Indiana Fever vs Washington Mystics Match Player Stats

The indiana fever vs washington mystics match player stats from the May 15, 2026 meeting show how a game can swing dramatically through shooting efficiency, interior scoring, playmaking, and late-game execution. The Washington Mystics defeated the Indiana Fever 104-102 in overtime at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis, turning a two-point deficit at the end of regulation into a memorable road victory. The official WNBA record lists the game as May 15, 2026, although some databases and reports display May 16 because of publication timing.

Sonia Citron led Washington with 30 points, while Kiki Iriafen added 25 points and 13 rebounds. Shakira Austin contributed 19 points, nine rebounds, five assists, and three blocks. For Indiana, Caitlin Clark produced 32 points, 10 assists, four rebounds, two steals, and one block, while Kelsey Mitchell scored 24 points. The result was especially notable because Indiana made 17 three-pointers, compared with only six from Washington, yet the Mystics controlled the game through superior overall field-goal efficiency and interior scoring.

Game Overview

The matchup was played at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis in front of 15,673 fans. Washington entered the game at 2-1, while Indiana was 1-2. The Mystics eventually won 104-102 after five extra minutes, but the game was competitive throughout and featured 10 lead changes and three ties.

Washington’s scoring by period was:

• First quarter: 21
• Second quarter: 20
• Third quarter: 26
• Fourth quarter: 22
• Overtime: 15
• Final: 104

Indiana’s scoring by period was:

• First quarter: 28
• Second quarter: 9
• Third quarter: 21
• Fourth quarter: 31
• Overtime: 13
• Final: 102

The scoring pattern explains why the final margin was so narrow. Indiana opened the game strongly, then struggled badly in the second quarter. Washington recovered after halftime, while Indiana produced another major surge in the fourth quarter to force overtime.

The official WNBA game record confirms the 104-102 overtime final and the complete quarter-by-quarter scoring breakdown.

Indiana Fever vs Washington Mystics Match Player Stats

The indiana fever vs washington mystics match player stats are most useful when individual production is viewed alongside team efficiency. A simple points leaderboard shows that Clark scored more than any other player, but Washington had three major contributors reach at least 19 points.

Washington Mystics Player Leaders

Player	Points	Rebounds	Assists	Steals	Blocks	Turnovers
Sonia Citron	30	6	4	1	1	2
Kiki Iriafen	25	13	2	1	1	6
Shakira Austin	19	9	5	0	3	3
Cotie McMahon	13	5	2	0	0	1
Georgia Amoore	7	0	4	0	0	2

Citron was Washington’s leading scorer and delivered one of the most important individual performances of the game. She finished with 30 points on 10-of-14 shooting from the field and made nine of her 10 free-throw attempts. Her production became even more important late in the game because she scored five points and recorded two assists during overtime.

Iriafen was equally important in a different way. Her 25 points were accompanied by 13 rebounds, giving Washington a major presence on the glass. She shot 11-of-17 from the field and also made her only three-point attempt. The combination of scoring efficiency and rebounding made her one of the central reasons Washington was able to maintain its advantage around the basket.

Austin added another layer to Washington’s attack. Her 19 points, nine rebounds, five assists, and three blocks meant she influenced scoring, rebounding, passing, and rim protection. That all-around contribution was particularly valuable against an Indiana team that relied heavily on perimeter shooting.

Indiana Fever Player Leaders

Player	Points	Rebounds	Assists	Steals	Blocks	Turnovers
Caitlin Clark	32	4	10	2	1	4
Kelsey Mitchell	24	0	0	1	0	3
Monique Billings	10	9	3	3	2	0
Aliyah Boston	9	4	1	1	0	0
Sophie Cunningham	7	1	2	0	0	0
Lexie Hull	0	3	0	0	0	0

Clark’s line stands out immediately. She scored 32 points while also creating 10 assists, making her the game’s most productive individual offensive initiator. She shot 10-of-28 from the field and made seven three-pointers on 17 attempts. Her four turnovers were notable, but they came alongside a very large playmaking workload.

Mitchell added 24 points on 10-of-25 shooting and made four three-pointers. She provided a major scoring option beside Clark, but she did not record an assist or rebound. Her offensive contribution was therefore concentrated heavily in shot-making.

Billings provided a more balanced performance. She scored 10 points, grabbed nine rebounds, handed out three assists, collected three steals, and blocked two shots. Her defensive activity was particularly useful for Indiana in a game where Washington repeatedly attacked inside.

Sonia Citron’s 30-Point Performance

Citron’s 30-point outing was a defining part of the result. She shot 10-of-14 from the field, made one of four attempts from three-point range, and converted nine of 10 free throws.

Her scoring was not simply a matter of accumulating points during the early stages. Washington needed her production as the game became increasingly close.

Citron and Iriafen combined for 44 points after halftime. According to the official game recap, the pair shot 21-of-31 from the field during that stretch, helping Washington respond to Indiana’s late push.

Citron was also involved in the decisive overtime period. She scored five points and delivered two assists in the extra session. That combination demonstrates why her performance cannot be understood from her final point total alone.

Her ability to score efficiently while also contributing as a passer gave Washington another way to create offense when the game slowed down.

Kiki Iriafen Controls the Interior

Iriafen’s 25-point, 13-rebound performance was one of the clearest statistical differences between the teams.

She finished 11-of-17 from the field, a 64.7% shooting rate. She also converted her only three-point attempt and added two free throws. Her six turnovers were a weakness in an otherwise highly productive performance, but the overall offensive efficiency remained significant.

The 13 rebounds were particularly important because Indiana’s attack depended heavily on three-point shooting. Washington’s ability to generate reliable interior production gave the Mystics a counter to Indiana’s perimeter-heavy offense.

The official game data records Washington with 54 total rebounds, not 44. That distinction matters when evaluating the game because rebounding was a major part of Washington’s advantage.

Shakira Austin’s Two-Way Contribution

Austin finished with 19 points, nine rebounds, five assists, and three blocks.

Her three blocks were especially valuable because Indiana repeatedly attacked the basket when its perimeter shooting created openings. Austin provided a defensive presence around the rim while also helping Washington move the ball.

Her five assists also helped reduce the pressure on Citron and Iriafen to create every scoring opportunity themselves.

Austin’s statistical profile is a good example of why player analysis should go beyond points. A player with 19 points can have a different influence from another player with 19 points depending on rebounding, passing, defense, and efficiency.

Caitlin Clark’s 32 Points and 10 Assists

Clark produced Indiana’s biggest individual scoring performance with 32 points and added 10 assists.

Her shooting line was demanding rather than highly efficient. She made 10 of 28 field-goal attempts and seven of 17 three-point attempts. The seven made threes were a major part of Indiana’s offensive production.

Clark’s most important moment came near the end of regulation. With 1.7 seconds remaining, she hit a three-pointer from the left wing to tie the game at 89-89 and send it to overtime. The shot followed a fourth quarter in which she scored 17 points.

That sequence shows the difference between raw efficiency and late-game impact. Clark did not shoot a high percentage overall, but her perimeter shooting gave Indiana a way to erase Washington’s lead.

Her 10 assists also demonstrate that her offensive role extended beyond scoring. She was responsible for creating opportunities for teammates while carrying a significant portion of Indiana’s shot volume.

Kelsey Mitchell Adds 24 Points

Mitchell was Indiana’s second-leading scorer with 24 points.

She made 10 of 25 field-goal attempts and four of eight three-point attempts. Her 40% field-goal percentage was lower than the team’s need for an efficient second scoring option, but she still provided important shot-making throughout the contest.

Mitchell’s final possessions were especially significant. The official recap notes that she missed two free throws late in overtime and then missed a contested two-point attempt from the left corner as time expired.

Those moments should be viewed within the context of the entire game rather than as the sole explanation for the result. Indiana had already needed Clark’s late three-pointer to force overtime, and Washington had created enough offensive advantages to remain in position to win.

How the Teams Scored Differently

The most interesting part of the statistical comparison is that Indiana actually had the stronger three-point output.

Washington:

• 38-of-68 from the field
• 6-of-16 from three
• 22-of-28 from the free-throw line

Indiana:

• 36-of-92 from the field
• 17-of-42 from three
• 13-of-19 from the free-throw line

Washington shot approximately 56% from the field, while Indiana shot approximately 39%. At the same time, Indiana made 17 threes compared with Washington’s six.

That created a major contrast.

Indiana scored 51 points from three-point range, while Washington scored 18. However, Washington generated far more offense from two-point areas and at the free-throw line.

The official recap reports that Washington held a 48-28 advantage in points in the paint.

This is one of the most important lessons from the game. A team can make significantly more three-pointers and still lose if the opponent produces enough efficient interior scoring and free throws to offset the perimeter advantage.

The Second Quarter Changed the Game

Indiana started the game aggressively.

The Fever scored 28 points in the first quarter and made six of their first seven three-point attempts. That early shooting created a seven-point lead after the opening period.

Then the game changed.

Washington scored 20 points in the second quarter while holding Indiana to just nine. The Mystics therefore entered halftime with a 41-37 advantage.

That nine-point quarter was one of the biggest turning points of the night.

A four-point halftime deficit might appear modest, but the underlying shift was substantial. Indiana went from scoring efficiently and creating open perimeter opportunities to struggling to maintain its offensive rhythm.

Washington’s defense also forced Indiana to work harder for scoring opportunities, while the Mystics began generating consistent points inside.

Indiana’s Fourth-Quarter Comeback

Washington’s advantage did not remain intact.

The Mystics led by as many as 14 points in the second half, but Indiana opened the fourth quarter with a 12-2 run. Clark was central to the comeback, making three three-pointers during the surge.

Indiana ultimately outscored Washington 31-22 in the fourth quarter.

That comeback changed the game from a Washington-controlled contest into a one-possession battle.

Clark’s three-pointer with 1.7 seconds left completed the comeback and tied the game at 89-89. Washington had one final opportunity in regulation, but Citron’s half-court attempt did not leave her hand before the buzzer.

What Happened in Overtime?

Overtime produced 29 combined points.

Washington scored 15.

Indiana scored 13.

The Mystics therefore won the extra period by two points, exactly matching their final margin.

Citron scored five points in overtime and added two assists. Iriafen also produced important interior plays, including an offensive rebound and basket during the extra session.

Indiana had opportunities to take control, but Washington managed the final possessions more effectively.

The game ended when Mitchell’s contested shot missed at the buzzer after Washington had moved ahead 104-102.

The official play-by-play records the final sequence and confirms that Washington secured the two-point overtime victory.

Shooting Efficiency Was the Central Difference

Looking at the team shooting numbers gives perhaps the clearest explanation of the result.

Washington attempted 68 field goals and made 38.

Indiana attempted 92 and made 36.

That means Indiana took 24 more field-goal attempts but made two fewer shots.

The difference in efficiency was substantial.

Washington’s 55.9% field-goal shooting allowed it to generate a large amount of offense without needing a high volume of three-point attempts. Indiana, meanwhile, relied heavily on perimeter shooting to compensate for its lower overall field-goal percentage.

This does not mean three-point shooting was ineffective for Indiana. Quite the opposite. The Fever’s 17 made threes kept them alive and helped force overtime.

The key point is that Washington’s offense was more efficient across the field.

Turnovers and Defensive Activity

Indiana finished with 11 turnovers, compared with 20 for Washington.

That was a clear advantage for the Fever.

Indiana also recorded 13 steals, while Washington had three. Billings was particularly active with three steals, and Clark added two.

Those numbers show that Indiana’s defense created additional possessions and disrupted Washington’s ball security.

Yet Washington overcame the turnover disadvantage.

The Mystics compensated through field-goal efficiency, rebounding, free-throw production, and interior scoring. Washington’s 22-of-28 free-throw performance was considerably stronger than Indiana’s 13-of-19 line.

This is an important example of why no single team statistic should be used to explain a close game.

Rebounding and Interior Pressure

Rebounding was another important part of Washington’s performance.

Official box-score data records Washington with 54 total rebounds. Kiki Iriafen collected 13 of them, while Shakira Austin had nine.

Indiana’s individual rebounding leaders included Monique Billings with nine and Clark with four.

The Mystics’ ability to generate second-chance opportunities and control the interior helped offset Indiana’s three-point advantage.

Washington also finished with eight offensive rebounds, creating additional possessions near the basket.

When a team shoots 55.9% from the field and also creates extra opportunities through rebounding, its offense can remain highly productive even without frequent three-point attempts.

The Role of Free Throws

Washington’s free-throw advantage was another significant factor.

The Mystics made 22 of 28 attempts, or approximately 78.6%.

Indiana made 13 of 19, or approximately 68.4%.

That created a nine-point difference at the free-throw line.

Washington’s interior attack helped create those opportunities. Austin and Iriafen repeatedly operated around the basket, while Citron also generated scoring chances through aggressive offensive play.

Indiana’s three-point shooting produced 33 more points than Washington’s, but Washington’s nine-point advantage at the free-throw line and 30-point advantage in the paint greatly reduced the practical value of that perimeter difference.

What the Player Stats Reveal

The deeper lesson from this game is that the winning formula was distributed across several categories.

Washington had:

• A 30-point scorer in Citron
• A 25-point, 13-rebound performance from Iriafen
• A 19-point, nine-rebound, five-assist performance from Austin
• 55.9% overall field-goal shooting
• 22 made free throws
• 54 total rebounds
• 48 points in the paint

Indiana had:

• 32 points and 10 assists from Clark
• 24 points from Mitchell
• 13 made three-pointers more than Washington
• 13 steals
• Only 11 turnovers

The contrast is important. Indiana’s statistical strengths were heavily concentrated around perimeter scoring, playmaking, steals, and ball security. Washington’s strengths were more evenly distributed among scoring efficiency, rebounding, interior offense, free throws, and rim protection.

That balance helped Washington survive Indiana’s late shooting surge.

Season Series Context

The May meeting was the first game of a three-game season series.

The official WNBA schedule records Washington winning the opening meeting 104-102 in overtime. Indiana then won the June 8 meeting 78-76 in Washington after Clark hit a three-pointer with 1.2 seconds remaining.

The third meeting came in September, when Washington defeated Indiana 93-77. That result gave the Mystics a 2-1 advantage in the season series.

The progression is interesting because both teams produced dramatic finishes in the first two meetings.

In May, Clark’s late three sent the game to overtime before Washington won.

In June, Clark again hit a late three, this time with 1.2 seconds remaining, to give Indiana the victory.

The September meeting was much less dramatic, with Washington winning by 16 points.

Comparing the Key Players

Caitlin Clark vs Sonia Citron

Clark finished with more points and more assists, while Citron shot much more efficiently and contributed to Washington’s overtime execution.

Clark’s 32 points came with seven made three-pointers and 10 assists.

Citron’s 30 points came on 10-of-14 shooting, along with six rebounds and four assists.

The statistical profiles were therefore very different.

Clark carried a larger creation burden for Indiana, while Citron combined scoring efficiency with secondary playmaking and rebounding.

Kiki Iriafen vs Indiana’s Frontcourt

Iriafen’s 25 points and 13 rebounds gave Washington a significant interior advantage.

Indiana’s frontcourt production was more fragmented. Billings delivered 10 points and nine rebounds, while Boston scored nine points and collected four rebounds before leaving the game in the third quarter with a lower-leg injury.

That absence mattered because Boston had been part of Indiana’s interior rotation, especially against Washington’s size.

Shakira Austin vs Indiana’s Interior Defense

Austin’s 19 points, nine rebounds, five assists, and three blocks made her another major factor.

Her ability to contribute in several categories made it harder for Indiana to focus entirely on Citron and Iriafen.

Washington’s frontcourt therefore created multiple problems rather than relying on a single scorer.

Why the Box Score Needs Context

A box score is valuable because it provides measurable information, but it does not automatically explain every possession.

For example, Indiana’s 17 three-pointers immediately suggest a strong perimeter performance. That is accurate.

However, Washington’s 55.9% overall shooting and 48 points in the paint show why Indiana’s three-point advantage was not enough.

Similarly, Clark’s 32 points were outstanding, but her 10-of-28 shooting also shows the volume required to reach that total.

The same principle applies to turnovers. Indiana committed nine fewer turnovers than Washington, but Washington’s offensive efficiency was strong enough to compensate.

The best interpretation therefore combines scoring, shooting percentage, shot distribution, rebounding, assists, turnovers, free throws, and game flow.

Key Statistical Takeaways

Several numbers stand above the rest when studying this matchup.

30 points: Sonia Citron’s team-leading total for Washington.

32 points: Caitlin Clark’s game-high total for Indiana.

25 points and 13 rebounds: Kiki Iriafen’s double-double.

19 points, 9 rebounds, 5 assists, 3 blocks: Shakira Austin’s complete performance.

17 made threes: Indiana’s major perimeter advantage.

38-of-68: Washington’s field-goal shooting.

36-of-92: Indiana’s field-goal shooting.

48-28: Washington’s advantage in points in the paint.

22-of-28: Washington’s free-throw shooting.

10 assists: Clark’s playmaking total.

54 rebounds: Washington’s official team total.

20 turnovers: Washington’s biggest statistical weakness.

11 turnovers: Indiana’s much better ball-security number.

104-102: Washington’s final overtime victory.

Each number tells part of the story. Together, they explain how Washington overcame Indiana’s exceptional three-point shooting.

Final Assessment of the Match

The indiana fever vs washington mystics match player stats provide a useful example of how two teams can build offense in completely different ways.

Indiana leaned heavily on Clark and Mitchell for scoring and relied on three-point shooting to generate offensive momentum. Clark’s 32-point, 10-assist performance kept the Fever competitive even when the team struggled from inside the arc.

Washington used a broader offensive structure.

Citron delivered 30 points with excellent shooting efficiency. Iriafen combined 25 points with 13 rebounds. Austin added 19 points while contributing across several statistical categories.

The Mystics also benefited from a major field-goal percentage advantage and a 48-28 edge in points in the paint. Those strengths allowed them to withstand Indiana’s 17 made three-pointers.

The fourth quarter demonstrated Indiana’s ability to recover from a significant deficit, while overtime showed Washington’s ability to respond under pressure.

Ultimately, the game was decided by a combination of efficiency and interior production rather than by the team that made the most three-pointers.

For readers studying the box score, the most useful approach is to look beyond the final score and examine how scoring was created. In this matchup, Washington created efficient offense through high-percentage field goals, interior scoring, rebounding, and free throws, while Indiana created pressure through three-point shooting, assists, steals, and late-game shot-making.

That combination produced one of the closest games between the two teams during the 2026 season and set the tone for a season series that Washington eventually won 2-1.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who scored the most points in the Mystics vs Fever game?

Caitlin Clark scored 32 points for Indiana, which was the highest individual scoring total in the game. Sonia Citron led Washington with 30 points.

How many points did Sonia Citron score?

Sonia Citron scored 30 points for the Washington Mystics. She also recorded six rebounds, four assists, one steal, and one block.

What were Caitlin Clark’s stats against the Mystics?

Caitlin Clark finished with 32 points, 10 assists, four rebounds, two steals, and one block. She made seven three-pointers on 17 attempts.

How many rebounds did Kiki Iriafen have?

Kiki Iriafen recorded 13 rebounds to go with 25 points, two assists, one steal, and one block. She shot 11-of-17 from the field.

How did the Mystics beat the Fever despite making fewer three-pointers?

Washington compensated for making only six three-pointers by shooting 55.9% overall, scoring 48 points in the paint, making 22 free throws, and controlling the rebounding battle. Indiana made 17 three-pointers but shot only 39.1% overall.

Did the Mystics win the 2026 season series against the Fever?

Yes. Washington won the three-game 2026 season series 2-1. Washington won 104-102 in overtime on May 15, Indiana won 78-76 on June 8, and Washington won the final meeting 93-77 on September 20.

Conclusion

The May 15, 2026 meeting between Washington and Indiana was defined by contrasting offensive styles and several standout individual performances. Caitlin Clark produced 32 points and 10 assists, Kelsey Mitchell added 24 points, and Indiana’s 17 made three-pointers kept the game within reach.

Washington responded with greater overall shooting efficiency and strong interior production. Sonia Citron scored 30 points, Kiki Iriafen posted 25 points and 13 rebounds, and Shakira Austin delivered 19 points, nine rebounds, five assists, and three blocks.

The Mystics also produced 48 points in the paint and shot 38-of-68 from the field. Indiana’s 17 three-pointers and 13 steals demonstrated the Fever’s ability to create scoring bursts and defensive pressure, but Washington’s efficiency, rebounding, and free-throw production ultimately proved enough to secure the 104-102 overtime victory.