Indiana Fever vs Atlanta Dream Match Player Stats
The indiana fever vs atlanta dream match player stats from June 5, 2026, tell the story of an important WNBA Commissioner’s Cup matchup in which the Indiana Fever defeated the Atlanta Dream 83-71 at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis. Indiana built its victory around efficient shooting, strong individual scoring performances, and effective rim protection. Kelsey Mitchell led the Fever with 25 points, while Aliyah Boston added 19 points and Caitlin Clark contributed 17 points and eight assists.
Atlanta had several productive individual performances, including a 13-point effort from Allisha Gray, 13 points from Jordin Canada, and 12 points from Naz Hillmon. Angel Reese led the Dream with 10 rebounds. However, Atlanta struggled to convert its field-goal attempts consistently, finishing at 34% from the floor compared with Indiana’s 48%.
This detailed breakdown covers the final score, player statistics, team shooting numbers, rebounding, assists, turnovers, defensive contributions, and the key factors that shaped the result. It also explains how to interpret the box score so readers can distinguish individual production from overall team performance.
Indiana Fever vs Atlanta Dream Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The matchup took place on June 5, 2026, during the WNBA Commissioner’s Cup competition. Indiana hosted Atlanta in front of 17,002 spectators at Gainbridge Fieldhouse.
| Game detail | Information |
| Competition | WNBA Commissioner’s Cup |
| Date | June 5, 2026 |
| Venue | Gainbridge Fieldhouse |
| Location | Indianapolis, Indiana |
| Final score | Indiana Fever 83, Atlanta Dream 71 |
| Winning team | Indiana Fever |
| Losing team | Atlanta Dream |
| Attendance | 17,002 |
| Broadcast | Prime Video |
| Game ID | 401856961 |
| Source | ESPN box score |
Indiana won by 12 points, finishing the game with a clear advantage in shooting efficiency. The Fever made 30 of 63 field-goal attempts, while Atlanta converted 23 of 67. Indiana also made 11 three-pointers, compared with six for the Dream.
These numbers help explain why the final score favored the home team. Atlanta remained competitive through individual scoring and defensive activity, but Indiana converted a larger share of its scoring opportunities.
The difference was not simply about the number of shots taken. Atlanta attempted four more field goals than Indiana, yet made seven fewer baskets. That gap created a substantial scoring disadvantage that the Dream could not overcome.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Breakdown
The scoring progression shows when Indiana established control and how Atlanta responded during the second half.
| Quarter | Indiana Fever | Atlanta Dream |
| First quarter | 15 | 15 |
| Second quarter | 23 | 14 |
| Third quarter | 24 | 22 |
| Fourth quarter | 21 | 20 |
| Final score | 83 | 71 |
First quarter: Both teams start evenly
Indiana and Atlanta each scored 15 points in the opening quarter. The even score indicated that neither team gained an early advantage on the scoreboard.
For Indiana, the opening period provided an opportunity to assess Atlanta’s defensive coverage and establish its offensive rhythm. Atlanta remained close by limiting the initial scoring separation.
The tie after 10 minutes meant that the second quarter became an important stretch for both teams.
Second quarter: Indiana creates separation
Indiana outscored Atlanta 23-14 in the second quarter. That nine-point advantage was the largest difference between the teams in any single period.
The Fever’s shooting efficiency became a major factor. Their ability to turn possessions into made shots allowed them to build a lead without needing to dominate every statistical category.
Atlanta scored only 14 points in the quarter. Although that was not enough to put the game out of reach, it left the Dream needing a stronger offensive response after halftime.
Third quarter: The Fever maintain their advantage
Indiana scored 24 points in the third quarter, while Atlanta added 22. The Dream improved its scoring output, but Indiana still won the period by two points.
This was an important part of the game because Atlanta did not collapse after falling behind. The team produced a more competitive quarter, yet the deficit created in the second period remained a problem.
Indiana’s ability to keep scoring prevented Atlanta from turning its improved offense into a meaningful reduction of the lead.
Fourth quarter: Indiana protects the lead
The Fever scored 21 points in the final quarter, compared with Atlanta’s 20. The Dream stayed close during the closing period, but Indiana maintained its advantage.
The quarter-by-quarter pattern reveals a consistent theme: Atlanta never won a period outright. The teams were even in the first, and Indiana outscored the Dream in each of the final three quarters.
The second-quarter difference was especially significant because it gave Indiana enough separation to withstand Atlanta’s later scoring efforts.
Indiana Fever Player Stats
Indiana’s leading scorers provided the foundation for the victory. Kelsey Mitchell, Aliyah Boston, and Caitlin Clark combined for 61 points, accounting for most of the team’s 83-point total.
Indiana’s leading individual performances
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Notable contribution |
| Kelsey Mitchell | 25 | Not specified | Not specified | Team-high scoring |
| Aliyah Boston | 19 | 7 | Not specified | Three blocks |
| Caitlin Clark | 17 | 7 | 8 | Led Indiana in assists |
| Other Fever players | Not fully specified | Not fully specified | Not fully specified | Additional team production |
The available statistical summary identifies the leading scorers and selected category leaders, but it does not provide every player’s complete individual line. Unavailable figures are therefore left unspecified rather than estimated.
Kelsey Mitchell: Indiana’s leading scorer
Kelsey Mitchell finished with 25 points to lead all Indiana players. Her scoring represented approximately 30.1% of the Fever’s total points.
That contribution was particularly important in a game where Indiana’s advantage came from converting shots efficiently. Mitchell also made three of four three-point attempts, according to the supplied player statistics.
Her three-point shooting was notable because it gave Indiana additional scoring value without requiring a high number of attempts from beyond the arc. She made 75% of those four attempts, a strong result in this particular game.
However, four attempts are a relatively small sample. The figure describes her performance on June 5 rather than proving that the same percentage would continue across future games.
Mitchell’s 25-point performance also helped spread the scoring burden across Indiana’s offense. With Boston and Clark adding 36 points between them, the Fever did not depend on a single player to produce every important basket.
Aliyah Boston: Scoring, rebounding, and rim protection
Aliyah Boston contributed 19 points and seven rebounds. She also recorded three blocks, making her defensive production an important part of the statistical story.
Boston’s scoring placed her second among Indiana’s players. Her seven rebounds tied Caitlin Clark for the team’s highest individual total in that category.
The three blocks were especially meaningful when viewed alongside Indiana’s seven total blocks. Boston accounted for a substantial share of the team’s recorded rim protection, although the other players’ individual block totals are not fully specified here.
Blocks can change a possession without producing a steal or turnover in the conventional sense. A successful block may prevent a high-percentage attempt from reaching the basket, force an offensive player to recover the ball, or alter the timing of a shot.
Boston’s line therefore reflects several types of value: direct scoring, defensive rebounding opportunities, and protection near the rim.
Caitlin Clark: Playmaking and scoring balance
Caitlin Clark finished with 17 points, seven rebounds, and eight assists. Her eight assists led Indiana and highlighted her role in creating scoring opportunities for teammates.
Clark’s performance was balanced across three major categories. She contributed more than a few isolated scoring possessions, collected rebounds, and helped organize the offense.
Assists are particularly useful when evaluating a team’s offensive structure. They provide evidence of made baskets that followed a teammate’s pass, although they do not capture every useful pass or every action that creates space.
Clark’s eight assists represented half of Indiana’s 16 team assists. This shows how heavily her recorded playmaking contributed to the team’s assisted scoring.
Her seven rebounds also tied Boston for Indiana’s highest individual total in the category. The combination of points, rebounds, and assists made Clark one of the Fever’s most statistically involved players in the game.
Indiana’s supporting cast
The supplied box-score summary lists Monique Billings, Aliyah Boston, Kelsey Mitchell, Lexie Hull, and Caitlin Clark as Indiana’s starters.
The listed bench players were Myisha Hines-Allen, Makayla Timpson, Sophie Cunningham, Raven Johnson, Grace VanSlooten, Damiris Dantas, and Tyasha Harris.
Raven Johnson recorded a team-best plus/minus of +15. Myisha Hines-Allen and Johnson each recorded two steals, as did Kelsey Mitchell.
These defensive statistics offer a wider view of Indiana’s contribution beyond its three leading scorers. Steals can end an opponent’s possession before a shot, while plus/minus tracks the team’s net scoring margin during a player’s time on the floor.
The listed availability notes identify Grace VanSlooten, Damiris Dantas, and Tyasha Harris as DNP-Coach’s Decision. That notation means they did not play because of the coach’s decision, according to the supplied data. It should not be interpreted as evidence of an injury.
Atlanta Dream Player Stats
Atlanta’s leading scorers were Allisha Gray and Jordin Canada, both with 13 points. Naz Hillmon added 12 points, while Angel Reese led the team in rebounding with 10 boards.
Atlanta’s leading individual performances
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Notable contribution |
| Allisha Gray | 13 | Not specified | Not specified | Joint team-high scorer |
| Jordin Canada | 13 | Not specified | 7 | Joint team-high scorer |
| Naz Hillmon | 12 | Not specified | Not specified | Made 2 of 4 three-pointers |
| Angel Reese | Not specified | 10 | Not specified | Team rebounding leader |
The supplied summary does not include the full scoring, rebounding, and assist totals for every Atlanta player. This breakdown therefore focuses on the figures that are available.
Allisha Gray: A leading scoring contribution
Allisha Gray scored 13 points to share Atlanta’s team scoring lead. Her contribution helped the Dream produce 71 points despite its lower overall field-goal percentage.
Gray’s total was important to Atlanta’s offensive output, but the game required more collective scoring efficiency to match Indiana’s 83 points.
The available summary does not specify Gray’s individual shooting splits, so it would be misleading to assign a particular field-goal percentage or number of made three-pointers to her.
Jordin Canada: Scoring and playmaking
Jordin Canada recorded 13 points and seven assists. Her assist total led Atlanta, making her the team’s primary recorded playmaker in this matchup.
Canada’s seven assists accounted for half of Atlanta’s 14 team assists. Like Clark’s performance for Indiana, this figure shows that one player generated a large portion of the team’s recorded assists.
The comparison is useful, but assists alone do not tell the whole story of offensive creation. They do not measure every screen, cut, pass before an assist, or action that forces the defense to rotate.
Canada’s scoring also gave Atlanta a second player alongside Gray who reached 13 points. The Dream had multiple contributors, but their combined production could not compensate for the team’s lower shooting efficiency.
Naz Hillmon: Efficient three-point shooting
Naz Hillmon scored 12 points and made two of four three-point attempts. That gave her a 50% three-point shooting rate in the game.
Although her four attempts were limited, her accuracy provided useful perimeter production for Atlanta. The Dream made six three-pointers as a team, meaning Hillmon supplied two of those baskets.
Atlanta needed more successful field goals overall, not just from long range. Its 34% field-goal percentage shows that the shooting problem extended beyond a single scoring category.
Angel Reese: Atlanta’s rebounding leader
Angel Reese recorded 10 rebounds, the highest individual rebounding total listed for Atlanta.
Rebounds are valuable because they determine which team gains control after a missed shot. Defensive rebounds end the opponent’s immediate scoring opportunity, while offensive rebounds can give a team another chance to score.
Atlanta collected 30 rebounds as a team, including nine offensive rebounds and 21 defensive rebounds. Reese’s 10 boards represented a substantial portion of the Dream’s total rebounding production.
The available summary does not divide Reese’s 10 rebounds into offensive and defensive categories, so that split cannot be established from these figures alone.
Reese’s rebounding contribution is still important when assessing the matchup. Atlanta managed to compete on the glass, yet its success in collecting rebounds did not translate into enough made baskets to close the final scoring gap.
Atlanta’s bench and availability
Atlanta’s listed starters were Naz Hillmon, Angel Reese, Allisha Gray, Jordin Canada, and Rhyne Howard.
The supplied bench list includes Sika Kone, Madina Okot, Te-Hina Paopao, Aaliyah Nye, Indya Nivar, Isobel Borlase, and Brionna Jones.
Sika Kone recorded Atlanta’s best listed plus/minus result at +3. Brionna Jones was marked DNP-Right Knee in the supplied data.
That designation identifies the reported reason she did not play. It should not be used to infer the severity of an injury or predict her availability in later games.
Team Statistical Comparison
The team totals provide the clearest explanation of the 12-point result. Indiana held advantages in field-goal accuracy, three-point shooting, rebounding, assists, and blocks. Atlanta recorded more steals and fewer turnovers.
| Team statistic | Indiana Fever | Atlanta Dream |
| Points | 83 | 71 |
| Field goals made/attempted | 30/63 | 23/67 |
| Field-goal percentage | 48% | 34% |
| Three-pointers made/attempted | 11/25 | 6/21 |
| Three-point percentage | 44% | 29% |
| Free throws made/attempted | 12/15 | 19/24 |
| Free-throw percentage | 80% | 79% |
| Total rebounds | 35 | 30 |
| Offensive rebounds | 6 | 9 |
| Defensive rebounds | 29 | 21 |
| Assists | 16 | 14 |
| Turnovers | 14 | 11 |
| Steals | 6 | 9 |
| Blocks | 7 | 3 |
| Personal fouls | 22 | 19 |
Field-goal efficiency made the biggest difference
Indiana made 30 field goals on 63 attempts, while Atlanta made 23 on 67 attempts.
The Fever therefore made seven more baskets despite taking four fewer shots. This is one of the most important differences in the box score.
Indiana’s 48% field-goal percentage exceeded Atlanta’s 34% by 14 percentage points. That gap indicates that the Fever converted their shot opportunities much more effectively.
A higher field-goal percentage does not automatically mean a team played better in every area, but it is especially relevant when both teams attempt a similar number of shots. Here, the combination of fewer attempts and more makes favored Indiana.
Three-point shooting added another advantage
Indiana made 11 of 25 three-point attempts, while Atlanta made six of 21.
That produced a difference of five made three-pointers. Since each successful three-pointer is worth three points, Indiana scored 15 points from its 11 made threes, compared with Atlanta’s 18 points from six made threes.
The total points from three-pointers require careful interpretation: Atlanta’s six made threes contributed 18 points, while Indiana’s 11 contributed 33 points. The difference in actual three-point scoring was therefore 15 points in Indiana’s favor.
This is a major part of the game’s scoring explanation. Indiana’s perimeter shooting gave it more scoring value from the same general type of attempt.
Free throws kept Atlanta in the game
Atlanta made 19 of 24 free throws, while Indiana made 12 of 15. Both teams converted at nearly the same rate, with Atlanta at 79% and Indiana at 80% based on the supplied figures.
Atlanta scored seven more points at the free-throw line. That advantage helped offset some of Indiana’s superiority from the field.
This distinction matters because the final margin was 12 points. Atlanta’s free-throw production reduced the impact of its field-goal struggles, but it was not enough to overcome Indiana’s advantage on made field goals and three-pointers.
Rebounding: Atlanta created extra chances, Indiana collected more boards overall
Indiana finished with 35 rebounds, compared with Atlanta’s 30.
However, the offensive rebounding figures tell a different story. Atlanta collected nine offensive rebounds, while Indiana recorded six. Those three additional offensive boards gave the Dream opportunities to extend possessions after missed shots.
Indiana’s larger overall rebounding total came from its 29 defensive rebounds, compared with Atlanta’s 21. Defensive rebounds are important because they prevent opponents from gaining additional shots and allow a team to begin its own possession.
The figures suggest that Atlanta found some success extending possessions, while Indiana collected more rebounds overall and recorded more defensive boards. Rebounding alone did not determine the result, but it helps explain how each team managed missed shots.
Assists and turnovers: Atlanta protected the ball better
Indiana recorded 16 assists and 14 turnovers. Atlanta finished with 14 assists and 11 turnovers.
Atlanta committed three fewer turnovers, an advantage that generally matters because turnovers end possessions without a shot attempt. Indiana’s higher turnover count means its offensive execution was not perfect, even in a winning performance.
The Fever offset that weakness with stronger shooting. Their 30 made field goals and 11 three-pointers helped them score more efficiently when they did get attempts.
Indiana also recorded two more assists than Atlanta, suggesting slightly greater assisted scoring production by the team. Neither assists nor turnovers should be examined in isolation, however. A team can have more turnovers and still win when its shooting advantage is large enough.
Defense: Indiana recorded more blocks, Atlanta more steals
Indiana recorded seven blocks and six steals. Atlanta recorded three blocks and nine steals.
The Dream had three more steals, indicating that it disrupted Indiana’s ball handling more often in this category. Indiana, however, recorded four more blocks.
Steals and blocks measure different defensive events. A steal directly gives the defending team possession, while a block prevents or alters a shot but does not necessarily end the offensive possession.
Indiana’s advantage in blocks suggests more recorded shot protection at the rim. Atlanta’s advantage in steals shows that it generated more defensive takeaways. The final result demonstrates that these defensive contributions must be considered alongside offensive efficiency.
Why Indiana Won the Game
Several statistical factors combined to produce Indiana’s 83-71 victory. The most convincing explanation comes from considering shooting, individual scoring, and defense together rather than relying on one headline number.
1. Indiana converted more shots
Indiana’s 48% field-goal percentage was substantially higher than Atlanta’s 34%. The Fever made seven more field goals on fewer attempts.
This was the central difference in the game. Atlanta took enough shots to remain competitive, but a smaller share of those attempts became baskets.
2. The Fever created a significant perimeter advantage
Indiana made 11 three-pointers, while Atlanta made six. Those five additional made threes produced a 15-point difference in scoring from beyond the arc.
The difference was larger than the final 12-point margin, although other scoring categories moved the total in Atlanta’s favor. The Dream’s free-throw advantage, for example, helped narrow the gap.
3. Indiana had three major scoring contributors
Mitchell scored 25 points, Boston added 19, and Clark finished with 17. Together, the three players produced 61 of Indiana’s 83 points.
Having several productive scorers can make an offense harder to contain. If one player encounters difficult defensive coverage, teammates may still create scoring opportunities.
The box score supports the conclusion that Indiana received substantial production from these three players. It does not, by itself, establish the exact defensive assignments or tactics Atlanta used against them.
4. Boston contributed on both ends of the court
Boston’s 19 points, seven rebounds, and three blocks show production across scoring, rebounding, and defense.
Her contribution was not limited to one part of the game. The combination of interior scoring and shot blocking helped Indiana maintain an advantage even when Atlanta produced points at the free-throw line.
5. Indiana built its lead before the final quarter
Indiana’s nine-point second-quarter advantage established separation. The Fever then outscored Atlanta by two in the third and one in the fourth.
This pattern matters because it shows that Indiana did not need an unusually large fourth-quarter run to win. The team created its advantage earlier and maintained it through the remaining periods.
Where Atlanta Fell Short
Atlanta’s defeat cannot be explained by a lack of individual effort alone. The statistics show useful contributions in rebounding, assists, free throws, and steals. The largest challenge was converting those efforts into enough points.
Field-goal accuracy was the main problem
A 34% field-goal percentage placed Atlanta well below Indiana’s 48%. The Dream attempted more field goals but made fewer baskets.
The difference suggests that Atlanta needed better conversion on its available shots. The supplied totals do not include shot locations or detailed play-by-play analysis, so it is not possible to determine precisely how much of the gap came from shot selection, defensive pressure, or missed open attempts.
Three-point production lagged behind Indiana
Atlanta made six three-pointers, five fewer than Indiana. That difference had a direct effect on the final scoring margin.
The Dream’s 29% three-point percentage was also lower than the Fever’s 44%. Although Atlanta had several players who made two threes each, its total perimeter production remained below Indiana’s.
Extra offensive rebounds did not erase the shooting gap
Atlanta’s nine offensive rebounds exceeded Indiana’s six. Those additional rebounds created chances to recover missed shots, but the team still finished with 23 made field goals.
Offensive rebounds can be valuable, yet they only produce points when a possession eventually results in a made basket or free throws. Atlanta’s shooting figures show that extra opportunities did not fully compensate for its lower conversion rate.
Atlanta’s defense produced takeaways, but Indiana still scored efficiently
Atlanta recorded nine steals, three more than Indiana. That is a positive defensive statistic, but it did not translate into enough overall disruption to prevent the Fever from shooting 48% from the field.
A team can create turnovers and still struggle to defend effectively across the full game. The box score indicates that Atlanta generated steals but allowed a high percentage of Indiana’s field-goal attempts to become baskets.
Understanding Plus/Minus in This Matchup
Plus/minus measures the difference between a team’s points scored and points allowed while a particular player is on the court.
For this game, Raven Johnson had Indiana’s best listed plus/minus at +15. Sika Kone recorded Atlanta’s best listed result at +3.
These figures do not mean Johnson personally scored 15 more points than an opponent, nor do they mean Kone individually produced three points. Instead, they describe the team’s net scoring margin during each player’s time on the floor.
Plus/minus can help readers explore how a team performed with different player combinations. It should not be treated as a complete measure of individual skill.
For example, a player may have a strong plus/minus because teammates shoot well during their minutes. Another player may perform useful defensive work while sharing the court with a lineup that struggles offensively.
The most reliable interpretation combines plus/minus with direct production such as points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, and shooting percentages. In this matchup, Johnson’s +15 provides context for Indiana’s lineup performance, while the other statistics explain the main sources of the team’s success.
How to Read a WNBA Box Score Correctly
Readers looking for reliable player statistics can learn a great deal by examining a few categories in a consistent order.
Start with the final score and quarter totals
The final score establishes the result, while the quarter totals show when the lead developed.
In this matchup, the 15-15 opening quarter was followed by a 23-14 second quarter in Indiana’s favor. That sequence explains how a close start became a more comfortable Fever lead.
Compare shooting percentages and made shots
Field-goal percentage helps explain how efficiently a team converts its attempts. Three-point shooting deserves separate attention because each made shot is worth three points.
The number of made shots is also essential. Percentages describe efficiency, but the total number of makes shows how much scoring a team actually generated.
Check rebounds, assists, and turnovers
Rebounds indicate who recovered missed shots. Assists identify passes credited with leading directly to made baskets, while turnovers record possessions lost before a shot attempt or other completed scoring opportunity.
In this game, Indiana led in total rebounds and assists, while Atlanta recorded fewer turnovers and more offensive rebounds.
Review defensive statistics
Steals, blocks, and personal fouls provide additional context. A high steal total may indicate effective anticipation or pressure, while blocks reflect altered or rejected shots.
Personal fouls can also affect the game by sending opponents to the free-throw line. Atlanta attempted 24 free throws, compared with Indiana’s 15, although the supplied data alone cannot attribute that difference to any single defensive tactic.
Verify the source and game date
A player may appear in several games against the same opponent during one season. Always check the date and game identifier before using a statistical line in an article, report, or comparison.
The June 5, 2026, game is identified by ESPN game ID 401856961. Its figures should not be combined with later meetings unless the article clearly labels the different dates.
For the original record, consult the official ESPN box score.
Season Series Context
The supplied matchup summary lists the season series as tied 2-2. It records four meetings between Indiana and Atlanta:
| Game | Result |
| June 5, 2026 | Indiana Fever 83, Atlanta Dream 71 |
| June 19, 2026 | Indiana Fever 108, Atlanta Dream 101 |
| June 20, 2026 | Atlanta Dream 113, Indiana Fever 96 |
| August 17, 2026 | Indiana Fever 95, Atlanta Dream 91, overtime |
These results show that the June 5 game was one part of a closely contested season series. Indiana won three of the listed meetings, while Atlanta won one, which conflicts with the supplied statement that the series finished tied 2-2.
That discrepancy should be checked against the complete official schedule and box scores before publishing the season-series record as confirmed. The four listed results, as written, indicate an Indiana advantage of 3-1, not a 2-2 tie.
This is an important editorial distinction. A game-specific box score and a season-series summary answer different questions, and a reliable article should not repeat an inconsistent summary without flagging it.
The June 5 result itself remains clearly recorded in the supplied game data: Indiana won 83-71. The later matchups should be verified individually if their detailed player performances are included in a broader season review.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Indiana Fever vs Atlanta Dream game on June 5, 2026?
The Indiana Fever defeated the Atlanta Dream 83-71 on June 5, 2026, at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis.
2. Who was Indiana’s top scorer against Atlanta?
Kelsey Mitchell led Indiana with 25 points. Aliyah Boston scored 19 points, and Caitlin Clark added 17 points.
3. How many points did Caitlin Clark score, and how many assists did she record?
Caitlin Clark scored 17 points, collected seven rebounds, and recorded eight assists. Her eight assists led Indiana in the game.
4. Who led Atlanta in scoring and rebounding?
Allisha Gray and Jordin Canada shared Atlanta’s scoring lead with 13 points each. Angel Reese led the Dream with 10 rebounds.
5. Why did Indiana beat Atlanta?
Indiana shot 48% from the field and 44% from three-point range, compared with Atlanta’s 34% and 29%, respectively. The Fever also made five more three-pointers and seven more field goals.
6. Where can readers find the official player statistics?
Readers can review the ESPN box score for the June 5, 2026, matchup using game ID 401856961. The record contains the final score, team statistics, player performances, and game details.
Conclusion
The June 5, 2026, matchup between Indiana and Atlanta demonstrated how shooting efficiency and balanced individual production can shape a WNBA result. Indiana won 83-71 after a tied opening quarter, a strong second period, and steady scoring in the second half.
Kelsey Mitchell led the Fever with 25 points, Aliyah Boston supplied 19 points and three blocks, and Caitlin Clark contributed 17 points and eight assists. Atlanta received 13 points each from Allisha Gray and Jordin Canada, 12 points from Naz Hillmon, and 10 rebounds from Angel Reese.
The team statistics reveal the clearest explanation for the result. Indiana made 30 of 63 field goals and 11 of 25 three-pointers. Atlanta made 23 of 67 field goals and six of 21 three-pointers. Although the Dream recorded more steals, offensive rebounds, and free throws made, its lower shooting percentage created a scoring gap that it could not overcome.
For readers studying player performance, the most useful approach is to consider scoring alongside shooting efficiency, rebounding, assists, turnovers, and defense. Individual totals reveal who contributed, while team statistics explain how those contributions affected the final result.
