2026-10-26 · 7:00 PM CT · Regular season
Indiana Pacers19-63
Milwaukee Bucks32-50ESPN standings data retrieved October 6, 2026. NBA comparisons use the completed 2025–26 regular season. Each upcoming fixture labels preseason or regular-season status.
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 |
Milwaukee Bucks2025–26 regular season
| Measure | Season average | League rank |
|---|---|---|
| STANDARD STATS | ||
| Points / game | 110.6 | 29 / 30 |
| Rebounds / game | 40.7 | 28 / 30 |
| Assists / game | 25.8 | 18 / 30 |
| Turnovers / game | 14.5 | 23 / 30 |
| Steals / game | 7.4 | 26 / 30 |
| Blocks / game | 4.0 | 27 / 30 |
| FG% | 47.7% | 12 / 30 |
| 3PT% | 38.7% | 2 / 30 |
| FT% | 73.0% | 30 / 30 |
| THE LAB MEASURES | ||
| eFG% | 56.5% | 3 / 30 |
| Turnover rate | 13.3% | 28 / 30 |
| Offensive rebound rate | — | — |
| Free-throw pressure | 0.223 | 29 / 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.
Indiana Pacers and Milwaukee Bucks enter with scoring averages of 112.4 and 110.6. 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 53.3% eFG for Indiana Pacers and 56.5% for Milwaukee Bucks. 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. Indiana Pacers turn it over on an estimated 12.3% of plays; Milwaukee Bucks are at 13.3%. 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 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.
Last season 32-50 | 11th in the East | Missed postseason
2025-26 efficiency 112.2 offense | 118.3 defense | -6.1 net per 100 possessions
Milwaukee finished 11th at 32-50 and missed the postseason. Its minus-6.1 net rating showed that the attempted contender was already well short of that description. Giannis Antetokounmpo's departure changes the objective, but it does not explain away the defensive and possession problems that existed before he left.
Jon Horst's return from Miami includes Tyler Herro, Kel'el Ware, Jaime Jaquez Jr., Kasparas Jakucionis and future draft assets, with Nate Ament also part of the incoming group. Brayden Burries joins through the draft and Taylor Jenkins takes over the bench. Ware provides the most interesting immediate two-way development opportunity, while Herro supplies established scoring.
The concern is whether the veterans and prospects serve a coherent new timeline. Milwaukee devoted very few minutes to first- and second-year players last season, so the development structure now needs to catch up with the roster. Herro can keep the offense respectable without producing a reliable defense. Management has collected useful pieces, but the future pick position remains constrained and no replacement star should be assumed. Jenkins needs enough continuity to establish roles rather than constantly reassign them.
Projected finish is 15th in the East. The departure of the team's best player and an already weak baseline justify a low immediate forecast. A productive season would make Ware and the younger players more dependable and clarify which veterans belong. The front office should be judged on building the next competitive team, not making a rebuilding roster imitate the one it could no longer sustain.
A matching published game video is not available in the verified archive yet.
