Indiana Fever vs Golden State Valkyries Match Player Stats

Indiana Fever vs Golden State Valkyries match player stats provide a clear picture of how Indiana turned a competitive game into a 90-82 victory through efficient second-half shooting, strong interior production, and playmaking from Caitlin Clark. The game was played at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis, with 16,742 fans in attendance. Although the supplied data identifies May 23, 2026, the official WNBA game record lists the contest as Friday, May 22, 2026.

The final score tells only part of the story. Golden State actually led 44-37 at halftime after using an 11-2 run to take control during the second quarter. Indiana then changed the game after halftime, scoring 29 points in the third quarter and 24 in the fourth. That 53-point second half allowed the Fever to overcome the seven-point halftime deficit and close out an eight-point win.

For readers searching for Indiana Fever vs Golden State Valkyries match player stats, the most important takeaway is that this was not simply a Caitlin Clark scoring performance. Clark finished with 22 points and nine assists, Aliyah Boston delivered 20 points and 16 rebounds, and Kelsey Mitchell added 19 points. Together, those three players produced 61 of Indiana’s 90 points.

Indiana Fever vs Golden State Valkyries Match Player Stats at a Glance

The official box score shows a game with several contrasting statistical patterns. Indiana shot the ball considerably better from the field, while Golden State received valuable production from its bench.

Category	Golden State Valkyries	Indiana Fever
Final Score	82	90
Field Goals	26-70	29-63
Field Goal Percentage	37.1%	46.0%
Three-Pointers	7-22	10-26
Three-Point Percentage	31.8%	38.5%
Free Throws	23-27	22-29
Free Throw Percentage	85.2%	75.9%
Rebounds	28	34
Assists	11	22
Turnovers	14	18
Steals	9	7
Blocks	3	2
Points in the Paint	30	28
Fast-Break Points	4	6

These numbers immediately explain why the Fever won despite committing four more turnovers. Indiana had a substantial advantage in shooting efficiency, total rebounds, and assists. The 22-11 advantage in assists is particularly important because it indicates that Indiana’s offense was producing more connected possessions rather than relying only on individual shot creation.

The official WNBA box score is the best reference for the complete player-by-player statistical breakdown. Official WNBA box score

How the Game Changed After Halftime

The first half and second half almost looked like two different games.

Indiana opened with a narrow 19-18 lead after the first quarter. Golden State then responded strongly in the second period, outscoring Indiana 26-18. That gave the Valkyries a 44-37 halftime advantage.

The most significant tactical change came after halftime.

Indiana shot 6-of-9 from three-point range during the second half and went 19-of-26 from the free-throw line. In contrast, the Fever were only 4-of-17 from three-point range during the first half and had attempted just three free throws.

That difference matters because it shows that Indiana did not win by maintaining a constant level of offensive efficiency. The Fever improved as the game progressed.

The third quarter was the turning point.

Indiana scored 29 points while limiting Golden State to 17. That created a 66-61 Fever lead entering the fourth quarter.

Indiana then added another 24 points in the final period. Golden State scored 21, which was enough to keep the game competitive but not enough to recover the lead.

This is one of the most useful lessons from the box score. A final margin of eight points can sometimes make a game look relatively even. The quarter-by-quarter numbers show that Indiana’s victory was driven by a major third-quarter swing.

Caitlin Clark’s 22 Points and 9 Assists

Caitlin Clark was the leading scorer in the game with 22 points, but her nine assists may have been even more important to Indiana’s offensive structure.

Clark finished 7-of-15 from the field, 4-of-9 from three-point range, and 4-of-5 at the free-throw line. She also recorded two rebounds, one steal, one block, and six turnovers.

Her 46.7% field-goal shooting was efficient enough to keep Golden State from comfortably defending her as a perimeter-only threat.

The four made three-pointers were especially significant. Golden State could not simply concede outside attempts and focus entirely on preventing drives or interior passes.

At the same time, Clark’s six turnovers are an important part of an honest statistical evaluation. A 22-point, nine-assist performance was highly productive, but it was not flawless.

That distinction matters when analyzing player statistics.

A player can have an excellent overall performance while still having an area that the opponent successfully attacked. In Clark’s case, the turnover total suggests that Golden State was able to create some pressure against the Fever’s primary ball handler.

However, the nine assists and the team’s 22 total assists show that Indiana ultimately generated more offensive value from its passing game.

Clark also returned after missing Indiana’s previous game. The official WNBA recap noted that she came back from a one-game absence and immediately contributed 22 points and nine assists.

Aliyah Boston’s 20 Points and 16 Rebounds

If Clark controlled the perimeter, Aliyah Boston controlled the interior.

Boston finished with 20 points, 16 rebounds, and three assists. She shot 8-of-15 from the field and added one made three-pointer. She also recorded two steals.

Her 16 rebounds were the highest total by any player in the game.

That number is not merely a box-score achievement. It directly influenced Indiana’s ability to control possessions.

Boston collected four offensive rebounds and 12 defensive rebounds. Her offensive boards gave Indiana additional opportunities, while her defensive rebounding helped end Golden State possessions.

The combination of 20 points and 16 rebounds produced one of the strongest individual performances of the night.

Boston’s performance also demonstrates why analyzing scoring alone can be misleading. Clark led all scorers, but Boston’s rebounding advantage helped Indiana control the physical side of the contest.

The Fever finished with 34 total rebounds compared with 28 for Golden State.

That six-rebound advantage was one of several areas where Indiana created extra value.

Kelsey Mitchell’s 19 Points

Kelsey Mitchell supplied another major scoring contribution with 19 points.

She shot 4-of-10 from the field, but her free-throw performance was perfect. Mitchell made all 11 of her free-throw attempts.

That 11-for-11 performance is one of the most interesting details in the player statistics.

Mitchell’s overall field-goal percentage was only 40%, yet she still reached 19 points because she consistently converted opportunities at the foul line.

This is an important reminder when evaluating scoring efficiency in a single game. Field-goal percentage alone does not capture every way a player contributes points.

Mitchell also added three assists and committed only one turnover.

Her scoring alongside Clark and Boston gave Indiana three players capable of carrying a significant offensive workload.

That balance made it harder for Golden State to concentrate its defensive attention on one player.

Indiana’s Starting Lineup Performance

Indiana’s starting group consisted of Monique Billings, Aliyah Boston, Kelsey Mitchell, Lexie Hull, and Caitlin Clark.

Here is the official statistical breakdown for the starters:

Player	Points	Rebounds	Assists	FG
Caitlin Clark	22	2	9	7-15
Aliyah Boston	20	16	3	8-15
Kelsey Mitchell	19	0	3	4-10
Lexie Hull	7	4	2	2-5
Monique Billings	2	3	0	1-2

The statistics show an interesting division of responsibilities.

Clark was the primary creator.

Boston was the primary interior presence.

Mitchell provided scoring pressure and free-throw production.

Hull contributed efficient perimeter shooting, making two of her four three-point attempts.

Billings provided frontcourt minutes and rebounding support.

This type of statistical balance is valuable because it means the Fever did not need every starter to produce the same way.

Golden State’s Leading Scorers

Golden State’s offense was led by Tiffany Hayes, who scored 19 points.

Hayes shot 7-of-13 from the field and 2-of-2 from three-point range. She also converted all three of her free throws.

Her 19 points came primarily through efficient shooting rather than a high volume of free throws or difficult attempts.

Veronica Burton added 17 points, making her the leading scorer among Golden State’s starters.

Burton finished 4-of-12 from the field, 2-of-5 from three-point range, and 7-of-8 at the free-throw line. She also contributed three rebounds and three assists.

Kayla Thornton scored 10 points and shot 3-of-5 from the field.

Kiah Stokes added seven rebounds despite scoring only two points.

Gabby Williams contributed six points, three assists, and four steals.

The defensive production from Williams is particularly notable. Four steals made her one of Golden State’s most disruptive defenders.

The Corrected Golden State Scoring Picture

One detail in the supplied data needs correction.

The supplied information listed Cecilia Zandalasini with 18 points. The official WNBA box score does not support that figure. Zandalasini was listed as unavailable under the concussion protocol designation.

Instead, Kaitlyn Chen scored 18 points for Golden State.

Chen produced those 18 points on 7-of-11 shooting, including 2-of-2 from three-point range. She also made 2-of-3 free throws.

The Golden State Valkyries also confirmed that Chen recorded a career-high 18 points in the game.

That correction is important for anyone using the player statistics for research, fantasy analysis, historical records, or a sports article.

A good statistical article should not repeat a supplied figure when the primary source contradicts it.

Golden State’s Starting Lineup Statistics

The Valkyries started Kayla Thornton, Gabby Williams, Kiah Stokes, Kaila Charles, and Veronica Burton.

Player	Points	Rebounds	Assists	Steals
Veronica Burton	17	3	3	0
Kayla Thornton	10	2	0	1
Gabby Williams	6	0	3	4
Kaila Charles	4	7	1	0
Kiah Stokes	2	7	1	1

This lineup shows why the Valkyries remained competitive despite losing the game.

Golden State received strong contributions from the bench, particularly Hayes and Chen.

However, Indiana’s three leading scorers produced 61 points.

That created a significant scoring concentration on the Fever side that Golden State struggled to match.

Bench Scoring Was a Major Story

Golden State’s bench deserves considerable attention.

Hayes scored 19 points and Chen added 18. Together, they produced 37 points.

The official Valkyries recap specifically highlighted their combined 37 bench points.

That is a substantial contribution in an 82-point team performance.

In fact, the Valkyries received more than enough bench scoring to remain within striking distance.

The problem was that the starters did not generate enough efficient offense to offset Indiana’s balanced production.

This is an important distinction between bench scoring and overall offensive success.

A team can win the bench scoring battle and still lose the game if its opponent has greater efficiency among its primary players.

Indiana’s main trio of Clark, Boston, and Mitchell combined for 61 points.

That was the central offensive advantage.

Shooting Efficiency Decided the Game

The shooting numbers provide perhaps the clearest statistical explanation for the final result.

Golden State shot 26-of-70 from the field.

Indiana shot 29-of-63.

That means Indiana attempted seven fewer field goals but made three more.

The difference in field-goal percentage was substantial:

Indiana: 46.0%

Golden State: 37.1%

That is an advantage of nearly nine percentage points.

Indiana also made 10 three-pointers compared with seven for Golden State.

The Fever shot approximately 38.5% from three-point range, while the Valkyries shot 31.8%.

The combination of better overall field-goal shooting and better three-point shooting gave Indiana a strong efficiency advantage.

Golden State did have the better free-throw percentage.

The Valkyries shot 85.2% from the line, while Indiana shot 75.9%.

But Indiana attempted 29 free throws compared with 27 for Golden State, so the small free-throw percentage advantage was not enough to overcome the larger difference in field-goal efficiency.

The Rebounding Battle

Indiana won the rebounding battle 34-28.

Boston alone grabbed 16 rebounds, which was more than half of Golden State’s entire team total.

Golden State’s leading rebounders were Stokes and Charles, with seven each.

The Valkyries therefore had two players who helped limit the damage on the glass, but they could not match Boston’s individual rebounding impact.

Rebounding was particularly important because Indiana’s offensive structure benefited from additional possessions.

Boston’s four offensive rebounds gave the Fever extra chances after missed shots.

This becomes even more significant when combined with Indiana’s 46% field-goal shooting.

A team that shoots efficiently and also creates extra possessions through rebounding can put considerable pressure on a defense.

Assists Show the Difference in Offensive Organization

Indiana recorded 22 assists.

Golden State recorded 11.

That is a 2-to-1 advantage.

Clark was responsible for nine of Indiana’s assists.

That means Clark alone accounted for roughly 41% of the Fever’s total assists.

The rest of the Indiana team still produced 13 assists, demonstrating that the offense was not entirely dependent on one creator.

Boston and Mitchell each added three assists, while Hull contributed two.

Golden State had a more limited distribution.

Burton, Williams, and Charles each recorded three assists, while Hayes and Stokes contributed two and one respectively.

The assist differential suggests that Indiana generated more coordinated scoring opportunities.

This is particularly useful when interpreting the final score because the Fever’s 90 points were not simply the result of difficult isolation shots.

The passing numbers show a more connected offensive performance.

Turnovers Kept Golden State in the Game

There was one important statistical category in which Golden State had an advantage.

The Valkyries committed 14 turnovers.

Indiana committed 18.

Golden State therefore created a four-turnover advantage.

That contributed to nine steals compared with Indiana’s seven.

However, Golden State did not convert that defensive advantage into enough scoring.

The Valkyries had four fast-break points compared with six for Indiana.

This is a useful lesson from the box score.

Forcing turnovers is valuable, but the value increases when those turnovers lead directly to efficient scoring opportunities.

Golden State’s defense created pressure, but Indiana’s shooting efficiency and rebounding offset the extra possessions created by those turnovers.

The Third Quarter Was the Turning Point

The third quarter deserves separate attention because it transformed the game.

At halftime, Golden State led 44-37.

The Valkyries had scored 26 points in the second quarter and appeared to have control.

Indiana then responded with a 29-point third quarter while holding Golden State to 17.

That was a 12-point swing in one period.

The Fever entered the fourth quarter ahead 66-61.

The significance of that sequence cannot be overstated.

Instead of attempting to recover a deficit throughout the entire second half, Indiana essentially reversed the game within 10 minutes.

The third-quarter improvement was also connected to better shooting.

The official game recap notes that Indiana shot 6-of-9 from three-point range and 19-of-26 from the free-throw line in the second half.

Those numbers explain why the Fever’s offense accelerated after the break.

Fourth-Quarter Execution

The final quarter was about closing rather than creating the comeback.

Indiana scored 24 points.

Golden State scored 21.

The Valkyries did not collapse.

In fact, Golden State cut into Indiana’s advantage late in the game.

The official recap notes that Indiana had a 10-point lead with approximately two and a half minutes remaining, but Golden State reduced the deficit to four before Indiana closed the game at the free-throw line.

That detail is important because it shows that the final margin does not fully describe the tension of the closing minutes.

Indiana needed to execute under pressure.

Mitchell’s perfect 11-for-11 free-throw shooting was particularly valuable in that context.

What the Player Stats Say About Indiana’s Offense

The Fever’s offensive profile in this game can be summarized through four major elements.

First, the team had three high-impact scorers.

Clark scored 22.

Boston scored 20.

Mitchell scored 19.

Second, Indiana received strong interior production.

Boston’s 16 rebounds and 20 points gave the Fever a reliable inside presence.

Third, Clark’s nine assists helped create opportunities for teammates.

Fourth, the team improved dramatically as a three-point shooting unit after halftime.

These factors combined to produce 90 points despite 18 turnovers.

The important point is that Indiana did not need a perfect offensive performance to win.

The Fever made enough high-value plays in enough different areas to overcome their mistakes.

What the Player Stats Say About Golden State’s Offense

Golden State’s statistical profile was almost the reverse.

The Valkyries had good bench scoring.

Hayes scored 19.

Chen scored 18.

Burton added 17.

That means three Golden State players reached at least 17 points.

However, the team still scored only 82.

The explanation is efficiency and offensive connectivity.

Golden State shot 37.1% overall and recorded only 11 assists.

Its 70 field-goal attempts were seven more than Indiana’s, but the Valkyries made three fewer field goals.

That is a clear sign that Golden State generated volume without achieving the same quality of conversion.

The team also struggled to turn its 18 offensive rebounds? Actually, Golden State had 10 offensive rebounds according to the full box score, but its total rebounds were 28. The offensive boards helped create second chances, yet Indiana’s efficiency remained the decisive factor.

Individual Matchup: Caitlin Clark vs. Veronica Burton

One of the most interesting individual comparisons is between Clark and Burton.

Clark finished with:

• 22 points
• 9 assists
• 2 rebounds
• 1 steal
• 1 block
• 6 turnovers

Burton finished with:

• 17 points
• 3 rebounds
• 3 assists
• 3 turnovers

Burton was efficient at the free-throw line, going 7-of-8, and made two three-pointers.

Clark had the larger offensive role and created more for teammates.

The contrast is useful because both guards contributed scoring, but their responsibilities were different.

Clark was Indiana’s primary offensive engine.

Burton was a major scorer for Golden State while also handling playmaking duties.

The nine-assist advantage for Clark was one of the most important differences between the two backcourt performances.

Individual Matchup: Aliyah Boston vs. Kiah Stokes

The frontcourt comparison also favors Indiana.

Boston:

• 20 points
• 16 rebounds
• 3 assists
• 8-of-15 shooting

Stokes:

• 2 points
• 7 rebounds
• 1 assist
• 1 steal
• 1 block

Stokes provided defensive value and rebounding, but Boston had a much larger offensive impact.

Boston’s ability to score efficiently while dominating the glass gave Indiana an advantage that Golden State struggled to neutralize.

The matchup also illustrates why points and rebounds should be analyzed together.

A center who scores 20 points and grabs 16 rebounds can affect a game on both ends of the possession cycle.

Why Indiana’s 90 Points Matter

Scoring 90 points against a team that had shown defensive strength earlier in the season is meaningful.

The Valkyries entered the game after holding the New York Liberty to 70 points in their previous contest.

Golden State had therefore demonstrated the ability to create difficult offensive environments.

Indiana still reached 90.

The Fever did not do it by dominating every quarter.

They did it by adjusting.

The first half produced 37 points.

The second half produced 53.

That second-half improvement is arguably more informative than the final total itself.

It demonstrates Indiana’s ability to respond after an opponent gains momentum.

Why Golden State’s 82 Points Were Not Enough

Golden State’s 82 points were supported by strong individual performances.

Hayes and Chen were highly efficient.

Burton scored 17.

Thornton reached double figures.

Yet the team needed more efficiency from the overall offense.

Shooting 37.1% from the field creates a difficult path to victory, particularly against a team shooting 46%.

The Valkyries also needed more assists.

An 11-assist total suggests that many possessions ended without the type of ball movement that consistently produces efficient opportunities.

Golden State did enough to stay close.

It did not do enough to control the game after Indiana’s third-quarter surge.

Statistical Leaders

Here are the main individual leaders from the game:

Statistical Category	Player	Team	Result
Points	Caitlin Clark	Indiana	22
Rebounds	Aliyah Boston	Indiana	16
Assists	Caitlin Clark	Indiana	9
Steals	Gabby Williams	Golden State	4
Blocks	Kiah Stokes	Golden State	1
Three-Pointers	Caitlin Clark	Indiana	4
Free Throws Made	Kelsey Mitchell	Indiana	11
Bench Points	Tiffany Hayes	Golden State	19
Bench Points	Kaitlyn Chen	Golden State	18

The table demonstrates that the game was not dominated by one statistical category.

Indiana had the leading scorer, leading rebounder, leading assist producer, and stronger overall shooting numbers.

Golden State’s strongest individual defensive statistic came from Williams, who recorded four steals.

Key Lessons From the Box Score

Several broader lessons emerge from these player statistics.

Efficiency Can Beat Volume

Golden State attempted 70 field goals.

Indiana attempted 63.

Yet Indiana scored more because it converted its opportunities at a much higher rate.

Rebounding Creates Possession Value

Boston’s 16 rebounds helped Indiana maintain control of missed-shot possessions.

Passing Creates Scoring Balance

Indiana’s 22 assists were double Golden State’s 11.

Bench Scoring Does Not Guarantee a Win

Golden State’s bench was excellent, but Indiana’s starters produced enough to overcome that advantage.

Free Throws Can Decide Closing Minutes

Mitchell’s 11-for-11 performance became especially valuable when the Valkyries attempted to make a late comeback.

Challenges Highlighted by the Game

The game also exposed areas both teams could improve.

For Indiana, the biggest concern was turnovers.

The Fever committed 18 turnovers, including six by Clark.

That is a meaningful number for a team relying heavily on its primary creator.

Indiana also shot only 3-of-17 from three-point range in the first half.

That cold start nearly allowed Golden State to take control of the game.

For Golden State, the biggest concern was overall shooting efficiency.

The Valkyries attempted plenty of shots but made only 26.

Their 31.8% three-point shooting was also below Indiana’s 38.5% rate.

Golden State’s 11 assists compared with 22 for Indiana also suggest that the offense needed greater collective creation.

What Fans Should Look For in a Rematch

If these teams meet again, several statistical areas deserve attention.

The first is three-point volume and efficiency.

Indiana showed that it could dramatically improve from outside after halftime.

The second is Clark’s turnover count.

Golden State can create problems if it forces Indiana’s primary ball handler into difficult decisions.

The third is Boston’s rebounding.

If Golden State can prevent Boston from controlling the glass, it can reduce Indiana’s second-chance opportunities.

The fourth is bench production.

Golden State demonstrated that Hayes and Chen can provide major scoring contributions.

The fifth is overall ball movement.

The 22-11 assist gap is too large to ignore.

A Deeper Look at the Team Statistics

The complete team statistical comparison shows how Indiana built its advantage.

Indiana scored 90 points from 29 made field goals, 10 made threes, and 22 made free throws.

Golden State scored 82 from 26 field goals, seven three-pointers, and 23 free throws.

Golden State actually made one more free throw than Indiana.

The difference came from field goals.

Indiana made three more total field goals and three more three-pointers.

That is why the shooting efficiency gap mattered so much.

The Fever also grabbed six more rebounds.

When a team combines superior shooting with superior rebounding, it becomes difficult for an opponent to compensate through turnover creation alone.

That was exactly what happened here.

Why the 16,742 Attendance Is Relevant

The game attracted 16,742 fans at Gainbridge Fieldhouse.

Attendance is not a player statistic, but it provides useful context for the environment in which the game occurred.

The crowd watched Indiana overcome a seven-point halftime deficit and produce a strong second half.

For sports researchers, attendance can also help place individual games into the wider context of fan interest and home-court environments.

The Historical Context

The game also carried additional context because Golden State had swept the regular-season series against Indiana in 2025.

The 2026 matchup therefore represented a chance for Indiana to respond in the new season.

The official Valkyries preview ahead of the May 28 rematch confirmed that Golden State had won all three regular-season meetings with Indiana in 2025.

That makes Indiana’s 90-82 victory more meaningful than a simple isolated result.

It showed the Fever could overcome a recent matchup disadvantage.

At the same time, one victory does not erase the broader series history.

The most useful interpretation is that Indiana demonstrated an ability to compete differently against Golden State in 2026.

Final Statistical Verdict

The Indiana Fever earned the 90-82 victory because they combined several advantages rather than relying on one player.

Caitlin Clark led the game with 22 points and nine assists.

Aliyah Boston delivered 20 points and 16 rebounds.

Kelsey Mitchell added 19 points and went a perfect 11-for-11 at the free-throw line.

Indiana shot 46% from the field, 38.5% from three-point range, collected 34 rebounds, and recorded 22 assists.

Golden State had impressive individual performances of its own.

Tiffany Hayes scored 19 points.

Kaitlyn Chen produced a career-high 18 points.

Veronica Burton scored 17.

Gabby Williams recorded four steals.

The Valkyries also committed only 14 turnovers compared with Indiana’s 18.

However, those advantages were not enough.

Indiana’s superior shooting, rebounding, passing, and second-half execution ultimately outweighed Golden State’s turnover and bench-scoring advantages.

The most important statistic may therefore be the third-quarter score.

Indiana won that period 29-17.

That 12-point swing transformed a seven-point halftime deficit into a five-point lead entering the fourth quarter.

From there, the Fever executed well enough to secure the 90-82 result.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who was the top scorer in the Indiana Fever vs Golden State Valkyries game?

Caitlin Clark was the game’s leading scorer with 22 points. She also recorded nine assists and made four three-pointers.

How many points did Aliyah Boston score?

Aliyah Boston scored 20 points and grabbed 16 rebounds. Her 16 rebounds were the highest total by any player in the game.

How many assists did Caitlin Clark have?

Caitlin Clark recorded nine assists. She also scored 22 points in Indiana’s 90-82 victory.

Who led the Golden State Valkyries in scoring?

Tiffany Hayes led Golden State with 19 points. Kaitlyn Chen followed with 18 points, while Veronica Burton scored 17.

Did Indiana win the rebounding battle?

Yes. Indiana recorded 34 rebounds compared with 28 for Golden State. Aliyah Boston led all players with 16 rebounds.

What was the final score?

The Indiana Fever defeated the Golden State Valkyries 90-82. Indiana improved to 4-2 while Golden State fell to 3-2 after the game.

Conclusion

The Indiana Fever’s 90-82 victory over the Golden State Valkyries was defined by second-half execution and balanced production.

Caitlin Clark’s 22 points and nine assists gave Indiana control of the offensive creation. Aliyah Boston’s 20 points and 16 rebounds provided dominance around the basket. Kelsey Mitchell’s 19 points, including a perfect 11-for-11 performance at the free-throw line, supplied another dependable scoring option.

Golden State had strong individual performances from Tiffany Hayes, Kaitlyn Chen, and Veronica Burton, while Gabby Williams created defensive pressure with four steals. The Valkyries also forced more turnovers than Indiana.

The difference was that Indiana converted its possessions more efficiently.

A 46% field-goal percentage, 38.5% three-point shooting, 34 rebounds, and 22 assists created a statistical foundation strong enough to overcome 18 turnovers.

The third quarter ultimately became the defining period. Indiana erased its halftime deficit by outscoring Golden State 29-17, then maintained enough control in the fourth quarter to finish the game.

For anyone studying Indiana Fever vs Golden State Valkyries match player stats, the most useful conclusion is that the box score reveals much more than the final score. Indiana won through a combination of efficient shooting, rebounding strength, playmaking, and timely fourth-quarter execution rather than through scoring alone.