Indiana Fever vs Los Angeles Sparks Match Player Stats
Indiana Fever vs Los Angeles Sparks match player stats tell a much more detailed story than the final score alone. Indiana defeated Los Angeles 87-78 in the matchup covered by the supplied game data, with Caitlin Clark leading the Fever with 24 points and 9 assists, while Kelsey Plum paced the Sparks with 25 points and 4 assists. The box score also shows a clear contrast in how the teams created offense: Indiana converted 9 of 30 three-point attempts, while Los Angeles made only 2 of 15 from deep.
There is an important date clarification before looking deeper at the numbers. The official Sparks schedule lists the Fever game at Crypto.com Arena on May 13, 2026, and ESPN lists the same matchup under Game ID 401856907. The supplied dataset labels the game May 14, 2026. The analysis below uses the supplied statistical figures while identifying the game as the May 13, 2026 contest where the official schedule information differs. The official Fever postgame coverage confirms the 87-78 Indiana victory in Los Angeles.
Indiana Fever vs Los Angeles Sparks Match Player Stats
The headline numbers are straightforward:
| Category | Indiana Fever | Los Angeles Sparks |
| Final score | 87 | 78 |
| Field goals | 31-63 | 28-57 |
| Field-goal percentage | 49% | 49% |
| Three-pointers | 9-30 | 2-15 |
| Three-point percentage | 30% | 13% |
| Free throws | 16-19 | 20-25 |
| Free-throw percentage | 84% | 80% |
| Rebounds | 33 | 24 |
| Assists | 23 | 13 |
| Turnovers | 16 | 19 |
| Steals | 7 | 12 |
| Blocks | 3 | 4 |
At first glance, the most surprising number is the field-goal percentage. Both teams shot 49%, yet Indiana won by nine points.
That is exactly why a deeper box-score reading matters.
The Fever gained separation through a combination of three-point production, rebounding, ball movement and a much cleaner overall offensive profile. Los Angeles generated more points at the free-throw line and recorded more steals, but those advantages were not enough to compensate for the Sparks’ 2-for-15 shooting from three-point range and their 19 turnovers.
The result is a useful example of why field-goal percentage by itself does not explain a basketball game.
Caitlin Clark’s 24 Points and 9 Assists Were the Central Numbers
Caitlin Clark was the most influential Indiana player on the offensive end, finishing with 24 points and 9 assists. She also recorded 4 rebounds and 2 steals according to the Fever’s official postgame recap.
The combination of scoring and playmaking is more important than the 24-point total alone.
Clark did not simply provide Indiana with points. Her 9 assists accounted for a substantial portion of the Fever’s 23 team assists. That means Indiana’s offense was not dependent on one player converting every possession. Clark’s value came from creating opportunities for teammates as well as finishing possessions herself.
The official Fever recap confirms that Clark filled the stat sheet with 24 points, 9 assists, 4 rebounds and 2 steals.
Her performance also helps explain Indiana’s 49% field-goal shooting. The Fever were able to generate enough quality offensive possessions that they did not need an exceptional shooting night from three-point range to reach 87 points.
Why the 9 assists matter
Nine assists are especially important when compared with the team totals.
Indiana had 23 assists against 16 turnovers.
Los Angeles had 13 assists against 19 turnovers.
That creates a major difference in offensive organization.
The Fever finished with 7 more assists while committing 3 fewer turnovers. That is a 10-possession swing in the basic assist-to-turnover comparison, even before considering shot quality and offensive rebounds.
Clark was at the center of that advantage.
Her performance illustrates a useful distinction between scoring and offensive creation. A guard can score 24 points through difficult individual shots, but a 24-point, 9-assist game can have a much broader effect because it influences teammates’ scoring opportunities as well.
Kelsey Plum Led Los Angeles With 25 Points
Kelsey Plum was the Sparks’ leading scorer with 25 points. She also led Los Angeles with 4 assists and tied Dearica Hamby for the team-high in rebounds with 8 according to the supplied statistics.
Plum’s scoring output was excellent in isolation.
She scored one more point than Clark and represented the most reliable scoring option for Los Angeles throughout the game. However, the team result demonstrates the difference between individual scoring production and overall offensive efficiency.
The Sparks scored 78 points despite Plum’s 25-point performance.
That means the rest of the Los Angeles offense had to find additional ways to convert possessions, particularly from outside the arc. Instead, the Sparks finished only 2-for-15 from three-point range.
That is a 13% conversion rate.
Against a team that made 9 threes, that difference became difficult to overcome.
Plum’s scoring versus Indiana’s balance
The interesting comparison is not simply Clark versus Plum.
Clark produced 24 points and 9 assists.
Plum produced 25 points and 4 assists.
The scoring totals were almost identical, but Clark created considerably more offense for the Fever.
That distinction is one of the most important insights in the Indiana Fever vs Los Angeles Sparks match player stats.
A player scoring 25 points can still have less overall offensive influence than a player scoring 24 points and creating nine assists, particularly when the player’s team also moves the ball efficiently.
Kelsey Mitchell Added 23 Points for Indiana
Kelsey Mitchell provided Indiana with another major scoring option, finishing with 23 points.
The significance of Mitchell’s performance becomes clearer when placed beside Clark’s numbers.
Clark scored 24.
Mitchell scored 23.
Together, they produced 47 of Indiana’s 87 points.
That gave the Fever a strong scoring foundation without requiring Clark to carry the entire offensive load.
The official Fever recap also notes that Mitchell scored 23 points and had reached 53 points through Indiana’s first two games of the season.
This type of two-guard scoring balance is important because it makes defensive game planning more difficult. A defense that focuses too heavily on Clark can leave Mitchell opportunities to attack. Conversely, aggressive attention on Mitchell can create additional space for Clark to operate as a scorer or distributor.
Monique Billings Made an Impact on the Glass
Monique Billings was Indiana’s leading rebounder with 8 rebounds. She also contributed 9 points and 2 assists in her Fever debut, according to the team’s official recap.
Her 8 rebounds were especially valuable because Indiana finished with 33 total rebounds compared with only 24 for Los Angeles.
That is a 9-rebound advantage.
The difference is not enormous in raw statistical terms, but it matters because every additional possession can become significant in a nine-point game.
Billings’ contribution also demonstrates why player evaluation should not focus exclusively on scoring. Her 8 rebounds helped Indiana control an important part of the game without requiring her to become a primary scorer.
Sophie Cunningham Supplied More Than Just Scoring
Sophie Cunningham finished with 12 points and 7 rebounds for Indiana, according to the official Fever recap.
Those 7 rebounds were nearly as many as Billings’ team-leading 8.
When combined, Billings and Cunningham provided 15 rebounds, helping the Fever establish their 33-24 advantage on the boards.
That contribution matters because Indiana’s rebounding edge was not created by one player alone.
It was a collective effort.
This is another reason the box score should be read as a connected set of numbers rather than as an isolated scoring list.
Dearica Hamby Was Important for Los Angeles
Dearica Hamby finished with 8 rebounds, tying Plum for Los Angeles’ team-high in that category.
Hamby’s rebounding helped the Sparks remain competitive despite Indiana’s overall advantage on the glass.
The problem for Los Angeles was that the rebounding advantage from individual players did not translate into enough overall possessions or scoring efficiency.
The Sparks had 24 total rebounds compared with Indiana’s 33.
That difference limited their ability to generate second-chance opportunities and contributed to the broader possession battle.
The Three-Point Difference Was the Biggest Statistical Separator
If one number deserves to be highlighted above all others, it is three-point shooting.
Indiana:
- 9 made threes
- 30 attempts
- 30%
Los Angeles:
- 2 made threes
- 15 attempts
- 13%
Indiana made 7 more three-pointers.
Because every made three is worth three points, that difference represents a 21-point advantage in made three-point scoring.
Of course, basketball does not work as simply as subtracting one category from another because teams compensate through free throws, two-point shots and possession volume. Still, the gap shows why the final score favored Indiana.
The Sparks actually attempted fewer threes and converted them at a much lower rate.
That combination made it extremely difficult for Los Angeles to keep pace with Indiana’s perimeter scoring.
Both Teams Shot 49% From the Field
This is one of the most useful details for understanding the game.
Indiana shot 31-for-63.
Los Angeles shot 28-for-57.
Both teams were listed at 49%.
So why did Indiana win by nine?
The answer is that field-goal percentage treats every made field goal as equal, even though a three-pointer is worth more than a two-pointer.
Indiana made 9 threes.
Los Angeles made only 2.
That distinction increased Indiana’s scoring efficiency beyond what the basic field-goal percentage suggests.
It is a classic example of why modern basketball analysis should include effective field-goal percentage rather than relying only on traditional field-goal percentage.
Using the supplied totals, Indiana’s effective field-goal percentage was approximately 56.3%, while Los Angeles’ was approximately 50.9%.
That six-point-plus gap provides a much clearer picture of the shooting difference.
Free Throws Favored Los Angeles
The Sparks had an advantage at the free-throw line.
Los Angeles went 20-for-25, or 80%.
Indiana went 16-for-19, or approximately 84%.
Los Angeles therefore scored 20 points from free throws compared with Indiana’s 16.
That gave the Sparks a four-point advantage from the charity stripe.
This is important because it shows that the Sparks did not lose every efficiency category.
They actually generated more free-throw points.
But the advantage was not enough to offset Indiana’s superior three-point production and rebounding.
Turnovers Tell Another Part of the Story
Indiana committed 16 turnovers.
Los Angeles committed 19.
The Sparks also recorded 12 steals compared with Indiana’s 7.
That combination is interesting.
Los Angeles created more steals but still finished with more turnovers.
It suggests that the Sparks’ defensive activity produced disruption, but Indiana was able to create enough successful possessions to withstand that pressure.
For Los Angeles, the challenge was turning defensive activity into sustained offensive value.
A team can force turnovers and still lose the possession battle if it gives the ball away too frequently itself.
Indiana’s 23 Assists Showed Better Offensive Connectivity
The Fever recorded 23 assists.
The Sparks recorded 13.
That is a 10-assist difference.
In a game decided by nine points, that is significant.
It indicates that Indiana’s offense was more connected from possession to possession. The team did not rely entirely on individual shot creation.
Clark’s 9 assists were obviously central to that number, but the team total also reflects movement and finishing from teammates.
Los Angeles’ 13 assists, by contrast, suggest a more limited distribution of scoring creation.
Plum led the Sparks with 4 assists, but the team still finished 10 assists behind Indiana.
Rebounding Created an Additional Indiana Advantage
Indiana won the rebounding battle 33-24.
That is a nine-rebound margin.
Rebounding matters for two reasons.
First, defensive rebounds end possessions.
Second, offensive rebounds create additional scoring chances.
The supplied team statistics do not separate offensive and defensive rebounds, so it would be inappropriate to claim that all nine extra rebounds directly produced a specific number of points.
What can be said confidently is that Indiana controlled the overall rebounding category and therefore secured more total rebounds than Los Angeles.
That is another area where the Fever had an edge.
The Quarter-by-Quarter Score Explains the Final Result
The game developed in four distinct stages.
First quarter
Indiana led 24-20 after the opening period.
The four-point margin gave the Fever an early platform but did not suggest a runaway game.
Second quarter
Indiana added another 24 points while Los Angeles scored only 14.
At halftime, Indiana had built a 14-point lead.
That second quarter was arguably the most important stretch of the game because the Fever created separation before the Sparks could establish their late comeback.
Third quarter
Indiana scored 20 points.
Los Angeles scored 18.
The Fever maintained control and entered the fourth quarter with a 12-point advantage.
Fourth quarter
Los Angeles finally found its best offensive rhythm, scoring 26 points.
Indiana scored 19.
The Sparks therefore won the fourth quarter by seven points.
But the earlier deficit was too large.
The game demonstrates a familiar basketball lesson: late momentum matters, but it cannot always erase poor middle quarters.
Los Angeles’ Fourth-Quarter Push Was Real
It would be misleading to describe the game as a wire-to-wire Indiana performance.
Los Angeles outscored Indiana 26-19 in the fourth quarter.
That tells us the Sparks did respond.
They increased their offensive production considerably and cut into the Fever’s lead.
The issue was timing.
Los Angeles had scored only 14 points in the second quarter.
That created a deficit that required an exceptional late offensive stretch to overcome.
The Sparks eventually produced that stretch, but Indiana had already accumulated enough separation.
Why Indiana Won Despite Losing the Steal Battle
Los Angeles recorded 12 steals.
Indiana recorded 7.
Normally, a five-steal advantage can be a major positive.
But the rest of the statistical profile shows why it did not decide this game.
Indiana had:
- 23 assists versus 13
- 33 rebounds versus 24
- 9 threes versus 2
- 16 turnovers versus 19
The Fever therefore offset Los Angeles’ defensive activity with superior ball movement, rebounding and perimeter scoring.
This is a useful reminder that one defensive category rarely determines a game by itself.
A Better Way to Read the Box Score
For readers checking player stats after a WNBA game, a practical approach is to examine the numbers in this order:
- Final score and quarter splits
- Leading scorers
- Three-point shooting
- Free-throw attempts and makes
- Rebounding
- Assists and turnovers
- Individual minutes and shooting volume
- Advanced efficiency indicators
That sequence gives context before interpretation.
It also prevents one impressive individual statistic from dominating the analysis.
For this Fever-Sparks game, looking only at scoring would suggest Plum slightly outperformed Clark.
Looking at the complete offensive picture tells a different story.
Clark scored 24 points and created 9 assists.
Plum scored 25 and created 4 assists.
Indiana won by nine.
The broader statistical profile strongly supports Clark as the more influential offensive engine in this particular matchup.
What the Player Stats Say About Indiana’s Offensive Identity
The game points toward an offense built around multiple sources of value.
Clark supplied playmaking and scoring.
Mitchell supplied additional scoring pressure.
Cunningham provided scoring and rebounding.
Billings supplied interior rebounding and additional offensive support.
That combination allowed Indiana to reach 87 points without needing one player to score 30 or more.
The 23 assists are perhaps the strongest evidence of this balance.
The Fever’s offense was not simply about making shots.
It was about creating enough quality opportunities for several players.
What the Numbers Say About Los Angeles
Los Angeles had a more uneven statistical profile.
Plum delivered 25 points.
Hamby contributed 8 rebounds.
The team shot 49% overall and 80% from the free-throw line.
Those are not poor numbers.
The problem was the combination of weak three-point shooting and turnovers.
A 2-for-15 performance from three limits offensive spacing and reduces the value of possessions in a modern perimeter-oriented offense.
The Sparks also committed 19 turnovers.
When a team combines 13% three-point shooting with 19 turnovers, it becomes difficult to sustain efficient offense even when the overall field-goal percentage looks respectable.
What Fans Should Not Conclude From One Game
A single box score can reveal what happened.
It cannot prove everything about what a team will do over an entire season.
For example, Los Angeles’ 13% three-point shooting should not automatically be interpreted as its permanent shooting level.
Likewise, Indiana’s 30% three-point shooting was not an elite percentage.
The difference was volume and makes.
Indiana simply converted more attempts.
A good game analysis separates observed facts from broader predictions.
The facts are clear:
- Indiana won 87-78.
- Clark scored 24.
- Plum scored 25.
- Mitchell scored 23.
- Indiana made 9 threes.
- Los Angeles made 2.
- Indiana won the rebound battle.
- Indiana had more assists.
- Los Angeles committed more turnovers.
Anything beyond those observations should be treated as interpretation rather than certainty.
The Most Important Individual Performances
Caitlin Clark
24 points, 9 assists, 4 rebounds, 2 steals
Clark was Indiana’s top scorer and primary playmaker. Her 9 assists were particularly important in a game where Indiana finished with 23 team assists.
Kelsey Mitchell
23 points
Mitchell gave Indiana another high-level scoring option and helped prevent the offense from becoming overly dependent on Clark.
Monique Billings
9 points, 8 rebounds, 2 assists
Billings made her Fever debut and immediately contributed on the glass. Her 8 rebounds were a team high.
Sophie Cunningham
12 points, 7 rebounds
Cunningham’s combination of scoring and rebounding helped Indiana maintain its advantage on the boards.
Kelsey Plum
25 points, 4 assists, 8 rebounds
Plum was Los Angeles’ leading scorer and one of the most productive all-around players for the Sparks.
Dearica Hamby
8 rebounds
Hamby shared Los Angeles’ rebounding lead and provided important frontcourt production.
Team Statistical Comparison at a Glance
The clearest differences can be summarized as follows:
| Statistical area | Advantage |
| Final score | Indiana |
| Field-goal percentage | Even |
| Three-point makes | Indiana |
| Three-point percentage | Indiana |
| Free throws made | Los Angeles |
| Free-throw percentage | Indiana |
| Rebounds | Indiana |
| Assists | Indiana |
| Turnovers | Indiana |
| Steals | Los Angeles |
| Blocks | Los Angeles |
The pattern is unusually clear.
Indiana won the categories most closely connected to efficient offensive possession management.
Los Angeles won steals and blocks, but those defensive advantages did not compensate for its shooting and turnover problems.
The 87-78 Score Was Closer Than the Middle of the Game Suggested
The final margin was nine points.
But Indiana had built a 14-point halftime advantage.
That means the final score slightly understates how much control the Fever established during the middle portion of the contest.
At the same time, the fourth-quarter numbers show that Los Angeles did not stop competing.
The Sparks scored 26 points in the final period and reduced the deficit.
This matters when evaluating the game because a simple final-score summary could miss the changing momentum.
How to Compare Players Beyond Points
When comparing players from this matchup, consider at least five questions:
1. Who scored?
Plum led all individual scorers with 25.
2. Who created offense?
Clark clearly stood out with 9 assists.
3. Who controlled the glass?
Billings led Indiana with 8 rebounds, while Hamby and Plum each had 8 for Los Angeles.
4. Who protected possessions?
Indiana committed fewer turnovers.
5. Who created efficient scoring value?
Indiana’s nine made threes gave the Fever an important advantage in scoring efficiency.
This framework is more useful than ranking players solely by points.
Why the Game Matters for Stat Tracking
For fans, fantasy players, analysts and sports writers, this type of box score provides several useful lessons.
A player can lead a team in scoring without being the most influential offensive player.
A team can shoot the same overall percentage as its opponent and still lose the efficiency battle.
A team can record more steals and blocks and still lose because of shooting and turnovers.
And a late scoring surge can make a game look closer than it was for much of the night.
These are exactly the details that make player statistics useful beyond simple score reporting.
Common Mistakes When Reading Fever-Sparks Statistics
Mistake 1: Looking only at the leading scorer
Plum scored 25, but Clark’s 24 points came with 9 assists.
Mistake 2: Treating 49% field-goal shooting as the complete shooting story
The teams had the same listed field-goal percentage, but Indiana’s three-point advantage changed the scoring equation.
Mistake 3: Ignoring turnovers
Los Angeles committed 19 turnovers compared with Indiana’s 16.
Mistake 4: Ignoring assists
The 23-13 assist difference is one of the clearest indicators of Indiana’s superior offensive distribution.
Mistake 5: Assuming late momentum determines the entire game
Los Angeles won the fourth quarter, but Indiana’s earlier advantage was enough to secure the victory.
Date and Record Clarification
The supplied data states that the game took place on May 14, 2026 and lists Indiana’s record as 1-1 and Los Angeles’ record as 0-2.
However, official 2026 schedule information identifies the matchup as Wednesday, May 13, 2026. ESPN also lists the game under Game ID 401856907. The Sparks’ official schedule confirms that Indiana was scheduled to visit Los Angeles on May 13.
There is also a discrepancy in the supplied “season series after game” field.
The official 2026 Sparks schedule lists three regular-season meetings between the teams: May 13 in Los Angeles, June 27 in Indiana and July 8 in Los Angeles. Therefore, after the May matchup, the 2026 season series could not accurately be described as 2-1.
For accuracy, this article treats the supplied player and team statistics as the data set for the game while using official schedule information to clarify the date and series context.
That distinction is important for anyone publishing sports statistics because small metadata errors can become permanent once they are copied across multiple websites.
Where the Matchup Fits Into the Broader Fever-Sparks Story
The Fever and Sparks have developed a notable modern WNBA rivalry because their games frequently attract significant attention and feature high-profile perimeter talent.
The May 2026 meeting added another chapter, with Clark and Plum leading their respective teams.
The matchup also showed two different routes to offensive production.
Indiana generated offense through passing, perimeter makes and balanced scoring.
Los Angeles relied heavily on Plum’s scoring while struggling from three-point range.
The contrast makes this particular box score useful for understanding how two teams can reach similar field-goal percentages while producing very different offensive outcomes.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score between the Indiana Fever and Los Angeles Sparks?
Indiana defeated Los Angeles 87-78 in the game covered by the supplied statistics.
Who scored the most points in the game?
Kelsey Plum led all scorers with 25 points for Los Angeles. Caitlin Clark scored 24 points for Indiana.
How many assists did Caitlin Clark have?
Caitlin Clark recorded 9 assists, along with 24 points, 4 rebounds and 2 steals.
Which team shot better from three-point range?
Indiana shot better from three. The Fever made 9 of 30 attempts for 30%, while Los Angeles made 2 of 15 for 13%.
Who led the game in rebounding?
The supplied statistics list Monique Billings as Indiana’s leading rebounder with 8 and Dearica Hamby as Los Angeles’ leading rebounder with 8. Kelsey Plum also had 8 rebounds for the Sparks.
Why did Indiana win despite both teams shooting 49% from the field?
Indiana gained major advantages in three-point makes, rebounds, assists and turnovers. The Fever made 9 threes compared with 2 for Los Angeles, had 33 rebounds to 24, recorded 23 assists to 13 and committed 16 turnovers to the Sparks’ 19.
Conclusion
The Indiana Fever vs Los Angeles Sparks match player stats show that this 87-78 result was about much more than the final scoring totals.
Kelsey Plum was the game’s leading scorer with 25 points, but Caitlin Clark delivered the more complete offensive performance for Indiana with 24 points and 9 assists. Kelsey Mitchell’s 23 points gave the Fever another dependable scoring source, while Monique Billings and Sophie Cunningham helped Indiana control the rebounding battle.
The biggest team-level difference came from the perimeter. Indiana made 9 of its 30 three-point attempts, while Los Angeles made only 2 of 15. That gap outweighed the Sparks’ advantages in free throws, steals and blocks.
Indiana also moved the ball more effectively, finishing with 23 assists compared with Los Angeles’ 13. The Fever committed fewer turnovers and collected nine more rebounds, giving them a stronger overall possession profile.
Los Angeles did make the game more competitive in the fourth quarter, outscoring Indiana 26-19. But the Fever’s second-quarter advantage had already created enough separation.
For anyone studying the Indiana Fever vs Los Angeles Sparks match player stats, the most useful takeaway is simple: do not judge the game from points or field-goal percentage alone. The combination of three-point production, assists, turnovers, rebounding and individual creation provides a much clearer explanation of why Indiana came away with the victory.
The supplied data should also be published with care because the game date and season-series information conflict with the official 2026 schedule. For a sports statistics page, correcting those details is just as important as presenting the box score itself.
