Pacers vs Dallas Mavericks Match Player Stats
The pacers vs dallas mavericks match player stats reveal how Dallas secured a 121-105 victory over Indiana on October 24, 2026, at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis. According to the supplied ESPN box-score data, Dallas won by 16 points through efficient shooting, strong defensive pressure, and a major advantage in three-point accuracy. Kyrie Irving led the Mavericks with 24 points, while Pascal Siakam paced Indiana with 23. The individual performances also highlight the impact of P.J. Washington’s rebounding, Cooper Flagg’s impressive plus-minus rating, and Indiana’s costly turnovers.
This detailed breakdown examines the final score, quarter-by-quarter progression, individual player performances, team shooting numbers, defensive contributions, and the statistical factors that shaped the result. All player statistics and game details below follow the data supplied for this article. Because the supplied record includes some unusual roster and season details, those figures are treated as source-provided information rather than independently verified facts.
Pacers vs Dallas Mavericks Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The matchup produced a clear contrast between Dallas’s shooting efficiency and Indiana’s attempts to stay competitive through scoring runs and offensive rebounding. The Mavericks finished with 121 points, shooting 50% from the field and 41% from beyond the arc. Indiana scored 105 points, but its 22% three-point percentage made it harder to keep pace.
Dallas Mavericks Scores, Stats and Highlights – – ESPN (SG)
Dallas Mavericks
Away team
121
Final
16-point margin
121-105
Indiana Pacers
Home team
105
Date
October 24, 2026
Venue
Gainbridge Fieldhouse
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Attendance
17,274
Dallas leading scorer
Kyrie Irving, 24 points
Indiana leading scorer
Pascal Siakam, 23 points
The result gave Dallas a 1-0 lead in the season series according to the supplied game header. That same header listed both teams at 1-1 overall, with Dallas 1-1 away and Indiana 0-1 at home. Those records are reproduced as provided and should be checked against the official schedule if the article is updated later.
Why the final score matters
A 16-point win can sometimes hide a competitive game, especially when the losing team produces a strong second-half response. That was part of the story here. Dallas built a commanding first-half advantage, while Indiana scored more points in each of the final two quarters than Dallas did in the third quarter alone.
However, Indiana’s improvement after halftime did not erase the damage caused by its slow start. The Pacers had to chase the score, and Dallas had enough shooting efficiency and defensive activity to protect its lead.
Quarter-by-Quarter Score Breakdown
The opening two quarters established the difference between the teams. Dallas scored 77 first-half points, while Indiana managed only 43. The Mavericks therefore entered halftime with a 34-point advantage.
| Quarter | Dallas Mavericks | Indiana Pacers | Quarter winner |
| First quarter | 44 | 27 | Dallas |
| Second quarter | 33 | 16 | Dallas |
| Third quarter | 21 | 33 | Indiana |
| Fourth quarter | 23 | 29 | Indiana |
| Final score | 121 | 105 | Dallas |
First quarter: Dallas establishes control
Dallas opened with 44 points, compared with Indiana’s 27. A 17-point advantage in a single quarter put the Pacers under immediate pressure.
The Mavericks’ scoring pace gave them room to attack different areas of the floor. Their final shooting figures suggest that the offense was effective both inside the arc and from long range. Dallas ultimately made 44 of 88 field-goal attempts and 14 of 34 three-point attempts.
Indiana’s 27-point opening period was not disastrous on its own. The problem was the difference between the teams. When one side scores 44 points in a quarter, the opponent must respond with sustained offense rather than a short scoring burst.
Second quarter: The decisive separation
Dallas added 33 points in the second quarter, while Indiana scored only 16. The Mavericks won the period by another 17 points, doubling the Pacers’ scoring output.
The combined first-half totals were:
- Dallas: 77 points
- Indiana: 43 points
- Halftime margin: Dallas by 34
This was the game’s defining stretch. Indiana’s second-quarter production left little room for error after the opening period, and the Pacers needed a major response to return to contention.
Dallas’s ability to maintain its scoring after the first quarter was just as important as its explosive start. The Mavericks did not immediately surrender the momentum they had established.
Third quarter: Indiana responds
Indiana scored 33 points in the third quarter, while Dallas managed 21. The Pacers won the period by 12 points, cutting the margin from 34 to 22.
This was Indiana’s best stretch of the game. The improved scoring showed that the team could generate offense against Dallas, even after a difficult first half.
Still, a strong quarter does not automatically produce a comeback. Indiana needed to keep winning possessions, limit turnovers, and continue making shots. Dallas remained in front because its first-half advantage was large enough to absorb the Pacers’ best quarter.
Fourth quarter: The Pacers continue their push
Indiana scored 29 points in the final quarter, compared with Dallas’s 23. That gave the Pacers a second consecutive quarter with a scoring advantage.
Despite winning both second-half quarters, Indiana could not close the gap. The team had scored 43 points in the first half and 62 in the second. Dallas scored 77 before halftime and 44 after the break.
The central lesson from the scoring sequence is clear: Indiana improved as the game progressed, but its first-half deficit was too large to overcome.
Dallas Mavericks Player Stats and Individual Performances
Dallas received scoring contributions from several players rather than relying on a single offensive option. Kyrie Irving led the team with 24 points, while P.J. Washington delivered a double-double with 20 points and 13 rebounds. Max Christie, Naji Marshall, and Cooper Flagg also made meaningful contributions.
The following table summarizes the principal Dallas performances from the supplied box score.
| Player | MIN | PTS | REB | AST | STL | BLK | TO | +/− |
| Kyrie Irving | 25 | 24 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 2 | +8 |
| P.J. Washington | 33 | 20 | 13 | 0 | 0 | 3 | 2 | -4 |
| Max Christie | 38 | 16 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 2 | -2 |
| Cooper Flagg | 17 | 14 | 5 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 3 | +34 |
| Naji Marshall | 33 | 15 | 4 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 2 | +1 |
| Zaccharie Risacher | 32 | 11 | 6 | 1 | 1 | 3 | 0 | +14 |
| Morez Johnson Jr. | 17 | 8 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2 | +21 |
| Marcus Sasser | 27 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | -6 |
| Daniel Gafford | 15 | 4 | 3 | 5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | +2 |
| Moussa Cisse | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | +3 |
| Tobi Lawal | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | +3 |
| Sergio de Larrea | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | +3 |
| Walter Clayton Jr. | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | +3 |
MIN = minutes, PTS = points, REB = rebounds, AST = assists, STL = steals, BLK = blocks, TO = turnovers. Plus-minus measures the team’s point differential while a player is on the court.
Kyrie Irving: Dallas’s leading scorer
Irving finished with 24 points in 25 minutes, making eight of 15 field-goal attempts and five of 10 three-pointers. He also converted all three of his free throws.
His shooting line is particularly important because it shows how Dallas generated scoring without requiring a high volume of possessions for one player. Irving scored efficiently from the perimeter and made the defense account for his ability to create shots.
His five three-pointers were the most significant individual long-range contribution among the listed Dallas players. When a perimeter scorer converts at that rate, defenders must extend their coverage, potentially creating driving lanes and space for teammates.
Irving also recorded three assists, one steal, and one block. Although his main contribution was scoring, his defensive statistics indicate that he added activity beyond putting the ball through the basket.
P.J. Washington: Rebounding and interior defense
Washington recorded 20 points and 13 rebounds, making him Dallas’s leading rebounder. He shot six of 11 from the field, including two of four from three-point range, and made six of eight free throws.
His 13 rebounds consisted of three offensive boards and 10 defensive boards. That balance matters because defensive rebounds help end the opposition’s possession, while offensive rebounds create additional scoring opportunities.
Washington also recorded three blocks, the joint-highest total for Dallas alongside Zaccharie Risacher. Those blocks contributed to a defensive effort in which Dallas finished with 11 team blocks.
One qualification is important: Washington’s individual plus-minus was -4 despite Dallas winning the game by 16 points. This does not mean he played poorly. Plus-minus measures what happened during a player’s minutes, not just his individual production. His 20 points, 13 rebounds, and three blocks provide a much fuller picture of his contribution.
Cooper Flagg: An extraordinary plus-minus figure
Flagg recorded 14 points, five rebounds, six assists, three steals, and one block in 17 minutes, according to the supplied player table. He shot four of six from the field, made both of his three-point attempts, and converted all four free throws.
His listed plus-minus of +34 stands out because Dallas’s final winning margin was 16 points. That figure means Dallas outscored Indiana by 34 points during the minutes Flagg played, according to the supplied statistics.
However, plus-minus is a lineup statistic, not an isolated measure of a player’s individual impact. It is affected by teammates, opponents, substitutions, and the sequence of scoring runs. Flagg’s overall contribution is best understood by considering his scoring, playmaking, steals, and limited minutes together.
His six assists tied Marshall for the Dallas team lead. Three steals also made him one of the Mavericks’ most active players defensively.
Max Christie: Reliable scoring across extended minutes
Christie played a team-high 38 minutes in the supplied table and scored 16 points. He converted seven of 14 field-goal attempts and two of five three-point attempts.
He also recorded four rebounds, four assists, and one steal. His four assists indicate that his role extended beyond finishing possessions. Dallas benefited from having another player who could contribute to the offense without needing to lead the team in scoring.
Christie’s workload was substantially higher than that of Dallas’s brief-minute reserves. That difference highlights how a rotation can combine heavy minutes for established contributors with shorter opportunities for other players.
Naji Marshall: Two-way production from the bench
Marshall scored 15 points and supplied six assists in 33 minutes. He also collected four rebounds and recorded three steals.
His scoring came on seven of 15 field-goal attempts. He missed all four of his three-point attempts, which means his contribution was built primarily on two-point shooting and free throws rather than perimeter accuracy.
Marshall’s six assists tied him with Flagg for the highest Dallas total in the supplied box score. His three steals also matched Flagg’s team-high mark.
These numbers illustrate the value of a player who can support scoring, create opportunities for teammates, and pressure the ball defensively even when his outside shot is not falling.
Zaccharie Risacher and the supporting cast
Risacher contributed 11 points, six rebounds, one assist, one steal, and three blocks in 32 minutes. His three blocks tied Washington for the Dallas lead in that category.
Morez Johnson Jr. added eight points and six rebounds in 17 minutes. His listed plus-minus of +21 was another strong team differential, although it should be interpreted in the context of his playing time and lineup combinations.
Marcus Sasser scored six points and recorded three assists in 27 minutes. Daniel Gafford scored four points and contributed three rebounds, five assists, and two blocks in 15 minutes.
The supplied box score also lists short appearances by Moussa Cisse, Tobi Lawal, Sergio de Larrea, and Walter Clayton Jr. Their limited minutes make it difficult to draw broad conclusions from their individual lines, but their appearances are part of the recorded game data.
Indiana Pacers Player Stats and Individual Performances
Indiana had several productive individual performances, but those efforts did not compensate for its first-half scoring deficit and poor three-point shooting. Pascal Siakam led the Pacers with 23 points, Tyrese Haliburton contributed 18 points and seven assists, and Andrew Nembhard added 16 points.
Ivica Zubac led Indiana in rebounds with 11, while Obi Toppin supplied 13 points off the bench.
| Player | MIN | PTS | REB | AST | STL | BLK | TO | +/− |
| Pascal Siakam | 29 | 23 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 5 | -4 |
| Tyrese Haliburton | 32 | 18 | 6 | 7 | 1 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
| Andrew Nembhard | 32 | 16 | 2 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -6 |
| Obi Toppin | 25 | 13 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 1 | -9 |
| Ivica Zubac | 24 | 9 | 11 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 3 | -23 |
| Aaron Nesmith | 20 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -11 |
| Quenton Jackson | 17 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | +6 |
| Jalen Slawson | 16 | 4 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 2 | 1 | +7 |
| Kelly Oubre Jr. | 20 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -16 |
| Jarace Walker | 17 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4 | -13 |
| Larry Nance Jr. | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -3 |
| Jay Huff | 5 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -5 |
| Kobe Brown | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -3 |
Pascal Siakam: Indiana’s leading scorer
Siakam scored 23 points in 29 minutes, converting eight of 13 field-goal attempts. He made three of five three-pointers and added four made free throws on seven attempts.
His 23 points were only one fewer than Irving’s game-high 24. Siakam therefore produced a scoring performance that could compete with Dallas’s leading scorer on an individual level.
The difference was the wider team context. Indiana’s overall three-point percentage was much lower than Dallas’s, and Siakam’s five turnovers reduced the value of some of his offensive possessions.
His line demonstrates why a high point total does not always translate into a team victory. Scoring efficiency, turnovers, defensive stops, and contributions from the rest of the lineup all influence the result.
Tyrese Haliburton: Playmaking and all-around production
Haliburton recorded 18 points, six rebounds, seven assists, one steal, and two blocks. He made eight of 17 field-goal attempts and both of his free throws, but missed all four of his three-point attempts.
His seven assists were the highest total for either team. That playmaking was important because Indiana needed organized offense to recover from the early deficit.
However, the absence of a made three-pointer from Haliburton limited one dimension of his scoring. When a primary ball-handler is not converting from long range, opposing defenders may be more willing to protect the paint or adjust their coverage elsewhere.
Haliburton’s overall contribution was still substantial. His six rebounds and two blocks added value outside the traditional point-guard role.
Andrew Nembhard: Efficient scoring and ball security
Nembhard scored 16 points on five of 11 field-goal attempts. He made one of two three-pointers and all five of his free throws.
He also recorded five assists, two rebounds, one steal, and just one turnover. Compared with several other Indiana players, Nembhard’s low turnover total stands out.
His performance provided a useful example of efficient guard play. He scored at a reasonable rate, created opportunities for teammates, and generally protected possession of the ball. However, even an effective individual performance can have limited influence when the team falls far behind early.
Ivica Zubac: Strong rebounding in a difficult game
Zubac recorded nine points and 11 rebounds, including four offensive rebounds. He also supplied two assists and one block.
His 11 rebounds made him Indiana’s leading rebounder. Four offensive rebounds were especially useful because they offered the Pacers additional opportunities after missed shots.
Yet Zubac’s listed plus-minus of -23 was the lowest among Indiana’s players in the supplied table. That figure should not be interpreted as proof that he was solely responsible for Indiana’s struggles. It reflects the team’s scoring differential during his minutes and can be influenced by multiple lineup factors.
The larger takeaway is that Indiana did have some success extending possessions on the offensive glass. The challenge was turning those extra chances into enough efficient scoring to match Dallas.
Obi Toppin: A useful scoring contribution from the bench
Toppin scored 13 points in 25 minutes, shooting five of 10 from the field and three of three at the free-throw line. He also recorded five rebounds, one assist, one turnover, and one block.
His performance gave Indiana another source of offense beyond its starting scorers. Toppin’s 13 points were particularly useful in the second half, when Indiana outscored Dallas in both remaining quarters.
The limitation was that the Pacers needed more than isolated contributions from the bench. To overturn a 34-point halftime deficit, they required sustained scoring from multiple players and a reduction in the Mavericks’ offensive efficiency.
Other Pacers contributors
Aaron Nesmith scored nine points and grabbed four rebounds. He made two of seven field-goal attempts and four of six free throws.
Quenton Jackson contributed eight points and three assists without recording a turnover in the supplied data. Jalen Slawson added four points, five rebounds, two assists, two steals, and two blocks.
Kelly Oubre Jr. scored three points on one of 10 field-goal attempts. His shooting struggles limited his scoring contribution, although he did record two offensive rebounds and two assists.
Jarace Walker scored two points and recorded four turnovers in 17 minutes. Larry Nance Jr., Jay Huff, and Kobe Brown had limited offensive involvement according to their listed statistics.
Taken together, Indiana’s player numbers reveal a team with some effective individual performances but an uneven overall offensive output.
Complete Shooting Statistics: Mavericks vs Pacers
The shooting numbers provide one of the clearest explanations for Dallas’s victory. Both teams attempted 88 field goals in the supplied data, but Dallas made five more shots. The largest difference came from three-point shooting.
| Team statistic | Dallas Mavericks | Indiana Pacers |
| Points | 121 | 105 |
| Field goals made | 44 | 39 |
| Field goals attempted | 88 | 88 |
| Field-goal percentage | 50% | 44% |
| Three-pointers made | 14 | 7 |
| Three-pointers attempted | 34 | 32 |
| Three-point percentage | 41% | 22% |
| Free throws made | 19 | 20 |
| Free throws attempted | 23 | 28 |
| Free-throw percentage | 83% | 71% |
| Total rebounds | 46 | 42 |
| Offensive rebounds | 11 | 13 |
| Defensive rebounds | 35 | 29 |
| Assists | 28 | 27 |
| Turnovers | 14 | 19 |
| Steals | 10 | 6 |
| Blocks | 11 | 6 |
| Personal fouls | 27 | 20 |
Note: These team totals reproduce the figures in the supplied dataset. Turnover totals can differ across transcriptions of the game record, so the official box score should be consulted if exact reconciliation is required.
Field-goal efficiency gave Dallas an advantage
Dallas made 50% of its field-goal attempts, compared with Indiana’s 44%. Both teams attempted 88 shots, making this a useful comparison because the recorded attempt totals were equal.
The Mavericks converted 44 shots, while the Pacers converted 39. That five-basket difference accounted for 10 additional points from field goals before accounting for the value of three-pointers.
Field-goal percentage is not a complete measure of offensive quality. It does not directly account for turnovers, free throws, or the extra value of three-point baskets. However, in this matchup, it reinforces the broader conclusion that Dallas converted its opportunities more effectively.
Three-point shooting was the biggest statistical difference
Dallas made 14 three-pointers on 34 attempts, while Indiana made seven on 32 attempts.
That produced a seven-basket advantage from beyond the arc. Because each made three-pointer is worth three points, the difference in three-point scoring was 21 points.
This is a particularly important finding because the final margin was 16 points. Dallas’s advantage from three-point shooting exceeded the final winning margin, although that does not mean the three-point difference alone caused the victory. Two-point baskets, free throws, turnovers, and defensive plays also shaped the final score.
The percentage gap was substantial:
- Dallas: approximately 41.2% from three-point range.
- Indiana: approximately 21.9% from three-point range.
- Difference: approximately 19.3 percentage points.
Dallas did not simply attempt more threes. It made a considerably greater proportion of them.
Free throws helped Indiana, but not enough
Indiana made 20 of 28 free throws, compared with Dallas’s 19 of 23.
The Pacers therefore made one more free throw overall, but Dallas converted a higher percentage of its attempts. Indiana’s 71% mark trailed Dallas’s 83%.
The additional free-throw attempts gave Indiana a potential scoring advantage, but the difference was too small to offset Dallas’s perimeter production.
This illustrates why teams need to evaluate the entire shooting profile. A team can generate more free-throw opportunities and still lose when its field-goal and three-point efficiency falls behind.
Rebounding and Possession Control
Rebounding was more balanced than shooting. Dallas collected 46 total rebounds, while Indiana recorded 42.
The breakdown provides a more useful view of how each team approached possessions.
| Rebounding category | Dallas | Indiana |
| Offensive rebounds | 11 | 13 |
| Defensive rebounds | 35 | 29 |
| Total rebounds | 46 | 42 |
Indiana’s offensive rebounds created extra chances
Indiana collected two more offensive rebounds than Dallas. Offensive rebounds can be valuable because they allow a team to retain possession after missing a shot.
Zubac’s four offensive rebounds and Toppin’s two were notable individual contributions. Washington collected three offensive rebounds for Dallas, while Morez Johnson Jr. added two.
However, offensive rebounding is only one part of possession management. A team must convert those extra opportunities into points to gain a meaningful advantage.
Indiana’s better offensive-rebound total did not compensate for its weaker shooting and higher turnover count in the supplied dataset.
Dallas controlled the defensive glass
Dallas recorded 35 defensive rebounds compared with Indiana’s 29. That six-rebound difference helped the Mavericks finish defensive possessions and limited the Pacers’ ability to extend attacks.
Defensive rebounds are particularly important when a team is protecting a lead. Securing the ball after a missed shot prevents the opponent from gaining another immediate scoring chance.
Washington’s 10 defensive rebounds led Dallas, while Zubac recorded seven for Indiana.
Turnovers added another layer to the result
The supplied team totals list 14 turnovers for Dallas and 19 for Indiana. If those figures are used, the Pacers committed five more turnovers.
Every turnover ends an offensive possession without a shot being completed, unless the play involves a special situation such as a foul or a violation followed by another possession. Live-ball turnovers can be especially damaging because they can create fast-break opportunities for the opposition.
Siakam recorded five turnovers, while Walker recorded four. Haliburton had three. Dallas’s listed individual figures also show two turnovers each for Washington, Irving, Christie, Marshall, and Johnson.
The difference in turnovers reinforces the value of efficient decision-making. Indiana needed to protect the ball while also increasing its shooting accuracy. It struggled to solve both problems at once.
Defensive Performance: Steals, Blocks, and Fouls
Dallas finished with 10 steals and 11 blocks, compared with Indiana’s six steals and six blocks. These totals point to a defensive effort that generated disruption as well as conventional stops.
Dallas’s defensive pressure
Flagg and Marshall each recorded three steals. Washington and Risacher each registered three blocks.
These plays matter for different reasons. A steal directly changes possession, while a block can prevent a shot from reaching the basket. Both can interrupt the opponent’s offensive rhythm.
Dallas’s defensive activity was especially useful given the team’s first-half scoring advantage. By creating additional stops and making Indiana work for its shots, the Mavericks reduced the pressure to match every Pacers scoring run.
Indiana still produced defensive highlights
Haliburton and Slawson each recorded two blocks in the supplied player data. Slawson also collected two steals.
Those contributions show that Indiana did produce effective individual defensive plays. The overall problem was consistency. The Pacers needed enough stops to prevent Dallas from building such a large lead, particularly during the opening half.
Personal fouls and discipline
Dallas was charged with 27 personal fouls, while Indiana was charged with 20 in the supplied statistics.
Fouls can affect a team’s defensive approach by creating free throws, limiting aggressive closeouts, or placing important players at risk of foul trouble. However, foul totals should not be interpreted in isolation. The timing and type of foul, along with the resulting free throws, matter more than the raw count alone.
The player data lists six personal fouls for Irving, while several Indiana players had lower totals. Those details may help explain individual playing-time patterns, but a full assessment would require the play-by-play record.
For a broader understanding of official basketball rules and statistical terminology, the NBA’s official website provides league information and game resources.
The Most Important Statistical Matchups
Looking beyond the final score helps explain how the individual performances combined into a team result.
Kyrie Irving versus Pascal Siakam
Irving scored 24 points and Siakam scored 23. Their scoring totals were almost identical, but their shooting profiles differed.
Irving made five three-pointers, while Siakam made three. Irving’s ability to score from outside gave Dallas an additional source of high-value baskets.
Siakam was efficient inside the overall field-goal category, converting eight of 13 attempts. Both players contributed substantial offensive production, but Dallas received more support from its other perimeter scorers.
P.J. Washington versus Ivica Zubac
Washington finished with 20 points and 13 rebounds, while Zubac recorded nine points and 11 rebounds.
Zubac was Indiana’s leading rebounder and collected four offensive boards. Washington, however, provided a more balanced scoring and rebounding contribution while also recording three blocks.
Their roles were not identical, but comparing their output shows how Dallas received substantial production from a frontcourt player in both scoring and defense.
Cooper Flagg versus Tyrese Haliburton
Flagg recorded 14 points, five rebounds, and six assists in 17 minutes according to the supplied table. Haliburton finished with 18 points, six rebounds, and seven assists in 32 minutes.
Haliburton produced the higher raw totals in points, rebounds, and assists. Flagg’s listed plus-minus was considerably higher, at +34 compared with Haliburton’s 0.
The minutes difference is essential when interpreting this comparison. Flagg played substantially less time, and plus-minus reflects team performance during those minutes. It should not be treated as a direct measurement of one player’s superiority over another.
Bench scoring and lineup depth
Dallas’s bench received notable contributions from Marshall, Risacher, Johnson, and Sasser. Marshall scored 15 points, Risacher added 11, Johnson contributed eight, and Sasser recorded six.
Indiana’s most productive reserve scorer was Toppin with 13 points. Jackson added eight, Nesmith scored nine, and Slawson recorded four.
Dallas had several reserves contributing meaningful scoring, rebounding, playmaking, or defense. Indiana also received bench production, but the team’s combined performance was not enough to overcome the opening-half deficit.
Bench statistics are most useful when considered alongside minutes, roles, and the score at the time players entered the game. Raw point totals alone cannot reveal whether a player faced starters, reserve units, or changing defensive assignments.
What the Plus-Minus Numbers Reveal
Plus-minus measures the difference between a team’s points scored and points allowed while a particular player is on the court. It is useful for describing lineup results, but it does not isolate individual responsibility.
In this matchup, several Dallas players recorded positive figures:
- Cooper Flagg: +34
- Morez Johnson Jr.: +21
- Zaccharie Risacher: +14
- Kyrie Irving: +8
- Daniel Gafford: +2
For Indiana, Slawson finished at +7 and Jackson at +6. Haliburton recorded a plus-minus of 0, while Zubac finished at -23.
Why a positive plus-minus can be misleading
Flagg’s +34 is striking, especially because Dallas won by 16. Yet his individual figure does not mean he personally contributed 34 points to the victory. It means the Mavericks outscored Indiana by that amount during his listed minutes.
The same caution applies to Johnson’s +21. A reserve player may post a strong plus-minus by playing during a productive stretch, benefiting from an effective lineup, or facing a particular opponent group.
For a more complete evaluation, combine plus-minus with points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, shooting efficiency, and playing time.
Why a negative plus-minus does not automatically mean poor performance
Washington scored 20 points and grabbed 13 rebounds despite finishing at -4. Christie scored 16 points and recorded four assists while posting -2.
These examples show why single-game plus-minus should not replace an examination of the full box score. A player can contribute effectively while playing in lineups that are outscored overall.
For fans comparing individual performances, the best approach is to treat plus-minus as supporting evidence rather than a definitive ranking.
What the Statistics Tell Us About Both Teams
The game provides several useful lessons about basketball performance, especially when the score and the underlying numbers are considered together.
What Dallas did well
- Converted shots efficiently. Dallas shot 50% from the field, compared with Indiana’s 44%.
- Created a major perimeter advantage. The Mavericks made 14 three-pointers, twice Indiana’s total of seven.
- Shared offensive responsibility. Irving, Washington, Christie, Marshall, and Flagg all scored at least 14 points.
- Generated defensive activity. Dallas recorded 10 steals and 11 blocks in the supplied statistics.
- Built its lead early. The 77-43 halftime score gave Dallas room to absorb Indiana’s second-half improvement.
What Indiana could improve
- Start games with greater offensive consistency. The Pacers scored only 43 first-half points, leaving themselves a substantial deficit.
- Improve three-point efficiency. A 22% team mark from long range limited the value of Indiana’s perimeter attempts.
- Protect possession. The supplied data lists 19 Indiana turnovers, including five by Siakam and four by Walker.
- Convert extra offensive rebounds. Indiana collected 13 offensive rebounds but still lost the overall scoring battle by 16 points.
- Avoid relying on a late recovery. Winning both second-half quarters was encouraging, but the early deficit was too large to erase.
These observations are based on the recorded game statistics. They identify areas to examine rather than proving the cause of every missed shot, turnover, or defensive breakdown.
How to Read a Basketball Box Score Correctly
For readers who want to understand future NBA matchups, a box score is most useful when its categories are read together.
Start with the final score and quarter totals
The final score tells you who won, while the quarter totals show when the game changed. In this matchup, Dallas’s 34-point halftime lead was more revealing than the final margin alone.
Compare shooting percentages and attempts
A team that makes more shots on the same number of attempts is generally converting its opportunities more effectively. Three-point shooting deserves separate attention because each made basket is worth three points.
Examine rebounds and turnovers together
Rebounds indicate which team recovered missed shots. Turnovers show how often possessions ended without a completed field-goal attempt. Together, these numbers help explain how a team controlled or lost opportunities.
Look beyond the leading scorer
A high-scoring player may have an excellent individual game without receiving enough support from teammates. Examine the second and third scoring options, assists, defensive statistics, and bench contributions before drawing conclusions.
Use plus-minus with caution
Plus-minus is most informative when paired with minutes played and the surrounding lineup context. It can help identify productive stretches, but it cannot independently establish a player’s value or explain why a team won.
Check source consistency before publishing
Box-score pages may display different time zones, updated statistical totals, or corrections. The supplied record for this game lists the date as October 24, 2026, while game listings can show October 23 in Indianapolis depending on how the date and time are presented.
The supplied team turnover totals also differ from some published versions of the game record. For a publication that requires exact statistical accuracy, use one official box-score version consistently and reconcile any discrepancies before presenting the numbers as definitive.
This is especially important for sports reporting because a small difference in a turnover total, game date, or player statistic can affect the accuracy of an otherwise well-written article.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Pacers vs Dallas Mavericks game?
The Dallas Mavericks defeated the Indiana Pacers 121-105, winning by 16 points. Dallas established a large first-half advantage and maintained it despite Indiana outscoring the Mavericks in both second-half quarters.
2. Who was the leading scorer in the game?
Kyrie Irving led Dallas with 24 points, while Pascal Siakam led Indiana with 23 points. Irving made five three-pointers, and Siakam converted three of his five three-point attempts.
3. Which player recorded the most rebounds?
P.J. Washington led Dallas with 13 rebounds. Ivica Zubac was Indiana’s leading rebounder with 11. Washington also scored 20 points, while Zubac added nine points.
4. How did Tyrese Haliburton perform against Dallas?
Haliburton recorded 18 points, six rebounds, and seven assists. He also registered one steal and two blocks. He made eight of 17 field-goal attempts but missed all four of his three-point attempts in the supplied box score.
5. Why did Dallas win the game?
Dallas benefited from more efficient shooting, a significant three-point advantage, strong defensive activity, and a dominant first half. The Mavericks shot 50% from the field and approximately 41% from three-point range, while Indiana shot 44% overall and approximately 22% from beyond the arc.
6. When is the next Pacers vs Mavericks matchup?
The supplied schedule lists the next Indiana Pacers versus Dallas Mavericks matchup for November 10, 2026, at 6:00 AM. The listed broadcast options include KFAA-TV and MavsTV, with another provider also indicated. Confirm the official schedule before relying on the date, time, or broadcast information.
Conclusion
The pacers vs dallas mavericks match player stats show that Dallas won through a combination of efficient shooting, early scoring dominance, and contributions from multiple players. Kyrie Irving led the scoring with 24 points, P.J. Washington delivered 20 points and 13 rebounds, and Cooper Flagg recorded an impressive all-around performance in limited minutes.
Indiana had its own standout performers. Siakam scored 23 points, Haliburton contributed 18 points and seven assists, and Zubac secured 11 rebounds. The Pacers also won the third and fourth quarters, demonstrating their ability to respond after a difficult opening half.
Ultimately, the decisive difference was the first-half scoring gap and Dallas’s advantage from three-point range. Indiana’s second-half improvement was not enough to overcome a 34-point halftime deficit. The statistical record offers a clear reminder that individual scoring achievements matter, but shooting efficiency, possession management, defensive execution, and team-wide contributions determine how those performances translate into results.
