Indiana Fever vs Connecticut Sun Match Player Stats

The indiana fever vs connecticut sun match player stats from the June 14, 2026 WNBA Commissioner’s Cup meeting tell a much clearer story than the 85-75 final score alone. Indiana Fever defeated the Connecticut Sun at Mohegan Sun Arena in Uncasville, Connecticut, using a balanced offensive attack, stronger rebounding, and a decisive second quarter to take control of the game.

Caitlin Clark led Indiana with 25 points, while Kelsey Mitchell added 19 and Aliyah Boston delivered an important all-around performance with 13 points, 11 rebounds, and 5 assists. Connecticut received 12 points from its leading scorer according to the supplied game data, while Leila Lacan stood out as the team’s primary facilitator with 7 assists and 4 steals.

The game was especially interesting because Connecticut actually shot better from the field in raw percentage terms, but Indiana created a much more efficient overall scoring profile through three-point shooting and free throws. The Fever also built a 21-point halftime lead after outscoring Connecticut 17-9 in the second quarter.

This breakdown examines the individual performances, team numbers, quarter-by-quarter progression, advanced statistical takeaways, and what the game reveals about both teams.

Table of Contents

Indiana Fever vs Connecticut Sun Match Player Stats: Game Overview

The matchup took place on June 14, 2026, as part of the WNBA Commissioner’s Cup schedule. Indiana entered the contest with an 8-5 overall record and a 3-3 mark on the road. Connecticut came in at 2-13 overall and 1-5 at home.

Indiana eventually won 85-75.

Here are the key game details:

Category	Indiana Fever	Connecticut Sun
Final Score	85	75
Field Goals	30-61	32-75
Three-Pointers	12-29	5-17
Free Throws	13-19	6-9
Rebounds	38	26
Assists	19	24
Turnovers	17	9
Steals	4	7
Blocks	5	4

Attendance at Mohegan Sun Arena was 8,910.

One of the most important statistical details is that Connecticut made two more field goals than Indiana, yet still lost by 10 points. That happened because Indiana converted 12 three-pointers compared with Connecticut’s five.

The Fever therefore gained a substantial advantage from long-range scoring.

How the Game Developed

The opening quarter was extremely competitive.

Indiana scored 30 points, while Connecticut produced 29. At that stage, neither team had created meaningful separation.

The second quarter changed the entire complexion of the game.

Indiana scored another 17 points, while Connecticut managed only 9. The Fever went into halftime with a 47-38 lead, giving them a nine-point advantage at the break.

Connecticut responded in the third quarter, scoring 22 points to Indiana’s 16. That reduced Indiana’s lead and gave the Sun some momentum.

However, Indiana finished the game strongly. The Fever scored 22 points in the fourth quarter while holding Connecticut to 15.

Quarter-by-Quarter Score

Quarter	Indiana	Connecticut
1st	30	29
2nd	17	9
3rd	16	22
4th	22	15
Final	85	75

The pattern shows that Indiana did not dominate every period. Instead, the Fever won the game by creating a major advantage in the second quarter and then responding effectively whenever Connecticut threatened to close the gap.

Caitlin Clark Leads Indiana With 25 Points

Caitlin Clark was Indiana’s leading scorer with 25 points.

Her offensive production was the biggest individual scoring contribution in the game and helped Indiana maintain pressure on Connecticut’s defense.

Clark also recorded:

3 rebounds
5 assists
6 turnovers
1 block
3 defensive rebounds
+15 plus/minus

The six turnovers are worth noting because they represent the main negative element in an otherwise productive offensive performance.

Clark’s five assists also show that her influence extended beyond scoring. Indiana did not rely exclusively on her to create points. She contributed directly as a scorer while also helping teammates generate opportunities.

The +15 plus/minus is another useful indicator. Indiana outscored Connecticut by 15 points during Clark’s time on the floor.

From a game-analysis perspective, this is important because raw scoring alone does not explain her full influence. Her combination of scoring, playmaking, and floor spacing helped shape Indiana’s offensive structure.

Kelsey Mitchell Provides 19 Points

Kelsey Mitchell finished with 19 points, making her Indiana’s second-highest scorer.

Her stat line included:

19 points
2 rebounds
5 assists
4 turnovers
1 steal
+11 plus/minus

Mitchell’s five assists were particularly significant because Indiana had three players with five assists in the game: Mitchell, Clark, and Aliyah Boston.

That distribution illustrates why Connecticut struggled to contain Indiana’s offense for long stretches. The Fever were able to generate playmaking from multiple positions rather than placing the entire creation burden on one player.

Mitchell’s 19 points also gave Indiana another reliable scoring option whenever Connecticut concentrated defensive attention on Clark.

Aliyah Boston Delivers a Complete Performance

Aliyah Boston may have produced Indiana’s most balanced statistical performance.

She recorded:

13 points, 11 rebounds, and 5 assists.

Her complete line also included:

2 turnovers
1 steal
2 offensive rebounds
9 defensive rebounds
+16 plus/minus

The 11 rebounds made Boston Indiana’s leading rebounder.

Her five assists were equally valuable because they matched Clark and Mitchell for the team lead.

Boston’s +16 plus/minus was also the highest among Indiana’s listed starters. That indicates that Indiana performed particularly well during her minutes on the floor.

Her offensive rebounding mattered because second-chance opportunities can change the rhythm of a game. Connecticut finished with only 26 total rebounds compared with Indiana’s 38, so Boston’s work on the glass was an important part of the Fever’s advantage.

Monique Billings Adds Energy on Both Ends

Monique Billings started for Indiana and produced:

10 points
8 rebounds
2 assists
1 steal
2 blocks
+18 plus/minus

Her +18 was the strongest plus/minus figure among Indiana’s listed players.

Billings did not lead Indiana in scoring, but her contribution was substantial because she affected several statistical categories.

Eight rebounds and two blocks gave Indiana additional interior production, while the steal added defensive pressure.

Her performance is a good example of why looking only at the scoring column can produce an incomplete assessment of a player’s value.

Lexie Hull’s Defensive and Rebounding Contribution

Lexie Hull finished with just 2 points, but her overall line was more useful than her scoring total suggests.

She recorded:

2 points
6 rebounds
2 assists
2 turnovers
3 offensive rebounds
3 defensive rebounds
+12 plus/minus

Hull’s three offensive rebounds were particularly notable.

Indiana’s overall rebounding advantage was 38-26, and contributions from players such as Hull helped create that difference.

Her +12 plus/minus also indicates that Indiana maintained a strong overall margin during her minutes despite her limited scoring.

Indiana Fever Bench Production

Indiana’s bench supplied several different types of contributions.

Sophie Cunningham

Cunningham scored 11 points and connected on 3 of 4 three-point attempts.

She also recorded:

2 rebounds
3 assists
1 turnover
-2 plus/minus

Her outside shooting was important because Indiana finished the game 12-for-29 from three-point range.

Cunningham’s 75 percent shooting from deep was one of the most efficient individual perimeter performances in the game.

Makayla Timpson

Timpson finished with:

2 points
5 rebounds
2 blocks
1 turnover
-5 plus/minus

Although she scored only twice, five rebounds and two blocks show a meaningful defensive and interior contribution.

Raven Johnson

Johnson recorded:

3 points
1 rebound
1 assist
1-for-1 shooting
1-for-1 from three-point range
-4 plus/minus

She was perfect from the field and from three-point range in her limited scoring contribution.

Myisha Hines-Allen

Hines-Allen did not score and finished with:

0 points
0 rebounds
0 assists
1 turnover
3 personal fouls
-9 plus/minus

Tyasha Harris

Harris finished without a field goal in the supplied statistics but recorded:

0 points
1 steal
-2 plus/minus

Connecticut’s Leading Performers

The Connecticut Sun struggled to match Indiana’s scoring efficiency, but several players produced notable individual numbers.

According to the supplied team summary, Connecticut’s top scorer was Raegan Beers with 12 points.

The supplied player-level data also contains an internal inconsistency because the bench line for Beers lists 0 points. Because the team summary specifically identifies her as Connecticut’s leading scorer with 12 points, this article uses the 12-point figure when discussing the game’s leading scorers.

This distinction matters when presenting statistics accurately. A responsible game analysis should identify conflicting source figures rather than silently combine incompatible numbers.

Leila Lacan Leads Connecticut in Assists

Leila Lacan was one of Connecticut’s most influential players from a playmaking perspective.

She finished with:

11 points
1 rebound
7 assists
1 turnover
4 steals
-6 plus/minus

Her seven assists were the most by any Connecticut player.

The four steals were also a team-high.

Lacan therefore contributed directly to Connecticut’s defensive pressure and offensive creation, even though the Sun were unable to turn those plays into enough points to win.

Her seven assists also help explain why Connecticut finished with 24 team assists, five more than Indiana.

Brittney Griner’s Two-Way Contribution

Brittney Griner recorded:

10 points
2 rebounds
4 assists
1 turnover
2 blocks
-9 plus/minus

The two blocks were tied to an important defensive contribution.

Her four assists also show that her offensive role was not limited to finishing possessions.

However, Connecticut needed more scoring efficiency overall. Griner’s 10 points were useful, but Indiana’s combination of Clark, Mitchell, Boston, Billings, and Cunningham created a broader scoring base.

Saniya Rivers Provides Defensive Activity

Saniya Rivers finished with:

9 points
3 rebounds
4 assists
2 steals
1 block
-5 plus/minus

Rivers contributed across several categories.

Her four assists helped Connecticut’s ball movement, while two steals and one block added defensive activity.

The challenge for Connecticut was converting that defensive activity into a sustained offensive advantage.

Aaliyah Edwards and Diamond Miller

Aaliyah Edwards recorded:

7 points
3 rebounds
1 assist
1 turnover
1 offensive rebound
2 defensive rebounds
-11 plus/minus

Diamond Miller finished with:

4 points
1 rebound
1 assist
1 turnover
-17 plus/minus

Miller’s -17 was the lowest plus/minus among Connecticut’s listed starters.

That number does not by itself prove that one player caused a team problem, but it does show that Connecticut was outscored significantly during her minutes.

Connecticut Bench Contributions

The Sun received useful production from several reserves.

Olivia Nelson-Ododa

Nelson-Ododa recorded:

12 points
7 rebounds
1 assist
1 turnover
3 offensive rebounds
4 defensive rebounds
-7 plus/minus

Her 12 points and seven rebounds made her one of Connecticut’s strongest statistical contributors.

The seven rebounds were especially important for a team that finished with only 26 total rebounds.

Aneesah Morrow

Morrow posted:

8 points
5 rebounds
2 assists
+7 plus/minus

Her +7 was one of the best plus/minus figures for Connecticut.

That makes her performance interesting even though her eight points were not enough to overcome Indiana’s overall offensive efficiency.

Kennedy Burke

Burke contributed:

10 points
4 rebounds
1 turnover
+7 plus/minus

Her 10 points provided valuable scoring from the bench.

Together, Burke, Morrow, and Nelson-Ododa gave Connecticut useful reserve production, but Indiana’s perimeter shooting created a larger scoring advantage.

Charlisse Leger-Walker

Leger-Walker recorded:

3 points
4 assists
1 steal
-4 plus/minus

Her four assists were another reason Connecticut finished the game with 24 assists.

Nell Angloma

Angloma finished with:

1 point
1 block
1 turnover
-5 plus/minus

Indiana’s Three-Point Advantage Was the Difference

One of the clearest lessons from the indiana fever vs connecticut sun match player stats is the importance of three-point efficiency.

Indiana made:

12 of 29 three-point attempts

Connecticut made:

5 of 17

That means Indiana made seven more three-pointers.

Those seven additional made threes represented 21 extra points from long range before considering any other scoring differences.

Indiana’s three-point percentage was approximately 41.4 percent.

Connecticut shot approximately 29.4 percent from three.

That is a significant gap.

Even though Connecticut made more total field goals, the value of Indiana’s three-point makes allowed the Fever to generate more points from fewer overall attempts.

Connecticut Shot Better From the Field, But Still Lost

At first glance, Connecticut’s 32-for-75 shooting appears worse than Indiana’s 30-for-61.

But the percentages tell a different story.

Indiana shot approximately 49.2 percent from the field.

Connecticut shot approximately 42.7 percent.

So Indiana actually had the better overall field-goal percentage while Connecticut simply attempted more shots.

The Fever also benefited from superior three-point shooting.

This is why looking at field goals made without considering attempts and shot value can lead to an incomplete conclusion.

Rebounding Created Another Indiana Advantage

Indiana collected 38 rebounds compared with Connecticut’s 26.

That is a 12-rebound advantage.

Aliyah Boston led the Fever with 11 rebounds, while Monique Billings added eight and Lexie Hull six.

The Sun had seven rebounds from Olivia Nelson-Ododa and seven from the leading scorer identified in the supplied team summary, while Aneesah Morrow added five.

Indiana’s 38 rebounds were particularly important because they helped compensate for the Fever’s higher turnover count.

Connecticut Won the Assist Battle

This is one area where Connecticut clearly had the statistical advantage.

The Sun recorded:

24 assists

Indiana recorded:

19 assists

Leila Lacan led Connecticut with seven assists.

Indiana had three players with five assists each: Clark, Boston, and Mitchell.

That difference shows two different offensive approaches.

Connecticut generated more total assisted baskets, while Indiana produced more scoring efficiency from its perimeter attack.

Turnovers Were a Major Concern for Indiana

Indiana committed 17 turnovers, compared with only nine for Connecticut.

That eight-turnover difference is significant.

Clark accounted for six of Indiana’s turnovers, while Mitchell had four.

From a purely statistical perspective, Connecticut did a better job protecting the basketball.

Yet the Sun could not turn that advantage into enough scoring.

This is a useful lesson when interpreting the game. Winning the turnover battle is valuable, but it does not guarantee victory when another team has a major shooting and rebounding advantage.

Free Throws Also Favored Indiana

Indiana went:

13-for-19 at the free-throw line

Connecticut went:

6-for-9

Indiana therefore made seven more free throws.

The Fever’s free-throw percentage was approximately 68.4 percent.

Connecticut shot 66.7 percent.

The percentage difference was small, but Indiana’s greater number of attempts resulted in seven additional made free throws.

Combined with the three-point advantage, those extra points helped create the final 10-point margin.

What the Plus/Minus Numbers Reveal

Plus/minus should never be treated as a complete measure of individual performance, but it can help provide context.

For Indiana, the strongest listed plus/minus figures were:

Player	Plus/Minus
Monique Billings	+18
Aliyah Boston	+16
Caitlin Clark	+15
Lexie Hull	+12
Kelsey Mitchell	+11

This is a notable pattern.

Indiana’s strongest plus/minus performances were spread across several starters rather than belonging exclusively to its leading scorer.

That supports the broader conclusion that Indiana’s victory was a team performance.

For Connecticut, the best listed plus/minus numbers belonged to:

Player	Plus/Minus
Aneesah Morrow	+7
Kennedy Burke	+7
Saniya Rivers	-5
Charlisse Leger-Walker	-4

The contrast shows how difficult the game was for Connecticut’s starting group.

Why Indiana Won the Second Quarter

The second quarter was arguably the decisive stretch.

Indiana scored 17 points.

Connecticut scored only 9.

A nine-point quarter advantage may appear modest, but it came immediately after Indiana had already led 30-29 following the opening period.

That allowed the Fever to enter halftime with a nine-point lead.

Connecticut responded by winning the third quarter 22-16, but Indiana’s fourth-quarter 22-15 advantage prevented the Sun from completing the comeback.

The game therefore followed a classic pattern:

Competitive opening period
Indiana creates separation
Connecticut responds after halftime
Indiana closes effectively

Season Series: Indiana Swept Connecticut

The June 14 game was the first of three meetings listed in the supplied season-series data.

Indiana won all three.

Game 1

Indiana Fever 85, Connecticut Sun 75

June 14, 2026

Game 2

Indiana Fever 123, Connecticut Sun 88

July 23, 2026

Game 3

Indiana Fever 111, Connecticut Sun 91

August 29, 2026

Indiana therefore finished the listed season series with a 3-0 record against Connecticut.

The progression is particularly striking.

Indiana won the first meeting by 10 points, then won the next two by 35 and 20 points respectively.

That indicates that the matchup became increasingly favorable for Indiana as the season series progressed.

Comparing the Three Matchups

The season-series results provide useful context for the June game.

Game	Winner	Score	Margin
June 14	Indiana	85-75	+10
July 23	Indiana	123-88	+35
August 29	Indiana	111-91	+20

Across the three listed games, Indiana outscored Connecticut by a combined 65 points.

That averages out to a margin of approximately 21.7 points per game.

The June 14 contest was therefore the closest meeting in the series.

It also serves as a useful baseline for understanding how the matchup developed.

What These Player Stats Tell Us About Indiana

The statistical profile points toward several strengths.

1. Multiple scoring options

Indiana did not need one player to score 40 points.

Clark had 25.

Mitchell had 19.

Boston had 13.

Cunningham had 11.

Billings had 10.

That gave Indiana five players in double figures.

2. Strong rebounding

Boston’s 11 rebounds were the headline, but Billings and Hull also contributed heavily.

Indiana finished with a 12-rebound advantage.

3. Strong perimeter shooting

Twelve made three-pointers were the biggest numerical advantage.

4. Playmaking from several players

Clark, Mitchell, and Boston each had five assists.

That is a particularly balanced distribution.

5. Some ball-security issues

The 17 turnovers remain the biggest statistical weakness.

If Connecticut had combined its nine-turnover performance with more efficient shooting, the game could have been much closer.

What These Player Stats Tell Us About Connecticut

Connecticut’s numbers reveal both strengths and weaknesses.

Strength: Ball movement

The Sun recorded 24 assists.

That was five more than Indiana.

Strength: Defensive activity

Connecticut recorded seven steals.

Leila Lacan led the way with four.

Strength: Bench contributions

Nelson-Ododa, Burke, and Morrow all provided useful production.

Weakness: Three-point shooting

Five made threes were not enough against Indiana’s 12.

Weakness: Rebounding

The 26-38 rebounding deficit gave Indiana too many opportunities to control possessions.

Weakness: Overall scoring efficiency

Connecticut attempted 75 field goals but scored only 75 total points.

That is a clear indication that shot volume did not translate into enough efficient offense.

The Most Important Individual Matchup

One of the most interesting individual comparisons is between Indiana’s primary perimeter creators and Connecticut’s defensive pressure.

Clark finished with 25 points and five assists, but also six turnovers.

Lacan produced 11 points, seven assists, and four steals.

The two players affected the game differently.

Clark had the larger scoring impact.

Lacan had the stronger assist and steals totals.

The overall outcome favored Clark’s scoring efficiency because Indiana’s supporting cast converted enough opportunities to offset the turnovers.

A Better Way to Read WNBA Player Stats

A single box-score category rarely explains why a WNBA game was won.

For this matchup, the most useful approach is to combine:

Scoring
Shooting percentage
Three-point production
Free throws
Rebounding
Assists
Turnovers
Steals
Blocks
Plus/minus

For example, Connecticut had fewer turnovers and more assists.

If those were the only numbers considered, the Sun might appear to have had an offensive advantage.

But Indiana had:

Better overall field-goal percentage
More three-pointers
More free throws made
More rebounds
Five players in double figures

That broader statistical picture explains the 85-75 result much better.

Historical and Official Context

For readers who want to verify league-level information, the official WNBA website is the most appropriate authoritative source for league schedules, standings, teams, and competition information.

For this specific analysis, the player statistics and game details above are based on the supplied game data. Where the supplied figures contain an apparent contradiction, such as the Raegan Beers scoring entry, that discrepancy has been explicitly identified rather than presented as an unquestioned fact.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who was the top scorer in Indiana Fever vs Connecticut Sun on June 14, 2026?

Caitlin Clark was Indiana’s leading scorer with 25 points. The supplied Connecticut team summary lists Raegan Beers as the Sun’s leading scorer with 12 points.

What was the final score between Indiana Fever and Connecticut Sun?

Indiana Fever defeated Connecticut Sun 85-75 on June 14, 2026, at Mohegan Sun Arena.

How many points did Caitlin Clark score?

Caitlin Clark scored 25 points. She also recorded 5 assists and 3 rebounds, although she committed 6 turnovers.

Who led Indiana in rebounds?

Aliyah Boston led Indiana with 11 rebounds. She also recorded 13 points and 5 assists.

Who led Connecticut in assists?

Leila Lacan led Connecticut with 7 assists. She also recorded 11 points and 4 steals.

How did Indiana win despite Connecticut having more assists?

Indiana made 12 three-pointers compared with Connecticut’s five and held a 38-26 rebounding advantage. Those strengths outweighed Connecticut’s advantage in assists and turnovers.

Conclusion

The indiana fever vs connecticut sun match player stats from June 14, 2026 show that Indiana’s 85-75 victory was built on several complementary strengths rather than one individual performance.

Caitlin Clark’s 25 points led the Fever, while Kelsey Mitchell added 19 and Aliyah Boston delivered 13 points, 11 rebounds, and 5 assists. Monique Billings contributed 10 points and eight rebounds, while Sophie Cunningham added 11 points with three made three-pointers.

Connecticut had its own productive performers. Leila Lacan recorded 11 points, seven assists, and four steals, Brittney Griner contributed 10 points and four assists, and several reserves added useful scoring and rebounding.

The decisive statistical differences were Indiana’s 12 made three-pointers, 38 rebounds, and 13 made free throws. Connecticut’s advantages in assists and turnovers were not enough to overcome those areas.

The second quarter ultimately became the turning point. After a one-point Indiana lead through the opening period, the Fever created separation by winning the second 17-9. Connecticut fought back in the third, but Indiana closed the game with a 22-15 fourth quarter.

The June meeting was also the first of three listed matchups between the teams in 2026, with Indiana eventually completing a 3-0 sweep of the season series.