Indiana fever vs las vegas aces match player stats

The indiana fever vs las vegas aces match player stats from the August 2026 meeting tell a much more interesting story than the final score alone. Las Vegas escaped Gainbridge Fieldhouse with an 86-84 overtime victory, but Indiana had several statistical advantages during regulation and produced three 20-point scorers. The Aces ultimately survived because A’ja Wilson controlled the interior, Jackie Young created efficient offense, and Chelsea Gray delivered the decisive late-game moments.

There is one date detail worth clarifying before looking at the numbers. The supplied game data identifies the contest as August 7, 2026, while the official WNBA material identifies the game as August 6 in Indianapolis and published the recap on August 7. The official recap confirms the 86-84 result, overtime finish, and Chelsea Gray’s game-winning three-pointer. Official WNBA game recap

For readers searching for player-by-player production, this breakdown focuses on the statistics that actually explain the result. Points are important, but rebounds, assists, turnovers, shooting efficiency, free throws, steals, blocks, plus/minus and late-game execution help explain why a team can lose after scoring efficiently for long stretches.

Table of Contents

indiana fever vs las vegas aces match player stats: Complete Game Overview

The Aces won 86-84 in overtime after the two teams produced a highly competitive contest at Gainbridge Fieldhouse.

The game was particularly unusual because Indiana shot better from the field and from three-point range, yet Las Vegas still found a way to win. That difference is one of the most important lessons from the box score.

Team	Final Score	FG	3PT	FT	REB	AST	TO	STL	BLK
Las Vegas Aces	86	35-86, 41%	5-22, 23%	11-14, 79%	39	24	16	9	4
Indiana Fever	84	31-67, 46%	7-20, 35%	15-20, 75%	38	16	21	10	4

At first glance, Indiana’s shooting numbers look better. The Fever made 46% of their field-goal attempts compared with 41% for Las Vegas. They also made 35% of their three-point attempts compared with 23% for the Aces.

However, Las Vegas attempted 19 more field goals.

That volume difference matters.

The Aces also generated eight more assists and committed five fewer turnovers. In a two-point overtime game, those possession-level differences can be more important than a modest shooting percentage advantage.

A’ja Wilson Leads Las Vegas With 26 Points and 13 Rebounds

A’ja Wilson was the most important interior player in the game.

She finished with:

26 points
13 rebounds
3 assists
3 turnovers
1 steal
2 blocks
10-of-25 shooting
0-of-2 from three-point range
6-of-6 free throws
+7 plus/minus

The double-double is the headline statistic, but her rebounding impact is arguably just as important.

Wilson collected 13 of Las Vegas’ 39 rebounds, meaning she accounted for one-third of the team’s total boards. Against an Indiana frontcourt that included Aliyah Boston and Makayla Timpson, that was a significant contribution.

Her perfect 6-of-6 performance at the free-throw line also helped compensate for her 10-of-25 shooting from the field.

Wilson did not need to be an outside shooter to affect the game. Her value came from interior scoring, rebounding, rim protection and the pressure she placed on Indiana’s defense.

Her two blocks were also important because Indiana had several players capable of attacking the paint.

Jackie Young Provides the Aces With All-Around Creation

Jackie Young produced one of the most complete statistical lines of the night.

She recorded:

22 points
4 rebounds
9 assists
3 turnovers
1 steal
8-of-21 field goals
2-of-8 three-pointers
4-of-5 free throws
+9 plus/minus

Nine assists were particularly valuable because the Aces finished with 24 assists as a team.

Young therefore accounted for more than one-third of Las Vegas’ total assists.

That is a strong indication of how much offensive responsibility she carried.

Her plus-9 was also one of the best marks among the Aces players listed in the supplied data. While plus/minus should never be treated as a standalone measure of individual performance, it supports the broader picture that Las Vegas generally benefited when Young was on the floor.

She was not an extremely efficient shooter in this matchup, going 8-of-21 from the field. But her ability to score while creating opportunities for teammates made her a major part of the winning formula.

Chelsea Gray Becomes the Difference-Maker

Chelsea Gray finished with 11 points, but her scoring total does not adequately describe her influence.

Her stat line included:

11 points
2 rebounds
7 assists
5 turnovers
4 steals
4-of-10 shooting
3-of-5 three-pointers
+6 plus/minus

The four steals were the highest total for any player in the supplied game data.

More importantly, Gray’s three-point shooting became decisive.

The official WNBA recap confirms that Gray hit a game-tying three-pointer to send the game into overtime and then hit the game-winning three-pointer at the end of overtime. That sequence explains why her 11-point total should not be viewed in isolation.

This is a useful example of why box-score analysis needs context.

A player can score fewer points than teammates while still producing the most consequential possessions of the game.

NaLyssa Smith Gives Las Vegas Valuable Frontcourt Production

NaLyssa Smith scored 14 points and grabbed nine rebounds.

Her line was:

14 points
9 rebounds
1 assist
3 turnovers
1 block
7-of-11 field goals
+1 plus/minus

Smith’s 7-of-11 shooting was one of the more efficient offensive performances among the major Aces contributors.

She also came one rebound short of a double-double.

That combination of efficient interior scoring and rebounding helped Las Vegas maintain pressure against Indiana’s frontcourt.

Jewell Loyd Adds Efficient Secondary Production

Jewell Loyd finished with nine points, five rebounds, two assists, two turnovers and two steals.

She shot 4-of-9 from the field and finished with a +10 plus/minus, the highest plus/minus among the Aces players listed in the supplied data.

Her nine points were not spectacular, but her five rebounds and two steals added value beyond scoring.

The +10 figure also makes her performance worth examining when evaluating the overall Aces rotation.

Indiana’s Kelsey Mitchell Leads All Scorers With 28 Points

Kelsey Mitchell was the game’s leading scorer.

She produced:

28 points
4 assists
2 turnovers
2 steals
10-of-18 field goals
2-of-4 three-pointers
6-of-8 free throws
-8 plus/minus

The 28 points came on 18 field-goal attempts, making Mitchell one of the most efficient high-volume scorers in the game.

She shot 55.6% from the field based on the supplied 10-of-18 mark.

Her three-point shooting was also efficient at 50%, although she attempted only four threes.

Mitchell’s performance demonstrates one of the biggest frustrations for Indiana. The Fever received excellent scoring production from their perimeter players, but it still was not enough to secure the win.

Her -8 plus/minus should not erase what she accomplished offensively. It simply shows that her scoring output did not translate into a positive overall scoring margin during her minutes.

Aliyah Boston Records a 21-Point Double-Double

Aliyah Boston was another standout for Indiana.

She finished with:

21 points
12 rebounds
2 assists
4 turnovers
3 steals
2 blocks
9-of-15 field goals
3-of-5 three-pointers
-9 plus/minus

Boston’s 21 points and 12 rebounds gave Indiana a powerful interior presence.

She also shot 9-of-15 from the field, or 60%.

That was one of the best shooting performances among the primary scorers on either team.

Her three steals and two blocks show that her impact was not limited to offense.

Boston was therefore one of Indiana’s most complete performers despite the loss.

Caitlin Clark Finishes With 20 Points and 8 Assists

Caitlin Clark recorded:

20 points
3 rebounds
8 assists
8 turnovers
1 steal
7-of-20 field goals
2-of-10 three-pointers
4-of-6 free throws
0 plus/minus

The most important part of Clark’s stat line is the contrast between her eight assists and eight turnovers.

She clearly created offense for teammates, but Indiana also gave away a significant number of possessions through turnovers.

Clark’s eight assists were tied to a large share of Indiana’s offensive creation. The problem was that the eight turnovers reduced the value of some of that playmaking.

Her three-point shooting was also difficult. She made 2-of-10 attempts from deep.

That 20% three-point rate is substantially below Indiana’s overall 35% team rate.

Clark still reached 20 points, but the efficiency and turnover numbers show why her night was more complicated than the raw scoring figure suggests.

Other Indiana Fever Player Contributions

Several other Fever players contributed important supporting numbers.

Monique Billings

Billings finished with eight points, four rebounds, one assist and two steals.

She shot 3-of-4 from the field and made both of her free throws.

Her +2 plus/minus was also positive.

Makayla Timpson

Timpson provided valuable work on the glass.

She recorded four points, 11 rebounds, three turnovers, one steal and one block.

Her 11 rebounds were second only to Boston among Indiana players.

Even with limited scoring, that rebounding contribution helped Indiana stay competitive.

Lexie Hull

Hull recorded one point, four rebounds, one assist, three turnovers, one steal and one block.

She went 0-of-1 from the field.

The defensive statistics gave her some value despite the limited offensive production.

Sophie Cunningham

Cunningham scored two points and added three rebounds.

She was 2-of-2 from the free-throw line.

Tyasha Harris

Harris did not score but recorded one rebound and one turnover.

Her plus-7 was notable despite the zero-point scoring line.

Comparing the Top Scorers

The easiest way to understand the game is to compare the leading scorers directly.

Player	Team	Points	FG	3PT	FT	REB	AST	TO
Kelsey Mitchell	Fever	28	10-18	2-4	6-8	0	4	2
A’ja Wilson	Aces	26	10-25	0-2	6-6	13	3	3
Aliyah Boston	Fever	21	9-15	3-5	0 listed	12	2	4
Jackie Young	Aces	22	8-21	2-8	4-5	4	9	3
Caitlin Clark	Fever	20	7-20	2-10	4-6	3	8	8
Chelsea Gray	Aces	11	4-10	3-5	0 listed	2	7	5

The table highlights a key feature of the matchup.

Indiana’s leading scorers were highly productive, but Las Vegas had more balanced playmaking.

The Aces had three major contributors with at least seven assists or close to it, while Young and Gray combined for 16 assists.

That helped Las Vegas create a more distributed offense.

Shooting Efficiency Was Not Enough for Indiana

One of the most interesting aspects of these indiana fever vs las vegas aces match player stats is that Indiana won the shooting battle in several categories.

The Fever shot 46% from the field compared with 41% for Las Vegas.

Indiana also shot 35% from three-point range compared with 23% for the Aces.

So why did Indiana lose?

The answer starts with possessions.

Las Vegas attempted 86 field goals.

Indiana attempted 67.

That is a difference of 19 field-goal attempts.

Even though Las Vegas was less accurate, having substantially more attempts gave the Aces additional opportunities to score.

Turnovers Became a Major Difference

Indiana committed 21 turnovers.

Las Vegas committed 16.

That five-turnover difference is especially important in a game decided by only two points.

Turnovers do more than remove a scoring opportunity. They can also prevent offensive rebounds, stop favorable half-court possessions and create transition opportunities for the opponent.

Indiana’s turnover total was particularly significant because Clark alone accounted for eight.

That does not mean Clark was solely responsible for the loss. Basketball possessions are collective events, and turnovers can result from aggressive playmaking.

But the number is still important when analyzing why Indiana could not convert its efficient shooting into a victory.

Assists Showed the Aces’ Offensive Advantage

The Aces recorded 24 assists.

The Fever recorded 16.

That eight-assist difference is substantial.

Young’s nine assists and Gray’s seven accounted for 16 of Las Vegas’ 24 assists.

Indiana, by comparison, relied heavily on Clark’s eight assists.

The difference suggests that Las Vegas had multiple reliable creators, while Indiana’s playmaking burden was more concentrated.

This is one of the clearest strategic insights from the box score.

When a game reaches overtime, having multiple players capable of creating a quality shot can become extremely valuable.

Rebounding Was Almost Even

The rebounding battle was remarkably close.

Las Vegas grabbed 39 rebounds.

Indiana grabbed 38.

That one-rebound difference means neither team dominated the glass overall.

However, individual performances were still important.

Wilson had 13 rebounds.

Boston had 12.

Timpson added 11 for Indiana.

Smith contributed nine for Las Vegas.

The interior battle was therefore competitive throughout the game.

The Aces did not win because they completely controlled the boards. They won because their possession creation, passing and late-game execution compensated for Indiana’s shooting advantage.

Free Throws Added Another Layer

Las Vegas went 11-of-14 at the free-throw line.

Indiana went 15-of-20.

Indiana therefore made four more free throws.

That gave the Fever another statistical advantage.

Yet it still did not produce a win.

The lesson is simple: no single category explains the entire outcome.

Basketball results are created by the interaction of shooting, possessions, turnovers, rebounding, passing and late-game execution.

Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown

The supplied score progression was:

Quarter	Las Vegas Aces	Indiana Fever
First	18	20
Second	19	22
Third	19	9
Fourth	19	24
Overtime	11	9
Final	86	84

Indiana led 42-37 at halftime based on the supplied quarter totals.

The third quarter changed the game.

The Fever scored only nine points.

Las Vegas scored 19.

That 10-point swing erased Indiana’s halftime advantage and created the foundation for the dramatic finish.

Indiana responded with a strong fourth quarter, scoring 24 points to Las Vegas’ 19.

That pushed the game into overtime.

The fourth-quarter response is important because it shows Indiana did not simply collapse after the third quarter. The Fever recovered and forced an extra period.

The Third Quarter Was the Hidden Turning Point

When people look at a two-point overtime game, the final possession often receives most of the attention.

That is understandable, but the third quarter deserves more examination.

Indiana scored only nine points in that period.

A team can survive a poor quarter if it dominates elsewhere, but a 10-point third-quarter disadvantage puts significant pressure on the remaining periods.

The Fever ultimately recovered, but the lost scoring opportunities forced them into a situation where one possession could decide everything.

That is exactly what happened.

The Overtime Period Decided the Contest

The supplied figures show Las Vegas scoring 11 points in overtime and Indiana scoring nine.

That two-point overtime margin exactly matched the final difference.

The official WNBA recap confirms that Chelsea Gray supplied the decisive game-winning three-pointer at the end of overtime.

This is why the final two minutes deserve to be separated from the broader statistical analysis.

Over four quarters, the teams were essentially inseparable.

In overtime, the Aces made the crucial plays.

Season Series Context

The supplied data lists Indiana as leading the season series 2-1.

The three listed meetings were:

Game	Result
Game 1	Fever 84, Aces 68
Game 2	Fever 109, Aces 75
Game 3	Aces 86, Fever 84

That creates an interesting contrast.

Indiana won the first two meetings by 16 and 34 points.

Las Vegas responded with a two-point overtime victory.

The third meeting therefore did not erase Indiana’s overall advantage in the series, but it demonstrated that the matchup could look dramatically different from one game to the next.

The Aces’ 86-84 win also showed that previous blowout results did not necessarily predict the next contest.

What the Matchup Says About Both Teams

The indiana fever vs las vegas aces match player stats reveal two very different paths to offensive success.

Indiana was more efficient from the field and from three-point range.

Las Vegas generated more attempts and more assists.

Indiana also had more steals, 10 to nine, while both teams recorded four blocks.

The statistical profile suggests that Indiana’s offense was capable of producing efficient scoring, but possession management was a problem.

Las Vegas, meanwhile, was not especially efficient from long range, but it created enough additional opportunities to compensate.

Why the Aces Won Despite Shooting 41%

A 41% field-goal percentage is not usually the kind of number associated with an 86-point winning performance.

But the Aces attempted 86 shots.

At 41%, that volume produced 35 made field goals.

Indiana made 31 field goals on only 67 attempts.

That four-field-goal difference is important.

The Aces also had 24 assists, indicating that their offense was not simply based on individual shot creation.

The combination of volume and passing helped Las Vegas overcome its lower shooting percentage.

Why Indiana’s 46% Shooting Did Not Produce a Win

Indiana’s 46% field-goal shooting was strong.

Its 35% three-point shooting was also better than Las Vegas’ 23%.

But shooting efficiency is only one component of offensive efficiency.

The Fever committed 21 turnovers.

They also had eight fewer assists.

Clark’s eight turnovers were particularly important because she was one of Indiana’s primary creators.

The Fever’s offensive structure therefore had both strengths and weaknesses.

They could score efficiently when they completed possessions, but they did not complete enough possessions cleanly.

A Closer Look at Plus/Minus

Plus/minus can be useful, but it should be interpreted carefully.

For Las Vegas, the listed figures included:

Jewell Loyd: +10
Jackie Young: +9
A’ja Wilson: +7
Chelsea Gray: +6
Stephanie Talbot: +4
NaLyssa Smith: +1

For Indiana:

Monique Billings: +2
Makayla Timpson: +3
Lexie Hull: -5
Caitlin Clark: 0
Kelsey Mitchell: -8
Aliyah Boston: -9
Sophie Cunningham: 0

These numbers do not mean that a +10 player automatically performed better than a -9 player in every individual aspect.

Plus/minus reflects the team’s scoring margin while a player is on the floor.

It is best used alongside the rest of the box score.

In this game, the plus/minus numbers generally reinforce the larger story: Las Vegas received strong two-way stretches from several rotation players, while Indiana’s major offensive contributors did not all produce positive on-court margins.

What Fantasy and Stat-Focused Readers Should Notice

For fantasy basketball and statistical analysis, this game offers several notable performances.

A’ja Wilson’s 26 points and 13 rebounds made her the most complete statistical producer for Las Vegas.

Jackie Young’s 22 points and nine assists gave her excellent playmaking value.

Chelsea Gray’s seven assists and four steals added significant peripheral production.

For Indiana, Mitchell’s 28 points on 10-of-18 shooting were outstanding.

Boston’s 21 points and 12 rebounds produced a double-double with additional defensive statistics.

Clark’s 20 points and eight assists were useful, but the eight turnovers and 2-of-10 three-point shooting reduced the efficiency of her overall line.

What Coaches and Analysts Can Learn From This Game

There are several practical lessons in the numbers.

Possession quality matters

Indiana’s 21 turnovers were costly in a two-point game.

Shot volume can overcome percentage differences

Las Vegas attempted 19 more field goals.

Multiple creators reduce offensive pressure

Young and Gray combined for 16 assists.

Interior stars can impact games without elite perimeter shooting

Wilson made none of her two three-point attempts but still produced 26 points and 13 rebounds.

Clutch execution can outweigh four quarters of statistical balance

Gray’s late-game shooting directly decided the contest.

The Biggest Individual Takeaways

The most important player-level observations are straightforward.

A’ja Wilson: Dominated the glass and supplied efficient free-throw shooting while scoring 26.

Jackie Young: Provided 22 points and nine assists, giving Las Vegas major two-way offensive creation.

Chelsea Gray: Scored only 11 points overall but made the most important shots of the game.

Kelsey Mitchell: Led everyone with 28 points on efficient shooting.

Aliyah Boston: Delivered a 21-point, 12-rebound double-double with strong shooting and defensive activity.

Caitlin Clark: Created eight assists and scored 20 points, but eight turnovers and 2-of-10 three-point shooting were major statistical negatives.

Final Statistical Verdict

The most useful conclusion from the indiana fever vs las vegas aces match player stats is that Indiana did many things well enough to win.

The Fever shot better.

They made more three-pointers.
They made more free throws.
They recorded more steals.

They also received three 20-point scorers.

Yet Las Vegas had the advantages that proved decisive.

The Aces attempted 19 more field goals, recorded eight more assists and committed five fewer turnovers.

Those possession and creation advantages kept Las Vegas close despite the weaker shooting percentages.

Then, when the game reached overtime, the Aces had the player who delivered the defining moments.

Chelsea Gray’s late threes turned an 11-point performance into the game’s most memorable individual contribution.

What This Game Means for the Rivalry

The result also adds another chapter to an increasingly interesting matchup.

Indiana had already won the first two listed meetings of the season, including a 109-75 blowout.

Las Vegas responded with an overtime win on the road.

That contrast is important.

It shows that the matchup cannot be understood simply through previous results.

The teams have different strengths, and those strengths can become more or less valuable depending on pace, turnovers, shooting efficiency and late-game execution.

For Indiana, the biggest improvement area from this box score is possession control.

For Las Vegas, the most encouraging element is that the team found a way to win despite shooting only 23% from three-point range.

That is a useful characteristic for a team entering the most important part of the season.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who won the Indiana Fever vs Las Vegas Aces game?

The Las Vegas Aces defeated the Indiana Fever 86-84 in overtime.

Who led the game in scoring?

Kelsey Mitchell led all scorers with 28 points for Indiana. A’ja Wilson led Las Vegas with 26 points.

How many points did Caitlin Clark score?

Caitlin Clark scored 20 points and added eight assists, three rebounds and eight turnovers.

How did A’ja Wilson perform?

A’ja Wilson recorded 26 points, 13 rebounds, three assists, one steal and two blocks. She shot 10-of-25 from the field and made all six of her free throws.

How many assists did Jackie Young have?

Jackie Young recorded nine assists along with 22 points and four rebounds.

Why did Las Vegas win despite shooting worse?

The Aces attempted 19 more field goals, recorded 24 assists compared with Indiana’s 16 and committed five fewer turnovers. Those possession advantages helped offset Indiana’s superior shooting percentages.

Conclusion

The indiana fever vs las vegas aces match player stats show how a basketball game can be decided by far more than the shooting percentage shown at the top of a box score.

Indiana had the better field-goal percentage, the better three-point percentage and more free throws made. Mitchell scored 28, Boston produced a double-double and Clark added 20 points with eight assists.

But Las Vegas created more opportunities.

The Aces attempted 86 field goals to Indiana’s 67, recorded 24 assists to the Fever’s 16 and turned the ball over five fewer times. Wilson controlled the interior with 26 points and 13 rebounds, Young supplied 22 points and nine assists, and Gray provided the clutch execution that ultimately settled the game.

The most important statistical lesson is therefore possession value. Indiana’s efficiency was impressive, but Las Vegas generated enough additional opportunities to keep the game within reach. Once overtime arrived, one or two elite possessions became more important than the overall shooting percentages.

For anyone studying this matchup, the 86-84 score should be viewed as the final chapter of a much larger statistical story. The numbers show a game shaped by contrasting offensive approaches, strong individual performances, uneven turnover control and extraordinary late-game execution.