Atlanta Hawks vs Pacers Match Player Stats
The atlanta hawks vs pacers match player stats from October 10, 2026, tell the story of a closely contested NBA preseason game in which the Atlanta Hawks defeated the Indiana Pacers 119-117 at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis. Atlanta secured the two-point victory despite shooting considerably worse from the field and beyond the three-point line. Its advantage came from rebounding, free-throw accuracy, and the ability to capitalize on Indiana’s turnovers.
Jalen Johnson led Atlanta with an impressive 20-point performance, adding seven rebounds and three assists. Onyeka Okongwu also made a significant contribution with 18 points, while Aaron Wiggins provided 13 points. For Indiana, Kelly Oubre Jr. and Pascal Siakam each scored 13 points, making them the Pacers’ leading scorers in the supplied game data.
The final result was particularly interesting because Indiana performed better in several traditional shooting categories. The Pacers made 51% of their field-goal attempts and 44% of their three-pointers. Atlanta, however, converted 93% of its free throws and controlled the rebounding battle.
This game provides a useful example of why basketball results cannot be explained through shooting percentages alone. Rebounding opportunities, turnovers, possession management, and free-throw conversion can have an equally important influence on the final score.
Atlanta Hawks vs Pacers Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The matchup took place during the 2026 NBA preseason at Gainbridge Fieldhouse, the home arena of the Indiana Pacers. Although preseason results do not carry the same competitive importance as regular-season victories, the game offered useful information about individual performances, team combinations, offensive execution, and defensive responsibilities.
Atlanta finished with 119 points, while Indiana recorded 117. The Hawks improved their overall preseason record to 2-1, including a 2-0 away record. The Pacers moved to 1-1 overall and 1-1 at home.
Here is a quick overview of the contest.
| Match Detail | Information |
| Matchup | Atlanta Hawks vs Indiana Pacers |
| Date | October 10, 2026 |
| Competition | NBA Preseason |
| Final Score | Hawks 119-117 Pacers |
| Winning Team | Atlanta Hawks |
| Losing Team | Indiana Pacers |
| Venue | Gainbridge Fieldhouse |
| Location | Indianapolis, Indiana |
| Attendance | 11,002 |
| Hawks Record | 2-1 |
| Pacers Record | 1-1 |
| Hawks Top Scorer | Jalen Johnson, 20 points |
| Pacers Top Scorer | Kelly Oubre Jr., 13 points |
| Game ID | 401898396 |
Date clarification: The game was played on October 10 in Indianapolis. The October 11 date in some time-zone-based records corresponds to the early morning in Pakistan.
The biggest takeaway was Atlanta’s ability to win through a different statistical route. Indiana was more accurate from the field, but Atlanta generated additional rebounding opportunities and made better use of its trips to the free-throw line.
For readers researching individual performances, it is important to distinguish between a player’s personal statistics and the team’s overall totals. Team rebounds, for example, can increase the official team rebound figure beyond the sum of individual player rebounds.
Final Score and Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown
The final score was Atlanta Hawks 119, Indiana Pacers 117. However, the four-quarter breakdown reveals how the game changed as both teams adjusted their offensive approach.
| Quarter | Atlanta Hawks | Indiana Pacers |
| First Quarter | 31 | 32 |
| Second Quarter | 31 | 28 |
| Third Quarter | 34 | 26 |
| Fourth Quarter | 23 | 31 |
| Final Score | 119 | 117 |
First Quarter: Indiana Starts With a Narrow Advantage
Indiana opened the game with a one-point advantage, scoring 32 points compared with Atlanta’s 31. Both teams found scoring opportunities early, and neither side established complete control of the contest.
The Pacers’ ability to score efficiently helped them take the opening-quarter lead. Atlanta remained close by finding contributions from multiple players rather than relying entirely on one scorer.
The opening period also established an important pattern: Indiana could generate efficient shooting possessions, while Atlanta needed to find additional ways to create scoring opportunities.
Second Quarter: Atlanta Moves Ahead
Atlanta responded in the second quarter by scoring another 31 points while limiting Indiana to 28.
That three-point advantage changed the overall scoreboard. The Hawks entered halftime with a two-point lead after trailing by one point at the end of the first quarter.
The improvement was important because Atlanta did not need a dramatic scoring explosion to change the direction of the game. Consistent offensive production and better possession management were enough to create a small advantage.
Third Quarter: The Hawks Create Separation
The third quarter was Atlanta’s strongest period.
The Hawks scored 34 points and restricted the Pacers to 26, producing an eight-point advantage for the period. This was the largest difference between the teams in any quarter.
Atlanta’s improved position gave it a 96-86 advantage entering the final quarter.
This period was particularly important because it created a margin that Indiana would need to overcome in the closing minutes. The Pacers remained competitive, but their offensive production was not sufficient to match Atlanta during this stretch.
Fourth Quarter: Indiana Makes a Late Push
Indiana produced its best scoring quarter in the final period, recording 31 points against Atlanta’s 23.
The eight-point difference almost erased the Hawks’ advantage. However, Atlanta’s earlier work was enough to preserve a two-point victory.
The fourth-quarter performance also demonstrates why a strong finish does not always guarantee a win. Indiana improved its scoring output, but the deficit created during the third quarter proved difficult to overcome completely.
Quarter-by-quarter takeaway: Atlanta’s third-quarter performance was the biggest turning point. Indiana won the opening and closing quarters, but Atlanta’s combined advantage in the second and third periods made the difference.
Complete Atlanta Hawks Player Stats
The individual performances provide a clearer picture of how Atlanta produced its 119 points.
Jalen Johnson led the scoring effort with 20 points, while Onyeka Okongwu finished with 18. Aaron Wiggins added 13 points, giving the Hawks three players with double-digit scoring performances.
The following table presents the individual statistics recorded in the game.
| Player | PTS | REB | AST | STL | BLK |
| Jalen Johnson | 20 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Onyeka Okongwu | 18 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Aaron Wiggins | 13 | 2 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| CJ McCollum | 12 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Asa Newell | 8 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 2 |
| Jalen Wilson | 8 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Kingston Flemings | 8 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Luguentz Dort | 7 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| RayJ Dennis | 7 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Dyson Daniels | 7 | 4 | 4 | 2 | 0 |
| Corey Kispert | 5 | 3 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Zuby Ejiofor | 4 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 1 |
| Jock Landale | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Kobe Johnson | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
PTS means points, REB means rebounds, AST means assists, STL means steals, and BLK means blocks.
Jalen Johnson Leads Atlanta With 20 Points
Jalen Johnson delivered Atlanta’s most productive individual performance.
He finished with:
- 20 points
- 7 rebounds
- 3 assists
- 8 successful field goals on 12 attempts
- 2 successful three-pointers on 2 attempts
His shooting efficiency was one of the most impressive aspects of the performance. Johnson converted 66.7% of his field-goal attempts and made both of his three-point attempts.
Johnson’s contribution was not limited to scoring. His seven rebounds helped Atlanta compete for possession, while his three assists showed that he also contributed to the team’s offensive movement.
A player who can score efficiently while contributing on the boards gives a team several ways to create an advantage. Johnson’s performance reflected that value.
Onyeka Okongwu Adds 18 Points
Onyeka Okongwu was another major contributor.
He recorded 18 points, three rebounds, and three assists. His 5-for-10 shooting from the field gave Atlanta an efficient scoring option inside and around the paint.
Okongwu also converted all six of his free-throw attempts.
His performance was particularly valuable because Atlanta needed contributions from multiple areas to overcome Indiana’s shooting advantage. His scoring reduced the pressure on Johnson and helped maintain offensive consistency.
Aaron Wiggins Provides 13 Important Points
Aaron Wiggins contributed 13 points in approximately 20 minutes of playing time.
His individual numbers included:
- 13 points
- 2 rebounds
- 1 assist
- 2 steals
- 4-for-9 field-goal shooting
- 3-for-6 three-point shooting
Wiggins was especially effective from the perimeter, making three of his six attempts from beyond the arc.
His two steals also added defensive value. Creating turnovers can be just as important as making shots because it prevents the opposing team from completing an offensive possession.
Wiggins’ performance demonstrated the importance of bench and supporting-player production in a close preseason contest.
CJ McCollum Contributes 12 Points
CJ McCollum scored 12 points while adding five rebounds.
His most notable shooting contribution came at the free-throw line, where he made all seven attempts.
Although his assist total was zero in this game, his scoring helped Atlanta maintain offensive pressure. His five rebounds were also useful in a contest where control of the boards became one of the deciding factors.
Atlanta’s Supporting Players Make a Difference
Several other Hawks contributed useful minutes.
- Asa Newell: Scored eight points, collected three rebounds, added two assists, and recorded two blocks.
- Jalen Wilson: Finished with eight points and three rebounds.
- Kingston Flemings: Recorded eight points, one rebound, one assist, and one steal.
- Luguentz Dort: Added seven points and six rebounds.
- RayJ Dennis: Scored seven points and distributed four assists.
- Dyson Daniels: Contributed seven points, four rebounds, four assists, and two steals.
- Corey Kispert: Added five points, three rebounds, and three assists.
- Zuby Ejiofor: Finished with four points, four rebounds, two steals, and one block.
- Jock Landale: Recorded two points and three rebounds.
- Kobe Johnson: Collected two rebounds.
The distribution of contributions is worth examining. Atlanta did not depend on Johnson to produce every offensive possession. Several teammates contributed points, rebounds, defensive plays, and passing opportunities.
This balance helped the Hawks remain competitive even when their overall shooting percentage was lower than Indiana’s.
Complete Indiana Pacers Player Stats
Indiana had several productive individual performances despite losing by two points.
Kelly Oubre Jr. and Pascal Siakam led the team with 13 points each. Jalen Slawson followed with 12, while Ivica Zubac and Obi Toppin each recorded 11.
The Pacers also received contributions from their supporting rotation, including Andrew Nembhard and Jarace Walker.
| Player | PTS | REB | AST | STL | BLK |
| Pascal Siakam | 13 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 2 |
| Kelly Oubre Jr. | 13 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jalen Slawson | 12 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ivica Zubac | 11 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 |
| Obi Toppin | 11 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Andrew Nembhard | 10 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Jarace Walker | 10 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Aaron Nesmith | 7 | 1 | 5 | 1 | 0 |
| Kobe Brown | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Quenton Jackson | 6 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Larry Nance Jr. | 6 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Jay Huff | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Rienk Mast | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Ben Sheppard | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Braden Smith | 2 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 0 |
| Keba Keita | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| James Johnson | 0 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
Pascal Siakam Delivers an All-Around Performance
Pascal Siakam finished with 13 points, two rebounds, and four assists.
His shooting numbers were:
- 3-for-7 from the field
- 1-for-3 from three-point range
- 6-for-6 from the free-throw line
Siakam also recorded two blocks.
His performance showed his ability to contribute beyond scoring. The four assists provided additional offensive value, while the defensive activity helped Indiana protect the basket.
One interesting detail is his perfect free-throw shooting. Although Indiana struggled to convert free throws as a team, Siakam made every attempt he received.
Kelly Oubre Jr. Shares the Scoring Lead
Kelly Oubre Jr. also finished with 13 points.
He made five of eight field-goal attempts and three of five attempts from beyond the three-point line.
His 62.5% field-goal shooting was particularly efficient.
Oubre’s three successful three-pointers helped Indiana maintain its perimeter advantage. However, his scoring contribution alone was not enough to overcome Atlanta’s rebounding and free-throw advantages.
Jalen Slawson Produces 12 Points
Jalen Slawson recorded 12 points in approximately 13 minutes.
He converted four of five field-goal attempts, including his only three-point attempt.
His performance represented one of Indiana’s most efficient scoring contributions. He also made three free throws.
For a player receiving limited minutes, producing 12 points on five field-goal attempts is a meaningful contribution.
Ivica Zubac and Obi Toppin Add Interior Scoring
Ivica Zubac scored 11 points, collected five rebounds, and recorded two assists.
He also added one steal and one block. His 4-for-6 field-goal shooting demonstrated efficient finishing.
Obi Toppin also scored 11 points, adding three rebounds, one assist, and one steal.
Together, these players provided Indiana with useful scoring around the basket. Their contributions helped the Pacers finish with 51% shooting from the field.
Jarace Walker Makes an Impact on the Boards
Jarace Walker recorded 10 points and seven rebounds.
He also contributed three assists, making him one of Indiana’s more complete performers.
His seven rebounds were tied with Jalen Johnson’s seven for the highest individual rebound total among the highlighted players.
Walker demonstrated why rebounding and secondary playmaking matter. Even when a player is not leading the scoring column, contributions in these areas can help maintain offensive possessions and create better opportunities for teammates.
Braden Smith Contributes Five Assists
Braden Smith finished with two points, two rebounds, and five assists.
His scoring total was limited, but his passing contribution was notable.
Five assists in approximately 14 minutes demonstrate his ability to help teammates find scoring opportunities. He also recorded two steals, giving him a useful defensive contribution.
Smith’s performance is a reminder that individual value cannot always be measured through points alone.
Atlanta Hawks vs Indiana Pacers Team Stats Comparison
Individual performances explain how players contributed, but team statistics reveal why Atlanta won despite Indiana’s better shooting numbers.
The most important statistical difference was the combination of rebounding and free-throw efficiency.
| Statistical Category | Atlanta Hawks | Indiana Pacers |
| Total Points | 119 | 117 |
| Field Goals | 39/90 | 39/76 |
| Field-Goal Percentage | 43% | 51% |
| Three-Pointers | 13/45 | 15/34 |
| Three-Point Percentage | 29% | 44% |
| Free Throws | 28/30 | 24/32 |
| Free-Throw Percentage | 93% | 75% |
| Player Rebounds | 49 | 35 |
| Assists | 24 | 31 |
| Turnovers | 14 | 17 |
| Steals | 8 | 7 |
| Blocks | 3 | 5 |
| Offensive Rebounds | 10 | 0 |
| Defensive Rebounds | 39 | 35 |
| Personal Fouls | 26 | 28 |
Rebound clarification: The 49-35 figures represent the individual player rebound totals supplied for this comparison. Team totals can include additional team rebounds. The complete team accounting lists 52 rebounds for Atlanta and 46 for Indiana, including three and 11 team rebounds, respectively.
Field-Goal Percentage: Indiana Has the Advantage
Indiana made 39 of its 76 field-goal attempts, finishing at approximately 51%.
Atlanta also made 39 shots but needed 90 attempts to reach that number. Its field-goal percentage was approximately 43%.
The difference is significant.
Indiana generated the same number of successful field goals while taking 14 fewer attempts. This suggests that the Pacers were more efficient when converting their shooting opportunities.
However, shooting efficiency does not automatically determine the winner. A team can shoot a higher percentage and still lose if it gives away possessions, struggles at the free-throw line, or fails to collect rebounds.
That is exactly what happened in this matchup.
Three-Point Shooting: Pacers Control the Perimeter
The difference from beyond the arc was even more noticeable.
Indiana converted 15 of 34 three-point attempts, producing a 44% shooting percentage.
Atlanta made 13 of 45 attempts, finishing at approximately 29%.
The Pacers therefore made two additional three-pointers despite taking 11 fewer attempts.
This gave Indiana a clear advantage in perimeter efficiency.
Atlanta’s high number of attempts suggests that the team continued to look for opportunities from distance. However, converting only 13 of 45 attempts limited the effectiveness of that approach.
The important distinction is between creating three-point opportunities and converting them. Atlanta generated volume, but Indiana achieved better results.
Free-Throw Percentage: Atlanta’s Biggest Advantage
The free-throw comparison was one of the most important factors in the final result.
Atlanta made 28 of 30 attempts, recording a 93% success rate.
Indiana made 24 of 32 attempts, finishing at 75%.
This created a four-point advantage for Atlanta in made free throws.
In a game decided by two points, that difference becomes especially important.
The Hawks converted almost every opportunity they received at the line. Indiana, meanwhile, missed eight attempts.
Free throws are often overlooked when readers focus on field goals and three-pointers. However, they are among the most valuable scoring opportunities because the defense cannot directly contest the shot once the player is at the line.
Atlanta’s ability to convert these opportunities helped compensate for its weaker field-goal and three-point shooting.
Rebounding: Atlanta Controls More Possessions
Rebounding was another major difference.
Atlanta recorded 10 offensive rebounds, while Indiana recorded none in the supplied team statistics.
Offensive rebounds give a team another opportunity to score after missing a shot.
They can also force the opposing defense to remain on the court longer and make additional defensive plays.
Atlanta’s advantage in this category was particularly valuable because the Hawks missed more field-goal attempts than Indiana.
Rather than allowing every missed shot to become an Indiana possession, Atlanta recovered additional opportunities.
This helped the Hawks reduce the impact of their shooting struggles.
Assists: Indiana Moves the Ball Better
Indiana finished with 31 assists compared with Atlanta’s 24.
This seven-assist advantage suggests that the Pacers generated more scoring opportunities through teammate involvement.
Several players contributed to that passing production:
- Aaron Nesmith recorded five assists.
- Braden Smith recorded five assists.
- Pascal Siakam recorded four assists.
- Andrew Nembhard recorded three assists.
- Jarace Walker recorded three assists.
Atlanta also received useful playmaking contributions from RayJ Dennis and Dyson Daniels, who each recorded four assists.
The difference indicates that Indiana’s offense involved more assisted scoring opportunities. However, creating opportunities and converting them are two separate parts of offensive execution.
Turnovers: Atlanta Takes Better Care of the Ball
Atlanta committed 14 turnovers, while Indiana committed 17.
The Hawks therefore had three fewer turnovers.
This difference matters because turnovers end possessions without guaranteeing a shot attempt.
Even a team with excellent shooting efficiency can lose if it repeatedly gives the opposition additional possessions.
Indiana’s 17 turnovers reduced the value of its shooting advantage. Atlanta was better at protecting possession, which helped keep the game close enough for its other statistical advantages to matter.
Defensive Statistics: A Competitive Battle
Indiana recorded five blocks compared with Atlanta’s three.
The Pacers also finished with seven steals, just one fewer than Atlanta’s eight.
These numbers show that both teams generated defensive plays.
Indiana’s advantage in blocks suggests more successful attempts to challenge shots near the basket. Atlanta, meanwhile, finished slightly ahead in steals.
The difference was not large enough to define the entire game, but it contributed to the overall defensive picture.
Why Did the Atlanta Hawks Beat the Indiana Pacers?
The result becomes easier to understand when the statistics are considered together.
Indiana won several shooting categories, but Atlanta performed better in the areas that helped it maintain and create additional possessions.
There were five particularly important factors.
1. Better Free-Throw Conversion
Atlanta made 28 free throws, while Indiana made 24.
The Hawks’ 93% conversion rate was a major advantage.
In a two-point game, missing eight free throws becomes especially costly. Indiana could have changed the final margin with better accuracy from the line.
2. Stronger Rebounding Production
Atlanta collected more player rebounds and secured 10 offensive boards.
Those additional possessions helped compensate for missed field goals.
The Pacers did not record an offensive rebound in the supplied team statistics, meaning they failed to generate second-chance opportunities through that category.
3. Fewer Turnovers
Atlanta committed three fewer turnovers.
This helped the Hawks protect their possessions and prevented Indiana from receiving as many additional opportunities through opponent mistakes.
4. Strong Third-Quarter Performance
Atlanta outscored Indiana 34-26 in the third quarter.
That eight-point advantage was the largest quarter-to-quarter scoring difference in the game.
It established a cushion that became essential when Indiana increased its scoring in the final period.
5. Contributions From Multiple Players
Atlanta received meaningful scoring from Johnson, Okongwu, Wiggins, and McCollum.
The supporting rotation also contributed.
This distribution prevented the offense from depending on one player throughout the game.
Indiana had several productive performers as well, but its shooting and passing advantages were not enough to overcome the difference in free throws, rebounds, and turnovers.
The Most Important Statistical Turning Points
A closer examination of the game identifies several areas that explain the final two-point margin.
| Key Factor | Advantage | Why It Mattered |
| Free-Throw Percentage | Hawks | Atlanta converted 93% of attempts |
| Offensive Rebounds | Hawks | Created additional scoring opportunities |
| Turnovers | Hawks | Protected more possessions |
| Three-Point Shooting | Pacers | Made more shots with better accuracy |
| Field-Goal Percentage | Pacers | Scored more efficiently from the field |
| Assists | Pacers | Generated more assisted scoring |
| Third Quarter | Hawks | Created an eight-point advantage |
| Final Quarter | Pacers | Reduced Atlanta’s lead |
One of the most useful observations is that Atlanta did not need to win every statistical category.
Instead, the Hawks performed better in several areas that directly affected possession opportunities and scoring from the free-throw line.
Indiana’s shooting advantage was real, but its impact was reduced by missed free throws and additional turnovers.
What the Player Statistics Reveal About Both Teams
The individual box scores offer several insights into how each team approached the matchup.
Atlanta’s Offensive Approach
Atlanta demonstrated a balanced scoring structure.
Jalen Johnson led the team, but Okongwu’s 18 points and Wiggins’ 13 provided additional support.
McCollum’s 12 points added another reliable scoring contribution.
The team’s 24 assists also indicate that its offense was not entirely dependent on individual scoring.
However, Atlanta’s 29% three-point percentage is an area worth examining. The Hawks attempted 45 three-pointers, but only 13 went through the basket.
A high volume of unsuccessful attempts can create problems if a team does not compensate through offensive rebounds, free throws, or efficient two-point shooting.
In this game, Atlanta managed to compensate through those other areas.
Indiana’s Offensive Approach
Indiana produced better shooting efficiency and more assists.
Its 51% field-goal percentage and 44% three-point percentage were impressive compared with Atlanta’s numbers.
The Pacers also had several players contributing between 10 and 13 points.
However, the team committed 17 turnovers and missed eight free throws.
Those two areas reduced the benefit of its efficient shooting.
Indiana’s performance shows that offensive accuracy is only one part of successful basketball. Possession control and conversion at the free-throw line remain important.
The Value of Bench Contributions
Preseason basketball provides opportunities for players outside the regular starting rotation to demonstrate their abilities.
Several players made useful contributions in this game.
For Atlanta, Wiggins, Newell, Wilson, Flemings, and Dennis all reached at least seven points.
For Indiana, Slawson scored 12 points, while Toppin and Walker also made meaningful contributions.
These performances matter because teams need reliable options beyond their primary scorers.
A productive bench can maintain offensive pressure when starters leave the floor. It can also help coaches evaluate different player combinations.
However, one preseason performance should not be treated as proof of a player’s long-term role or regular-season production.
Understanding Plus/Minus in the Matchup
Plus/minus is a statistic that measures the difference between a team’s points scored and points allowed while a particular player is on the court.
For example, a player with a plus-eight rating was on the court during a period when his team outscored the opposition by eight points.
This statistic can help readers understand how the game developed during different player combinations.
However, plus/minus should not be used as the only measure of individual performance.
A player can record a strong scoring performance while finishing with a negative plus/minus. Similarly, a player with few points may have a positive rating because the team performed well during his minutes.
To evaluate a player’s overall contribution, it is better to consider several statistics together:
- Points and shooting efficiency.
- Rebounds and offensive rebounds.
- Assists and turnovers.
- Steals and blocks.
- Minutes played.
- Plus/minus.
This provides a more complete picture than focusing on one number.
What This Preseason Result Means for Atlanta
Atlanta’s victory offered several positive signs.
First, the team demonstrated that it could win without having the better shooting percentage.
Second, its players showed the ability to contribute in different areas.
Johnson’s scoring, Okongwu’s interior production, Wiggins’ perimeter shooting, and the team’s rebounding advantage all played important roles.
The Hawks also showed good discipline at the free-throw line.
However, the three-point shooting percentage remains a statistical area that deserves attention.
Making only 13 of 45 attempts is not an ideal outcome, particularly against opponents capable of producing efficient perimeter offense.
The game also highlights the importance of offensive rebounding. Atlanta’s ability to recover missed shots helped prevent Indiana from controlling every possession.
For a preseason contest, these are useful areas for evaluating team performance. They do not automatically predict regular-season results, but they provide a foundation for understanding the team’s strengths and weaknesses.
What This Preseason Result Means for Indiana
Indiana’s performance contained several encouraging offensive signs.
The Pacers shot 51% from the field and 44% from three-point range. They also finished with 31 assists, demonstrating effective ball movement.
Siakam, Oubre, Zubac, Toppin, and Slawson provided scoring contributions.
The team’s five blocks also showed defensive activity around the basket.
Nevertheless, two issues stand out.
The first is free-throw accuracy. Making only 24 of 32 attempts is a significant missed opportunity in a close game.
The second is possession management. Indiana’s 17 turnovers were three more than Atlanta’s total.
Reducing those mistakes and improving free-throw conversion would have made the team’s shooting advantage more valuable.
The Pacers also need to examine their lack of offensive rebounds in this statistical comparison. Even a team shooting efficiently can benefit from creating additional possessions after missed attempts.
Preseason Statistics vs Regular-Season Performance
It is important to understand the context of this matchup.
The game was part of the NBA preseason, not the regular season.
Preseason games are generally used for preparation, player evaluation, experimentation, and building team chemistry.
Coaches may use different rotations, test new combinations, and distribute playing time among players who might have different responsibilities once the regular season begins.
That is why readers should avoid drawing major conclusions from a single preseason box score.
For example:
- A player scoring 20 points does not guarantee the same scoring role during the regular season.
- A player receiving limited minutes may have a different role in future games.
- A team’s shooting percentage in one preseason contest does not establish its season-long shooting ability.
- A team’s bench production may reflect experimentation rather than a permanent rotation.
The most useful way to evaluate preseason statistics is to look at individual execution, team coordination, and areas that may require improvement.
Atlanta’s victory was a positive result, while Indiana’s efficient shooting offered useful information about its offensive capabilities.
Both teams had opportunities to learn from the contest.
Where to Find the Official Box Score
Readers who want to verify individual performances, shooting numbers, playing time, and the final score can consult the original ESPN box score.
The game ID is 401898396.
When reviewing a box score, pay particular attention to the difference between individual player totals and team totals. This is especially important for rebounds, where team rebounds can affect the official overall figure.
Checking the original game record is also useful when comparing statistics across different sports websites, as some platforms may display team rebounds separately.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Atlanta Hawks vs Indiana Pacers game on October 10, 2026?
The Atlanta Hawks defeated the Indiana Pacers 119-117 in an NBA preseason game at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis.
2. Who was the top scorer for the Atlanta Hawks?
Jalen Johnson was Atlanta’s leading scorer with 20 points. He also recorded seven rebounds and three assists.
3. Who led the Indiana Pacers in scoring?
Kelly Oubre Jr. and Pascal Siakam shared Indiana’s scoring lead with 13 points each. Jalen Slawson followed with 12 points.
4. How many three-pointers did the Hawks and Pacers make?
Atlanta made 13 of 45 three-point attempts, while Indiana converted 15 of 34 attempts. The Pacers had the better three-point percentage at approximately 44%.
5. Which team had more rebounds?
Atlanta had 49 individual player rebounds compared with Indiana’s 35 in the supplied statistics. Including team rebounds, the overall figures were 52 for Atlanta and 46 for Indiana.
6. Why did Atlanta win despite shooting a lower percentage?
Atlanta benefited from better free-throw accuracy, more offensive rebounds, and fewer turnovers. These advantages helped compensate for Indiana’s superior field-goal and three-point percentages.
Conclusion
The Atlanta Hawks’ 119-117 preseason victory over the Indiana Pacers demonstrated how different statistical categories can influence a basketball result.
Jalen Johnson led Atlanta with 20 points, seven rebounds, and three assists. Onyeka Okongwu contributed 18 points, while Aaron Wiggins added 13. Their combined efforts helped the Hawks maintain offensive production throughout the contest.
Indiana also delivered several impressive individual performances. Kelly Oubre Jr. and Pascal Siakam scored 13 points each, while Jalen Slawson contributed 12. The Pacers finished with better field-goal and three-point percentages and recorded more assists.
However, Atlanta’s 93% free-throw accuracy, rebounding advantage, and lower turnover total proved valuable. The Hawks also produced an important eight-point advantage in the third quarter, which helped them survive Indiana’s fourth-quarter comeback.
Ultimately, this matchup illustrated the importance of balanced basketball. Shooting efficiency matters, but rebounding, possession management, defensive contributions, and free-throw conversion can be equally important.
Because this was a preseason game, the statistics should primarily be viewed as an evaluation of individual performances and team execution rather than a prediction of regular-season success.
