Golden State Valkyries vs Indiana Fever Match Player Stats

The golden state valkyries vs indiana fever match player stats from the July 15, 2026 meeting provide a clear picture of how Golden State turned strong shooting, bench production, and late-game execution into an 88-75 victory at Gainbridge Fieldhouse. The official WNBA game record lists the contest as Wednesday, July 15, while its game information also shows Thursday, July 16 at 12:00 AM, reflecting the date and time presentation across listings.

Golden State finished 30-for-58 from the field, an excellent 51.7 percent, while Indiana shot 27-for-67, or 40.3 percent. The Valkyries also converted 20 of 23 free throws and received 43 points from their bench. Indiana’s bench produced 21 points. Those differences became especially important after the Fever briefly made the game competitive in the third quarter.

Gabby Williams led Golden State with 16 points, while Kelsey Mitchell paced Indiana with 20. Kayla Thornton added 11 points and eight rebounds for the Valkyries, and Caitlin Clark finished with 13 points, six assists, three rebounds, one steal, and one block.

Table of Contents

Golden State Valkyries vs Indiana Fever Match Player Stats: Game Overview

The final score was:
Golden State Valkyries 88, Indiana Fever 75
The game was played at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis in front of 17,014 fans. Golden State entered the contest at 17-7 and moved to 18-7 after the win, while Indiana fell to 14-10. The Valkyries also completed the regular-season series with a 2-1 advantage.

Score by Quarter

Quarter	Golden State	Indiana
1st	20	18
2nd	20	12
3rd	18	21
4th	30	24
Final	88	75

The most important stretch came in the second and fourth quarters.
Golden State built a 40-30 halftime lead after limiting Indiana to only 12 points in the second period. Indiana responded by winning the third quarter 21-18 and briefly moved in front during the period. However, Golden State answered with a decisive run and then produced 30 points in the final quarter.
lass=”yoast-text-mark” />>That sequence matters because the final score alone does not show how competitive the middle portion of the game became.

Team Shooting Comparison

Shooting efficiency was one of the clearest differences between the teams.

Category	Golden State	Indiana
Field Goals	30/58	27/67
FG Percentage	51.7%	40.3%
3-Pointers	8/24	9/25
3PT Percentage	33.3%	36.0%
Free Throws	20/23	12/16
FT Percentage	87.0%	75.0%
Rebounds	30	26
Assists	16	14
Turnovers	14	15
Steals	9	8
Blocks	4	2</td>

The interesting part is that Indiana actually made one more three-pointer than Golden State. The difference came from overall field-goal efficiency and free-throw shooting.
>Golden State made three more field goals despite attempting nine fewer shots. That is a significant efficiency gap. >The Valkyries also converted eight more free throws. Those points helped compensate for Indiana’s slight edge in three-point percentage.

Golden State Player Stats

Golden State had six players reach double figures, with three of those players coming from the bench. The official WNBA recap specifically highlighted the Valkyries’ 43-21 advantage in bench scoring.

Gabby Williams

Gabby Williams finished as Golden State’s leading scorer with:

16 points
3 rebounds
1 assist
3 steals
1 block
5 turnovers
50.0% field-goal shooting
40.0% three-point shooting
+9 plus/minus

Williams’ return was significant because she had missed the previous game with a back contusion. She immediately provided scoring and defensive activity.
Her three steals tied Veronica Burton for the team lead. Williams also made six of 12 field-goal attempts, giving Golden State an efficient scoring option across different areas of the floor.
>Her five turnovers are worth noting, but they need to be viewed alongside her offensive and defensive contribution rather than in isolation.

Kayla Thornton

Thornton delivered one of the most complete statistical performances for Golden State:

- 11 points
- 8 rebounds
- 1 assist
- 1 turnover
- +21
- 40.0% from three-point range

She played 31:02, the most minutes among Golden State players. Her eight rebounds were a team high.
>The +21 figure is particularly notable because it means Golden State was 21 points better on the scoreboard during her time on the floor.
The official Valkyries recap described Thornton as having the best on-off impact of the game. That provides useful context for readers who look beyond the traditional points column.

Tiffany Hayes

Hayes scored 13 points in just under 22 minutes.
Her shooting line was extremely efficient:

13 points
3-for-4 from the field
7-for-7 from the free-throw line
2 rebounds
2 assists
3 turnovers
+11

Her perfect free-throw performance became especially useful in the fourth quarter as Golden State maintained control.

Janelle Salaun

Salaun contributed 12 points, two rebounds, two assists, one steal, and a +4 rating.
She shot 4-for-7 from the field and 2-for-4 from three-point range.
>Her 12 points gave Golden State another reliable scoring option outside the starting group. This was part of the broader depth advantage that helped the Valkyries pull away late.

Kaitlyn Chen

Chen’s performance deserves special attention because she scored 14 points without missing a field-goal attempt.
Her line:

14 points
5-for-5 FG
4-for-5 FT
3 assists
1 steal</li>
1 turnover
+1

The official recap noted that all 14 of her points came in the second half, with 12 arriving in the third quarter. She scored three consecutive layups during a particularly productive sequence and finished with 14 points in only 9:38.
>That is one of the clearest examples of why a box score should be read alongside game flow.

Veronica Burton

Burton posted four points, five rebounds, four assists, three steals, and a +12 rating.
>Her four assists tied her for the Golden State team lead, while her three steals matched Williams for the team high.
>She did not score much, but her defensive activity and ball distribution added value in ways that do not appear fully in the scoring column.

Other Golden State Contributions

Cecilia Zandalasini added 10 points and two rebounds.
Kiah Stokes recorded four points, seven rebounds, one assist, and two blocks.
Laeticia Amihere scored two points and had one assist.
Kaila Charles added two points, one rebound, one assist, and one steal.
Monique Billings finished with four points, five rebounds, and two assists.
The depth of the scoring was one of the defining features of the matchup. Golden State did not rely on one scorer to carry the offense.

Indiana Fever Player Stats

Indiana’s individual production was led by Kelsey Mitchell, but the Fever had difficulty matching Golden State’s overall shooting efficiency and reserve scoring.

Kelsey Mitchell

Mitchell led all players with 20 points.
Her complete line included:

20 points
1 rebound
4 assists
2 turnovers
1 steal
43.8% FG
60.0% 3PT
100% FT
-5 plus/minus

She made seven of 16 shots and three of five attempts from beyond the arc.
Mitchell remained one of Indiana’s most productive offensive players throughout the game, and her late three-pointer briefly brought the Fever within seven points at 80-73. However, Indiana turned the ball over on the following possession, and Golden State converted two free throws.

Aliyah Boston

Boston recorded:

15 points
7 rebounds
1 assist
2 steals
3 turnovers
54.5% FG
66.7% 3PT
+1

She was one of Indiana’s most efficient scorers, making six of 11 field-goal attempts.
Her seven rebounds led the Fever.
>Boston’s production gave Indiana interior scoring and rebounding support, but the Fever did not receive enough complementary efficiency to overcome Golden State’s team-wide shooting advantage.

Caitlin Clark

Clark finished with:

13 points
3 rebounds
6 assists
4 turnovers
1 steal
1 block
28.6% FG
12.5% 3PT
80.0% FT
-8 plus/minus

Her six assists were a team high.
The biggest statistical challenge for Clark was shooting efficiency. She made four of 14 field-goal attempts and one of eight three-point attempts. The official game recap also highlighted her 13 points on 14 shots and her one-for-eight shooting from deep.
This does not mean Clark had no offensive influence. Six assists show that she continued to create opportunities for teammates. But Golden State’s defensive pressure made scoring efficiently difficult.

Sophie Cunningham

Cunningham supplied 10 points, two rebounds, four steals, and a -4 rating.
Her four steals were the most by any player in the game.
>She shot 3-for-7 from the field, including 2-for-4 from three-point range.
lass=”yoast-text-mark” />>Her defensive activity helped Indiana create extra possessions, but the Fever could not consistently convert those opportunities into enough offense.

Makayla Timpson

Timpson scored six points and grabbed five rebounds.
>She was particularly efficient from the field, shooting 3-for-4.
>However, her -14 plus/minus was the lowest among Indiana’s players who recorded meaningful minutes.
Again, plus/minus is a team-context statistic. It should not be interpreted as a standalone measure of an individual player’s quality.

Additional Indiana Contributions

Tyasha Harris scored five points with two rebounds and one assist.
Monique Billings posted four points, five rebounds, and two assists.
Lexie Hull finished with two points, one rebound, and one block.
>Raven Johnson and Grace VanSlooten both saw less than one minute and finished without a statistical contribution.
Damiris Dantas and Myisha Hines-Allen were listed as DNP, coach’s decision.

Golden State Valkyries vs Indiana Fever Match Player Stats: What the Numbers Reveal

The most useful way to interpret the golden state valkyries vs indiana f

ever match player stats is to move beyond the top scorer and examine the interaction between efficiency, depth, and game control.

1. Golden State won the efficiency battle

Golden State shot 51.7 percent from the field.
Indiana shot 40.3 percent.
That 11.4 percentage-point difference is substantial.
>The Valkyries also attempted nine fewer shots while making three more field goals. This means they were getting significantly more production from each possession that ended with a field-goal attempt.

2. Indiana had the better three-point percentage

This is an important detail that can be missed when looking only at the final score.
Indiana shot 36.0 percent from three.
Golden State shot 33.3 percent.
>Indiana also made nine threes compared with Golden State’s eight.
>So the Valkyries did not win because they dominated the perimeter shooting category.
>Their advantage came primarily from their overall field-goal percentage and free-throw efficiency.

3. Golden State’s bench changed the game

Bench scoring was one of the most decisive statistical differences.
Golden State reserves scored 43 points.
Indiana reserves scored 21.
>That is a 22-point advantage.
>Kaitlyn Chen alone produced 14 points, while Janelle Salaun scored 12 and Tiffany Hayes added 13.
>This meant Golden State could sustain offensive production when its starters were not carrying the entire scoring load. The official WNBA recap identified the 43-21 reserve scoring gap as a major feature of the game.

4. The fourth quarter belonged to Golden State

Golden State scored 30 points in the fourth quarter.
Indiana scored 24.
That six-point quarter advantage came after the Fever had won the third period.
>The sequence is important because Indiana had already demonstrated that it could disrupt Golden State’s rhythm after halftime.
>Instead of allowing that momentum to continue, the Valkyries responded with their highest-scoring quarter of the game.

5. Turnovers were close</h3>

Indiana committed 15 turnovers.
Golden State committed 1

4. >That one-turnover difference was not large enough by itself to explain a 13-point final margin. >However, individual turnovers mattered at key moments.
>Clark had four turnovers, while Williams also had five for Golden State. The important distinction is that Golden State’s offensive efficiency elsewhere helped offset Williams’ turnovers.

How the Game Changed After Halftime

Golden State controlled the opening half.
>The Valkyries scored 20 points in each of the first two quarters, while Indiana scored 18 and 12.
That gave Golden State a 40-30 halftime lead.
/>>Indiana then improved its offensive output in the third quarter.
/>>The Fever scored 21 points and eventually took their first lead of the game after Sophie Cunningham converted free throws.
>That was the moment when the game could have shifted significantly.
>Instead, Golden State responded with a 17-4 run.
That response is one of the most valuable pieces of context in the box score. A team can have better shooting percentages and still lose control when an opponent generates momentum. Golden State’s ability to answer Indiana’s third-quarter surge prevented the Fever from carrying that advantage into the final period.
>The Valkyries then started the fourth quarter with an 11-5 run and moved ahead 69-56 after Thornton hit a three-pointer.
Indiana continued to fight.
>Mitchell’s three-pointer cut the margin to 80-73, but the Fever immediately turned the ball over. Golden State then made two free throws and restored a nine-point cushion.
>The Valkyries ultimately closed the game without allowing another serious comeback.

Head-to-Head Series Context

The 2026 regular-season series ended with Golden State winning two games and Indiana winning one. The three results were:

Game	Result
May 23, 2026	Indiana 90, Golden State 82
May 29, 2026	Golden State 90, Indiana 88</td>
July 15, 2026	Golden State 88, Indiana 75

The first meeting went to Indiana by eight points.
Golden State responded with a two-point victory in the second matchup.
The third game produced the largest margin of the series, with Golden State winning by 13. The official Valkyries preview confirmed that the teams had split the first two meetings before the July matchup.
This progression provides useful context. The series was not defined by three identical games. Each matchup had a different scoring pattern and margin.

What the Plus/Minus Numbers Tell Us

Plus/minus measures the team’s point differential while a player is on the floor.
>It is useful, but it should not be treated as a complete evaluation of an individual performance.
Kayla Thornton finished at +21, the highest figure in the game.
Veronica Burton was +12.
Tiffany Hayes was +11.
Gabby Williams was +9.
>On Indiana’s side, Boston was +1, while several players posted negative figures.
The largest negative figure was Timpson at -14.
>These figures help identify which lineups controlled the scoreboard, but they do not isolate individual responsibility. A player shares the court with four teammates, and opposing lineups also change throughout a game.
>For that reason, plus/minus works best when combined with shooting, rebounds, assists, turnovers, and minutes.

Shooting Efficiency Deserves More Attention

A common mistake when reviewing basketball statistics is focusing only on total points.
Mitchell scored 20 points, making her the game’s leading scorer.
>But Golden State had five other players score at least 11 points.
That distribution mattered.
Golden State’s six double-digit scorers were:

Gabby Williams: 16
Kaitlyn Chen: 14
Tiffany Hayes: 13
Janelle Salaun: 12
Kayla Thornton: 11
Cecilia Zandalasini: 10

Indiana had four players reach double figures:

Kelsey Mitchell: 20
Aliyah Boston: 15
Caitlin Clark: 13
Sophie Cunningham: 10

The scoring distribution helps explain why Golden State’s offense remained productive even when individual players went through quieter stretches.

Rebounding and Interior Production

Golden State won the overall rebounding battle 30-26.
>The difference was not enormous, but it still favored the Valkyries.
Thornton led Golden State with eight rebounds.
Stokes had seven.
Burton and Billings each had five.
Indiana’s Boston led the Fever with seven rebounds.
>Timpson had five, while Billings also collected five.
>Golden State did not dominate the glass, but it prevented Indiana from gaining a major second-chance advantage.
>The WNBA game summary also shows Golden State with 34 points in the paint compared with Indiana’s 32.
>That is another example of a relatively small category difference becoming meaningful when combined with larger advantages elsewhere.

<h2>Free Throws Were a Quiet Advantage

Golden State made 20 of 23 free throws.
Indiana made 12 of 16.
That gave Golden State an eight-point advantage from the foul line. The Valkyries converted at 87.0 percent.
Indiana finished at 75.0 percent.
Hayes was perfect at 7-for-7, Thornton was 3-for-3, and Chen went 4-for-5.
Those individual performances contributed directly to Golden State’s ability to maintain its lead late.

Defensive Activity

Golden State recorded nine steals and four blocks. Indiana recorded eight steals and two blocks.
Williams and Burton each had three steals for the Valkyries.
Stokes led Golden State with two blocks.
>Cunningham recorded four steals for Indiana, while Boston added two.
Clark had one steal and one block.
>The defensive numbers show that Indiana was active defensively, particularly through Cunningham’s four steals. But Golden State’s ability to pair defensive activity with much stronger shooting efficiency proved important.

Why Caitlin Clark’s Six Assists Matter

Clark’s 13 points may attract the most attention because of her shooting percentages, but her six assists were an important part of Indiana’s offensive profile.
She finished with six assists against four turnovers.
>That means she created multiple scoring opportunities for teammates, even though her own shot was not falling efficiently.
This is why a full player-stat analysis should not reduce a guard’s performance to points and field-goal percentage.
/>>Clark also finished with three rebounds, one steal, and one block.
=”yoast-text-mark” />>Her overall statistical line shows an active all-around contribution, while the shooting numbers explain one of the main challenges Indiana faced offensively.

Why Kaitlyn Chen’s Performance Stands Out

Chen’s 14 points came on perfect 5-for-5 field-goal shooting.
More importantly, her scoring was concentrated in a critical part of the game.
>According to the official Valkyries recap, Chen scored all 14 of her points in the second half and produced 12 in the third quarter.
That timing matters.
>Indiana was attempting to erase Golden State’s halftime advantage, and Chen’s scoring helped the Valkyries respond during a period when the Fever had improved their offensive performance.
This is a good example of why raw totals should be combined with timing and game context.

A Practical Way to Read This Box Score

For readers who regularly search for player statistics, a useful process is:

Step 1: Check the final score

Start with the result and margin.
Golden State won 88-75.

Step 2: Check shooting efficiency

Golden State’s 51.7 percent field-goal shooting immediately stands out against Indiana’s 40.3 percent.

Step 3: Check scoring distribution

Six Valkyries scored in double figures.
>That indicates a balanced scoring night rather than a single-player performance.

Step 4: Check bench production

Golden State’s reserves scored 43 points.
That was a 22-point advantage.

Step 5: Check the game flow

Indiana won the third quarter, but Golden State responded with a strong fourth.

Step 6: Examine individual roles

Mitchell was Indiana’s leading scorer.
Clark led the Fever in assists.
Boston led Indiana in rebounds.
Williams led Golden State in points.
Thornton led the Valkyries in rebounds.
Burton led Golden State in assists.
>This approach gives a much more complete understanding than simply asking who scored the most.

Golden State Valkyries vs Indiana Fever Match Player Stats: Complete Player Table

Golden State

Player	PTS	REB	AST	STL	BLK	TO	+/-
Gabby Williams	16	3	1	3	1	5	+9
Kaitlyn Chen	14	0	3	1	0	1	+1
Tiffany Hayes	13	2	2	0	0	3	+11
Janelle Salaun	12	2	2	1	0	0	+4
Kayla Thornton	11	8	1	0	0	1	+21
Cecilia Zandalasini	10	2	0	0	1	0	+2
Kiah Stokes	4	7	1	0	2	0	+4
Veronica Burton	4	5	4	3	0	3	+12
Monique Billings	4	5	2	0	0	0	-11
Laeticia Amihere	2	0	1	0	0	1	-3
Kaila Charles	2	1	1	1	0	0	+4

Indiana

<td>2<td>0001-14

Player	PTS	REB</th>	AST	STL	BLK	TO	+/-
Kelsey Mitchell	20	1	4	1	0	2	-5
Aliyah Boston	15	7	1	2	0	3	+1
Caitlin Clark</td>	13	3	6	1	1	4	-8
Sophie Cunningham	10	0	4	0	2	-4
Makayla Timpson	6	5
Tyasha Harris	5	2	1	0	0	2	-11
Monique Billings	4	5	2	0	0	0	-11
Lexie Hull	2	1	0	0	1	1	-9
Grace VanSlooten	0	0	0	0	0	0	-2
Raven Johnson	0	0	0	0	0	0	-2

The official WNBA box score is the appropriate reference for the complete shooting, minutes, rebounding, assist, steal, block, turnover, foul, scoring, and plus/minus data.

Important Statistical Takeaways

Several numbers deserve to stay together when analyzing this matchup.
Golden State’s 51.7 percent shooting was the foundation of its offense.
Indiana’s 40.3 percent shooting limited its ability to capitalize on its own three-point efficiency.
Golden State’s 43 bench points created a major scoring advantage.
Indiana’s 21 bench points left more responsibility on its starters.
>Golden State’s 20-for-23 free-throw shooting added eight more points than Indiana generated at the line.
Kayla Thornton’s eight rebounds and +21 represented an important two-way contribution.
>Gabby Williams’ 16 points led Golden State in scoring during her return to the lineup.
Kelsey Mitchell’s 20 points led all scorers.
Caitlin Clark’s six assists led Indiana.
Aliyah Boston’s seven rebounds led the Fever.
These numbers explain the game without relying on a single statistic.

What This Game Says About the Two Teams

The matchup illustrated two different paths to offensive production.
Indiana received significant contributions from its three All-Star starters. Mitchell led the team with 20 points, Boston added 15, and Clark contributed 13 points and six assists.
Golden State’s production was more distributed. >Williams led the team with 16, but five additional Valkyries reached double figures.
That distribution reduced the pressure on any one player to maintain the offense throughout all four quarters.
>The Valkyries also demonstrated the ability to recover after Indiana’s third-quarter surge.
The official game recap described Golden State’s 17-4 response after Indiana briefly moved ahead, followed by a fourth quarter in which the Valkyries scored 30 points.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who was Golden State’s leading scorer against Indiana?

Gabby Williams led Golden State with 16 points in the 88-75 victory.

Who led Indiana in scoring?

Kelsey Mitchell led all Indiana players with 20 points.

How many points did Caitlin Clark score?

Caitlin Clark scored 13 points and added six assists, three rebounds, one steal, and one block.

Who led the game in rebounds?

Kayla Thornton led Golden State with eight rebounds, while Aliyah Boston led Indiana with seven.

Who led Golden State in assists?

Veronica Burton led the Valkyries with four assists. Clark led Indiana with six.

What was the final score?

Golden State defeated Indiana 88-75 at Gainbridge Fieldhouse. The official WNBA record lists the game as July 15, 2026, while its game information also displays July 16 at 12:00 AM.

Conclusion

The golden state valkyries vs indiana fever match player stats show that the 88-75 result was built on more than one standout performance.
Golden State shot 51.7 percent from the field, converted 20 of 23 free throws, produced 43 bench points, and had six players score in double figures. Williams led the team with 16 points, Thornton supplied eight rebounds and a game-best +21, and Chen delivered 14 points on perfect field-goal shooting.
Indiana’s leading scorers were Mitchell with 20, Boston with 15, and Clark with 13. Clark also recorded six assists, while Boston collected seven rebounds. Indiana won the third quarter, but Golden State answered that challenge and scored 30 points in the fourth.
The series finished 2-1 in Golden State’s favor, with the Valkyries winning the final two meetings after Indiana won the opener. The final matchup also showed why player statistics are most useful when they are connected to shooting efficiency, bench production, turnovers, rebounding, and game flow rather than viewed as isolated totals.
For authoritative game records and the complete box score, the official WNBA game page provides the underlying statistics.