Houston Rockets vs Pacers Match Player Stats
The houston rockets vs pacers match player stats from February 3, 2026, reveal how Houston secured a hard-fought 118-114 victory over Indiana at Gainbridge Fieldhouse. The Rockets relied on an outstanding performance from Alperen Sengun, who finished with 39 points, 16 rebounds, and 5 assists. His dominant contribution helped Houston overcome Indiana’s strong three-point shooting and impressive ball movement. Pascal Siakam led the Pacers with 27 points, while Bennedict Mathurin added 25 points in a competitive performance that kept the home team within reach until the final quarter.
The game was an important test for both teams. Houston demonstrated its ability to compete in a difficult road environment, while Indiana showed that efficient shooting and unselfish offensive play do not always guarantee victory. The Rockets made the difference through their rebounding advantage, offensive second chances, and ability to earn trips to the free-throw line.
This article examines the complete team statistics, leading individual performances, scoring patterns, shooting efficiency, and important tactical factors behind the result. It also explains what the numbers reveal about the strengths and weaknesses displayed by both teams during this matchup.
Houston Rockets vs Pacers Match Player Stats: Game Overview
Houston Rockets 2025-26 NBA Depth Chart – ESPN
Houston Rockets
118
Winner
FINAL
February 3, 2026
NBA Regular Season
Indiana Pacers
114
Home team
Venue
Gainbridge Fieldhouse
Location
Indianapolis, Indiana
Attendance
16,511
Season series
Houston won 2-0
The Houston Rockets entered this matchup with a 31-17 season record, including a 14-13 record away from home. Indiana entered with a 13-37 record and a 10-17 home record.
Although the teams had different season records, the game itself was competitive. Indiana scored more efficiently from the field and beyond the three-point line. However, Houston controlled the boards and converted more free throws.
The final four-point margin reflected a contest in which both teams had opportunities to take control.
Match Information
| Category | Details |
| Game date | February 3, 2026 |
| Sport | NBA Basketball |
| Away team | Houston Rockets |
| Home team | Indiana Pacers |
| Final score | Rockets 118-114 Pacers |
| First quarter | 24-28 |
| Second quarter | 39-28 |
| Third quarter | 24-31 |
| Fourth quarter | 31-27 |
| Venue | Gainbridge Fieldhouse |
| Attendance | 16,511 |
| Game status | Final |
| ESPN Game ID | 401810568 |
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Analysis
The quarter-by-quarter breakdown provides a useful explanation of how Houston won despite Indiana’s strong shooting performance.
| Quarter | Houston Rockets | Indiana Pacers |
| First | 24 | 28 |
| Second | 39 | 28 |
| Third | 24 | 31 |
| Fourth | 31 | 27 |
| Total | 118 | 114 |
First Quarter: Indiana Starts Strong
Indiana opened the game with a four-point advantage, finishing the first quarter ahead 28-24.
The Pacers established an early offensive rhythm and found opportunities to score from different areas of the floor. Their ability to move the ball and create good shooting opportunities helped them take control of the opening period.
Houston, meanwhile, had to adjust to Indiana’s early energy. The Rockets remained within striking distance, but their first-quarter offensive output was not enough to establish an advantage.
The four-point difference was relatively small, leaving plenty of room for Houston to respond.
Second Quarter: Houston Changes the Momentum
The second quarter was the most important scoring period for the Rockets.
Houston scored 39 points while limiting Indiana to 28. That created an 11-point advantage in the period and completely changed the scoreboard.
The Rockets’ offensive improvement was particularly important because it allowed them to recover from their slow opening quarter.
Alperen Sengun’s overall production was central to Houston’s offensive success. His combination of scoring, rebounding, and passing gave the Rockets a dependable offensive presence.
Houston also benefited from its ability to earn free throws. The team eventually converted 31 of its 37 attempts, a major advantage over Indiana’s 16 successful free throws.
By halftime, Houston had moved ahead and established a foundation for the second half.
Third Quarter: Indiana Fights Back
Indiana responded in the third quarter, scoring 31 points compared with Houston’s 24.
The Pacers won the period by seven points, reducing the advantage Houston had built before halftime.
Their shooting efficiency was an important factor. Indiana finished the game shooting 49% from the field and 46% from three-point range.
Pascal Siakam and Bennedict Mathurin provided significant scoring contributions, giving the Pacers multiple offensive options.
However, Indiana’s improved scoring did not completely solve its rebounding problem. Houston continued to create additional opportunities through offensive rebounds.
That difference became increasingly important as the game approached its final minutes.
Fourth Quarter: Rockets Protect Their Lead
The final quarter was competitive, with Houston scoring 31 points and Indiana adding 27.
The Rockets maintained their advantage instead of allowing Indiana to complete its comeback.
Houston’s ability to score from the free-throw line was an important part of its overall offensive production. Its 84% free-throw percentage also demonstrated consistency in a category where individual possessions can have a significant impact.
Indiana continued to compete, but its rebounding disadvantage and higher foul total made the comeback more difficult.
Houston ultimately secured the 118-114 road victory.
Complete Team Statistics: Rockets vs Pacers
The team statistics highlight several interesting differences between the two sides.
| Statistical Category | Houston Rockets | Indiana Pacers |
| Points | 118 | 114 |
| Field Goals | 40-87 | 43-87 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 46% | 49% |
| Three-Pointers | 7-22 | 12-26 |
| Three-Point Percentage | 32% | 46% |
| Free Throws | 31-37 | 16-21 |
| Free-Throw Percentage | 84% | 76% |
| Total Rebounds | 56 | 33 |
| Offensive Rebounds | 19 | 7 |
| Defensive Rebounds | 37 | 26 |
| Assists | 21 | 33 |
| Turnovers | 15 | 10 |
| Steals | 7 | 10 |
| Blocks | 6 | 6 |
| Personal Fouls | 17 | 27 |
The numbers show that Houston and Indiana used different offensive approaches.
Indiana was more efficient from the field and three-point range. Houston, however, created more scoring opportunities through rebounds and free throws.
The Rockets collected 23 more rebounds than the Pacers. That was one of the most significant statistical differences in the game.
Houston Rockets Player Performance Analysis
Houston’s victory featured an impressive individual performance from Alperen Sengun and valuable contributions from other players.
The starting lineup consisted of Jabari Smith Jr., Tari Eason, Alperen Sengun, Amen Thompson, and Reed Sheppard.
The bench included Dorian Finney-Smith, Jae’Sean Tate, Clint Capela, Aaron Holiday, Josh Okogie, Jeff Green, and Isaiah Crawford.
Alperen Sengun: The Outstanding Performer
Alperen Sengun
Houston’s leading scorer
39 PTS
16 rebounds | 5 assists
Alperen Sengun delivered the most impressive individual performance of the matchup.
His 39 points made him the game’s leading scorer. He also collected 16 rebounds and distributed 5 assists, producing a complete performance on both ends of the offensive game.
His scoring output represented approximately one-third of Houston’s total points.
However, the importance of his contribution went beyond scoring.
Scoring efficiency and offensive responsibility
Sengun’s ability to contribute as a primary scorer gave Houston a dependable offensive option. When a team has a player capable of producing points while also controlling rebounds, it becomes easier to maintain offensive balance.
His 16 rebounds were particularly valuable against an Indiana team that shot the ball efficiently.
Rebounding influence
Houston finished with 56 total rebounds, and Sengun’s individual contribution was a major part of that achievement.
Sixteen rebounds represented approximately 28.6% of the team’s total rebounds.
That is a substantial share for one player and highlights his importance in controlling possessions.
Playmaking contribution
His five assists also demonstrated that his role was not limited to finishing offensive possessions.
A center who can score, rebound, and distribute the basketball provides additional flexibility for teammates.
Sengun’s performance was arguably the biggest individual reason Houston was able to overcome Indiana’s shooting advantage.
Amen Thompson: A Valuable All-Around Contribution
Amen Thompson (19 points) Highlights vs. Portland Trail Blazers | Houston Rockets
Amen Thompson
16 PTS
11 rebounds | 7 assists
Amen Thompson delivered another important performance for Houston.
He recorded 16 points, 11 rebounds, and 7 assists.
His statistical contribution demonstrated his ability to influence several areas of the game rather than relying exclusively on scoring.
The 11 rebounds were particularly important because Houston needed consistent support around Sengun.
His seven assists also highlighted his ability to help teammates create offensive opportunities.
Thompson’s performance was valuable for three main reasons:
- He provided secondary scoring behind Sengun.
- He contributed significantly to Houston’s rebounding advantage.
- His seven assists supported the team’s offensive movement.
A player producing points, rebounds, and assists in the same game can help maintain balance when the primary scorer is facing defensive attention.
Thompson’s contribution complemented Sengun’s performance and helped Houston maintain offensive options throughout the contest.
Jabari Smith Jr.: Starting Frontcourt Responsibility
Jabari Smith Jr. | Forward | Houston Rockets | NBA.com
Jabari Smith Jr.
Starting lineup
Frontcourt contributor
Jabari Smith Jr. was included in Houston’s starting lineup.
His presence gave the Rockets another frontcourt option alongside Sengun and Eason.
The starting combination was important because Houston needed players capable of competing physically against Indiana’s forwards and centers.
The available game data does not provide Smith’s individual points, rebounds, assists, shooting percentage, or minutes. Those figures should not be estimated or presented as confirmed statistics.
Nevertheless, his starting role provides useful context for understanding Houston’s lineup structure.
Tari Eason: Frontcourt Depth
Rockets’ Tari Eason Will Be Biggest 2026 Offseason Concern After Recent Moves
Tari Eason
Starting lineup
Frontcourt contributor
Tari Eason also started for Houston.
His inclusion alongside Smith and Sengun gave the Rockets a frontcourt-heavy starting combination.
In a matchup where rebounding became one of the most important statistical categories, the overall frontcourt structure deserves attention.
Houston’s 19 offensive rebounds suggest that the team consistently created additional possessions through its work on the offensive glass.
However, without Eason’s individual box-score figures, it would be inaccurate to assign him a particular number of rebounds or offensive plays.
Reed Sheppard: Starting Guard Role
Indiana Pacers v Houston Rockets
Reed Sheppard
Starting lineup
Guard position
Reed Sheppard completed Houston’s starting five.
His role in the starting lineup was important to the team’s overall guard rotation.
Houston needed a combination of ball handling, spacing, and offensive support around Sengun.
The available statistics do not establish his individual shooting numbers or assists for this particular game, so a precise performance rating cannot be assigned from the supplied data.
Houston’s Bench Players
Houston also had several options available outside its starting lineup.
| Bench Player | Team Role |
| Dorian Finney-Smith | Forward |
| Jae’Sean Tate | Forward |
| Clint Capela | Center |
| Aaron Holiday | Guard |
| Josh Okogie | Guard/Forward |
| Jeff Green | Forward |
| Isaiah Crawford | Forward |
The bench structure provided Houston with additional frontcourt and backcourt options.
Clint Capela’s presence was especially relevant in a game where rebounding became a major factor.
However, the available dataset does not include individual minutes or box-score statistics for these bench players.
It is therefore important to distinguish between confirmed team-level results and unprovided individual performances.
Indiana Pacers Player Performance Analysis
Indiana had a strong offensive performance despite losing the game.
The Pacers shot 49% from the field and 46% from three-point range. They also recorded 33 assists, demonstrating effective ball movement.
Their starting lineup included Pascal Siakam, Jay Huff, Andrew Nembhard, Aaron Nesmith, and Johnny Furphy.
The bench consisted of Isaiah Jackson, Jarace Walker, Micah Potter, T.J. McConnell, Ben Sheppard, Bennedict Mathurin, and Kam Jones.
Pascal Siakam: Indiana’s Leading Scorer
Indiana Pacers v Houston Rockets
Pascal Siakam
Indiana’s leading starter scorer
27 PTS
4 rebounds | 5 assists
Pascal Siakam led Indiana with 27 points.
He also recorded four rebounds and five assists, making him one of the Pacers’ most important offensive contributors.
Siakam’s scoring represented approximately 23.7% of Indiana’s total points.
His performance was important because Indiana needed consistent scoring to respond to Houston’s offensive production.
Scoring contribution
Twenty-seven points provided Indiana with a strong offensive foundation.
Although Sengun scored more, Siakam remained an important part of the contest and helped keep the Pacers competitive.
Playmaking
His five assists demonstrated his ability to contribute to team offense beyond individual scoring.
Indiana finished with 33 assists, 12 more than Houston.
Siakam’s playmaking was part of an overall team effort that helped the Pacers generate scoring opportunities.
Rebounding
His four rebounds contributed to Indiana’s overall rebounding effort.
However, the Pacers struggled to match Houston’s physical presence on the glass.
The 23-rebound difference between the teams was a major disadvantage that individual scoring performances could not completely overcome.
Bennedict Mathurin: Important Scoring Support
Miami Heat v Indiana Pacers – Emirates NBA Cup
Bennedict Mathurin
25 PTS
4 rebounds | 5 assists
Bennedict Mathurin provided another major offensive contribution.
He finished with 25 points, four rebounds, and five assists.
His scoring output was only two points behind Siakam’s total.
This was important because Indiana did not depend on a single player to generate its offense.
Together, Siakam and Mathurin scored 52 points, representing approximately 45.6% of the Pacers’ total production.
Their combined output demonstrated the strength of Indiana’s primary scoring options.
Mathurin’s five assists were another valuable part of his contribution.
He helped Indiana maintain offensive movement and gave the team another player capable of creating opportunities.
Despite these performances, Indiana could not overcome Houston’s advantage in rebounds and free throws.
Andrew Nembhard: Starting Guard Responsibility
Player Review 2026: Andrew Nembhard | Indiana Pacers
Andrew Nembhard
Starting lineup
Guard position
Andrew Nembhard was part of Indiana’s starting lineup.
His position was important in a game where the Pacers recorded 33 assists.
Indiana’s ball movement was one of its strongest statistical areas, and its guards were part of the team’s overall offensive structure.
However, the supplied statistics do not provide Nembhard’s individual assist total, scoring output, or minutes.
His performance should therefore be evaluated using a complete official box score rather than assumptions based on team totals.
Aaron Nesmith: Starting Wing Contribution
Houston Rockets v Indiana Pacers
Aaron Nesmith
Starting lineup
Wing position
Aaron Nesmith was another member of Indiana’s starting five.
His presence gave the Pacers another wing option around Siakam and Huff.
Indiana’s 46% three-point shooting demonstrates that the team had an effective perimeter scoring performance overall.
However, the available information does not identify which individual players made the 12 successful three-pointers.
It would be inaccurate to attribute a particular shooting contribution to Nesmith without the individual box-score data.
Jay Huff and Johnny Furphy
Milwaukee Bucks v Indiana Pacers
Jay Huff
Starting center
Provided Indiana with a starting frontcourt option.
Furphy was +12 in 16 minutes as Pacers sink Boston | Basketball.com.au
Johnny Furphy
Starting wing
Completed Indiana’s starting five.
Jay Huff and Johnny Furphy also started for Indiana.
Huff’s position in the frontcourt was particularly relevant because the Pacers faced a major challenge against Houston’s rebounding strength.
Furphy provided another starting wing option.
The available dataset confirms their starting positions but does not include their individual statistical lines.
Indiana’s Bench Players
Indiana had seven listed bench players available for the matchup.
| Bench Player | Team Role |
| Isaiah Jackson | Center |
| Jarace Walker | Forward |
| Micah Potter | Center/Forward |
| T.J. McConnell | Guard |
| Ben Sheppard | Guard/Forward |
| Bennedict Mathurin | Guard/Forward |
| Kam Jones | Guard |
Bennedict Mathurin was particularly important as a scoring contributor, producing 25 points.
The other bench players offered Indiana additional lineup options.
The available data does not provide individual playing time or shooting figures for the remaining reserves.
The Biggest Statistical Difference: Rebounding
One of the most revealing aspects of this matchup was Houston’s dominance on the boards.
The Rockets collected 56 rebounds, while the Pacers finished with 33.
Total rebounds comparison
Houston Rockets
56
Indiana Pacers
33
Rebounding advantage
+23
This difference deserves special attention because rebounds influence the number of offensive opportunities a team receives.
Offensive Rebounds
Houston collected 19 offensive rebounds compared with Indiana’s seven.
That means Houston secured 12 more offensive rebounds.
Offensive rebounds are especially valuable because they give teams another opportunity to score after an unsuccessful shot.
They can also create defensive pressure by forcing opponents to spend additional time protecting the basket.
Houston’s offensive rebounding advantage was therefore a major part of its success.
Defensive Rebounds
Houston also led in defensive rebounds.
| Category | Houston | Indiana |
| Defensive rebounds | 37 | 26 |
| Difference | +11 |
The Rockets collected 11 more defensive rebounds.
This helped them finish defensive possessions and prevented Indiana from creating as many second-chance opportunities.
The combination of offensive and defensive rebounding gave Houston control of a major part of the game.
Shooting Efficiency: Why Indiana’s Better Percentages Were Not Enough
Indiana actually recorded better shooting percentages than Houston.
That makes the final result particularly interesting.
| Shooting Category | Houston | Indiana |
| Field goal percentage | 46% | 49% |
| Three-point percentage | 32% | 46% |
| Free-throw percentage | 84% | 76% |
The Pacers were more accurate from the field and the three-point line.
However, Houston was more successful from the free-throw line and generated additional possessions through rebounding.
Field Goal Shooting
Houston made 40 of 87 field-goal attempts.
Indiana made 43 of 87.
The Pacers therefore converted three more field goals.
Their 49% shooting percentage was also three percentage points higher than Houston’s displayed 46%.
This indicates that Indiana was relatively efficient when attempting shots from the field.
However, shooting percentage does not explain the complete scoring picture.
Teams also need to consider the number of free throws, offensive rebounds, and total possessions.
Three-Point Shooting
The three-point statistics showed an even larger advantage for Indiana.
Houston made seven of 22 attempts, while Indiana converted 12 of 26.
| Team | Made | Attempted | Percentage |
| Houston | 7 | 22 | 32% |
| Indiana | 12 | 26 | 46% |
Indiana made five more three-pointers.
Since each successful three-pointer is worth three points, this was an important scoring advantage.
The Pacers’ perimeter efficiency helped compensate for their lower free-throw production.
Nevertheless, it was not enough to overcome Houston’s advantages in other areas.
Free-Throw Shooting
The free-throw statistics were among the most important numbers in the final result.
Houston made 31 of 37 free throws.
Indiana made 16 of 21.
Free throws made
31
Houston
37 attempts | 84%
16
Indiana
21 attempts | 76%
+15
Houston made 15 more free throws.
Houston scored 15 more points from the free-throw line than Indiana.
That difference was especially important because the final margin was only four points.
The Rockets’ ability to reach the free-throw line and convert those opportunities helped offset Indiana’s better perimeter shooting.
This is a useful reminder that overall shooting efficiency is only one part of basketball performance.
Assists and Ball Movement: Indiana’s Offensive Advantage
Indiana finished with 33 assists, while Houston recorded 21.
That gave the Pacers a 12-assist advantage.
The statistic highlights the difference between the two teams’ offensive approaches.
Indiana generated more assisted scoring opportunities, suggesting that its offense relied heavily on ball movement and team involvement.
Houston recorded fewer assists but still produced 118 points.
The Rockets’ offensive output was supported by a strong individual scoring performance from Sengun, as well as a significant free-throw advantage.
Why Assists Matter
Assists provide insight into how a team creates scoring opportunities.
A high assist total can indicate:
- Effective ball movement.
- Successful passing sequences.
- Better coordination between players.
- Opportunities created through teamwork.
- Efficient offensive possessions.
Indiana’s 33 assists were an impressive team statistic.
However, assists alone do not determine the outcome of a game.
A team can generate more assisted baskets and still lose if it struggles with rebounds, free throws, or defensive possessions.
That was an important feature of this contest.
Turnovers, Steals, and Defensive Performance
Turnovers were another area where Indiana performed better.
| Defensive Category | Houston | Indiana |
| Turnovers | 15 | 10 |
| Steals | 7 | 10 |
| Blocks | 6 | 6 |
| Personal fouls | 17 | 27 |
Indiana committed five fewer turnovers and recorded three more steals.
Both numbers indicate that the Pacers were effective at creating defensive opportunities.
Their six blocks also matched Houston’s total.
However, Indiana committed 27 personal fouls compared with Houston’s 17.
That difference was significant because Houston converted 31 free throws.
Indiana’s Turnover Advantage
The Pacers’ 10 turnovers were a positive aspect of their performance.
Protecting the basketball reduces wasted possessions and helps teams maintain offensive rhythm.
Houston, by comparison, committed 15 turnovers.
This suggests that Indiana was more careful with the ball over the course of the game.
Steals and Defensive Pressure
Indiana recorded 10 steals.
Houston recorded seven.
The Pacers’ three-steal advantage showed their ability to disrupt Houston’s offense.
However, defensive pressure also comes with risks.
When defenders attempt to create steals, they must maintain discipline and avoid unnecessary contact.
Indiana’s 27 personal fouls suggest that foul management was an area that deserves attention when reviewing the game.
Blocks
Both teams recorded six blocks.
This identical total indicates that neither side held an advantage in recorded blocked shots.
However, blocks alone do not measure overall defensive quality.
Defensive rebounding, positioning, contested shots, and the ability to avoid fouls also influence defensive performance.
Why the Houston Rockets Won the Game
Houston’s victory was not based on superior shooting percentages.
Indiana actually led in field-goal percentage, three-point percentage, assists, and steals.
Instead, the Rockets succeeded through several other statistical advantages.
1. Dominating the Rebounding Battle
The 56-33 rebounding difference was one of the clearest explanations for Houston’s victory.
The Rockets secured more defensive rebounds and created additional offensive opportunities.
Their 19 offensive rebounds were particularly important.
2. Converting More Free Throws
Houston made 31 free throws compared with Indiana’s 16.
That 15-point difference helped compensate for Indiana’s five additional three-pointers.
3. Getting a Dominant Individual Performance
Alperen Sengun produced 39 points, 16 rebounds, and five assists.
His all-around performance provided Houston with scoring, rebounding, and playmaking.
4. Receiving Support from Amen Thompson
Amen Thompson contributed 16 points, 11 rebounds, and seven assists.
His performance helped Houston avoid becoming overly dependent on Sengun.
5. Maintaining Its Advantage in the Final Quarter
Indiana won the third quarter and attempted to recover its position.
Houston responded by scoring 31 points in the final period and protecting its lead.
The ability to maintain an advantage in a close road game was an important part of the result.
Where the Indiana Pacers Fell Short
Indiana’s performance included several positive elements, but the statistics also reveal areas where the team struggled.
1. Rebounding Disadvantage
Indiana lost the rebounding battle by 23.
The difference was especially noticeable in offensive rebounds, where Houston collected 19 compared with Indiana’s seven.
This limited the Pacers’ ability to control possessions.
2. Too Many Personal Fouls
Indiana committed 27 personal fouls.
Houston committed only 17.
The difference gave the Rockets more opportunities at the free-throw line.
3. Free-Throw Production
Indiana made only 16 of 21 free throws.
Houston made 31.
Although the Pacers shot a higher percentage from three-point range, they could not match Houston’s production at the free-throw line.
4. Unable to Convert Efficient Shooting Into a Win
Indiana’s 49% field-goal shooting and 46% three-point shooting were impressive.
However, the team still finished four points behind.
This demonstrates why basketball analysis must consider multiple categories rather than focusing on shooting percentages alone.
Rockets vs Pacers: Starting Lineups Comparison
The starting lineups provide additional context for understanding how both teams approached the matchup.
| Houston Rockets | Indiana Pacers |
| Jabari Smith Jr. | Pascal Siakam |
| Tari Eason | Jay Huff |
| Alperen Sengun | Andrew Nembhard |
| Amen Thompson | Aaron Nesmith |
| Reed Sheppard | Johnny Furphy |
Houston used a starting group featuring three frontcourt players alongside two guards.
Indiana’s lineup included Siakam and Huff in the frontcourt, supported by Nembhard, Nesmith, and Furphy.
The difference in lineup construction is worth considering because Houston ultimately dominated the rebounding statistics.
However, the team rebounding advantage cannot be attributed to the starting five alone. Bench contributions and overall team positioning also influence these numbers.
Previous Meeting and 2025-26 Season Series
The February 3 result was the second meeting between Houston and Indiana during the reported season series.
The Rockets won both games.
| Meeting | Result | Winner |
| December 30, 2025 | Houston 126-119 Indiana | Houston |
| February 3, 2026 | Houston 118-114 Indiana | Houston |
Houston completed the season series with a 2-0 record against Indiana.
The two victories also demonstrated different scoring patterns.
In the first meeting, Houston scored 126 points.
In the second meeting, the Rockets produced 118 points in another close contest.
The four-point victory in Indianapolis was particularly notable because the Pacers performed well in several shooting and playmaking categories.
Winning both meetings gave Houston a clear advantage in the season series.
Statistical Comparison: The Most Important Numbers
The following comparison brings together the most important figures from the game.
| Key Performance Area | Advantage |
| Final score | Houston |
| Total rebounds | Houston |
| Offensive rebounds | Houston |
| Defensive rebounds | Houston |
| Field-goal percentage | Indiana |
| Three-point percentage | Indiana |
| Free-throw percentage | Houston |
| Total free throws made | Houston |
| Assists | Indiana |
| Turnovers | Indiana |
| Steals | Indiana |
| Blocks | Tie |
| Personal fouls | Houston committed fewer |
This comparison shows that the teams excelled in different areas.
Indiana performed well in shooting, passing, and defensive activity.
Houston was stronger in rebounding, free-throw production, and overall scoring.
The Rockets’ advantages in those categories were sufficient to produce the victory.
What This Matchup Reveals About Houston
The game provided several useful insights into Houston’s performance.
Offensive Versatility
Houston scored 118 points despite shooting only 32% from three-point range.
This suggests that the Rockets were able to generate points through multiple methods.
Their free-throw production and offensive rebounding were particularly important.
Frontcourt Strength
The 56 total rebounds highlighted Houston’s ability to compete physically.
Sengun’s 16 rebounds and Thompson’s 11 rebounds provided a strong foundation.
Individual Scoring Leadership
Sengun’s 39 points demonstrated how important a high-level individual performance can be in a close game.
His contribution helped Houston remain productive even when its perimeter shooting was less efficient than Indiana’s.
Road Performance
Houston entered the matchup with a 14-13 away record.
Winning at Gainbridge Fieldhouse added another road victory and improved the team’s overall position to 31-17, as displayed in the supplied game header.
What This Matchup Reveals About Indiana
The loss also provided useful information about the Pacers’ performance.
Strong Perimeter Shooting
Indiana’s 46% three-point percentage was a major positive.
The Pacers converted 12 of their 26 attempts, giving them an advantage in perimeter scoring.
Effective Ball Movement
The 33 assists demonstrated the team’s ability to create scoring opportunities through passing.
This was 12 more than Houston recorded.
Multiple Scoring Options
Siakam and Mathurin combined for 52 points.
Their contributions demonstrated that Indiana had more than one reliable scoring option during the matchup.
Rebounding Needs Attention
The biggest statistical concern was the 23-rebound deficit.
Indiana’s seven offensive rebounds were also significantly lower than Houston’s 19.
Improving this area would be important in future matchups against teams with strong frontcourts.
How to Interpret the Match Player Statistics Correctly
Basketball box scores contain many numbers, but not every statistic has the same meaning.
For readers reviewing a matchup like this one, understanding the relationship between individual and team performance is essential.
Points Do Not Tell the Entire Story
Sengun’s 39 points were the highest individual scoring total.
However, his 16 rebounds and five assists also contributed significantly to Houston’s performance.
Likewise, Mathurin’s 25 points and five assists were important to Indiana.
A complete player evaluation should consider multiple categories.
Shooting Percentage Must Be Compared With Shot Volume
Indiana shot 49% from the field, compared with Houston’s 46%.
That percentage difference looks meaningful, but both teams attempted 87 field goals.
The additional scoring categories explain why Houston still finished ahead.
Rebounds Can Influence Possession Opportunities
The 23-rebound advantage was one of the most important differences.
Offensive rebounds can create second-chance opportunities, while defensive rebounds help end an opponent’s possession.
Both categories should be considered when evaluating a team’s control of the game.
Free Throws Can Change Close Results
Houston made 15 more free throws than Indiana.
With only a four-point difference in the final score, that statistic deserves particular attention.
It does not mean free throws were the only reason Houston won, but it clearly represents a major part of the statistical explanation.
Individual Statistics Should Come From Official Box Scores
A common mistake in sports articles is assigning statistics to players without checking the individual box score.
Team totals cannot establish how many points, rebounds, assists, steals, or blocks a particular player recorded.
For this matchup, the confirmed individual performances available in the supplied data are:
| Player | Team | Points | Rebounds | Assists |
| Alperen Sengun | Houston | 39 | 16 | 5 |
| Amen Thompson | Houston | 16 | 11 | 7 |
| Pascal Siakam | Indiana | 27 | 4 | 5 |
| Bennedict Mathurin | Indiana | 25 | 4 | 5 |
Other individual player statistics have not been added because they were not included in the supplied dataset.
For a complete individual box score, the original ESPN box score provides the relevant game record.
Historical Significance of the February 3 Result
The February 3 matchup was another example of how two teams can follow different paths to offensive production.
Indiana had better shooting percentages and more assists.
Houston generated more rebounds and free throws.
The Rockets’ approach was particularly effective in this contest because it created opportunities beyond the initial field-goal attempt.
The result also completed a 2-0 season series for Houston.
Although a two-game season series does not establish a permanent advantage between franchises, it provides useful context when reviewing the teams’ performances against each other.
For Houston, the result reinforced the value of its frontcourt production.
For Indiana, the game demonstrated that efficient perimeter shooting must be supported by rebounding and disciplined defense.
The final score was close, but the statistical differences provide a detailed explanation of why Houston finished on top.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Houston Rockets vs Indiana Pacers game on February 3, 2026?
The Houston Rockets defeated the Indiana Pacers 118-114 on February 3, 2026, at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis.
2. How many points did Alperen Sengun score against the Pacers?
Alperen Sengun scored 39 points. He also recorded 16 rebounds and five assists, making him the leading scorer of the game.
3. Who was the leading scorer for the Indiana Pacers?
Pascal Siakam led Indiana with 27 points, four rebounds, and five assists. Bennedict Mathurin also contributed 25 points, four rebounds, and five assists.
4. How many rebounds did Houston and Indiana record?
Houston collected 56 total rebounds, while Indiana recorded 33. The Rockets therefore finished with a 23-rebound advantage.
5. How did the Rockets win despite shooting a lower percentage?
Houston benefited from 19 offensive rebounds, 56 total rebounds, and 31 successful free throws. Indiana made more field goals and three-pointers, but Houston’s rebounding and free-throw advantages helped secure the victory.
6. Did Houston win the 2025-26 season series against Indiana?
Yes. Houston won both reported meetings, defeating Indiana 126-119 on December 30, 2025, and 118-114 on February 3, 2026. The Rockets finished the season series 2-0.
Conclusion
The February 3, 2026, matchup between the Houston Rockets and Indiana Pacers demonstrated the importance of balancing individual scoring with overall team performance. Houston secured a 118-114 victory through a combination of strong rebounding, effective free-throw shooting, and an outstanding performance from Alperen Sengun.
Sengun finished with 39 points, 16 rebounds, and five assists, while Amen Thompson contributed 16 points, 11 rebounds, and seven assists. Their performances helped Houston establish a significant advantage on the boards.
Indiana also had several impressive statistical performances. Pascal Siakam scored 27 points, and Bennedict Mathurin added 25. The Pacers shot 49% from the field, converted 46% of their three-point attempts, and recorded 33 assists.
However, Houston’s 56-33 rebounding advantage and 31-16 difference in free throws made the difference. Indiana’s 27 personal fouls also created additional scoring opportunities for the Rockets.
Ultimately, the houston rockets vs pacers match player stats show that shooting efficiency alone does not determine the outcome of an NBA game. Rebounding, free-throw opportunities, individual contributions, and possession control can be equally important. Houston executed more effectively in those areas and completed a 2-0 season series against Indiana.
