Washington Mystics vs Indiana Fever Match Player Stats

Washington Mystics vs Indiana Fever match player stats from the May 16, 2026 meeting tell the story of a tightly contested overtime game that came down to efficiency, shot selection, rebounding, and individual execution. The Washington Mystics defeated the Indiana Fever 104-102 at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis after the game was tied at 89-89 through four quarters.

The final score alone does not explain why Washington won. Indiana actually produced more assists, more steals, more three point attempts, and fewer turnovers. Washington, however, converted its opportunities at a much higher overall shooting rate and received outstanding performances from Sonia Citron, Kiki Iriafen, and Shakira Austin.

For readers looking beyond the box score, this matchup provides an excellent example of why basketball statistics need to be viewed together rather than as isolated numbers. Caitlin Clark scored 32 points and recorded 10 assists, while Kelsey Mitchell added 24 points. Despite those performances, Indiana could not overcome Washington’s 56 percent field goal shooting and 13 rebound advantage.

Table of Contents

Washington Mystics vs Indiana Fever match player stats

The game took place on May 16, 2026, at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis, Indiana. Washington entered overtime after both teams scored 89 points during regulation. The Mystics then outscored Indiana 15-13 in the extra period to secure the 104-102 victory.

The attendance was 15,673, highlighting the significant interest surrounding a matchup featuring Caitlin Clark and the Indiana Fever.

Final score by quarter

Quarter	Washington Mystics	Indiana Fever
First	21	28
Second	20	9
Third	26	21
Fourth	22	31
Overtime	15	13
Final	104	102

The scoring pattern is particularly interesting.

Indiana started strongly, leading 28-21 after the opening quarter. Washington responded with a major second-quarter swing, scoring 20 points while limiting Indiana to only 9.

The Fever regained momentum in the fourth quarter with 31 points, overcoming Washington’s 22-point period and forcing overtime. Washington then had the final answer in the extra session.

This was not a game dominated by one team from start to finish. It was a contest of momentum changes, with both teams having periods where they controlled the pace and shot-making.

Washington’s offensive efficiency decided the game

One of the clearest differences in the statistical profile was field goal efficiency.

Washington finished 38-of-68 from the field, which was listed as 56 percent. Indiana made 36 of 92 attempts, shooting 39 percent.

That difference is enormous.

Washington took 24 fewer field goal attempts but made two more field goals. In practical terms, the Mystics needed considerably fewer possessions and attempts to produce their 104 points.

This is one of the most important lessons from the game.

Indiana generated opportunities, but Washington converted its opportunities more effectively.

Washington also shot 79 percent from the free throw line, making 22 of 28 attempts. Indiana made 13 of 19 free throws for 68 percent.

From three point range, the numbers were closer. Washington made 6 of 16 attempts for 38 percent, while Indiana made 17 of 42 for 40 percent.

Indiana therefore had the better three point percentage and made 11 more three pointers. Yet the Fever’s overall field goal percentage was substantially lower.

That suggests a major contrast in offensive style. Indiana relied much more heavily on perimeter shooting, while Washington generated a higher percentage of successful attempts overall.

Sonia Citron led Washington with 30 points

Sonia Citron was Washington’s leading scorer with 30 points, and her efficiency stands out immediately.

She finished:

30 points
6 rebounds
4 assists
10-of-14 field goals
1-of-4 three pointers
9-of-10 free throws

The 10-of-14 shooting line means Citron converted approximately 71 percent of her field goal attempts.

Her free throw shooting was equally important. She made 9 of 10 attempts, giving Washington a dependable source of points when the game became more physical.

Citron’s performance was not simply about volume. She combined scoring with efficient finishing and contributed in other areas.

Her six rebounds and four assists show that her impact extended beyond scoring.

In a two-point overtime game, efficiency like this can be decisive. A player who produces 30 points while requiring only 14 field goal attempts gives the offense a major advantage.

Kiki Iriafen provided Washington with an interior advantage

Kiki Iriafen was another major reason Washington controlled important portions of the game.

She recorded:

25 points
13 rebounds
2 assists
11-of-17 field goals
1-of-1 from three point range
2-of-4 free throws

Iriafen’s 13 rebounds were particularly valuable because Washington finished the game with 44 total rebounds compared with Indiana’s 29.

Her 25 points on 11-of-17 shooting also reflected strong efficiency.

The combination of 25 points and 13 rebounds gave Washington a powerful inside contribution. While Indiana produced a much higher number of three pointers, Washington received significant value from efficient two-point scoring and rebounding.

Iriafen’s performance also helped compensate for Washington’s 20 turnovers. Giving the ball away that many times can be costly, but strong shooting and rebounding can reduce some of the damage.

Shakira Austin added another efficient scoring performance

Shakira Austin finished with 19 points, nine rebounds, and five assists.

Her shooting line was:

19 points
9 rebounds
5 assists
7-of-11 field goals
5-of-6 free throws

Austin’s 7-of-11 shooting was another efficient contribution from Washington.

What makes her performance especially useful when evaluating the box score is the balance between scoring and playmaking. Five assists from a frontcourt player add another layer to the Mystics’ offensive production.

Washington therefore had three major contributors combining for 74 points:

Sonia Citron: 30
Kiki Iriafen: 25
Shakira Austin: 19

That represents a substantial portion of Washington’s 104 points.

Caitlin Clark produced Indiana’s biggest statistical performance

Caitlin Clark led all scorers with 32 points and was one of the most statistically productive players in the game.

Her final numbers were:

32 points
10 assists
4 rebounds
10-of-28 field goals
7-of-17 three pointers
5-of-5 free throws

The most striking part of Clark’s performance was her combination of scoring and playmaking.

She recorded a double-double with 32 points and 10 assists.

Her seven made three pointers were also a major component of Indiana’s offense. Clark accounted for seven of Indiana’s 17 made three pointers.

However, her 10-of-28 overall shooting shows the difference between scoring volume and scoring efficiency.

Clark attempted 28 field goals, the highest total among the players listed in the supplied game data. She scored 32 points, meaning Indiana relied heavily on her offensive creation.

That workload was understandable in a close game, particularly because she also created opportunities for teammates.

Her 10 assists were the highest assist total recorded by either team player in the supplied statistics.

Kelsey Mitchell scored 24 points for Indiana

Kelsey Mitchell supplied Indiana with another significant scoring performance.

She finished with:

24 points
0 rebounds
0 assists
10-of-25 field goals
4-of-8 three pointers

Mitchell’s four made three pointers helped Indiana maintain its perimeter threat.

Together, Clark and Mitchell scored 56 of Indiana’s 102 points.

That means more than half of Indiana’s total came from those two players.

The challenge for Indiana was that its scoring was heavily concentrated. Washington, meanwhile, received 74 points from Citron, Iriafen, and Austin, giving the Mystics three highly productive scorers.

That difference in scoring distribution is important when evaluating the game.

Lexie Hull and the supporting cast

Lexie Hull finished with nine points, making her Indiana’s third-highest scorer among the listed player statistics.

Compared with Clark and Mitchell, her scoring contribution was much smaller, which illustrates how much offensive responsibility was concentrated in Indiana’s top two scorers.

Washington received useful production elsewhere as well.

Monique Billings recorded:

10 points
9 rebounds
3 steals
2 blocks

Billings’ defensive numbers are particularly notable. Three steals and two blocks gave Washington five defensive plays that directly disrupted Indiana possessions.

Myisha Hines-Allen contributed:

6 points
2 rebounds
5 assists
2 steals
1 block

Her five assists were especially valuable because they added playmaking depth behind Washington’s primary scorers.

Team comparison: where the numbers separate

The overall team statistics provide a clearer picture of the game.

Statistic	Washington	Indiana
Points	104	102
Field Goals	38-68	36-92
Field Goal %	56%	39%
Three Pointers	6-16	17-42
Three Point %	38%	40%
Free Throws	22-28	13-19
Free Throw %	79%	68%
Rebounds	44	29
Assists	18	23
Turnovers	20	11
Steals	3	13
Blocks	8	4
Offensive Rebounds	8	11
Defensive Rebounds	36	18
Personal Fouls	28	25

This table reveals something important: Indiana won several traditional possession and playmaking categories but still lost the game.

Indiana had:

Five more assists
Nine fewer turnovers
Ten more steals
More made three pointers
More offensive rebounds

Yet Washington won because its shooting efficiency and total rebounding were superior enough to offset those disadvantages.

Rebounding was one of Washington’s biggest advantages

Washington collected 44 rebounds compared with Indiana’s 29.

That is a 15-rebound advantage.

The defensive rebounding difference was even more revealing. Washington collected 36 defensive rebounds while Indiana had 18.

Indiana did have more offensive rebounds, 11 to Washington’s 8. But Washington’s overall dominance on the defensive glass limited Indiana’s second-chance opportunities.

This matters because Indiana’s 92 field goal attempts created a large number of potential misses. When a team shoots 39 percent, defensive rebounding becomes especially important for preventing opponents from getting additional chances.

Washington’s ability to secure defensive rebounds helped turn Indiana’s missed shots into completed possessions.

Indiana won the turnover battle

The Fever committed only 11 turnovers compared with Washington’s 20.

That is a nine-turnover advantage.

Indiana also recorded 13 steals while Washington recorded only three.

Those numbers indicate that Indiana was considerably more effective at creating turnovers and disrupting Washington’s possessions.

Normally, a nine-turnover advantage would be a major reason to expect success.

But the Mystics compensated by making a much greater percentage of their shots.

This is a useful reminder that no single box score category should be treated as the complete explanation for a basketball result.

Turnovers create opportunities, but those opportunities still have to become points.

Three point shooting favored Indiana

Indiana made 17 three pointers compared with Washington’s six.

That is an 11-made-three advantage.

The Fever also attempted 42 three pointers, compared with Washington’s 16.

Indiana’s three point shooting was therefore a central part of its offensive approach.

Clark’s 7-of-17 performance and Mitchell’s 4-of-8 shooting accounted for 11 of Indiana’s 17 made threes.

This perimeter production helped Indiana score 102 points despite its low overall field goal percentage.

Washington, in contrast, relied far less on three point attempts and achieved its scoring through a combination of efficient field goal shooting, free throws, and rebounding.

Why Washington’s shooting percentage matters so much

A common mistake when reading basketball statistics is to focus on the number of points without considering how many attempts were required.

Washington scored 104 points on 68 field goal attempts.

Indiana scored 102 points on 92 attempts.

That is a huge difference in offensive efficiency.

Washington needed 24 fewer field goal attempts to score two more points.

Of course, free throws, three point value, turnovers, and other possession factors also matter. But the overall shooting gap provides a strong explanation for the result.

Washington shot 56 percent from the field.

Indiana shot 39 percent.

The Mystics also converted 79 percent of their free throws compared with 68 percent for Indiana.

When a game finishes with only a two-point margin, those efficiency differences become even more important.

The fourth quarter changed the game

Washington appeared to have control after several strong stretches, but Indiana’s fourth-quarter performance completely changed the outcome.

The Fever scored 31 points in the fourth quarter while Washington scored 22.

That nine-point advantage erased Washington’s lead and forced overtime.

Indiana’s ability to produce 31 points in the final regulation period demonstrates why the game remained competitive despite Washington’s overall shooting advantage.

The fourth quarter also highlights Clark’s role in the Fever’s offense. Indiana needed high-level shot creation and perimeter scoring to recover from the earlier deficit.

Rather than allowing Washington to close the game in regulation, Indiana pushed the contest into overtime.

Overtime became a test of execution

The extra period was extremely close.

Washington scored 15 points.

Indiana scored 13.

That two-point difference matched the final margin.

In other words, Washington’s entire winning margin came during overtime.

This makes the game especially interesting from an analytical perspective.

The teams were tied after four quarters. The statistical differences accumulated across the first 40 minutes did not produce a winner until the five-minute overtime period.

Washington then executed slightly better when the margin for error was smallest.

In close overtime games, every possession becomes more important because a single missed shot, turnover, rebound, or free throw can change the result.

Washington’s balance versus Indiana’s star power

The scoring distribution provides perhaps the clearest strategic contrast.

Washington’s leading three scorers produced:

30 + 25 + 19 = 74 points

Indiana’s two leading scorers produced:

32 + 24 = 56 points

Clark was the game’s leading individual scorer, but Washington had more scoring balance among its leading contributors.

This does not mean balanced scoring is automatically better. Basketball games can be won through elite individual performances.

But in this particular matchup, Washington’s ability to receive efficient production from multiple players helped offset Indiana’s outstanding performances from Clark and Mitchell.

What Caitlin Clark’s 32-point performance tells us

Clark’s 32 points deserve context rather than simply being presented as the game’s highest scoring total.

She also had 10 assists, meaning she was responsible for a large share of Indiana’s offensive creation.

Her seven three pointers were another major part of the Fever’s scoring.

At the same time, she shot 10-of-28 from the field.

This creates a nuanced statistical profile.

Clark was highly productive in terms of volume and playmaking, but Washington’s defensive and offensive efficiency advantages ultimately prevented Indiana from converting that production into a victory.

Her five-of-five free throw shooting was also perfect.

For anyone studying player performance, this is a good example of why points alone do not tell the complete story.

Sonia Citron’s efficiency was the opposite profile

Citron’s 30 points came on only 14 field goal attempts.

She made 10 of them.

That gives her a much more efficient scoring profile than the raw point totals alone might suggest.

She also made nine of ten free throws.

Citron’s performance can therefore be described as both high-volume in scoring output and highly efficient in shot conversion.

Her six rebounds and four assists further increased her overall contribution.

When comparing Clark and Citron, the interesting question is not simply who scored more. Clark scored 32, while Citron scored 30.

The more useful question is how each player generated those points and what additional responsibilities each handled.

That is where the full box score becomes much more informative.

Kiki Iriafen’s 13 rebounds were crucial

Iriafen’s 13 rebounds were the highest individual rebound total among the listed player statistics.

Her 25 points also gave Washington another major scoring option.

That combination is particularly valuable because rebounds can influence both ends of the court.

Defensive rebounds end Indiana possessions.

Offensive rebounds can create additional opportunities for Washington.

Although the team-level offensive rebound numbers favored Indiana 11-8, Washington’s overall defensive rebounding advantage was much larger.

Iriafen’s contribution therefore fits directly into the broader team statistic showing Washington with 44 total rebounds.

Assists reveal another difference

Indiana recorded 23 assists compared with Washington’s 18.

Clark alone accounted for 10 of Indiana’s assists.

That means nearly half of Indiana’s recorded assists came from one player.

Washington’s assists were more distributed among its contributors, with Austin recording five and Citron recording four.

The difference shows two different forms of offensive creation.

Indiana received elite playmaking from Clark.

Washington generated its offense through several contributors while maintaining much higher field goal efficiency.

Neither approach is automatically superior, but the final result shows that Washington’s approach worked better in this matchup.

Defensive statistics tell a complicated story

Indiana’s 13 steals were a major defensive advantage.

Washington had only three.

Washington, however, recorded eight blocks compared with Indiana’s four.

This creates an interesting contrast.

Indiana was more successful at creating live-ball disruptions through steals.

Washington was more successful at protecting the interior through blocks.

These statistics should not be interpreted as complete defensive ratings, but they help explain the different defensive profiles displayed in the box score.

Washington’s 20 turnovers also suggest Indiana’s pressure defense caused problems.

Yet Washington still managed to score 104 points because its shooting efficiency remained extremely high.

What the game teaches about reading player stats

The most useful lesson from this matchup is that basketball statistics work best as a connected system.

For example, consider these four facts:

Indiana had more assists.
Indiana had fewer turnovers.
Indiana made 11 more three pointers.
Washington still won.

At first glance, that may appear surprising.

But add the shooting numbers:

Washington: 56 percent from the field
Indiana: 39 percent from the field

Then add rebounding:

Washington: 44
Indiana: 29

The result becomes easier to understand.

Washington did not win every statistical category. It won enough of the most important efficiency categories to overcome Indiana’s advantages elsewhere.

A closer look at the statistical trade-offs

The game can be viewed as a series of trade-offs.

Washington’s advantages

Washington had:

Better overall field goal percentage
More total rebounds
More defensive rebounds
More blocks
Better free throw percentage
Three major scoring contributors

Indiana’s advantages

Indiana had:

More three pointers made
More three point attempts
More assists
Fewer turnovers
More steals
More offensive rebounds

The final score shows that Washington’s advantages outweighed Indiana’s.

This is exactly why box score analysis should avoid simplistic statements such as “the team with more assists wins” or “the team with fewer turnovers wins.”

Basketball outcomes are produced by the interaction of multiple variables.

Player-by-player summary

Washington Mystics

Sonia Citron: 30 points, 6 rebounds, 4 assists, 10-of-14 shooting, 1-of-4 from three, 9-of-10 free throws.

Citron delivered Washington’s most efficient high-scoring performance.

Kiki Iriafen: 25 points, 13 rebounds, 2 assists, 11-of-17 shooting, 1-of-1 from three, 2-of-4 free throws.

Iriafen combined efficient scoring with dominant rebounding.

Shakira Austin: 19 points, 9 rebounds, 5 assists, 7-of-11 shooting, 5-of-6 free throws.

Austin added efficient scoring, rebounding, and playmaking.

Monique Billings: 10 points, 9 rebounds, 3 steals, 2 blocks.

Billings provided strong defensive activity and rebounding.

Myisha Hines-Allen: 6 points, 2 rebounds, 5 assists, 2 steals, 1 block.

Hines-Allen contributed important secondary playmaking and defensive production.

Indiana Fever

Caitlin Clark: 32 points, 10 assists, 4 rebounds, 10-of-28 shooting, 7-of-17 from three, 5-of-5 free throws.

Clark led the game in scoring and assists while providing Indiana’s primary offensive creation.

Kelsey Mitchell: 24 points, 0 rebounds, 0 assists, 10-of-25 shooting, 4-of-8 from three.

Mitchell supplied 24 points and four made three pointers.

Lexie Hull: 9 points.

Hull was Indiana’s third-highest scorer among the supplied player statistics.

Washington Mystics vs Indiana Fever match player stats: key takeaways

The most important findings from the statistical record are straightforward.

Washington won 104-102 in overtime.

The Mystics were substantially more efficient from the field, shooting 56 percent compared with Indiana’s 39 percent.

Indiana made 17 three pointers compared with Washington’s six, but the Fever’s reliance on perimeter attempts did not produce enough overall shooting efficiency.

Washington dominated total rebounding 44-29, with a particularly large 36-18 advantage in defensive rebounds.

Indiana won the turnover battle 11-20 and produced 13 steals compared with Washington’s three.

Caitlin Clark led all scorers with 32 points and also recorded 10 assists.

Sonia Citron led Washington with 30 points while shooting 10-of-14 from the field.

Kiki Iriafen recorded 25 points and 13 rebounds, while Shakira Austin added 19 points, nine rebounds, and five assists.

The game was tied after regulation, meaning Washington’s 15-13 overtime advantage directly determined the final result.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who won the Washington Mystics vs Indiana Fever game on May 16, 2026?

The Washington Mystics defeated the Indiana Fever 104-102 in overtime at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis.

Who was the top scorer in the game?

Caitlin Clark was the game’s leading scorer with 32 points. She also recorded 10 assists and four rebounds.

Who led the Washington Mystics in scoring?

Sonia Citron led Washington with 30 points. She shot 10-of-14 from the field and made nine of ten free throws.

How many points did Kiki Iriafen score?

Kiki Iriafen scored 25 points and added 13 rebounds and two assists. She shot 11-of-17 from the field.

Which team shot better from the field?

Washington shot 56 percent, making 38 of 68 field goal attempts. Indiana shot 39 percent, making 36 of 92 attempts.

Why did the game go to overtime?

Indiana outscored Washington 31-22 in the fourth quarter, erasing the difference and leaving both teams tied at 89 points after regulation. Washington then won the overtime period 15-13.

Conclusion

The Washington Mystics vs Indiana Fever match player stats from May 16, 2026 show how a close basketball game can be decided by efficiency rather than by winning every statistical category.

Indiana produced several impressive numbers. The Fever made 17 three pointers, recorded 23 assists, forced 13 steals, and committed only 11 turnovers. Caitlin Clark delivered 32 points and 10 assists, while Kelsey Mitchell added 24 points.

Washington’s response was built around efficiency and balance. The Mystics shot 56 percent from the field, collected 44 rebounds, received 30 points from Sonia Citron, 25 from Kiki Iriafen, and 19 from Shakira Austin, and converted 79 percent of their free throws.

The final two-point margin came down to overtime, where Washington scored 15 points against Indiana’s 13. The result was a 104-102 Mystics victory in a game where both teams demonstrated distinct strengths.

For anyone analyzing player performance, this matchup is a strong reminder that points, assists, turnovers, three pointers, rebounds, and shooting percentages should be considered together. The most meaningful story is not found in one number. It emerges from how the numbers interact across the entire game.