Indiana Fever vs Washington Mystics Match Player Stats
The indiana fever vs washington mystics match player stats reveal how Washington delivered a dominant 93-77 victory over Indiana on September 21, 2026, at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis. Despite playing in front of 17,274 fans, the Fever struggled to match Washington’s shooting efficiency, ball movement, and offensive execution. Caitlin Clark scored 25 points, while Kelsey Mitchell added 22, but their combined production was not enough to overcome the Mystics’ balanced attack.
Kiki Iriafen led Washington with 21 points and 14 rebounds, recording an impressive double-double. Shakira Austin contributed 20 points and 10 rebounds, while Sonia Citron controlled the offensive flow with 16 points and 10 assists. Their performances helped Washington establish an early advantage and maintain control throughout most of the contest.
The final score reflected a significant difference in offensive efficiency. Washington converted 57% of its field-goal attempts, compared with Indiana’s 37%. The Mystics also recorded 27 assists, demonstrating how effectively they created scoring opportunities for one another.
This matchup offered several important statistical lessons. Washington’s strong first half, efficient shooting, and interior production proved decisive, while Indiana’s third-quarter improvement came too late to change the result.
Match Overview: Washington Mystics vs Indiana Fever
The September 21 contest brought together two competitive WNBA teams with different offensive approaches. Indiana entered the game looking to use its home-court advantage, perimeter shooting, and offensive creativity. Washington, meanwhile, relied on balanced scoring, efficient shot selection, and strong contributions from its frontcourt players.
The Mystics executed their game plan more effectively.
Here is the complete match information.
| Match Detail | Information |
| Matchup | Washington Mystics vs Indiana Fever |
| Competition | WNBA |
| Match Date | September 21, 2026 |
| Game Time | 1:00 AM |
| Venue | Gainbridge Fieldhouse |
| Location | Indianapolis, Indiana |
| Attendance | 17,274 |
| Final Score | Washington 93, Indiana 77 |
| Winning Team | Washington Mystics |
| ESPN Game ID | 401857203 |
| Season Series | Washington led 2-1 |
Washington finished the contest with a 16-point advantage. The result was particularly important because Indiana was playing at home and had already demonstrated that it could compete closely with Washington earlier in the season.
The Mystics showed that offensive efficiency can be more important than simply attempting more shots. Indiana attempted 71 field goals, six more than Washington, but made only 26. Washington needed just 65 attempts to produce 37 successful field goals.
That difference was one of the biggest reasons behind the final result.
Indiana Fever vs Washington Mystics Match Player Stats: Complete Team Comparison
The team statistics provide a clear explanation of how Washington controlled the game.
| Statistical Category | Washington Mystics | Indiana Fever |
| Points | 93 | 77 |
| Field Goals | 37-65 | 26-71 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 57% | 37% |
| Three-Pointers | 9-18 | 6-28 |
| Three-Point Percentage | 50% | 21% |
| Free Throws | 10-15 | 19-21 |
| Free-Throw Percentage | 67% | 90% |
| Total Rebounds | 37 | 30 |
| Offensive Rebounds | 10 | 11 |
| Defensive Rebounds | 27 | 19 |
| Assists | 27 | 13 |
| Turnovers | 16 | 12 |
| Steals | 8 | 9 |
| Blocks | 4 | 4 |
| Personal Fouls | 25 | 19 |
Several numbers immediately stand out.
First, Washington’s 57% field-goal percentage was considerably higher than Indiana’s 37%. This means the Mystics converted their opportunities much more consistently.
Second, the difference in assists was substantial. Washington recorded 27 assists, more than twice Indiana’s 13. This suggests that the Mystics created better opportunities through passing and coordinated offensive movement.
Third, Indiana attempted 28 three-pointers but made only six. Its 21% conversion rate made it difficult to generate enough points from the perimeter.
Indiana did have an advantage at the free-throw line, making 19 of 21 attempts. However, its performance from the field created a scoring deficit that free throws could not completely overcome.
Quarter-by-Quarter Score Breakdown
Washington’s victory was largely established during the first half.
The Mystics opened aggressively, scoring 34 points in the first quarter while limiting Indiana to 19. They continued to defend effectively in the second period, allowing only 11 Fever points.
Indiana improved after halftime, but the early deficit remained too large.
| Quarter | Washington Mystics | Indiana Fever |
| First Quarter | 34 | 19 |
| Second Quarter | 17 | 11 |
| Third Quarter | 26 | 31 |
| Fourth Quarter | 16 | 16 |
| Final Score | 93 | 77 |
Points scored by quarter
Washington established its lead in the first half, while Indiana’s strongest period came after halftime.
■ Washington Mystics
■ Indiana Fever
First Quarter: Washington Establishes Control
The opening period immediately demonstrated Washington’s offensive confidence.
The Mystics scored 34 points, creating a 15-point advantage before the first break. Indiana managed 19 points but struggled to keep pace with Washington’s scoring.
The difference was not simply the number of possessions. Washington converted its opportunities with impressive efficiency and established the offensive rhythm that continued throughout the game.
Kiki Iriafen and Shakira Austin provided important scoring contributions, while Sonia Citron helped organize the offense.
For Indiana, the first quarter created an early problem. The Fever needed to improve their defensive communication and find more reliable ways to generate points.
Falling behind by 15 points after one quarter placed considerable pressure on the home team.
Second Quarter: Mystics Extend Their Advantage
Washington scored 17 points in the second quarter, while Indiana managed just 11.
Although neither team produced a particularly high-scoring period, Washington remained firmly in control.
The Mystics entered halftime with a 51-30 advantage.
That 21-point lead was significant because Indiana had not yet found a consistent offensive solution. Its perimeter shooting was inefficient, and Washington’s defense made it difficult to generate easy scoring opportunities.
Indiana needed a much stronger second half to make the game competitive.
Third Quarter: Indiana Shows Improvement
The third quarter was Indiana’s best period.
The Fever scored 31 points, their highest output of the game, while Washington recorded 26.
Caitlin Clark and Kelsey Mitchell provided important offensive production as Indiana attempted to reduce the deficit.
The Fever also showed greater urgency in their offensive execution.
However, Washington continued to score efficiently enough to prevent a complete momentum shift.
Indiana won the quarter by five points, but the Mystics still entered the fourth period with a 77-61 advantage.
Fourth Quarter: Washington Protects Its Lead
Both teams scored 16 points in the final quarter.
Washington did not need an explosive offensive performance. Its main objective was to maintain control and prevent Indiana from building another significant scoring run.
The Fever were unable to create the kind of momentum required for a comeback.
Washington eventually completed a 93-77 victory, finishing the game with a comfortable 16-point margin.
Washington Mystics Player Stats and Individual Performances
Washington’s success came from several players contributing in different ways.
The team did not depend on a single scorer. Instead, its starting lineup provided scoring, rebounding, and playmaking across multiple positions.
Indiana Fever v Washington Mystics
Kiki Iriafen: 21 Points and 14 Rebounds
Kiki Iriafen delivered one of the strongest individual performances of the contest.
Her final numbers were:
| Statistic | Performance |
| Points | 21 |
| Rebounds | 14 |
| Assists | 1 |
Iriafen finished as Washington’s leading scorer and top rebounder.
Her 21 points demonstrated her importance to the Mystics’ offensive production. However, her rebounding contribution was equally valuable.
She collected 14 rebounds, helping Washington secure additional possessions and control the defensive glass.
A double-double of 21 points and 14 rebounds is particularly valuable in a game where the opposing team is struggling to convert its field-goal attempts.
Iriafen’s performance also helped Washington maintain an inside presence. Her contribution gave the Mystics another reliable scoring option alongside Shakira Austin.
The most important takeaway is that Iriafen influenced the game in multiple statistical categories rather than relying exclusively on scoring.
Shakira Austin: 20 Points and 10 Rebounds
Shakira Austin was another major contributor to Washington’s victory.
| Statistic | Performance |
| Points | 20 |
| Rebounds | 10 |
| Assists | 5 |
Austin finished with 20 points, 10 rebounds, and five assists.
Her double-double provided Washington with another strong interior performance.
What made her contribution particularly important was the balance between scoring and playmaking. Five assists from a frontcourt player helped Washington maintain offensive movement and create opportunities for teammates.
Austin also collected 10 rebounds, matching the double-digit rebounding performance of Iriafen.
Having two players produce double-doubles gave Washington an advantage in the paint and reduced the pressure on its perimeter players to generate every scoring opportunity.
Sonia Citron: 16 Points and 10 Assists
Sonia Citron played a crucial role in organizing Washington’s offense.
| Statistic | Performance |
| Points | 16 |
| Rebounds | 4 |
| Assists | 10 |
Citron finished with 16 points and a game-high 10 assists among the reported individual leaders.
Her performance was especially important because Washington recorded 27 total assists.
Ten assists from one player demonstrate how much of the offensive structure flowed through her playmaking.
Rather than simply looking for her own shot, Citron helped create scoring opportunities for Iriafen, Austin, and the other Mystics players.
Her ability to combine scoring with distribution made Washington more difficult to defend.
Indiana had to account for her own offensive threat while also protecting against the passes she delivered to teammates.
Georgia Amoore: 11 Points and 3 Assists
Georgia Amoore contributed 11 points, one rebound, and three assists.
Her scoring helped Washington maintain multiple offensive threats.
Amoore’s contribution was important because the Mystics did not need to rely exclusively on their frontcourt players.
With Citron directing the offense and Amoore providing additional scoring, Washington maintained a balanced attack.
Michaela Onyenwere: 6 Points
Michaela Onyenwere completed Washington’s starting lineup with six points and one rebound.
Although her scoring total was lower than those of the team’s leading contributors, her presence was part of the lineup that helped establish the early advantage.
Not every starter needs to produce a large scoring total when several teammates are performing efficiently.
Washington Mystics Bench Contributions
The Mystics also received contributions from their reserves.
| Bench Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists |
| Angela Dugalic | 2 | Not listed | Not listed |
| Lauren Betts | 5 | 3 | 2 |
| Betnijah Laney-Hamilton | 3 | 4 | 2 |
| Rori Harmon | 0 | Not listed | Not listed |
| Lucy Olsen | 0 | Not listed | Not listed |
| Cotie McMahon | 3 | Not listed | Not listed |
| Cassandre Prosper | 0 | Not listed | Not listed |
| Alicia Florez | 6 | Not listed | 3 |
Alicia Florez led the listed Washington bench players with six points.
Lauren Betts added five points, three rebounds, and two assists. Betnijah Laney-Hamilton recorded three points, four rebounds, and two assists.
These contributions helped Washington maintain production beyond its starting five.
The bench numbers also demonstrate why evaluating a basketball game requires more than looking at the leading scorer. Reserve players can provide important minutes, additional ball movement, and support when starters need rest.
Indiana Fever Player Stats and Individual Performances
Indiana had two major scoring contributors, but the team struggled to receive enough efficient production from the rest of its lineup.
Caitlin Clark and Kelsey Mitchell combined for 47 points.
That represented a substantial portion of Indiana’s 77-point total.
Caitlin Clark: 25 Points and 5 Assists
Caitlin Clark led Indiana with 25 points.
| Statistic | Performance |
| Points | 25 |
| Rebounds | 2 |
| Assists | 5 |
Clark was Indiana’s leading scorer and one of its most important offensive contributors.
Her 25 points demonstrated her ability to create scoring opportunities even when the team was struggling to find its rhythm.
She also recorded five assists, tying Aliyah Boston for Indiana’s highest reported assist total.
Clark’s playmaking was particularly important because Indiana needed to create better offensive opportunities against Washington’s defense.
However, the overall team numbers reveal a broader problem.
Indiana recorded just 13 assists, compared with Washington’s 27. Although Clark contributed five assists, the Fever did not achieve the same level of collective offensive movement.
Her individual production was impressive, but it was not enough to overcome the Mystics’ balanced attack.
Kelsey Mitchell: 22 Points
Kelsey Mitchell finished with 22 points, making her Indiana’s second-leading scorer.
| Statistic | Performance |
| Points | 22 |
| Rebounds | 0 |
| Assists | 2 |
Mitchell provided another important scoring option alongside Clark.
Her 22 points meant that Indiana had two players capable of producing substantial offensive numbers.
Together, Clark and Mitchell accounted for 47 of the Fever’s 77 points.
That equals approximately 61% of Indiana’s total scoring.
This concentration of production illustrates one of the challenges the Fever faced.
While their leading scorers performed well, the team needed more consistent contributions from its other players to compete with Washington’s five-player starting lineup production.
Makayla Timpson: 13 Points and 7 Rebounds
Makayla Timpson was another important contributor.
| Statistic | Performance |
| Points | 13 |
| Rebounds | 7 |
| Assists | 0 |
Timpson recorded 13 points and seven rebounds.
She was Indiana’s third-leading scorer and top rebounder.
Her performance was particularly valuable because she provided production beyond the team’s established perimeter scorers.
Timpson’s seven rebounds also represented an important contribution to Indiana’s overall rebounding effort.
However, Washington finished with seven more total rebounds, demonstrating that the Mystics were more successful in controlling the glass overall.
Aliyah Boston: 7 Points and 5 Assists
Aliyah Boston finished with seven points, six rebounds, and five assists.
| Statistic | Performance |
| Points | 7 |
| Rebounds | 6 |
| Assists | 5 |
Boston’s performance included contributions in three important categories.
Her six rebounds helped Indiana compete around the basket, while five assists demonstrated her ability to contribute to the team’s passing game.
Although her scoring total was relatively modest, her playmaking remained important.
The Fever needed players beyond Clark to help create offensive opportunities, and Boston’s five assists represented a meaningful contribution.
Lexie Hull: 2 Points
Lexie Hull recorded two points and two rebounds.
Her statistical contribution was limited compared with the team’s leading scorers.
However, her presence in the starting lineup was part of Indiana’s attempt to establish balance across its perimeter and defensive positions.
Indiana Fever Bench Contributions
Indiana’s reserves had a difficult scoring night.
| Bench Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists |
| Myisha Hines-Allen | 2 | 4 | Not listed |
| Monique Billings | 0 | 1 | Not listed |
| Mercedes Russell | 0 | 3 | Not listed |
| Sophie Cunningham | 0 | Not listed | Not listed |
| Tyasha Harris | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Raven Johnson | 6 | 4 | Not listed |
| Grace VanSlooten | DNP | DNP | DNP |
| Bree Hall | DNP | DNP | DNP |
Raven Johnson led Indiana’s listed bench players with six points and four rebounds.
Myisha Hines-Allen added two points and four rebounds.
Several other reserves finished without scoring.
Grace VanSlooten and Bree Hall were listed as DNP-Coach’s Decision, meaning they did not play because of the coaching decision.
This limited bench production was another challenge for Indiana.
When a team receives 47 points from two leading scorers, additional production from the reserves and supporting starters becomes especially important.
Washington Mystics Shooting Efficiency vs Indiana Fever
One of the clearest explanations for the result comes from comparing shooting percentages.
Washington finished with 37 successful field goals from 65 attempts.
Indiana converted 26 of 71 attempts.
Field-goal shooting percentage
Washington converted a substantially higher percentage of its field-goal attempts.
The 20-percentage-point difference was a major factor.
Washington’s Efficient Field-Goal Shooting
Washington’s 57% field-goal percentage demonstrated its ability to convert offensive possessions into points.
The Mystics did not need an unusually high number of attempts to reach 93 points.
Their 37 successful field goals were enough to establish a comfortable scoring advantage.
This efficiency also helped Washington maintain control when Indiana improved during the third quarter.
Indiana’s Difficult Shooting Performance
Indiana’s 37% field-goal percentage was considerably lower.
The Fever attempted six more shots than Washington but converted 11 fewer field goals.
That difference is important.
A higher number of attempts does not automatically produce more points. Shot selection, defensive pressure, and conversion efficiency all influence offensive performance.
Indiana created opportunities, but too many attempts failed to become successful baskets.
Three-Point Shooting: A Major Difference
Perimeter shooting was another important factor.
| Three-Point Category | Washington | Indiana |
| Made Three-Pointers | 9 | 6 |
| Three-Point Attempts | 18 | 28 |
| Three-Point Percentage | 50% | 21% |
Washington made half of its three-point attempts.
Indiana converted only 21%.
Three-point shooting percentage
The Mystics were considerably more accurate from beyond the arc.
The difference becomes even more interesting when considering the number of attempts.
Indiana attempted 10 more three-pointers than Washington but made only three fewer.
The Fever’s 28 attempts indicate that perimeter shooting was an important part of their offensive approach.
However, their low conversion rate meant those attempts did not produce the expected scoring return.
Washington, on the other hand, demonstrated greater accuracy.
The Mystics needed only 18 attempts to make nine three-pointers.
This was an example of quality outperforming quantity.
Indiana did have a potential advantage at the free-throw line, but its three-point shooting prevented it from closing the scoring gap.
Free-Throw Performance
Indiana was significantly more accurate at the free-throw line.
| Category | Washington Mystics | Indiana Fever |
| Free Throws Made | 10 | 19 |
| Free Throws Attempted | 15 | 21 |
| Free-Throw Percentage | 67% | 90% |
The Fever converted 90% of their free throws.
Washington converted 67%.
Indiana’s ability to capitalize on free-throw opportunities helped its overall scoring total.
However, the difference in free-throw production was not enough to compensate for its poor field-goal and three-point shooting.
This demonstrates why basketball statistics should be evaluated together.
A team can lead in one category and still lose because of weaknesses in other areas.
Rebounding Comparison: Which Team Controlled the Glass?
Rebounding was another important part of the matchup.
Washington recorded 37 total rebounds, while Indiana finished with 30.
| Rebounding Category | Washington | Indiana |
| Total Rebounds | 37 | 30 |
| Offensive Rebounds | 10 | 11 |
| Defensive Rebounds | 27 | 19 |
Indiana actually recorded one more offensive rebound.
However, Washington dominated defensive rebounding.
The Mystics collected 27 defensive rebounds compared with Indiana’s 19.
This eight-rebound difference helped Washington limit Indiana’s opportunities for second-chance points.
Why Defensive Rebounds Mattered
Defensive rebounds are important because they allow a team to end the opponent’s possession.
When a team secures the defensive rebound, it can transition into offense without giving the opposition another opportunity to score on the same possession.
Washington’s 27 defensive rebounds helped it maintain control.
Iriafen and Austin’s Rebounding Contributions
Kiki Iriafen recorded 14 rebounds, while Shakira Austin collected 10.
Together, the two players accounted for 24 rebounds.
Their combined production was an important reason Washington finished with a seven-rebound advantage.
Indiana’s Makayla Timpson led the Fever with seven rebounds, while Aliyah Boston contributed six.
The difference between the leading rebounders demonstrates Washington’s stronger individual rebounding production.
Assists and Ball Movement: Washington’s Biggest Statistical Advantage
Perhaps the most revealing difference in the entire game was assists.
| Team | Assists |
| Washington Mystics | 27 |
| Indiana Fever | 13 |
Washington recorded 14 more assists than Indiana.
This was more than a minor statistical advantage.
It reflected a meaningful difference in how the two teams generated their offense.
How Washington Created Better Opportunities
The Mystics distributed the ball effectively.
Sonia Citron recorded 10 assists, while Shakira Austin contributed five and Georgia Amoore added three.
Their combined playmaking helped Washington generate scoring opportunities across the lineup.
The team’s 27 assists also suggest that its players were consistently finding open teammates.
Indiana’s Limited Offensive Distribution
Indiana finished with 13 assists.
Caitlin Clark and Aliyah Boston recorded five assists each, accounting for 10 of the team’s total.
The remaining three assists came from other players.
This concentration indicates that much of Indiana’s playmaking responsibility was carried by a small group.
Against an efficient opponent, limited offensive distribution can make scoring more difficult.
Washington’s passing helped create a more balanced attack, while Indiana depended more heavily on individual scoring contributions.
Turnovers, Steals, and Defensive Pressure
The defensive statistics present a more balanced picture.
| Defensive Category | Washington | Indiana |
| Turnovers | 16 | 12 |
| Steals | 8 | 9 |
| Blocks | 4 | 4 |
| Personal Fouls | 25 | 19 |
Indiana recorded fewer turnovers than Washington.
The Fever finished with 12 turnovers, while the Mystics committed 16.
This means Indiana actually had a four-turnover advantage.
Indiana also recorded nine steals compared with Washington’s eight.
Both teams finished with four blocks.
However, Washington’s offensive efficiency helped offset its higher turnover total.
The Mystics converted 57% of their field-goal attempts, allowing them to produce more points despite giving away possession more frequently.
Indiana’s lower turnover number was not enough to overcome its shooting struggles.
What the Defensive Numbers Reveal
There are three important observations.
- Indiana generated slightly more steals, indicating that it created opportunities to disrupt Washington’s offense.
- Both teams recorded four blocks, showing an equal result in that category.
- Washington committed more fouls, with 25 compared with Indiana’s 19.
The Fever also benefited from more free-throw attempts and a higher conversion percentage.
However, Washington’s offensive production remained strong enough to maintain its lead.
Three Major Reasons Washington Won
The final score can be understood through three major performance differences.
1. Washington’s First-Half Dominance
Washington scored 51 points during the first half.
Indiana managed only 30.
That 21-point halftime advantage placed the Fever in a difficult position.
Although Indiana improved after the break, it could not completely recover.
The first-half performance established the foundation for Washington’s victory.
2. Balanced Scoring Across the Starting Lineup
Washington had four starters reach double figures:
- Kiki Iriafen: 21 points
- Shakira Austin: 20 points
- Sonia Citron: 16 points
- Georgia Amoore: 11 points
Indiana had three players reach double figures:
- Caitlin Clark: 25 points
- Kelsey Mitchell: 22 points
- Makayla Timpson: 13 points
The difference was not simply the number of double-digit scorers.
Washington also received stronger contributions from its starting lineup as a whole.
Its leading players combined scoring with rebounding and playmaking.
3. Superior Shooting Accuracy
Washington’s 57% field-goal percentage compared with Indiana’s 37% was a decisive difference.
The Mystics also made 50% of their three-point attempts.
Indiana made only 21%.
This shooting advantage allowed Washington to generate more points with fewer attempts.
Indiana Fever’s Biggest Challenges
Although Indiana lost by 16 points, the performance offers several areas worth examining.
Perimeter Shooting Consistency
The Fever attempted 28 three-pointers and converted six.
That 21% shooting percentage made it difficult to build offensive momentum.
For a team relying on perimeter scoring, improving shot selection and conversion consistency is important.
Dependence on Leading Scorers
Clark and Mitchell combined for 47 points.
Their individual performances were strong, but the team needed more offensive production from its other players.
When two players account for approximately 61% of the team’s scoring, opponents can focus more defensive attention on those primary options.
Indiana needs balanced scoring to reduce that pressure.
First-Half Defensive Execution
Allowing 51 points in the first half placed Indiana in a difficult situation.
Washington scored 34 in the opening quarter alone.
The Fever improved after halftime, but their early defensive struggles created a deficit that was difficult to overcome.
Season Series: Washington Led 2-1
The September 21 game was the third reported meeting between the two teams in the season series.
Washington finished with a 2-1 advantage.
| Game | Date | Result | Winner |
| Game 1 | May 16, 2026 | Indiana 104, Washington 102 (OT) | Indiana Fever |
| Game 2 | June 9, 2026 | Washington 78, Indiana 76 | Washington Mystics |
| Game 3 | September 21, 2026 | Washington 93, Indiana 77 | Washington Mystics |
The first meeting was especially competitive.
Indiana won 104-102 in overtime, demonstrating that it could produce enough offense to defeat Washington in a close contest.
The second meeting went the other way.
Washington won 78-76, securing a narrow two-point victory.
The third game was considerably more one-sided.
The Mystics won by 16 points, giving them the season-series advantage.
What Changed Across the Three Meetings?
The results show how competitive the matchup was during the season.
Indiana won the first meeting, but Washington responded with two consecutive victories.
The September result was particularly convincing because Washington controlled the opening half and maintained its advantage.
The season series also illustrates the importance of adjusting to an opponent.
Washington’s final victory demonstrated effective execution in scoring, rebounding, and ball movement.
Player Comparison: Leading Performers From Both Teams
The following comparison highlights the most productive players based on the supplied box-score information.
| Statistical Category | Washington Mystics | Indiana Fever |
| Leading Scorer | Kiki Iriafen, 21 | Caitlin Clark, 25 |
| Second Leading Scorer | Shakira Austin, 20 | Kelsey Mitchell, 22 |
| Third Leading Scorer | Sonia Citron, 16 | Makayla Timpson, 13 |
| Top Rebounder | Kiki Iriafen, 14 | Makayla Timpson, 7 |
| Top Assists Leader | Sonia Citron, 10 | Clark and Boston, 5 each |
This comparison highlights the different ways the two teams produced offense.
Indiana had the highest individual scorer through Clark’s 25 points.
Washington, however, had stronger combined production from its leading rebounders and playmakers.
Iriafen’s 14 rebounds were double Timpson’s seven.
Citron’s 10 assists were also double the five recorded by Indiana’s leading assist contributors.
The overall statistical picture favors Washington’s balance.
What the Plus/Minus Statistic Means in Basketball
Plus/minus is a useful statistic for readers who want to understand player contributions beyond points, rebounds, and assists.
It measures the team’s net scoring margin while a particular player is on the court.
For example:
- A player with a +10 plus/minus was on the court while their team outscored its opponent by 10 points.
- A player with a -5 plus/minus was on the court while their team was outscored by five points.
- A player with a 0 plus/minus experienced an equal scoring total for both teams during their court time.
However, plus/minus should not be treated as a complete measurement of individual performance.
A player’s teammates, opponents, lineup combinations, and minutes played can all influence the number.
The supplied statistical data does not include individual plus/minus figures, so assigning those values to specific players would be inaccurate.
Game Records and Standings: Understanding the Data
The supplied ESPN information contains two different sets of team records.
The game header displays:
- Washington Mystics: 26-16, including a 13-9 away record.
- Indiana Fever: 27-15, including a 14-7 home record.
The separate 2025-26 standings section displays:
- Washington Mystics: 28-16, .636 winning percentage, two games behind, four-game winning streak.
- Indiana Fever: 28-16, .636 winning percentage, two games behind, one-game losing streak.
These figures have been preserved as displayed rather than combined or silently corrected.
Because the records differ between the game header and standings section, readers should treat them as separate source displays.
The final score and individual player statistics remain the primary information for evaluating this particular matchup.
Venue and Attendance: Gainbridge Fieldhouse
The game took place at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis, Indiana.
The reported attendance was 17,274.
Playing at home gave Indiana the benefit of familiar surroundings and crowd support.
However, home-court advantage does not guarantee better shooting or stronger offensive execution.
Washington handled the environment effectively and established control early.
The Mystics’ ability to maintain their offensive rhythm was particularly important because the Fever needed a strong start to make full use of their home-court advantage.
Where to Watch and Match Information
The supplied broadcast information lists the following channels:
- NBA TV
- WTHR Channel 13
- MNMT
These are the listed broadcast outlets associated with the game information.
For the original box-score details, including the player statistics and team comparison, readers can consult the official ESPN WNBA box score.
The ESPN Game ID for this matchup is 401857203.
Referees and Officiating Information
The listed officials for the contest were:
| Official | Name |
| Referee 1 | Maj Forsberg |
| Referee 2 | Teresa Stuck |
| Referee 3 | Kevin Fahy |
Washington finished with 25 personal fouls, compared with Indiana’s 19.
The Fever also attempted 21 free throws, six more than Washington.
However, the available team statistics do not provide a complete breakdown of individual fouls, technical fouls, or specific officiating decisions.
Therefore, the statistical difference should not automatically be interpreted as evidence of controversial officiating.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Indiana Fever vs Washington Mystics game on September 21, 2026?
The Washington Mystics defeated the Indiana Fever 93-77 on September 21, 2026, at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis. Washington established a 21-point halftime advantage and maintained control throughout the second half.
2. How many points did Caitlin Clark score against the Washington Mystics?
Caitlin Clark scored 25 points for Indiana. She also recorded two rebounds and five assists, finishing as the Fever’s leading scorer.
3. Who was Washington’s leading scorer against Indiana?
Kiki Iriafen led the Washington Mystics with 21 points and 14 rebounds. She recorded a double-double and was one of the most influential players in the contest.
4. How many points did Kelsey Mitchell score?
Kelsey Mitchell scored 22 points for the Indiana Fever. She was the team’s second-leading scorer behind Caitlin Clark, who finished with 25 points.
5. Which team had the better shooting percentage?
Washington had the better shooting performance. The Mystics converted 37 of 65 field-goal attempts for 57%, while Indiana made 26 of 71 attempts for 37%.
6. How many assists did Sonia Citron record?
Sonia Citron recorded 10 assists and 16 points for Washington. She was the Mystics’ leading assist provider and played an important role in their 27-assist team performance.
Conclusion
The September 21, 2026, meeting between Washington and Indiana demonstrated the importance of shooting efficiency, balanced scoring, and offensive teamwork in the WNBA.
Washington earned a 93-77 victory by establishing an early lead and maintaining its offensive advantage. Kiki Iriafen led the Mystics with 21 points and 14 rebounds, while Shakira Austin added 20 points and 10 rebounds. Sonia Citron contributed 16 points and 10 assists, helping Washington produce an impressive 27 total assists.
Indiana received strong individual performances from Caitlin Clark and Kelsey Mitchell. Clark scored 25 points, while Mitchell added 22. Makayla Timpson also contributed 13 points and seven rebounds.
Despite these performances, Indiana struggled with shooting consistency. Its 37% field-goal percentage and 21% three-point percentage were significant disadvantages compared with Washington’s 57% and 50%, respectively.
The biggest statistical difference was the combination of Washington’s efficient shooting, 37 total rebounds, and 27 assists. Indiana’s improvement in the third quarter showed its ability to respond, but the early deficit proved too difficult to overcome.
Ultimately, the indiana fever vs washington mystics match player stats tell the story of a game in which Washington’s collective performance outweighed Indiana’s individual scoring achievements.
