2026-10-07 · 6:00 PM CT · Preseason · neutral site
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.
Minnesota Timberwolves2025–26 regular season
| Measure | Season average | League rank |
|---|---|---|
| STANDARD STATS | ||
| Points / game | 118.0 | 7 / 30 |
| Rebounds / game | 44.1 | 13 / 30 |
| Assists / game | 26.1 | 16 / 30 |
| Turnovers / game | 14.1 | 19 / 30 |
| Steals / game | 8.7 | 12 / 30 |
| Blocks / game | 5.8 | 2 / 30 |
| FG% | 48.1% | 9 / 30 |
| 3PT% | 37.0% | 6 / 30 |
| FT% | 75.2% | 29 / 30 |
| THE LAB MEASURES | ||
| eFG% | 55.9% | 6 / 30 |
| Turnover rate | 12.4% | 18 / 30 |
| Offensive rebound rate | — | — |
| Free-throw pressure | 0.285 | 7 / 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.
This is preseason. Use the team numbers as background and watch how the new lineups play together. No spread or Lab win probability is published for this game.
Last season 49-33 | 6th in the West | Conference semifinals loss to San Antonio, 4-2
2025-26 efficiency 115.6 offense | 112.5 defense | +3.1 net per 100 possessions
Minnesota finished sixth at 49-33, eliminated Denver and lost to San Antonio in six games. Its eighth-ranked defense was a more established advantage than its 13th-ranked offense. Anthony Edwards could produce difficult baskets, but the roster needed another creator who could give him more possessions that began with an advantage.
Tim Connelly acquired LaMelo Ball and Jonathan Kuminga while moving Julius Randle, Naz Reid and Mike Conley. Ball can initiate the offense and find Edwards away from the ball. That matters because Edwards made 49.6 percent of his catch-and-shoot threes last season, although the sample was 139 attempts. Kuminga supplies athleticism at forward and an opportunity to build a more defined role.
The concern is what Minnesota traded away from the frontcourt. Randle supplied regular-season scoring and Reid supplied flexible big-man minutes. Rudy Gobert remains essential to the paint defense, and the new roster has less room for him to miss time or lose effectiveness. Ball's availability and defensive fit also matter. Connelly improved creation, but left the replacement of dependable size partly to development and smaller combinations.
Projected finish is fifth in the West. We credit the new offensive partnership while leaving room for the fit to settle. Minnesota has a higher playoff ceiling than that place might suggest if Ball stays available and Edwards gets easier shots. The regular-season projection is more cautious because thinner frontcourt depth can cost ordinary games long before the best lineup is ready.
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.
