Indiana Fever vs Seattle Storm Match Player Stats
The indiana fever vs seattle storm match player stats from July 18, 2026, tell the story of a thrilling WNBA contest decided by just three points. The Indiana Fever defeated the Seattle Storm 110-107 at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis, with Caitlin Clark delivering an outstanding performance of 45 points, 10 assists, four steals, and two blocks. Kelsey Mitchell added 30 points, giving Indiana two major scoring options in a game that required sustained offensive production until the final buzzer.
Seattle also produced an impressive offensive performance. Dominique Malonga recorded 28 points and 14 rebounds, while Awa Fam, Flau’jae Johnson, Natisha Hiedeman, and Jade Melbourne each contributed 15 or more points. The Storm shot 57% from the field and collected 27 assists, yet Indiana’s three-point shooting, free-throw accuracy, defensive pressure, and ability to limit turnovers proved decisive.
The game attracted 17,274 fans and featured contrasting approaches to scoring. Seattle relied on efficient two-point offense, interior production, and balanced playmaking. Indiana made better use of three-point opportunities and the free-throw line. Those differences help explain how the Fever won despite finishing with fewer field goals, rebounds, and assists.
This detailed breakdown examines the final score, individual player performances, team statistics, quarter-by-quarter scoring, tactical differences, and the broader significance of the result. It also explains how to interpret the numbers rather than simply listing the box score.
Indiana Fever vs Seattle Storm Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The July 18 meeting provided a close contest between two teams that found different ways to generate offense. Indiana finished with 110 points, while Seattle scored 107. The three-point margin reflected how little separated the teams in overall scoring output.
| Game detail | Information |
| Matchup | Indiana Fever vs Seattle Storm |
| Date | July 18, 2026 |
| Venue | Gainbridge Fieldhouse |
| Location | Indianapolis, Indiana |
| Attendance | 17,274 |
| Final score | Indiana Fever 110, Seattle Storm 107 |
| Winning team | Indiana Fever |
| Losing team | Seattle Storm |
| Fever record displayed | 15-10 overall, 9-5 at home |
| Storm record displayed | 6-21 overall, 2-13 away |
| Season-series result | Indiana led 3-0 in the supplied data |
| Highest scorer | Caitlin Clark, 45 points |
| Leading rebounder | Dominique Malonga, 14 rebounds |
| Assist leader | Caitlin Clark, 10 assists |
The figures above reflect the supplied ESPN game data for this particular contest. The displayed team records are the records associated with that game, not current standings.
Indiana’s victory was particularly notable because Seattle recorded more made field goals and a higher overall field-goal percentage. The Fever found other ways to compensate, including making 10 three-pointers, converting 28 free throws, recording 12 steals, and committing five fewer turnovers.
These statistics show why a basketball game cannot be evaluated by shooting percentage alone. A team can shoot efficiently from the field and still lose when its opponent creates more points from free throws, generates extra possessions through defensive pressure, and protects the ball more effectively.
Final Score and Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown
The scoring pattern reveals how the game developed. Indiana opened with a 37-point first quarter, creating an early offensive advantage. Seattle responded with stronger production in the second and third periods, then fell short during the closing quarter.
| Quarter | Indiana Fever | Seattle Storm |
| First quarter | 37 | 26 |
| Second quarter | 22 | 30 |
| Third quarter | 23 | 32 |
| Fourth quarter | 28 | 19 |
| Final score | 110 | 107 |
First quarter: Indiana establishes an early lead
Indiana scored 37 points in the opening quarter, compared with Seattle’s 26. The 11-point advantage gave the Fever an important cushion and demonstrated how quickly their offense could generate scoring opportunities.
A 37-point quarter can reflect several factors, including successful perimeter shooting, effective transition offense, trips to the free-throw line, and defensive stops that create easier opportunities at the other end. The supplied game totals establish the scoring difference, although the quarter totals alone cannot identify every possession that produced it.
The early lead mattered because Indiana did not maintain the same scoring pace throughout the middle periods. Its first-quarter production gave the team room to withstand Seattle’s response.
Second quarter: Seattle begins its comeback
Seattle outscored Indiana 30-22 in the second quarter. The Storm reduced the deficit by eight points, turning a 37-26 first-quarter result into a much more competitive game at halftime.
This period illustrates the danger of judging a team by its opening minutes. Indiana had the better start, but Seattle’s scoring improved enough to shift the game’s momentum.
The Storm’s overall shooting efficiency and distribution of assists suggest that its offensive system generated quality opportunities. However, the team still needed to address the deficit created in the opening period.
Third quarter: The Storm takes control of the scoring
Seattle produced its highest-scoring quarter, with 32 points against Indiana’s 23. That nine-point advantage brought the Storm closer and placed greater pressure on the Fever entering the final period.
By the end of the third quarter, Seattle had scored 88 points across the first three periods, while Indiana had accumulated 82. The Storm had therefore moved ahead by six points in cumulative scoring over those three quarters, despite losing the first quarter by 11.
This is an important distinction: Seattle’s comeback was not simply a late surge. Its second- and third-quarter scoring changed the competitive balance before the final period began.
Fourth quarter: Indiana makes the decisive response
Indiana scored 28 points in the fourth quarter, while Seattle managed 19. The nine-point difference reversed the Storm’s six-point advantage through three quarters and gave Indiana the three-point final margin.
The Fever’s closing production was crucial. Rather than allowing Seattle’s middle-quarter momentum to determine the result, Indiana restored its scoring pressure when the game was most competitive.
The supplied totals do not establish exactly which individual plays decided the final minutes. Still, the fourth-quarter figures clearly identify the central statistical fact: Indiana won the closing period by nine points after being outscored by six across the first three quarters.
Indiana Fever Player Stats: Caitlin Clark Leads the Offense
Caitlin Clark delivered the game’s standout individual performance, finishing with 45 points and 10 assists. Her combination of scoring and playmaking placed her at the center of Indiana’s offensive output.
The Fever’s leading contributors combined perimeter scoring, interior support, and defensive activity. The following table summarizes the individual numbers in the supplied box score.
| Indiana player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Steals | Blocks |
| Caitlin Clark | 45 | 2 | 10 | 4 | 2 |
| Kelsey Mitchell | 30 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Monique Billings | 16 | 5 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Makayla Timpson | 8 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| Tyasha Harris | 5 | 0 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Lexie Hull | 2 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 |
| Myisha Hines-Allen | 2 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Sophie Cunningham | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Damiris Dantas | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Raven Johnson | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Steals and blocks not listed for individual players are shown as zero in this summary because no positive total was supplied for those categories. A zero in this table should not be interpreted as a complete account of every defensive action a player made.
Caitlin Clark: 45 points and 10 assists
Clark finished with 45 points on 11-of-18 shooting from the field, including 6-of-10 from three-point range. She also made 17 of her 19 free-throw attempts.
Her scoring efficiency is one of the most important details in the box score. Clark made approximately 61.1% of her field-goal attempts and 60% of her three-point attempts. Her free-throw percentage was approximately 89.5%.
She combined that scoring with 10 assists, four steals, two blocks, and four turnovers. The double-digit assist total shows that her impact extended beyond personal scoring. She also helped create opportunities for teammates.
Clark’s performance illustrates three different forms of offensive value:
- Perimeter shooting: Six made three-pointers stretched Seattle’s defensive coverage.
- Free-throw production: Seventeen successful free throws supplied a substantial share of her total.
- Playmaking: Ten assists reflected her role in creating scoring opportunities for other Fever players.
Clark accounted for 45 of Indiana’s 110 points, or approximately 40.9% of the team’s total. That is an unusually large share of a team’s scoring in a close contest, making her contribution central to the result.
Her four steals also added defensive value. Steals can disrupt an opponent’s offensive rhythm and create transition opportunities, although the supplied statistics do not quantify how many points Indiana scored directly after those turnovers.
Kelsey Mitchell: 30 points as the second scoring option
Mitchell scored 30 points on 13-of-25 shooting, including three made three-pointers on eight attempts. She added one rebound and one assist.
Her 52% field-goal percentage was lower than Clark’s, but Mitchell’s volume gave Indiana another dependable scoring source. That mattered because opponents cannot focus exclusively on one player when another scorer is also capable of producing 30 points.
Together, Clark and Mitchell scored 75 points. That represented approximately 68.2% of Indiana’s final total.
This concentration of scoring is important when interpreting the game. Indiana’s two leading scorers carried much of the offensive burden, while the remaining players contributed through supporting scoring, rebounding, defense, and ball movement.
Mitchell’s three-point shooting also complemented Clark’s perimeter threat. The two players made nine three-pointers combined, accounting for most of Indiana’s 10 successful attempts from beyond the arc.
Monique Billings: Efficient scoring and defensive activity
Billings recorded 16 points, five rebounds, three assists, two steals, and one block. She shot 5-of-7 from the field and made six of her seven free throws.
Her field-goal percentage was approximately 71.4%, giving Indiana an efficient supporting scorer alongside Clark and Mitchell.
Billings also contributed in several categories beyond scoring. Five rebounds helped her team compete on the glass, while three assists supported offensive movement. Her two steals and one block added defensive production.
This type of performance is valuable because it allows a team to receive meaningful contributions without relying on every player to take a large number of shots.
Makayla Timpson: Rebounding and defensive support
Timpson finished with eight points, nine rebounds, two assists, and two steals. She made three of six field-goal attempts and both of her free throws.
Her nine rebounds were the highest total among Indiana’s players in the supplied data. Although she did not lead the game in rebounding, her work on the glass helped the Fever receive production from a different area of the lineup.
Timpson’s two steals also contributed to Indiana’s defensive total. The Fever finished with 12 steals as a team, four more than Seattle’s eight.
Indiana’s bench contributions
Tyasha Harris scored five points and recorded three assists. Myisha Hines-Allen added two points, three rebounds, two assists, and one steal.
Sophie Cunningham contributed two points and two rebounds, while Damiris Dantas collected two rebounds without scoring. Raven Johnson did not score and finished without a rebound or assist in the supplied statistics.
These contributions were smaller than the production of Indiana’s main scorers, but bench statistics should be interpreted in context. Points are only one part of a player’s contribution, and the supplied box score does not provide enough information to assign a precise value to every defensive rotation, screen, or off-ball movement.
Indiana’s inactive players
The supplied data lists Grace VanSlooten as inactive by coach’s decision and Aliyah Boston as inactive because of a right lower-leg issue.
These are game-specific designations from the supplied record. They should not be used to infer a player’s longer-term availability or current medical status.
Seattle Storm Player Stats: Dominique Malonga Leads the Frontcourt
Seattle produced five starters with at least 15 points, a strong indication of balanced scoring. Dominique Malonga led the team with 28 points and 14 rebounds, while Awa Fam, Flau’jae Johnson, Natisha Hiedeman, and Jade Melbourne all reached 15 points.
Despite that broad scoring contribution, Seattle finished three points short. The individual statistics reveal how the Storm kept pace and where its production differed from Indiana’s.
| Seattle player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Steals | Blocks |
| Dominique Malonga | 28 | 14 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Awa Fam | 16 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 2 |
| Natisha Hiedeman | 15 | 2 | 8 | 1 | 0 |
| Flau’jae Johnson | 16 | 6 | 6 | 3 | 1 |
| Jade Melbourne | 15 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 |
| Katie Lou Samuelson | 8 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Zia Cooke | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Jordan Horston | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Stefanie Dolson | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
As with the Indiana table, defensive statistics not positively recorded in the supplied data are shown as zero for summary purposes.
Dominique Malonga: 28 points and 14 rebounds
Malonga led Seattle in both scoring and rebounding, finishing with 28 points and 14 boards. She shot 13-of-22 from the field, approximately 59.1%, and made one of three three-point attempts.
Her production demonstrated Seattle’s ability to generate points through efficient interior and mid-range opportunities. She made 13 field goals, two more than Clark, despite taking four more attempts from the field.
Malonga also recorded six turnovers. That figure is an important part of the analysis because a high-scoring performance can still include possessions that end without a shot or successful scoring opportunity.
Turnovers do not erase her offensive contribution, but they help explain why the Storm’s strong shooting percentage did not guarantee a victory. Indiana committed fewer turnovers overall, giving Seattle fewer opportunities to capitalize on mistakes.
Malonga’s 14 rebounds were the highest individual total in the game. Her combination of scoring and rebounding made her Seattle’s most productive player in those two categories.
Awa Fam: Efficient shooting and rim protection
Fam recorded 16 points, nine rebounds, four assists, one steal, and two blocks. She made five of six field-goal attempts and four of five three-point attempts, alongside two successful free throws.
Her overall field-goal percentage was approximately 83.3%, while her three-point percentage was 80%. Those numbers indicate excellent shooting efficiency on the attempts recorded in the box score.
Fam’s four made three-pointers were particularly notable. She was one of Seattle’s most effective perimeter shooters, while also contributing inside through rebounding and shot-blocking.
Her performance shows the value of a player who can influence several parts of the game. Fam did not simply score efficiently; she also contributed to playmaking and defense.
Natisha Hiedeman: Seattle’s primary playmaker
Hiedeman finished with 15 points and eight assists, the highest assist total among Seattle’s players. She shot 6-of-11 from the field and made one of five three-point attempts.
Her eight assists demonstrate her importance in creating opportunities for teammates. Seattle finished with 27 assists as a team, six more than Indiana, and Hiedeman was a major contributor to that total.
However, she also recorded three turnovers. The balance between assists and turnovers provides a useful way to evaluate ball-handling performance. Hiedeman created several scoring opportunities, but some possessions still ended with Seattle losing control of the ball.
Her shooting numbers also show that her contribution did not depend solely on perimeter accuracy. She made six field goals, including attempts inside the three-point line.
Flau’jae Johnson: Balanced production across categories
Johnson recorded 16 points, six rebounds, six assists, three steals, and one block. She made seven of 16 field-goal attempts and two of two free throws.
Her three steals were the highest individual total for Seattle in the supplied box score. That defensive activity helped the Storm pressure Indiana, although the Fever still finished with more steals overall.
Johnson’s six assists also made her one of Seattle’s key secondary playmakers. Her contribution was spread across scoring, rebounding, distribution, and defense, rather than concentrated in a single category.
This all-around production can be especially useful in a close game because it allows a player to contribute even when one aspect of the offense is less effective.
Jade Melbourne: Supporting scoring and playmaking
Melbourne scored 15 points and recorded five assists. She made seven of 13 field-goal attempts, a field-goal percentage of approximately 53.8%.
She added one rebound, one steal, and three turnovers. Her five assists provided another source of playmaking for a Seattle offense that moved the ball effectively.
Melbourne’s performance was part of a broader team pattern. Four Seattle starters scored at least 15 points, and Malonga added 28. That spread of scoring made the Storm difficult to contain for long stretches, particularly during the second and third quarters.
Seattle’s bench production
Samuelson scored eight points on four field-goal attempts, including one made three-pointer. Cooke added five points and one assist, while Horston and Dolson scored two points apiece.
The bench scoring was led by Samuelson, who made three of four field-goal attempts. Cooke also contributed a made three-pointer and one steal.
The supplied figures show that Seattle received some useful scoring from its reserves, but the five starters accounted for most of the team’s offense. The data alone cannot establish whether bench minutes or substitution patterns caused the final result.
Seattle’s inactive players
The supplied game record lists Ezi Magbegor as out with an injury or illness designation, while Mackenzie Holmes and Taylor Thierry were listed as inactive by coach’s decision.
These designations describe the reported status for this game only. They do not establish a diagnosis, expected recovery time, or subsequent roster status.
Team Statistics Comparison: Indiana vs Seattle
The team comparison helps explain why Indiana won despite Seattle’s superior field-goal percentage and larger assist total.
| Statistic | Indiana Fever | Seattle Storm |
| Points | 110 | 107 |
| Field goals | 36-72 | 43-76 |
| Field-goal percentage | 50% | 57% |
| Three-pointers | 10-23 | 8-21 |
| Three-point percentage | 43% | 38% |
| Free throws | 28-31 | 13-18 |
| Free-throw percentage | 90% | 72% |
| Total rebounds | 26 | 35 |
| Offensive rebounds | 13 | 13 |
| Defensive rebounds | 13 | 22 |
| Assists | 21 | 27 |
| Turnovers | 12 | 17 |
| Steals | 12 | 8 |
| Blocks | 3 | 3 |
| Personal fouls | 17 | 24 |
Field-goal efficiency favored Seattle
Seattle made 43 of 76 field-goal attempts, giving it a shooting percentage of approximately 56.6%, rounded to 57% in the supplied statistics. Indiana made 36 of 72 attempts, finishing at 50%.
The Storm therefore made seven more field goals and attempted four more shots. On this measure, Seattle had the advantage.
However, field-goal percentage does not account for the additional value of three-point shots or the points generated at the free-throw line. To understand the result, the entire scoring profile must be considered.
Indiana’s three-point shooting created additional value
Indiana made 10 three-pointers on 23 attempts, compared with Seattle’s eight on 21 attempts.
Each made three-pointer is worth one more point than a made two-point field goal. Indiana’s two additional three-pointers therefore provided four points of relative advantage from this category, assuming the comparison is between the two teams’ actual totals.
The Fever’s 43% three-point percentage also exceeded Seattle’s 38%. Although both teams made perimeter shots, Indiana gained more scoring value from its attempts beyond the arc.
This does not mean that three-point shooting alone determined the outcome. It was one part of a wider statistical difference that also included free throws and turnovers.
Free throws were a major separator
Indiana converted 28 of 31 free throws, while Seattle made 13 of 18.
That created a 15-point difference in free-throw points. Indiana’s 90% conversion rate was also substantially higher than Seattle’s 72%.
Free throws are particularly important in a three-point game because they can add points without requiring a made field goal. Indiana’s ability to convert those opportunities helped offset Seattle’s advantage in field goals and rebounding.
The number of free throws attempted may reflect several factors, including drives, shooting fouls, defensive positioning, and the timing of fouls. The supplied totals do not identify every reason behind the difference, so it would be inaccurate to attribute it to a single tactical decision.
Rebounding favored Seattle
Seattle collected 35 rebounds compared with Indiana’s 26. The Storm’s nine-rebound advantage came entirely from defensive rebounding in the supplied breakdown.
Both teams recorded 13 offensive rebounds. Seattle collected 22 defensive rebounds, while Indiana recorded 13.
This means Seattle secured more rebounds after Indiana missed shots, limiting the Fever’s chances to extend possessions through offensive rebounds. The equal offensive-rebound totals also show that neither team held an advantage in that particular category.
Seattle’s overall rebounding edge did not translate into a win. This is a useful reminder that winning the boards does not guarantee winning the game when other scoring and possession measures favor the opponent.
Assists show Seattle’s ball movement
Seattle recorded 27 assists, six more than Indiana’s 21. That total suggests the Storm created a larger number of assisted field goals.
However, assists must be read alongside shooting volume and turnovers. Seattle made 43 field goals and recorded 27 assists. Indiana made 36 field goals and recorded 21 assists.
Both teams demonstrated meaningful ball movement, but Seattle’s higher assist total did not compensate for Indiana’s advantage in three-point and free-throw production.
Turnovers favored Indiana
Indiana committed 12 turnovers, compared with Seattle’s 17. The five-turnover difference is important in a game decided by three points.
A turnover generally ends an offensive possession without a shot, though its exact effect depends on game context. Fewer turnovers can help a team preserve scoring opportunities and reduce the opponent’s chances to attack in transition.
Malonga’s six turnovers were particularly notable in the individual box score. They accounted for a substantial portion of Seattle’s total, though the team figures do not indicate how many directly resulted in Indiana points.
Defensive pressure favored Indiana in steals
The Fever recorded 12 steals to Seattle’s eight. Steals do not automatically lead to points, but they can interrupt offensive sets and create opportunities before the defense is organized.
Indiana’s higher steal total, combined with its lower turnover count, points to a more favorable overall turnover differential. The Fever recorded four more steals while committing five fewer turnovers.
These numbers support the view that Indiana did a better job of creating and protecting possessions, even though Seattle led in rebounds and assists.
Key Tactical Factors Behind Indiana’s Three-Point Victory
The statistical comparison becomes more useful when viewed through basketball strategy. Indiana did not dominate every category. Instead, the Fever gained advantages in specific areas that helped overcome Seattle’s stronger field-goal percentage, rebounding, and assist totals.
1. Converting possessions into points
Indiana scored 110 points from 72 field-goal attempts and 31 free-throw attempts. Seattle scored 107 points from 76 field-goal attempts and 18 free-throw attempts.
The difference illustrates why shot selection and foul-drawing matter. Indiana attempted four fewer field goals but made 15 more free throws. The Fever also made two more three-pointers.
These advantages helped compensate for Seattle’s seven additional field goals. The outcome was not a simple contest between a team that shot well and one that did not. Both offenses produced points, but they distributed those points differently.
2. Protecting the basketball
Indiana recorded 12 turnovers in the supplied box score, while Seattle committed 17. That five-turnover gap gave the Fever a meaningful possession advantage.
Turnovers can be especially costly against a team that creates steals. Indiana finished with 12 steals, while Seattle recorded eight. The combination of fewer turnovers and more steals points to a stronger overall result in possession security and defensive disruption.
For Seattle, reducing turnovers would have been a clear area to examine after the game. The Storm scored efficiently when they completed their offensive possessions, but lost possessions limited the number of opportunities to build on that efficiency.
3. Responding to Seattle’s interior production
Malonga’s 28 points and 14 rebounds were major contributors to Seattle’s performance. Fam added nine rebounds, two blocks, and highly efficient shooting.
Despite this frontcourt production, Indiana finished with the victory. The Fever did not need to win the total-rebound battle to win the game. Instead, their scoring at the free-throw line and beyond the arc helped offset Seattle’s size and field-goal advantage.
The lesson is that rebounding, interior scoring, and overall scoring efficiency are connected but distinct. A team can dominate the glass and still lose when its opponent converts enough high-value scoring opportunities.
4. Finishing the fourth quarter
Seattle’s 32-point third quarter was followed by a 19-point fourth quarter. Indiana moved in the opposite direction, increasing its production from 23 points to 28.
The nine-point difference in the final period was the largest decisive statistical swing in the game. It reversed Seattle’s six-point cumulative advantage through the first three quarters.
This pattern highlights the importance of late-game execution. A team that performs well in the middle of a game still needs to maintain its scoring efficiency, avoid costly turnovers, and respond to the opponent’s adjustments in the final minutes.
5. Balancing individual scoring with team production
Clark and Mitchell combined for 75 points, while Seattle distributed its scoring more broadly among its starters.
Neither approach is automatically superior. A high-volume scorer can create an offensive advantage when shots fall, while balanced scoring can make a team harder to defend if multiple players threaten the basket.
In this contest, Indiana’s two leading scorers supplied enough points to support the Fever’s other contributions. Seattle’s five double-digit starters kept the game competitive, but its overall production was not enough to overcome the difference in free throws, three-pointers, and turnovers.
What the Plus/Minus Statistics Can Tell Us
Plus/minus measures the difference between a team’s points scored and points allowed while a particular player is on the court. A positive figure means the team outscored its opponent during that player’s minutes; a negative figure means the opponent outscored the team during those minutes.
It is useful for understanding lineup performance, but it should not be treated as a complete measure of individual quality. A player’s plus/minus depends on teammates, opponents, substitutions, and the situations in which the player appears.
For example, a player may score efficiently but have a negative plus/minus because the opposing lineup performs well during the same minutes. Another player may record a positive figure while contributing relatively few points because the team performs strongly as a unit.
The supplied summary does not provide every player’s plus/minus, so it would be inappropriate to invent those figures or use them to rank the players in this game.
For readers who want to examine individual minutes, shooting attempts, and additional box-score categories, the ESPN game box score provides the relevant game record.
Season-Series Context: Indiana’s Advantage Over Seattle
The supplied season-series information shows Indiana leading Seattle 3-0 across the three listed meetings.
| Meeting | Result | Winner |
| May 18, 2026 | Indiana Fever 89, Seattle Storm 78 | Indiana |
| July 18, 2026 | Indiana Fever 110, Seattle Storm 107 | Indiana |
| July 29, 2026 | Indiana Fever 105, Seattle Storm 95 | Indiana |
These results suggest that Indiana found ways to win against Seattle in games with different scoring patterns. The May meeting finished with a combined 167 points, while the July 18 game featured 217 points. The later July meeting ended with a 105-95 score.
The July 18 contest was the closest of the three by final margin. Indiana won by three points, compared with 11 points in May and 10 points in the later July matchup.
That distinction matters because a season-series record does not mean every game followed the same pattern. In this meeting, Seattle’s shooting efficiency and rebounding were strong, yet Indiana’s free-throw production and late scoring made the difference.
The three results also should not be used to claim that future meetings would necessarily follow the same pattern. Rosters, player availability, tactics, and shooting performance can change from game to game.
How to Read the Player Statistics Correctly
Box-score figures are most useful when readers understand what each category measures and what it leaves out.
- Points: The total points a player scores through field goals and free throws.
- Field goals: Successful two-point and three-point shots combined.
- Three-pointers: Successful shots taken from beyond the three-point line.
- Free throws: Points scored from awarded free-throw attempts.
- Rebounds: Recoveries of the ball after missed shots.
- Assists: Passes directly leading to a made field goal, subject to the statistician’s judgment.
- Steals: Defensive actions that result in the opponent losing possession.
- Blocks: Defensive actions that legally deflect an opponent’s shot.
- Turnovers: Possessions lost through errors or defensive actions.
- Plus/minus: The team’s scoring margin while a player is on the floor.
Why shooting percentages need context
Clark’s 11-of-18 field-goal performance and Fam’s five-of-six performance look efficient, but they describe different volumes and roles. Clark took more shots and added significant free-throw production, while Fam made a large share of a smaller number of attempts.
Malonga’s 13 made field goals were the highest individual total listed for Seattle. However, her six turnovers should also be considered when evaluating her overall performance.
No single statistic captures everything a player contributes. A complete assessment considers scoring volume, efficiency, ball security, playmaking, rebounding, defense, and the player’s role in the team’s offensive structure.
Why team totals can differ from individual summaries
When reviewing a box score, team totals should be used to confirm the overall picture. Individual tables are useful for comparisons, but the complete team line remains the reference for aggregate statistics.
For example, the Fever’s 110 points and the Storm’s 107 points establish the result. Their field-goal, three-point, free-throw, rebound, assist, steal, block, and turnover totals then help explain how that result occurred.
The distinction between a raw total and a percentage is also important. Indiana made 28 of 31 free throws, which is about 90.3%, rounded to 90% in the supplied data. Seattle made 13 of 18, or about 72.2%, rounded to 72%.
These percentages allow readers to compare accuracy, while the attempt totals show how frequently each team reached the line.
Challenges and Limitations in Interpreting This Game
A detailed statistical breakdown can identify strong patterns, but it cannot answer every question about a basketball game.
First, team totals do not independently establish why a particular scoring advantage occurred. Indiana attempted 31 free throws, but the summary does not show every foul, defensive coverage, or driving action that produced those attempts.
Second, a high shooting percentage does not always mean a player had the greatest overall impact. A player might shoot efficiently while committing several turnovers, while another might score less but contribute through assists and defense.
Third, the available summary does not provide complete possession-by-possession context for every statistic. The quarter scores establish when each team scored more, but a detailed tactical explanation of each run would require reviewing the play-by-play record.
Finally, game-specific injury designations should not be confused with current availability. The inactive-player information describes the supplied record for this contest only.
Recognizing these limits makes the analysis more trustworthy. It separates what the box score confirms from interpretations that require additional evidence.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Indiana Fever vs Seattle Storm game?
The Indiana Fever defeated the Seattle Storm 110-107 in the July 2026 matchup listed in the supplied game data. Indiana won by three points after outscoring Seattle 28-19 in the fourth quarter.
2. How many points did Caitlin Clark score against Seattle?
Caitlin Clark scored 45 points, recorded 10 assists, collected two rebounds, and added four steals and two blocks. She shot 11-of-18 from the field, made six three-pointers, and converted 17 of 19 free throws.
3. Who was Seattle’s leading scorer and rebounder?
Dominique Malonga led Seattle with 28 points and 14 rebounds. She made 13 of 22 field-goal attempts and also recorded two assists. Her six turnovers were another important part of her statistical performance.
4. Which team had better shooting statistics?
Seattle had the higher overall field-goal percentage, shooting 57% compared with Indiana’s 50%. However, Indiana made more three-pointers and recorded a significantly higher free-throw percentage. Those advantages helped the Fever win despite Seattle’s superior field-goal accuracy.
5. How many assists did each team record?
Seattle recorded 27 assists, while Indiana finished with 21. Natisha Hiedeman led the Storm with eight assists, and Caitlin Clark led Indiana with 10.
6. Why did Indiana win despite Seattle’s rebounding advantage?
Indiana combined 10 made three-pointers with 28 successful free throws, 12 steals, and fewer turnovers. Seattle had more rebounds and assists, but Indiana’s scoring from the perimeter and free-throw line helped offset those advantages.
Conclusion
The indiana fever vs seattle storm match player stats reveal how Indiana secured a narrow 110-107 victory through high-impact individual scoring and advantages in several key team categories. Caitlin Clark’s 45 points and 10 assists headlined the contest, while Kelsey Mitchell’s 30 points gave Indiana another major scoring threat. Monique Billings added efficient shooting and defensive contributions.
Seattle also delivered a strong offensive performance. Dominique Malonga recorded 28 points and 14 rebounds, while Awa Fam, Flau’jae Johnson, Natisha Hiedeman, and Jade Melbourne supplied additional scoring and playmaking. The Storm shot 57% from the field, collected 35 rebounds, and recorded 27 assists.
The decisive differences appeared in three-point shooting, free throws, turnovers, and fourth-quarter scoring. Indiana made two more three-pointers, converted 15 more free throws, committed fewer turnovers, and outscored Seattle by nine points in the final quarter. Those advantages were sufficient to overcome Seattle’s higher field-goal percentage and rebounding total.
For anyone examining the game, the central lesson is that basketball results depend on the combined effect of shooting efficiency, scoring opportunities, ball security, defensive pressure, and late-game execution. No single box-score category tells the complete story, but together these numbers explain why Indiana finished ahead in a closely contested WNBA matchup.
