Indiana Fever vs Los Angeles Sparks Match Player Stats
The indiana fever vs los angeles sparks match player stats from June 28, 2026, tell the story of a game that Indiana controlled through elite shooting, rebounding, and a dominant middle stretch. The Fever defeated the Sparks 111-87 at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis, turning a competitive opening quarter into a 24-point victory. Kelsey Mitchell led all scorers with 26 points, while Aliyah Boston, Tyasha Harris, and Monique Billings provided important secondary production. Los Angeles received 17 points from Nneka Ogwumike and 15 from Dearica Hamby, but the Sparks struggled to match Indiana’s efficiency. Official WNBA game summary and box score
Indiana Fever vs Los Angeles Sparks Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The June 28 matchup was especially interesting because both teams entered the contest with important players unavailable.
Indiana played without Caitlin Clark, who was listed out with a back injury. Los Angeles was also without Kelsey Plum because of a left leg injury, while Cameron Brink was unavailable because of a left ankle issue.
Despite those absences, the Fever produced one of their most convincing offensive performances of the season.
Game Information
| Category | Detail |
| Game | Los Angeles Sparks vs Indiana Fever |
| Date | June 28, 2026 |
| Venue | Gainbridge Fieldhouse, Indianapolis |
| Attendance | 16,018 |
| Final Score | Indiana Fever 111, Los Angeles Sparks 87 |
| Indiana Record | 11-8 |
| Los Angeles Record | 8-10 |
| Season Series | Indiana led 2-1 |
| Officials | Isaac Barnett, Ryan Sassano, Kelsey Reynolds |
| Where to Watch | CBS, Paramount+ |
| ESPN Game ID | 401857028 |
The final score does not fully explain how the game developed.
Indiana was ahead 27-21 after the opening quarter, then exploded for 30 points in the second period. The Fever followed that with another 32-point third quarter.
That 62-point stretch across the second and third quarters effectively decided the contest.
Los Angeles did recover offensively in the fourth quarter, scoring 29 points, but by then the deficit was too large to overcome.
How the Game Was Decided
The clearest explanation for Indiana’s victory is shooting efficiency.
The Fever converted 37 of 67 field-goal attempts, good for roughly 55 percent shooting. They also made 10 of 19 three-point attempts and went 27-for-33 from the free-throw line.
Los Angeles, meanwhile, finished 33-for-77 from the field, 4-for-20 from three-point range, and 17-for-21 at the line.
That created a major efficiency gap.
| Team | FG | 3PT | FT | Rebounds | Assists | Turnovers |
| Indiana Fever | 37-67 | 10-19 | 27-33 | 41 | 23 | 12 |
| Los Angeles Sparks | 33-77 | 4-20 | 17-21 | 25 | 21 | 9 |
The Sparks actually protected the ball better, committing only nine turnovers compared with Indiana’s 12.
That statistic, however, could not compensate for the difference in shooting and rebounding.
The Three-Point Gap
Indiana’s outside shooting was one of the biggest differences.
The Fever made 10 three-pointers.
Los Angeles made only four.
That six-made-three advantage translated into 18 additional points from beyond the arc alone.
Kelsey Mitchell was particularly important. She made four of six attempts from three-point range while scoring 26 points overall.
Her shooting prevented the Sparks from comfortably helping off Indiana’s perimeter players.
Rebounding Created Extra Control
Indiana also won the rebounding battle 41-25.
That is a 16-rebound advantage.
A team can sometimes overcome a rebounding deficit through superior shooting, but Los Angeles had the opposite problem here. The Sparks were already shooting less efficiently, and they were also allowing Indiana to control the glass.
The Fever therefore had more opportunities to dictate possession.
Indiana Fever Player Stats
The Indiana side produced a balanced scoring attack even without Caitlin Clark.
Four Fever players reached double figures, led by Kelsey Mitchell.
Kelsey Mitchell
26 points, 3 rebounds, 2 assists, 4-for-6 from three, +30
Mitchell was the primary offensive force.
Her 26 points came on highly efficient shooting, and the four made threes were particularly damaging to Los Angeles.
The +30 plus-minus also illustrates how strongly Indiana performed during her minutes.
She was not simply accumulating points in an otherwise close game. Her scoring came within a dominant team performance.
Mitchell’s third-quarter production was especially important. Indiana already had a sizeable advantage, but her scoring helped push the game beyond realistic reach for Los Angeles.
Aliyah Boston
17 points, 7 rebounds, 3 assists, 3 blocks, +23
Boston provided an inside presence that complemented Mitchell’s perimeter shooting.
Her seven rebounds helped Indiana maintain its advantage on the glass, while three blocks added another layer to the defensive performance.
Boston’s contribution was particularly valuable because Indiana needed someone capable of creating pressure inside when Clark was unavailable.
Her combination of scoring, rebounding, passing, and rim protection made her one of the most complete players on the floor.
Tyasha Harris
16 points, 5 rebounds, 3 assists, 2-for-4 from three, +27
Harris stepped into a larger role with Clark unavailable.
Her 16 points were important, but the bigger story was her ability to provide additional perimeter scoring.
Two made threes forced Los Angeles to respect another shooter instead of concentrating all of its defensive attention on Mitchell.
Her +27 plus-minus was also one of the strongest figures on the Fever roster.
Monique Billings
15 points, 6 rebounds, 2 assists, 2 steals, +38
Billings produced one of the most influential all-around performances of the night.
Her 15 points were only fourth among Indiana’s top scorers, yet her +38 rating was the best mark in the game.
That is an important reminder that scoring totals alone do not describe a player’s impact.
Billings contributed on the glass, defended, generated steals, and helped Indiana maintain its two-way pressure.
Other Indiana Contributors
Indiana received useful minutes and contributions throughout the rotation.
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Other |
| Lexie Hull | 5 | 7 | 3 | 1 STL, 1 BLK, +21 |
| Myisha Hines-Allen | 7 | 3 | 3 | 1 STL, 1 BLK |
| Sophie Cunningham | 9 | 2 | 1 | 1 STL, +8 |
| Makayla Timpson | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1 STL |
| Grace VanSlooten | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 BLK |
| Raven Johnson | 2 | 3 | 4 | |
| Bree Hall | 5 | 1 | 0 | |
| Damiris Dantas | 0 | 1 | 1 |
Lexie Hull’s seven rebounds were particularly useful from a perimeter position.
Raven Johnson also contributed four assists despite scoring only two points, showing how Indiana’s production was not dependent on scoring from every player.
Los Angeles Sparks Player Stats
Los Angeles had several individual performances worth highlighting, but the overall offensive efficiency was not enough to stay with Indiana.
Nneka Ogwumike
17 points, 7 rebounds, 2 assists, 1 steal, 2 blocks
Ogwumike led the Sparks in scoring.
Her seven rebounds and two blocks demonstrated her broader impact, but she needed more offensive support to challenge Indiana’s scoring output.
The Fever’s defensive pressure and rebounding advantage made it difficult for Los Angeles to consistently generate efficient possessions.
Dearica Hamby
15 points, 4 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 offensive rebounds, 6 fouls
Hamby was important as both a scorer and facilitator.
Her four assists showed that she was not being used solely as a finishing option.
However, the six personal fouls limited her ability to maintain aggressive defensive pressure throughout the contest.
Ariel Atkins
12 points, 3 rebounds, 3 assists, 1 steal
Atkins reached double figures and supplied secondary playmaking.
Her three assists were useful, but Los Angeles needed substantially more perimeter efficiency.
The Sparks converted only four three-pointers, which made it easier for Indiana to protect the paint without paying a major price outside.
Other Sparks Contributors
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Other |
| Rae Burrell | 11 | 2 | 1 | |
| Jihyun Park | 8 | 4 | 1 | 1 STL, 1 BLK |
| Emma Cannon | 6 | 1 | 1 | |
| Chance Gray | 6 | 0 | 4 | |
| Laura Ziegler | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 STL |
| Kiana Williams | 4 | 1 | 0 | |
| Ta’Niya Latson | 2 | 2 | 0 | |
| Erica Wheeler | 2 | 0 | 5 | 1 BLK |
Erica Wheeler’s five assists were notable despite her two points.
Chance Gray also contributed four assists, helping Los Angeles move the ball despite the difficult shooting night.
Indiana Fever vs Los Angeles Sparks Match Player Stats Breakdown
The numbers become more useful when they are viewed together rather than individually.
Indiana did not win because of one statistical category.
The Fever won because several advantages reinforced each other.
1. Indiana Shot Much Better
Indiana’s 55 percent field-goal shooting was the foundation of the victory.
Los Angeles shot approximately 43 percent.
That 12-percentage-point difference is significant over 40 minutes.
Indiana also made 53 percent of its three-point attempts, while Los Angeles made only 20 percent.
The difference in outside shooting alone created a difficult situation for the Sparks defense.
2. Indiana Controlled the Glass
The 41-25 rebounding advantage gave the Fever a major physical edge.
The most important point is not simply that Indiana collected more rebounds.
It is that Los Angeles had fewer opportunities to create second-chance offense while Indiana had more chances to extend possessions.
3. Indiana Won the Middle Quarters
The second and third quarters were the turning point.
Indiana scored:
- 30 points in the second quarter
- 32 points in the third quarter
Los Angeles scored:
- 16 points in the second quarter
- 21 points in the third quarter
The combined 62-37 advantage across those two quarters produced a 25-point difference.
That was essentially the game.
4. Free Throws Added Another Advantage
Indiana went 27-for-33 at the free-throw line.
Los Angeles went 17-for-21.
Both teams shot more than 80 percent from the line, so the difference was not accuracy.
It was opportunity.
Indiana attempted 12 more free throws and converted 10 more.
Those extra points mattered considerably in a 24-point game.
Quarter-by-Quarter Analysis
First Quarter
Indiana started well, leading 27-21.
A six-point advantage was meaningful, but it did not indicate that the game would become a blowout.
Los Angeles remained within striking distance.
The decisive change came in the second quarter.
Second Quarter
Indiana scored 30 points while limiting Los Angeles to 16.
The Fever’s lead grew rapidly.
The combination of perimeter shooting and efficient interior offense prevented Los Angeles from establishing a consistent defensive rhythm.
By halftime, Indiana held a 57-37 advantage.
That 20-point halftime lead changed the nature of the game.
Third Quarter
Indiana continued its attack rather than becoming passive.
The Fever scored 32 points in the third.
Mitchell’s scoring helped maintain the pressure, while Boston and Harris supplied additional offense.
Los Angeles scored 21, meaning the deficit continued to grow.
By the end of three quarters, Indiana was in complete control.
Fourth Quarter
Los Angeles finally produced its best offensive quarter, scoring 29 points.
Indiana scored 22.
The Sparks won the fourth quarter by seven points.
That improvement showed that Los Angeles had not stopped competing, but the comeback opportunity had already disappeared.
The final margin remained 24 points.
Why Caitlin Clark’s Absence Mattered
One of the most interesting aspects of this matchup was that Indiana won comfortably without Clark.
That does not mean her absence was irrelevant.
Clark had been averaging 21.2 points and 8.2 assists according to the official game recap.
Her absence meant Indiana needed additional creation and ball movement from other players.
Mitchell took on more scoring responsibility.
Harris provided 16 points.
Boston contributed 17 points, seven rebounds, and three blocks.
Billings supplied 15 points and six rebounds.
The result demonstrated Indiana’s ability to redistribute offensive responsibility rather than relying on a single creator.
For evaluating the team, that is more informative than simply saying Clark was absent.
Why Kelsey Plum’s Absence Mattered for Los Angeles
Los Angeles also entered the matchup without one of its major offensive weapons.
Plum was unavailable because of a left leg injury.
That removed another high-volume perimeter scorer from the Sparks lineup.
The result was visible in Los Angeles’ three-point production.
The Sparks made only four threes.
Ogwumike and Hamby provided reliable scoring, but Indiana could devote more defensive attention to the remaining primary options without facing the same perimeter threat that Plum normally creates.
This is one reason the player availability context is essential when interpreting the box score.
The Biggest Statistical Mismatch
If one statistic deserves to sit at the center of this game analysis, it is effective shooting.
Indiana made 37 of 67 field-goal attempts.
Los Angeles made 33 of 77.
Indiana therefore needed 10 fewer field-goal attempts to make four more baskets.
That is a substantial efficiency difference.
Add the three-point disparity, free-throw advantage, and rebounding margin, and the 111-87 final score becomes much easier to understand.
What the Game Says About Indiana
The victory highlighted several strengths.
Offensive Depth
Four players scored at least 15 points.
That is a strong indication of balanced offensive production.
Perimeter Efficiency
Ten made threes on 19 attempts gave Indiana an excellent outside shooting night.
Interior Production
Boston’s 17 points and seven rebounds gave the Fever an inside scoring option that complemented the perimeter attack.
Defensive Activity
Indiana recorded six steals and six blocks.
Those numbers suggest the Fever were active defensively rather than simply relying on offensive efficiency.
What the Game Says About Los Angeles
The Sparks had positives despite the loss.
Ogwumike remained productive.
Hamby contributed across multiple categories.
Atkins reached double figures.
Wheeler and Gray provided playmaking.
The fourth-quarter scoring also showed that Los Angeles could still generate offense when playing from behind.
The biggest concern was consistency.
A team cannot afford to lose the second and third quarters by a combined 25 points against an opponent shooting 55 percent.
Indiana Fever vs Los Angeles Sparks Match Player Stats: Key Takeaways
The most important conclusions from the numbers are straightforward.
- Kelsey Mitchell was the game’s leading scorer with 26 points.
- Indiana received major secondary production from Boston, Harris, and Billings.
- Boston added seven rebounds and three blocks, making her impact much broader than her 17 points.
- Billings posted the game’s best plus-minus at +38.
- Los Angeles was led by Ogwumike’s 17 points and Hamby’s 15.
- Indiana won the rebounding battle 41-25.
- Indiana made 10 threes compared with four for Los Angeles.
- The Fever shot approximately 55 percent from the field compared with approximately 43 percent for the Sparks.
- Indiana’s 27 free throws made were 10 more than Los Angeles’ 17.
- The decisive stretch was the second and third quarters.
What Fans Should Look for in Future Meetings
This matchup also provides useful clues for future games between these teams.
The first question is perimeter availability.
If Clark and Plum are both available in a future meeting, the offensive structure will look very different.
The second question is rebounding.
Indiana’s 16-rebound advantage was too large for Los Angeles to overcome.
The third issue is three-point defense.
Allowing Indiana to shoot 10-for-19 from deep created too much offensive pressure.
Finally, Los Angeles needs to avoid allowing an opponent to build a large lead over consecutive quarters.
A team can recover from one poor quarter.
Recovering from two consecutive quarters with a 25-point combined deficit is much harder.
Player Impact Beyond the Box Score
Traditional box-score statistics are useful, but the plus-minus numbers from this game add another layer.
Billings finished at +38.
Mitchell finished at +30.
Harris finished at +27.
Boston finished at +23.
Hull finished at +21.
These numbers show that Indiana’s success was not limited to its highest scorer.
The Fever’s rotation consistently produced positive stretches.
That matters because it indicates the team’s performance was structural rather than dependent on one hot shooting performance.
Los Angeles did not have the same overall statistical balance.
Its best scoring performances came from a smaller group, while Indiana received meaningful contributions across the rotation.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who led the Indiana Fever in scoring against the Los Angeles Sparks?
Kelsey Mitchell led Indiana with 26 points. She also made four of six three-point attempts.
Who led the Los Angeles Sparks in scoring?
Nneka Ogwumike led Los Angeles with 17 points. She also recorded seven rebounds, two assists, one steal, and two blocks.
What was the final score between the Fever and Sparks?
Indiana defeated Los Angeles 111-87 at Gainbridge Fieldhouse.
How many three-pointers did Indiana make?
The Fever made 10 of 19 three-point attempts.
Did Caitlin Clark play in the game?
No. Clark was listed as unavailable with a back injury.
What was the biggest statistical advantage for Indiana?
Indiana’s 41-25 rebounding advantage was one of its biggest edges. The Fever also had major advantages in field-goal and three-point shooting.
Conclusion
The indiana fever vs los angeles sparks match player stats from June 28, 2026, show a decisive Indiana performance built on efficiency rather than one isolated statistical advantage.
Kelsey Mitchell’s 26 points provided the headline performance, but the Fever’s victory was much broader than her scoring. Aliyah Boston delivered 17 points, seven rebounds, and three blocks. Tyasha Harris added 16 points, while Monique Billings contributed 15 points, six rebounds, and the game’s best +38 plus-minus.
For Los Angeles, Nneka Ogwumike led the team with 17 points and seven rebounds, while Dearica Hamby supplied 15 points and four assists. Ariel Atkins also reached double figures with 12 points.
The decisive difference was the overall efficiency. Indiana shot 55 percent from the field, made 10 three-pointers, grabbed 41 rebounds, and converted 27 free throws. Los Angeles shot about 43 percent, made four threes, and collected 25 rebounds.
The second and third quarters ultimately defined the contest. Indiana outscored Los Angeles 62-37 across those two periods, creating a lead that the Sparks could not erase even after scoring 29 points in the fourth.
The result is a useful example of why player statistics should be interpreted collectively. Scoring leaders explain part of a game, but shooting efficiency, rebounding, free-throw opportunities, defensive activity, rotation production, and player availability provide the deeper explanation.
