Las Vegas Aces vs Phoenix Mercury Match Player Stats
The las vegas aces vs phoenix mercury match player stats tell the story of one of the most one-sided games of the 2026 WNBA season. The Las Vegas Aces defeated the Phoenix Mercury 106-58 at Michelob ULTRA Arena on July 11, 2026, turning a competitive matchup on paper into a 48-point rout. The Aces combined efficient shooting, dominant rebounding, precise passing, and aggressive defense to control the game almost from the opening possession.
The final score is striking, but the individual numbers explain why the margin became so large. A’ja Wilson led Las Vegas with 21 points and 15 rebounds, while Chelsea Gray controlled the offense with 12 assists. Cheyenne Parker-Tyus and NaLyssa Smith also reached double figures, and Justine Pissott added 19 points off the bench. For Phoenix, Monique Akoa Makani led the team with 13 points, while Alyssa Thomas grabbed six rebounds and helped organize the Mercury offense.
The game was not simply a case of one team making shots while the other missed. The statistical gap appeared across several categories. Las Vegas shot 50.6 percent from the field compared with 34.8 percent for Phoenix, made 14 three-pointers compared with seven, collected 47 rebounds compared with 29, and recorded 31 assists compared with 14. The Aces also committed far fewer turnovers.
Game Overview
The matchup took place at Michelob ULTRA Arena in Las Vegas, Nevada, with an announced attendance of 10,321.
Las Vegas entered the game with a 17-6 record, including a 7-4 home mark. Phoenix entered at 8-16 overall and 5-8 on the road.
The final score was:
| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Final |
| Phoenix Mercury | 9 | 13 | 14 | 22 | 58 |
| Las Vegas Aces | 29 | 28 | 22 | 27 | 106 |
The first quarter immediately established the tone. Las Vegas scored 29 points while holding Phoenix to only nine. By halftime, the Aces were ahead 57-22.
That 35-point halftime advantage meant Phoenix entered the second half facing an enormous deficit. The Mercury did improve their scoring output in the fourth quarter, but by that stage the game was already firmly under Las Vegas control.
One of the most revealing numbers is the largest lead: Las Vegas went ahead by 54 points.
The Aces also had the longer unanswered scoring run, producing a nine-point stretch without a Phoenix response.
las vegas aces vs phoenix mercury match player stats: The Main Numbers
Looking beyond the final score gives a much clearer picture of the performance.
| Category | Phoenix Mercury | Las Vegas Aces |
| Points | 58 | 106 |
| Field Goals | 23-66 | 39-77 |
| Field Goal % | 34.8% | 50.6% |
| 3-Point Field Goals | 7-31 | 14-35 |
| 3-Point % | 22.6% | 40.0% |
| Free Throws | 5-8 | 14-16 |
| Free Throw % | 62.5% | 87.5% |
| Rebounds | 29 | 47 |
| Assists | 14 | 31 |
| Turnovers | 17 | 9 |
| Steals | 3 | 8 |
| Blocks | 0 | 2 |
The difference in shooting efficiency was substantial.
Las Vegas made 39 of 77 field-goal attempts. Phoenix made only 23 of 66.
That means the Aces converted more shots despite taking only 11 additional attempts. Their 50.6 percent shooting rate was nearly 16 percentage points higher than Phoenix’s 34.8 percent.
The three-point difference was equally important. Las Vegas made 14 of 35 from outside, while Phoenix converted seven of 31.
That gave the Aces 42 points from three-point range compared with 21 for Phoenix.
Free throws also favored Las Vegas. The Aces made 14 of 16 attempts, while the Mercury made only five of eight.
Taken together, these shooting numbers created a major scoring advantage before rebounds, turnovers, and assists were even considered.
A’ja Wilson Sets the Tone
A’ja Wilson was the central figure in the Las Vegas performance.
She finished with:
- 21 points
- 15 rebounds
- 3 assists
- 1 steal
- 1 block
- 8-of-16 field-goal shooting
- 4-of-4 free-throw shooting
Wilson reached a double-double while playing only 25 minutes.
Her 15 rebounds were the highest total of the game, and her 21 points led all scorers. What made the performance particularly significant was the combination of scoring efficiency and interior control.
Wilson did not need an enormous shot volume to produce 21 points. She made half of her 16 field-goal attempts and converted all four of her free throws.
Her rebounding was just as important.
Phoenix collected 29 rebounds as a team. Wilson alone had 15, meaning she accounted for more than half of the Mercury’s total team rebound count.
That does not mean Wilson personally out-rebounded Phoenix as a team in the technical sense, because team totals and individual totals are recorded differently, but it illustrates the scale of her work on the glass.
Her presence also helped create second chances and limited Phoenix’s opportunities to generate additional possessions.
Chelsea Gray’s Playmaking Was a Major Factor
Chelsea Gray’s stat line was one of the clearest examples of how the Aces generated such a large offensive output.
Gray finished with:
- 15 points
- 12 assists
- 1 rebound
- 1 steal
- 6-of-12 shooting
- 3-of-8 from three-point range
Her 12 assists were the most in the game.
The importance of those assists goes beyond the number itself. Las Vegas finished with 31 team assists on 39 made field goals.
That is an exceptionally high level of passing involvement.
Gray repeatedly created scoring opportunities for Wilson, NaLyssa Smith, Cheyenne Parker-Tyus, and other Aces players. The scoring distribution shows that Phoenix could not simply focus its defense on one offensive threat.
The play-by-play also illustrates the relationship between Gray’s passing and Las Vegas’ scoring. She assisted on multiple baskets during the first half, helping the Aces turn an early lead into a huge halftime advantage.
When a team makes 39 field goals and records 31 assists, the offense is usually generating a high number of clean looks through movement and ball distribution. That was a defining feature of this matchup.
Justine Pissott’s 19-Point Performance
One of the most notable individual stories from the game was Justine Pissott.
Pissott scored 19 points and made five three-pointers. She shot 7-of-8 from the field and made 5-of-6 from three-point range.
Her performance was particularly notable because she produced her points in limited playing time.
Once the game was firmly decided, Las Vegas was able to give additional players meaningful minutes. Pissott took advantage of that opportunity by knocking down perimeter shots at a remarkable rate.
Her five made threes were the highest total for any player in the game.
That is important when evaluating the Aces’ shooting performance because the team’s 14 made threes were not solely dependent on one starter. Several players contributed from the perimeter, which made Phoenix’s defensive challenge even more difficult.
Cheyenne Parker-Tyus Provided Efficient Interior Scoring
Cheyenne Parker-Tyus added 15 points for Las Vegas and was another important contributor.
Her scoring helped prevent the Aces from becoming overly dependent on Wilson and Gray.
The game also showed why depth matters during a blowout. When Wilson and other starters were able to reduce their workload, Las Vegas still had players capable of maintaining offensive pressure.
Parker-Tyus finished with seven rebounds as well, giving the Aces another reliable contributor on the glass.
Her combination of scoring and rebounding complemented Wilson’s production and helped Las Vegas maintain its advantage inside.
NaLyssa Smith Added Another Double-Figure Performance
NaLyssa Smith finished with 14 points and three rebounds.
Her shooting was particularly efficient. Smith made six of seven field-goal attempts.
That 85.7 percent field-goal rate was one of the most efficient individual shooting performances among the major Las Vegas contributors.
Smith’s production mattered because the Aces were not relying on difficult individual shots from one superstar. Instead, Phoenix had to defend multiple players capable of converting efficiently.
When a defense is already dealing with Wilson inside and Gray as a primary creator, a player like Smith converting at a high percentage makes the defensive task much harder.
Jackie Young’s All-Around Contribution
Jackie Young scored eight points, but her impact was broader than her scoring total.
She added two rebounds, six assists, and two steals.
The six assists placed her second on the Aces in that category behind Gray.
This is an important point when reading a traditional scoring-focused box score. Eight points may not look extraordinary, but Young contributed directly to ball movement and defensive pressure.
Las Vegas finished with 31 assists and eight steals. Young was part of both areas of production.
The Aces did not need every major contributor to score 15 or 20 points because the team received value in several different statistical categories.
Phoenix Mercury Player Stats
Phoenix’s offensive production was much more concentrated.
Monique Akoa Makani led the Mercury with 13 points.
Her final line included:
- 13 points
- 1 rebound
- 1 assist
- 5-of-13 field goals
- 3-of-7 three-pointers
She was Phoenix’s most productive scorer and one of the team’s few consistent perimeter threats.
The Mercury also received nine points from Kahleah Copper, 11 from Lexie Held, seven from Alyssa Thomas, six from Natasha Mack, five from Veronica Burton, and two from DeWanna Bonner based on the detailed player breakdown.
The distribution illustrates the problem Phoenix faced. There were contributions from several players, but the team could not produce enough efficient offense to keep pace with Las Vegas.
Alyssa Thomas’ Rebounding Contribution
Alyssa Thomas led Phoenix in individual rebounding with six boards according to the supplied game data.
She also recorded one assist and seven points.
Thomas’ overall value in the game was limited by the difficulty Phoenix had creating efficient offense against the Aces defense.
Phoenix needed stronger production from its core players to counter Las Vegas’ balanced attack.
The Mercury did not have a player reach 15 points. Las Vegas had several players at or near that mark.
That difference is particularly important in a game decided by 48 points.
Monique Akoa Makani Led Phoenix in Scoring
Monique Akoa Makani’s 13 points made her the Mercury’s top scorer.
She also made three of Phoenix’s seven three-pointers.
That means she accounted for almost half of the team’s made three-point shots.
Her three-point shooting provided one of the few consistent sources of perimeter scoring for Phoenix.
However, Phoenix as a team shot only 22.6 percent from three-point range. Making seven of 31 attempts was not enough to compensate for the Aces’ 14 made threes.
The First Quarter Changed the Game
The opening quarter deserves special attention because it effectively established the game’s outcome.
Las Vegas scored 29 points.
Phoenix scored nine.
That is a 20-point difference after only 10 minutes.
The Aces did not merely win the quarter. They controlled both ends of the floor.
Phoenix struggled to score while Las Vegas created efficient looks and converted them.
A 29-9 opening period also placed enormous pressure on Phoenix’s offense. Once a team falls behind by 20 points, it cannot simply trade baskets with the opponent. It must find a way to generate stops while simultaneously increasing its scoring rate.
Phoenix was unable to do that.
The Second Quarter Expanded the Gap
The Mercury scored 13 points in the second quarter.
The Aces scored 28.
That meant Las Vegas won the second period by another 15 points.
At halftime, the scoreboard read:
Las Vegas Aces 57, Phoenix Mercury 22
The 35-point halftime margin was the clearest indicator that the game had moved beyond a normal competitive contest.
The second quarter also demonstrated the Aces’ offensive consistency. After scoring 29 points in the first, they followed it with 28.
That prevented Phoenix from gaining any momentum.
Phoenix Improved After Halftime
The Mercury did not completely collapse after halftime.
They scored 14 points in the third quarter and 22 in the fourth.
The fourth quarter was Phoenix’s highest-scoring period.
However, Las Vegas continued to score efficiently, producing 22 points in the third and 27 in the fourth.
This distinction matters.
A team can improve its offensive output and still lose a quarter if the opponent remains efficient.
Phoenix’s 22 fourth-quarter points would be a respectable scoring period in many games. In this matchup, however, Las Vegas scored 27 while already holding an enormous lead.
The final margin therefore remained at 48 points.
Rebounding Was a Major Difference
Las Vegas won the rebounding battle 47-29.
That is an 18-rebound advantage.
Rebounding affects more than the box score.
Offensive rebounds can create additional possessions. Defensive rebounds can end possessions and prevent opponents from generating second chances.
The Aces also had a 12-3 advantage in offensive rebounds.
That gave Las Vegas nine more offensive rebounds than Phoenix.
The result was a combination of additional opportunities for the Aces and fewer opportunities for the Mercury.
Wilson’s 15 rebounds were central to that advantage.
Parker-Tyus added seven, while other Aces players also contributed on the glass.
Phoenix simply could not match Las Vegas’ collective work around the basket.
Ball Movement Was Another Major Difference
The Aces recorded 31 assists.
Phoenix recorded 14.
That is a 17-assist difference.
Las Vegas also made 39 field goals.
The relationship between those two numbers is revealing. A large share of the Aces’ made baskets came after an assist.
Phoenix’s 14 assists on 23 made field goals show a much smaller level of assisted scoring.
The Aces’ passing helped produce a more connected offense.
Gray’s 12 assists were the headline number, but Young’s six assists and contributions from other players demonstrate that the ball was moving throughout the lineup.
This is one of the most important lessons from the game for readers studying basketball statistics: team assists can reveal offensive structure that raw scoring totals do not show.
Turnovers Favored Las Vegas
Phoenix committed 17 turnovers.
Las Vegas committed nine.
That created an eight-turnover advantage for the Aces.
Turnovers are especially damaging when a team is already struggling to shoot.
Phoenix made only 23 field goals. Giving away 17 possessions made it even harder to generate enough scoring opportunities.
Las Vegas, meanwhile, combined high shooting efficiency with only nine turnovers.
That is a difficult combination for any opponent to overcome.
The Aces also scored 24 points off turnovers compared with 13 for Phoenix.
That created an 11-point advantage in a category directly connected to ball security.
Three-Point Shooting Created Separation
Las Vegas made 14 of 35 three-point attempts.
Phoenix made seven of 31.
The Aces therefore doubled Phoenix’s made three-pointers.
The difference was 21 points from beyond the arc.
The percentages tell an even stronger story.
Las Vegas shot 40.0 percent from three.
Phoenix shot 22.6 percent.
The Aces were therefore both more accurate and more productive from distance.
Pissott’s five made threes were particularly important, while Gray contributed three.
Phoenix’s perimeter offense was led by Akoa Makani, who made three threes.
But the Mercury needed more consistent shooting from the rest of the lineup.
Free-Throw Shooting Also Favored the Aces
Las Vegas went 14-of-16 from the free-throw line.
Phoenix went 5-of-8.
The Aces converted 87.5 percent of their attempts.
Phoenix converted 62.5 percent.
Free throws were not the biggest factor in the game, because the difference was only 11 attempts, but they reinforced the overall efficiency advantage.
The Aces were efficient from the field, efficient from three, and highly efficient from the free-throw line.
Phoenix struggled in each of those areas.
Defensive Pressure Showed Up in the Box Score
Las Vegas recorded eight steals compared with three for Phoenix.
The Aces also had two blocks, while Phoenix had none.
Those numbers alone do not explain defensive quality, but they provide useful evidence of Las Vegas’ activity.
The Aces’ defense forced Phoenix into difficult possessions while also turning several defensive plays into offensive opportunities.
The 54-point largest lead demonstrates how effectively that pressure translated into scoreboard control.
Why the 106-58 Score Matters
A 48-point victory is not common in professional basketball.
The official game recap noted that the margin matched the third-largest win in WNBA history.
That puts the result into a broader historical context.
However, the most useful takeaway is not simply the size of the margin. It is how the margin developed.
Las Vegas did not need one extraordinary scoring burst to win.
The Aces built a 20-point first-quarter advantage, added another 15 points to the lead in the second quarter, and then maintained control through the second half.
The statistical foundation was balanced:
- Better field-goal percentage
- Better three-point percentage
- More made three-pointers
- More rebounds
- More assists
- More steals
- Fewer turnovers
- Better free-throw percentage
When one team wins across that many categories, the final score usually reflects a complete team performance rather than a single statistical outlier.
What the Match Says About Aces Offensive Structure
The most interesting part of the Aces performance may be the distribution of responsibility.
Wilson led the team in scoring.
Gray led the team in assists.
Pissott led the game in made threes.
Parker-Tyus contributed scoring and rebounding.
Smith shot extremely efficiently.
Young contributed assists and steals.
This is a useful example of why team-level offensive balance can be more important than simply having one high scorer.
Phoenix had the leading scorer on its side? No. The game’s leading scorer was Wilson, and the Aces had multiple players close behind her.
That made defensive concentration difficult.
If Phoenix committed extra defensive attention to Wilson, Gray could create opportunities for teammates. If Phoenix tried to close out on perimeter shooters, the Aces could attack other spaces.
The statistical distribution reflects that flexibility.
What the Match Says About Phoenix
For Phoenix, the numbers point to several clear areas of difficulty.
The first was shooting.
A 34.8 percent field-goal rate is difficult to overcome against a team shooting 50.6 percent.
The second was three-point efficiency.
Seven makes from 31 attempts produced only 22.6 percent accuracy.
The third was ball security.
Seventeen turnovers reduced the number of quality possessions available to an offense already struggling to score.
The fourth was rebounding.
A 47-29 disadvantage gave Las Vegas a major possession advantage.
The fifth was playmaking.
Fourteen team assists were less than half of Las Vegas’ 31.
These categories are connected. Poor shooting increases pressure on rebounding. Turnovers reduce offensive possessions. Limited passing can lead to difficult individual shots. Poor shooting can also make a deficit harder to erase.
A Useful Way to Read Player Stats From This Game
Readers often look at points first, but this matchup demonstrates why a deeper box-score approach is more useful.
A practical order is:
- Check the final score and margin.
- Compare field-goal percentage.
- Compare three-point production.
- Check rebounds.
- Check assists and turnovers together.
- Identify the top individual scorer.
- Look for secondary contributors.
- Check whether bench players changed the game.
- Compare the quarter-by-quarter scoring.
- Look at the largest lead and points off turnovers.
Following that sequence makes it easier to understand why the result happened.
In this game, nearly every step points toward the same conclusion: Las Vegas controlled the game through efficiency, possessions, and distribution.
Season Series Context
The 2026 season series also provides useful context.
Phoenix won the opening meeting 99-66 on May 9.
Las Vegas responded with an 86-76 victory on June 17.
The July meeting then produced the Aces’ 106-58 win.
The teams met again in the regular season finale, when Las Vegas won 100-82 on September 24.
That sequence shows how the matchup changed during the season.
The opening game was dominated by Phoenix, which won by 33 points.
The second meeting was considerably closer, with Las Vegas winning by 10.
The July game moved dramatically in Las Vegas’ direction.
The September finale again went to the Aces by 18 points.
The season series therefore provides more information than looking at one game alone. It shows that the teams produced very different statistical profiles at different points of the year.
Comparing the July and September Meetings
The July game and September meeting are especially interesting because both were Aces victories.
In July, Las Vegas won 106-58.
In September, Las Vegas won 100-82.
The later game was much more competitive.
In September, Phoenix was able to cut a large deficit significantly during the second half before Las Vegas closed the game.
That contrast is useful when evaluating team performance.
A single 48-point result should not automatically be treated as a permanent representation of either team’s ability. Basketball results depend on shooting, rotations, injuries, game context, and execution on a particular night.
The broader series gives a more balanced picture.
Historical Perspective on the July Result
The 48-point margin was notable because it matched the third-largest winning margin in WNBA history.
That context makes the July result statistically unusual.
It also explains why individual player statistics from the game need to be read carefully.
Wilson played only 25 minutes despite recording 21 points and 15 rebounds.
The game situation allowed Las Vegas to spread minutes and offensive opportunities across its roster.
Pissott’s 19-point performance is a good example.
Her scoring contribution became possible in part because the Aces had already established such a large lead.
That does not make the performance insignificant. It simply provides context for understanding how the minutes and opportunities were distributed.
Key Takeaways From the Box Score
Several numbers summarize the game better than the final score alone.
48-point margin: Las Vegas won 106-58.
50.6 percent shooting: The Aces converted 39 of 77 field-goal attempts.
40 percent from three: Las Vegas made 14 of 35 attempts.
47 rebounds: The Aces controlled the glass.
31 assists: The offense produced exceptional ball movement.
9 turnovers: Las Vegas protected possessions far better than Phoenix.
21 points and 15 rebounds: Wilson produced the game’s leading individual scoring and rebounding totals.
12 assists: Gray was the primary facilitator.
19 points and five threes: Pissott provided one of the game’s most efficient offensive performances.
13 points: Akoa Makani led Phoenix in scoring.
Why Player Stats Matter More Than the Final Score
The final score tells you who won and by how much.
The player stats tell you how.
That distinction is especially important for readers researching a matchup for analysis, fantasy basketball, historical comparison, team evaluation, or simply a better understanding of the game.
If someone only sees “Aces 106, Mercury 58,” they know the result was one-sided.
If they see Wilson’s 21 points and 15 rebounds, Gray’s 12 assists, Pissott’s five threes, the 47-29 rebounding advantage, the 31-14 assist advantage, and the 14-7 three-point advantage, the reason for the result becomes much clearer.
That is why detailed box-score analysis is more valuable than a simple recap.
Final Assessment of the Performance
The Las Vegas Aces produced a complete statistical performance against the Phoenix Mercury.
The offensive efficiency was strong.
The ball movement was excellent.
The rebounding advantage was substantial.
The turnover differential favored Las Vegas.
The perimeter shooting gap was significant.
The defensive activity produced more steals and prevented Phoenix from generating enough efficient possessions.
Wilson provided the headline performance, but the game was not won by one player alone.
Gray’s playmaking, Pissott’s shooting, Parker-Tyus’ scoring and rebounding, Smith’s efficiency, and Young’s all-around contribution all played roles.
For Phoenix, Akoa Makani led the scoring, while Thomas and other players provided individual contributions, but the team struggled to match Las Vegas in nearly every major statistical category.
The most useful conclusion from the box score is therefore not simply that the Aces scored 106 points. It is that they generated those points through a combination of efficient shooting, superior ball movement, rebounding strength, and possession control.
That combination explains how Las Vegas could build a 35-point halftime lead and eventually finish with a 48-point victory.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score between the Las Vegas Aces and Phoenix Mercury?
The Las Vegas Aces defeated the Phoenix Mercury 106-58 on July 11, 2026, at Michelob ULTRA Arena in Las Vegas.
Who was the top scorer in the game?
A’ja Wilson led all scorers with 21 points for the Las Vegas Aces.
Who led the game in rebounds?
A’ja Wilson led all players with 15 rebounds.
Who led the game in assists?
Chelsea Gray recorded 12 assists for Las Vegas, the highest assist total in the matchup.
Who was Phoenix’s leading scorer?
Monique Akoa Makani led the Phoenix Mercury with 13 points.
How many three-pointers did the Aces make?
Las Vegas made 14 of 35 three-point attempts, shooting 40 percent from beyond the arc.
Conclusion
The las vegas aces vs phoenix mercury match player stats from July 11, 2026, show a complete Las Vegas performance rather than a victory based on one statistical category.
The Aces scored 106 points, shot 50.6 percent from the field, made 14 three-pointers, collected 47 rebounds, recorded 31 assists, and committed only nine turnovers.
A’ja Wilson led the way with 21 points and 15 rebounds, while Chelsea Gray produced 12 assists. Justine Pissott added 19 points with five made threes, Cheyenne Parker-Tyus scored 15, and NaLyssa Smith added 14 on highly efficient shooting.
Phoenix finished with 58 points, 29 rebounds, 14 assists, and 17 turnovers. Monique Akoa Makani led the Mercury with 13 points, but Phoenix struggled to match Las Vegas’ efficiency from both the field and three-point range.
The 29-9 first quarter effectively established the direction of the game. Las Vegas then continued to extend the advantage, leading 57-22 at halftime before completing the 106-58 victory.
For anyone examining the las vegas aces vs phoenix mercury match player stats, the most important lesson is that the 48-point margin was supported by a broad statistical advantage. Shooting, rebounding, passing, defense, and possession control all favored Las Vegas.
