Pacers vs Celtics Match Player Stats

The pacers vs celtics match player stats from the January 13, 2026 matchup tell a much more detailed story than the final 98-96 score alone. Indiana defeated Boston at Gainbridge Fieldhouse after recovering from a first-half deficit, building a 13-point second-half advantage, and surviving a late Celtics comeback. Pascal Siakam delivered the decisive basket, while Jay Huff provided important perimeter shooting and Andrew Nembhard controlled much of Indiana’s playmaking. For Boston, Payton Pritchard led the team with 23 points and eight assists, but Indiana’s three-point efficiency and superior ball movement ultimately made the difference.

The official records list the game as Boston Celtics at Indiana Pacers, with Boston entering at 24-15 overall and 12-8 on the road, while Indiana entered at 9-31 and 7-15 at home. The game was played at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis with an announced attendance of 15,650.

Pacers vs Celtics Match Player Stats at a Glance

The game was unusually close in the final score, but the underlying numbers show several meaningful differences between the teams.

Category	Boston Celtics	Indiana Pacers
Final Score	96	98
Field Goals	40-88	39-84
Field Goal %	45%	46%
Three-Pointers	9-35	16-37
Three-Point %	26%	43%
Free Throws	7-9	4-6
Free Throw %	78%	67%
Rebounds	46	40
Assists	22	29
Turnovers	12	11
Steals	9	8
Blocks	1	3
Offensive Rebounds	10	5
Defensive Rebounds	36	35

The biggest statistical separator was three-point shooting. Boston attempted 35 threes and made only nine, while Indiana converted 16 of 37. That produced a 21-point difference in made three-pointers despite the Celtics holding a six-rebound advantage.

Indiana also finished with seven more assists and one fewer turnover. Those numbers are important because they show that the Pacers did not win simply through hot shooting. They also generated more assists and protected the ball slightly better.

Final Score and Game Context

Indiana won 98-96, but Boston actually led 24-19 after the opening quarter and then extended its advantage in the second period.

The Celtics scored 32 points in the second quarter, their highest-scoring period of the game. Indiana answered with 34 points, however, allowing the Pacers to enter halftime with the momentum shifting toward the home team.

The third quarter became the decisive stretch. Indiana scored 26 points while Boston managed 21. That five-point difference turned the game into a fourth-quarter contest, with Indiana carrying a 79-77 lead into the final period. Both teams scored 19 points in the fourth quarter.

The game featured 11 lead changes and nine ties, demonstrating how narrow the margin was throughout the contest. Boston also erased a 13-point second-half deficit before tying the game at 96 late in the fourth quarter.

That sequence matters when interpreting the box score. Indiana did not control the game from start to finish. Instead, the Pacers created enough separation during the middle portion of the game and then made the final possession count.

Pascal Siakam Leads Indiana

Pascal Siakam was the central figure in the Pacers’ victory.

He finished with:

• 34 minutes
• 21 points
• 10-of-15 shooting
• 0-of-1 from three-point range
• 1-of-2 from the free-throw line
• 8 rebounds
• 6 assists
• 2 turnovers
• 2 steals
• 1 block

His 21 points came on 66.7% shooting from the field, which was especially valuable in a game where every possession carried significant weight.

Siakam’s impact was also broader than his scoring. Eight rebounds, six assists, two steals, and a block show that he influenced several parts of the game. His six assists were particularly useful because Indiana finished with 29 assists as a team.

Most importantly, Siakam scored the winning basket in the closing seconds. With the score tied at 96, he created space near the free-throw line and banked in a short shot to give Indiana the lead. NBA’s game coverage records the decisive basket with just over six seconds remaining.

That final play also illustrates why raw points can sometimes fail to explain a close NBA game. Siakam did not need 30 points to become the decisive player. His efficiency, rebounding, playmaking, defense, and late-game execution combined to make his 21-point performance extremely significant.

Jay Huff Provides a Major Shooting Boost

Jay Huff produced one of Indiana’s most efficient offensive performances.

His line was:

• 28 minutes
• 20 points
• 8-of-12 field goals
• 4-of-7 three-pointers
• 3 rebounds
• 2 assists
• 2 turnovers
• 2 steals
• 1 block

Huff’s four made three-pointers were particularly important.

Indiana made 16 threes as a team, and Huff accounted for four of them. His 4-of-7 shooting from outside represented a 57.1% three-point rate. That type of efficiency helped Indiana maintain offensive pressure even when Boston’s defense prevented easy interior opportunities.

Huff also made eight of his 12 total field-goal attempts, giving him a 66.7% field-goal percentage.

The official Pacers recap specifically highlighted his 20-point performance and noted that he went 8-for-12 from the field and 4-for-7 from three-point range.

For readers studying player performance, Huff’s line is a good example of why three-point volume and efficiency should be considered together. Making four threes is useful by itself, but doing so on seven attempts while also shooting 8-of-12 overall creates an even stronger offensive profile.

Andrew Nembhard Controls the Playmaking

Andrew Nembhard finished with 13 points, six rebounds, and nine assists.

His complete line included:

• 33 minutes
• 13 points
• 5-of-14 field goals
• 3-of-5 three-pointers
• 6 rebounds
• 9 assists
• 3 turnovers
• 2 steals

The nine assists were the most important part of his statistical profile.

Nembhard was not Indiana’s most efficient scorer, but his playmaking helped the Pacers produce 29 team assists. His three made three-pointers also forced Boston to respect him as a perimeter threat.

The nine assists meant Nembhard directly created a large portion of Indiana’s scoring opportunities. That is particularly important when examining a team that finished with 29 assists against only 11 turnovers.

His performance shows why a box-score evaluation should not focus exclusively on scoring. A 13-point performance can be extremely valuable when it comes with nine assists, six rebounds, two steals, and efficient three-point shooting.

Aaron Nesmith and Johnny Furphy

Aaron Nesmith scored six points in 32 minutes.

He shot 2-of-9 from the field and 2-of-6 from three-point range while adding five rebounds and two assists. Although his shooting efficiency was modest, he still contributed on the glass.

Johnny Furphy played 16 minutes and finished with four points, five rebounds, one assist, two turnovers, and one steal. He shot 1-of-1 from the field and made both of his free throws.

Furphy’s five rebounds in 16 minutes were useful in a game where Indiana was outrebounded 46-40. His role was not primarily about high scoring volume. Instead, he contributed through efficiency, rebounding, and defensive activity.

Payton Pritchard Leads Boston

Payton Pritchard was Boston’s leading scorer with 23 points.

His final line:

• 37 minutes
• 23 points
• 10-of-22 field goals
• 3-of-7 three-pointers
• 4 rebounds
• 8 assists
• 2 steals

Pritchard carried a significant offensive workload. His 22 field-goal attempts were the most among the Celtics players listed in the box score.

He also added eight assists, matching a strong playmaking contribution with his scoring output.

His 10 made field goals represented half of Boston’s 20 two-point and three-point field goals combined? More precisely, Boston made 40 total field goals, so Pritchard’s 10 made shots represented 25% of the team’s total field goals.

That illustrates his importance to Boston’s offensive production.

Pritchard also converted three of seven attempts from three-point range. His outside shooting helped Boston remain within striking distance during a game where the Celtics ultimately finished only 9-of-35 from deep.

Derrick White’s Two-Way Impact

Derrick White finished with 18 points, four rebounds, five assists, and four turnovers.

His shooting line was 7-of-21 from the field and 2-of-9 from three-point range. He also made both of his free throws.

White’s overall shooting efficiency was not particularly strong, but his late-game contribution was important. After Boston fell behind, White scored a driving layup that tied the game at 96.

The Celtics then had one final opportunity after Siakam’s game-winning shot. White attempted a three-pointer with approximately six seconds remaining, but the shot missed.

This sequence is important because it shows both sides of White’s late-game involvement. He helped create the tie, then became the player responsible for Boston’s final shot.

His four turnovers also mattered. In a two-point game, turnovers can have an outsized effect because each lost possession removes an opportunity to score while potentially giving the opponent a transition chance.

Neemias Queta’s Efficient Interior Performance

Neemias Queta was one of Boston’s most efficient scorers.

He recorded:

• 32 minutes
• 15 points
• 7-of-9 field goals
• 1-of-3 free throws
• 8 rebounds
• 2 assists
• 3 turnovers
• 2 steals
• 1 block

Queta shot 77.8% from the field, making seven of his nine attempts.

His eight rebounds tied Sam Hauser for the team lead among the Celtics players listed in the box score. He also added two steals and a block, giving him an active defensive contribution.

The contrast between Queta and Boston’s perimeter shooting is notable. He was highly efficient around the basket, while Boston’s team three-point shooting was only 26%.

Anfernee Simons Adds 16 Points

Anfernee Simons played 24 minutes and scored 16 points.

His line included:

• 7-of-15 field goals
• 2-of-7 three-pointers
• 3 rebounds
• 4 assists
• 2 turnovers

Simons provided useful scoring off the bench, especially considering Boston did not receive the expected production from every regular rotation player.

His 16 points were the second-highest total among the Celtics players listed in the provided statistics, behind Pritchard’s 23.

Simons’ four assists also helped Boston reach 22 assists as a team.

Sam Hauser’s Rebounding Contribution

Sam Hauser scored eight points on 2-of-7 shooting, with both made field goals coming from three-point range.

He finished 2-of-7 from deep and made both free throws.

More interestingly, Hauser grabbed eight rebounds in 33 minutes. That tied Queta for Boston’s highest individual rebounding total in the supplied box score.

His offensive production was limited, but the rebounding contribution helped Boston finish with 46 total rebounds compared with Indiana’s 40.

Team Shooting Was the Defining Difference

One of the clearest lessons from the game is that field-goal percentage alone does not tell the full story.

Boston shot 45% from the field.

Indiana shot 46%.

That is almost identical.

Yet Indiana won.

The major difference came from three-point shooting.

Boston:

• 35 attempts
• 9 makes
• 26%

Indiana:

• 37 attempts
• 16 makes
• 43%

Indiana therefore made seven more three-pointers.

Seven additional made threes are worth 21 points.

The final margin was only two points.

That single comparison explains a substantial part of why Indiana was able to win despite being outrebounded and despite Boston having a stronger overall record entering the game.

The Pacers did not need to dominate every statistical category. They needed to win the categories that generated the most scoring value.

Assists and Ball Security Also Favored Indiana

Indiana recorded 29 assists compared with Boston’s 22.

That seven-assist advantage suggests that the Pacers generated more of their offense through collective ball movement.

The turnover numbers were also close:

• Boston: 12 turnovers
• Indiana: 11 turnovers

Because the turnover difference was only one, Indiana’s advantage came less from Boston giving the ball away and more from the Pacers converting their possessions more efficiently.

This distinction is useful when analyzing close games. A team can lose despite taking care of the ball if its shooting efficiency is substantially lower.

Rebounding Favored Boston

Boston won the rebounding battle 46-40.

The Celtics also grabbed 10 offensive rebounds compared with five for Indiana.

That gave Boston additional possessions and second-chance opportunities.

Yet those extra possessions did not translate into enough scoring to overcome Indiana’s perimeter advantage.

This is one of the strongest examples from the game of why individual statistical categories should be interpreted together.

Boston won:

• Total rebounds
• Offensive rebounds
• Free-throw percentage
• Steals

Indiana won:

• Field-goal percentage
• Three-point percentage
• Made three-pointers
• Assists
• Turnovers
• Blocks
• Final score

The overall result came down to the value of the opportunities each team created and converted.

Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown

First Quarter

Boston opened with a 24-19 advantage.

The Celtics used an 8-0 run late in the period to move ahead after a competitive opening stretch. The quarter featured multiple lead changes and ties, showing that Indiana was not overwhelmed despite trailing after 12 minutes.

Second Quarter

The second quarter produced the highest combined scoring of the game.

Boston scored 32 points, but Indiana scored 34.

The Pacers improved their perimeter shooting during the period and eventually moved in front.

According to Indiana’s game recap, the Pacers made six three-pointers during a 3:22 stretch, with Huff, Micah Potter, Aaron Nesmith, Quenton Jackson, and Jarace Walker among the players contributing from outside.

Third Quarter

Indiana took control during the third quarter.

The Pacers scored 26 points compared with Boston’s 21, turning the halftime deficit into a 79-77 lead.

This was the key swing period because Indiana combined efficient shooting with enough defensive resistance to create separation.

Fourth Quarter

Both teams scored 19 points.

Boston fought back and eventually tied the game at 96.

White’s driving layup made the score level with less than 30 seconds remaining. Indiana then placed the ball in Siakam’s hands, and he delivered the decisive bank shot.

Boston’s final three-point attempt did not fall, giving Indiana the two-point victory.

Why the Three-Point Difference Mattered So Much

The three-point numbers deserve special attention because they explain how Indiana overcame Boston’s rebounding advantage.

Indiana made 16 threes.

Boston made nine.

The Pacers therefore scored 48 points from three-point field goals.

Boston scored 27.

That is a 21-point advantage.

The final score difference was only two points.

This means the Pacers’ perimeter efficiency was more than enough to offset Boston’s six-rebound advantage and five additional offensive rebounds.

At the same time, Indiana did not rely exclusively on outside shooting. Siakam shot 10-of-15 overall, while Huff shot 8-of-12. Their efficient interior and mid-range scoring gave Indiana another source of offense.

Why the Assists Matter

Indiana’s 29 assists compared with Boston’s 22.

Nembhard led the Pacers with nine assists, while Siakam added six.

Pritchard led Boston with eight, while White contributed five and Simons four.

The distribution suggests that both teams had meaningful playmaking, but Indiana received more collective creation.

The difference between 29 and 22 assists is not enormous by itself, but in a two-point game it becomes relevant when combined with the shooting numbers.

Indiana’s ball movement helped generate clean perimeter looks, and the Pacers converted those opportunities at a much higher rate.

Missing Production From Boston

Boston entered the game without Jaylen Brown.

The official NBA recap reported that Brown sat out with lower back spasms. The same report noted that he had been averaging 29.5 points per game at the time.

That absence provides important context when interpreting Boston’s offensive distribution.

Pritchard led with 23 points, White scored 18, Simons scored 16, and Queta scored 15. The Celtics still generated 96 points, but the missing scoring production changed the team’s normal offensive hierarchy.

It is important, however, not to reduce the entire result to one absence. Indiana still had to overcome Boston’s rebounding advantage and close the game after the Celtics erased a 13-point deficit.

The Role of Efficiency in Player Evaluation

The player statistics also demonstrate why efficiency should be considered alongside volume.

Consider these examples:

Pascal Siakam: 10-of-15 shooting for 21 points.

Jay Huff: 8-of-12 shooting for 20 points.

Neemias Queta: 7-of-9 shooting for 15 points.

Compare that with:

Derrick White: 7-of-21 shooting for 18 points.

Aaron Nesmith: 2-of-9 shooting for six points.

A player can score more points while using considerably more possessions to do so.

That does not make volume scoring unimportant. In a competitive game, someone has to take difficult shots. But efficiency helps explain how much offensive value a player created from his opportunities.

Player Statistics That Stand Out Most

For Indiana, several statistical lines deserve particular attention:

1. Pascal Siakam: 21 points, 8 rebounds, 6 assists, 10-of-15 shooting.
2. Jay Huff: 20 points, 4-of-7 from three, 8-of-12 overall.
3. Andrew Nembhard: 13 points, 9 assists, 6 rebounds.
4. Johnny Furphy: 5 rebounds in 16 minutes.
5. Team three-point shooting: 16-of-37.

For Boston:

1. Payton Pritchard: 23 points and 8 assists.
2. Derrick White: 18 points and 5 assists.
3. Neemias Queta: 15 points and 8 rebounds on 7-of-9 shooting.
4. Anfernee Simons: 16 points and 4 assists.
5. Team rebounding: 46 total and 10 offensive rebounds.

How the Game Fits Into the Season Series

The supplied game data records Boston as leading the season series 2-1 after this matchup.

The earlier meetings listed were:

• December 23: Boston 103, Indiana 95
• December 27: Boston 140, Indiana 122
• January 13: Indiana 98, Boston 96

The next listed meeting was January 22, when Indiana defeated Boston 104-119? The supplied data records “Indiana 104, Boston 119,” which indicates Boston scored 119 and Indiana scored 104. Because that entry is written from the supplied dataset rather than a directly verified box score here, it should be checked before being published as a historical result.

This is an important editorial point. When creating a player-stat article, every game result should be verified independently rather than assuming that all surrounding records are accurate.

What Readers Can Learn From the Box Score

The most useful way to read this game is not to search for one statistic that explains everything.

Instead, build the story from several layers:

Start With the Score

Indiana won 98-96.

That establishes the outcome but not the reason.

Check Shooting

Indiana shot 46% overall and 43% from three.

Boston shot 45% overall and 26% from three.

The perimeter difference immediately becomes important.

Check Possession Indicators

Boston had 46 rebounds and 10 offensive rebounds.

Indiana had 40 rebounds and five offensive rebounds.

Boston created extra opportunities.

Check Ball Movement

Indiana had 29 assists.

Boston had 22.

Indiana created more assisted offense.

Check Turnovers

Boston had 12.

Indiana had 11.

Neither team had a major advantage here.

Check the Closing Sequence

The score was tied at 96.

Siakam scored the winning basket.

White missed Boston’s final three-point attempt.

The statistical story and the game-flow story therefore support each other.

A Practical Framework for Reading Similar NBA Matchups

When reviewing future player-stat games, use this five-step process.

1. Identify the Highest-Volume Scorers

Look at points and field-goal attempts together.

A 25-point performance on 18 attempts tells a different story from 25 points on 28 attempts.

2. Examine Three-Point Production

Compare attempts, makes, and percentage.

Do not look only at three-point percentage because a player making two of three threes has a different impact from a player making six of ten.

3. Review Playmaking

Assists and turnovers should be considered together.

A player with nine assists and three turnovers may have a different offensive impact from a player with five assists and zero turnovers, depending on usage and shot creation.

4. Look at Rebounding Roles

Total rebounds are useful, but offensive rebounds can be particularly important because they extend possessions.

5. Finish With Clutch Possessions

In close games, review the final few possessions.

The last two minutes can explain why a statistically balanced game ends with a two-point margin.

Common Mistakes When Reading Player Stats

A common mistake is treating the leading scorer as automatically the most influential player.

Pritchard led Boston with 23 points, but Queta shot 7-of-9 and added eight rebounds. White had 18 points and five assists while also handling a major late-game responsibility.

On Indiana’s side, Siakam scored 21, but Nembhard’s nine assists and Huff’s four three-pointers were also critical.

Another mistake is ignoring team shooting splits.

Indiana and Boston were separated by only one percentage point in overall field-goal percentage, yet they were separated by 17 percentage points from three.

Finally, it is easy to overlook context. Boston entered with a much stronger record, while Indiana was 9-31. Brown’s absence also changed Boston’s normal offensive structure. These factors help explain why the raw box score should be interpreted rather than simply copied.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who led the Pacers in scoring against the Celtics?

Pascal Siakam led Indiana with 21 points. He shot 10-of-15 from the field and also recorded eight rebounds and six assists.

Who led the Celtics in scoring?

Payton Pritchard led Boston with 23 points. He also recorded eight assists, four rebounds, and two steals.

What was the final score between the Pacers and Celtics?

Indiana defeated Boston 98-96 at Gainbridge Fieldhouse.

Which team shot better from three-point range?

Indiana shot 43% from three-point range, making 16 of 37 attempts. Boston shot 26%, making nine of 35 attempts.

Who had the most assists?

Andrew Nembhard led all players with nine assists. Payton Pritchard had eight assists for Boston.

How did the Pacers win such a close game?

Indiana’s biggest statistical advantages were three-point shooting and assists. The Pacers made seven more three-pointers and finished with seven more assists, while Boston held advantages in total and offensive rebounds.

Conclusion

The pacers vs celtics match player stats from January 13, 2026 show how a two-point NBA game can be decided by several small advantages rather than one overwhelming statistical category.

Pascal Siakam supplied the defining moment with 21 points, eight rebounds, six assists, two steals, and the game-winning basket. Jay Huff added 20 points while shooting 4-of-7 from three, and Andrew Nembhard controlled the offense with nine assists.

Boston received 23 points and eight assists from Payton Pritchard, 18 points from Derrick White, 15 points from Neemias Queta, and 16 points from Anfernee Simons. The Celtics also won the rebounding battle 46-40 and collected 10 offensive rebounds.

The clearest numerical difference was outside shooting. Indiana made 16 of 37 three-point attempts, while Boston made only nine of 35. That 21-point difference from three-point makes was enormous in a game ultimately decided by two points.

The final possession completed the story. White tied the game at 96 with a driving layup, Siakam answered with a bank shot with seconds remaining, and Boston’s final three-point attempt missed.

For anyone studying NBA box scores, this matchup is a useful example of why points, shooting efficiency, three-point production, assists, turnovers, rebounding, and late-game execution should all be considered together. The final score says Indiana won by two. The player statistics explain how that two-point margin was created.