misses)
Above-break 3 left 86-234 36.8 258 E. Brand 44% (114 pts) K. Smith 23% (60 pts) E. Brand 25% (37 misses) S. Cash 21% (31 misses)
Above-break 3 center 46-120 38.3 138 E. Brand 41% (57 pts) L. Jackson 15% (21 pts) E. Brand 28% (21 misses) S. Cash 18% (13 misses)
Above-break 3 right 89-252 35.3 267 K. Smith 29% (78 pts) E. Brand 21% (57 pts) K. Smith 25% (40 misses) E. Brand 23% (38 misses)