The las vegas aces vs indiana fever match player stats from the October 2026 WNBA playoffs highlight a remarkable individual performance by A’ja Wilson, who scored 36 points and collected 10 rebounds to lead the Las Vegas Aces to a 94-83 victory over the Indiana Fever. The result, according to the supplied game data, decided the first-round series 2-1 in favor of Las Vegas and showcased the importance of efficient shooting, free-throw production, and late-game execution.

Indiana entered the deciding game after earning a win in Game 2, making this matchup a critical test for both teams. Kelsey Mitchell scored 23 points for the Fever, while Aliyah Boston contributed 19 points and 10 rebounds. Caitlin Clark added 18 points and four assists, but her six turnovers created an additional challenge for Indiana’s offense.

The final score tells only part of the story. Las Vegas made 28 free throws compared with Indiana’s 14, creating a 14-point advantage at the line. The Aces also converted 45% of their field-goal attempts, compared with 38% for the Fever. Those differences help explain how Las Vegas secured an 11-point victory despite Indiana recording more rebounds and steals.

This article examines the team statistics, leading scorers, individual player performances, quarter-by-quarter scoring, and tactical factors that shaped the result. It also explains how to interpret the numbers so readers can understand not only who scored the most points, but why the statistical differences mattered.

Important date note: The supplied game information lists October 1, 2026, in the page title but October 2, 2026, in the matchup section. The article uses the supplied final score and statistics while acknowledging this discrepancy. The figures should be checked against the official box score before publication.

Las Vegas Aces vs Indiana Fever Match Player Stats: Game Overview

The third game of the reported first-round series took place at Michelob ULTRA Arena in Las Vegas, Nevada. The supplied data records an attendance of 10,388 and identifies the contest as a playoff game with a final score of 94-83.

Las Vegas Aces

Home team

94

Indiana Fever

Away team

83

Venue

Michelob ULTRA Arena

Reported series result

Aces win 2-1

Game type

First-round playoffs

Attendance

10,388

The Aces finished the reported game with an 11-point advantage. Their offense produced more points from the field and at the free-throw line, while Indiana’s larger rebound total did not translate into enough additional scoring opportunities to overcome the difference.

The supplied pregame records were 31-13 overall and 15-7 at home for Las Vegas, compared with 28-16 overall and 13-9 away for Indiana. These figures provide context for the matchup, although the detailed game statistics offer a clearer explanation of the final result.

Complete Team Statistics and Box Score

The team comparison shows that Las Vegas and Indiana followed different paths offensively. The Fever collected more rebounds, steals, and blocks, while the Aces converted their field-goal attempts more efficiently and earned substantially more free throws.

Team statistic	Las Vegas Aces	Indiana Fever
Final score	94	83
Field goals made	29	30
Field goals attempted	64	78
Field-goal percentage	45%	38%
Three-pointers made	8	9
Three-pointers attempted	20	32
Three-point percentage	40%	28%
Free throws made	28	14
Free throws attempted	35	20
Free-throw percentage	80%	70%
Total rebounds	34	38
Offensive rebounds	2	9
Defensive rebounds	32	29
Assists	15	16
Turnovers	10	10
Steals	4	8
Blocks	4	6
Personal fouls	19	27

Source: supplied ESPN box-score data. Percentages are reported as provided and may be rounded.

Field-goal efficiency favored Las Vegas

Indiana made 30 field goals, one more than Las Vegas. However, the Fever needed 78 attempts to produce those baskets, while the Aces made 29 shots from 64 attempts.

That difference matters because scoring opportunities are limited in a playoff game. A team that converts a greater share of its attempts can maintain its scoring output without needing as many possessions.

The Aces shot approximately 45.3% from the field, compared with approximately 38.5% for Indiana when calculated from the supplied makes and attempts. The rounded percentages in the original data are 45% and 38%.

The difference of roughly seven percentage points indicates that Las Vegas extracted more value from its field-goal attempts. Indiana’s higher attempt total reflects a greater volume of shooting, but volume alone did not guarantee efficient scoring.

Three-point shooting told a similar story

The Fever made nine three-pointers, one more than the Aces. However, Indiana attempted 32 shots from beyond the arc, compared with only 20 for Las Vegas.

Three-point measure	Aces	Fever
Made	8	9
Attempted	20	32
Calculated accuracy	40.0%	28.1%
Points from three-pointers	24	27

Indiana scored three more points from beyond the arc. Yet the Aces converted their attempts at a substantially higher rate.

Las Vegas generated 24 points from three-pointers on 20 attempts. Indiana generated 27 points on 32 attempts. The Fever’s additional three-point volume produced only three more points, despite requiring 12 additional attempts.

This does not mean Indiana should automatically have taken fewer threes. Three-point attempts can be valuable when they are open and created by good ball movement. The more useful question is whether the shots came from favorable situations or whether Indiana relied too heavily on difficult perimeter attempts.

Free throws created the decisive scoring gap

The free-throw comparison is one of the most important parts of the box score.

• Las Vegas made 28 of 35 free throws.
• Indiana made 14 of 20 free throws.
• The Aces scored 14 more points at the line.
• Las Vegas attempted 15 more free throws.

The 14-point free-throw advantage was larger than the final 11-point winning margin. In other words, the difference in points scored at the line was sufficient to account for the final margin, even though the teams also differed in their field-goal production.

This is a mathematical comparison, not proof that every free throw directly caused the outcome. It does, however, identify a major source of separation.

The Aces converted 80% of their free throws, while the Fever converted 70%. Las Vegas therefore benefited from both greater opportunity and better conversion.

Indiana also committed 27 personal fouls, eight more than Las Vegas. That gap provides important context for the free-throw difference, although a full play-by-play review would be needed to determine precisely how each foul affected scoring and possession management.

Player Statistics: Leading Performers From Both Teams

Individual statistics reveal how the two offenses generated their points. A’ja Wilson led the game with 36 points, while Chelsea Gray and Jackie Young supplied important secondary scoring for Las Vegas. Indiana received its highest point totals from Kelsey Mitchell, Aliyah Boston, and Caitlin Clark.

Las Vegas Aces player stats

Player	Points	Rebounds	Assists	Key reported details
A’ja Wilson	36	10	1	11-of-18 field goals
Chelsea Gray	23	Not supplied	5	Second-highest Aces scorer
Jackie Young	18	Not supplied	7	Team-high in reported assists
Brianna Turner	Not supplied	Not supplied	Not supplied	Listed starter
Jewell Loyd	Not supplied	Not supplied	Not supplied	Listed starter

The supplied information does not include every player’s complete statistical line. Missing numbers have therefore been left unspecified rather than estimated.

A’ja Wilson: The central figure in the victory

A’ja Wilson’s 36-point, 10-rebound performance was the defining individual contribution of the reported game. She recorded a double-double by reaching double figures in both points and rebounds.

Her shooting line was especially notable:

A’ja Wilson statistic	Result
Points	36
Rebounds	10
Assists	1
Field goals	11/18
Three-pointers	2/3
Free throws	12/15

Wilson made 11 of her 18 field-goal attempts, a conversion rate of approximately 61.1%. She also made two of three three-point attempts and 12 of 15 free throws.

These numbers show that her scoring came from multiple areas rather than relying on a single type of shot. She contributed through field goals, perimeter shooting, and free throws.

Her 10 rebounds were also important because defensive and offensive rebounds can determine whether a possession ends with a change of possession or continues with another scoring opportunity. The supplied data does not separate Wilson’s rebounds into offensive and defensive categories, so it would be inappropriate to assign a specific number to either.

The combination of scoring efficiency and rebounding made Wilson the most productive scorer in the matchup. Her 36 points represented approximately 38.3% of Las Vegas’s total points, giving the Aces a reliable scoring centerpiece throughout the contest.

Chelsea Gray: Secondary scoring and playmaking

Chelsea Gray scored 23 points and recorded five assists. Her contribution provided Las Vegas with another significant offensive option alongside Wilson.

A second scorer capable of producing more than 20 points changes how a defense can approach a game. Opponents cannot focus exclusively on one player without risking open opportunities for another.

Gray’s five assists also indicate her role in creating scoring chances for teammates. Assists do not capture every successful pass, screen, or movement that helps an offense, but they provide a useful record of passes directly leading to made baskets.

With Wilson scoring 36 points and Gray adding 23, the pair combined for 59 points. That amounted to approximately 62.8% of the Aces’ total. Their production allowed Las Vegas to maintain a strong scoring output without requiring every player to deliver a high individual total.

Jackie Young: A major contribution as a playmaker

Jackie Young scored 18 points and recorded seven assists, according to the supplied statistics. Her assist total was the highest reported for either team.

Young’s combination of scoring and playmaking gave Las Vegas another route to offensive production. A player who can score while also creating opportunities for teammates makes defensive coverage more complicated.

Her seven assists accounted for nearly half of Las Vegas’s 15 team assists. That does not mean she created half of all the team’s scoring, because some baskets are unassisted and assists are not awarded on every productive pass. Still, it demonstrates the importance of her role in connecting individual scoring with team offense.

Young’s 18 points also gave the Aces three leading scorers with at least 18 points apiece. This distribution helped reduce the pressure on Wilson to generate every important basket herself.

Indiana Fever player stats

Player	Points	Rebounds	Assists	Key reported details
Kelsey Mitchell	23	Not supplied	Not supplied	Leading Indiana scorer
Aliyah Boston	19	10	Not supplied	Recorded a double-double
Caitlin Clark	18	Not supplied	4	Recorded 6 turnovers
Lexie Hull	Not supplied	Not supplied	Not supplied	Listed starter
Makayla Timpson	Not supplied	Not supplied	Not supplied	Listed starter

Kelsey Mitchell: Indiana’s leading scorer

Kelsey Mitchell led the Fever with 23 points. Her output matched Chelsea Gray’s total and gave Indiana an important source of perimeter and overall scoring.

Mitchell’s performance helped keep the Fever competitive, particularly because Indiana had three players score at least 18 points. However, scoring totals need to be considered alongside team efficiency and the number of possessions used.

The supplied data does not include Mitchell’s individual field-goal attempts, three-point percentage, free throws, or turnover count. It is therefore not possible to calculate her individual shooting efficiency or establish how much of her scoring came from particular areas.

What can be established is that Mitchell was Indiana’s top scorer and one of the game’s leading offensive contributors. Her 23 points were important, but the Fever needed more collective efficiency to overcome Las Vegas’s scoring advantage.

Aliyah Boston: Scoring and rebounding presence

Aliyah Boston recorded 19 points and 10 rebounds. Like Wilson, she achieved a double-double, demonstrating her contribution in two major statistical categories.

Boston’s rebounding total was particularly relevant because Indiana finished with 38 rebounds, four more than Las Vegas. Her individual total accounted for a substantial part of that team effort.

However, rebounds do not always translate directly into points. Offensive rebounds can extend a possession, while defensive rebounds generally end an opponent’s possession. The impact depends on when the rebounds occur and whether the team converts subsequent opportunities.

Indiana’s nine offensive rebounds suggest that the Fever created chances to extend possessions. Yet the team finished with only 83 points, indicating that its overall scoring output did not fully capitalize on its shooting volume and rebounding advantage.

Without Boston’s complete shooting line and offensive-defensive rebound split, a more detailed assessment of her individual efficiency would require additional box-score information.

Caitlin Clark: Scoring production and ball security

Caitlin Clark finished with 18 points, four assists, and six turnovers in the supplied statistics.

Her scoring gave Indiana another player capable of reaching double figures, while her assists reflected her role in creating opportunities for teammates. At the same time, the six turnovers are an important part of evaluating her performance.

A turnover ends a team’s possession without a shot being attempted on that possession. In a playoff game decided by 11 points, losing possession repeatedly can reduce the number of opportunities available to score.

That does not mean every turnover was necessarily an individual mistake or that Clark alone was responsible for Indiana’s offensive difficulties. Turnovers can result from defensive pressure, passing errors, miscommunication, or difficult decisions late in the shot clock.

The more useful conclusion is that Indiana needed to balance Clark’s playmaking responsibilities with stronger possession management. Her 18 points and four assists show offensive involvement, while her six turnovers identify an area worth examining in the full game film.

Bench Players and Starting Lineups

Starting lineups provide context for how a team begins a game, while bench contributions can reveal the depth available during substitutions. The supplied information identifies the players listed as starters and reserves, but it does not provide complete individual statistics for everyone in the rotation.

Indiana Fever lineup

Reported starters

• Makayla Timpson (#21)
• Aliyah Boston (#7)
• Kelsey Mitchell (#0)
• Lexie Hull (#10)
• Caitlin Clark (#22)

Reported bench players

• Myisha Hines-Allen (#2)
• Monique Billings (#25)
• Sophie Cunningham (#8)
• Raven Johnson (#3)
• Grace VanSlooten (#14)
• Mercedes Russell (#5)

Las Vegas Aces lineup

Reported starters

• Brianna Turner (#21)
• A’ja Wilson (#22)
• Chelsea Gray (#12)
• Jewell Loyd (#24)
• Jackie Young (#0)

Reported bench players

• Cheyenne Parker-Tyus (#32)
• Mai Yamamoto (#18)
• Kierstan Bell (#1)
• Kalani Brown (#20)
• Justine Pissott (#13)

These lists are reproduced from the supplied game information. They should be verified against the official box score before publication, particularly because roster availability and starting assignments can change during a season.

Why bench production matters

Bench statistics can reveal whether a team maintained its performance when starters rested. However, a reliable bench comparison requires more than a list of available players.

Useful measures include:

• Bench points to establish how much scoring came from reserves.
• Minutes played to understand each player’s actual role.
• Rebounds and assists to measure contributions beyond scoring.
• Turnovers and shooting efficiency to assess offensive execution.
• Plus/minus to show the team’s point differential while a player was on the floor.

No complete bench scoring totals were supplied for this game. It would therefore be misleading to claim that one team’s reserves outperformed the other team’s bench.

A sound analysis distinguishes between the players who were listed as available and those who demonstrably influenced the result through recorded minutes and statistics.

Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Breakdown

The scoring pattern shows how the game changed across four quarters. Both teams scored 31 points in the opening period, but Las Vegas created a six-point advantage in the second quarter and extended its lead in the fourth.

Quarter	Las Vegas Aces	Indiana Fever	Quarter difference
First	31	31	0
Second	23	17	Aces +6
Third	16	17	Fever +1
Fourth	24	18	Aces +6
Total	94	83	Aces +11

First quarter: An even start

Both teams scored 31 points in the opening quarter. This equal start suggests that neither side established an advantage on the scoreboard during the first 10 minutes.

The opening period also illustrates why early scoring alone does not determine a game’s outcome. Teams can exchange baskets and remain level before differences in efficiency, fouls, and possession management emerge later.

Second quarter: Las Vegas gained separation

The Aces outscored the Fever 23-17 in the second quarter. That six-point advantage gave Las Vegas a meaningful lead heading into halftime.

A six-point swing in a single quarter can come from several sources, including improved shooting, defensive stops, free throws, or turnovers. The supplied quarter totals do not identify exactly which events produced this difference, so attributing it to a particular tactical adjustment would require play-by-play evidence.

Third quarter: Indiana responded slightly

Indiana scored 17 points compared with Las Vegas’s 16 in the third quarter. The Fever reduced the scoring gap by one point, but the difference was too small to erase the advantage built earlier.

This period shows that Indiana was not outscored in every quarter. Instead, the Fever struggled to make up ground despite matching the Aces in the first quarter and narrowly winning the third.

Fourth quarter: The Aces protected their lead

Las Vegas scored 24 points in the fourth quarter, while Indiana managed 18. The six-point difference in the final period expanded the Aces’ advantage and helped produce the 94-83 result.

Late-game execution is especially important in playoff basketball because every possession has greater significance when the time remaining decreases. The Aces’ final-quarter scoring suggests that they maintained their offensive production better than Indiana during the closing stretch.

The quarter totals alone cannot establish whether Las Vegas slowed the pace, attacked the basket more often, or benefited from specific defensive adjustments. They do establish that the Aces finished with the stronger scoring period.

Three Statistical Factors That Explain the Result

1. Las Vegas converted its opportunities more efficiently

The Aces shot approximately 45.3% from the field, based on 29 makes in 64 attempts. Indiana shot approximately 38.5%, based on 30 makes in 78 attempts.

The difference is meaningful because a team does not need to make more total shots to score more points. It needs to combine shooting volume, accuracy, and the value of each basket effectively.

Indiana attempted 14 more field goals than Las Vegas but made only one additional basket. Those extra attempts did not create enough additional scoring to overcome the Aces’ more efficient shooting and superior free-throw production.

2. Free-throw opportunities changed the scoring equation

Las Vegas made 28 free throws, twice Indiana’s total of 14. That difference supplied the Aces with 14 additional points from the line.

Free throws are particularly valuable because a successful attempt scores without requiring a field-goal attempt. Drawing fouls can also put opposing players in foul trouble and change defensive decisions.

The Aces’ 35 attempts suggest that trips to the line were a major part of their offensive output. Indiana’s 27 personal fouls provide further context, although not all fouls result in free throws.

The available statistics do not identify every shooting foul, bonus situation, or free-throw sequence. Even so, the team totals make the free-throw advantage one of the clearest statistical explanations for the final score.

3. Indiana’s rebounding advantage did not produce a scoring advantage

The Fever collected 38 rebounds compared with 34 for Las Vegas. Indiana also recorded nine offensive rebounds, while the Aces had two.

On the surface, those figures suggest that Indiana created additional opportunities to regain possession. Offensive rebounds can be particularly useful because they give a team another chance to score without requiring a new possession.

However, extra rebounds are valuable only when a team can convert the resulting opportunities. Indiana’s lower field-goal percentage and smaller free-throw total limited its ability to turn possession-related advantages into points.

Las Vegas collected 32 defensive rebounds, compared with Indiana’s 29. Those defensive rebounds helped the Aces finish possessions after Indiana missed shots.

The lesson is not that rebounding was unimportant. Rather, Indiana’s rebound advantage was offset by the Aces’ superior shooting efficiency and free-throw production.

How to Interpret the Advanced Context Behind the Box Score

A box score is most useful when its numbers are interpreted together rather than treated as isolated achievements.

Shooting percentage and effective field-goal percentage

Field-goal percentage measures the proportion of field-goal attempts that become successful shots. It treats a two-point basket and a three-point basket as one made field goal each.

Effective field-goal percentage adjusts for the additional point awarded to a three-pointer. It is calculated as:

\[ eFG\%=\frac{FGM+0.5\times 3PM}{FGA}\times100 \]

Using the supplied figures, Las Vegas recorded an effective field-goal percentage of approximately 51.6%, while Indiana recorded approximately 44.2%.

This calculation highlights the value of three-point shooting. Although Indiana made one more three-pointer, the Aces’ greater accuracy helped them generate more value from their field-goal attempts overall.

Turnovers and possession management

Both teams recorded 10 turnovers. That equality means the raw turnover count does not explain the difference in the final score.

However, the team total does not reveal which players committed those turnovers, when they occurred, or whether they led directly to fast-break points. Clark’s six reported turnovers are an individual figure and should not be confused with Indiana’s 10 turnovers as a team.

A more complete review would examine turnover percentage, which measures turnovers relative to the possessions a team uses. Because complete possession data is not provided, a precise turnover-rate calculation would require additional information.

Plus/minus and player impact

Plus/minus measures the team’s net point differential while a particular player is on the court. For example, a player with a plus/minus of +8 was on the floor during a stretch in which their team outscored its opponent by eight points.

The statistic can help identify lineups that performed well, but it does not prove that an individual player caused the scoring difference. Teammates, opponents, substitutions, and game circumstances all influence the result.

No individual plus/minus values were included in the supplied data. Readers should consult the official ESPN box score for the available player-level details rather than assuming values from the final team score.

Series Context: How the Three Games Unfolded

The supplied results describe a three-game series in which Las Vegas won the opening game, Indiana responded in the second, and the Aces won the deciding matchup.

Game	Date supplied	Result	Winner
Game 1	September 28, 2026	Aces 102-85 Fever	Las Vegas
Game 2	September 30, 2026	Fever 99-89 Aces	Indiana
Game 3	October 1 or 2, 2026	Aces 94-83 Fever	Las Vegas

The series scores illustrate how a team can respond to an earlier defeat. Indiana’s 99-89 victory in Game 2 demonstrated that the Fever could produce a strong scoring performance against Las Vegas. The Aces then responded with an 11-point victory in the reported deciding game.

The three listed scores also show that the final matchup had fewer combined points than either of the first two games. The teams combined for 177 points in Game 3, compared with 187 in Game 1 and 188 in Game 2.

That difference could reflect changes in shooting, pace, defense, or free-throw production. The supplied information does not establish which factor caused the lower combined score.

The reported series result is 2-1 in favor of Las Vegas. Because the game date is inconsistent in the source summary, the official schedule and box score should be checked before presenting the dates as fully verified historical details.

What the Statistics Suggest for Each Team

Lessons for the Las Vegas Aces

The reported performance offers several useful observations about Las Vegas’s approach.

• Maintain scoring efficiency. The Aces converted approximately 45% of their field-goal attempts, providing a strong foundation for their offense.
• Use multiple scoring options. Wilson, Gray, and Young combined for 77 points, giving the team substantial production from three players.
• Capitalize on free throws. Las Vegas converted 28 attempts, creating a major advantage in total points.
• Finish strong. The Aces outscored Indiana by six points in the fourth quarter, helping protect their lead.

The main consideration is whether this level of free-throw production and shooting efficiency can be sustained against different opponents. One game provides useful evidence, but it cannot establish a long-term trend.

Lessons for the Indiana Fever

Indiana’s numbers suggest several areas worth examining.

• Improve shot selection and conversion. The Fever’s 78 field-goal attempts produced 30 makes, indicating that greater accuracy could have improved their scoring.
• Reduce unnecessary turnovers. Clark’s six turnovers made ball security an important individual talking point, although the team recorded 10 turnovers overall.
• Convert offensive rebounds into points. Indiana collected nine offensive rebounds but still finished 11 points behind.
• Manage fouls more effectively. The 27 personal fouls and 14-point free-throw deficit highlight an important area for further review.

These observations are based on the reported box score, not a complete film analysis. To determine whether shot selection, defensive pressure, or particular lineup combinations were responsible, the game footage and possession-by-possession records would be needed.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Who won the Las Vegas Aces vs Indiana Fever game?

The Las Vegas Aces defeated the Indiana Fever 94-83 in the reported third game of their 2026 WNBA playoff series. The supplied results show Las Vegas winning the series 2-1.

2. How many points did A’ja Wilson score against Indiana?

A’ja Wilson scored 36 points and recorded 10 rebounds. She made 11 of 18 field-goal attempts, two of three three-point attempts, and 12 of 15 free throws, according to the supplied statistics.

3. Who was Indiana’s leading scorer?

Kelsey Mitchell led Indiana with 23 points. Aliyah Boston added 19 points and 10 rebounds, while Caitlin Clark contributed 18 points and four assists.

4. Why did the Aces beat the Fever?

The reported statistics point to more efficient field-goal shooting and a substantial free-throw advantage. Las Vegas shot approximately 45% from the field and made 28 free throws, while Indiana shot approximately 38% and made 14 free throws.

5. How many rebounds did each team record?

Indiana recorded 38 total rebounds, compared with 34 for Las Vegas. The Fever also had nine offensive rebounds, while the Aces recorded two.

6. What was the final score of the third game?

The reported final score was Las Vegas Aces 94, Indiana Fever 83. The supplied source information lists October 1 in the page title and October 2 in the matchup details, so the precise date should be verified against the official game record.

Conclusion

The las vegas aces vs indiana fever match player stats reveal how individual excellence and team efficiency combined to shape the reported 94-83 playoff result. A’ja Wilson led all scorers with 36 points and 10 rebounds, while Chelsea Gray contributed 23 points and five assists and Jackie Young added 18 points and seven assists.

Indiana also had notable individual performances. Kelsey Mitchell scored 23 points, Aliyah Boston recorded 19 points and 10 rebounds, and Caitlin Clark finished with 18 points and four assists. Despite these contributions, the Fever could not overcome the Aces’ shooting efficiency and free-throw advantage.

The most important team differences were clear. Las Vegas shot more accurately from the field, made twice as many free throws, and outscored Indiana by six points in both the second and fourth quarters. Indiana’s advantages in total rebounds, offensive rebounds, steals, and blocks were not enough to reverse the result.

These figures also demonstrate why basketball statistics should be evaluated together. A team can collect more rebounds and make more field goals yet still lose when its shooting efficiency and free-throw production fall behind. Individual scoring totals are important, but possession management, shot selection, and the ability to convert opportunities provide a fuller explanation of performance.

One detail still requires confirmation before publication: the supplied source data gives two different dates for the third game. Verifying that date and the complete player-level box score will help ensure the published record is accurate.