2026-10-23 · 6:00 PM CT · Regular season
Dallas Mavericks26-56
Indiana Pacers19-63ESPN standings data retrieved October 6, 2026. NBA comparisons use the completed 2025–26 regular season. Each upcoming fixture labels preseason or regular-season status.
Dallas Mavericks2025–26 regular season
| Measure | Season average | League rank |
|---|---|---|
| STANDARD STATS | ||
| Points / game | 114.1 | 23 / 30 |
| Rebounds / game | 44.7 | 10 / 30 |
| Assists / game | 25.3 | 22 / 30 |
| Turnovers / game | 14.0 | 18 / 30 |
| Steals / game | 7.5 | 24 / 30 |
| Blocks / game | 5.2 | 10 / 30 |
| FG% | 46.6% | 19 / 30 |
| 3PT% | 34.4% | 26 / 30 |
| FT% | 75.5% | 28 / 30 |
| THE LAB MEASURES | ||
| eFG% | 52.7% | 28 / 30 |
| Turnover rate | 12.1% | 14 / 30 |
| Offensive rebound rate | — | — |
| Free-throw pressure | 0.287 | 6 / 30 |
Indiana Pacers2025–26 regular season
| Measure | Season average | League rank |
|---|---|---|
| STANDARD STATS | ||
| Points / game | 112.4 | 27 / 30 |
| Rebounds / game | 41.9 | 25 / 30 |
| Assists / game | 27.7 | 12 / 30 |
| Turnovers / game | 13.8 | 17 / 30 |
| Steals / game | 7.4 | 27 / 30 |
| Blocks / game | 4.6 | 19 / 30 |
| FG% | 45.8% | 26 / 30 |
| 3PT% | 35.6% | 18 / 30 |
| FT% | 77.6% | 17 / 30 |
| THE LAB MEASURES | ||
| eFG% | 53.3% | 23 / 30 |
| Turnover rate | 12.3% | 16 / 30 |
| Offensive rebound rate | — | — |
| Free-throw pressure | 0.252 | 20 / 30 |
ESPN team totals and game box scores checked October 6. NBA season averages and ranks use 2025–26; preseason game results are shown separately. Ranks are within the league, with ties sharing a rank; a lower turnover rate is better. Season offensive rebound rate needs opponent defensive-rebound totals, which this feed does not supply. A dash means unavailable. This game’s offensive rebound rate uses the opponent’s actual rebounds.
eFG% gives a made three its extra value. Turnover rate estimates the share of plays lost before a shot. Offensive rebound rate is the share of available offensive rebounds collected. Free-throw pressure is FTA/FGA. The calculations are (FGM + 0.5 × 3PM)/FGA; TOV/(FGA + 0.44 × FTA + TOV); OREB/(OREB + opponent DREB); and FTA/FGA.
Dallas Mavericks and Indiana Pacers enter with scoring averages of 114.1 and 112.4. Start with the kinds of shots they get, not just how many points they score. A clean shot at the rim or an open three can matter more than another difficult jumper.
The shooting comparison is 52.7% eFG for Dallas Mavericks and 53.3% for Indiana Pacers. That measure counts the extra value of a made three. If the defense takes away the first good look, watch whether the offense can create another without rushing.
Ball security is the next pressure point. Dallas Mavericks turn it over on an estimated 12.1% of plays; Indiana Pacers are at 12.3%. Fewer wasted trips mean more chances to score and fewer easy chances going the other way.
After the shot, watch the rebound. Then watch which team earns free throws. Extra shots and trips to the line can keep an offense moving when the shooting cools. The season columns give the baseline; the game columns in our final breakdown will show which advantages actually held up.
Spreads and win probabilities are reserved for confirmed games within the next seven days. This game stays on the schedule; its forecast opens inside that window.
Last season 26-56 | 12th in the West | Missed postseason, Flagg won Rookie of the Year
2025-26 efficiency 110.3 offense | 115.5 defense | -5.2 net per 100 possessions
Dallas finished 12th at 26-56, but Cooper Flagg's Rookie of the Year season supplied a clear direction. The team ranked 27th offensively, and its transition success concealed the league's worst half-court efficiency. Running faster could produce good stretches. It could not solve the possessions that began against an organized defense.
Masai Ujiri took over the basketball operation and hired Dusty May. Santi Aldama, Zaccharie Risacher and Marcus Sasser give the roster younger supporting options, and Kyrie Irving returns after missing a season. Irving is the clearest route to improving half-court creation without asking Flagg to manufacture every advantage himself. Aldama can also help make the frontcourt easier to space.
The unresolved question is whether management is building a coherent team around Flagg's development or preserving several competing timelines. Irving helps immediately, but his role and long-term place matter. Risacher needs to become a useful rotation wing, not simply a former first pick with another chance. May also has to find combinations that avoid crowding Flagg's drives. More pace cannot replace spacing when the opponent gets back.
Projected finish is 11th in the West. We expect an offensive improvement and a second-year step from Flagg, without assuming an immediate star leap large enough to erase every roster weakness. Dallas is a reasonable Play-In challenger if Irving's return goes well. A meaningful season would establish which players make Flagg more effective and belong in the next version of the team.
Last season 19-63 | 14th in the East | Missed postseason
2025-26 efficiency 110.1 offense | 117.9 defense | -7.8 net per 100 possessions
Indiana finished 14th at 19-63 while Tyrese Haliburton recovered from the Achilles injury suffered in the 2025 Finals. A 110.1 offensive rating and minus-7.8 net rating describe that absence, not a normal version of the intended team. The movement remained recognizable, but the passing advantages and conversion were nowhere near the level that powered the Finals run.
Kevin Pritchard's largest improvement is Haliburton returning. Ivica Zubac gets a full camp after arriving at the previous deadline, and Kelly Oubre Jr. and Larry Nance Jr. add veteran depth. Pascal Siakam, Andrew Nembhard, Aaron Nesmith and the other returning contributors give Rick Carlisle a familiar framework. Jarace Walker's stronger finish last season adds another internal development route.
The concern is assuming recovery means immediate restoration of every advantage. Haliburton still needs to demonstrate that his pace and creation hold over a long season. Zubac supplies size, screening and rebounding, but does not space the floor like Myles Turner. Management has replaced some departed production without rebuilding the exact Finals rotation. The bench and the first-unit spacing need to function in this new configuration.
Projected finish is eighth in the East. This is a substantial rebound driven by a returning primary creator and a proven supporting core. We remain cautious about predicting instant contention after an Achilles recovery. Indiana could be better in the playoffs than its record if the offense becomes sharper during the year. The first requirement is that the returning system creates good shots again.
A matching published game video is not available in the verified archive yet.
