Atlanta Dream vs Dallas Wings Match Player Stats
The atlanta dream vs dallas wings match player stats from May 13, 2026, tell the story of a competitive WNBA game decided by rebounding, three-point shooting, and a strong finish from Atlanta. The Atlanta Dream defeated the Dallas Wings 77-72 at College Park Center in Arlington, Texas. Allisha Gray led Atlanta with 26 points, while Angel Reese controlled the boards with 16 rebounds. For Dallas, Arike Ogunbowale scored 20 points and Paige Bueckers added 15, but the Wings could not produce enough offense from beyond the arc to complete their comeback.
The five-point final margin does not fully explain how Atlanta secured the win. Dallas held a three-point lead at halftime, but Atlanta gradually changed the game’s direction after the break. The Dream won the third quarter 20-18 and then limited Dallas to just 13 points in the fourth. Their combination of interior rebounding, perimeter scoring, and late-game execution proved decisive.
This breakdown examines the individual player performances, complete team statistics, quarter-by-quarter scoring, and tactical details behind the result. It also explains which numbers mattered most, how the leading players influenced the contest, and what the game reveals about the matchup between these two WNBA teams.
Atlanta Dream vs Dallas Wings Match Player Stats: Game Overview
Atlanta Dream News, Videos, Schedules, Roster, Stats – Yahoo Sports
Atlanta Dream
Winner · 30-14 season record in supplied standings
77
Dallas Wings Scores, Stats and Highlights – ESPN
Dallas Wings
Runner-up · 27-17 season record in supplied standings
72
Game date
May 13, 2026
Venue
College Park Center
Location
Arlington, Texas
Attendance
6,251
The following table summarizes the main details of the matchup.
| Game detail | Result |
| Competition | WNBA |
| Final score | Atlanta Dream 77, Dallas Wings 72 |
| Winning team | Atlanta Dream |
| Leading scorer | Allisha Gray, 26 points |
| Dallas leading scorer | Arike Ogunbowale, 20 points |
| Leading rebounder | Angel Reese, 16 rebounds |
| Leading playmaker | Jordin Canada, 5 assists |
| Largest statistical advantage | Atlanta’s 44-34 rebounding edge |
| Three-point shooting | Atlanta 9/33, Dallas 4/26 |
| Fourth-quarter score | Atlanta 19, Dallas 13 |
The result came from a balanced Atlanta performance rather than one isolated statistical category. Gray supplied the highest scoring total, Reese dominated the glass, and Jordin Canada contributed scoring, playmaking, and defensive pressure.
Dallas remained competitive because Ogunbowale and Bueckers produced points and the team committed only eight turnovers. However, the Wings struggled to convert three-point opportunities and lost the rebounding battle by 10.
Data note: The player and team figures in this article come from the ESPN box-score information supplied for the May 13, 2026, game. Season standings and later meetings are treated as separate context, not as statistics from this individual game.
Quarter-by-Quarter Score Breakdown
The game developed in four distinct stages. Dallas started with a narrow advantage, extended it before halftime, and then struggled to maintain its scoring pace during the second half.
| Quarter | Atlanta Dream | Dallas Wings | Quarter result |
| First | 19 | 21 | Dallas +2 |
| Second | 19 | 20 | Dallas +1 |
| Third | 20 | 18 | Atlanta +2 |
| Fourth | 19 | 13 | Atlanta +6 |
| Final | 77 | 72 | Atlanta +5 |
First quarter: Dallas establishes an early lead
Dallas opened the game with 21 points, compared with Atlanta’s 19. That two-point advantage gave the Wings an early platform and showed that the home team could compete offensively.
Atlanta, however, remained within one possession. A two-point deficit after the opening quarter left plenty of room for the Dream to change the momentum without needing a dramatic scoring run.
Second quarter: The Wings maintain control
Dallas won the second period 20-19. Its one-point advantage in the quarter increased the halftime lead to three points.
At this stage, the score suggested a closely balanced contest. Neither side had built a commanding advantage, and Atlanta remained close enough for a second-half adjustment to make a difference.
Third quarter: Atlanta begins to respond
The Dream won the third quarter 20-18. Although the two-point difference was modest, it reduced Dallas’s halftime advantage from three points to one.
This period was important because Atlanta began reversing the direction of the game. The Dream did not need to score at an exceptional rate. Instead, they needed to keep Dallas from extending its lead while steadily improving their own position.
Fourth quarter: Atlanta closes the game
Atlanta outscored Dallas 19-13 in the final period. The six-point difference was the largest quarter-level margin of the game and more than erased Dallas’s halftime lead.
The Wings scored only 13 points in the fourth quarter, while Atlanta maintained a steadier offensive output. That contrast ultimately determined the winner.
The central lesson from the scoring timeline is that Dallas led for much of the first half, but Atlanta finished better. A team can control early stretches and still lose if it cannot sustain offensive production in the closing minutes.
Atlanta Dream Player Stats: Complete Box Score
Atlanta’s victory featured three major contributors: Allisha Gray as the primary scorer, Angel Reese as the dominant rebounder, and Jordin Canada as a two-way guard who created opportunities while pressuring Dallas defensively.
Rhyne Howard also contributed 14 points despite a difficult shooting night. Her ability to draw fouls and convert free throws helped Atlanta maintain its scoring total even when perimeter shots did not fall consistently.
Atlanta Dream starting lineup statistics
| Player | MIN | PTS | REB | AST | FG | 3PT | FT | +/- |
| Naz Hillmon | 36 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0-5 | 0-3 | 1-2 | +12 |
| Angel Reese | 34 | 12 | 16 | 2 | 4-8 | 0-1 | 4-4 | +1 |
| Allisha Gray | 34 | 26 | 4 | 0 | 9-20 | 4-9 | 4-4 | +9 |
| Jordin Canada | 31 | 19 | 7 | 5 | 8-15 | 3-7 | 0-0 | +3 |
| Rhyne Howard | 37 | 14 | 3 | 4 | 3-14 | 1-9 | 7-7 | +4 |
MIN = minutes, PTS = points, REB = rebounds, AST = assists, FG = field goals, 3PT = three-pointers, FT = free throws, and +/- = point differential while the player was on the court.
Atlanta Dream bench statistics
| Player | MIN | PTS | REB | AST | FG | 3PT | +/- |
| Sika Kone | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | -3 |
| Madina Okot | 9 | 0 | 5 | 0 | 0-1 | 0-0 | 0 |
| Te-Hina Paopao | 13 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1-4 | 0-3 | -4 |
| Indya Nivar | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0 |
| Isobel Borlase | 4 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1-2 | 1-1 | +3 |
| Aaliyah Nye | DNP | 0 | 0 | 0 | DNP | DNP | N/A |
DNP means did not play. The supplied box score lists Aaliyah Nye as inactive for this game by the coach’s decision.
Atlanta’s bench played a smaller role in the scoring, but its contributions were not limited to points. Okot collected five rebounds in nine minutes, while Borlase converted her only three-point attempt. Kone and Nivar also recorded rebounds in very limited playing time.
The starting group carried most of the offensive responsibility. That workload was especially noticeable for Howard, who played 37 minutes, and Hillmon, who played 36.
Allisha Gray leads Atlanta with 26 points
Allisha Gray delivered the most productive scoring performance of the game. She finished with 26 points on 9-of-20 shooting from the field, including four made three-pointers in nine attempts. She also converted all four of her free throws.
Her scoring line can be broken down into three areas:
- Perimeter scoring: Four three-pointers gave Atlanta valuable points without requiring a basket inside the arc.
- Overall shot production: Nine field goals on 20 attempts made her the game’s leading scorer.
- Free-throw accuracy: A perfect four-for-four performance at the line prevented wasted scoring opportunities.
Gray’s 26 points represented a substantial share of Atlanta’s 77-point total. She scored approximately 33.8% of her team’s points, giving the Dream a dependable source of offense throughout the game.
There is another useful detail in her statistics. Gray recorded no assists and no turnovers in the supplied box score. That does not mean she had no impact on team offense beyond her own shots, but it does show that her recorded contribution was primarily scoring rather than direct assist production.
Her performance provided Atlanta with the scoring punch necessary to complement Reese’s work near the basket and Canada’s production from the guard position.
Angel Reese controls the rebounding battle
Angel Reese finished with 12 points and a game-high 16 rebounds in 34 minutes. Her 16 rebounds included eight offensive rebounds and eight defensive rebounds.
That split is particularly important.
Offensive rebounds can create second-chance scoring opportunities after a missed shot. They may also force defenders to remain close to the basket rather than immediately moving into transition defense. Defensive rebounds, meanwhile, help end an opponent’s possession and give the rebounding team a chance to start its own offense.
Reese recorded eight offensive rebounds alone. Atlanta as a team collected 11, meaning she accounted for most of the Dream’s offensive boards.
Her 12 points came on efficient shooting: four of eight field-goal attempts and four of four free throws. She did not make a three-pointer, but her scoring did not depend on outside shooting.
Reese also added two assists, one steal, and one block. Three turnovers were recorded against her, so the performance was not flawless. Nevertheless, the rebounding contribution was one of the clearest reasons Atlanta won the overall possession battle.
A player can influence a game without leading in points. Reese’s box score demonstrates that principle: Gray supplied the scoring headline, while Reese helped Atlanta generate additional opportunities and restrict Dallas’s chances after missed shots.
Jordin Canada provides scoring and playmaking
Jordin Canada contributed 19 points, seven rebounds, and five assists. She shot eight of 15 from the field and made three of seven three-point attempts.
Canada’s five assists were the highest total recorded by any player in this game. She also had just one turnover, giving her a positive assist-to-turnover ratio of 5.0.
Her three steals added another layer to the performance. Those defensive plays helped Atlanta disrupt Dallas’s ball movement and create opportunities to regain possession.
Canada’s statistical profile was unusually balanced for a guard. She combined:
- Efficient two-way scoring.
- Five assists to organize teammates’ offense.
- Seven rebounds from the backcourt.
- Three steals.
- Only one turnover.
She did not attempt a free throw, so all 19 points came from field goals. Her three made three-pointers also meant that she and Gray combined for seven of Atlanta’s nine successful shots from long range.
That pairing was significant. Gray offered the highest individual scoring total, while Canada added another 19 points and contributed directly to Atlanta’s ability to maintain pressure across multiple offensive positions.
Rhyne Howard contributes 14 points despite shooting struggles
Rhyne Howard scored 14 points, grabbed three rebounds, and recorded four assists in 37 minutes. Her shooting numbers were less impressive than her final point total might suggest.
Howard made three of 14 field-goal attempts and one of nine three-point attempts. She missed eight of her nine attempts from beyond the arc, but she converted all seven free throws.
This distinction matters when evaluating the game. A player’s total points do not tell the entire story of shooting efficiency. Howard’s free throws accounted for seven of her 14 points, allowing her to contribute to the scoreboard despite difficulties from the field.
Her four assists and zero turnovers were valuable. They indicate that, according to the supplied box score, she helped create scoring opportunities without surrendering possession through a recorded turnover.
Howard’s performance also highlights why Atlanta needed contributions from several players. Gray and Canada supplied efficient scoring, Reese controlled rebounds, and Howard added points through free throws and secondary playmaking.
Naz Hillmon contributes defensively and in the lineup
Naz Hillmon finished with one point, three rebounds, and one assist in 36 minutes. She shot zero for five from the field and zero for three from three-point range, converting one of two free throws.
Her scoring was limited, but her plus-minus was +12, the highest listed among Atlanta’s players. This means Atlanta outscored Dallas by 12 points during the minutes Hillmon was on the court.
Plus-minus should not be treated as an isolated measure of individual ability. It reflects the performance of the entire lineup during a player’s minutes and can be influenced by teammates, opponents, substitutions, and game context.
Still, the +12 figure is worth noting alongside Atlanta’s final win. Hillmon spent substantial time on the floor while the Dream maintained a positive scoring margin, even though her individual shooting numbers were difficult.
Dallas Wings Player Stats: Complete Box Score
Dallas received strong scoring performances from Arike Ogunbowale and Paige Bueckers. Jessica Shepard also provided 12 points and eight rebounds, but the team’s overall perimeter shooting limited its ability to keep pace with Atlanta in the second half.
Dallas Wings starting lineup statistics
| Player | MIN | PTS | REB | AST | FG | 3PT | FT | +/- |
| Jessica Shepard | 31 | 12 | 8 | 3 | 6-11 | 0-0 | 0-0 | -15 |
| Alanna Smith | 27 | 2 | 6 | 3 | 1-8 | 0-6 | 0-0 | -9 |
| Odyssey Sims | 23 | 7 | 1 | 4 | 3-8 | 1-3 | 0-0 | -15 |
| Arike Ogunbowale | 36 | 20 | 4 | 1 | 7-15 | 0-4 | 6-7 | -1 |
| Paige Bueckers | 32 | 15 | 2 | 3 | 5-12 | 2-4 | 3-3 | -7 |
Dallas Wings bench statistics
| Player | MIN | PTS | REB | AST | FG | 3PT | +/- |
| Alysha Clark | 14 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 1-2 | 0-1 | +5 |
| Maddy Siegrist | 8 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1-3 | 0-1 | +5 |
| Awak Kuier | 15 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 2-4 | 1-2 | +9 |
| Aziaha James | 15 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 2-10 | 0-5 | +3 |
| Li Yueru | DNP | 0 | 0 | 0 | DNP | DNP | N/A |
| JJ Quinerly | DNP | 0 | 0 | 0 | DNP | DNP | N/A |
Dallas’s reserves supplied 18 points, led by Kuier and James with six each. Kuier made one of her two three-point attempts, while James struggled from the field but converted both free throws.
The bench numbers also show that individual plus-minus figures can differ from the final result. Kuier finished at +9, Clark and Siegrist each finished at +5, and James finished at +3 despite Dallas losing the game. These figures describe the team’s scoring margin during their minutes, not whether Dallas won the full contest.
Arike Ogunbowale leads Dallas in scoring
Ogunbowale recorded 20 points, four rebounds, one assist, and one steal. She made seven of 15 field-goal attempts and six of seven free throws.
Her scoring total was strong, but her three-point shooting was an important limitation. She missed all four attempts from beyond the arc.
The distinction between her overall field-goal accuracy and perimeter accuracy is essential. Ogunbowale shot 46.7% from the field, but none of her field goals came from three-point range. She therefore relied on two-point shots and free throws to reach 20 points.
Her six made free throws were the highest total for Dallas. That production helped keep the Wings within reach, particularly in a game decided by five points.
However, Dallas needed additional scoring from the perimeter to match Atlanta’s outside production. The Wings made only four three-pointers as a team, and Ogunbowale’s four misses were part of that broader problem.
Paige Bueckers provides secondary scoring
Paige Bueckers finished with 15 points, two rebounds, and three assists. She shot five of 12 from the field, including two of four from three-point range, and made all three of her free throws.
Her 15 points made her Dallas’s second-leading scorer. She also avoided turnovers entirely in the supplied statistics, which helped protect Dallas’s possessions.
Bueckers was more productive from three-point range than Ogunbowale in this matchup. Her two successful attempts accounted for half of Dallas’s four made threes.
The challenge was volume and distribution. Even with Bueckers shooting 50% from long range, the team as a whole converted only 15.4% of its three-point attempts. Dallas needed more of its perimeter options to contribute consistently.
Bueckers’s performance was a positive individual result within a team defeat. Her scoring and ball security were useful, but they could not offset the combined rebounding and three-point disadvantages.
Jessica Shepard adds interior production
Shepard recorded 12 points, eight rebounds, and three assists. She shot six of 11 from the field and did not attempt a three-pointer or a free throw.
Her performance was efficient inside the arc. She made more than half of her field-goal attempts and contributed on the glass, giving Dallas a useful frontcourt presence.
Shepard’s eight rebounds were second only to Reese’s 16 among the players in the game. Her three assists also show that her contribution extended beyond finishing shots.
Yet Atlanta’s frontcourt production was more influential overall. Reese recorded twice as many rebounds as Shepard, and the Dream collected 10 more rebounds than the Wings as a team.
That difference became especially important when considering second chances. Dallas had capable individual rebounders, but it did not match Atlanta’s total volume.
Alanna Smith and Odyssey Sims face offensive challenges
Alanna Smith finished with two points, six rebounds, three assists, and one block. She made one of eight field-goal attempts and missed all six of her three-point attempts.
Smith’s six rebounds and three assists were useful contributions, but her shooting line left Dallas with little additional perimeter scoring from her position.
Odyssey Sims recorded seven points, one rebound, and four assists in 23 minutes. She made three of eight field-goal attempts, including one of three three-pointers, and committed one turnover.
Sims supplied some playmaking, but the Wings did not receive a major scoring contribution from the starting backcourt beyond Ogunbowale and Bueckers.
The two performances illustrate the difficulty Dallas faced. The Wings had players who could rebound and distribute, but Atlanta’s better outside shooting and greater rebounding volume made those contributions less effective in the final result.
Team Statistics Comparison: Atlanta Dream vs Dallas Wings
The team statistics reveal why Atlanta won despite shooting only 38% from the field. The Dream made more three-pointers, dominated the rebounding battle, and converted free throws at a higher rate.
| Team statistic | Atlanta Dream | Dallas Wings |
| Points | 77 | 72 |
| Field goals | 26/69 | 28/73 |
| Field-goal percentage | 37.7% | 38.4% |
| Three-pointers | 9/33 | 4/26 |
| Three-point percentage | 27.3% | 15.4% |
| Free throws | 16/17 | 12/14 |
| Free-throw percentage | 94.1% | 85.7% |
| Total rebounds | 44 | 34 |
| Offensive rebounds | 11 | 7 |
| Defensive rebounds | 33 | 27 |
| Assists | 13 | 15 |
| Turnovers | 9 | 8 |
| Steals | 5 | 3 |
| Blocks | 3 | 4 |
| Team fouls | 18 | 17 |
Percentages in the table are calculated from the supplied makes and attempts and rounded to one decimal place.
Three-point shooting: Atlanta creates the biggest gap
Atlanta made nine three-pointers on 33 attempts, while Dallas made four on 26 attempts.
That difference produced a five-shot advantage in successful three-pointers. Since each made three-pointer is worth one more point than a made two-pointer, Atlanta generated 27 points from beyond the arc, compared with Dallas’s 12.
The resulting 15-point advantage in three-point scoring was three times the final five-point margin.
This does not mean three-point shooting alone explains the entire result. The teams attempted different numbers of shots from other areas, and rebounding and free throws also affected the score. Nevertheless, it was the clearest shooting difference between the teams.
Atlanta did not need an outstanding three-point percentage to create that separation. Its 27.3% conversion rate was modest, but nine makes were enough to exploit Dallas’s 15.4% shooting.
Dallas’s challenge was not simply that individual players missed shots. The team converted only four of 26 attempts, making it difficult to generate enough points to compensate for Atlanta’s work on the glass.
Rebounding: Atlanta wins the possession battle
Atlanta collected 44 rebounds, while Dallas finished with 34. That 10-rebound gap was one of the game’s most important statistical differences.
The Dream also won the offensive rebounding battle 11-7. Those four additional offensive rebounds gave Atlanta more opportunities to extend possessions after missed shots.
Rebounds do not automatically become points. A team can secure an offensive board and still miss the follow-up attempt. However, extra possessions increase the number of opportunities a team has to score, draw fouls, or force defensive adjustments.
Reese was central to Atlanta’s advantage. Her 16 rebounds represented more than one-third of the Dream’s total. Dallas had no player who matched that individual volume.
The defensive rebounding difference mattered too. Atlanta secured 33 defensive rebounds compared with Dallas’s 27, helping the Dream end possessions and reduce the Wings’ opportunities for second-chance points.
Free throws: Atlanta makes its opportunities count
Atlanta converted 16 of 17 free throws, an excellent 94.1% rate. Dallas made 12 of 14, or 85.7%.
The Dream therefore made four more free throws despite attempting only three more.
This was another direct source of separation. Atlanta’s 16 free-throw points helped offset its inconsistent field-goal shooting, particularly Howard’s seven makes at the line and Gray’s perfect four-for-four performance.
Free-throw accuracy is especially important in close games because these shots come without a defender contesting the release in the same way as a field-goal attempt. Missing them can waste scoring chances when possessions are limited.
Atlanta missed only one free throw all game. Dallas missed two. The difference was small in isolation but meaningful alongside the other statistical advantages.
Turnovers and assists: Dallas protects the ball
Dallas committed eight turnovers, one fewer than Atlanta’s nine. The Wings also recorded 15 assists compared with the Dream’s 13.
These figures show that Dallas did not lose simply because it gave the ball away too often or failed to create any team offense.
In fact, the Wings recorded more assists and fewer turnovers. That is a useful counterpoint to the final score and helps identify where their real problems lay.
The major gap came in what happened after the teams attempted to score. Atlanta secured more rebounds, made more three-pointers, and converted more free throws.
This is why a full box-score analysis is more informative than relying only on points or possession mistakes. A team can move the ball well and protect it, yet still lose because it does not convert enough of its shots or recover enough missed attempts.
Defensive statistics: Atlanta generates more steals
Atlanta recorded five steals and three blocks. Dallas had three steals and four blocks.
The Wings had the edge in blocked shots, but Atlanta recorded two additional steals. Canada contributed three of the Dream’s steals, while Reese and Gray recorded a block each.
Steals can interrupt offensive possessions before the opposing team gets a clean shot. Blocks can discourage attempts near the basket or change a shot’s trajectory. Both matter, but neither category should be considered in isolation.
Atlanta’s advantage in steals fits the broader picture of a team that found ways to gain extra opportunities. Dallas’s extra block did not make up for the Dream’s rebounding and three-point advantages.
Five Key Takeaways From the Game
The numbers become more useful when they are interpreted together rather than read as separate totals.
1. Allisha Gray supplied the decisive scoring output
Gray’s 26 points were the highest individual total of the game. She provided a reliable scoring source by combining three-pointers, other field goals, and perfect free-throw shooting.
Her contribution was particularly valuable because Atlanta did not shoot exceptionally well overall. A team field-goal percentage below 38% generally makes scoring consistency important, and Gray supplied much of that consistency.
2. Angel Reese changed the rebounding equation
Reese’s 16 rebounds helped Atlanta establish a 44-34 team advantage. Her eight offensive rebounds were especially significant because they created additional opportunities after missed shots.
This was a performance in which rebounding helped support the leading scorer. Gray put points on the board, while Reese helped Atlanta win more of the physical exchanges around the basket.
3. Dallas needed more three-point production
The Wings made just four three-pointers. Atlanta made nine.
That difference was large enough to matter even though Dallas made two more field goals overall. The Wings finished 28-for-73 from the field, compared with Atlanta’s 26-for-69, but their smaller number of successful three-pointers reduced the value of those makes.
The lesson is that total field goals and field-goal percentage do not tell the complete shooting story. The location and point value of each basket also matter.
4. Atlanta finished the game with greater control
Dallas led by three at halftime, but Atlanta won the second half by four points overall. The Dream’s 19-13 fourth quarter was the clearest evidence of their stronger finish.
The ability to protect a narrow lead or create separation late in a game often depends on several factors at once: rebounding, shot selection, free-throw execution, and defensive stops.
Atlanta combined those elements well enough to secure the win.
5. The supporting statistics explain more than the final margin
A five-point result may appear close, but the statistical differences were substantial in several areas. Atlanta made five more three-pointers and collected 10 more rebounds.
Dallas’s advantages in assists, turnovers, and blocks show that the game was not one-sided in every category. Instead, the Dream won the categories that produced the clearest scoring and possession benefits.
For readers evaluating the matchup, that distinction is more useful than simply labeling the game a close win or loss.
Tactical Analysis: Why Atlanta Won
Atlanta benefited from a balanced offensive structure
Atlanta’s scoring came from several sources. Gray scored 26, Canada added 19, Howard recorded 14, and Reese contributed 12.
Those four players combined for 71 of the team’s 77 points. The remaining six came from Hillmon, Paopao, and Borlase.
This distribution shows that Atlanta depended heavily on its primary rotation, but it did not rely on a single scorer. Gray’s perimeter shooting, Canada’s guard play, Howard’s free throws, and Reese’s interior production gave the offense different ways to generate points.
That balance can make an offense harder to contain. Defenders cannot focus exclusively on a single player without potentially leaving another productive option available.
Dallas had scoring leaders but lacked perimeter depth
Ogunbowale and Bueckers combined for 35 points. Shepard added 12, meaning the three leading scorers accounted for 47 of Dallas’s 72 points.
That was a respectable concentration of production. However, Dallas received only four made three-pointers from its entire lineup.
The issue was not a lack of players willing to shoot. The team attempted 26 three-pointers. It was the low conversion rate that restricted the return from those attempts.
A team that attempts many outside shots but misses most of them needs to compensate through offensive rebounds, free throws, or highly efficient scoring inside the arc. Dallas did not create enough of those advantages to overcome Atlanta.
Atlanta’s rebounding helped cover its own shooting weaknesses
The Dream made 26 of 69 field goals, a lower raw shooting percentage than Dallas’s 28 of 73.
Despite that, Atlanta won because it gained advantages elsewhere. The 44 rebounds gave the team more control over missed-shot situations, while its nine made three-pointers and 16 free throws helped maintain the scoring total.
This is an important basketball principle: shooting efficiency is only one part of offensive performance. Possession volume, shot value, free throws, and turnovers all influence the final result.
Atlanta’s victory demonstrates how a team can win without having the better overall field-goal percentage.
Dallas’s late scoring decline proved costly
Dallas scored 41 points in the first half and 31 in the second half. Atlanta scored 38 before halftime and 39 afterward.
The most striking difference was the fourth quarter, when Dallas managed only 13 points.
A lower scoring total late in a close game can result from several factors, including missed shots, tougher defensive possessions, and reduced opportunities. The supplied box score confirms the scoring decline but does not establish the precise tactical cause of every missed possession.
What can be stated confidently is that Dallas’s offense slowed at the moment when the Wings needed to protect their lead. Atlanta, by contrast, scored 19 points in the final period and finished with the win.
What Plus-Minus Reveals About Individual Impact
Plus-minus measures the difference between a team’s points scored and points allowed while a particular player is on the court. It does not measure only that player’s individual scoring contribution.
The supplied statistics show several interesting results.
| Player | Team | Plus-minus |
| Naz Hillmon | Atlanta | +12 |
| Allisha Gray | Atlanta | +9 |
| Jordin Canada | Atlanta | +3 |
| Rhyne Howard | Atlanta | +4 |
| Angel Reese | Atlanta | +1 |
| Awak Kuier | Dallas | +9 |
| Alysha Clark | Dallas | +5 |
| Maddy Siegrist | Dallas | +5 |
| Aziaha James | Dallas | +3 |
| Arike Ogunbowale | Dallas | -1 |
Hillmon’s +12 was the highest plus-minus figure among Atlanta’s players. Gray also posted a strong +9, consistent with her leading scoring performance and Atlanta’s overall success.
On Dallas’s side, Kuier finished at +9 despite the team’s loss. Clark and Siegrist also had positive figures.
These results should not be read as proof that Dallas’s bench outperformed Atlanta’s starters in every respect. Plus-minus depends on which teammates and opponents share the court, how long a player participates, and what happens during those minutes.
The measure is best used as supporting evidence alongside points, rebounds, assists, shooting, and the overall game situation.
For example, Gray’s 26 points and +9 provide two complementary pieces of information: she was the game’s leading scorer, and Atlanta outscored Dallas during her time on the floor. Neither number alone fully explains her impact, but together they offer a more complete picture.
Season Series Context: Atlanta’s Three Wins Over Dallas
The supplied season-series data lists three Atlanta victories over Dallas in 2026.
| Date | Matchup result | Margin |
| May 13, 2026 | Atlanta Dream 77, Dallas Wings 72 | Atlanta by 5 |
| May 23, 2026 | Atlanta Dream 86, Dallas Wings 69 | Atlanta by 17 |
| July 30, 2026 | Atlanta Dream 82, Dallas Wings 81 | Atlanta by 1 |
According to the supplied figures, Atlanta won all three meetings, with margins of five, 17, and one point. That adds up to a 3-0 season-series advantage.
The combined score across these three games was 245 points for Atlanta and 222 for Dallas, a total scoring margin of 23 points across the series.
This broader context should not be confused with the May 13 box score. The three-game summary provides evidence of the season-series outcome, while the detailed player statistics in this article describe the first listed matchup.
The results also show different ways Atlanta won. The May 13 game was decided by five points, the May 23 result featured a wider margin, and the July 30 meeting was decided by a single point.
That range suggests the season series included both a more comfortable Atlanta win and tightly contested finishes. It does not, by itself, establish that every game followed the same tactical pattern.
The supplied standings list Atlanta at 30-14 and Dallas at 27-17. Those figures provide additional season context, but they should be interpreted as the standings supplied with the data rather than assumed to be the teams’ records at the time of the May 13 matchup.
How to Read WNBA Match Player Statistics Correctly
A box score is most valuable when readers understand what each statistic measures and what it cannot prove. The May 13 contest provides several examples of why context matters.
Points and shooting efficiency
Points measure a player’s direct scoring contribution. Field-goal percentage shows how frequently a player makes field-goal attempts, but it does not distinguish between two-point and three-point shots.
For example, Gray’s four three-pointers were worth 12 points. A player making four two-point baskets would score only eight points from those baskets.
That is why it helps to review field goals, three-pointers, and free throws separately instead of relying on one shooting percentage.
Rebounds and second-chance opportunities
Total rebounds include both offensive and defensive rebounds. Offensive rebounds can extend an attacking possession, while defensive rebounds generally end the opponent’s attempt to score.
Reese’s eight offensive rebounds were particularly notable because they made up a large share of Atlanta’s 11 offensive boards.
However, rebounds should not automatically be translated into points. The box score identifies who recovered the ball, not whether every recovered possession led to a successful shot.
Assists and turnovers
An assist is credited when a player’s pass directly leads to a made basket under the scorer’s rules. It is a useful measure of direct playmaking, but it does not capture every pass that helps create an open shot.
Turnovers record lost possessions. Canada finished with five assists and one turnover, while Bueckers had three assists and zero turnovers.
Those numbers indicate that both players contributed to ball movement while protecting possession. Dallas’s team totals of 15 assists and eight turnovers also show that the Wings were not significantly worse than Atlanta in those categories.
Minutes and plus-minus
Minutes show how long a player participated. They provide essential context for raw totals because a player who plays 35 minutes has more time to accumulate points and rebounds than one who plays five minutes.
Plus-minus adds information about the team’s scoring margin during those minutes. It is useful, but it should never be treated as a complete individual rating.
A positive plus-minus can reflect strong team performance, favorable lineup combinations, or a productive stretch of play. It does not establish that one player alone caused the team’s advantage.
Checking the original box score
For readers who want to verify individual statistics, the most direct reference is the ESPN WNBA box score for this game. It identifies the May 13, 2026, matchup and provides the player-level and team-level figures used in this analysis.
Using the box score alongside the final score is a practical way to distinguish confirmed numbers from broader interpretations of the game.
What the Numbers Mean for Future Atlanta-Dallas Matchups
The May 13 game provides several useful points to watch when evaluating future meetings between these teams. These are analytical observations, not predictions of a particular future result.
Atlanta’s rebounding remains an important comparison point. The Dream’s 10-rebound advantage was substantial. In another matchup, comparing offensive rebounds, defensive rebounds, and second-chance scoring would help establish whether Atlanta again controlled the glass.
Perimeter shooting should be evaluated by makes as well as attempts. Dallas attempted 26 three-pointers but converted only four. A future game with a similar number of attempts and a higher conversion rate could produce a different offensive outcome. Attempt volume alone does not guarantee effective scoring.
The fourth quarter deserves separate attention. Atlanta won the final period 19-13. Comparing late-game shooting, turnovers, rebounds, and free throws in subsequent meetings would help explain whether the same finishing advantage appears again.
Individual scoring must be considered alongside team production. Ogunbowale scored 20 and Bueckers added 15, but Dallas still fell short. Strong individual totals do not always translate into a team victory when the opponent has advantages in other categories.
Game-by-game comparisons should use consistent statistics. When reviewing multiple meetings, use the same measures for each team: points, shooting percentages, rebounds, assists, turnovers, and quarter scoring. That approach makes it easier to identify real changes rather than drawing conclusions from one isolated number.
These comparisons are especially useful for fans, analysts, and fantasy basketball readers who want to understand how a matchup unfolded instead of relying only on its final score.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Atlanta Dream vs Dallas Wings game on May 13, 2026?
The Atlanta Dream defeated the Dallas Wings 77-72 at College Park Center in Arlington, Texas. Atlanta overcame a three-point halftime deficit by winning the second half and limiting Dallas to 13 points in the fourth quarter.
2. Who was the leading scorer in the game?
Allisha Gray led all players with 26 points for Atlanta. She made nine of 20 field-goal attempts, including four of nine three-pointers, and converted all four of her free throws.
3. How many points did Arike Ogunbowale and Paige Bueckers score?
Arike Ogunbowale scored 20 points, while Paige Bueckers added 15 for Dallas. They were the Wings’ two leading scorers in the matchup.
4. How many rebounds did Angel Reese record?
Angel Reese recorded 16 rebounds, including eight offensive rebounds and eight defensive rebounds. She also scored 12 points and finished with two assists, one steal, and one block.
5. Which team shot better from three-point range?
Atlanta made nine of 33 three-point attempts, or 27.3%. Dallas made four of 26, or 15.4%. Atlanta’s five additional three-pointers created a 15-point advantage in scoring from beyond the arc.
6. What was the biggest statistical difference between the teams?
Rebounding and three-point scoring were the clearest differences. Atlanta outrebounded Dallas 44-34 and made five more three-pointers. The Dream also converted 16 of 17 free throws, helping secure the five-point victory.
Conclusion
The Atlanta Dream’s 77-72 win over the Dallas Wings on May 13, 2026, was shaped by several connected factors. Allisha Gray led the scoring with 26 points, Jordin Canada added 19, and Angel Reese collected 16 rebounds. Atlanta also made nine three-pointers, controlled the rebounding battle, and converted 94.1% of its free throws.
Dallas produced strong individual performances from Arike Ogunbowale, who scored 20 points, and Paige Bueckers, who added 15. The Wings also recorded more assists and committed fewer turnovers. However, their four made three-pointers and 13-point fourth quarter were not enough to overcome Atlanta’s advantages.
The most important takeaway from the atlanta dream vs dallas wings match player stats is that the final result cannot be explained by scoring totals alone. Atlanta’s rebounding, perimeter production, and late-game execution combined to make the difference in a closely contested WNBA matchup.
