The Golden State Valkyries vs Dallas Wings match player stats from September 28, 2026, tell the story of a dominant 104-80 victory for Golden State in Game 1 of the WNBA playoffs. The Valkyries used an explosive second quarter, accurate three-point shooting, and excellent ball security to take control of the contest at Chase Center in San Francisco. Dallas had a strong individual performance from Paige Bueckers, while Golden State received major scoring contributions from Cecilia Zandalasini, Tiffany Hayes, and Gabby Williams. The 24-point final margin reflected Golden State’s ability to turn a competitive opening quarter into a decisive advantage before halftime.

This matchup offers more than a final score. The team statistics reveal why Golden State gained control, how Dallas struggled to contain the Valkyries’ perimeter attack, and which players made the biggest impact beyond scoring. The supplied ESPN box score provides the statistical foundation for examining points, shooting percentages, assists, rebounds, turnovers, and plus-minus ratings. It also helps explain why an individual player’s impressive numbers do not always translate into a team victory.

Match Overview: Golden State Valkyries vs Dallas Wings Match Player Stats

Golden State Valkyries Scores, Stats and Highlights – ESPN

Golden State Valkyries

104

32-12 regular-season record

Final

Game 1

104-80

Dallas Wings

80

27-17 regular-season record

Dallas Wings Scores, Stats and Highlights – ESPN

Date

September 28, 2026

Venue

Chase Center, San Francisco

Attendance

18,064

Series after Game 1

Golden State leads 1-0

The figures above come from the supplied ESPN box score for Game 1, identified by game ID 401918016. Golden State finished with 104 points, while Dallas scored 80. The 24-point difference gave the Valkyries a strong start to the first-round series.

The central statistical distinction is efficiency. Golden State made 49% of its field-goal attempts and 50% of its three-pointers. Dallas shot a respectable 47% overall but converted only 30% from beyond the arc. Golden State also committed just four turnovers compared with Dallas’s 10.

These numbers help explain why the Valkyries won comfortably even though Dallas shot well enough from inside the arc to remain competitive in several stretches.

Quarter-by-Quarter Score Breakdown

The scoring pattern shows exactly where the game changed. Golden State held only a one-point advantage after the first quarter, but its second-quarter explosion created a gap that Dallas could not close.

Quarter	Dallas Wings	Golden State Valkyries	Quarter Winner
First quarter	20	21	Golden State
Second quarter	11	37	Golden State
Third quarter	25	27	Golden State
Fourth quarter	24	19	Dallas
Final score	80	104	Golden State

First Quarter: A Competitive Opening

Dallas scored 20 points in the opening period, staying within one point of Golden State’s 21. Neither team had created the kind of separation that would normally suggest a comfortable playoff victory was coming.

Paige Bueckers was particularly effective for Dallas, establishing herself as a reliable scoring option. Golden State, meanwhile, had several players capable of contributing rather than depending on one primary scorer.

The first quarter matters because it provides a useful contrast with what followed. Dallas was competitive early, but its offensive production dropped sharply in the second period.

Second Quarter: The Turning Point

The second quarter was the decisive stretch. Golden State scored 37 points while holding Dallas to just 11, producing a 26-point difference in the period.

That single quarter changed the shape of the game.

Golden State’s lead grew from one point after the first quarter to 27 points at halftime. The Valkyries combined three-point accuracy with better possession management, allowing them to build a substantial advantage without giving the ball away repeatedly.

Dallas needed a response, but the 11-point quarter placed considerable pressure on its offense. Once the deficit reached that size, the Wings could no longer approach the game as a normal possession-by-possession contest. They needed both a scoring run and sustained defensive stops.

Third Quarter: Dallas Scores, but the Gap Remains

Dallas improved to 25 points in the third quarter. However, Golden State also scored 27, so the deficit barely changed.

This is an important distinction when interpreting the box score. Dallas had a better offensive period than it did in the second quarter, but improved scoring alone was insufficient because Golden State continued to produce points.

The Wings needed to win the quarter by a significant margin to make the game competitive again. Instead, the Valkyries maintained their advantage.

Fourth Quarter: A Better Finish for Dallas

Dallas won the final quarter 24-19. That five-point advantage showed that the Wings could finish the game with stronger scoring production, but it came too late to threaten the overall result.

Golden State did not need another explosive period. Its work in the second and third quarters had already created enough separation to protect the lead.

The lesson is straightforward: a strong finish cannot always compensate for a major scoring collapse earlier in a playoff game.

Complete Team Statistics Comparison

The team totals provide a clearer explanation of the 104-80 result than the final score alone.

Statistical Category	Dallas Wings	Golden State Valkyries
Total points	80	104
Field goals made	28	36
Field goals attempted	60	74
Field-goal percentage	47%	49%
Three-pointers made	6	18
Three-pointers attempted	20	36
Three-point percentage	30%	50%
Free throws made	18	14
Free throws attempted	20	16
Free-throw percentage	90%	88%
Total rebounds	30	33
Offensive rebounds	5	6
Defensive rebounds	25	27
Assists	19	22
Turnovers	10	4
Steals	3	5
Blocks	2	2
Personal fouls	15	19

Source: ESPN box score data supplied for the game. Team totals and individual statistics are reported as provided.

Field-Goal Efficiency: A Small Percentage Gap, a Big Scoring Difference

Golden State made 36 of 74 field-goal attempts, compared with Dallas’s 28 of 60. The Valkyries converted approximately 48.6% of their attempts, while the Wings finished at approximately 46.7%.

The difference was less than two percentage points. That might appear too small to explain a 24-point victory, but field-goal percentage does not account for the extra value of three-point shots.

Golden State made eight more field goals overall. More importantly, its three-point advantage was substantial enough to create a scoring gap that Dallas could not overcome.

The Valkyries also attempted 14 more field goals. Some of that difference reflects the additional possessions and shot volume associated with their lower turnover count, although the box score alone cannot establish the precise cause of every additional attempt.

Three-Point Shooting: Golden State’s Biggest Statistical Advantage

The most striking shooting difference was beyond the arc.

• Golden State: 18 made three-pointers on 36 attempts.
• Dallas: 6 made three-pointers on 20 attempts.

The Valkyries made 12 more three-pointers, accounting for 36 additional points from that category compared with Dallas.

Their three-point accuracy was also substantially higher: 50% against 30%.

This does not mean every three-pointer was worth more than a two-point basket in isolation. It means Golden State combined a high volume of attempts with excellent conversion, giving it a scoring advantage that was difficult for Dallas to match.

A useful way to understand the gap is to calculate the value of the made shots. Golden State scored 54 points from three-pointers, while Dallas scored 18. That is a 36-point difference from long-range shooting alone.

Other scoring categories narrowed that gap. Dallas made more free throws and scored more points inside the arc, so the final margin was 24 rather than 36.

Free Throws: Dallas Converted Its Opportunities

Dallas made 18 of 20 free throws, an impressive 90% conversion rate. Golden State made 14 of 16, or 87.5%, rounded to 88% in the supplied statistics.

The Wings therefore scored four more points at the free-throw line.

This was a positive element of Dallas’s performance. Its defeat did not result from poor free-throw shooting. Instead, the difference in three-point production and possession efficiency outweighed that advantage.

The comparison also demonstrates why a single shooting percentage should not be used to judge the whole game. Dallas was more accurate from the free-throw line, but Golden State generated far more value from its perimeter shooting.

Rebounding: Golden State Held a Modest Advantage

Golden State collected 33 rebounds, three more than Dallas’s 30.

The offensive-rebounding figures were also close, with the Valkyries recording six and the Wings recording five. Golden State added a two-rebound advantage on the defensive glass, with 27 defensive rebounds against Dallas’s 25.

These are useful but not overwhelming differences. Rebounding helped the Valkyries control possessions, yet the three-rebound margin was not the primary explanation for their victory.

The larger story is the combination of shooting and turnovers. Golden State did not need to dominate every statistical category to win convincingly.

Assists and Turnovers: The Value of Ball Security

Golden State recorded 22 assists and, according to the supplied box score, four turnovers. Dallas finished with 19 assists and 10 turnovers.

That difference matters because turnovers end possessions without guaranteeing a shot. A team that loses possession repeatedly gives its opponent additional opportunities to control the game’s rhythm.

Golden State’s low turnover count also supports the impression of a composed offensive performance. The Valkyries created scoring chances, converted a high percentage of their long-range attempts, and avoided giving away many possessions.

There is a small source discrepancy worth acknowledging: a separate ESPN matchup-statistics listing displays five Golden State turnovers, while the supplied box score records four. This article uses the supplied box-score figure of four. Either figure leaves the broader comparison intact, as Dallas recorded 10 turnovers.

Golden State Valkyries Player Stats

Golden State’s player statistics show a balanced offensive performance. Cecilia Zandalasini led all scorers with 22 points, Tiffany Hayes added 21 off the bench, and Gabby Williams contributed 20.

Three Valkyries reached at least 20 points. That scoring distribution made it difficult for Dallas to concentrate its defensive attention on a single player.

Player	MIN	PTS	FG	3PT	FT	REB	AST	TO	+/-
Cecilia Zandalasini	16	22	7-11	4-5	4-5	0	1	0	+17
Tiffany Hayes	19	21	7-10	3-5	4-4	1	4	0	+5
Gabby Williams	27	20	8-16	2-5	2-3	3	4	0	+27
Kayla Thornton	19	10	4-6	2-4	0-0	5	1	0	+11
Veronica Burton	23	10	3-7	2-2	2-2	3	5	0	+21
Kaitlyn Chen	17	8	3-7	2-4	0-0	2	2	0	+3
Janelle Salaun	21	3	1-6	1-4	0-0	2	0	0	+7
Kaila Charles	19	3	1-3	1-2	0-0	5	1	1	+16
Juste Jocyte	3	3	1-1	1-1	0-0	0	0	1	0
Kiah Stokes	20	2	0-2	0-2	2-2	8	2	0	+20
Aminata Gueye	10	2	1-4	0-1	0-0	3	2	1	-5
Laeticia Amihere	6	0	0-1	0-1	0-0	1	0	1	-2

MIN = minutes played; PTS = points; FG = field goals; 3PT = three-pointers; FT = free throws; REB = rebounds; AST = assists; TO = turnovers; +/- = plus-minus. Ashten Prechtel and Miela Sowah did not play, according to the supplied data.

Cecilia Zandalasini: Golden State’s Leading Scorer

Zandalasini led the Valkyries with 22 points in just 16 minutes. She shot 7-for-11 from the field and 4-for-5 from three-point range, adding four made free throws.

Her four successful three-pointers were especially valuable in a game where Golden State made 18 shots from beyond the arc as a team.

The efficiency of her performance deserves attention. She scored heavily without needing a large number of attempts or extended playing time. Her 22 points also came with no recorded turnovers.

Zandalasini’s box-score line illustrates the impact of a high-efficiency perimeter scorer. Her contribution was not simply the number of points she scored. It was the speed and accuracy with which she added them.

She finished with a plus-minus rating of +17, meaning Golden State outscored Dallas by 17 points during her time on the court. This supports the positive overall picture, although plus-minus is a team measure rather than a direct calculation of an individual player’s contribution.

Tiffany Hayes: A Major Contribution From the Bench

Hayes scored 21 points in 19 minutes, finishing 7-for-10 from the field and 3-for-5 from three-point range. She also made all four of her free throws.

Her four assists added another dimension to the performance. Hayes was not limited to finishing scoring chances; she also helped teammates generate offense.

Perhaps the most revealing number is her zero turnovers. She combined a high scoring total with efficient shooting and careful possession management.

Hayes’s contribution also demonstrates the value of bench production during a playoff game. Golden State did not have to depend exclusively on its starting lineup to sustain its offense.

Her plus-minus was +5, which was positive but lower than those of several starters. That does not diminish her 21 points. It simply means that scoring output and on-court point differential measure different aspects of performance.

Gabby Williams: Scoring, Playmaking, and the Best Plus-Minus

Williams finished with 20 points, four assists, three rebounds, and one steal. She made eight of 16 field-goal attempts and two of five three-pointers.

Her +27 plus-minus was the highest among the listed players in this game.

This figure suggests that Golden State had a particularly strong overall scoring margin during Williams’s minutes. It does not prove that she individually caused a 27-point swing, since plus-minus also reflects teammates, opponents, lineups, and game conditions.

Still, Williams’s complete statistical contribution is noteworthy. She scored efficiently enough to reach 20 points, helped create baskets for teammates, and contributed defensively without committing a turnover.

For a playoff performance, that combination provides a more complete picture than points alone.

Veronica Burton: The Leading Playmaker

Burton recorded five assists, the highest total among Golden State players. She also scored 10 points, making three of seven field goals and both of her three-point attempts.

Her five assists came without a recorded turnover in the supplied statistics. That is a useful indicator of her ball security in this contest.

Burton’s role was important because Golden State had several players capable of finishing possessions. A playmaker who distributes the ball effectively can help keep those scoring options involved without needing to take the most shots herself.

She also recorded a +21 plus-minus, reinforcing the fact that Golden State’s advantage was substantial during her minutes.

Kiah Stokes: Rebounding and Interior Support

Stokes scored only two points, but she led Golden State with eight rebounds. She also recorded two assists and one block.

Her eight rebounds included six defensive boards and two offensive rebounds. That work helped the Valkyries secure possessions and limited Dallas’s opportunities to extend its own attacks through offensive rebounds.

Stokes’s performance is a useful reminder that low scoring totals do not automatically indicate low value. Her rebounding and defensive contributions mattered even though she attempted only two field goals.

She also finished with a +20 plus-minus. Like the other players’ figures, that statistic reflects the team’s performance during her minutes, not a standalone measure of defensive quality.

Kayla Thornton: Efficient Scoring and Rebounding

Thornton scored 10 points on six field-goal attempts, including two successful three-pointers. She collected five rebounds and recorded one assist.

Her 4-for-6 field-goal performance gave Golden State another efficient scoring option. The five rebounds were also meaningful in a game decided by shooting and possession control.

Thornton’s contribution fit the broader team pattern: several Valkyries could score efficiently without needing to dominate the ball.

Golden State’s Bench Depth

Beyond Hayes, Golden State received eight points from Kaitlyn Chen and smaller contributions from Janelle Salaun, Kaila Charles, and Juste Jocyte.

Chen made two of four three-point attempts and contributed two assists. Charles recorded five rebounds in 19 minutes, while Salaun added a made three-pointer.

These performances mattered in different ways. Some players supplied scoring, while others helped with rebounding, spacing, or ball movement.

The most significant bench contribution remained Hayes’s 21 points. Her performance gave Golden State another high-level scorer and helped ensure the offense was not dependent on one lineup.

Dallas Wings Player Stats

Dallas had a strong individual scoring performance from Paige Bueckers, but the team did not receive enough consistent production to keep pace with Golden State’s three-point shooting.

Bueckers scored 21 points on 9-for-10 shooting. Maddy Siegrist and Kitija Laksa each scored 11, while Arike Ogunbowale finished with 10. Odyssey Sims led Dallas with seven assists despite playing only 15 minutes.

Player	MIN	PTS	FG	3PT	FT	REB	AST	TO	+/-
Paige Bueckers	25	21	9-10	2-2	1-1	6	2	1	-23
Maddy Siegrist	21	11	4-9	1-2	2-3	3	0	0	-18
Kitija Laksa	15	11	4-5	3-4	0-0	1	0	0	+1
Arike Ogunbowale	25	10	2-7	0-1	6-6	1	4	1	-31
Li Yueru	16	7	2-3	0-1	3-3	3	0	0	+6
Odyssey Sims	15	7	2-4	0-2	3-3	3	7	1	-1
Aziaha James	13	7	2-6	0-3	3-4	0	2	0	-2
Alysha Clark	19	4	2-3	0-1	0-0	4	1	1	-6
Awak Kuier	20	2	1-5	0-4	0-0	4	0	1	-25
Jessica Shepard	24	0	0-7	0-0	0-0	3	3	3	-30
Haley Jones	6	0	0-1	0-0	0-0	2	0	2	+9

Christyn Williams and Deja Kelly were listed as did not play, with the coach’s decision given as the reason.

Paige Bueckers: Dallas’s Most Efficient Scorer

Bueckers finished with 21 points, six rebounds, and two assists. She converted nine of her 10 field-goal attempts, including both of her three-point shots, and made her only free throw.

Her 90% field-goal accuracy was one of the most impressive individual performances in the game. She produced 21 points without requiring a high volume of attempts, showing how effective she was as a scorer.

Bueckers also led Dallas in rebounds. Her six boards gave her a meaningful contribution beyond scoring, while her two assists helped connect her teammates to offensive opportunities.

However, her -23 plus-minus indicates that Dallas was outscored by 23 points during her minutes. That does not mean Bueckers played poorly. In fact, her shooting figures suggest the opposite.

This is one of the clearest examples of why a player’s individual line must be separated from the team’s final result. Bueckers performed efficiently, but basketball is a five-player game in which an individual’s production cannot fully compensate for a large team-wide scoring disadvantage.

Maddy Siegrist: Reliable Secondary Scoring

Siegrist scored 11 points on four of nine field-goal attempts. She made one three-pointer, added two free throws, and collected three rebounds.

Her scoring gave Dallas another double-digit option alongside Bueckers and Ogunbowale. Yet her overall contribution could not make up for the shortage of perimeter production across the team.

Siegrist’s performance was solid rather than dominant. She helped the Wings maintain a scoring presence, but Dallas needed more collective production to match Golden State’s three high-volume scorers.

Kitija Laksa: An Efficient Long-Range Performance

Laksa also scored 11 points, but she reached that total in just 15 minutes. She made four of five field-goal attempts and three of four shots from beyond the arc.

Her three successful three-pointers were particularly valuable. She provided one of Dallas’s most efficient perimeter performances, converting 75% of her attempts from long range.

Laksa finished with a +1 plus-minus, one of the better figures among Dallas players in the supplied box score.

That positive rating does not erase the team defeat, but it illustrates that individual players can perform well even when their team loses by a wide margin. Laksa made the most of her opportunities, though her limited minutes meant that her production could not fully offset Golden State’s broader scoring advantage.

Arike Ogunbowale: Points Without Efficient Field-Goal Shooting

Ogunbowale scored 10 points and recorded four assists. She made six of six free throws, but converted only two of seven field-goal attempts and missed her only three-point attempt.

Her free-throw shooting kept her scoring total respectable. However, the field-goal numbers show that she struggled to generate points from the floor.

She also finished with a -31 plus-minus, the lowest among the players listed in the supplied data. This means Dallas was outscored by 31 points during her time on the court.

That statistic should not be interpreted as proof that Ogunbowale alone was responsible for the loss. The team struggled in several areas, including three-point defense, possession management, and the second-quarter scoring collapse.

Her four assists remain a positive element of her performance. Even when her own shot was not falling, she helped create opportunities for teammates.

Odyssey Sims: Seven Assists in Limited Minutes

Sims led Dallas with seven assists in 15 minutes. She scored seven points, made two of four field goals, and converted all three of her free throws.

Her assist total was particularly notable because no other Dallas player recorded more than four. Sims provided the Wings with an effective playmaking option off the bench.

The challenge was that Dallas needed both playmaking and more efficient team scoring. Seven assists from one reserve player were not enough to overcome Golden State’s offensive output.

Sims’s performance nevertheless demonstrates the value of measuring players by role. A point guard’s contribution cannot be judged only by points scored when creating chances for teammates is a central part of the job.

Dallas’s Supporting Cast and Bench Production

Dallas received useful contributions from several reserves:

• Li Yueru scored seven points, collected three rebounds, and recorded one steal and one block.
• Aziaha James added seven points and two assists.
• Alysha Clark scored four points and collected four rebounds.
• Laksa’s 11 points provided important perimeter scoring.

The bench was not completely ineffective. Laksa, Sims, and Yueru each offered something positive, and some reserves finished with positive plus-minus figures.

The bigger issue was that these contributions did not combine into a consistent team scoring performance. Golden State had three players with at least 20 points, while Dallas had only Bueckers above that threshold.

The Wings also had fewer made three-pointers, fewer assists, and more turnovers. These combined differences made the task of catching up considerably harder.

What the Player Statistics Reveal About the Game

The numbers become more useful when they are interpreted together rather than viewed as isolated totals.

1. Golden State Had More Ways to Score

Golden State’s leading scorer was Zandalasini with 22 points, but Hayes added 21 and Williams contributed 20. Thornton and Burton scored 10 each.

That distribution created multiple scoring threats. Dallas could not focus exclusively on Bueckers’s defensive matchup or concentrate on one Valkyries shooter without leaving another scoring option available.

A team with several efficient scorers can be difficult to defend because the opponent must account for different players and different areas of the floor.

2. Dallas’s Shooting Was Too Concentrated

Bueckers’s 21 points were outstanding, and Siegrist and Laksa each reached 11. However, Dallas struggled to generate enough scoring from the rest of its lineup.

Jessica Shepard finished without a field goal on seven attempts. Kuier made only one of five field goals and missed all four of her three-point attempts. Ogunbowale made just two field goals.

These figures do not tell the entire story of every player’s performance, but they highlight how uneven the shooting results were.

The Wings needed more than one highly efficient scorer. They needed enough players to convert opportunities and keep pace with Golden State’s long-range production.

3. Three-Point Volume Changed the Scoring Equation

Golden State attempted 36 three-pointers, making half of them. Dallas attempted 20 and made six.

The Valkyries therefore produced 36 more points from three-point shots than the Wings. That difference was larger than the final margin of victory, illustrating just how important perimeter shooting was to the outcome.

Dallas did not necessarily need to copy Golden State’s exact approach. However, it needed to find a way to reduce the opponent’s three-point efficiency or produce more points of its own from beyond the arc.

4. Turnovers Reduced Dallas’s Margin for Error

Dallas recorded 10 turnovers, compared with four in the supplied Golden State box score.

In a game where the opponent is shooting 50% from three-point range, every lost possession becomes more costly. Turnovers can prevent a team from taking a shot and may create opportunities for the opponent to attack before the defense is organized.

The supplied team statistics also list Golden State with 22 assists against Dallas’s 19. The Valkyries combined better ball movement with fewer turnovers, giving them a stronger overall offensive profile.

5. The Second Quarter Was More Important Than the Final Quarter

Dallas won the fourth quarter by five points, but lost the second by 26.

That comparison shows why game-level analysis must account for when points are scored. A team can finish strongly and still lose comfortably if an earlier period creates too large a deficit.

Golden State’s 37-point second quarter was the decisive statistical event. Dallas’s improved late scoring could not undo the damage.

Understanding Plus-Minus in This Matchup

Plus-minus is the difference between a team’s points scored and points allowed while a particular player is on the court.

For example, Gabby Williams recorded +27. This means Golden State outscored Dallas by 27 points during her minutes. Arike Ogunbowale’s -31 means Dallas was outscored by 31 during her time on the floor.

These figures can help identify lineup patterns, but they should not be treated as direct individual performance scores.

Several factors affect plus-minus:

• The quality of a player’s teammates.
• The strength of the opposing lineup.
• Whether the player shares the court with the team’s strongest scorers.
• The timing of substitutions and scoring runs.
• The team’s offensive and defensive performance during those minutes.

Williams’s +27 is consistent with Golden State’s overall dominance. Ogunbowale’s -31 reflects the difficult stretches Dallas experienced while she played. Neither number, on its own, explains every decision or outcome.

A careful reading combines plus-minus with shooting, assists, turnovers, rebounds, and the game situation.

How This Result Fits Into the Playoff Series

Game 1 gave Golden State a 1-0 advantage in the first-round series. But the supplied results for the following games show that the matchup became more competitive.

104-80

Game 1

Golden State wins

September 28, 2026, as listed in the supplied data. Valkyries take a 1-0 series lead.

108-100

Game 2

Golden State wins in overtime

October 1, 2026, according to the supplied results. Dallas scores 100, but Golden State reaches 108.

77-73

Game 3

Golden State wins again

October 3, 2026, according to the supplied results. The Valkyries win a much closer contest.

The supplied game results show Golden State winning all three games, with the later contests much closer than the opening 24-point victory. Game 2 required overtime, while Game 3 was decided by only four points.

That progression is important when interpreting the first matchup. The opening game demonstrated Golden State’s ability to create a large lead through perimeter shooting and efficient possessions. The later scores suggest that the series became more competitive, although these final scores alone cannot establish precisely which tactical adjustments caused the changes.

The main takeaway from Game 1 remains clear: Golden State’s combination of perimeter scoring, multiple offensive contributors, and ball security proved decisive.

For the official league record, readers can consult the WNBA Game 1 box score, which lists the individual player statistics and team shooting totals.

Statistical Limitations and How to Read the Box Score

A box score is an essential starting point for basketball analysis, but it cannot explain everything that happened on the court.

The figures used here provide player minutes, points, shooting attempts, rebounds, assists, turnovers, steals, blocks, fouls, and plus-minus ratings. They support a detailed statistical comparison, but several important limitations remain.

First, a shooting line does not show the difficulty of every attempt. A made three-pointer after a defensive breakdown is different from a heavily contested shot, even though both count for three points.

Second, assists do not capture every contribution to an offensive possession. A screen, a pass that creates a defensive rotation, or a cut that opens space may help generate a basket without appearing in the assist column.

Third, plus-minus is influenced by teammates and opponents. It should not be used as a substitute for reviewing the full game.

Finally, the statistics provided do not establish every tactical adjustment, defensive assignment, or substitution decision. Those details require additional game footage or play-by-play evidence.

For these reasons, the strongest conclusions are the ones directly supported by the numbers: Golden State shot much better from three-point range, recorded more assists, committed fewer turnovers in the supplied box score, and scored 37 points in the second quarter.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Who won the Golden State Valkyries vs Dallas Wings game on September 28, 2026?

The Golden State Valkyries defeated the Dallas Wings 104-80 in Game 1 of their first-round WNBA playoff series at Chase Center in San Francisco.

2. Who was the leading scorer in the game?

Cecilia Zandalasini led all players with 22 points for Golden State. Tiffany Hayes scored 21 points, Gabby Williams added 20, and Dallas’s Paige Bueckers led the Wings with 21 points.

3. How many points did Paige Bueckers score against Golden State?

Paige Bueckers scored 21 points on nine made field goals from 10 attempts. She also made both of her three-point attempts, collected six rebounds, and recorded two assists.

4. Which team had the better three-point shooting performance?

Golden State had the better perimeter shooting performance. The Valkyries made 18 of 36 three-point attempts, shooting 50%, while Dallas made six of 20, shooting 30%.

5. Which player recorded the most assists?

Odyssey Sims led Dallas with seven assists, while Veronica Burton led Golden State with five. Sims recorded her seven assists in 15 minutes of playing time.

6. What was the key turning point in the game?

The second quarter was the decisive period. Golden State scored 37 points while limiting Dallas to 11, turning a one-point first-quarter lead into a 27-point halftime advantage.

Conclusion

The Golden State Valkyries vs Dallas Wings match player stats reveal a game decided primarily by perimeter shooting, balanced scoring, and possession management. Golden State won 104-80 after producing 37 points in the second quarter and making 18 three-pointers at a 50% conversion rate.

Cecilia Zandalasini led the Valkyries with 22 points, while Tiffany Hayes and Gabby Williams added 21 and 20 points, respectively. Veronica Burton contributed five assists, and Kiah Stokes led Golden State with eight rebounds. For Dallas, Paige Bueckers delivered an efficient 21-point performance, while Kitija Laksa and Maddy Siegrist each scored 11 points. Odyssey Sims led the Wings with seven assists.

The most important statistical difference was not a single player’s scoring total. It was the combination of Golden State’s 36-point advantage in three-point scoring, its greater scoring depth, and its lower turnover count. Dallas won the fourth quarter, but the damage from the second quarter was too large to overcome.

For readers studying playoff performances, this matchup is a useful example of how individual efficiency and team success can differ. Bueckers shot exceptionally well, yet Golden State’s collective shooting and ball movement proved more effective over the full game.