Phoenix Mercury vs Indiana Fever Match Player Stats

The phoenix mercury vs indiana fever match player stats from June 23, 2026, tell a much more detailed story than the final 86-77 score suggests. Indiana Fever overcame a slow opening quarter, exploded for 35 points in the second, added another 30 in the third, and built enough separation to withstand Phoenix’s fourth-quarter response at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis. Caitlin Clark led Indiana with 24 points and 9 assists, Kelsey Mitchell added 22 points, and Monique Billings delivered a double-double with 14 points and 10 rebounds. For Phoenix, Kahleah Copper scored 20 points, Alyssa Thomas finished with 19 points and 9 assists, and Natasha Mack led the Mercury with 7 rebounds.

This matchup was also the first meeting of the three-game season series listed in the supplied game data, with Indiana ultimately winning all three contests. That makes the June 23 performance particularly useful for understanding the larger matchup. The numbers show that Indiana’s advantage was not simply about one superstar scoring more points. Rebounding, three-point volume, free-throw production, and a dramatic middle-game scoring surge all contributed to the result.

Game Overview

The June 23, 2026 meeting took place at Gainbridge Fieldhouse, where Indiana entered the game with a 10-7 overall record and a 7-3 home record. Phoenix came in at 5-13 overall and 3-7 on the road.

Indiana won 86-77, but the game followed a highly unusual scoring pattern.

Quarter	Phoenix Mercury	Indiana Fever
Q1	19	6
Q2	22	35
Q3	11	30
Q4	25	15
Final	77	86

The first quarter strongly favored Phoenix. Indiana scored only 6 points, while the Mercury produced 19.

The game changed completely in the second quarter. Indiana scored 35 points, turning a 13-point first-quarter deficit into a halftime lead. The Fever then continued the pressure in the third quarter, outscoring Phoenix 30-11.

That 65-point explosion across the second and third quarters was the central turning point.

Phoenix did manage to win the fourth quarter 25-15, but the comeback came too late. Indiana had already established enough separation to protect its lead.

The attendance was listed at 15,198, with Amy Bonner, RJ Johnson, and Gerda Gatling serving as officials.

Phoenix Mercury vs Indiana Fever Match Player Stats

The individual numbers show how both teams approached the game.

Phoenix Mercury Leaders

Phoenix received its biggest scoring contribution from Kahleah Copper, who finished with 20 points. Alyssa Thomas followed closely with 19 points.

Thomas was particularly important as a facilitator. She recorded 9 assists, matching Caitlin Clark’s assist total on the Indiana side.

Phoenix Player	Key Performance
Kahleah Copper	20 points
Alyssa Thomas	19 points, 9 assists
Noemie Brochant	7 points
Natasha Mack	7 rebounds

Copper’s shooting line was 6-of-14 from the field, 2-of-7 from three-point range, and 6-of-8 at the free-throw line.

Thomas was highly efficient as a scorer. She made 8 of 12 field-goal attempts and went 3-of-5 from the free-throw line. She did not attempt a three-pointer.

That 8-of-12 shooting performance is important because Phoenix did not have a particularly efficient night from outside. Thomas provided reliable interior and mid-range production, but the team needed more scoring efficiency around her.

Indiana Fever Leaders

Indiana’s offensive production was led by Caitlin Clark.

Clark scored 24 points, made 8 of 17 field-goal attempts, converted 3 of 10 three-point attempts, and went 5-of-6 from the free-throw line.

Kelsey Mitchell added 22 points on 8-of-20 shooting. She also made 3 of 10 three-point attempts and converted 3 of 4 free throws.

Monique Billings contributed 14 points and 10 rebounds, giving Indiana an important double-double.

Indiana Player	Key Performance
Caitlin Clark	24 points, 9 assists
Kelsey Mitchell	22 points
Monique Billings	14 points, 10 rebounds
Indiana team	39 rebounds

Clark’s combination of scoring and playmaking was especially significant. She did not need to score 30 or more points for Indiana to control the game. Her 24 points were paired with 9 assists, allowing her influence to extend beyond her own shooting.

Caitlin Clark’s 24-Point Performance

Caitlin Clark finished as Indiana’s leading scorer with 24 points.

Her shooting line:

• 8-of-17 from the field
• 3-of-10 from three-point range
• 5-of-6 from the free-throw line
• 9 assists

The three-point percentage was not exceptional, as Clark made 30 percent of her attempts from beyond the arc. However, evaluating her performance only through three-point shooting would miss the broader picture.

Clark’s 9 assists were equally important.

Indiana finished the game with 15 assists as a team, meaning Clark accounted for a large portion of the team’s recorded assists. Her ability to create opportunities for teammates helped Indiana maintain offensive pressure even when individual perimeter shooting was inconsistent.

Her free-throw shooting was also efficient. At 5-of-6, Clark converted 83.3 percent of her attempts from the line.

The bigger takeaway is that Clark’s contribution was balanced. She was Indiana’s leading scorer while also operating as a primary creator.

Kelsey Mitchell’s 22 Points

Kelsey Mitchell was another major reason Indiana was able to keep its offense moving.

She scored 22 points, only two fewer than Clark, and made 8 of her 20 field-goal attempts.

Her three-point line was 3-of-10, matching Clark’s made three-pointers.

Mitchell’s overall field-goal percentage was 40 percent. Like Clark, her outside shooting was not particularly efficient, but her overall scoring volume helped Indiana maintain two reliable perimeter scoring options.

The importance of Mitchell becomes clearer when looking at Phoenix’s defensive challenge.

If Phoenix focused too heavily on Clark, Mitchell remained capable of producing points. If the Mercury extended their defense to both guards, Indiana could create additional opportunities through passing and rebounding.

That balance made Indiana’s offense difficult to neutralize during the second and third quarters.

Monique Billings’ Double-Double

Monique Billings produced one of the most important supporting performances of the night.

She recorded:

• 14 points
• 10 rebounds

The 10 rebounds were particularly valuable because Indiana finished with 39 total rebounds compared with Phoenix’s 29.

Billings’ double-double therefore fits directly into one of the biggest statistical advantages in the game.

Indiana collected 10 more rebounds overall.

That difference created additional possessions and helped the Fever compensate for the fact that their field-goal percentage was only slightly better than Phoenix’s.

When a team wins the rebounding battle by that margin, the impact is rarely limited to the box-score rebound column. Offensive rebounds can create second chances, while defensive rebounds prevent opponents from extending possessions.

Indiana recorded 12 offensive rebounds compared with Phoenix’s 8.

That four-rebound difference on the offensive glass was one of the clearest examples of Indiana creating extra opportunities.

Kahleah Copper Leads Phoenix

Kahleah Copper was Phoenix’s top scorer with 20 points.

She shot:

• 6-of-14 from the field
• 2-of-7 from three-point range
• 6-of-8 from the free-throw line

Her free-throw shooting was one of the strongest elements of her offensive performance.

Copper converted 75 percent of her free throws and produced 6 points from the line.

Her two made three-pointers also helped Phoenix generate perimeter scoring, although the team as a whole struggled from long range.

Phoenix made only 5 of 25 three-point attempts.

That equals 20 percent.

For a team trying to recover from a major middle-game scoring deficit, that level of three-point efficiency made the task much harder.

Copper still managed to finish as Phoenix’s leading scorer, but the Mercury needed more efficient production across the roster to keep pace with Indiana.

Alyssa Thomas Provides All-Around Impact

Alyssa Thomas finished with 19 points and 9 assists.

Her 8-of-12 field-goal shooting was arguably Phoenix’s most efficient high-volume scoring performance among the key players listed in the supplied data.

Thomas did not attempt a three-pointer, meaning her offensive value came through other areas of the floor.

Her 9 assists also demonstrate how important she was to Phoenix’s offensive organization.

Interestingly, Thomas matched Clark’s 9 assists.

That gives this matchup an interesting individual comparison.

Both primary creators recorded 9 assists, but Clark scored 24 points while Thomas scored 19. Indiana also received 22 points from Mitchell and 14 from Billings, while Phoenix’s next listed scoring contribution after Thomas was 7 points from Noemie Brochant.

That distribution helps explain why Indiana was able to generate more sustained offense.

Team Shooting Comparison

The team shooting numbers were relatively close in some categories.

Statistic	Phoenix	Indiana
Field Goals	28-68	27-64
FG Percentage	41%	42%
Three-Pointers	5-25	10-34
3PT Percentage	20%	29%
Free Throws	16-21	22-29
FT Percentage	76%	76%

At first glance, the field-goal numbers do not suggest a massive difference.

Phoenix made 28 of 68 attempts.

Indiana made 27 of 64.

Indiana actually made one fewer field goal.

Yet Indiana scored nine more points.

Why?

The answer is largely the three-point and free-throw numbers.

Indiana made 10 three-pointers compared with Phoenix’s 5. That represents 15 additional points from three-point makes.

The Fever also made 22 free throws compared with Phoenix’s 16.

Although both teams shot 76 percent from the free-throw line, Indiana attempted eight more free throws.

This is a classic example of why field-goal percentage alone cannot explain a basketball result.

A team can make fewer total field goals and still score more points when it generates more high-value three-point attempts and more free-throw opportunities.

The Three-Point Battle

The three-point comparison is one of the strongest statistical indicators of the outcome.

Phoenix:

5-of-25, 20 percent

Indiana:

10-of-34, 29 percent

Indiana attempted nine more three-pointers and made twice as many.

The Fever did not shoot at an elite percentage from outside, but the additional volume gave them a major scoring advantage.

This is an important distinction.

Indiana’s three-point success was not based on extraordinary accuracy. Instead, the Fever generated more attempts and converted enough of them to create a meaningful scoring gap.

Phoenix’s 20 percent shooting from deep limited its ability to respond when Indiana pulled away.

When a team falls behind by a large margin, three-point shooting becomes even more valuable because it offers a faster path to reducing a deficit.

Phoenix eventually scored 25 points in the fourth quarter, but its overall perimeter shooting remained a major obstacle.

Rebounding Created Extra Possessions

Indiana’s 39 rebounds compared with Phoenix’s 29.

That is a 10-rebound advantage.

The breakdown was:

Rebounding Category	Phoenix	Indiana
Total Rebounds	29	39
Offensive Rebounds	8	12
Defensive Rebounds	21	27

Indiana led in every listed rebounding category.

The offensive-rebound advantage is especially useful for understanding the possession battle.

Indiana collected 12 offensive rebounds. Phoenix collected 8.

Those extra offensive possessions gave Indiana more opportunities to score after missed shots.

On defense, Indiana also collected 27 defensive rebounds compared with Phoenix’s 21, helping the Fever end more Mercury possessions cleanly.

The overall rebounding margin of 10 is too significant to treat as a minor box-score detail.

Free Throws and Scoring Efficiency

Both teams shot 76 percent from the free-throw line.

However, Indiana attempted 29 free throws compared with Phoenix’s 21.

That produced a six-point advantage in made free throws.

Indiana made 22.

Phoenix made 16.

This is a useful example of the difference between accuracy and opportunity.

The teams were equally accurate according to the supplied percentages, but Indiana reached the line more often.

For Phoenix, the 6-of-8 free-throw performance from Copper and the 3-of-5 line from Thomas helped, but the team did not generate enough total attempts to match Indiana’s scoring opportunities.

The Second Quarter Changed the Game

The second quarter deserves special attention.

Phoenix led 19-6 after the opening quarter.

Then Indiana scored 35 points.

That means the Fever outscored Phoenix by 22 points in the second quarter alone.

The game therefore moved from a comfortable Phoenix opening to a competitive halftime situation.

Indiana’s ability to reverse the momentum so dramatically was the defining sequence of the contest.

The third quarter then reinforced that shift.

Indiana scored 30 points while Phoenix managed only 11.

Across the second and third quarters:

Indiana: 65 points

Phoenix: 33 points

That is a 32-point difference over two quarters.

This middle-game stretch explains the final result better than the opening or closing quarter.

Phoenix won the first quarter by 13 and the fourth quarter by 10.

Indiana still won the game by 9.

That is possible because the Fever dominated the two quarters in between.

Fourth-Quarter Phoenix Response

The fourth quarter showed that Phoenix did not simply disappear after falling behind.

The Mercury scored 25 points.

Indiana scored 15.

Phoenix therefore won the final quarter by 10 points.

That comeback attempt is important context when assessing the final box score.

The Mercury were capable of producing offense late, but the deficit created during the second and third quarters was too large.

This is one reason a game should not be analyzed solely through final-quarter scoring or final-score margin.

Momentum had already shifted decisively before the fourth quarter began.

Indiana’s earlier scoring burst created enough cushion to absorb Phoenix’s late response.

Turnovers Were Relatively Close

Phoenix recorded 12 turnovers.

Indiana recorded 14.

This was one area where Phoenix had an advantage.

The Mercury committed two fewer turnovers, but the difference was not large enough to offset Indiana’s advantages in rebounding, three-point production, and free-throw attempts.

Indiana also recorded 6 steals compared with Phoenix’s 5.

The Fever therefore created slightly more defensive takeaways despite committing more turnovers themselves.

This illustrates why turnover count needs to be viewed alongside other possession-related statistics.

A two-turnover advantage is useful, but it becomes less powerful when an opponent creates additional possessions through offensive rebounds.

Assists and Offensive Creation

Phoenix recorded 19 assists.

Indiana recorded 15.

This is another statistic that does not immediately align with the final result.

Phoenix had four more team assists.

Alyssa Thomas was responsible for 9 of Phoenix’s assists, while Caitlin Clark recorded 9 for Indiana.

The difference is that Phoenix’s greater assist total did not translate into greater scoring output.

That tells us something important about efficiency.

Passing can create quality opportunities, but the final outcome still depends on shooting, rebounding, free throws, and possession value.

Phoenix moved the ball effectively according to the assist numbers, yet its 20 percent three-point shooting and lower free-throw volume restricted the scoring payoff.

Comparing the Two Primary Playmakers

One of the most interesting individual comparisons is Alyssa Thomas against Caitlin Clark.

Category	Alyssa Thomas	Caitlin Clark
Points	19	24
Assists	9	9
Field Goals	8-12	8-17
Three-Pointers	0-0	3-10
Free Throws	3-5	5-6

Both players recorded 9 assists.

Thomas was more efficient from the field, shooting 66.7 percent compared with Clark’s 47.1 percent.

Clark, however, produced five more points and added three made three-pointers.

Clark also made two more free throws.

This comparison demonstrates two different methods of offensive impact.

Thomas was extremely efficient as a scorer and served as a major facilitator.

Clark combined perimeter scoring with playmaking.

Neither statistical profile tells the entire story by itself, but together they help explain the different offensive structures of the two teams.

Season Series Context

The supplied data lists Indiana as the winner of all three games in the season series.

Meeting	Result
Game 1	Indiana 86, Phoenix 77
Game 2	Indiana 111, Phoenix 109
Game 3	Indiana 92, Phoenix 89

Indiana therefore finished the season series 3-0 against Phoenix according to the provided information.

The margins were very different.

The June 23 game ended with a 9-point Indiana victory.

The second listed meeting was a two-point thriller.

The third was decided by three points.

That pattern is noteworthy.

Although Indiana won all three listed games, the results were not uniformly one-sided. Two of the three games were decided by three points or fewer.

The June 23 game stands out because of Indiana’s huge second- and third-quarter run.

What the Numbers Say About Phoenix

Phoenix’s biggest positives were its first-quarter start, fourth-quarter response, field-goal efficiency from key players, and lower turnover total.

Thomas was especially efficient.

Copper remained the team’s leading scorer.

The Mercury also finished with 19 assists, suggesting that their offense was capable of creating scoring opportunities.

The biggest weaknesses were outside shooting and rebounding.

A 5-of-25 performance from three-point range is difficult to overcome against a team that makes twice as many threes.

The 10-rebound deficit also meant Indiana had a meaningful possession advantage.

For Phoenix, the most important lesson from this box score is that good individual shooting from Thomas and a 20-point performance from Copper were not enough without broader team efficiency.

What the Numbers Say About Indiana

Indiana’s biggest strengths were its middle-game scoring, rebounding, three-point volume, and free-throw opportunities.

Clark and Mitchell combined for 46 points.

Billings added 14 points and 10 rebounds.

That gave Indiana three significant contributors across scoring and interior play.

The Fever’s 39 rebounds were particularly important.

Their 12 offensive rebounds helped extend possessions, while their 27 defensive rebounds limited Phoenix’s second chances.

Indiana’s 10 made three-pointers also created a substantial scoring advantage.

The main area that was not dominant was field-goal shooting. The Fever shot 42 percent, only one percentage point better than Phoenix.

That means the victory was built less on overwhelming overall shooting efficiency and more on shot distribution, rebounding, free-throw opportunities, and the second-and-third-quarter scoring surge.

Why the Final Score Can Be Misleading

The final score was 86-77, but looking only at the nine-point margin hides the unusual structure of the game.

Phoenix won the first quarter by 13.

Indiana won the second by 13.

Indiana won the third by 19.

Phoenix won the fourth by 10.

This means each quarter had a substantially different story.

The game was essentially decided in the third quarter.

Indiana’s 30-11 advantage in that period created the cushion that Phoenix could not erase.

For analysts, this is a reminder to look at quarter-by-quarter data rather than treating a final score as a complete explanation.

Most Important Statistical Takeaways

Several numbers stand above the rest.

1. Indiana won the rebounding battle by 10

The Fever had 39 rebounds to Phoenix’s 29.

2. Indiana made twice as many three-pointers

The Fever made 10.

The Mercury made 5.

3. Indiana attempted eight more free throws

Indiana attempted 29.

Phoenix attempted 21.

4. Clark and Mitchell combined for 46 points

That represented more than half of Indiana’s 86 points.

5. Thomas and Copper combined for 39 points

They accounted for a major share of Phoenix’s 77 points.

6. Indiana dominated the middle quarters

The Fever scored 65 points across the second and third quarters.

Phoenix scored 33.

7. Phoenix won the assist battle

The Mercury recorded 19 assists compared with Indiana’s 15.

That advantage did not translate into enough points to overcome Indiana’s other statistical edges.

How to Read Player Stats More Effectively

When examining a box score such as this one, it is tempting to focus only on the highest scorer.

That approach can miss the factors that actually decided the game.

A better method is to examine five areas.

First, look at scoring volume.

Second, examine shooting efficiency.

Third, compare rebounding and second-chance opportunities.

Fourth, evaluate assists and turnovers together.

Fifth, study free-throw attempts and three-point volume.

Using that framework here gives a clearer explanation of the outcome.

Clark led Indiana in scoring, but Billings’ rebounding mattered.

Copper led Phoenix in scoring, but Phoenix’s three-point shooting limited the team’s scoring ceiling.

Thomas had 9 assists, but Indiana’s 39 rebounds and 10 made threes helped the Fever create a stronger overall scoring profile.

Real-World Value of These Stats for Fans

These numbers are useful for more than simply recording who won.

For fans, they help identify which players actually influenced the flow of the game.

For fantasy basketball players, scoring, assists, rebounds, and shooting percentages provide a broader picture than points alone.

For analysts, the quarter-by-quarter breakdown helps identify momentum swings.

For coaches and team evaluators, rebounding and shot distribution highlight areas that can influence future game plans.

For writers, the numbers provide evidence for explaining why a team won without relying on generic statements such as “they played better.”

The most useful analysis connects individual performances to team-level outcomes.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who was the leading scorer in the Phoenix Mercury vs Indiana Fever game?

Caitlin Clark led all listed scorers with 24 points for Indiana. Kelsey Mitchell scored 22, while Phoenix’s Kahleah Copper led the Mercury with 20.

How many points did Caitlin Clark score?

Caitlin Clark scored 24 points and added 9 assists. She shot 8-of-17 from the field, 3-of-10 from three-point range, and 5-of-6 from the free-throw line.

Who had the most rebounds?

Monique Billings led the listed players with 10 rebounds for Indiana. Natasha Mack led Phoenix with 7 rebounds.

Who had the most assists?

Caitlin Clark and Alyssa Thomas each recorded 9 assists.

What was the final score?

Indiana Fever defeated Phoenix Mercury 86-77 on June 23, 2026, at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis.

Which team won the season series?

The supplied data lists Indiana as winning all three meetings, giving the Fever a 3-0 season-series record against Phoenix.

Conclusion

The phoenix mercury vs indiana fever match player stats from June 23, 2026, reveal a game shaped by momentum, possession control, and scoring distribution rather than one simple individual matchup.

Caitlin Clark’s 24 points and 9 assists gave Indiana its primary offensive engine. Kelsey Mitchell’s 22 points provided another reliable scoring option, while Monique Billings’ 14 points and 10 rebounds strengthened Indiana’s control of the glass.

Phoenix had strong individual performances of its own. Kahleah Copper scored 20 points, while Alyssa Thomas contributed 19 points and 9 assists on highly efficient field-goal shooting.

Yet Indiana’s team-level advantages proved decisive.

The Fever outrebounded Phoenix 39-29, made 10 three-pointers compared with Phoenix’s 5, and attempted eight more free throws. Most importantly, Indiana transformed a 13-point first-quarter deficit into a commanding advantage by scoring 35 points in the second quarter and 30 more in the third.

The result was an 86-77 victory and, according to the supplied season-series data, part of a 3-0 sweep of Phoenix.

The central lesson from this box score is that player statistics become most meaningful when they are connected to team context. Scoring leaders matter, but rebounds, shot volume, free throws, assists, turnovers, and quarter-by-quarter momentum explain why the scoreboard ultimately moved in Indiana’s favor.