Minnesota Lynx vs Indiana Fever Match Player Stats
The Minnesota Lynx vs Indiana Fever match player stats from August 2, 2026, reveal how Minnesota secured a 108-100 victory over Indiana at Target Center in Minneapolis. The Lynx combined strong scoring performances from Olivia Miles and Courtney Williams with better rebounding and ball security to win by eight points. Indiana also delivered an impressive offensive display, led by Kelsey Mitchell’s 37 points and Caitlin Clark’s 19 points and 10 assists, but the Fever could not overcome Minnesota’s efficiency in possession management. The game attracted 16,505 fans and provided an entertaining contest between two talented WNBA teams.
The final score tells only part of the story. Both teams shot 57% from the field, and each made 11 three-pointers. The difference appeared in the details: Minnesota recorded 33 rebounds and only six turnovers, while Indiana collected 23 rebounds and committed 12 turnovers. Those margins gave the Lynx more opportunities to control possessions and convert their offensive production into a winning result.
This detailed breakdown examines the final score, individual player performances, team statistics, quarter-by-quarter scoring, and the tactical factors that shaped the game. It also explains what the numbers reveal about the strengths and weaknesses of both teams.
Minnesota Lynx vs Indiana Fever Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The August 2 matchup took place at Target Center, Minnesota’s home arena in Minneapolis. The Lynx entered the game with a listed overall record of 25-6, including a 12-4 home record. Indiana’s listed record was 19-11 overall and 8-6 on the road.
Minnesota ultimately protected its home court with a 108-100 victory.
Final Score and Match Information
| Match Detail | Information |
| Game date | August 2, 2026 |
| Competition | Women’s National Basketball Association |
| Home team | Minnesota Lynx |
| Away team | Indiana Fever |
| Final score | Minnesota Lynx 108, Indiana Fever 100 |
| Winning margin | 8 points |
| Venue | Target Center |
| Location | Minneapolis, Minnesota |
| Attendance | 16,505 |
| Television broadcast | ABC |
| Official statistical source | ESPN |
The result reflected an offensive contest in which neither team struggled to score. Indiana finished with 100 points, while Minnesota crossed the 100-point mark with eight points to spare.
The Lynx did not win because they had a major advantage in shooting percentage. Both teams converted 57% of their field-goal attempts. Instead, Minnesota benefited from a stronger rebounding performance, fewer turnovers, and slightly more assists.
These differences matter because basketball outcomes depend on more than the quality of individual shots. Teams must also secure missed shots, protect possession, create additional scoring opportunities, and limit the opposition’s chances.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Breakdown
The scoring pattern shows that Minnesota established an early advantage and maintained enough control to finish ahead despite Indiana’s continued offensive pressure.
| Quarter | Indiana Fever | Minnesota Lynx |
| First quarter | 33 | 36 |
| Second quarter | 20 | 28 |
| Third quarter | 23 | 23 |
| Fourth quarter | 24 | 21 |
| Final score | 100 | 108 |
First Quarter: Minnesota Starts Fast
Minnesota scored 36 points in the opening quarter, compared with Indiana’s 33. The three-point difference gave the home team an early advantage in a game that quickly developed into a high-scoring contest.
Indiana’s 33-point opening period demonstrated that the Fever could generate offense against Minnesota. The problem was that the Lynx scored even more efficiently in the same period.
A three-point lead is not decisive in basketball, but an early advantage can give a team greater flexibility. Minnesota could continue attacking without immediately needing to recover from a deficit.
Second Quarter: The Lynx Build Separation
The second quarter was one of the most important stretches of the game. Minnesota scored 28 points, while Indiana managed 20.
The eight-point difference in this period expanded Minnesota’s lead. Combining the first two quarters, the Lynx scored 64 points against Indiana’s 53, producing an 11-point halftime advantage.
This stretch helps explain the final result. Indiana matched Minnesota in third-quarter scoring and outscored the Lynx in the fourth, but the Fever could not fully recover from the damage done before halftime.
The supplied statistics do not establish which specific plays created this separation. However, the scoring totals clearly identify the second quarter as Minnesota’s strongest comparative period.
Third Quarter: Both Teams Match Each Other
Both teams scored 23 points in the third quarter. The equal scoring meant that Indiana did not reduce the deficit during this period.
When a team trails at halftime, matching the opponent’s scoring can preserve the existing margin but rarely creates the comeback momentum required to take control.
Minnesota maintained its advantage by matching Indiana’s production rather than allowing the Fever to build a sustained run.
Fourth Quarter: Indiana Finishes Stronger
Indiana scored 24 points in the final quarter, three more than Minnesota’s 21.
The Fever improved their scoring margin during the closing period, but the eight-point final difference shows that their late push was insufficient.
Minnesota did not need to dominate the fourth quarter. Its earlier scoring advantage, combined with better overall possession management, was enough to secure the victory.
Indiana Fever Player Stats and Individual Performances
Indiana’s offensive production featured a remarkable scoring performance from Kelsey Mitchell, an effective playmaking display from Caitlin Clark, and valuable contributions from Aliyah Boston.
The Fever scored 100 points and shot 57% from the field. Their individual statistics show that scoring was not limited to one player, although Mitchell carried the largest share of the offensive burden.
Indiana Fever Player Statistics Table
The following figures are taken from the supplied ESPN box-score data.
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Steals | Blocks | Turnovers |
| Kelsey Mitchell | 37 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | Not provided |
| Caitlin Clark | 19 | 1 | 10 | 1 | 0 | 4 |
| Aliyah Boston | 15 | 8 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Monique Billings | 9 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 0 | Not provided |
| Makayla Timpson | 7 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 2 | Not provided |
| Lexie Hull | 6 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Not provided |
| Sophie Cunningham | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | Not provided |
| Tyasha Harris | 2 | Not provided | 1 | 0 | 0 | Not provided |
| Raven Johnson | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Not provided |
| Myisha Hines-Allen | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Not provided |
The table reports only the statistics supplied for each player. A value of zero represents a supplied zero, while “Not provided” means the available data did not specify that category.
Kelsey Mitchell: Indiana’s Leading Scorer With 37 Points
Kelsey Mitchell delivered the most productive individual scoring performance for Indiana, finishing with 37 points, one rebound, three assists, and one steal.
Her scoring total was the highest of any player listed in the supplied box score. It also accounted for 37% of Indiana’s 100 points.
That figure highlights Mitchell’s importance to the Fever’s offensive output. Without her 37 points, Indiana’s remaining players would have needed to produce substantially more scoring to reach the same total.
Mitchell’s performance also illustrates an important distinction between individual success and team results. A player can score at a high level while the team still loses because basketball depends on several connected areas, including rebounding, turnovers, defensive stops, and contributions from the rest of the lineup.
Indiana shot 57% overall, so the available numbers do not suggest that the team struggled to convert field-goal attempts as a whole. The decisive issue was that strong shooting did not translate into enough additional possessions to overcome Minnesota.
Caitlin Clark: 19 Points and 10 Assists
Caitlin Clark finished with 19 points, 10 assists, one rebound, one steal, and four turnovers.
Her double-digit assist total was one of Indiana’s most significant statistical achievements. Clark’s 10 assists represented a substantial contribution to the Fever’s offense, showing her ability to create opportunities for teammates as well as score herself.
Assists are particularly useful when assessing a playmaker because they help explain how a team generates points beyond individual shot creation. Clark’s total of 10 indicates that she was directly involved in setting up numerous successful field goals.
However, she also committed four turnovers. Turnovers are not all equally costly, and the supplied data does not identify when or how they occurred. Nevertheless, each lost possession represents an opportunity the offense cannot complete with a shot.
Indiana recorded 12 turnovers as a team. Clark’s four therefore accounted for one-third of the Fever’s reported turnovers.
This is a useful distinction when evaluating her performance. Her scoring and playmaking were valuable, but her turnovers also contributed to a team-level weakness against a Minnesota side that committed only six.
Aliyah Boston: 15 Points, Eight Rebounds, and Seven Assists
Aliyah Boston produced a balanced performance with 15 points, eight rebounds, seven assists, and three turnovers.
Her eight rebounds were especially important because they made her one of Indiana’s primary contributors on the boards. She also supplied seven assists, a strong playmaking total for a player whose role includes interior scoring and rebounding.
Boston’s numbers show how multiple responsibilities can coexist in a single performance. She was not simply finishing scoring opportunities. She was also helping teammates find shots and contributing to Indiana’s work on the glass.
Her seven assists, combined with Clark’s 10, gave the two players 17 assists between them. Indiana finished with 27 team assists, so the pair accounted for a substantial share of the team’s recorded playmaking.
Boston committed three turnovers, meaning she and Clark combined for seven. That does not explain every possession lost by Indiana, but it identifies an area worth examining when reviewing the game.
Monique Billings: Useful Production Across Several Categories
Monique Billings recorded nine points, three rebounds, two assists, and one steal.
Although her scoring total was below those of Mitchell, Clark, and Boston, Billings contributed in several categories. Her two assists added to Indiana’s ball movement, while her steal provided a defensive contribution.
Players with balanced statistical lines can help sustain a team’s performance when the leading scorers attract defensive attention. Billings’ production gave Indiana another contributor without requiring every possession to end with one of its primary offensive options.
The supplied figures do not include her shooting splits or minutes played, so it would be inappropriate to judge her efficiency or playing-time impact more precisely.
Makayla Timpson: Seven Points and Two Blocks
Makayla Timpson finished with seven points, five rebounds, one steal, and two blocks.
Her two blocks were a notable defensive contribution. Blocks can discourage attempts near the basket, alter an opponent’s shot selection, and create opportunities for defensive rebounds.
Timpson also collected five rebounds, giving Indiana another player who contributed to its work on the glass.
Her statistical line suggests value beyond scoring. However, blocks alone do not capture a player’s complete defensive performance. Positioning, defensive rotations, contested shots, and the opponent’s shooting choices also matter.
Lexie Hull and the Supporting Cast
Lexie Hull contributed six points, two rebounds, and one assist. Sophie Cunningham recorded three points, one rebound, and two assists, while Tyasha Harris and Raven Johnson each scored two points.
Myisha Hines-Allen finished with no points, two rebounds, and one assist.
These contributions formed part of Indiana’s overall offensive output, but the available data does not provide complete shooting attempts or minutes for every player. As a result, their individual scoring efficiency cannot be established from the supplied figures alone.
The key team-level observation is that Indiana had several contributors, yet its combined production still fell eight points short of Minnesota.
Minnesota Lynx Player Stats and Standout Performances
Minnesota’s win featured major scoring performances from Olivia Miles and Courtney Williams, supported by Napheesa Collier and Natasha Howard.
The Lynx also finished with a meaningful advantage in rebounds, assists, and turnovers. Their statistical profile points to an offense that combined strong shooting with more effective possession management.
Minnesota Lynx Player Statistics Table
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Steals | Blocks | Turnovers |
| Olivia Miles | 28 | 4 | 6 | 0 | 1 | 3 |
| Courtney Williams | 27 | 4 | 5 | 0 | 0 | Not provided |
| Napheesa Collier | 18 | 8 | 7 | 1 | 1 | Not provided |
| Natasha Howard | 13 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 0 | Not provided |
| Kayla McBride | 10 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Not provided |
| Maya Caldwell | 6 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | Not provided |
| Nia Brodie | 4 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | Not provided |
| Dorka Juhasz | 2 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 1 | Not provided |
| Antonia Delaere | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | Not provided |
Only supplied statistics are included. Missing values are not assumed to be zero.
Olivia Miles: Minnesota’s Leading Scorer With 28 Points
Olivia Miles led Minnesota with 28 points, four rebounds, six assists, three turnovers, and one block.
Her scoring total placed her at the center of Minnesota’s offensive performance. Miles accounted for approximately 25.9% of the Lynx’s 108 points, making her the team’s leading scorer in the supplied data.
Her six assists also showed that she contributed to creating scoring opportunities rather than focusing exclusively on finishing plays.
Miles recorded three turnovers, fewer than Clark’s four despite also carrying a major offensive responsibility. However, comparing individual turnover totals without minutes played or possession usage can be misleading. The figures establish what happened in the box score, but they do not provide a complete measure of each player’s decision-making efficiency.
Miles’ combination of scoring and playmaking was particularly valuable in a game where Minnesota needed to maintain an advantage through four quarters.
Courtney Williams: 27 Points and Five Assists
Courtney Williams delivered 27 points, four rebounds, and five assists.
Her scoring was almost equal to Miles’ team-leading total. Together, the pair scored 55 points, accounting for approximately 50.9% of Minnesota’s final total.
That concentration of production is one of the clearest features of the game. Minnesota had two players score at least 27 points, creating a powerful scoring foundation that Indiana had to answer.
Williams’ five assists also show that her performance extended beyond scoring. Her contribution helped Minnesota maintain offensive balance, particularly when combined with the playmaking of Miles, Collier, and Howard.
A high-scoring performance does not automatically establish shooting efficiency, because the supplied figures do not include Williams’ field-goal attempts or free-throw attempts. Still, 27 points were a major part of the winning team’s offensive output.
Napheesa Collier: 18 Points, Eight Rebounds, and Seven Assists
Napheesa Collier recorded 18 points, eight rebounds, seven assists, one steal, and one block.
Her line was one of Minnesota’s most balanced performances. Collier contributed as a scorer, rebounder, and playmaker while also recording defensive statistics.
Eight rebounds tied her with Boston for the highest individual rebound total among the listed starters. Seven assists placed her among Minnesota’s key creators.
Collier’s performance illustrates why an evaluation based only on points can miss important contributions. Although Miles and Williams scored more, Collier supported the offense in several additional ways.
Her eight rebounds were also relevant in a matchup where Minnesota finished with 10 more rebounds than Indiana. The team total cannot be attributed to one player alone, but Collier’s contribution formed part of that advantage.
Natasha Howard: 13 Points and Five Assists
Natasha Howard finished with 13 points, four rebounds, five assists, and two steals.
Her two steals tied the highest supplied individual steal total for Minnesota, alongside Dorka Juhasz. Steals can disrupt an opponent’s offensive rhythm and create transition opportunities, although the available box score does not establish whether either steal directly led to a Minnesota basket.
Howard’s five assists added another playmaking option to the lineup. With Miles, Williams, and Collier also supplying assists, Minnesota had multiple players capable of creating offense.
This distribution can make a team harder to defend because the opponent cannot focus entirely on one ball handler or scorer.
Kayla McBride: A Double-Digit Scoring Contribution
Kayla McBride recorded 10 points, three rebounds, and one assist.
Her double-digit scoring gave Minnesota another starter capable of contributing meaningful offense alongside the team’s three leading scorers.
McBride’s 10 points represented a smaller share of Minnesota’s output than the totals from Miles and Williams, but secondary scoring remains important in high-scoring games. It helps prevent the offense from becoming overly dependent on a single player.
The supplied statistics do not include her shooting attempts, so the quality of her scoring efficiency cannot be calculated reliably.
Minnesota’s Bench Contributions
Minnesota also received points and supporting production from its reserves.
Maya Caldwell scored six points and collected seven rebounds and two assists. Her seven rebounds were a notable contribution, especially in a game where the Lynx won the overall rebounding battle.
Nia Brodie added four points, two rebounds, and one steal. Dorka Juhasz recorded two points, one rebound, one assist, two steals, and one block. Antonia Delaere did not score but registered one assist.
These figures show that Minnesota received contributions outside its leading scorers. Caldwell’s rebounding was especially relevant because it helped support the team’s overall advantage on the boards.
The box-score data does not establish how much of the bench’s contribution came during specific scoring runs. It does, however, show that Minnesota had multiple players contributing across different statistical categories.
Team Statistics Comparison: Minnesota Lynx vs Indiana Fever
The team statistics provide the clearest explanation of why Minnesota won despite both teams recording the same field-goal percentage.
| Team Statistic | Indiana Fever | Minnesota Lynx |
| Points | 100 | 108 |
| Field goals made/attempted | 39/68 | 43/76 |
| Field-goal percentage | 57% | 57% |
| Three-pointers made/attempted | 11/24 | 11/25 |
| Three-point percentage | 46% | 44% |
| Free throws made/attempted | 11/15 | 11/15 |
| Free-throw percentage | 73% | 73% |
| Total rebounds | 23 | 33 |
| Offensive rebounds | 5 | 11 |
| Defensive rebounds | 18 | 22 |
| Assists | 27 | 28 |
| Turnovers | 12 | 6 |
| Steals | 4 | 6 |
| Blocks | 2 | 3 |
| Team fouls | 15 | 16 |
Field-Goal Efficiency: An Even Shooting Percentage
Both teams made 57% of their field-goal attempts. Indiana converted 39 of 68 shots, while Minnesota made 43 of 76.
The identical percentages indicate that neither side had an advantage in overall field-goal accuracy as reported in the supplied data.
Minnesota attempted eight more field goals and made four more. The higher attempt total is consistent with the Lynx’s advantage in rebounds and turnovers, which can influence how many scoring opportunities a team receives.
The numbers do not mean that every shot was equally difficult or that both teams generated identical shot quality. A full assessment of shot selection would require additional information, such as shot locations and the timing of attempts.
Three-Point Shooting: Indiana Holds a Small Percentage Advantage
Indiana made 11 of 24 three-point attempts, a reported 46%. Minnesota also made 11 three-pointers, converting 11 of 25 for a reported 44%.
The Fever therefore had a small advantage in three-point percentage, but both teams produced the same number of made shots from beyond the arc.
Because the number of successful three-pointers was identical, Indiana did not gain an advantage in total three-point makes. Minnesota’s greater scoring output came from its overall combination of field goals, free throws, and additional two-point baskets.
Free Throws: Identical Results
Both teams made 11 of 15 free throws, producing a reported 73% success rate.
Free throws did not create a statistical advantage for either side in the supplied figures. Each team scored the same number of points from the line.
This detail helps narrow the explanation for Minnesota’s win. The difference was not caused by superior free-throw shooting or a higher number of made free throws.
Rebounding: Minnesota Wins by 10
Minnesota collected 33 rebounds, while Indiana finished with 23. The 10-rebound margin was one of the largest differences in the team statistics.
The Lynx also secured 11 offensive rebounds compared with Indiana’s five.
Offensive rebounds can extend possessions after missed shots, giving a team another chance to score without needing to force a turnover or win the ball back through defense.
Minnesota’s six-rebound advantage on the offensive glass was therefore particularly important. It created more opportunities to retain possession and continue attacking.
The Lynx also recorded 22 defensive rebounds compared with Indiana’s 18. This helped Minnesota finish defensive possessions by collecting missed shots.
Rebounding alone does not prove that every extra opportunity produced points, but the 10-rebound difference is consistent with Minnesota’s larger number of field-goal attempts.
Turnovers: The Most Important Possession Difference
Minnesota committed six turnovers, exactly half of Indiana’s 12.
This difference matters because a turnover usually ends an offensive possession without a shot. When a team loses the ball, it gives up the chance to score and may also allow the opponent to attack before the defense is organized.
Minnesota’s lower turnover total suggests that the Lynx preserved more of their offensive opportunities. Combined with their rebounding advantage, it provides a strong statistical explanation for how they could win while shooting the same field-goal percentage as Indiana.
Indiana’s turnover total was not catastrophic in isolation, but the comparison shows that Minnesota protected the ball more effectively in this particular game.
Assists: Both Teams Move the Ball Well
Indiana recorded 27 assists, while Minnesota finished with 28.
Both totals indicate substantial assisted scoring involvement. Minnesota’s one-assist advantage was modest, so it would be inaccurate to describe the game as a dramatic difference in passing volume.
Instead, the more useful conclusion is that both teams generated opportunities for teammates, while Minnesota paired that playmaking with fewer turnovers and more rebounds.
Assists do not capture every form of ball movement, and not every good pass leads to an assist. Still, the numbers suggest that Minnesota’s advantage came from the broader possession battle rather than a large gap in recorded playmaking.
Steals and Blocks: A Small Defensive Edge for Minnesota
Minnesota recorded six steals and three blocks. Indiana finished with four steals and two blocks.
The Lynx therefore held a two-steal advantage and a one-block advantage.
These numbers suggest that Minnesota made somewhat more recorded defensive plays of these types. However, steals and blocks are only part of defense. They do not measure every contested shot, successful rotation, forced pass, or possession in which a defense prevented a good opportunity.
The strongest conclusion comes from considering them alongside the rebounding and turnover statistics. Minnesota combined more steals with fewer turnovers of its own, creating a more favorable overall possession profile.
Why Minnesota Won the Game
The Minnesota Lynx vs Indiana Fever match player stats point to three main reasons for Minnesota’s victory: offensive rebounding, ball security, and balanced scoring.
1. The Lynx Created More Possessions
Minnesota’s 33 rebounds compared with Indiana’s 23 gave the home team a clear advantage on the glass.
The six additional offensive rebounds were especially significant. They provided opportunities to recover missed shots and extend possessions.
Minnesota also committed six turnovers, compared with Indiana’s 12. Taken together, these figures indicate that the Lynx were better at preserving and extending their chances to score.
A useful way to evaluate this kind of performance is to look beyond shooting percentage. Two teams can make the same percentage of their shots but attempt different numbers of shots. The team that generates more attempts has more opportunities to accumulate points.
That is consistent with this result: Minnesota made four more field goals and finished eight points ahead.
2. Minnesota Had Two Major Scoring Threats
Olivia Miles scored 28 points, while Courtney Williams added 27.
Their combined total of 55 points supplied more than half of Minnesota’s final score. That level of production forced Indiana to contend with two high-scoring players rather than focusing on a single primary threat.
Collier’s 18 points and Howard’s 13 added further support, while McBride contributed 10.
This spread gave Minnesota five listed players who reached double figures. Indiana had three players in double figures: Mitchell, Clark, and Boston.
The number of double-digit scorers is not a complete measure of offensive quality, but it highlights the different shapes of the two teams’ scoring distributions.
3. Indiana’s Individual Excellence Was Not Enough
Mitchell’s 37 points were exceptional within the supplied box score. Clark added 19 points and 10 assists, while Boston recorded 15 points, eight rebounds, and seven assists.
Those three players combined for 71 points.
Indiana still lost because the rest of the statistical picture favored Minnesota in important areas. The Fever finished 10 rebounds behind and committed six more turnovers.
This is a useful lesson when interpreting basketball statistics: high individual scoring totals do not automatically translate into a win. A team must also control possession, finish defensive sequences, and distribute responsibility across the lineup.
4. Minnesota Established Its Advantage Before Halftime
The Lynx outscored Indiana in each of the first two quarters. Their 64-53 first-half advantage created an 11-point cushion.
Indiana then matched Minnesota in the third quarter and outscored the Lynx in the fourth. Despite that late improvement, the Fever could not fully erase the deficit.
Minnesota’s ability to build the early lead reduced the impact of Indiana’s stronger fourth-quarter scoring.
Head-to-Head Player Comparison
Comparing players with similar responsibilities helps explain where each team found its strongest individual contributions.
Kelsey Mitchell vs Courtney Williams
| Statistic | Kelsey Mitchell | Courtney Williams |
| Points | 37 | 27 |
| Rebounds | 1 | 4 |
| Assists | 3 | 5 |
| Steals | 1 | Not provided |
Mitchell led the matchup in scoring, producing 10 more points than Williams. Williams, however, recorded more rebounds and assists in the supplied statistics.
The comparison illustrates two different contributions. Mitchell carried a larger share of Indiana’s scoring, while Williams paired high scoring with additional playmaking and rebounding.
The available data does not include complete shooting attempts for these players, so a reliable comparison of their shooting efficiency cannot be made.
Caitlin Clark vs Olivia Miles
| Statistic | Caitlin Clark | Olivia Miles |
| Points | 19 | 28 |
| Rebounds | 1 | 4 |
| Assists | 10 | 6 |
| Steals | 1 | Not provided |
| Blocks | Not provided | 1 |
| Turnovers | 4 | 3 |
Miles scored nine more points than Clark, while Clark recorded four more assists.
Both players contributed as scorers and playmakers, but their statistical profiles differed. Clark’s 10 assists were the highest supplied assist total for Indiana, while Miles led Minnesota in points and also recorded six assists.
Miles committed three turnovers compared with Clark’s four. The difference was one turnover, but it formed part of a wider team pattern in which Minnesota committed half as many turnovers as Indiana.
This comparison should not be interpreted as a complete ranking of the two players. Their minutes, shooting attempts, defensive assignments, and possession responsibilities are not fully represented in the supplied figures.
Aliyah Boston vs Napheesa Collier
| Statistic | Aliyah Boston | Napheesa Collier |
| Points | 15 | 18 |
| Rebounds | 8 | 8 |
| Assists | 7 | 7 |
| Steals | Not provided | 1 |
| Blocks | Not provided | 1 |
| Turnovers | 3 | Not provided |
Boston and Collier produced remarkably similar statistical lines in several categories. Both recorded eight rebounds and seven assists.
Collier scored three more points and also recorded one steal and one block. Boston’s supplied statistics included three turnovers.
This comparison demonstrates the value of all-around production. Neither player’s contribution can be fully understood through scoring alone because their rebounding and passing were also important.
What the Statistics Reveal About Both Teams
The matchup offers several practical lessons for anyone evaluating basketball box scores.
Shooting Percentage Does Not Tell the Whole Story
Both teams shot 57% from the field, yet Minnesota won by eight points.
This is possible because shooting percentage measures the proportion of attempts converted, not the total number of opportunities created.
Minnesota attempted 76 field goals compared with Indiana’s 68. The Lynx also recorded more rebounds and fewer turnovers. Those differences help explain why two teams with the same reported field-goal percentage finished with different point totals.
When reviewing a game, shooting percentage should therefore be considered alongside shot volume, offensive rebounds, turnovers, and free-throw attempts.
Rebounds Can Extend Offensive Opportunities
Minnesota’s six offensive rebounds created a clear advantage in second-chance opportunities.
A missed shot does not always end a possession. If the attacking team recovers the rebound, it can continue its offense and attempt another shot.
This is why offensive rebounds can matter even when a team is already shooting efficiently. They offer additional opportunities to score without requiring a higher shooting percentage.
Turnovers Can Undermine Strong Scoring
Indiana scored 100 points and had three players score at least 15 points. Nevertheless, the team committed 12 turnovers.
The six-turnover gap between the teams was substantial relative to the final eight-point margin.
It would be inaccurate to claim that every turnover directly cost Indiana a basket. Some turnovers may not lead to an immediate score for the opponent. However, lost possessions reduce the number of opportunities a team has to produce points.
The contrast between Minnesota’s six turnovers and Indiana’s 12 is therefore a meaningful part of the explanation for the result.
Balanced Contributions Can Reduce Offensive Pressure
Minnesota’s leading scorers were Miles and Williams, but Collier, Howard, and McBride also reached double figures.
Indiana also had strong contributions from Mitchell, Clark, and Boston. The difference was that Minnesota’s top two scorers combined for 55 points and received additional scoring support from three other double-digit contributors.
A balanced attack can make defensive planning more difficult because the opposition must account for several scoring threats. It also gives a team more options when one player is closely guarded.
The Final Score Should Be Read in Context
A box score is a record of what happened, not a complete explanation of every tactical decision.
The supplied figures show scoring, rebounding, assists, turnovers, steals, blocks, and fouls. They do not provide every detail needed to reconstruct the game, such as the exact timing of scoring runs, defensive matchups, shot locations, player minutes, or the effectiveness of individual screens.
A trustworthy analysis should distinguish between directly reported statistics and conclusions drawn from those statistics.
For this game, the clearest evidence is the combination of Minnesota’s rebounding advantage, its lower turnover total, and its early scoring lead.
Starting Lineups and Player Availability
The supplied ESPN data lists the following starting players for the August 2 game.
Indiana Fever Starting Five
| Jersey Number | Player |
| #25 | Monique Billings |
| #7 | Aliyah Boston |
| #0 | Kelsey Mitchell |
| #10 | Lexie Hull |
| #22 | Caitlin Clark |
Indiana’s starting group included its leading scorer, its primary playmaking threat, and one of its main rebounders. Mitchell, Clark, and Boston combined for 71 points, 25 assists, and nine rebounds according to the supplied individual statistics.
Minnesota Lynx Starting Five
| Jersey Number | Player |
| #1 | Natasha Howard |
| #24 | Napheesa Collier |
| #21 | Kayla McBride |
| #10 | Courtney Williams |
| #5 | Olivia Miles |
Minnesota’s listed starters included the team’s top three scorers and several major contributors in assists and rebounds.
Miles and Williams combined for 55 points, while Collier added 18. Howard contributed 13 points and five assists, and McBride finished with 10 points.
Players Listed as Did Not Play
The supplied data lists the following players as not participating.
Indiana Fever
- Grace VanSlooten: Coach’s decision.
- Damiris Dantas: Not with team.
Minnesota Lynx
- Chloe Bibby: Coach’s decision.
- Anastasiia Olairi Kosu: Coach’s decision.
- Eliska Joklova: Coach’s decision.
DNP means “did not play.” A DNP listing does not, by itself, establish that a player was injured. The reasons should be reported as provided rather than interpreted beyond the available information.
Season Series Context
The supplied matchup information lists three meetings between Minnesota and Indiana in the 2026 season.
| Game Date | Result |
| August 2, 2026 | Minnesota Lynx 108, Indiana Fever 100 |
| September 23, 2026 | Indiana Fever 96, Minnesota Lynx 77 |
| September 25, 2026 | Minnesota Lynx 86, Indiana Fever 66 |
According to these listed results, Minnesota won two of the three meetings, while Indiana won one.
The August matchup was the highest-scoring of the three listed games, with 208 combined points. The September 23 meeting ended with a 19-point Indiana victory, while Minnesota responded two days later with a 20-point win.
These results illustrate why one game should not be treated as a complete measure of the relationship between two teams. Matchups can produce different outcomes across the season, and a single box score captures only one performance on one date.
The season-series summary supplied with the data also lists Minnesota as leading the series 2-1. The three results above support that summary.
How to Read Basketball Player Statistics Correctly
For readers who want to understand future WNBA box scores, several basic principles help put individual performances into context.
Points
Points measure a player’s direct scoring output. However, points alone do not show how many shots the player attempted or how efficiently those attempts were converted.
Mitchell’s 37 points were the highest individual scoring total in this matchup, but a full efficiency comparison would require her shooting attempts and shooting splits.
Rebounds
Rebounds are divided into offensive and defensive categories. Offensive rebounds allow a team to continue attacking after a missed shot, while defensive rebounds help end an opponent’s possession.
Minnesota’s 11 offensive rebounds were a particularly important part of its advantage over Indiana.
Assists
An assist is credited when a pass directly leads to a made field goal under the applicable statistical rules.
Clark’s 10 assists and Collier’s seven assists demonstrate their playmaking contributions. However, assists do not capture every useful pass or all the movement that leads to an open shot.
Turnovers
Turnovers occur when a team loses possession without completing a successful shot attempt. They can result from mistakes such as bad passes, lost handles, or offensive violations.
Minnesota’s six turnovers compared with Indiana’s 12 show why ball security deserves attention when evaluating the result.
Steals and Blocks
Steals record defensive plays in which a defender takes possession of the ball from the opponent. Blocks record shots that a defender legally deflects.
Minnesota recorded six steals and three blocks, while Indiana recorded four steals and two blocks. These statistics provide useful evidence, but they do not measure all defensive impact.
Shooting Percentages
Field-goal percentage measures the number of successful field goals divided by total field-goal attempts. Three-point percentage measures the same relationship for three-point shots, while free-throw percentage applies to free throws.
The reported percentages in this game were rounded. When making detailed comparisons, it is best to retain the supplied makes and attempts as well as the percentage.
This avoids confusing small rounding differences with meaningful differences in shooting performance.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Minnesota Lynx vs Indiana Fever game on August 2, 2026?
The Minnesota Lynx defeated the Indiana Fever 108-100 at Target Center in Minneapolis. Minnesota won by eight points after building an early lead and finishing with advantages in rebounds and turnovers.
2. Who was the leading scorer in the game?
Kelsey Mitchell led all listed players with 37 points for Indiana. Olivia Miles was Minnesota’s leading scorer with 28 points, followed closely by Courtney Williams with 27.
3. How many points did Caitlin Clark score against Minnesota?
Caitlin Clark scored 19 points and recorded 10 assists, one rebound, one steal, and four turnovers in the supplied box-score data.
4. What were Olivia Miles’ statistics against Indiana?
Olivia Miles recorded 28 points, four rebounds, six assists, three turnovers, and one block. She led Minnesota in scoring during the 108-100 victory.
5. Why did Minnesota win despite both teams shooting 57%?
Minnesota collected 33 rebounds compared with Indiana’s 23 and committed six turnovers compared with Indiana’s 12. The Lynx also made four more field goals and built an 11-point halftime lead, which helped them withstand Indiana’s stronger fourth quarter.
6. Where can readers find the official box score?
The ESPN box score provides the listed player statistics and team totals for the game. Readers can consult the official ESPN box score to review the recorded figures.
Conclusion
The August 2, 2026, matchup between Minnesota and Indiana ended with a 108-100 victory for the Lynx, but the result was shaped by more than scoring alone. Minnesota benefited from 28 points by Olivia Miles, 27 by Courtney Williams, and an all-around contribution from Napheesa Collier. Indiana received a remarkable 37-point performance from Kelsey Mitchell, supported by Caitlin Clark’s 19 points and 10 assists and Aliyah Boston’s 15 points, eight rebounds, and seven assists.
The team comparison identifies the most important differences. Both sides shot 57% from the field, made 11 three-pointers, and converted 11 free throws. Minnesota nevertheless finished with 10 more rebounds, six fewer turnovers, two additional steals, and one more block.
The Lynx also established an 11-point halftime lead. Indiana improved its scoring margin in the fourth quarter, but the earlier deficit proved too large to overcome.
For anyone studying this matchup, the central lesson is that strong individual performances must work alongside team-level execution. Scoring creates the headlines, but rebounding, possession management, and the ability to maintain an advantage across four quarters often determine the final result.
