Washington Mystics vs Indiana Fever Match Player Stats

The washington mystics vs indiana fever match player stats from May 16, 2026, reveal how Washington secured a dramatic 104-102 overtime victory against Indiana at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis. The game featured outstanding individual performances, a major contrast in shooting efficiency, and a late Indiana comeback that forced overtime. Sonia Citron led Washington with 30 points, while Caitlin Clark delivered 32 points and 10 assists for Indiana. Despite Clark’s impressive performance and Indiana’s advantage in three-pointers, the Mystics found a way to win through efficient shooting, rebounding, and timely scoring.

This matchup offered much more than a close final score. It showed how a team can overcome turnovers and defensive pressure by converting a high percentage of its scoring opportunities. It also demonstrated why individual statistics must be considered alongside team performance to understand the outcome of a basketball game.

This article examines the complete team statistics, leading player performances, quarter-by-quarter scoring, tactical differences, and the broader significance of the May 16 contest. It also explains how to interpret the numbers accurately rather than judging the game by points alone.

Game Overview: Washington Mystics vs Indiana Fever

The opening game between Washington and Indiana on May 16 produced a memorable overtime finish. Washington scored 104 points, while Indiana finished with 102. The contest took place in front of 15,673 spectators at Gainbridge Fieldhouse.

Match details

Match detail	Information
Teams	Washington Mystics vs Indiana Fever
Date	May 16, 2026
Venue	Gainbridge Fieldhouse
Location	Indianapolis, Indiana
Attendance	15,673
Final score	Mystics 104, Fever 102
Game status	Final, overtime
Winning team	Washington Mystics
Washington record after game	2-1 overall
Indiana record after game	1-2 overall
Broadcast	ION
Streaming	WNBA League Pass

Washington entered the game looking to improve its early-season position, while Indiana was playing at home and attempting to strengthen its record. The result was decided by only two points after overtime, making every possession and missed opportunity important to the final outcome.

The official ESPN box score is the primary reference for checking the recorded game statistics.

Washington Mystics vs Indiana Fever Match Player Stats

The most revealing part of this contest is the difference between individual production and team efficiency. Indiana had the leading scorer, more assists, more steals, and more successful three-point shots. Washington, however, shot much more accurately overall and collected significantly more rebounds.

Team statistics at a glance

Statistical category	Washington Mystics	Indiana Fever
Final score	104	102
Field goals	38/68	36/92
Field-goal percentage	56%	39%
Three-pointers	6/16	17/42
Three-point percentage	38%	40%
Free throws	22/28	13/19
Free-throw percentage	79%	68%
Total rebounds	44	29
Offensive rebounds	8	11
Defensive rebounds	36	18
Assists	18	23
Turnovers	20	11
Steals	3	13
Blocks	8	4
Personal fouls	28	25

These numbers explain why the final score was so close despite the teams following different offensive approaches.

Washington made 38 of its 68 field-goal attempts. Indiana made 36 of 92. The Mystics therefore scored more baskets from substantially fewer attempts, creating a major efficiency advantage.

Indiana compensated for its lower overall shooting percentage by making 17 three-pointers. Washington made only six. That difference was significant, but it was not enough to overcome Washington’s advantages in two-point scoring, free throws, and rebounding.

Turnovers tell another important part of the story. Washington committed 20, compared with Indiana’s 11. Indiana also recorded 13 steals against Washington’s three. Ordinarily, those figures would suggest a substantial advantage for the Fever. However, the Mystics converted their remaining opportunities efficiently enough to survive the pressure.

The game illustrates why no single statistic provides a complete explanation of a basketball result. Shooting accuracy, possession value, rebounds, and the timing of individual plays all contributed to the outcome.

Washington Mystics Player Stats and Top Performers

Washington’s victory was built around three major scoring performances. Sonia Citron led the team, Kiki Iriafen supplied a powerful scoring and rebounding contribution, and Shakira Austin provided another dependable offensive option.

Washington Mystics player scoring

Player	Points	Additional recorded statistics
Sonia Citron	30	10/14 field goals, 9/10 free throws
Kiki Iriafen	25	13 rebounds
Shakira Austin	19	9 rebounds
Cotie McMahon	13	Starting lineup
Georgia Amoore	7	Starting lineup
Myisha Hines-Allen	6	Points
Damiris Dantas	3	Points
Tyasha Harris	2	Points
Makayla Timpson	0	Points
Raven Johnson	0	Points

The table includes the individual figures available in the supplied game data. It should not be interpreted as a complete account of every player’s minutes, shooting splits, assists, or defensive contributions.

Sonia Citron: Washington’s leading scorer

Sonia Citron delivered the standout scoring performance for the Mystics with 30 points. She made 10 of 14 field-goal attempts and converted nine of 10 free throws.

Her field-goal percentage was approximately 71.4%, an excellent mark for a player carrying a substantial scoring load. Her free-throw percentage was 90%.

Citron’s efficiency is especially important when compared with Indiana’s overall shooting performance. She reached 30 points without needing a large volume of field-goal attempts. That helped Washington maintain a strong scoring rate even when Indiana generated steals and forced turnovers.

Her 30-point performance also illustrates the value of combining field-goal accuracy with free-throw conversion. A player who scores efficiently from the field and capitalizes on opportunities at the line can create a major advantage without dominating the number of possessions.

For readers studying individual basketball statistics, Citron’s performance is a useful example of why points should be evaluated alongside field-goal attempts and free throws.

Kiki Iriafen: Scoring and rebounding impact

Kiki Iriafen finished with 25 points and 13 rebounds. Her contribution gave Washington a second high-volume scoring option and its leading individual rebound total among the players listed.

A 25-point, 13-rebound performance demonstrates value in two distinct areas. Scoring keeps the offense productive, while rebounding helps a team finish defensive possessions and create additional offensive opportunities.

Iriafen’s 13 rebounds were particularly important in a game in which Washington recorded 44 team rebounds against Indiana’s 29. Her work on the glass formed part of a broader team advantage that helped offset the Mystics’ high turnover total.

The combination of Iriafen’s scoring and rebounding also reduced the pressure on Citron to carry the entire offense. When multiple players can create points, opponents face more difficult defensive decisions.

Shakira Austin: A strong interior contribution

Shakira Austin recorded 19 points and nine rebounds. Her scoring gave Washington a third player with at least 19 points, while her rebounding helped support the team’s advantage on the glass.

Having three players score 19 or more points made Washington’s offense more difficult to contain. Indiana could not focus exclusively on Citron without also accounting for Iriafen and Austin.

Austin’s nine rebounds also mattered because rebounding is not limited to producing a high individual total. Securing a defensive rebound ends an opponent’s possession, while an offensive rebound can extend an attack. The supplied statistics do not separate Austin’s nine rebounds by type, so a more detailed breakdown would require the full individual box score.

Cotie McMahon and Georgia Amoore

Cotie McMahon contributed 13 points, while Georgia Amoore scored seven. Their contributions added depth to Washington’s scoring distribution.

McMahon’s 13 points helped ensure that Washington received meaningful production beyond its three leading scorers. Amoore’s seven points also contributed to a balanced scoring effort.

The main takeaway is that Washington did not rely on a single player to reach 104 points. Citron led the way, but the combined production of Iriafen, Austin, and McMahon gave the Mystics several avenues to generate offense.

Washington’s bench and supporting players

Myisha Hines-Allen scored six points, Damiris Dantas added three, and Tyasha Harris recorded two. Makayla Timpson and Raven Johnson finished without scoring.

A zero-point total does not automatically indicate an ineffective performance. Players can contribute through defense, screens, ball movement, rebounding, and positioning without scoring. However, those contributions should not be attributed to a specific player without supporting individual statistics or video evidence.

Washington also had an availability note for Michaela Onyenwere, who did not play because of left-knee injury management. Lucy Olsen was listed as not playing due to the coach’s decision. These absences are relevant context, but the supplied figures alone do not establish how much either absence affected the result.

Indiana Fever Player Stats and Top Performers

Indiana’s leading players produced enough offense to keep the game competitive through regulation and into overtime. Caitlin Clark and Kelsey Mitchell led the scoring, while the supporting lineup added contributions across the floor.

Indiana Fever player scoring

Player	Points	Additional recorded statistics
Caitlin Clark	32	10 assists, 4 rebounds, 7/17 three-pointers
Kelsey Mitchell	24	Second-highest scorer
Lexie Hull	9	Points
Monique Billings	10	Starting lineup
Aliyah Boston	9	Starting lineup
Sophie Cunningham	7	Starting lineup

These are the individual scoring and supporting statistics available in the supplied dataset. Additional player-specific shooting, rebounding, and defensive figures should be checked against the official box score before being published.

Caitlin Clark: 32 points and 10 assists

Caitlin Clark finished with 32 points, 10 assists, and four rebounds. She also made seven of 17 three-point attempts.

Her seven successful three-pointers were a major part of Indiana’s offensive production. The 17 attempts show how heavily the Fever relied on perimeter scoring, while her 10 assists demonstrate that she contributed as a playmaker as well as a scorer.

Clark’s performance combined two different forms of offensive value. Her scoring forced Washington to account for her shooting range, while her passing created opportunities for teammates. A player who can threaten the defense in both ways can influence possessions even when she does not take the final shot.

Her 10 assists also help explain why Indiana recorded 23 team assists, compared with Washington’s 18. Ball movement was a clear statistical strength for the Fever.

However, Clark’s 32 points did not guarantee a victory. Basketball outcomes depend on the combined effectiveness of all five players on the floor, the quality of defensive possessions, and how well a team converts its chances. Washington’s superior overall field-goal percentage and rebounding total proved decisive in the final calculation.

Clark’s performance is therefore best understood as an outstanding individual effort within a team defeat, rather than evidence that Indiana’s entire offensive approach was unsuccessful.

Kelsey Mitchell: A major scoring partner

Kelsey Mitchell scored 24 points, giving Indiana a second player with more than 20 points.

Her contribution mattered because Washington had to defend two major scoring threats instead of focusing exclusively on Clark. When both players are productive, a defense must decide whether to apply additional pressure to the primary ball handler or provide extra attention to the secondary scorer.

Indiana’s combined 56 points from Clark and Mitchell represented more than half of the team’s 102 points. Their output kept the Fever competitive even though the team’s overall field-goal percentage remained below Washington’s.

The available dataset does not provide Mitchell’s individual field-goal attempts, assists, or turnovers. Those figures should be consulted before making stronger claims about her shooting efficiency or playmaking role.

Lexie Hull, Monique Billings, Aliyah Boston, and Sophie Cunningham

Lexie Hull scored nine points, Monique Billings added 10, Aliyah Boston scored nine, and Sophie Cunningham contributed seven.

These players supplied supporting offense around Indiana’s two leading scorers. Their combined output helped Indiana reach 102 points, while the team’s 23 assists indicate that the offense involved contributions beyond individual shot-making.

The scoring distribution also points to an important distinction between volume and efficiency. Indiana generated 92 field-goal attempts, but made only 36. More attempts can produce a high final score, yet a team may still struggle to gain an advantage if too many shots fail to convert.

Indiana’s challenge was not simply to create shots. It was to convert a greater share of them while maintaining the defensive pressure that produced 13 steals.

Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Breakdown

The quarter scores explain how the game moved from an Indiana advantage to a late comeback and then an overtime finish.

Period	Washington Mystics	Indiana Fever	Period winner
First quarter	21	28	Indiana
Second quarter	20	9	Washington
Third quarter	26	21	Washington
Fourth quarter	22	31	Indiana
Overtime	15	13	Washington
Final score	104	102	Washington

First quarter: Indiana establishes an early lead

Indiana scored 28 points in the opening quarter, compared with Washington’s 21. The seven-point advantage gave the Fever an early platform and placed pressure on the Mystics to respond.

A strong first quarter can establish momentum, but it does not determine the final outcome. Teams must continue creating quality possessions, protecting the ball, and defending effectively across all four quarters.

Second quarter: Washington changes the direction

The Mystics outscored Indiana 20-9 in the second quarter. This 11-point advantage erased Indiana’s seven-point lead and gave Washington a four-point halftime advantage.

The quarter was one of the most important statistical turning points in the game. Indiana’s offense produced only nine points, while Washington scored 20.

That difference illustrates how quickly a basketball game can change when one team struggles to convert possessions and the other finds a more productive rhythm. The score alone does not identify the precise tactical cause, so claims about specific defensive adjustments would require play-by-play evidence.

Third quarter: Washington maintains its advantage

Washington won the third quarter 26-21, extending its four-point halftime lead to nine points.

At this stage, the Mystics had responded to Indiana’s fast start and maintained control of the scoring margin. Their ability to win consecutive middle quarters placed the Fever in a position where a strong fourth-quarter response became necessary.

Fourth quarter: Indiana forces overtime

Indiana scored 31 points in the fourth quarter, while Washington recorded 22. The nine-point difference was enough to erase Washington’s nine-point advantage entering the period.

This was Indiana’s strongest scoring quarter. The Fever’s late offensive surge demonstrated their ability to recover from a difficult second quarter and create a chance to win.

The fourth-quarter figures also explain why the final result cannot be understood from the first three periods alone. Indiana’s comeback changed the contest from a game Washington appeared positioned to control into an overtime battle.

Overtime: Washington finishes the job

Washington scored 15 points in overtime, while Indiana scored 13. The two-point margin matched the final difference between the teams.

Overtime often magnifies the value of execution because every missed shot or lost possession can become decisive. Washington’s two-point advantage in the extra period was sufficient to secure the 104-102 victory.

The quarter-by-quarter pattern is one of the clearest lessons from this contest: Indiana started strongly, Washington controlled the middle periods, Indiana recovered late, and Washington ultimately prevailed in overtime.

Why Washington Won Despite Committing More Turnovers

One of the most interesting aspects of the game is that Washington won despite committing nine more turnovers than Indiana. The Mystics recorded 20 turnovers, while the Fever recorded 11.

Turnovers are important because they end offensive possessions without a shot attempt. They can also give the opposing team opportunities to score before the defense is fully organized. Indiana’s 13 steals suggest that its defensive pressure was effective at disrupting Washington’s ball handling.

Yet Washington’s shooting accuracy and rebounding helped counteract that disadvantage.

Field-goal efficiency made the difference

Washington converted 38 of 68 field-goal attempts, while Indiana made 36 of 92.

Using the supplied shooting figures, Washington’s field-goal percentage was approximately 55.9%, compared with 39.1% for Indiana. That is a difference of roughly 16.8 percentage points.

The difference becomes clearer when considering points per field-goal attempt.

Washington scored 76 points from its 38 made field goals, while Indiana scored 89 points from its 36 made field goals because more of Indiana’s baskets came from beyond the three-point line.

Although Indiana gained more points from its made field goals, it needed 24 additional attempts to make two fewer baskets. Washington’s ability to convert a much larger proportion of its attempts helped it remain competitive despite losing the turnover battle.

This is an important distinction for anyone analyzing basketball statistics. A team can attempt more shots and score more three-pointers while still being less efficient overall.

Free throws supplied another advantage

Washington made 22 of 28 free throws, while Indiana made 13 of 19.

That gave the Mystics nine more successful free throws. At a final margin of two points, the difference was substantial.

Free throws can be especially important in close games because they allow a team to score without needing to create a field-goal attempt. Converting those opportunities consistently can protect a narrow lead or help a team stay within reach.

Washington’s 79% free-throw percentage also exceeded Indiana’s 68%. The combination of more attempts and better conversion helped the Mystics offset some of the points Indiana generated from three-point shooting.

Rebounding helped Washington control the glass

Washington finished with 44 total rebounds, compared with Indiana’s 29. The Mystics collected 36 defensive rebounds and eight offensive rebounds. Indiana recorded 18 defensive rebounds and 11 offensive rebounds.

The 15-rebound overall advantage is one of the clearest differences in the box score.

Defensive rebounds help end an opponent’s attack. Offensive rebounds give a team another chance to score after a missed shot. Both are valuable, but they serve different purposes.

Indiana recorded more offensive rebounds, which suggests that it created more second-chance opportunities in that category. Washington’s much higher defensive rebound total, however, contributed to its overall advantage on the glass.

The individual rebounding figures for Iriafen and Austin also show that Washington received meaningful contributions from its frontcourt players.

A careful analysis should not automatically assume that every rebound led to a scoring opportunity. The box score records possession outcomes, not the quality of each subsequent offensive possession. Still, the overall rebound difference supports the conclusion that Washington had a significant advantage in controlling the glass.

Three-Point Shooting: Indiana’s Biggest Statistical Strength

Indiana made 17 three-pointers on 42 attempts, while Washington made six on 16 attempts.

The Fever therefore made 11 more three-pointers, producing a 33-point advantage in points scored from beyond the arc.

<box gap={2}> <row align=”center” gap={3}> <AsyncImage query=”Indiana Fever women’s basketball players shooting three point shot game” aspectRatio=”3:4″ width=”88px”/> <box flex=”1″ gap={1}> **Indiana Fever**

 <title size=”xl” color=”default”>17/42</title>

  <text color=”secondary” size=”sm”>40.5% from three-point range, using the raw attempts and makes</text>

</box>

</row> <divider color=”subtle”/> <row align=”center” gap={3}> <AsyncImage query=”Washington Mystics women’s basketball players in game action” aspectRatio=”3:4″ width=”88px”/> <box flex=”1″ gap={1}> **Washington Mystics**

 <title size=”xl” color=”default”>6/16</title>

  <text color=”secondary” size=”sm”>37.5% from three-point range, using the raw attempts and makes</text>

</box>

</row> </box>

Indiana’s three-point advantage helped explain how the Fever reached 102 points despite shooting only 39% from the field.

Three-point shooting can change the shape of a game because each successful shot is worth 50% more than a two-point field goal. A team that makes several threes can recover from a scoring deficit quickly, as Indiana demonstrated in the fourth quarter.

However, perimeter scoring can also be volatile. A team may create plenty of attempts but struggle to convert them consistently. Indiana’s 42 attempts represented a large share of its 92 field-goal attempts, showing how central three-point shooting was to its offense.

Washington’s approach was different. The Mystics attempted only 16 threes and made six, so most of their field-goal production came from two-point attempts. Their overall field-goal accuracy and free-throw production helped compensate for the difference in perimeter scoring.

One useful lesson is that three-point volume should be considered alongside two-point efficiency, free throws, and turnovers. Looking only at made three-pointers would make Indiana appear to have a decisive offensive advantage, but the full box score tells a more balanced story.

What the Shooting Numbers Reveal About Offensive Efficiency

Field-goal percentage is a useful starting point, but it does not fully account for the extra value of three-pointers. Effective field-goal percentage, commonly abbreviated as eFG%, adjusts field-goal percentage to account for the fact that a three-point basket is worth more than a two-point basket.

The formula is:

[
\text{eFG%} =
\frac{\text{FGM} + 0.5 \times \text{3PM}}{\text{FGA}}
]

Using the supplied statistics, Washington’s effective field-goal percentage was approximately 60.3%, while Indiana’s was approximately 48.4%.

This calculation still gives Washington a substantial efficiency advantage, even after accounting for Indiana’s higher number of three-pointers.

Efficiency measure	Washington	Indiana
Field-goal percentage	55.9%	39.1%
Effective field-goal percentage	60.3%	48.4%
Three-point percentage	37.5%	40.5%
Free-throw percentage	78.6%	68.4%

The percentages in this table are calculated from the raw makes and attempts. They may differ slightly from rounded percentages displayed in a source summary.

Effective field-goal percentage helps explain why Washington’s offense was productive even though the Mystics made fewer three-pointers. It provides a more complete view of field-goal scoring efficiency than standard field-goal percentage alone.

However, eFG% does not include free throws or turnovers. It should be used with other measures rather than treated as a complete rating of offensive performance.

Understanding true shooting percentage

True shooting percentage, or TS%, goes one step further by including field goals, three-pointers, and free throws.

A commonly used formula is:

[
\text{TS%} =
\frac{\text{Points}}
{2(\text{FGA} + 0.44 \times \text{FTA})}
]

Using the supplied team totals, Washington’s approximate true shooting percentage was 65.0%, compared with about 48.8% for Indiana.

These estimates are calculated from the recorded points, field-goal attempts, and free-throw attempts. The coefficient of 0.44 is a standard approximation, so the result should be treated as an analytical estimate rather than an official box-score figure.

The difference reinforces the main statistical finding: Washington converted its available scoring opportunities much more efficiently.

Assists, Steals, Blocks, and Defensive Pressure

Scoring and shooting explain much of the result, but the defensive and playmaking numbers offer additional insight.

Indiana’s advantage in assists

Indiana recorded 23 assists, while Washington recorded 18.

An assist is credited when a pass directly leads to a made field goal under the applicable statistical rules. The Fever’s higher total indicates that more of their successful field goals were associated with recorded assists.

Clark’s 10 assists were especially notable. Her playmaking helped Indiana generate scoring opportunities for teammates and supported the team’s overall ball movement.

Still, assists do not measure every aspect of playmaking. A pass that creates a defensive rotation or leads to a teammate’s free throws may not receive an assist. The statistic is useful, but it does not capture the full value of every offensive decision.

Indiana’s 13 steals created pressure

Indiana recorded 13 steals, compared with Washington’s three.

That 10-steal difference reflects a major defensive distinction in the box score. Steals can immediately change possession and sometimes create fast-break scoring chances before the defense has time to set up.

Indiana’s steal total also aligns with its lower turnover count. The Fever protected their own possessions more successfully while generating disruption against Washington.

However, the Mystics’ victory shows that forcing turnovers is not enough by itself. A team must also convert those extra possessions into points and prevent the opponent from scoring efficiently at the other end.

The supplied team totals do not specify how many points Indiana scored directly after steals. It would therefore be inaccurate to assign a particular number of fast-break points to the Fever without consulting more detailed play-by-play data.

Washington’s eight blocks

Washington recorded eight blocks, twice Indiana’s total of four.

A block can prevent a field-goal attempt from becoming a basket and may change an opponent’s willingness to attack the paint. Blocks can also create loose-ball situations, although the defensive team does not automatically gain possession every time a shot is blocked.

The Mystics’ eight blocks suggest a meaningful presence around the basket. Combined with their 36 defensive rebounds, the total indicates that Washington had several ways to disrupt Indiana’s attempts to score inside.

A strong defensive performance is not always reflected in steals alone. Blocks, contested shots, defensive rebounds, and forced misses can all influence a game.

Personal fouls and defensive discipline

Washington committed 28 personal fouls, while Indiana committed 25.

The Mystics’ higher foul count may have increased Indiana’s opportunities at the free-throw line. Yet Washington still made more free throws than the Fever.

Personal fouls must be interpreted carefully. Not every foul results in free throws, and the consequences depend on the type of foul, the shooting situation, and the team foul count for the period.

The available figures establish that both teams committed a substantial number of fouls. They do not establish which individual fouls were decisive or whether any specific officiating decision changed the result.

A Tactical Comparison of the Two Teams

The numbers point to two different statistical profiles.

Washington’s profile was built around accurate field-goal shooting, strong rebounding, and better free-throw conversion. Indiana’s profile emphasized perimeter scoring, ball movement, and defensive disruption.

Washington’s approach: Convert fewer attempts more effectively

The Mystics made 38 field goals from 68 attempts. Their efficiency allowed them to generate strong scoring production without relying on a high number of shot attempts.

Their 44 rebounds also helped them compete for possession control. Iriafen’s 13 rebounds and Austin’s nine rebounds were significant individual contributions to that broader advantage.

Washington did not play a mistake-free game. Twenty turnovers represent a clear area for improvement, particularly against a team that recorded 13 steals. Reducing turnovers could help the Mystics preserve their scoring efficiency while giving opponents fewer opportunities to generate easy points.

Indiana’s approach: Generate perimeter volume and pressure

Indiana attempted 42 three-pointers and made 17. The Fever also recorded 23 assists and 13 steals.

Those numbers reflect an approach that produced considerable perimeter scoring and defensive activity. Clark’s 32 points and 10 assists were central to the team’s offensive output.

The challenge was converting enough of the team’s overall field-goal attempts. Indiana made only 36 of 92 shots, which meant it needed a large volume of attempts to reach 102 points.

The Fever’s 11 turnovers were a positive figure relative to Washington’s 20. Their defensive pressure also created opportunities, but those strengths did not fully offset Washington’s superior shooting accuracy and rebounding total.

Which team had the better overall statistical performance?

The answer depends on the category being examined.

• Scoring efficiency: Washington had the advantage.
• Three-point production: Indiana had the advantage.
• Rebounding: Washington had the advantage.
• Ball security: Indiana had the advantage.
• Assists: Indiana had the advantage.
• Steals: Indiana had the advantage.
• Blocks: Washington had the advantage.
• Free-throw production: Washington had the advantage.

The final result reflected the combined effect of these categories rather than one dominant statistic.

Washington’s ability to make a high percentage of its shots and win the rebounding battle outweighed Indiana’s advantages in three-point volume, assists, and steals. The two-point margin also shows how close the teams were in total scoring despite those differences.

Season Series: How the Matchups Compared

The supplied season-series data records three games between Washington and Indiana in 2026.

Game date	Result	Winner
May 16, 2026	Washington 104, Indiana 102 (OT)	Washington
June 9, 2026	Indiana 78, Washington 76	Indiana
September 21, 2026	Washington 93, Indiana 77	Washington

According to these supplied results, Washington won the season series two games to one.

The May game: An overtime decision

The May 16 contest was the highest-scoring of the three listed games. Washington reached 104 points and Indiana reached 102, with the result decided in overtime.

The game showcased a high-scoring offensive performance from both teams. Citron’s 30 points and Clark’s 32 points were the headline individual totals, while Iriafen’s 25 points and 13 rebounds supplied another major contribution for Washington.

The June game: A narrow Indiana victory

The supplied data lists a 78-76 Indiana victory on June 9.

That result was also decided by a two-point margin, but the combined score was much lower than in May. The difference illustrates why the same matchup can produce different statistical patterns from one game to the next.

A lower-scoring contest may involve different shooting percentages, possession totals, defensive adjustments, or player availability. Without the complete June box score, it would be inappropriate to attribute the result to a particular tactical change.

The September game: Washington wins by 16

The third listed result was a 93-77 Washington victory on September 21.

Unlike the first two meetings, this result featured a more comfortable scoring margin. Across the three supplied results, Washington won twice and Indiana won once.

The season series therefore provides a useful reminder that one game’s statistics should not be treated as a complete assessment of either team. Individual performances and final scores change with each matchup, and a broader comparison requires examining all three games separately.

The May 16 box score remains particularly valuable for studying the relationship between shooting efficiency, rebounding, turnovers, and overtime execution.

How to Read Basketball Player Statistics Correctly

For readers who follow the WNBA, the most useful way to interpret a box score is to look beyond the final score and individual point totals. Different statistics answer different questions about a player’s contribution.

1. Separate scoring volume from scoring efficiency

A player who scores 30 points may have an excellent game, but the number of attempts required to reach that total also matters.

Citron’s 30 points on 10-of-14 shooting provide a strong example. Her field-goal accuracy was approximately 71.4%, and she converted nine of 10 free throws.

Clark scored 32 points and made seven three-pointers. Her performance was impressive in terms of both scoring and playmaking, but her individual field-goal percentage cannot be calculated from the supplied information because her complete field-goal makes and attempts are not listed.

Comparing these performances requires more than simply placing 30 and 32 side by side.

2. Consider rebounds in context

Total rebounds help show which team controlled missed-shot opportunities, but individual rebound totals should be considered alongside team totals.

Iriafen’s 13 rebounds and Austin’s nine were important contributions to Washington’s 44 rebounds. Indiana recorded 29 rebounds overall, despite collecting three more offensive rebounds than Washington.

This difference shows why offensive and defensive rebounds should be considered separately. Offensive rebounds can extend an attack, while defensive rebounds help a team complete a defensive possession.

3. Evaluate playmaking alongside turnovers

Assists and turnovers provide useful information about a team’s ability to create and protect possessions.

Clark’s 10 assists demonstrate her playmaking contribution, while Indiana’s 11 turnovers indicate better ball security than Washington’s 20 turnovers.

However, these numbers should not be combined into a simple judgment of overall player quality. Assists depend on successful shots by teammates, while turnovers can result from passing errors, lost handles, offensive fouls, or other mistakes.

A complete evaluation also considers the player’s role, minutes played, defensive assignments, and the quality of the decisions made.

4. Use plus-minus only when the complete data is available

Plus-minus measures the team’s net scoring margin while a particular player is on the court. For example, a positive plus-minus means the team outscored its opponent during that player’s on-court minutes.

It does not mean that the player personally scored that many points or caused every point of the scoring difference.

The supplied data defines plus-minus but does not include individual plus-minus values. Therefore, no reliable player ranking based on that statistic can be produced from the available figures.

5. Check the source before making comparisons

When comparing performances across games, verify that the same statistical categories are available for both players or teams.

A complete box score can include minutes, field goals, three-pointers, free throws, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, personal fouls, and plus-minus. Some categories may be missing from a shortened data summary.

Using incomplete figures can lead to inaccurate comparisons, especially when assessing efficiency, defensive value, or a player’s impact over time.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who won the Washington Mystics vs Indiana Fever game on May 16, 2026?

The Washington Mystics defeated the Indiana Fever 104-102 in overtime at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis, Indiana.

Who scored the most points in the game?

Caitlin Clark led all scorers with 32 points for Indiana. Sonia Citron was Washington’s leading scorer with 30 points.

What were Caitlin Clark’s stats against the Washington Mystics?

Clark recorded 32 points, 10 assists, and four rebounds. She also made seven of 17 three-point attempts.

How many points did Sonia Citron score?

Sonia Citron scored 30 points for Washington. She made 10 of 14 field-goal attempts and nine of 10 free throws.

Why did the Mystics win despite committing more turnovers?

Washington overcame its 20 turnovers through superior field-goal accuracy, stronger rebounding, and better free-throw conversion. Indiana recorded 11 turnovers but shot a lower percentage overall.

Who won the 2026 season series between Washington and Indiana?

According to the supplied results for May 16, June 9, and September 21, Washington won the season series two games to one.

Conclusion

The May 16, 2026, matchup between Washington and Indiana was a close contest that highlighted the importance of efficiency, rebounding, and execution under pressure. Washington won 104-102 in overtime despite committing 20 turnovers and making only six three-pointers. Its 56% field-goal shooting, 44 rebounds, and 22 successful free throws helped offset Indiana’s advantages in three-point production, assists, and steals.

Sonia Citron led Washington with 30 points, supported by Kiki Iriafen’s 25 points and 13 rebounds and Shakira Austin’s 19 points and nine rebounds. For Indiana, Caitlin Clark delivered 32 points and 10 assists, while Kelsey Mitchell added 24 points.

The quarter-by-quarter scoring reveals how the game unfolded: Indiana started strongly, Washington controlled the middle periods, the Fever forced overtime with a fourth-quarter comeback, and the Mystics finished with a two-point advantage in the extra period.

Ultimately, the washington mystics vs indiana fever match player stats show why basketball analysis should consider more than scoring totals. Shooting efficiency, rebounds, turnovers, assists, and defensive plays each contribute to a team’s performance. Examining these categories together provides a clearer and more balanced understanding of how Washington secured the victory and why Indiana remained competitive until the final possession.