Connecticut Sun vs Indiana Fever Match Player Stats
The connecticut sun vs indiana fever match player stats from August 29, 2026, tell the story of an offensive performance that helped the Indiana Fever secure a 111-91 victory over the Connecticut Sun at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis. Indiana combined efficient shooting, strong perimeter scoring, active defense, and balanced playmaking to win by 20 points in front of 17,274 fans. Caitlin Clark and Kelsey Mitchell each scored 34 points, giving the Fever two dominant scoring performances in the same game.
The final score only tells part of the story. Indiana shot 58% from the field, made 12 three-pointers, recorded 23 assists, and forced Connecticut into 16 turnovers. The Sun shot a respectable 46% overall and 92% from the free-throw line, but those numbers were not enough to match Indiana’s scoring efficiency. The Fever also collected eight more rebounds and recorded six blocks compared with Connecticut’s one.
This detailed game breakdown examines the final score, individual player performances, shooting percentages, defensive contributions, bench production, and the key statistical differences that shaped the contest. It also explains how Clark’s passing complemented Mitchell’s scoring, why Indiana’s second quarter mattered so much, and what the season-series results reveal about this matchup.
All game figures in this article are based on the supplied ESPN box-score data for the August 29, 2026, contest. Player statistics and team totals are presented as provided, with analysis drawn from those figures rather than invented play-by-play details.
Game Overview: Connecticut Sun vs Indiana Fever
The Indiana Fever entered this matchup with a displayed record of 26-14 overall and 14-6 at home. Connecticut came in with a 10-29 overall record and a 3-16 away record, according to the supplied game information.
Indiana finished the contest with 111 points, while Connecticut scored 91. The result completed a 3-0 season-series sweep for the Fever, following earlier victories of 85-75 on June 14 and 123-88 on July 23.
Indiana Fever players, basketball shoes and stats | Colendri
Indiana Fever
Home team
111
Winner
FINAL
20-point margin
August 29, 2026
Connecticut Sun Scores, Stats and Highlights – ESPN
Connecticut Sun
Away team
91
Lost by 20
Venue
Gainbridge Fieldhouse
Attendance
17,274
Indiana record shown
26-14
Connecticut record shown
10-29
Quarter-by-quarter scoring
The biggest change came in the second quarter. Indiana scored 39 points in that period, while Connecticut managed only 15. That 24-point difference across a single quarter created a substantial gap that the Sun could not erase.
| Quarter | Connecticut Sun | Indiana Fever |
| Q1 | 28 | 19 |
| Q2 | 15 | 39 |
| Q3 | 23 | 21 |
| Q4 | 25 | 32 |
| Final | 91 | 111 |
Connecticut led 28-19 after the opening quarter. Indiana then responded with a 39-15 second quarter, turning a nine-point deficit into a 15-point halftime lead.
The Fever extended that advantage in the fourth quarter, scoring 32 points against Connecticut’s 25. Although the Sun produced 48 points across the second half, Indiana scored 53 over the same span.
The key lesson from the scoring pattern is that a strong opening period does not guarantee control of a basketball game. Indiana’s response in the second quarter was the defining statistical development of this contest.
Connecticut Sun vs Indiana Fever Match Player Stats: Full Team Comparison
The team numbers explain why Indiana won despite losing the opening quarter. The Fever converted a higher percentage of their shots, created more defensive pressure, and committed fewer turnovers. Connecticut was competitive in several categories, but the combined differences in shooting and possession management proved significant.
| Team statistic | Connecticut Sun | Indiana Fever |
| Points | 91 | 111 |
| Field goals | 35/76 | 39/67 |
| Field-goal percentage | 46% | 58% |
| Three-pointers | 9/28 | 12/29 |
| Three-point percentage | 32% | 41% |
| Free throws | 12/13 | 21/32 |
| Free-throw percentage | 92% | 66% |
| Total rebounds | 26 | 34 |
| Offensive rebounds | 6 | 6 |
| Defensive rebounds | 20 | 28 |
| Assists | 22 | 23 |
| Turnovers | 16 | 12 |
| Steals | 9 | 13 |
| Blocks | 1 | 6 |
| Personal fouls | 23 | 17 |
Source: Supplied ESPN box-score data for August 29, 2026.
1. Shooting efficiency separated the teams
Indiana made 39 of 67 field-goal attempts, compared with Connecticut’s 35 makes on 76 attempts. That difference is important because Indiana attempted nine fewer shots but made four more baskets.
The Fever’s 58% field-goal percentage was 12 percentage points higher than the Sun’s 46%. In practical terms, Indiana converted its scoring opportunities more consistently and needed fewer attempts to produce a larger total.
Indiana also made 12 three-pointers at a 41% rate. Connecticut made nine at 32%. Those three additional made shots from beyond the arc were worth nine points, creating another meaningful advantage.
The difference was not simply the number of shots taken. It was how efficiently those attempts became points.
2. Free throws helped Connecticut, but not enough
Connecticut converted 12 of 13 free throws, an excellent 92% rate. Indiana made 21 of 32 attempts, or approximately 66%.
The Sun was clearly more accurate at the line. However, Indiana attempted 19 more free throws and made nine more. The Fever’s greater volume compensated for their lower conversion percentage.
This is a useful reminder when interpreting basketball statistics: percentages and totals measure different things. A team can be more accurate in one category without scoring more points from that category.
3. Indiana controlled the defensive details
The Fever recorded 13 steals and six blocks. Connecticut registered nine steals and one block.
Indiana’s eight-rebound advantage also mattered. The Fever collected 34 total rebounds, including 28 defensive rebounds. Connecticut finished with 26 rebounds, 20 of them on defense.
Both teams recorded six offensive rebounds. That means the difference in total rebounding came from defensive boards rather than a higher offensive-rebound total for Indiana.
Indiana’s four-turnover advantage was another important factor. The Fever committed 12 turnovers against Connecticut’s 16. When combined with the steals totals, those numbers point to a more disruptive defensive performance by Indiana.
The figures do not establish how many points came directly from turnovers or blocked shots. They do, however, show that Indiana created more defensive events while protecting the ball more effectively.
Caitlin Clark’s Performance: 34 Points and 12 Assists
Caitlin Clark delivered one of the most influential individual performances of the game. She scored 34 points, collected five rebounds, and recorded 12 assists in 34 minutes.
Her shooting efficiency made the performance even more impressive.
| Caitlin Clark statistic | Result |
| Points | 34 |
| Field goals | 12/19 |
| Field-goal percentage | 63.2% |
| Three-pointers | 6/12 |
| Three-point percentage | 50% |
| Free throws | 4/6 |
| Rebounds | 5 |
| Assists | 12 |
| Turnovers | 5 |
| Steals | 3 |
| Blocks | 0 |
| Minutes | 34 |
| Plus/minus | +32 |
Clark made 12 of 19 field-goal attempts, giving her a field-goal percentage of approximately 63.2%. She also converted six of her 12 three-point attempts, meaning half of her shots from beyond the arc went in.
Her 34 points matched Mitchell’s team-high total, but Clark added a major playmaking contribution. Twelve assists indicate that she was involved in creating scoring opportunities for teammates as well as finishing possessions herself.
Why Clark’s scoring and passing mattered together
A high-scoring guard can affect a defense in two different ways. The first is direct scoring, which forces opponents to account for the player’s own shot. The second is playmaking, which creates opportunities for teammates when defenders shift their attention toward the ball.
Clark’s combination of 34 points and 12 assists demonstrates both forms of production. Her six made three-pointers also meant defenders had to respect her perimeter shooting.
That combination can make defensive decisions difficult. If opponents give a shooter room, she can score from outside. If they focus on stopping her, passing opportunities may become available elsewhere.
The box score supports the conclusion that Clark was productive as both a scorer and a facilitator. It does not, on its own, reveal the exact defensive assignments Connecticut used or which individual possessions created each assist.
Understanding Clark’s plus/minus of +32
Clark finished with a plus/minus of +32. This means Indiana outscored Connecticut by 32 points during the minutes she was on the court.
That is an exceptional game-level differential, but it requires careful interpretation. Plus/minus is a measure of team scoring while a player participates, not the number of points that player personally created.
Clark’s individual scoring, passing, and defensive activity all contributed to her overall impact, but plus/minus also reflects her teammates’ performance and the opponents’ production during those minutes.
Her five turnovers are worth noting alongside her 12 assists. Ball-handling responsibilities often involve risk, especially for a primary creator. The more useful assessment considers both sides of the ledger: Clark produced a high number of assists and points while also losing possession five times.
Overall, her scoring efficiency and playmaking made her one of the central figures in Indiana’s victory.
Kelsey Mitchell’s Performance: Another 34-Point Game
Kelsey Mitchell matched Clark with 34 points, giving Indiana two players with identical scoring totals. Her contribution was especially important because it meant the Fever did not depend on one scorer to carry the offensive load.
Mitchell played 31 minutes and made 12 of 19 field-goal attempts. She also recorded four assists and committed just one turnover.
| Kelsey Mitchell statistic | Result |
| Points | 34 |
| Field goals | 12/19 |
| Field-goal percentage | 63.2% |
| Three-pointers | 4/9 |
| Three-point percentage | 44.4% |
| Free throws | 6/10 |
| Rebounds | 3 |
| Assists | 4 |
| Turnovers | 1 |
| Steals | 1 |
| Blocks | 0 |
| Minutes | 31 |
| Plus/minus | +14 |
Mitchell’s 12 made field goals matched Clark’s total. The distinction came from their shot profiles and supporting statistics. Clark made six three-pointers and recorded 12 assists, while Mitchell made four three-pointers and four assists.
Both players reached 34 points, but they did so with different combinations of scoring and creation. That is valuable for an offense because it makes the attack less dependent on a single style of play.
Mitchell’s efficiency and ball security
Mitchell’s 12-for-19 shooting matched Clark’s conversion rate. She also made four of nine three-point attempts, giving her a strong 44.4% mark from outside.
Her six made free throws added to her scoring total, although she missed four attempts at the line. Those missed opportunities are part of the complete statistical picture, even in a game where she scored 34 points.
Mitchell’s one turnover is particularly notable alongside her 34 points. She produced a large scoring total while recording fewer turnovers than Clark, despite playing a similar amount of time.
Her plus/minus of +14 was lower than Clark’s +32, but both figures were positive. The difference does not establish that Clark was automatically twice as valuable. Their court time, teammate combinations, and opposing lineups can all affect this measure.
What two 34-point scorers tell us
Having two players score 34 points each is a major feature of this result. Indiana finished with 111 points, and its two leading scorers combined for 68 of them.
That means Clark and Mitchell accounted for approximately 61.3% of the Fever’s final total. Their scoring partnership supplied a large share of the offense, while teammates added the remaining 43 points.
The practical takeaway is that Indiana had two highly productive scoring options in the same game. That balance can make an offense harder to contain because defensive attention cannot be directed entirely toward one player without leaving another important threat.
Aliyah Boston’s Impact on Both Ends
Aliyah Boston scored 14 points in 25 minutes, making her the Fever’s third-highest scorer in the supplied box score. She shot six of nine from the field, recorded two rebounds and two assists, and added two steals and three blocks.
| Aliyah Boston statistic | Result |
| Points | 14 |
| Field goals | 6/9 |
| Rebounds | 2 |
| Assists | 2 |
| Steals | 2 |
| Blocks | 3 |
| Minutes | 25 |
| Plus/minus | +17 |
Boston’s 66.7% field-goal percentage shows that she converted her attempts efficiently. Her three blocks were also important to Indiana’s overall defensive numbers.
Blocks are only one part of rim protection, and the box score does not identify every shot a defender alters without blocking. Still, three recorded blocks from one player represent a meaningful contribution in a game where Indiana finished with six as a team.
Boston’s two steals added another defensive element. Together, her blocks and steals accounted for five recorded defensive plays that directly disrupted Connecticut’s possessions.
Her 14 points also gave Indiana a productive third scoring option behind Clark and Mitchell. That helped keep the offense from relying entirely on its two guards.
Makayla Timpson and Indiana’s Supporting Cast
The Fever’s supporting players added production in several areas, including rebounding, defense, and efficient minutes. Not every contributor needed to score heavily to influence the final margin.
Makayla Timpson
Timpson finished with 10 points, eight rebounds, one assist, two steals, and two blocks in 30 minutes. Her plus/minus was +25.
Her eight rebounds were the highest listed individual rebound total among Indiana’s players in the supplied statistics. That contribution helped the Fever establish an eight-rebound advantage over Connecticut.
Timpson also recorded four combined steals and blocks. Her defensive activity gave Indiana additional ways to interrupt Connecticut’s offense without relying solely on its perimeter defenders.
A double-digit scoring total combined with eight rebounds is a useful example of production beyond the primary scorers. Timpson’s impact was spread across multiple categories.
Lexie Hull
Hull scored seven points, grabbed six rebounds, and added one assist in 24 minutes. She made one of three three-point attempts and finished with a plus/minus of +26.
Her six rebounds were particularly useful for a player who did not lead the team in scoring. Rebounding from multiple positions helps a team finish defensive possessions and can support its transition offense.
Hull’s single made three-pointer also added to Indiana’s perimeter production. The available numbers show her contributions across shooting, rebounding, and time on the court, though they do not establish the details of her individual defensive assignments.
Mercedes Russell
Russell scored three points, collected three rebounds, and recorded one assist in 13 minutes. Her plus/minus was +24.
Although her scoring total was modest, the positive plus/minus indicates that Indiana outscored Connecticut substantially during her time on the floor. That number should be read in context rather than treated as an isolated measure of her individual performance.
Other Fever contributors
The supplied box score lists the following additional Indiana performances:
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Minutes |
| Tyasha Harris | 6 | 1 | 2 | 13 |
| Sophie Cunningham | 1 | 2 | Not specified | 14 |
| Raven Johnson | 2 | Not specified | Not specified | 2 |
| Myisha Hines-Allen | 0 | 2 | Not specified | 4 |
| Monique Billings | 0 | 2 | Not specified | 8 |
| Grace VanSlooten | 0 | Not specified | Not specified | 2 |
| Bree Hall | 0 | Not specified | Not specified | 2 |
The table includes only the individual figures supplied for each player. A missing value means the provided data did not specify that statistic, not necessarily that the player recorded zero.
Tyasha Harris’s six points and two assists offered additional production away from the starting backcourt. Russell and the other reserves also provided minutes that allowed Indiana to spread playing time across the roster.
The broader point is that Indiana’s offense did not end with its two 34-point scorers. Boston and Timpson reached double figures, while other players contributed smaller scoring totals and different forms of support.
Connecticut Sun Player Stats: Diamond Miller Leads with 19 Points
Diamond Miller led Connecticut with 19 points in 20 minutes. She made five of 12 field-goal attempts, including three of six three-pointers, and converted all six of her free throws.
Her scoring performance gave the Sun an efficient perimeter option, but it was not enough to overcome Indiana’s two 34-point scorers and superior team shooting.
| Diamond Miller statistic | Result |
| Points | 19 |
| Field goals | 5/12 |
| Three-pointers | 3/6 |
| Free throws | 6/6 |
| Rebounds | 3 |
| Assists | 2 |
| Turnovers | 1 |
| Minutes | 20 |
| Plus/minus | -2 |
Miller’s perfect free-throw shooting was a bright spot for Connecticut. She also made half of her three-point attempts, showing that she could produce points from both the perimeter and the line.
Her plus/minus of -2 was much closer to even than those of several other Connecticut players. That suggests the overall scoring gap was not as large during her minutes as it was during some teammates’ court time. It does not, however, establish the reasons behind that difference without lineup and possession-level information.
Aaliyah Edwards provides interior scoring
Aaliyah Edwards scored 12 points and collected five rebounds in 30 minutes. She made five of 11 field-goal attempts and converted both free throws.
| Aaliyah Edwards statistic | Result |
| Points | 12 |
| Field goals | 5/11 |
| Free throws | 2/2 |
| Rebounds | 5 |
| Assists | 2 |
| Minutes | 30 |
| Plus/minus | -21 |
Edwards was one of Connecticut’s most productive players in terms of minutes and scoring. Her five rebounds also helped the Sun compete on the glass, although Indiana finished with the stronger overall rebounding total.
Her plus/minus of -21 reflects Indiana’s scoring advantage during her time on the floor. It should not be interpreted as an individual defensive rating or proof that one player caused the defeat.
Nell Angloma adds 17 points
Nell Angloma scored 17 points, grabbed seven rebounds, recorded four assists, and collected four steals in 27 minutes.
Her statistical line showed contributions in all three major areas: scoring, playmaking, and defense. Seven rebounds also gave Connecticut another player capable of contributing on the glass.
Angloma’s four steals were particularly notable because Connecticut recorded nine steals as a team. She accounted for a substantial share of the Sun’s recorded takeaways.
Her plus/minus was -21. Although she produced 17 points and four steals, Connecticut was outscored during her minutes. This highlights the difference between individual box-score production and the team’s overall performance.
Saniya Rivers and Charlisse Leger-Walker
Saniya Rivers scored nine points and recorded five assists and one steal in 31 minutes. She finished with a plus/minus of -30, the lowest figure listed among the Connecticut players in the supplied data.
Rivers’ five assists indicate that she helped create scoring opportunities for teammates. However, the team differential during her minutes shows that Connecticut struggled to match Indiana’s production in those stretches.
Charlisse Leger-Walker recorded eight points, four rebounds, five assists, and one steal in 24 minutes. She also committed seven turnovers.
Her five assists were a positive contribution, but the seven turnovers are an important counterpoint. Turnovers reduce the number of possessions that can produce a shot and may give the opponent additional scoring opportunities.
The figures do not reveal the exact causes of those turnovers, so it would be unfair to attribute all of Connecticut’s possession problems to one player. The team committed 16 turnovers overall, four more than Indiana.
Hailey Van Lith and the Connecticut bench
Hailey Van Lith scored 12 points in 20 minutes, adding two rebounds, one assist, and three steals. Her defensive activity was notable, and her three steals represented another source of pressure for the Sun.
Raegan Beers scored six points, collected one rebound, recorded three assists, and blocked one shot in 22 minutes. Gianna Kneepkens added five points in 14 minutes, while Ashlon Jackson scored three points in 10 minutes.
The additional listed player statistics are summarized below.
| Connecticut Sun player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Steals | Minutes |
| Nell Angloma | 17 | 7 | 4 | 4 | 27 |
| Hailey Van Lith | 12 | 2 | 1 | 3 | 20 |
| Raegan Beers | 6 | 1 | 3 | Not specified | 22 |
| Gianna Kneepkens | 5 | 2 | Not specified | Not specified | 14 |
| Ashlon Jackson | 3 | Not specified | Not specified | Not specified | 10 |
Brittney Griner was listed as unavailable because of a left knee issue, while Olivia Nelson-Ododa was listed as unavailable because of a right knee issue. Both were recorded as did not play.
These availability details provide context for the roster used in the game, but the supplied statistics alone cannot establish how their absence affected the final score.
Connecticut Sun vs Indiana Fever Match Player Stats: Key Tactical Takeaways
The numbers reveal several useful lessons about how this game developed. These observations are based on the supplied team and individual statistics rather than an assumption about specific plays.
1. Indiana’s second-quarter surge changed the game
The Fever scored 39 points in the second quarter after scoring 19 in the first. That 20-point increase from one quarter to the next shows how dramatically their offensive output changed.
Connecticut, meanwhile, dropped from 28 points in the first quarter to 15 in the second. The resulting 24-point quarter-to-quarter scoring difference transformed the contest.
Indiana’s 39-point quarter was the clearest turning point visible in the supplied scoring data. The figures do not establish whether the shift came primarily from transition baskets, half-court execution, defensive adjustments, or a combination of factors.
2. Perimeter shooting increased Indiana’s scoring efficiency
Indiana made 12 of 29 three-point attempts, compared with Connecticut’s nine of 28.
The Fever’s 41% rate from outside was approximately nine percentage points higher than the Sun’s 32%. Three additional made three-pointers accounted for nine points of the final scoring difference.
Clark’s six three-pointers and Mitchell’s four gave Indiana 10 makes from its two leading scorers alone. Their perimeter production was a major part of the team’s overall shooting advantage.
3. Ball security helped Indiana maintain control
Indiana committed 12 turnovers, while Connecticut committed 16. Although a four-turnover difference may appear small compared with the 20-point final margin, each lost possession represents a potential scoring opportunity that a team no longer controls.
The Fever also recorded 13 steals. Connecticut’s nine steals show that the Sun created defensive pressure of their own, but Indiana combined more steals with fewer turnovers.
Without a complete play-by-play breakdown, the number of points scored directly after turnovers cannot be confirmed. Still, the possession statistics favor Indiana.
4. Defensive activity extended beyond rebounding
Indiana’s six blocks compared with Connecticut’s one show a substantial difference in recorded shot-blocking production.
The Fever also committed six fewer personal fouls. Connecticut was called for 23 fouls, while Indiana was called for 17.
Foul totals do not independently measure defensive quality. Some fouls prevent scoring opportunities, while others allow free throws or interrupt defensive positioning. In this game, the foul figures are best considered alongside Indiana’s stronger shooting defense and higher block total.
5. The Fever had more than two productive players
Clark and Mitchell combined for 68 points, but Boston added 14 and Timpson scored 10. That gave Indiana four players in double figures.
Connecticut also had four players in double figures: Miller with 19, Angloma with 17, Edwards with 12, and Van Lith with 12.
The difference was not simply the number of double-digit scorers. Indiana’s leading pair produced 68 points, while its next two double-digit scorers added another 24. The Fever also recorded 23 assists and shot more efficiently as a team.
Season Series: Indiana Sweeps Connecticut 3-0
The August 29 result was the third Indiana victory over Connecticut in the supplied season series.
| Game date | Result | Winning margin |
| June 14, 2026 | Indiana 85, Connecticut 75 | Indiana by 10 |
| July 23, 2026 | Indiana 123, Connecticut 88 | Indiana by 35 |
| August 29, 2026 | Indiana 111, Connecticut 91 | Indiana by 20 |
Indiana won all three games by a combined 65 points, an average margin of approximately 21.7 points per game.
The scores also show that each matchup had a different offensive profile. Indiana scored 85 points in the first game, 123 in the second, and 111 in the third.
The series results support the conclusion that Indiana consistently outscored Connecticut across these three meetings. They do not establish that every game unfolded in the same way or that the same tactical factors determined each result.
For readers tracking the teams’ season-long matchup, the sweep is an important piece of context. It places the August victory within a wider pattern rather than treating it as an isolated result.
How to Read Basketball Player Statistics Correctly
Understanding a box score involves more than identifying the leading scorer. Several metrics provide different types of information, and each has limitations.
- Points: Measure a player’s direct scoring contribution.
- Field-goal percentage: Shows how often field-goal attempts become made baskets.
- Three-point percentage: Measures accuracy on shots from beyond the arc.
- Assists: Record passes credited with directly setting up made baskets under the official statistical rules.
- Rebounds: Measure recovered missed shots, with offensive and defensive rebounds providing different context.
- Turnovers: Record possessions lost through errors or violations.
- Steals: Record defensive plays that take possession from the opponent.
- Blocks: Record shots that a defender legally deflects.
- Plus/minus: Measures the team’s scoring margin while a player is on the court.
For this matchup, the most informative approach is to combine the metrics. Clark’s 34 points are impressive, but her 12 assists, six made three-pointers, and five turnovers provide a fuller picture. Mitchell’s 34 points become more meaningful when paired with her 12-for-19 shooting and one turnover.
Likewise, Miller’s 19 points show that she led Connecticut in scoring, while Angloma’s seven rebounds and four steals highlight a different kind of contribution.
No single statistic explains an entire game. Together, the numbers show why Indiana won and how different players influenced the contest.
For the official game record, consult the ESPN box score for Indiana Fever vs Connecticut Sun.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of Connecticut Sun vs Indiana Fever?
The Indiana Fever defeated the Connecticut Sun 111-91 on August 29, 2026, at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis. Indiana won by 20 points.
2. Who scored the most points in the game?
Caitlin Clark and Kelsey Mitchell were the leading scorers for Indiana, with 34 points each. Diamond Miller led Connecticut with 19 points.
3. How many assists did Caitlin Clark record?
Clark recorded 12 assists, five rebounds, and 34 points in 34 minutes. She also made six three-pointers on 12 attempts.
4. Which team shot better from the field?
Indiana shot 58%, making 39 of 67 field-goal attempts. Connecticut shot 46%, making 35 of 76 attempts. Indiana’s greater shooting efficiency was a major difference in the final result.
5. How many times did Indiana defeat Connecticut during the season series?
According to the supplied game data, Indiana won all three meetings. The Fever recorded victories of 85-75 on June 14, 123-88 on July 23, and 111-91 on August 29, 2026.
6. Which team recorded more rebounds, steals, and blocks?
Indiana recorded 34 rebounds, 13 steals, and six blocks. Connecticut finished with 26 rebounds, nine steals, and one block. Indiana led in all three categories.
Conclusion
The connecticut sun vs indiana fever match player stats show how efficient shooting, balanced scoring, and defensive pressure combined to produce Indiana’s 111-91 victory on August 29, 2026.
Caitlin Clark and Kelsey Mitchell each scored 34 points, creating a powerful scoring partnership. Clark added 12 assists, while Mitchell committed just one turnover. Aliyah Boston contributed 14 points and three blocks, and Makayla Timpson recorded 10 points and eight rebounds.
Connecticut also had productive individual performances. Diamond Miller led the Sun with 19 points, Nell Angloma scored 17 points and collected seven rebounds, and Aaliyah Edwards and Hailey Van Lith each added 12 points.
The decisive differences appeared in the team statistics. Indiana shot 58% from the field compared with Connecticut’s 46%, made three additional three-pointers, collected eight more rebounds, and recorded four fewer turnovers. The Fever’s 39-point second quarter was the clearest scoring turning point.
The result also completed Indiana’s 3-0 season-series sweep, with the Fever winning all three meetings by double-digit margins. Taken together, the figures provide a clear account of the game: Connecticut opened strongly, but Indiana’s offensive efficiency and overall statistical advantage ultimately determined the outcome.
