Making sense of the Valkyries’ tough shot quality dilemma after narrow loss to Lynx

SAN FRANCISCO – The great debate for the Golden State Valkyries right now is their shot quality. Or at least, that was the debate that Valkyries head coach Natalie Nakase and I had at the post-game podium after Golden State’s narrow 81-75 loss to the league-best Minnesota Lynx.

It was civil. A little playful. But also, in my eyes, informative for the Golden State offense. Because this season, their offense truly feels like a seesaw that teeters back-and-forth between looking like they shoot the net off the rim and looking like they can’t throw a stone in the ocean.

Which is why I brought up to Nakase that, from my vantage point, it looked very difficult for the Valkyries to generate good looks in the fourth quarter, in which they shot 4-of-22. And since they experienced a similar fourth quarter in Seattle a week ago, in which they shot 1-of-16 and almost surrendered a 15-point comeback, I thought it was fair to ask Nakase if she believes the tough shot quality a concern moving forward? And, if Minnesota was doing something to muck up their offense?

“If we had made our free throws, would you have asked me the same question?” Nakase answered. The Valkyries shot 11-of-17 from the free throw line, with six misses in a five-point loss.

“I guess not?” I responded, not quite sure where Nakase was going with her answer, but also sensing the point she was about to make.

“And if we won, would you ask me the same question?” Nakase followed up, making the point that in losses, we tend to narrow in on things we would not have in victories.

But I responded, “I’d ask about the 4-of-22.” And I do believe it would have because it’s a recurring trend.

The Valkyries have second worst shot diet in the league as of June 11th. I don’t have the update statistics since then, but eye-test-wise, it hasn’t gotten much better — a lot of offensive possessions end with a defender right in their grill as they rise up for a shot, especially in the fourth, where Golden State’s isolation offense in crunch time did not lend itself to makeable looks.

Natalie Nakase’s point about what is, isn’t controllable in a basketball game

Nakase nodded to my response but countered with something she’s been adamant about since her first day as the coach of the Valkyries.

“What do we rely on?” Nakase pop-quizzed me.

“Defense,” I answered. Easy enough question.

“Because why?”

“It fuels the offense?” I guessed, a thing that Gabby Williams has pointed to when the offense goes awry in the past. Nakase shook her head as if to say I was half right.

“But what else?” Nakase asked.

“They don’t score, you win?” I said stumped, not picking up what the Valkyries coach was putting down.

“Sometimes [you] just can’t control, sometimes, it going in all the time, especially making that three,” Nakase said, giving me the answer.

This connects to one of her fundamental beliefs that good defense is controllable, and those are the things the Valkyries need to narrow in on rather than the bounce of the ball on the rim. Which I agree with. Because even Stephen Curry, the greatest shooter of all time, shoots 48.9% from deep when completely wide-open, which is less than a coin flip.

Nakase used the example of the sideline-out-of-bonds with Golden State down five near the end to explain the things they could like the play call and the substitutions to get the right players in the game. Those little factors are what the Valkyries can focus on, and they resulted in a big Cecilia Zandalasini three, topping off a 23-point performance on the night.

“I also look at it the other way,” Nakase continued. “If we probably would have got a couple more stops, then we’d be singing a different tune, but I understand. I’ll say this: we’re not trying to miss shots in the fourth.”

Is Valkyries’ shot quality controllable?

That completely made sense to me. Defense? Far more controllable. Getting the right play call and personnel? Completely controllable. The Lynx defense, the league’s best defense, wreaking havoc on you? Less controllable, something to work around.

But from what Nakase was explaining, it felt to me that she was saying that there are things the Valkyries can control on offense to get a good look. Which led me to a follow-up question:

“That sideline out of bounds, you do get a good shot, you do get a good look,” I asked, pointing to the controllables Nakase mentioned on that play. “You kind of were able to control the shot quality there. Do you think shot quality is something that you guys can control on offense?”

My point in asking this question was, is there more the Valkyries can be doing to give them more open looks? I understand Nakase’s point that you don’t want to rely on the percentages, but my argument is that the more coin-flips you create, the more bites at the apple you get, the more times you’ll land on heads and get the result that you want– more points.

Nakase countered, “We had wide-open looks even before that, and we missed. Ja [Salaun], she had a beautiful shot. So yeah, we got control [some things] better, like we’re going to practice our free throws. And then defensively, if some of those calls weren’t going the wrong way, maybe they wouldn’t have shot 23 throws. I think that’s something for sure on the film we could definitely take a look at.”

Valkyries need to control the controllables

Fundamentally, Nakase’s philosophy boils down to not being chained to the whims of the basketball gods. Completely fair. Whereas my thinking (as a journalist who doesn’t have the cache of experience Nakase has) rests in if you get more easy looks, the percentages will eventually start to favor you. Especially when they’re already offense is pretty solid in spite of the poor shot quality.

Not to sound biased, but I think that’s also fair from me. At least a little fair!

So I think the answer to the Valkyries’ shot quality lies somewhere in the middle (and I’m willing to let it fall closer to Nakase’s side since I’m not the one in that locker room). Control the controllables; it’s not good to be a team that lives and dies by their offense. But also, there are ways to tinker with the offense to get good looks; the Zandalasini wide-open three off the SLOB is proof of that. And the more you’re able to do that, the more dependable the offense can get.

However, debate or not, one note on my friendly exchange with Nakase is that she didn’t definitively answer if their difficult shot quality is a concern moving forward. Reading between the lines, you could say that Nakase might have insinuated she doesn’t believe it’s an issue, but she never definitively said “Yes, it is a concern,” or “No, it isn’t a concern.”

At 10-6, this isn’t a “the house is on fire” issue, by any means. But if the Valkyries’ fourth-quarter woes continue to be an issue, they will have to look at their offense in the mirror to see what they can change to make it easier on themselves.

I asked Natalie Nakase about the Valkyries shot quality in the 4th QTR in which they shot 4/22.

We had a fun back-and-forth debating what is and isn’t controllable on offense.

“I'll say this: we're not trying to miss shots in the fourth.” pic.twitter.com/3MeIQVeH1w

— Kenzo Fukuda (@kenzofuku) June 20, 2026

The post Making sense of the Valkyries’ tough shot quality dilemma after narrow loss to Lynx appeared first on ClutchPoints.