indiana fever vs seattle storm match player stats
The indiana fever vs seattle storm match player stats from July 18, 2026, tell the story of one of the most explosive games of the WNBA season. Indiana Fever defeated the Seattle Storm 110-107 at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis, with Caitlin Clark producing a remarkable 45-point, 10-assist performance. Kelsey Mitchell added 30 points, while Seattle received 28 points from Dominique Malonga. The three-point shooting, free-throw accuracy, turnover battle, and contrasting scoring patterns all played major roles in deciding a game that remained competitive deep into the fourth quarter.
The final score alone does not explain why Indiana won.
Seattle actually shot the ball better from the field, converting 43 of 76 attempts for 57 percent. The Storm also collected nine more rebounds and recorded six more assists. Yet Indiana controlled several areas that mattered enormously in a three-point game.
The Fever shot 90 percent from the free-throw line, made 10 of 23 three-point attempts, forced 17 Seattle turnovers, and finished with 12 steals. Those extra possessions and efficient trips to the line helped offset Seattle’s superior field-goal percentage.
For fans studying the box score, this game provides a useful example of why player statistics should never be viewed in isolation. Points tell you who scored. Assists tell you who created opportunities. Shooting percentages show efficiency. But the combination of these numbers reveals how the game actually developed.
indiana fever vs seattle storm match player stats
The headline performance belonged to Caitlin Clark.
Clark finished with 45 points on 11-of-18 shooting from the field, including 6-of-10 from three-point range. She also converted 17 of 19 free throws and added 10 assists. Her complete statistical line included two rebounds, four turnovers, four steals, and two blocks.
That is an unusually broad contribution.
Clark was not simply a high-volume scorer. She was also the primary creator, an active defender, and a major reason Indiana was able to generate efficient scoring opportunities throughout the contest.
Kelsey Mitchell provided another major scoring punch with 30 points. Together, Clark and Mitchell accounted for 75 of Indiana’s 110 points. That means the pair produced more than two-thirds of the Fever’s total scoring.
Seattle’s leading scorer was Dominique Malonga, who finished with 28 points. Her scoring helped the Storm stay within striking distance despite Indiana’s enormous first-quarter advantage.
The team statistics add another layer to the story:
| Statistic | Seattle Storm | Indiana Fever |
| Final Score | 107 | 110 |
| Field Goals | 43-76 | 36-72 |
| Field-Goal Percentage | 57% | 50% |
| Three-Pointers | 8-21 | 10-23 |
| Three-Point Percentage | 38% | 43% |
| Free Throws | 13-18 | 28-31 |
| Free-Throw Percentage | 72% | 90% |
| Rebounds | 35 | 26 |
| Assists | 27 | 21 |
| Turnovers | 17 | 12 |
| Steals | 8 | 12 |
| Blocks | 3 | 3 |
The most important lesson is that Seattle’s better shooting percentage did not translate into a win.
Caitlin Clark’s 45-point performance
Caitlin Clark’s statistical output was the defining individual story.
Her 45 points came from three different scoring channels: field goals, three-pointers, and free throws. She made 11 of 18 field-goal attempts, including six three-pointers, and went 17 of 19 at the line.
The free-throw numbers are especially important.
Clark attempted 19 free throws, nearly matching her total field-goal attempts. She converted 17 of those opportunities, producing 17 points without needing another field-goal attempt.
That efficiency helped Indiana overcome Seattle’s 57 percent shooting.
Clark’s 10 assists also meant her influence extended well beyond her own scoring total. A player scoring 45 points can dominate a game through individual offense, but adding 10 assists creates another layer of offensive impact because those passes directly generate scoring opportunities for teammates.
Her four steals and two blocks also stand out.
It would be easy to focus exclusively on the 45 points, but Clark’s defensive numbers show that she was involved on both ends of the floor. Four steals were particularly valuable against a Seattle team that ultimately committed 17 turnovers.
There was one notable limitation in the line: two rebounds. Clark’s influence on the game therefore came primarily through scoring, playmaking, perimeter shooting, and defensive activity rather than rebounding.
Her four turnovers are also worth acknowledging. Ten assists and four turnovers still represent a substantial playmaking contribution, particularly considering how heavily Indiana relied on her offensive creation.
Clark’s shooting efficiency
Clark’s 11-of-18 field-goal performance translates to approximately 61.1 percent shooting from the field.
Her three-point shooting was even more efficient by percentage. She converted 6 of 10 attempts, or 60 percent.
At the free-throw line, she made 17 of 19 attempts, approximately 89.5 percent.
Those three numbers explain why the 45-point total was not simply the result of taking an enormous number of shots.
Clark was highly efficient while carrying a huge offensive responsibility.
Kelsey Mitchell’s 30 points mattered just as much
The second major piece of Indiana’s scoring attack was Kelsey Mitchell.
Mitchell finished with 30 points, giving Indiana two players who reached the 30-point mark in the same game.
That is a major reason the Fever were able to survive Seattle’s offensive efficiency.
When one player scores 45 points, opponents can attempt to limit that player by sending additional defensive attention. Having another elite scoring option makes that strategy much harder to execute.
Mitchell’s 30 points meant Seattle could not afford to treat Clark as the only major offensive threat.
The combined scoring of Clark and Mitchell is one of the clearest statistical explanations for Indiana’s 110-point total.
Clark scored 45.
Mitchell scored 30.
Together, they accounted for 75 points.
Indiana therefore received an enormous percentage of its offense from its two leading scorers. That concentration can sometimes create a vulnerability if both players have inefficient nights, but on July 18, both delivered.
Dominique Malonga leads Seattle’s scoring
Dominique Malonga led Seattle with 28 points.
Her scoring output was important because Seattle needed consistent offense after falling behind early.
The Storm scored only 26 points in the first quarter while Indiana exploded for 37. That created an 11-point deficit after one period.
Seattle responded strongly in the second and third quarters.
The Storm scored 30 points in the second quarter and 32 in the third, demonstrating how quickly the game changed after Indiana’s fast start.
Malonga’s 28-point performance was therefore part of a larger Seattle comeback effort. The Storm were not simply trading baskets from the opening tip. They had to recover from an early deficit and generate enough offense to make the final period meaningful.
They succeeded in making the game competitive.
They just could not complete the comeback.
The first quarter shaped the entire game
The quarter-by-quarter scoring is one of the most revealing pieces of the box score.
| Quarter | Seattle Storm | Indiana Fever |
| 1st | 26 | 37 |
| 2nd | 30 | 22 |
| 3rd | 32 | 23 |
| 4th | 19 | 28 |
| Total | 107 | 110 |
Indiana’s 37-point opening quarter immediately changed the shape of the contest.
An 11-point advantage may not sound decisive in a game that eventually reaches 217 combined points, but it forced Seattle to spend the next three quarters chasing.
The Storm responded impressively.
Seattle outscored Indiana 30-22 in the second quarter, cutting into the deficit. The third quarter was even stronger, with Seattle scoring 32 points while Indiana scored 23.
That means Seattle won both the second and third quarters by a combined 17 points.
After three quarters, however, the Storm had only turned Indiana’s 11-point lead into a much smaller margin because the Fever’s first-quarter advantage had been so significant.
The fourth quarter then reversed the momentum again.
Indiana scored 28 points compared with Seattle’s 19.
That fourth-quarter response was crucial. Seattle had generated enough offense over the middle portion of the game to put itself in position, but Indiana prevented the comeback from becoming a victory.
Why Seattle shot 57 percent and still lost
One of the most interesting statistical questions from this game is how a team can shoot 57 percent from the field and lose.
Normally, shooting 57 percent is an excellent foundation for a victory.
Seattle made 43 of 76 field-goal attempts. Indiana made 36 of 72.
That means Seattle made seven more field goals despite losing the game.
The answer lies in the areas outside ordinary field-goal percentage.
Indiana made 10 three-pointers compared with Seattle’s eight. That gave the Fever a six-point advantage in three-point makes and helped compensate for Seattle’s superior overall field-goal accuracy.
Then came the free throws.
Indiana attempted 31 free throws and made 28.
Seattle attempted only 18 and made 13.
Indiana therefore made 15 more free throws than Seattle.
That difference is enormous in a three-point game.
The Fever’s 90 percent free-throw shooting was also significantly better than Seattle’s 72 percent.
The game is a useful reminder that field-goal percentage does not measure every scoring opportunity. Three-point volume and free-throw production can substantially alter the final scoring equation.
The free-throw difference was decisive
Indiana’s 28-of-31 performance from the line deserves special attention.
The Fever scored 28 points from free throws.
Seattle scored 13.
That creates a 15-point advantage for Indiana at the free-throw line.
The final margin was only three points.
In other words, the difference in free-throw production was more than enough to explain the final margin.
This does not mean free throws were the only reason Indiana won. Basketball games are interconnected, and turnovers, shooting, defensive pressure, and shot selection influence one another.
But from a pure box-score perspective, this was one of the strongest advantages Indiana had.
The Fever also converted their opportunities at an exceptional rate.
A 90 percent team free-throw percentage is particularly valuable in a close game because missed free throws can erase the benefit of getting to the line.
Indiana avoided that problem.
Three-point shooting gave Indiana another advantage
Indiana attempted 23 three-pointers and made 10.
That is a 43 percent success rate.
Seattle attempted 21 and made eight, producing a 38 percent rate.
The difference was modest in percentage terms, but Indiana made two additional three-pointers.
Those six additional points mattered in a game decided by three points.
The broader point is that Indiana was more efficient from beyond the arc while also receiving a huge scoring contribution from Clark.
Clark alone made six three-pointers.
That means she accounted for six of Indiana’s 10 made three-pointers.
Her perimeter shooting therefore represented a major part of the Fever’s long-range offense.
Seattle dominated the rebounding battle
If Indiana controlled free throws and turnovers, Seattle controlled the glass.
The Storm collected 35 rebounds compared with Indiana’s 26.
That is a nine-rebound advantage.
Rebounding is often one of the first statistics analysts check after a close game because extra possessions can come from offensive rebounds, while defensive rebounds end an opponent’s possession.
Although the supplied team data does not break the 35 and 26 rebounds into offensive and defensive categories, the overall advantage clearly belonged to Seattle.
That makes Indiana’s victory more interesting.
The Fever did not need to dominate every traditional category.
Instead, they won despite losing the rebounding battle.
This is an important distinction for anyone trying to understand player statistics beyond basic scoring.
A team can lose rebounds and still win if it generates enough value through shooting efficiency, turnovers, free throws, or other possession-based advantages.
Seattle also had the assist advantage
Seattle recorded 27 assists.
Indiana recorded 21.
That is another category in which the Storm held a clear advantage.
The six-assist difference suggests Seattle generated a significant amount of its offense through team ball movement.
It also fits with the Storm’s 57 percent shooting performance.
When a team shoots at that level and records 27 assists, the offense is clearly producing a large number of successful scoring possessions.
Yet the Storm’s ball movement did not fully overcome their turnover problems.
Turnovers changed the possession battle
Seattle committed 17 turnovers.
Indiana committed 12.
That gave Indiana a five-turnover advantage.
Indiana also recorded 12 steals, compared with eight for Seattle.
Those numbers tell a consistent defensive story.
The Fever were more aggressive at creating turnovers and were able to convert defensive pressure into additional possessions.
Five fewer turnovers may not sound overwhelming, but in a three-point game every possession matters.
This is especially true when the opponent is shooting 57 percent.
If Seattle had maintained the same shooting efficiency while cutting its turnovers, the game could have looked very different.
Indiana’s defensive pressure therefore mattered even though Seattle was highly efficient when it actually got shots off.
Indiana’s defense created pressure without dominating blocks
Both teams recorded three blocks.
That means blocks were not a distinguishing factor.
The more meaningful defensive difference came from steals.
Indiana had 12 steals to Seattle’s eight.
That four-steal advantage fits with the five-turnover difference between the teams.
This suggests Indiana’s defensive impact was more about disrupting ball handlers and passing lanes than protecting the rim.
For fans evaluating defensive performances, that is an important distinction.
A team does not need a large block total to play disruptive defense.
Steals, forced turnovers, and possession pressure can have an equally important effect on a close game.
How the 110-107 score reflects two different offensive styles
The final score indicates that both teams were capable of producing points at a very high level.
Indiana reached 110 despite shooting only 50 percent overall.
Seattle scored 107 while shooting 57 percent.
That contrast is revealing.
Seattle was more efficient on its conventional field-goal attempts.
Indiana was more productive in several high-value areas, especially three-point shooting and free throws.
The result was a game in which the Storm could point to superior overall shooting while the Fever could point to superior scoring efficiency in critical situations.
This is exactly why box-score analysis needs context.
A single percentage can suggest one team played better offensively, while the complete scoring profile tells a different story.
A closer look at Indiana’s 110 points
Indiana scored 110 points through a combination of elite individual scoring and efficient opportunities.
Clark’s 45 points represented approximately 40.9 percent of Indiana’s total.
Mitchell’s 30 represented approximately 27.3 percent.
Together, they produced approximately 68.2 percent of Indiana’s points.
That is extraordinary scoring concentration.
At the same time, Indiana made 10 three-pointers and 28 free throws.
Those two categories accounted for 58 points.
That means more than half of Indiana’s points came directly from three-point makes and free throws.
The Fever’s offense therefore combined high-end individual scoring with high-value scoring opportunities.
A closer look at Seattle’s 107 points
Seattle’s 107 points came from an offense that was highly efficient from the field.
The Storm made 43 of 76 field-goal attempts.
That is seven more made field goals than Indiana.
They also made eight three-pointers.
Their 27 assists show that the offense was not dependent solely on one player creating everything individually.
Dominique Malonga’s 28 points led the team, but Seattle’s overall numbers point toward a broader offensive contribution.
The problem was not simply that Seattle could not score.
The Storm scored 107 points.
The issue was that Indiana found enough ways to score 110 while also forcing more turnovers.
The importance of the five-turnover difference
A five-turnover advantage can become particularly valuable when a game is decided by three points.
Indiana had 12 turnovers.
Seattle had 17.
If those numbers were reversed, the possession equation would have shifted substantially.
Turnovers matter for two reasons.
First, they remove a team’s opportunity to take a shot.
Second, they can create transition opportunities for the opponent.
Indiana’s 12 steals also indicate that some of Seattle’s lost possessions came under direct defensive pressure.
The Fever did not simply benefit from Seattle making harmless mistakes. Their defense actively created disruption.
That is one of the strongest arguments for looking beyond shooting percentage when evaluating this game.
Season-series dominance: Indiana won 3-0
The July 18 result also completed a season-series sweep.
Indiana won the season series 3-0 against Seattle.
That gives the game significance beyond the individual box score.
Across the season series, Indiana repeatedly found ways to defeat the Storm.
The July 18 contest was especially revealing because Seattle produced excellent shooting numbers and still could not get the win.
A three-game sweep does not necessarily mean every game followed the same script, but it establishes a clear result: Indiana won every meeting between the teams during the season.
For fans analyzing team matchups, that makes the season series more useful than any single performance.
It shows that Indiana’s success against Seattle was not limited to one isolated night.
Team records entering the result
The supplied data lists Seattle at 6-21, including a 2-13 away record, while Indiana stood at 15-10 with a 9-5 home record.
Those records provide important context.
Indiana had been substantially stronger overall and particularly effective at home.
The 9-5 home record helps explain why playing at Gainbridge Fieldhouse mattered.
Seattle’s 2-13 away record, meanwhile, highlights one of the Storm’s major difficulties during the season.
However, records should not be used as a substitute for game analysis.
Seattle’s 107 points and 57 percent shooting show that the Storm were capable of producing a high-level offensive performance even in a difficult road matchup.
The final three-point margin demonstrates that the records did not make this game predictable from start to finish.
Gainbridge Fieldhouse provided the setting for a major crowd
The game was played at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis, with an announced attendance of 17,274.
That is a substantial crowd and adds context to the atmosphere surrounding the matchup.
Home-court advantage is difficult to reduce to a single statistic, but Indiana’s 9-5 home record and the 17,274 attendance provide useful context when considering the environment.
The Fever also started the game extremely well, scoring 37 points in the opening quarter.
Whether that early offensive burst was influenced by the home environment cannot be proven from the box score alone, but the combination of a large home crowd and a fast start made the setting relevant to the game’s story.
What the player statistics reveal that the final score does not
The final score tells us Indiana won.
The player and team statistics tell us why.
The most important observations are:
- Caitlin Clark produced 45 points and 10 assists.
- Kelsey Mitchell added 30 points.
- Dominique Malonga led Seattle with 28 points.
- Seattle shot 57 percent from the field.
- Indiana shot 43 percent from three-point range.
- Indiana made 28 of 31 free throws.
- Seattle committed 17 turnovers.
- Indiana committed 12 turnovers.
- Seattle won the rebounding battle 35-26.
- Indiana won the season series 3-0.
Taken together, these numbers describe a game in which Seattle was exceptionally efficient with its field-goal attempts, while Indiana was better at converting high-value opportunities and protecting possessions.
What fans should watch when evaluating similar WNBA games
The July 18 matchup offers a useful framework for analyzing future games.
Instead of looking only at points, examine these categories together:
1. Scoring volume
Who scored the most?
This remains important, particularly when a player produces an unusually large total such as Clark’s 45 points.
2. Shooting efficiency
How many attempts did the player need?
Forty points on 30 shots is a different performance from 40 points on 18 shots.
Clark’s 45 points on 18 field-goal attempts is therefore especially notable.
3. Three-point production
How many threes were made, and at what percentage?
Indiana made 10 threes at 43 percent, while Seattle made eight at 38 percent.
4. Free throws
How often did a team reach the line, and did it convert those opportunities?
Indiana’s 28-of-31 performance was one of the defining statistical advantages.
5. Turnovers
A team can shoot extremely well and still lose if it gives away too many possessions.
Seattle’s 17 turnovers were costly.
6. Rebounding
Seattle’s nine-rebound advantage shows why this category remains important even in a game the team ultimately lost.
7. Playmaking
Assists help show how much offense is being generated through team creation.
Seattle had 27 assists, while Indiana had 21.
Clark’s 10 assists were especially important within Indiana’s lower team assist total.
Why the game is a useful case study in modern basketball analysis
This matchup demonstrates why advanced basketball analysis cannot rely on one statistic.
If someone looked only at field-goal percentage, Seattle would appear to have the obvious advantage.
If someone looked only at rebounds and assists, Seattle would again have the edge.
If someone looked only at points, Indiana would appear to have the advantage because Clark and Mitchell combined for 75 points.
If someone looked at free throws and turnovers, Indiana would have another clear advantage.
The complete picture emerges only when these statistics are considered together.
That is the real value of a detailed box-score analysis.
The goal is not to identify the team that won the most statistical categories.
The goal is to identify which categories had the greatest influence on the final result.
In this game, Indiana’s free-throw advantage, three-point efficiency, turnover advantage, and explosive scoring from Clark and Mitchell were more important than Seattle’s advantages in field-goal percentage, rebounds, and assists.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who scored the most points in the Indiana Fever vs Seattle Storm game?
Caitlin Clark led all scorers with 45 points for Indiana. She also recorded 10 assists, four steals, and two blocks.
What was Caitlin Clark’s stat line against Seattle?
Caitlin Clark finished with 45 points, 11-of-18 field-goal shooting, 6-of-10 three-point shooting, 17-of-19 free-throw shooting, two rebounds, 10 assists, four turnovers, four steals, and two blocks.
Who was Seattle’s leading scorer?
Dominique Malonga led the Seattle Storm with 28 points.
What was the final score?
The Indiana Fever defeated the Seattle Storm 110-107 at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis on July 18, 2026.
Which team shot better from the field?
Seattle shot better overall, making 43 of 76 field-goal attempts for 57 percent. Indiana made 36 of 72 for 50 percent.
How did Indiana win despite shooting worse overall?
Indiana compensated with stronger three-point shooting, outstanding free-throw accuracy, fewer turnovers, and major scoring performances from Caitlin Clark and Kelsey Mitchell. Indiana made 28 of 31 free throws compared with Seattle’s 13 of 18.
Conclusion
The indiana fever vs seattle storm match player stats from July 18, 2026, show a game that was much closer and more statistically interesting than the final three-point margin might suggest.
Seattle shot 57 percent from the field, grabbed 35 rebounds, and recorded 27 assists. Those are strong team numbers and explain why the Storm were able to score 107 points.
Indiana, however, produced the more decisive combination of factors.
Caitlin Clark delivered 45 points and 10 assists while shooting 60 percent from three-point range. Kelsey Mitchell added 30 points. Indiana made 10 three-pointers, converted 28 of 31 free throws, forced 17 Seattle turnovers, and recorded 12 steals.
The first quarter also proved crucial. Indiana’s 37-point opening period created an advantage that Seattle spent most of the game trying to erase. The Storm responded with 30 points in the second and 32 in the third, but Indiana answered with 28 points in the fourth to secure the 110-107 victory.
Perhaps the clearest takeaway is that the game cannot be explained by shooting percentage alone. Seattle won the field-goal percentage battle and the rebounding and assist categories. Indiana won the areas that ultimately had greater impact on the scoreboard.
The result also completed Indiana’s 3-0 season-series sweep over Seattle.
For anyone studying WNBA box scores, this matchup is a strong example of why individual scoring, shooting efficiency, free throws, turnovers, playmaking, rebounding, and defensive disruption should be considered together. The numbers do more than record what happened. When interpreted in context, they explain how a team can lose while shooting 57 percent and how another team can win despite shooting 50 percent overall.
