Seattle Storm vs Indiana Fever Match Player Stats
The seattle storm vs indiana fever match player stats from July 29, 2026, tell a clear story of efficient offense, elite shooting, and timely scoring by the Indiana Fever. Indiana defeated Seattle 105-95 at Climate Pledge Arena in front of 18,343 fans, overcoming a strong second-half response from the Storm. Caitlin Clark led the Fever with 32 points and 7 assists, while Kelsey Mitchell added 28 points. For Seattle, Natisha Hiedeman produced a remarkable 33-point performance, but the Storm could not match Indiana’s overall shooting efficiency.
This game is particularly interesting because the final score does not fully explain how the contest developed. Indiana built a large early advantage, Seattle fought back during the middle quarters, and the Fever ultimately regained control in the fourth. The individual numbers also reveal why Indiana won despite Seattle committing only four turnovers compared with Indiana’s 11.
The following breakdown examines the player statistics, team numbers, quarter-by-quarter scoring, shooting efficiency, individual performances, and the tactical details that can be taken from the provided box score.
Seattle Storm vs Indiana Fever Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The game took place on July 29, 2026, at Climate Pledge Arena in Seattle, Washington. Indiana entered the contest with an 18-10 record and a 7-5 road record, while Seattle had a 6-24 record and was 4-11 at home.
The Fever eventually won 105-95.
| Game Detail | Result |
| Matchup | Indiana Fever vs. Seattle Storm |
| Date | July 29, 2026 |
| Venue | Climate Pledge Arena |
| Attendance | 18,343 |
| Final Score | Indiana Fever 105, Seattle Storm 95 |
| Winner | Indiana Fever |
| Indiana Record | 18-10 |
| Indiana Away Record | 7-5 |
| Seattle Record | 6-24 |
| Seattle Home Record | 4-11 |
| Season Series | Indiana won 3-0 |
The result completed a three-game season sweep for Indiana. The Fever had previously defeated Seattle 89-78 on May 18 and 110-107 on July 18.
That makes the July 29 meeting more than an isolated result. Across the provided season series, Indiana consistently found ways to score against Seattle.
How the Game Unfolded
The quarter scores show that Indiana’s biggest advantage came immediately.
First Quarter: Indiana 37, Seattle 20
Indiana opened the game with 37 points, while Seattle managed 20.
That 17-point first-quarter difference became extremely important because the Storm spent much of the rest of the game trying to erase the deficit.
Indiana’s early offense was exceptionally efficient. The Fever eventually finished the game shooting 33 of 64 from the field, which translates to approximately 51.6 percent. They also made 13 of 24 three-point attempts, an outstanding 54.2 percent.
The early offensive explosion established the tone.
Second Quarter: Indiana 21, Seattle 27
Seattle responded in the second quarter.
The Storm outscored Indiana 27-21, reducing the deficit by six points. Rather than allowing the game to become a runaway, Seattle began applying pressure and generating more offensive production.
At halftime, however, Indiana still held a substantial lead.
The important point here is that Seattle did not win the game because of a lack of offensive effort. The Storm scored 95 points overall. Their problem was that Indiana’s efficiency was even better.
Third Quarter: Indiana 18, Seattle 25
Seattle continued its comeback in the third quarter.
The Storm scored 25 points compared with Indiana’s 18, cutting another seven points from the deficit. This was the strongest sustained stretch of Seattle’s response.
At this stage, the game had changed considerably from the opening quarter. Seattle had turned a 17-point first-quarter disadvantage into a much more competitive contest.
Fourth Quarter: Indiana 29, Seattle 23
The Fever responded when the game needed it most.
Indiana scored 29 points in the fourth quarter, while Seattle scored 23. That six-point advantage allowed the Fever to stop the Storm’s comeback and secure the 105-95 victory.
The quarter-by-quarter pattern is therefore revealing:
| Quarter | Indiana Fever | Seattle Storm |
| 1st | 37 | 20 |
| 2nd | 21 | 27 |
| 3rd | 18 | 25 |
| 4th | 29 | 23 |
| Total | 105 | 95 |
The game effectively had three phases: an explosive Indiana start, a Seattle comeback, and an Indiana finish.
Caitlin Clark’s 32-Point Performance
Caitlin Clark was one of the most important players in the game and finished with 32 points.
Her complete line was:
| Statistic | Caitlin Clark |
| Minutes | 33 |
| Points | 32 |
| Field Goals | 9-14 |
| Three-Pointers | 4-7 |
| Free Throws | 10-10 |
| Rebounds | 4 |
| Assists | 7 |
| Turnovers | 4 |
| Steals | 1 |
| Blocks | 1 |
| Plus/Minus | +7 |
Clark shot 9 of 14 from the field, good for approximately 64.3 percent.
Her three-point shooting was also highly effective. She made 4 of 7 from beyond the arc, or approximately 57.1 percent.
The free-throw line was another major part of her performance. Clark went 10 for 10.
That combination produced an extremely efficient scoring night.
What stands out beyond the 32 points is the seven assists. Clark was not simply a high-volume scorer. She also served as an important creator for Indiana’s offense.
Her four turnovers are worth noting, particularly because Seattle had just four turnovers as a team. However, Clark’s overall offensive production outweighed that issue.
The +7 plus/minus also indicates that Indiana was still in positive territory during her minutes despite Seattle’s comeback attempts.
Kelsey Mitchell Adds 28 Points
Kelsey Mitchell provided an ideal scoring complement to Clark.
Mitchell recorded:
| Statistic | Kelsey Mitchell |
| Minutes | 35 |
| Points | 28 |
| Field Goals | 9-18 |
| Three-Pointers | 4-7 |
| Free Throws | 6-6 |
| Rebounds | 2 |
| Assists | 2 |
| Turnovers | 2 |
| Steals | 1 |
| Plus/Minus | +11 |
Mitchell made 9 of 18 field-goal attempts and 4 of 7 three-pointers.
Her 28 points combined with Clark’s 32 for 60 points.
That means the two guards accounted for more than half of Indiana’s 105 points.
Their three-point production was especially important. Together, Clark and Mitchell made eight three-pointers.
Mitchell’s +11 plus/minus was also the second-best among Indiana’s primary high-scoring contributors behind Sophie Cunningham’s +15 and Makayla Timpson’s +14.
Monique Billings Controls the Rebounding Battle
Monique Billings produced one of the most valuable non-scoring performances for Indiana.
She finished with:
- 14 points
- 11 rebounds
- 4-of-6 shooting
- 6-of-6 free throws
- 1 assist
- 2 turnovers
- 1 block
- -3 plus/minus
Her 11 rebounds led all Fever players.
Billings also made 4 of 6 field-goal attempts and converted all six of her free throws.
The double-digit rebounding total mattered because it gave Indiana another reliable interior contributor while the team’s perimeter players carried much of the scoring load.
Her individual plus/minus was -3, however, showing why box-score evaluation should not rely on a single statistic. A player can make a significant statistical contribution while still having a negative plus/minus.
Aliyah Boston’s Limited Minutes, Efficient Production
Aliyah Boston played only 11 minutes but still scored 11 points.
Her line included:
- 11 points
- 4-of-7 field goals
- 1-of-2 three-pointers
- 2-of-2 free throws
- 2 rebounds
- 1 assist
- 1 steal
- +3 plus/minus
Boston’s 11 points in 11 minutes represented highly productive scoring efficiency.
Her appearance also demonstrates why total minutes need to be considered when comparing players. A player with 11 points in 11 minutes is producing at a very different rate from someone scoring 11 points over 30-plus minutes.
Indiana’s Supporting Cast
Indiana received meaningful contributions beyond its headline scorers.
Sophie Cunningham
Cunningham scored 11 points in 24 minutes.
She shot:
- 3-of-6 from the field
- 3-of-4 from three-point range
- 2-of-2 from the free-throw line
She also added five rebounds and two assists.
Her +15 plus/minus was the best among the listed Indiana players.
Her three-point shooting was particularly valuable. Cunningham’s 3-of-4 performance gave Indiana another perimeter threat alongside Clark and Mitchell.
Makayla Timpson
Timpson played 28 minutes and contributed four points, four rebounds, and one block.
Her scoring total was modest, but her +14 plus/minus was one of Indiana’s strongest figures.
This is a useful reminder that box-score value is not always represented by points. Defensive work, rebounding, positioning, screening, and lineup impact can contribute to winning basketball without producing a large scoring total.
Myisha Hines-Allen
Hines-Allen scored five points in 11 minutes.
She shot 2-of-4 from the field, including 1-of-1 from three-point range, and collected four rebounds and one assist.
Tyasha Harris
Harris played 12 minutes and recorded two assists and one rebound.
She did not score, going 0-of-2 from the field.
Lexie Hull
Hull played 17 minutes but did not score.
She went 0-of-4 from the field and 0-of-2 from three-point range while collecting three rebounds.
Natisha Hiedeman Leads Seattle With 33 Points
Natisha Hiedeman delivered the highest individual scoring total of the game.
She finished with 33 points, exceeding Clark’s 32 by one.
Her complete statistical line was:
| Statistic | Natisha Hiedeman |
| Minutes | 35 |
| Points | 33 |
| Field Goals | 11-20 |
| Three-Pointers | 6-10 |
| Free Throws | 5-8 |
| Rebounds | 6 |
| Assists | 4 |
| Plus/Minus | 0 |
Hiedeman made 11 of 20 field-goal attempts, or 55 percent.
She was even more impressive from three-point range, converting 6 of 10 attempts for 60 percent.
Her 33 points were therefore not simply the product of inefficient volume shooting.
She also contributed six rebounds and four assists.
The most striking statistic may be her plus/minus of 0 in a 10-point loss. That suggests Seattle was highly competitive during her minutes, while the larger deficit accumulated during other stretches.
Hiedeman’s performance was one of the clearest examples of an individual having an excellent offensive game without receiving enough overall team support to win.
Flau’jae Johnson Provides 16 Points
Flau’jae Johnson scored 16 points in 24 minutes.
Her numbers included:
- 16 points
- 4-of-15 field goals
- 0-of-6 three-pointers
- 8-of-9 free throws
- 3 rebounds
- 2 assists
- 2 steals
- 1 block
- +1 plus/minus
The free-throw line was crucial for Johnson.
She made eight of nine free throws, but her field-goal shooting was much less efficient. She made just four of 15 overall and missed all six of her three-point attempts.
That contrast helps explain some of Seattle’s offensive limitations.
Hiedeman was highly efficient from three, but Johnson struggled from the field. Against an Indiana team shooting more than 50 percent overall, those efficiency differences became difficult to overcome.
Awa Fam’s 11 Points
Awa Fam finished with 11 points in 34 minutes.
She shot 4-of-13 from the field and 1-of-6 from three-point range.
She also recorded:
- 5 rebounds
- 2 assists
- 1 block
- +7 plus/minus
Her +7 was actually one of Seattle’s better plus/minus figures.
However, her 1-of-6 three-point shooting shows another area where Seattle could have benefited from greater efficiency.
Seattle’s Other Contributors
Jordan Horston
Horston played 27 minutes and recorded seven points, four rebounds, two assists, and one steal.
She shot 3-of-7 from the field and 0-of-2 from three-point range.
Jade Melbourne
Melbourne scored eight points in 29 minutes.
She made 4 of 7 field goals and added three rebounds and four assists.
Her three turnovers were tied to the highest individual turnover totals among the listed Seattle players.
Katie Lou Samuelson
Samuelson played 12 minutes and scored five points.
She added five rebounds, one assist, and two steals.
She shot 2-of-5 from the field and 1-of-4 from three-point range.
Stefanie Dolson
Dolson produced five points and six rebounds in 16 minutes.
She shot 2-of-3 from the field and made her only three-point attempt.
Zia Cooke
Cooke scored 10 points in 15 minutes.
Her line included 2-of-8 field goals, 2-of-3 three-pointers, 4-of-6 free throws, and two rebounds.
Her three-point shooting helped provide Seattle with additional perimeter scoring.
Mackenzie Holmes and Taina Mair
Holmes played five minutes and recorded two rebounds and one steal.
Mair played only two minutes and recorded one assist.
Team Shooting Explains the Final Result
One of the strongest conclusions from the Seattle Storm vs Indiana Fever match player stats is that shooting efficiency separated the teams.
Indiana finished:
- 33-of-64 from the field
- 13-of-24 from three
- 26-of-26 from the free-throw line
Seattle finished:
- 32-of-79 from the field
- 11-of-34 from three
- 20-of-27 from the free-throw line
The difference in field-goal percentage was substantial.
Indiana shot approximately 51.6 percent from the field.
Seattle shot approximately 40.5 percent.
That is an enormous efficiency gap over a full game.
The three-point difference was also significant.
Indiana converted approximately 54.2 percent of its three-point attempts.
Seattle converted approximately 32.4 percent.
Indiana therefore had both the higher overall field-goal percentage and the higher three-point percentage.
Indiana’s Perfect Free-Throw Shooting
Another unusual part of the box score was Indiana’s 26-of-26 free-throw shooting.
That is a 100 percent conversion rate.
Seattle went 20-of-27, approximately 74.1 percent.
The Fever therefore gained six additional points from free-throw efficiency despite both teams getting to the line.
In a 10-point game, those details matter.
Indiana did not simply shoot better from the field. It also converted every free throw it attempted.
Rebounding Was Even
Both teams recorded 36 rebounds.
That means the game was not decided by a major rebounding advantage.
Indiana’s 36 rebounds and Seattle’s 36 rebounds were identical.
This makes the shooting comparison even more important.
When the rebounding totals are level, offensive efficiency, turnovers, free throws, and shot quality become more influential in explaining the result.
Seattle Won the Turnover Battle
Seattle committed only four turnovers.
Indiana committed 11.
That gave Seattle a seven-turnover advantage.
This is one of the most interesting parts of the box score because the Storm still lost by 10 points.
Turnover control normally provides a team with an important opportunity to generate additional possessions. Seattle successfully protected the basketball, yet Indiana’s shooting efficiency was strong enough to overcome the possession disadvantage.
This is a good example of why a single team statistic rarely tells the whole story.
Assists and Ball Movement
Indiana recorded 16 assists.
Seattle recorded 17.
Seattle therefore had a slight advantage in assists despite losing the game.
Hiedeman and Melbourne led the Storm with four assists each.
Clark led Indiana with seven assists.
Clark’s seven assists were especially important because she combined them with 32 points.
That gave her a direct scoring and playmaking role throughout the game.
Comparing the Main Offensive Players
A simple comparison highlights the different ways the leading scorers affected the game.
| Player | PTS | FG | 3PT | REB | AST | +/- |
| Caitlin Clark | 32 | 9-14 | 4-7 | 4 | 7 | +7 |
| Kelsey Mitchell | 28 | 9-18 | 4-7 | 2 | 2 | +11 |
| Natisha Hiedeman | 33 | 11-20 | 6-10 | 6 | 4 | 0 |
| Flau’jae Johnson | 16 | 4-15 | 0-6 | 3 | 2 | +1 |
| Awa Fam | 11 | 4-13 | 1-6 | 5 | 2 | +7 |
| Jordan Horston | 7 | 3-7 | 0-2 | 4 | 2 | +2 |
Hiedeman had the highest scoring total, but Clark produced the stronger combination of scoring and playmaking.
Clark and Mitchell also gave Indiana two high-level perimeter scorers simultaneously.
That dual production made it much harder for Seattle to compensate for its own shooting struggles.
Why Indiana Won Despite More Turnovers
At first glance, Indiana’s 11 turnovers compared with Seattle’s four might seem like a warning sign.
But the Fever compensated in several other areas.
First, Indiana shot 33-of-64 compared with Seattle’s 32-of-79.
Second, Indiana made 13 three-pointers compared with Seattle’s 11.
Third, Indiana was perfect from the free-throw line.
Fourth, Indiana scored 37 points in the opening quarter.
The combined effect of those advantages outweighed Seattle’s ball security.
This is an important analytical lesson from the game: possession efficiency can matter more than raw possession count when one team converts its opportunities at a significantly higher rate.
The Importance of the First Quarter
The first quarter deserves special attention.
Indiana scored 37 points.
Seattle scored 20.
The 17-point margin was larger than the final 10-point margin.
That means Seattle actually won the next two quarters by a combined 13 points.
The Storm’s comeback was real.
But Indiana’s first-quarter advantage was too large to erase completely.
The fourth quarter then became decisive because Indiana prevented Seattle from completing the comeback.
Season Series: Indiana Won All Three Meetings
The provided data shows Indiana won all three meetings against Seattle.
May 18
Indiana Fever 89, Seattle Storm 78.
July 18
Indiana Fever 110, Seattle Storm 107.
July 29
Indiana Fever 105, Seattle Storm 95.
Across those three games, Indiana demonstrated consistent offensive success against Seattle.
The scores also show different game scripts.
The May meeting was an 11-point Indiana victory.
The July 18 contest was much closer, with Indiana winning by only three points.
The July 29 game ended with a 10-point margin after Seattle mounted a significant comeback.
That variation shows that the season series was not simply a collection of identical games.
What the Player Stats Tell Us About Indiana
The Fever’s statistical profile suggests a team capable of winning through perimeter efficiency while still receiving meaningful production from its frontcourt.
Clark and Mitchell combined for 60 points.
Billings added 14 points and 11 rebounds.
Boston scored 11 points in only 11 minutes.
Cunningham added 11 points while making three of four three-point attempts.
This distribution matters.
Indiana did not depend entirely on one player.
Even though Clark was the primary creator and Mitchell was the second major scorer, the supporting cast contributed enough to prevent Seattle from focusing exclusively on the two leading guards.
What the Player Stats Tell Us About Seattle
Seattle’s performance was more concentrated.
Hiedeman scored 33 points, but the Storm’s next-highest scorer among the listed players was Johnson with 16.
Hiedeman therefore carried a significant offensive burden.
Her 33 points came on efficient shooting, particularly from three-point range.
The bigger problem was that Seattle’s other primary offensive options did not consistently convert their shots.
Johnson went 4-of-15.
Fam went 4-of-13.
Seattle as a team went 32-of-79.
That overall shooting percentage is the clearest statistical explanation for the defeat.
A Closer Look at Efficiency
For readers evaluating player statistics, field-goal percentage should not be viewed alone.
Three-point shooting can dramatically change scoring efficiency.
Consider Clark:
9 field goals made, including four three-pointers.
Mitchell:
9 field goals made, including four three-pointers.
Hiedeman:
11 field goals made, including six three-pointers.
The three players all produced strong scoring nights, but their teams received very different levels of support around them.
The Fever’s overall 13-of-24 three-point shooting was particularly damaging because Seattle could not match it consistently.
The Role of Plus/Minus
The plus/minus statistics also offer some useful context.
Among Indiana’s listed players, Cunningham posted +15, Timpson +14, and Mitchell +11.
For Seattle, Fam and Melbourne both recorded positive figures, while Hiedeman finished at 0 despite scoring 33 points.
Plus/minus should not be treated as a standalone measure of individual quality because it depends heavily on lineups and game context.
Still, the numbers reinforce an important point.
Hiedeman was highly productive individually, but Seattle did not gain an overall advantage during her minutes.
Meanwhile, several Indiana role players were on the floor during stretches in which the Fever performed strongly.
The Bigger Statistical Lesson
The most useful way to read this game is not simply to ask who scored the most points.
Hiedeman scored 33.
Clark scored 32.
Yet Indiana won.
The more informative questions are:
- Which team shot more efficiently?
- Which team converted its three-point opportunities?
- Which team maximized free throws?
- Which team established an early advantage?
- Which supporting players contributed?
- Which team responded better during the decisive fourth quarter?
The answers overwhelmingly favor Indiana.
The Fever shot better from the field, shot better from three, made every free throw, produced a massive first quarter, and received strong contributions from multiple players.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who scored the most points in the Indiana Fever vs Seattle Storm game?
Natisha Hiedeman led all scorers with 33 points for Seattle. Caitlin Clark scored 32 points for Indiana.
What were Caitlin Clark’s stats against the Seattle Storm?
Caitlin Clark finished with 32 points, 4 rebounds, 7 assists, 4 turnovers, 1 steal, and 1 block. She shot 9-of-14 from the field, 4-of-7 from three-point range, and 10-of-10 from the free-throw line.
Who led the Fever in rebounds?
Monique Billings led Indiana with 11 rebounds. She also scored 14 points.
What was the final score between Indiana and Seattle?
Indiana defeated Seattle 105-95 on July 29, 2026, at Climate Pledge Arena.
How did Kelsey Mitchell perform?
Kelsey Mitchell scored 28 points in 35 minutes. She shot 9-of-18 from the field, 4-of-7 from three-point range, and 6-of-6 from the free-throw line.
Did Indiana sweep the season series against Seattle?
Yes. According to the provided game data, Indiana won all three meetings, defeating Seattle 89-78 on May 18, 110-107 on July 18, and 105-95 on July 29.
Conclusion
The seattle storm vs indiana fever match player stats reveal a game in which individual scoring talent was present on both sides, but overall offensive efficiency ultimately determined the outcome.
Natisha Hiedeman delivered Seattle’s highest-scoring performance with 33 points and shot an impressive 6-of-10 from three-point range. Caitlin Clark nearly matched her scoring output with 32 points while also producing seven assists. Kelsey Mitchell added 28 points, giving Indiana two major perimeter scorers who combined for 60 points.
Indiana’s team shooting was the decisive factor. The Fever shot approximately 51.6 percent from the field and 54.2 percent from three, while Seattle shot approximately 40.5 percent overall and 32.4 percent from three. Indiana also went a perfect 26-of-26 at the free-throw line.
Seattle did several things well. The Storm protected the basketball, committing only four turnovers, won the assist battle by one, and matched Indiana’s 36 rebounds. The team also outscored Indiana in both the second and third quarters.
But the 37-20 first quarter gave Indiana the foundation it needed. When Seattle’s comeback threatened to change the result, Indiana responded with 29 fourth-quarter points and closed out the 105-95 victory.
From an individual perspective, the game also demonstrates why a complete box-score analysis should look beyond points. Hiedeman’s 33-point performance, Clark’s scoring and playmaking, Billings’ 11 rebounds, Cunningham’s 3-of-4 three-point shooting, and the positive plus/minus contributions from several Indiana reserves all helped explain the final result.
Overall, the numbers point to a simple conclusion: Seattle produced enough offense to make the game competitive, but Indiana’s superior shooting efficiency and explosive opening quarter created a margin the Storm could not fully erase.
