The atlanta dream vs indiana fever match player stats from August 17, 2026, tell the story of a closely contested WNBA game that ended with the Indiana Fever defeating the Atlanta Dream 95-91 in overtime at State Farm Arena in Atlanta, Georgia. Caitlin Clark led Indiana with 26 points and nine assists, while Allisha Gray delivered a game-high 32 points for Atlanta. Aliyah Boston added a dominant performance on both ends of the court, finishing with 18 points, 14 rebounds, four assists, five steals, and three blocks.

The game was especially interesting because Atlanta appeared to gain control during the third quarter, scoring 28 points while Indiana managed 24. However, the Fever responded defensively in the fourth quarter, holding the Dream to just nine points. Neither team could settle the contest in regulation, and Indiana ultimately scored 14 points in overtime compared with Atlanta’s 10. The result reflected the importance of defensive pressure, ball security, and execution during the most demanding moments of the game.

For readers examining the box score, the most useful details extend beyond the final score. Shooting efficiency, turnovers, rebounding, individual player contributions, and the fourth-quarter turnaround help explain how Indiana secured the victory despite Atlanta’s outstanding free-throw shooting and strong scoring performance from Gray.

Data note: The analysis below uses the supplied ESPN game data for August 17, 2026. The reported final score, player statistics, and quarter-by-quarter figures are treated as the reference dataset for this article.

Atlanta Dream vs Indiana Fever Match Player Stats: Game Overview

The matchup featured two teams capable of producing points through different offensive approaches. Indiana combined efficient two-point scoring, contributions from several leading players, and disruptive defense. Atlanta relied heavily on its leading scorers and made the most of its opportunities at the free-throw line.

Indiana Fever

95

Won in overtime

Field goals: 36/81

Top scorer: Caitlin Clark, 26 points

Atlanta Dream

91

Lost in overtime

Field goals: 29/82

Top scorer: Allisha Gray, 32 points

Match information at a glance

Detail	Result
Competition	WNBA
Matchup	Indiana Fever vs. Atlanta Dream
Date in supplied data	August 17, 2026
Venue	State Farm Arena, Atlanta
Attendance	17,044
Final score	Indiana 95, Atlanta 91
Game status	Final, overtime
Indiana turnovers	9
Atlanta turnovers	14
Season series	2-2, according to supplied data

The game record identifies the contest as a four-point Indiana victory after overtime. The date requires a small clarification: the league’s game page lists the contest as August 16 in Atlanta, while the supplied record gives August 17, consistent with a possible time-zone difference. The score and principal statistics are consistent across the available game records.

WNBA

+1

Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Breakdown

The scoring progression explains why the final result was so difficult to predict. Indiana started evenly with Atlanta, fell behind in the middle stages, then produced its strongest response when the game was in danger of slipping away.

Quarter	Indiana Fever	Atlanta Dream	Quarter winner
First quarter	21	21	Tie
Second quarter	19	23	Atlanta
Third quarter	24	28	Atlanta
Fourth quarter	17	9	Indiana
Overtime	14	10	Indiana
Final	95	91	Indiana

First quarter: A balanced start

Both teams scored 21 points in the opening period. The even score suggested that neither side had established a clear advantage, despite the different ways they created opportunities.

Indiana needed to find a reliable balance between perimeter creation and interior scoring. Atlanta, meanwhile, had the opportunity to use its scoring depth and attack the basket.

The opening quarter did not determine the result, but it established a competitive pattern. Neither team could create enough separation to make the other abandon its preferred approach.

Second quarter: Atlanta gains momentum

Atlanta outscored Indiana 23-19 in the second period. That four-point advantage gave the Dream a 44-40 halftime lead.

The margin was manageable for Indiana, but Atlanta had begun to turn its scoring opportunities into a more comfortable position. Angel Reese’s rebounding and playmaking helped the Dream compete inside, while Atlanta’s perimeter players continued to create scoring chances.

Indiana’s challenge was to prevent a modest deficit from becoming a larger one. The Fever remained close enough to recover, but they needed better defensive execution and more consistent offensive possessions.

Third quarter: The Dream build their advantage

Atlanta won the third quarter 28-24, extending its lead to 72-64. The eight-point margin was the largest deficit Indiana faced entering the final period.

This was Atlanta’s strongest sustained offensive stretch. The Dream scored efficiently enough to maintain control, while Indiana struggled to match their quarter-by-quarter production.

However, an eight-point lead in basketball is not decisive. It can disappear quickly when a trailing team creates turnovers, earns extra possessions, and forces difficult shots. Indiana still had one quarter to change the game’s direction.

Fourth quarter: Indiana changes the game

The fourth quarter was the defining period. Indiana scored 17 points and held Atlanta to just nine, erasing the Dream’s eight-point advantage.

The numbers show a complete reversal in defensive effectiveness. Atlanta had scored 28 points in the previous quarter, but Indiana restricted the home side to fewer than one-third of that output.

A crucial distinction is that Indiana did not need a spectacular offensive explosion to recover. The Fever needed to score steadily while reducing Atlanta’s chances to respond. Their defense helped create the conditions for the comeback.

The teams finished regulation level at 81 points apiece. Atlanta had opportunities to win before overtime, but its final attempts did not fall.

WNBA

+1

Overtime: Indiana executes under pressure

Indiana won the extra period 14-10. Makayla Timpson was particularly important, scoring 20 points overall and making three consecutive layups during overtime to help Indiana establish control.

Caitlin Clark also delivered when the margin remained narrow. She made two free throws with 9.8 seconds remaining, extending Indiana’s lead to four points and making Atlanta’s comeback considerably more difficult.

Overtime rewards teams that can make sound decisions when fatigue affects shooting, movement, and concentration. Indiana combined timely scoring with enough defensive discipline to protect its lead.

Atlanta had fought back strongly during the middle quarters, but its fourth-quarter scoring drought proved too costly to overcome.

Complete Team Statistics Comparison

The team statistics reveal the central difference between the two sides. Atlanta was more productive from the free-throw line and recorded more assists, but Indiana shot considerably better from the field, committed fewer turnovers, and created more defensive disruptions.

Statistic	Indiana Fever	Atlanta Dream
Total points	95	91
Field goals made	36	29
Field goals attempted	81	82
Field-goal percentage	44%	35%
Three-pointers made	6	8
Three-pointers attempted	24	32
Three-point percentage	25%	25%
Free throws made	17	25
Free throws attempted	23	26
Free-throw percentage	74%	96%
Total rebounds	40	40
Offensive rebounds	10	11
Defensive rebounds	30	29
Assists	18	21
Turnovers	9	14
Steals	8	2
Blocks	6	4
Personal fouls	19	24

Percentages are rounded from the supplied figures.

Field-goal efficiency favored Indiana

Indiana made 36 of 81 field-goal attempts, while Atlanta converted 29 of 82. That difference of seven made baskets was a major factor in the result.

The Fever’s field-goal percentage was approximately 44.4%, compared with about 35.4% for the Dream. Although both teams attempted a similar number of shots, Indiana converted a substantially greater share.

This distinction is important because shot volume alone does not determine offensive quality. A team can generate many attempts and still struggle to score if too many shots are contested or poorly converted.

Indiana’s advantage was especially valuable because the team did not dominate three-point shooting or free-throw accuracy. Its overall success came primarily from making more of its field-goal attempts.

Three-point shooting was even

Both teams shot 25% from beyond the arc. Indiana made six of 24 attempts, while Atlanta made eight of 32.

Atlanta made two additional three-pointers, but it also attempted eight more. The identical percentages indicate that neither side gained a clear efficiency advantage from long range.

For Indiana, the lesson is that the victory did not depend on an unusually successful three-point night. For Atlanta, the number of attempts raises a useful question: could some possessions have produced higher-percentage shots closer to the basket?

Three-point volume is not automatically a problem. It becomes a concern when the resulting points do not compensate for missed opportunities elsewhere in the offense.

Free throws kept Atlanta competitive

Atlanta converted 25 of 26 free throws, an excellent rate of approximately 96.2%. Indiana made 17 of 23, or about 73.9%.

The Dream therefore scored eight more points from the free-throw line. That advantage helped offset Indiana’s stronger field-goal production.

Indiana’s victory despite the free-throw deficit highlights the importance of examining multiple efficiency measures rather than relying on a single category. Atlanta maximized its free throws, but Indiana made more baskets from the field and committed fewer turnovers.

Turnovers gave Indiana an important advantage

Indiana recorded nine turnovers, compared with Atlanta’s 14. That five-turnover difference gave the Fever a meaningful advantage in possession management.

A turnover ends an offensive possession without a shot, a free throw, or a chance for an offensive rebound. It can also create transition opportunities for the opposing team.

The supplied team data attributes 22 points off turnovers to Indiana and eight to Atlanta. That 14-point difference shows how valuable Indiana’s ball pressure and decision-making were in this matchup.

WNBA

+1

The Fever did not need to win every statistical category. They needed to avoid wasting possessions while forcing Atlanta into more difficult decisions. The turnover figures suggest that they accomplished that goal.

Rebounding was evenly matched

Both teams collected 40 rebounds. Atlanta had a slight advantage in offensive rebounds, 11-10, while Indiana recorded 30 defensive rebounds compared with Atlanta’s 29.

The equal totals show that neither team controlled the glass decisively. Indiana’s victory was therefore not a simple result of overwhelming Atlanta with size or second-chance opportunities.

Instead, the difference emerged through shooting efficiency, ball security, and defensive activity. Rebounding remained important, but it was not the statistic that separated the teams most clearly.

Defensive activity helped Indiana finish stronger

Indiana recorded eight steals and six blocks, while Atlanta finished with two steals and four blocks.

Steals can interrupt offensive rhythm, while blocks can discourage shots near the basket and change how opponents attack the paint. These statistics do not capture every defensive contribution, but they help illustrate Indiana’s activity.

The Fever’s six blocks also suggest that their defense was not limited to perimeter pressure. They were able to challenge attempts around the basket while competing with Atlanta on the boards.

Atlanta’s four blocks were still a useful contribution. However, the difference in steals was particularly notable given Indiana’s advantage in turnovers.

Indiana Fever Player Stats and Individual Performances

Indiana’s win was built around a strong combination of scoring, playmaking, interior defense, and timely contributions from its supporting players. Caitlin Clark led the scoring, but the performances of Aliyah Boston, Makayla Timpson, and Kelsey Mitchell were just as important to understanding how the Fever won.

Caitlin Clark: 26 points and 9 assists

Caitlin Clark

Guard · Indiana Fever

26

Points

9

Assists

Clark was Indiana’s leading scorer and primary playmaker. Her 26 points provided the scoring foundation, while nine assists demonstrated her ability to create opportunities for teammates.

Points and assists measure different parts of a guard’s contribution. Scoring indicates how successfully a player converts offensive opportunities, while assists show how often a pass directly leads to a made basket. Clark’s combined production suggests that she contributed both as a finisher and as a creator.

Her late free throws in overtime were particularly important. With Atlanta still close enough to threaten the lead, converting both attempts helped Indiana maintain control during the final seconds.

Clark’s performance also demonstrates why a player’s value cannot be judged by scoring alone. Her playmaking helped connect Indiana’s perimeter attack with its interior options, making it harder for Atlanta to focus exclusively on one scorer.

Aliyah Boston: 18 points and 14 rebounds

Aliyah Boston

Center · Indiana Fever

18 points · 14 rebounds · 4 assists

5 steals · 3 blocks

Boston delivered one of the most complete performances of the game. Her 18 points and 14 rebounds provided a strong interior presence, while four assists showed that she contributed to Indiana’s ball movement.

Her five steals and three blocks made the defensive side of her performance even more impressive. Boston affected possessions in several ways: she could challenge shots, disrupt passing lanes, secure rebounds, and contribute to the offense.

A double-double of points and rebounds is valuable, but the additional defensive numbers reveal more about her influence. Five steals and three blocks indicate repeated involvement in stopping Atlanta’s attacks.

Boston also helped Indiana avoid becoming overly dependent on its guards. When perimeter shooting is inconsistent, a productive interior player can supply another scoring route and make the offense less predictable.

Makayla Timpson: 20 points in a decisive performance

Makayla Timpson

Indiana Fever

20 points

7 rebounds

Timpson scored 20 points and seven rebounds, matching Kelsey Mitchell for second place among Indiana’s scorers. Her contribution was especially valuable because she gave the Fever another reliable scoring option beyond Clark.

The timing of her baskets made the performance even more significant. Timpson scored three consecutive layups in overtime, helping Indiana establish a lead that Atlanta struggled to erase.

That sequence illustrates the difference between accumulating points and producing them at a decisive moment. Timpson’s 20 points mattered across the game, but her overtime finishing directly helped Indiana move toward victory.

Her performance also reduced the pressure on Clark to create every important basket. When multiple players can score in high-pressure situations, an opposing defense has fewer opportunities to concentrate on one primary threat.

Kelsey Mitchell: 20 points from the backcourt

Kelsey Mitchell

Guard · Indiana Fever

20 points

Scoring contribution extended into overtime

Mitchell finished with 20 points, giving Indiana three players with at least 20. Her scoring balance alongside Clark and Timpson was a major strength.

Her three-pointer late in regulation helped tie the game at 81-81 with 1:05 remaining. That basket was an important turning point because it gave Indiana a chance to win in overtime rather than leave the court with a loss.

Mitchell’s contribution demonstrates the value of secondary scoring. Defenses can prepare for a leading playmaker, but a team becomes more difficult to contain when another guard can create and convert shots independently.

Other Indiana contributors

Indiana’s starting lineup also included Lexie Hull, alongside Clark, Mitchell, Boston, and Timpson. The available summary data does not provide complete individual box-score figures for every player, so unreported points, rebounds, assists, and shooting splits should not be inferred.

Other players listed in the supplied roster were Monique Billings, Mercedes Russell, Sophie Cunningham, Tyasha Harris, Raven Johnson, Myisha Hines-Allen, and Grace VanSlooten.

The supporting cast matters because extended games place extra demands on rotations. Bench players can provide rest, defend different matchups, and keep the offense functioning while leading scorers recover.

Sophie Cunningham’s late regulation basket and free throw also helped Indiana take a brief lead during the closing stretch. That contribution was important even though her final scoring total was modest. It is a useful reminder that the value of a player’s performance depends partly on when the contribution occurs.

Myisha Hines-Allen and Grace VanSlooten were listed as inactive by the coach’s decision. They should not be counted among the players who contributed on court.

Atlanta Dream Player Stats and Individual Performances

Atlanta had an outstanding individual scoring performance from Allisha Gray and valuable contributions from Angel Reese and Rhyne Howard. The Dream’s defeat did not result from an inability to create offense throughout the game. Rather, their inability to maintain production in the fourth quarter and overtime proved costly.

Allisha Gray: 32 points, 7 rebounds, and 5 assists

Allisha Gray

Guard · Atlanta Dream

32 points

7 rebounds · 5 assists

Gray led all players with 32 points. She also collected seven rebounds and recorded five assists, making her the most productive scorer in the matchup.

Her scoring kept Atlanta competitive and helped the Dream build their eight-point advantage after three quarters. Producing 32 points in a game that finished with a four-point margin is a substantial contribution, even though it was not enough to secure the win.

The more revealing detail is the timing of her scoring. The game reports indicate that Gray’s final points came with 6:14 remaining in the fourth quarter. Atlanta scored only nine points across the entire period, meaning the team had to find other ways to create offense after its leading scorer stopped adding to her total.

FLM

+1

That observation does not mean Gray was responsible for the defeat. Basketball scoring depends on collective movement, passing, spacing, and defensive pressure. It does, however, highlight a challenge Atlanta faced: sustaining its offense when its most productive scorer was no longer converting opportunities.

Gray’s seven rebounds and five assists also show that her contribution was not limited to shooting. She helped the Dream compete on the boards and participated in the creation of teammates’ scoring chances.

Angel Reese: 15 points, 14 rebounds, and 6 assists

Angel Reese

Forward · Atlanta Dream

15 points · 14 rebounds · 6 assists

Reese produced a double-double with 15 points and 14 rebounds. Her six assists added another dimension to her performance, showing that she helped move the ball rather than focusing only on scoring and rebounding.

Her rebounding was particularly important against Boston and Indiana’s interior rotation. Atlanta finished with the same total number of rebounds as Indiana, and Reese’s contribution helped keep the Dream competitive in that category.

The six assists are equally relevant. A forward who can secure rebounds and create scoring opportunities gives a team more flexibility in its offensive structure. Reese’s ability to contribute in several statistical categories helped Atlanta remain competitive during the middle quarters.

However, even a strong individual performance cannot compensate for every team-level problem. Atlanta’s low field-goal percentage and 14 turnovers limited the value of its rebounding and free-throw success.

Rhyne Howard: 17 points

Rhyne Howard

Guard · Atlanta Dream

17 points

5 assists

Howard finished with 17 points and five assists. Her scoring gave Atlanta another significant offensive contributor alongside Gray and Reese.

The presence of three players with at least 15 points helped Atlanta generate 91 total points. This is important when evaluating the defeat: the Dream had enough individual scoring production to win, but the team’s overall efficiency and late-game execution did not match Indiana’s.

Howard’s five assists also supported the team’s ball movement. Atlanta recorded 21 assists overall, three more than Indiana. That advantage suggests the Dream were capable of creating scoring opportunities for teammates, even though their shooting conversion rate was lower.

Other Atlanta contributors

The supplied roster identifies Naz Hillmon, Reese, Gray, Howard, and Jaylyn Sherrod as Atlanta’s starters. Madina Okot, Te-Hina Paopao, Aaliyah Nye, Isobel Borlase, Brionna Jones, Sika Kone, Shatori Walker-Kimbrough, and Jordin Canada were listed among the bench players.

Madina Okot recorded seven rebounds, matching Gray’s total. Isobel Borlase scored 10 points, providing another useful scoring contribution.

Brionna Jones was unavailable because of a left-leg injury. Sika Kone and Shatori Walker-Kimbrough were listed as coach’s decisions, while Jordin Canada was unavailable because of illness. These absences reduced Atlanta’s available options for this particular matchup.

It would be inaccurate to claim that any one absence directly caused the loss. The available figures do, however, provide context for understanding the rotation that Atlanta used during the game.

Head-to-Head Player Comparison

The most useful individual comparisons focus on what each team’s leading players contributed to scoring, rebounding, and playmaking.

Category	Indiana Fever	Atlanta Dream
Leading scorer	Caitlin Clark, 26	Allisha Gray, 32
Second leading scorer	Makayla Timpson, 20	Rhyne Howard, 17
Additional leading scorer	Kelsey Mitchell, 20	Angel Reese, 15
Key rebounder	Aliyah Boston, 14	Angel Reese, 14
Leading playmaker	Caitlin Clark, 9 assists	Angel Reese, 6 assists
Defensive standout	Aliyah Boston, 5 steals and 3 blocks	Team recorded 4 blocks
Late-game impact	Timpson’s overtime scoring	Gray’s earlier scoring kept Atlanta close

Which team had the better scoring balance?

Indiana had three players with 20 or more points, compared with Atlanta’s leading scorer at 32 and two other players at 17 and 15.

Atlanta’s top scorer produced more points than any individual Fever player. However, Indiana’s three 20-point scorers gave the team a more evenly distributed scoring contribution among its leading players.

This distinction matters because a balanced offense can be more difficult to defend over the final minutes. If one player has a difficult possession or cannot find an open shot, another teammate can take responsibility.

That does not mean balanced scoring always wins. Gray’s 32 points were highly productive, and Atlanta received meaningful help from Reese and Howard. In this game, however, Indiana’s distribution of points gave it more ways to respond when Atlanta threatened to take control.

Which players made the biggest defensive impact?

Boston stands out because her five steals and three blocks covered two distinct areas of defense. Steals disrupt possession, while blocks challenge attempts near the basket.

Clark’s nine assists and Boston’s defensive activity also illustrate the different roles required to win a close game. A point guard may organize the offense, while a center can influence rebounding, interior scoring, and rim protection.

Atlanta’s Reese contributed through rebounding and playmaking, but the Dream as a team recorded fewer steals than Indiana. The gap in defensive disruption was one of the clearest statistical differences between the sides.

The Key Tactical Factors Behind Indiana’s Victory

The box score becomes more meaningful when the statistics are connected to the game’s progression. Three factors stand out: Indiana’s ability to recover defensively, its control of turnovers, and its production from multiple scorers.

1. Indiana improved its defense at the right time

Holding an opponent to nine points in a quarter is a major achievement in a competitive professional game. Indiana’s fourth-quarter defense came immediately after Atlanta’s 28-point third quarter.

The contrast suggests that the Fever found a more effective way to disrupt Atlanta’s offense as the game progressed. Although the available team totals cannot identify every defensive adjustment, the change in scoring is clear.

For Atlanta, the lesson is that a strong three-quarter performance must be followed by consistent execution. Protecting a lead requires more than scoring well earlier in the game. Teams must continue to create quality shots and avoid possessions that end without a productive attempt.

2. Ball security created extra opportunities

Indiana committed five fewer turnovers. The difference helped the Fever maintain offensive possessions while creating additional chances to score after Atlanta mistakes.

This is one reason turnover statistics should be considered alongside shooting percentages. A team can shoot well but lose opportunities through careless passes, offensive fouls, or other possession-ending mistakes.

Atlanta’s 21 assists suggest that its players were able to find teammates, but 14 turnovers undermined some of that positive ball movement.

Indiana’s nine turnovers were especially valuable in a game that required overtime. Every retained possession increased the team’s chances of getting a shot or drawing a foul during the closing stages.

3. Multiple scorers made Indiana less predictable

Clark, Mitchell, and Timpson each scored 20 points. Boston added 18, giving Indiana four players with at least 18 points.

That distribution placed pressure on Atlanta’s defense. Concentrating too much attention on Clark risked leaving other players with useful scoring opportunities, while defending every Fever player aggressively could create openings elsewhere.

Indiana’s approach did not require every player to be equally productive. Instead, several players contributed enough to keep the offense functioning when the game became close.

4. Atlanta’s free-throw accuracy was not enough

The Dream converted 96% of their free throws, a stronger rate than Indiana’s 74%. They also recorded more assists and one more offensive rebound.

Yet these advantages did not overcome the shooting gap from the field or the difference in turnovers. Atlanta made seven fewer field goals despite taking one more attempt.

The result illustrates an important principle of basketball analysis: a team can lead several individual statistical categories and still lose if it struggles in categories that directly affect scoring efficiency.

5. Overtime exposed the importance of execution

Overtime is often decided by small differences in decision-making. Players must handle pressure, recognize defensive coverage, and convert chances while managing fatigue.

Indiana’s 14-10 advantage in overtime reflected its ability to produce enough offense without allowing Atlanta to regain control. Timpson’s consecutive layups and Clark’s late free throws were particularly important.

Atlanta remained close, but the four-point final margin left little room for the possessions it failed to convert.

What the Statistics Reveal About Both Teams

What Indiana did well

Indiana’s most important strengths in this game were:

• Efficient field-goal shooting: The Fever converted approximately 44% of their attempts.
• Distributed scoring: Three players reached 20 points, while Boston added 18.
• Ball security: Nine turnovers limited wasted possessions.
• Defensive pressure: Eight steals and six blocks reflected activity across the court.
• Late-game composure: Indiana outscored Atlanta in both the fourth quarter and overtime.

The biggest takeaway is that Indiana did not depend on one exceptional shooting category. Its three-point percentage was only 25%, and its free-throw percentage was below Atlanta’s. The team won through a combination of stronger overall field-goal conversion, defensive disruption, and timely scoring.

What Atlanta did well

Atlanta’s positive indicators included:

• Gray’s game-high 32 points.
• Reese’s 15 points and 14 rebounds.
• Howard’s 17 points and five assists.
• A 96% free-throw percentage.
• A three-assist advantage over Indiana.
• An eight-point lead entering the fourth quarter.

These figures show that Atlanta had several reasons to believe it could win. The Dream were competitive on the boards and created enough offense to build a lead.

The main weaknesses were their 35% field-goal percentage, 14 turnovers, and nine-point fourth quarter. Those factors made it difficult to protect the advantage they had built.

What fans should look for in future matchups

Anyone reviewing another Indiana-Atlanta game should look beyond the final score and check the following indicators:

1. Field-goal percentage: Does either team convert more of its attempts?
2. Turnover margin: Which team protects possession and forces mistakes?
3. Fourth-quarter scoring: Can the team holding a lead maintain offensive production?
4. Scoring distribution: Are multiple players contributing, or is one scorer carrying the attack?
5. Interior defense: Are rebounds, steals, and blocks limiting high-percentage shots?
6. Late-game execution: Which players create and convert opportunities when the margin is narrow?

These indicators are more useful when examined together than when treated as isolated statistics. For example, a team with more assists may still struggle if its shooting percentage is low. Likewise, a player with fewer points may have a major impact through defense and playmaking.

Season Series and Standings Context

According to the supplied matchup data, the season series finished tied at 2-2. The four listed results were:

Game	Result
June 5, 2026	Atlanta Dream 71, Indiana Fever 83
June 19, 2026	Indiana Fever 108, Atlanta Dream 101
June 20, 2026	Atlanta Dream 96, Indiana Fever 113
August 17, 2026, as supplied	Indiana Fever 95, Atlanta Dream 91

Indiana won three of the four listed meetings, so the 2-2 season-series claim conflicts with the individual results provided. The scores and dates should therefore be checked against the official schedule before publishing a definitive head-to-head record.

The supplied standings figures also require verification. They list Atlanta at 30-14 and Indiana at 28-16, while the game record shows 21-13 for Atlanta and 23-12 for Indiana. These figures may refer to different points in the season or contain a data mismatch. For an accurate historical article, the standings should be tied to a specific date rather than combined without explanation.

This distinction is important for sports publishing. A game result can be accurate while a surrounding standings summary is outdated or inconsistent. Readers benefit most when the article separates verified game statistics from season-level information that needs additional checking.

The most dependable reference for the final score and individual box-score figures is the ESPN game box score. The published article should use that record to confirm player-by-player statistics, participation, and the official date before presenting any disputed season information as fact.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Who won the Atlanta Dream vs Indiana Fever game?

The Indiana Fever defeated the Atlanta Dream 95-91 in overtime at State Farm Arena in Atlanta, according to the supplied game data.

2. How many points did Caitlin Clark score against the Atlanta Dream?

Caitlin Clark scored 26 points and recorded nine assists. She was Indiana’s leading scorer and played an important role in the team’s overtime victory.

3. How many points did Allisha Gray score against Indiana?

Allisha Gray scored a game-high 32 points. She also recorded seven rebounds and five assists for Atlanta.

4. Which Indiana Fever player had the most rebounds?

Aliyah Boston led Indiana with 14 rebounds. She also recorded 18 points, four assists, five steals, and three blocks.

5. Why did Indiana win despite Atlanta’s free-throw advantage?

Indiana shot more accurately from the field, committed five fewer turnovers, and recorded more steals and blocks. The Fever also outscored Atlanta in the fourth quarter and overtime.

6. Did the game go into overtime?

Yes. The teams were tied 81-81 at the end of regulation. Indiana scored 14 points in overtime, while Atlanta scored 10, producing the final 95-91 result.

Conclusion

The atlanta dream vs indiana fever match player stats reveal how Indiana turned a difficult game into a 95-91 overtime victory. Caitlin Clark led the Fever with 26 points and nine assists, while Makayla Timpson and Kelsey Mitchell each scored 20. Aliyah Boston contributed 18 points, 14 rebounds, four assists, five steals, and three blocks, making her one of the most influential players on the court.

For Atlanta, Allisha Gray’s 32 points, seven rebounds, and five assists led an impressive individual performance. Angel Reese added 15 points, 14 rebounds, and six assists, while Rhyne Howard contributed 17 points and five assists. The Dream demonstrated their offensive potential by building an eight-point lead after three quarters.

The decisive difference came late in the game. Indiana held Atlanta to nine points in the fourth quarter, forced more turnovers, and maintained its composure in overtime. Although Atlanta excelled at the free-throw line and recorded more assists, Indiana’s better field-goal percentage and stronger defensive disruption proved more valuable.

Ultimately, this matchup demonstrates why basketball statistics must be evaluated collectively. Individual scoring matters, but possession management, defensive pressure, and performance during decisive moments often determine the final result. The most informative way to assess this game is to combine the player box scores with the quarter-by-quarter progression, rather than relying on the final score alone.