Seattle Storm vs Indiana Fever Match Player Stats
The seattle storm vs indiana fever match player stats from July 18, 2026, tell the story of a thrilling WNBA contest that ended with the Indiana Fever defeating the Seattle Storm 110-107 at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis. Caitlin Clark delivered a remarkable 45-point performance with 10 assists, while Kelsey Mitchell added 30 points to give Indiana two major scoring threats. Seattle responded with outstanding shooting efficiency, a dominant rebounding effort, and several strong individual performances, but Indiana’s ability to convert free throws and limit turnovers proved decisive.
The three-point difference between the teams highlights how small details can shape a high-scoring basketball game. Seattle shot 57% from the field and collected nine more rebounds than Indiana, yet the Fever made 28 of their 31 free throws and committed five fewer turnovers. Those differences helped Indiana protect its lead and complete a memorable home victory in front of 17,274 spectators.
This detailed breakdown examines the final score, player statistics, shooting percentages, team comparisons, quarter-by-quarter scoring, and the individual performances that influenced the result. It also explains what the numbers reveal about offensive execution, possession management, rebounding, and the tactical decisions that separated the two teams.
Seattle Storm vs Indiana Fever Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The July 18 meeting brought together two teams with different statistical strengths. Seattle demonstrated exceptional accuracy from the field and generated additional opportunities through rebounding. Indiana, meanwhile, combined perimeter scoring with outstanding free-throw accuracy and more disciplined possession management.
Winning team
Indiana Fever
110
Record displayed: 15-10 overall, 9-5 at home
FINAL
110-107
Losing team
Seattle Storm
107
Record displayed: 6-21 overall, 2-13 away
Date
July 18, 2026
Venue
Gainbridge Fieldhouse
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Attendance
17,274
The game information and player figures in this article are based on the supplied ESPN box-score data for the July 18 matchup.
Key Game Facts
| Category | Result |
| Final score | Indiana Fever 110, Seattle Storm 107 |
| Winning margin | Indiana by 3 points |
| Seattle field goals | 43 of 76, 57% |
| Indiana field goals | 36 of 72, 50% |
| Seattle three-pointers | 8 of 21, 38% |
| Indiana three-pointers | 10 of 23, 43% |
| Seattle free throws | 13 of 18, 72% |
| Indiana free throws | 28 of 31, 90% |
| Total rebounds | Seattle 35, Indiana 26 |
| Total assists | Seattle 27, Indiana 21 |
| Turnovers | Seattle 17, Indiana 12 |
| Steals | Seattle 8, Indiana 12 |
| Blocks | Seattle 3, Indiana 3 |
The most important takeaway is that superior shooting percentage did not guarantee Seattle the win. Indiana scored three more points despite making seven fewer field goals. The Fever’s advantage at the free-throw line and their lower turnover total help explain how that happened.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Analysis
The scoring pattern shows how the contest developed and why Indiana needed a strong fourth quarter to secure the victory.
| Quarter | Seattle Storm | Indiana Fever | Quarter winner |
| First | 26 | 37 | Indiana |
| Second | 30 | 22 | Seattle |
| Third | 32 | 23 | Seattle |
| Fourth | 19 | 28 | Indiana |
| Final | 107 | 110 | Indiana |
First Quarter: Indiana Establishes the Pace
Indiana scored 37 points in the opening quarter, creating an 11-point advantage before the first break. The Fever’s ability to generate scoring opportunities early gave them room to withstand Seattle’s later offensive runs.
A 37-point quarter also put pressure on Seattle’s defense. When an opponent scores at that rate, the defense must make adjustments without giving up open perimeter shots or easy opportunities near the basket.
Seattle remained within reach by scoring 26 points, but the early deficit meant that the Storm needed to win subsequent quarters by a meaningful margin.
Second Quarter: Seattle Starts Its Comeback
Seattle outscored Indiana 30-22 in the second quarter. The Storm reduced the deficit by eight points, demonstrating that they could answer Indiana’s offensive pressure.
This quarter also illustrates why a strong start does not automatically lead to a comfortable finish. Indiana’s offense cooled from its opening pace, while Seattle found more scoring opportunities.
At halftime, Indiana still held a three-point lead, 59-56. The contest had effectively reset, with Seattle positioned to challenge for control.
Third Quarter: Seattle Takes the Statistical Initiative
Seattle scored 32 points in the third quarter while limiting Indiana to 23. That nine-point advantage turned the Storm’s halftime deficit into a six-point lead entering the final period.
The third quarter was Seattle’s strongest scoring period. The Storm’s overall field-goal percentage of 57% supports the conclusion that their offense was highly efficient across the game, although the team totals alone cannot establish exactly which plays or tactical adjustments produced that third-quarter run.
Indiana’s challenge was clear: the Fever needed to recover their scoring rhythm without allowing Seattle to extend its advantage.
Fourth Quarter: Indiana Delivers When It Matters
Indiana outscored Seattle 28-19 in the final quarter. The nine-point difference erased Seattle’s six-point advantage and produced the Fever’s three-point victory.
Indiana’s free-throw accuracy is particularly relevant to this finish. The team converted 28 of 31 attempts overall, compared with Seattle’s 13 of 18. Those figures show a substantial difference in scoring from the line, even though they do not reveal the exact timing of every attempt.
The final quarter also highlights the importance of possession management. Indiana finished with 12 turnovers, five fewer than Seattle. In a three-point game, avoiding lost possessions can be just as important as making difficult shots.
The quarter-by-quarter numbers therefore tell a clear story: Indiana built its advantage early, Seattle responded through the middle periods, and Indiana produced the stronger finish.
Indiana Fever Player Statistics
Indiana’s victory was led by two high-scoring guards, supported by contributions from its frontcourt and supporting rotation. The most important individual performance belonged to Caitlin Clark, whose combination of scoring and playmaking helped the Fever reach 110 points.
Indiana Fever Individual Box Score
| Player | Points | Field goals | Three-pointers | Free throws | Rebounds | Assists |
| Caitlin Clark | 45 | 11/18 | 6/10 | 17/19 | 2 | 10 |
| Kelsey Mitchell | 30 | 13/25 | 3/8 | 1/1 | 1 | 0 |
| Monique Billings | 16 | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied | 5 | 3 |
| Makayla Timpson | 8 | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied | 9 | Not supplied |
| Lexie Hull | 2 | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied | 2 | Not supplied |
| Myisha Hines-Allen | 2 | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied |
| Sophie Cunningham | 2 | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied |
| Tyasha Harris | 5 | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied |
| Damiris Dantas | 0 | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied |
| Raven Johnson | 0 | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied |
The table includes the individual statistics supplied for the game. Unlisted figures are marked as not supplied rather than estimated.
Caitlin Clark: 45 Points and 10 Assists
Clark’s 45-point performance was the defining individual achievement of the game. She made 11 of 18 field-goal attempts, including six of 10 three-pointers, and converted 17 of 19 free throws.
Her shooting efficiency deserves close attention.
- Field-goal percentage: 61.1%, based on 11 makes in 18 attempts.
- Three-point percentage: 60%, based on six makes in 10 attempts.
- Free-throw percentage: 89.5%, based on 17 makes in 19 attempts.
- Assists: 10.
- Steals: 4.
- Blocks: 2.
- Turnovers: 4.
- Rebounds: 2.
Clark’s performance was not limited to perimeter scoring. Her 10 assists show that she also contributed to teammates’ scoring opportunities, giving Indiana a primary creator who could threaten defenses both as a shooter and a passer.
The six made three-pointers forced Seattle to account for Clark beyond the arc. When a perimeter player converts at that rate, defenders must close space quickly, which can create opportunities for drives, passing lanes, and other offensive actions.
Her free-throw production was equally important. Clark made 17 shots at the line, accounting for nearly half of Indiana’s 28 made free throws. That scoring helped offset Seattle’s advantage in field-goal accuracy and rebounding.
Clark recorded four turnovers, so the performance was not flawless. Nevertheless, the combination of 45 points and 10 assists illustrates substantial offensive responsibility. The Fever benefited from a player who could finish possessions herself while also helping teammates generate points.
Kelsey Mitchell: 30 Points as the Second Scoring Threat
Mitchell scored 30 points on 13-of-25 field-goal shooting. She made three of eight three-point attempts and converted her only free-throw attempt.
Her 30 points gave Indiana a second major scoring option. Clark’s 45 points represented the headline performance, but Mitchell’s contribution reduced the pressure on one player to carry the entire offense.
Mitchell’s field-goal percentage was 52%, a solid return across 25 attempts. She also converted 37.5% of her three-point attempts, which helped stretch Seattle’s defensive coverage.
Her statistical profile differed from Clark’s. Mitchell recorded one rebound and no assists in the supplied figures, emphasizing her role as a scorer rather than a high-volume playmaker in this particular box score.
Together, Clark and Mitchell scored 75 of Indiana’s 110 points, accounting for approximately 68.2% of the team’s total. This concentration demonstrates how central their scoring was to the result.
It also points to a potential challenge for Indiana in future matchups: opponents may focus defensive attention on those two players, making supporting contributions and alternative scoring routes increasingly important.
Monique Billings Provides Valuable Support
Billings contributed 16 points, five rebounds, and three assists. Her scoring gave Indiana another meaningful source of production beyond its leading guards.
The three assists are especially useful when interpreting her overall contribution. Scoring totals describe how many points a player produced, but assists offer evidence of how that player helped teammates convert opportunities.
Billings’ five rebounds also helped Indiana compete for possessions against a Seattle team that finished with a nine-rebound advantage overall. Although her individual total did not erase that team deficit, it added support in an area where Indiana faced a challenge.
Makayla Timpson Helps on the Glass
Timpson recorded eight points and nine rebounds. Her nine boards were the highest individual rebounding total among the Indiana players whose figures were provided.
That contribution matters because Seattle finished with 35 rebounds compared with Indiana’s 26. Timpson’s activity helped Indiana collect rebounds despite the overall disadvantage.
Her eight points also gave the Fever additional production without requiring every possession to end with Clark or Mitchell. In close games, contributions from players outside the leading scorers can help maintain offensive balance.
Lexie Hull and the Supporting Rotation
Hull recorded two points, two rebounds, and three steals. Her scoring total was modest, but her three steals indicate defensive activity that helped create opportunities to regain possession.
Steals can be particularly valuable against a high-scoring opponent because they may interrupt an offensive sequence before a shot is attempted. They can also create transition opportunities, although the supplied figures do not identify the exact outcomes of Hull’s steals.
The listed Indiana bench also included two points each from Hines-Allen and Cunningham, five from Harris, and no points from Dantas and Johnson.
These contributions were smaller than those of Clark and Mitchell, but bench scoring is only one measure of a player’s value. Defense, screening, rebounding, spacing, and ball movement may affect a game without producing a large points total.
Seattle Storm Player Statistics
Seattle’s individual performances show why the team remained competitive despite losing. Dominique Malonga produced a strong scoring and rebounding performance, while Awa Fam and several perimeter players contributed across different areas of the box score.
Seattle Storm Individual Box Score
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Additional supplied statistics |
| Dominique Malonga | 28 | 14 | 2 | 6 turnovers |
| Awa Fam | 16 | 9 | 4 | 4/5 three-pointers |
| Natisha Hiedeman | 15 | Not supplied | 8 | Not supplied |
| Flau’jae Johnson | 16 | 6 | 6 | Not supplied |
| Jade Melbourne | 15 | Not supplied | 5 | Not supplied |
| Katie Lou Samuelson | 8 | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied |
| Jordan Horston | 2 | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied |
| Stefanie Dolson | 2 | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied |
| Zia Cooke | 5 | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied |
This table reflects the player figures supplied for the matchup. Missing fields should not be interpreted as zero.
Dominique Malonga: 28 Points and 14 Rebounds
Malonga led Seattle with 28 points and 14 rebounds. Her combined scoring and rebounding output made her one of the game’s most productive players.
Fourteen rebounds represent a significant contribution to a team that collected 35 boards overall. Malonga accounted for 40% of Seattle’s total rebounds, based on the supplied figures.
Her 28 points also gave Seattle a reliable source of interior or general scoring production. While the available summary does not specify her shot distribution, her combined numbers show that she influenced both ends of the possession cycle: finishing offensive opportunities and helping the team secure rebounds.
Malonga also recorded six turnovers. That is an important qualification because high usage can create both scoring opportunities and additional risk. A player involved in many offensive possessions may generate points, but lost possessions can reduce the value of that production.
The correct interpretation is not that her performance was poor because of the turnovers. Rather, her 28 points and 14 rebounds were substantial contributions, while ball security represented one area that Seattle could have improved.
Awa Fam: Efficient Three-Point Shooting
Fam recorded 16 points, nine rebounds, four assists, and four made three-pointers in five attempts.
Her three-point percentage was 80%, an outstanding result for the game. Making four of five attempts from beyond the arc helped Seattle capitalize on perimeter opportunities.
The value of that performance becomes clearer when compared with the team total. Seattle made eight three-pointers, meaning Fam accounted for half of its successful attempts from long range.
Fam’s nine rebounds also supported Seattle’s advantage on the glass. Her four assists indicate that she contributed to ball movement in addition to scoring.
However, a five-attempt sample is small. An 80% result describes her shooting in this game, not necessarily her expected accuracy over an entire season. It is best understood as a highly efficient performance on the night rather than a long-term projection.
Natisha Hiedeman: Eight Assists and 15 Points
Hiedeman scored 15 points and recorded eight assists. Her assist total was a key part of Seattle’s 27 team assists.
Eight assists suggest that Hiedeman helped organize offensive possessions and create scoring opportunities for teammates. Seattle’s overall assist total was six higher than Indiana’s, so the Storm demonstrated strong ball movement despite the defeat.
Hiedeman’s contribution also highlights an important distinction between offensive creation and offensive efficiency. A team can pass effectively and produce quality shots yet still lose because of turnovers, free-throw differences, or the timing of scoring runs.
Seattle’s performance is a useful example of that distinction. Its 27 assists showed successful playmaking, but its 17 turnovers limited the benefit of that ball movement.
Flau’jae Johnson: Balanced Scoring and Playmaking
Johnson contributed 16 points, six rebounds, and six assists. That combination shows a balanced statistical profile across scoring, rebounding, and passing.
Her 16 points placed her among Seattle’s leading scorers, while six assists added another layer to her offensive contribution. She was not simply finishing possessions; the supplied numbers indicate that she also helped teammates score.
Six rebounds added support in an area where Seattle was already strong as a team. Johnson’s combined output helped Seattle sustain its offense through multiple contributors rather than relying exclusively on Malonga.
Jade Melbourne: An Important Scoring Contribution
Melbourne scored 15 points and recorded five assists. Her scoring placed her alongside Hiedeman as a meaningful contributor from the perimeter and backcourt rotation.
The five assists also helped Seattle maintain its strong team assist total. When several players can create scoring chances, a defense faces more decisions about where to apply pressure.
Melbourne’s performance supports the broader conclusion that Seattle had enough offensive production to win the game. The difference was not simply a shortage of scorers. The Storm’s challenges were more closely associated with the combined effects of turnovers, free throws, and Indiana’s late scoring response.
Seattle’s Supporting Players
Samuelson scored eight points, Cooke recorded five, and Horston and Dolson each scored two points in the supplied figures.
Their totals were smaller than those of Seattle’s leading scorers, but team performance should not be evaluated through points alone. Role players can help through defensive assignments, screens, spacing, and possession work that may not appear fully in a basic statistical summary.
Seattle also had several players listed as unavailable or not playing. Ezi Magbegor was marked out for injury or illness, while Mackenzie Holmes and Taylor Thierry were listed as coach’s decisions. Those entries describe the supplied availability information; they do not establish how much the result would have changed if those players had participated.
Team Statistics Comparison: Where the Game Was Won
The team statistics reveal a close contest between two offenses that succeeded in different ways. Seattle generated more made field goals and rebounds, while Indiana produced more points from the free-throw line and protected possession more effectively.
| Statistical category | Seattle Storm | Indiana Fever | Advantage |
| Total points | 107 | 110 | Indiana |
| Field goals made | 43 | 36 | Seattle |
| Field-goal percentage | 57% | 50% | Seattle |
| Three-pointers made | 8 | 10 | Indiana |
| Three-point percentage | 38% | 43% | Indiana |
| Free throws made | 13 | 28 | Indiana |
| Free-throw percentage | 72% | 90% | Indiana |
| Total rebounds | 35 | 26 | Seattle |
| Assists | 27 | 21 | Seattle |
| Turnovers | 17 | 12 | Indiana |
| Steals | 8 | 12 | Indiana |
| Blocks | 3 | 3 | Even |
1. Field-Goal Efficiency Favored Seattle
Seattle made 43 of 76 field-goal attempts, while Indiana made 36 of 72.
Seattle’s 57% shooting percentage was seven percentage points higher than Indiana’s 50%. That is a meaningful difference because field-goal efficiency generally helps teams turn offensive possessions into points without requiring as many attempts.
However, field-goal percentage does not measure every way a team scores. It excludes free throws, which became a major factor in this contest.
Seattle’s 43 made field goals included eight three-pointers. Indiana made fewer field goals overall but converted 10 three-pointers and 28 free throws. The different distribution of points helps explain why Indiana won despite shooting a lower percentage from the field.
The lesson is that shooting accuracy must be considered alongside shot value, free-throw production, and possession management.
2. Indiana’s Three-Point Shooting Created an Advantage
Indiana converted 10 of 23 three-point attempts, compared with Seattle’s eight of 21.
The Fever made two more three-pointers and attempted only two more. Based on the supplied figures, Indiana scored 30 points from beyond the arc, while Seattle scored 24.
That six-point difference was important in a game decided by three points. It does not mean three-point shooting alone determined the outcome, but it shows that Indiana gained more scoring value from long-range shots.
Indiana’s 43% accuracy also suggests that its perimeter attempts were productive. Seattle’s 38% was respectable, but the Fever’s additional made shots created a measurable advantage.
3. Free Throws Were the Biggest Scoring Difference
Indiana made 28 of 31 free throws. Seattle made 13 of 18.
The Fever scored 15 more points at the free-throw line, a difference larger than the final three-point margin. That makes free-throw production one of the clearest statistical explanations for the result.
Indiana’s conversion rate was approximately 90.3%, while Seattle’s was approximately 72.2%.
Free throws can be decisive for several reasons:
- They allow a team to score without needing a field-goal attempt to succeed.
- They reward offensive pressure when defenders commit fouls.
- They become especially valuable in close finishes, when opponents may foul to stop the clock.
- Accurate shooting at the line reduces the number of scoring opportunities wasted.
The available team totals do not show exactly when each free throw occurred, so it would be inaccurate to attribute all of Indiana’s advantage to the final minutes. Nevertheless, the overall difference is too large to ignore.
4. Seattle Won the Rebounding Battle
Seattle collected 35 rebounds, nine more than Indiana’s 26.
Rebounds are important because they determine which team gains control after missed shots. Offensive rebounds can create additional scoring chances, while defensive rebounds help end the opponent’s possession.
Seattle’s advantage suggests that the Storm performed well in this area, but total rebounds alone do not reveal how many were offensive or defensive. That distinction matters because an offensive rebound can extend a possession, whereas a defensive rebound typically prevents the opponent from getting another attempt.
Despite the advantage, Seattle could not turn its rebounding superiority into enough additional points to win. The result illustrates that winning one statistical category does not guarantee success across the entire game.
5. Turnovers Favored Indiana
Seattle committed 17 turnovers, while Indiana committed 12.
The five-turnover difference gave Indiana a clear advantage in ball security. Each turnover represents a possession that ends without a normal field-goal attempt, although the consequences vary depending on when it occurs and whether the opponent scores afterward.
For Seattle, reducing turnovers would have been particularly valuable because the team was already shooting efficiently and rebounding well. Protecting more possessions could have allowed the Storm to take additional shots or maintain control during key stretches.
Indiana was not perfect, as Clark alone recorded four turnovers. However, the team’s total remained lower than Seattle’s, which helped balance the Storm’s advantages elsewhere.
6. Steals and Blocks Show Different Defensive Contributions
Indiana recorded 12 steals compared with Seattle’s eight. Both teams finished with three blocks.
The Fever’s four-steal advantage is consistent with their stronger overall turnover numbers, although the supplied totals do not identify how many of Seattle’s turnovers were directly caused by Indiana’s steals.
Steals can create fast-break chances, disrupt offensive rhythm, and prevent opponents from completing set plays. They can also force teams to reconsider passing angles and ball-handling decisions.
Blocks were even at three apiece. That means the basic box score does not show an advantage for either team in recorded shot blocks, although it cannot capture every defensive contest or altered attempt.
Taken together, the numbers suggest that Indiana’s defensive activity and ball security helped compensate for Seattle’s superior field-goal accuracy and rebounding.
Why Indiana Won Despite Seattle’s Shooting Advantage
The result becomes easier to understand when the statistics are considered together rather than separately.
Indiana’s victory rested on four connected factors: free-throw production, three-point scoring, turnover control, and the ability to recover in the fourth quarter.
First, Indiana converted 15 more free throws than Seattle. That created a substantial scoring advantage without requiring the Fever to make more field goals.
Second, Indiana made two additional three-pointers. The resulting six-point advantage from beyond the arc helped offset Seattle’s higher number of made field goals.
Third, Indiana committed five fewer turnovers. That reduced the number of possessions lost before a shot could be completed.
Finally, Indiana won the fourth quarter by nine points after trailing by six entering the period. The Fever’s late scoring performance turned a deficit into a narrow victory.
These factors should not be treated as completely independent. A turnover can prevent a scoring opportunity, a defensive play can create transition offense, and a foul can result in free throws. Basketball outcomes emerge from interactions between different types of possessions.
The figures support a clear conclusion: Seattle was more accurate on its overall field-goal attempts, but Indiana produced more points from three-pointers and free throws while losing fewer possessions to turnovers.
Statistical Efficiency and the Meaning of the Numbers
A deeper analysis benefits from looking beyond raw totals and examining how efficiently the teams converted opportunities.
Effective Field-Goal Percentage
Effective field-goal percentage adjusts ordinary field-goal percentage to account for the extra value of a three-point basket.
The formula is:
\[ eFG\%=\frac{FGM+0.5(3PM)}{FGA}\times100 \]
Using the supplied totals, Seattle’s effective field-goal percentage was approximately 62.5%, while Indiana’s was approximately 56.9%.
Seattle therefore retained a clear advantage in this particular measure. Its higher number of made field goals and solid three-point shooting produced better overall field-goal efficiency after accounting for the extra value of three-pointers.
However, effective field-goal percentage does not include free throws or turnovers. It is useful for evaluating shooting but should not be treated as a complete measure of offensive performance.
Free-Throw Rate
Free-throw rate can be measured in different ways. One common version divides free-throw attempts by field-goal attempts.
Using that definition:
- Seattle: 18 free-throw attempts divided by 76 field-goal attempts, approximately 0.24.
- Indiana: 31 free-throw attempts divided by 72 field-goal attempts, approximately 0.43.
Indiana attempted substantially more free throws relative to its field-goal attempts.
This difference helps explain why the Fever scored 110 points despite attempting fewer field goals than Seattle. It also shows why field-goal percentage alone can create an incomplete picture of offensive effectiveness.
Points per Field-Goal Attempt
Another useful distinction is the difference between points from made field goals and points from free throws.
Seattle’s 43 made field goals included eight three-pointers. Those shots accounted for 94 points from field goals, with another 13 points coming from free throws, producing the team’s total of 107.
Indiana’s 36 made field goals included 10 three-pointers. Those shots accounted for 82 points from field goals, with 28 more points from free throws, producing 110.
The arithmetic confirms that Indiana’s free-throw advantage more than compensated for Seattle’s 12-point advantage in points from field goals.
This is one of the most revealing calculations in the matchup. Seattle’s offense was highly efficient at making shots, but Indiana found a more productive overall scoring distribution.
Turnover Percentage: An Important Missing Detail
Turnover percentage estimates how often a team loses possession relative to its total offensive opportunities. A reliable calculation generally requires additional information, such as possessions or a consistent possession estimate.
The supplied summary provides turnover totals but not a fully verified possession count. For that reason, it would be misleading to assign precise turnover percentages to either team.
The raw figures still support a straightforward observation: Indiana recorded five fewer turnovers, giving it an advantage in possession security.
This distinction matters when analyzing sports statistics. Calculations can add insight, but they should only be used when the underlying data supports them.
What the Match Reveals About Both Teams
Indiana Fever: Strengths and Areas to Improve
Indiana’s strongest feature in this game was its ability to score through multiple methods. Clark and Mitchell combined for 75 points, while Billings, Timpson, and the listed bench players provided additional production.
The Fever also demonstrated several strengths beyond scoring:
- Free-throw execution: Converting 28 of 31 attempts limited wasted opportunities at the line.
- Perimeter production: Ten made three-pointers gave Indiana an advantage from long range.
- Ball security: Twelve turnovers were fewer than Seattle’s 17.
- Defensive activity: Twelve steals created opportunities to interrupt Seattle’s offense.
The main concern was rebounding. Indiana finished nine boards behind Seattle, a difference that could become more costly against teams that convert offensive rebounds into additional points.
Indiana also relied heavily on its two leading scorers. Clark and Mitchell accounted for more than two-thirds of the Fever’s points. Their combined production was highly effective in this matchup, but a balanced supporting offense would make Indiana less dependent on exceptional performances from its leading guards.
Seattle Storm: Strengths and Areas to Improve
Seattle’s most encouraging signs were its shooting efficiency, rebounding, and distribution.
The Storm shot 57% from the field and recorded 27 assists. Those figures indicate that the team converted a high proportion of its field-goal attempts and created scoring opportunities through passing.
Malonga’s 28 points and 14 rebounds also provided a strong individual foundation. Fam’s four three-pointers in five attempts added efficient perimeter scoring, while Hiedeman and Johnson helped create opportunities for teammates.
Seattle’s main areas for improvement were:
- Turnover reduction: Seventeen turnovers gave away five more possessions than Indiana’s total.
- Free-throw conversion: The Storm made 13 of 18 attempts, leaving room for improvement compared with Indiana’s accuracy.
- Closing execution: Seattle was outscored by nine points in the fourth quarter.
- Converting advantages into points: Its rebounding and field-goal efficiency did not translate into a victory.
The Storm did not need to overhaul every part of their offense to change the outcome. Improving possession security and free-throw conversion could have narrowed the scoring gap without sacrificing the shooting and rebounding strengths they already displayed.
Head-to-Head Context and Season Series
The supplied game information states that Indiana won the season series against Seattle 3-0.
The listed matchups were:
| Date | Matchup result | Winner |
| May 18, 2026 | Indiana Fever 89, Seattle Storm 78 | Indiana |
| July 18, 2026 | Indiana Fever 110, Seattle Storm 107 | Indiana |
| July 29, 2026 | Indiana Fever 105, Seattle Storm 95 | Indiana |
Across those three listed results, Indiana scored 304 points and Seattle scored 280. The combined difference was 24 points, or an average winning margin of eight points per game.
The July 18 matchup was the closest of the three listed results. Its three-point margin contrasted with the 11-point difference in May and the 10-point difference in July’s later meeting.
This comparison offers useful context, but each game should still be analyzed on its own terms. Team availability, shooting variance, turnovers, and late-game execution can differ from one matchup to another. A season-series result establishes the overall outcome of the listed games, not the precise reason for each victory.
How to Read a WNBA Box Score Correctly
Readers looking for individual player statistics can get more value from a box score by examining several categories together.
Start With Points, But Do Not Stop There
Points show a player’s scoring output, but they do not indicate how many attempts were required or how much the player contributed to teammates’ opportunities.
Clark’s 45 points become more informative when considered alongside her 11-of-18 field-goal shooting, six made three-pointers, and 10 assists.
Similarly, Malonga’s 28 points are more revealing when paired with her 14 rebounds and six turnovers. The additional figures show both her production and one area in which Seattle lost possessions.
Compare Makes With Attempts
A player who scores 20 points on efficient shooting may have a different impact from a player who scores 20 points after using many more attempts.
Field-goal, three-point, and free-throw percentages help explain how effectively a player converts opportunities.
It is also important to consider sample size. Fam’s four made three-pointers in five attempts produced an 80% percentage, but five attempts are not enough to establish a stable long-term shooting rate.
Distinguish Individual Statistics From Team Totals
Individual rebounds and assists contribute to team totals, but the categories do not always tell the same story.
For example, Seattle had more total rebounds and assists, yet Indiana won the game. This is not contradictory. Teams can excel in one category while falling behind in other areas that matter to the final score.
Likewise, an individual player can score many points without recording many assists, as Mitchell did in the supplied figures. Her role in this matchup differed from Clark’s combination of scoring and playmaking.
Understand Plus/Minus Carefully
Plus/minus measures the difference between a team’s points scored and points allowed while a particular player is on the court.
A positive number means the player’s team outscored its opponent during those minutes, while a negative number means the opponent scored more.
Plus/minus is a lineup statistic, not a direct measure of individual skill. It is influenced by teammates, opposing lineups, substitutions, and the game situation. The supplied data does not include individual plus/minus figures, so none should be inferred.
Check Availability and Data Completeness
A box score may include players who did not participate, along with reasons such as injury, illness, or a coach’s decision.
These details help explain the available rotation, but they do not independently establish how much a missing player would have changed the outcome.
Readers should also distinguish a missing statistic from a zero. If a player’s rebound total is not included in a summary, that does not mean the player recorded no rebounds.
For complete player-by-player information, consult the official ESPN box score for the matchup.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Seattle Storm vs Indiana Fever game on July 18, 2026?
The Indiana Fever defeated the Seattle Storm 110-107 at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis. Indiana overcame Seattle’s advantages in field-goal percentage and rebounding to secure a three-point victory.
2. How many points did Caitlin Clark score against the Seattle Storm?
Caitlin Clark scored 45 points and recorded 10 assists. She made 11 of 18 field-goal attempts, six of 10 three-point attempts, and 17 of 19 free throws.
3. Who was Seattle’s leading scorer in the matchup?
Dominique Malonga led Seattle with 28 points and added 14 rebounds and two assists. Awa Fam and Flau’jae Johnson each scored 16 points, while Natisha Hiedeman and Jade Melbourne contributed 15 points apiece.
4. Why did Indiana win despite Seattle shooting better from the field?
Indiana won because it converted 28 of 31 free throws, made 10 three-pointers, and committed five fewer turnovers than Seattle. These advantages helped offset Seattle’s higher field-goal percentage and nine-rebound advantage.
5. Which team had more rebounds and assists?
Seattle recorded 35 rebounds and 27 assists. Indiana finished with 26 rebounds and 21 assists. Despite trailing in both categories, the Fever won 110-107.
6. What was the biggest statistical difference between the teams?
Free-throw production was the clearest difference. Indiana made 28 free throws, while Seattle made 13, giving the Fever a 15-point advantage at the line. The turnover difference also favored Indiana by five.
Conclusion
The seattle storm vs indiana fever match player stats illustrate how a basketball game can be decided by the balance between shooting efficiency, possession management, and scoring opportunities at the free-throw line.
Indiana’s 110-107 victory was led by Caitlin Clark’s 45 points and 10 assists, supported by Kelsey Mitchell’s 30 points and Monique Billings’ 16. Seattle responded with Dominique Malonga’s 28 points and 14 rebounds, efficient perimeter shooting from Awa Fam, and strong team totals in rebounds and assists.
Seattle’s 57% field-goal percentage and 35 rebounds were impressive, but Indiana’s 28 made free throws, 10 three-pointers, and five-turnover advantage helped determine the outcome. The Fever’s nine-point advantage in the fourth quarter completed the comeback after Seattle had taken the lead through the middle periods.
The central lesson from this matchup is that no single statistic explains a basketball result. Shooting accuracy, free throws, rebounds, assists, turnovers, and late-game execution must be considered together to understand why one team wins and the other falls short.
