Pacers vs Milwaukee Bucks Match Player Stats

The pacers vs milwaukee bucks match player stats from October 17, 2026, tell the story of an exciting preseason basketball game that ended with the Milwaukee Bucks defeating the Indiana Pacers 128-127 in overtime at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis. The Bucks secured a narrow victory after a competitive contest featuring impressive individual performances, productive scoring runs, strong rebounding, and several important contributions from both teams’ rotations.

Milwaukee finished with 128 points, while Indiana scored 127. Tyler Herro led the Bucks with 25 points, and Pascal Siakam delivered a standout performance for the Pacers with 24 points. Myles Turner collected 13 rebounds for Milwaukee, while Ivica Zubac grabbed 11 rebounds for Indiana. The game also featured 29 assists from Milwaukee and 36 from Indiana, highlighting the Pacers’ passing ability and the Bucks’ balanced offensive production.

This detailed breakdown examines the complete player statistics, team comparisons, scoring contributions, shooting percentages, rebounding numbers, assists, turnovers, and individual performances from the October 17 matchup. It also explains what the numbers reveal about each team’s offensive approach, defensive execution, bench production, and preseason preparation.

Game information

Category	Details
Matchup	Milwaukee Bucks vs Indiana Pacers
Date	October 17, 2026
Competition	NBA preseason
Venue	Gainbridge Fieldhouse
Location	Indianapolis, Indiana
Final score	Milwaukee Bucks 128, Indiana Pacers 127
Game result	Milwaukee Bucks won
Game status	Final, overtime
Attendance	10,283
Bucks leading scorer	Tyler Herro, 25 points
Pacers leading scorer	Pascal Siakam, 24 points
Bucks leading rebounder	Myles Turner, 13 rebounds
Pacers leading rebounder	Ivica Zubac, 11 rebounds
Bucks leading assist player	Kevin Porter Jr., 6 assists
Pacers leading assist players	Andrew Nembhard and Quenton Jackson, 7 assists each

Pacers vs Milwaukee Bucks Match Player Stats: Complete Box Score

The October 17 preseason matchup produced a one-point difference between the teams, making individual contributions particularly important when evaluating the final result.

Milwaukee finished with 52 made field goals from 114 attempts. Indiana made 50 field goals from 102 attempts. Both teams converted 33% of their three-point attempts, but the Bucks attempted four more shots from beyond the arc.

The most noticeable statistical difference came from turnovers and offensive rebounds. Milwaukee committed 15 turnovers and collected 19 offensive rebounds. Indiana committed 21 turnovers and recorded 12 offensive rebounds.

Those numbers help explain why Milwaukee could secure the victory despite Indiana recording more assists and a higher overall field-goal percentage.

Milwaukee Bucks Player Stats

The Bucks received scoring contributions from several starters and reserves. Tyler Herro led the team with 25 points, while Kel’el Ware and Brayden Burries also provided valuable scoring support.

Player	PTS	REB	AST	FG	3PT	STL	BLK	+/-
Kyle Kuzma	11	5	1	4-7	3-3	1	0	-12
Jaime Jaquez Jr.	9	3	2	4-8	Not listed	0	0	+7
Myles Turner	7	13	2	3-9	Not listed	1	3	+11
Tyler Herro	25	3	3	10-16	5-7	1	0	+4
Ryan Rollins	8	1	5	4-9	Not listed	0	0	-1
Ousmane Dieng	4	3	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	+13
Bogoljub Markovic	7	8	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	+3
Kel’el Ware	13	3	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	2	1	-13
Cormac Ryan	4	3	2	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed
Kevin Porter Jr.	11	2	3	Not listed	Not listed	2	Not listed	-7
AJ Green	9	2	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	-10
Kam Jones	3	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	+2
Brayden Burries	14	7	3	Not listed	Not listed	2	Not listed	+6
Kasparas Jakucionis	3	4	6	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	+2

PTS means points, REB means rebounds, AST means assists, FG means field goals, 3PT means three-pointers, STL means steals, BLK means blocks, and +/- means plus/minus. Statistics not supplied in the available game data are marked accordingly rather than estimated.

Indiana Pacers Player Stats

Indiana’s offensive production was led by Pascal Siakam, Tyrese Haliburton, and several productive supporting players.

Siakam scored 24 points, while Haliburton finished with 17. Kobe Brown added 14 points, and Obi Toppin contributed 12 points.

The Pacers also received strong passing performances from Andrew Nembhard and Quenton Jackson, who each recorded seven assists.

Player	PTS	REB	AST	FG	3PT	STL	BLK	+/-
Pascal Siakam	24	4	3	8-10	5-7	1	0	+23
Ivica Zubac	11	11	2	5-8	Not listed	1	1	+13
Kelly Oubre Jr.	4	2	Not listed	2-5	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed
Andrew Nembhard	11	Not listed	7	5-8	1-3	Not listed	Not listed	+21
Tyrese Haliburton	17	3	6	7-14	3-6	1	0	+15
Larry Nance Jr.	4	1	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	-9
Obi Toppin	12	7	2	4-7	4-7	1	0	-1
Jalen Slawson	2	3	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	3	-6
Rienk Mast	3	4	1	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	-3
Jay Huff	4	3	1	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	2	-14
Keba Keita	10	6	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	1	Not listed
Kobe Brown	14	5	3	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	-6
Ben Sheppard	0	2	1	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	-14
Quenton Jackson	9	2	2	Not listed	Not listed	1	Not listed	-14
Braden Smith	2	Not listed	7	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	Not listed	-10

The available box score also lists players who did not receive complete individual statistical lines. Several players were marked DNP, meaning they did not play because of a coach’s decision.

Game Summary: How Milwaukee Defeated Indiana 128-127

The Bucks and Pacers produced four competitive quarters before the game entered overtime.

Milwaukee eventually won by one point, but the overall statistics show that the contest was much more complicated than the final score suggests.

Indiana finished with a higher field-goal percentage and more assists. Milwaukee collected more rebounds, committed fewer turnovers, and generated additional offensive possessions.

These differences created an interesting contrast between the teams.

First Quarter: Indiana Starts Strong

Indiana opened the game with 29 points, while Milwaukee scored 21.

The Pacers established an early scoring advantage and entered the second quarter with an eight-point lead.

The difference was significant because Indiana was able to begin the game with efficient offensive execution.

Pascal Siakam’s scoring ability and the team’s passing structure provided a foundation for the opening period.

Milwaukee, meanwhile, needed to improve its offensive rhythm.

The Bucks eventually responded with a much stronger second quarter, but the opening eight-point deficit demonstrated that Indiana could create scoring opportunities against Milwaukee’s defense.

Second Quarter: Milwaukee Produces a Major Offensive Response

The second quarter was the highest-scoring period of the game.

Indiana scored 42 points, while Milwaukee recorded 35.

Although the Pacers maintained their advantage during the period, Milwaukee significantly increased its offensive production.

The Bucks’ 35-point quarter represented a substantial improvement from their 21-point opening period.

Their ability to score more efficiently and create additional opportunities helped keep the contest competitive.

Indiana’s 42 points also demonstrated the effectiveness of its offense during this stretch.

The Pacers entered halftime with a strong scoring performance, but the Bucks remained close enough to challenge them during the second half.

Third Quarter: Milwaukee Takes Control of the Scoring

Milwaukee scored 34 points in the third quarter, while Indiana recorded 22.

This period represented one of the most important statistical developments in the matchup.

The Bucks produced a 12-point scoring advantage during the quarter, allowing them to recover from their earlier deficit.

Their offensive production was supported by Tyler Herro’s scoring, the contributions of the supporting players, and the team’s ability to generate second-chance opportunities.

Indiana’s scoring decreased significantly compared with its first-half performance.

The Pacers still had opportunities to remain competitive, but Milwaukee’s third-quarter production changed the direction of the game.

Fourth Quarter: Indiana Responds

Indiana scored 24 points in the fourth quarter, while Milwaukee recorded 27.

The Pacers improved their offensive output compared with the third period.

Milwaukee maintained a small scoring advantage, but Indiana remained competitive enough to force overtime.

The fourth quarter demonstrated the importance of maintaining offensive efficiency throughout a game.

The Bucks had generated a significant scoring advantage in the previous period, but the Pacers continued to challenge them.

Overtime: Milwaukee Secures the Victory

The game entered overtime after the teams finished regulation with matching scores.

Milwaukee scored 11 points in overtime, while Indiana recorded 10.

The additional period produced the final one-point difference.

Milwaukee’s ability to generate one more point than Indiana secured the victory.

The overtime result also highlighted the importance of possession management, defensive execution, and scoring efficiency during the closing moments of a competitive game.

Quarter-by-Quarter Score

Period	Milwaukee Bucks	Indiana Pacers
First Quarter	21	29
Second Quarter	35	42
Third Quarter	34	22
Fourth Quarter	27	24
Overtime	11	10
Total	128	127

The combined score was 255 points.

Indiana scored 93 points during the first half, while Milwaukee scored 56.

During the second half, Milwaukee recorded 61 points and Indiana scored 46.

The overtime period added 21 points to the combined total.

The scoring distribution shows that Milwaukee’s third-quarter improvement played an important role in the final result.

Team Statistics Comparison

The overall team statistics reveal several differences in how Milwaukee and Indiana approached the game.

Statistic	Milwaukee Bucks	Indiana Pacers
Points	128	127
Field Goals	52-114	50-102
Field-Goal Percentage	46%	49%
Three-Pointers	17-52	16-48
Three-Point Percentage	33%	33%
Free Throws	7-16	11-15
Free-Throw Percentage	44%	73%
Total Rebounds	57	53
Offensive Rebounds	19	12
Defensive Rebounds	38	41
Assists	29	36
Turnovers	15	21
Steals	9	6
Blocks	4	7
Personal Fouls	21	16

These statistics provide a useful explanation of the different strengths displayed by each team.

Indiana was more accurate from the field and at the free-throw line.

Milwaukee collected more rebounds, recorded more steals, and committed fewer turnovers.

The difference between these statistical categories is important because basketball games are decided by the combination of scoring efficiency and possession opportunities.

Field-Goal Percentage

Indiana made 50 of 102 field-goal attempts.

Milwaukee made 52 of 114 attempts.

The Pacers therefore finished with a higher field-goal percentage.

Indiana’s 49% shooting compared with Milwaukee’s 46% suggests that the Pacers were more efficient when attempting shots.

However, Milwaukee attempted 12 more field goals.

This difference matters because the Bucks had more opportunities to score despite their lower shooting percentage.

The additional attempts helped offset Indiana’s shooting advantage.

Three-Point Shooting

Both teams finished with a 33% three-point percentage.

Milwaukee made 17 of 52 attempts, while Indiana made 16 of 48.

The Bucks attempted four more three-pointers and made one additional shot.

This gave Milwaukee a small advantage in total three-point production.

Three-point shooting was particularly relevant because both teams attempted a substantial number of shots from beyond the arc.

The numbers also show that neither team established a major percentage advantage in this category.

Free-Throw Shooting

Indiana converted 11 of 15 free throws.

Milwaukee made seven of 16.

The Pacers finished with a 73% free-throw percentage, compared with Milwaukee’s 44%.

This represented a meaningful efficiency difference.

Indiana scored four more points at the free-throw line despite attempting one fewer free throw than Milwaukee.

That advantage helped the Pacers remain competitive.

Milwaukee’s lower free-throw percentage also demonstrates why its final victory cannot be explained by shooting accuracy alone.

Rebounding

Milwaukee collected 57 total rebounds.

Indiana recorded 53.

The Bucks therefore finished with a four-rebound advantage.

The difference became more pronounced when examining offensive rebounds.

Milwaukee collected 19 offensive rebounds, while Indiana recorded 12.

That seven-rebound difference suggests Milwaukee created additional opportunities after missed shots.

The Pacers recorded 41 defensive rebounds, compared with Milwaukee’s 38.

Indiana’s defensive rebounding helped limit Milwaukee’s second-chance opportunities, but the Bucks still generated more offensive rebounds overall.

Assists

Indiana finished with 36 assists.

Milwaukee recorded 29.

The Pacers’ seven-assist advantage indicates that their offense generated more recorded passing contributions leading to baskets.

Andrew Nembhard and Quenton Jackson each recorded seven assists.

Tyrese Haliburton added six.

Milwaukee’s assist leaders were Kevin Porter Jr. with six and Ryan Rollins with five.

The difference suggests that Indiana relied heavily on shared offensive creation.

However, the Bucks still found ways to score without matching the Pacers’ assist total.

Turnovers

Indiana committed 21 turnovers.

Milwaukee committed 15.

The six-turnover difference was one of the most important statistical advantages for the Bucks.

Every turnover represents a possession that ends without a shot attempt or a successful scoring opportunity.

Milwaukee’s lower turnover total helped offset Indiana’s better shooting percentage and stronger passing numbers.

The Pacers’ 21 turnovers also reduced the value of their 36 assists.

A team can generate numerous assists while still losing possession too frequently.

That balance is important when evaluating offensive efficiency.

Tyler Herro Leads Milwaukee With 25 Points

Tyler Herro delivered the highest individual scoring total of the game.

The Bucks guard finished with:

• 25 points
• 10 field goals made from 16 attempts
• Five three-pointers made from seven attempts
• Three rebounds
• Three assists
• One steal
• Plus/minus of +4

Herro’s performance was one of the strongest offensive displays in the matchup.

He made 62.5% of his field-goal attempts.

His three-point shooting was even more efficient.

Herro converted five of seven attempts from beyond the arc, giving him a 71.4% three-point percentage.

That production allowed him to score efficiently without requiring an unusually high number of attempts.

Why Herro’s Shooting Performance Matters

Herro’s shooting numbers demonstrate the importance of efficient perimeter scoring.

The Bucks guard made five three-pointers, contributing 15 points from beyond the arc.

He scored the remaining 10 points through other field-goal opportunities.

This distribution shows how perimeter shooting can significantly increase a player’s offensive value.

A successful three-pointer produces more points than a successful two-point field goal.

Herro’s seven attempts from beyond the arc therefore provided Milwaukee with a valuable scoring advantage.

His three assists also demonstrate that his contribution extended beyond scoring.

He helped create opportunities for teammates while maintaining an efficient shooting performance.

Herro’s Impact on Milwaukee’s Offense

Milwaukee needed consistent scoring after its slow opening quarter.

Herro’s 25 points provided an important offensive foundation.

His shooting helped the Bucks remain competitive during the first half and contributed to their improved scoring during the second half.

The combination of efficient shooting and perimeter spacing made his performance particularly valuable.

Herro’s final plus/minus of +4 indicates that Milwaukee scored four more points than Indiana during his minutes on the court.

However, plus/minus should not be treated as a complete measurement of individual performance.

It reflects the overall scoring difference while a player is on the court, including contributions from teammates and opponents.

Pascal Siakam Records 24 Points for Indiana

Pascal Siakam was Indiana’s leading scorer.

He finished with:

• 24 points
• Eight field goals made from 10 attempts
• Five three-pointers made from seven attempts
• Four rebounds
• Three assists
• Three turnovers
• One steal
• Plus/minus of +23

Siakam’s performance was particularly impressive because of his shooting efficiency.

He made 80% of his field-goal attempts.

His three-point percentage was 71.4%.

Those numbers demonstrate that Siakam converted a high proportion of his scoring opportunities.

Siakam’s Offensive Efficiency

Siakam scored 24 points on 10 field-goal attempts.

That represents a highly efficient shooting performance.

His five made three-pointers also contributed 15 points.

The available statistics show that Siakam was able to produce significant scoring without requiring a large number of field-goal attempts.

His three assists indicate that he also contributed to Indiana’s offensive creation.

However, Siakam recorded three turnovers.

Those turnovers are important when evaluating the complete performance.

A player can score efficiently while still losing possession several times.

The combination of scoring, shooting efficiency, assists, and turnovers provides a more complete picture than points alone.

Siakam’s Plus/Minus

Siakam finished with a plus/minus of +23.

This was the highest listed plus/minus among the Pacers’ players in the supplied statistics.

The number indicates that Indiana outscored Milwaukee by 23 points during Siakam’s minutes.

It does not mean that Siakam personally scored 23 points more than another player.

Plus/minus reflects the team’s scoring margin while a player is on the court.

Siakam’s positive figure suggests that his minutes were associated with productive team performance.

His efficient scoring and involvement in Indiana’s offense helped establish that impact.

Myles Turner Controls the Rebounding Battle

Myles Turner was Milwaukee’s leading rebounder.

The Bucks center recorded:

• Seven points
• 13 rebounds
• Two assists
• One steal
• Three blocks
• Plus/minus of +11

Turner’s 13 rebounds were the highest individual rebound total recorded by a Bucks player.

His three blocks also made him one of Milwaukee’s most important defensive contributors.

Turner’s Defensive Contribution

Turner’s defensive statistics show that he contributed in several ways.

His 13 rebounds helped Milwaukee control the glass.

His three blocks provided additional protection near the basket.

His one steal added another defensive contribution.

These numbers demonstrate why a player’s impact cannot always be measured through scoring.

Turner scored only seven points, but his rebounding and defensive production helped Milwaukee remain competitive.

Turner’s Role in the Paint

The Bucks collected 57 total rebounds.

Turner contributed 13 of those rebounds.

That means he recorded approximately 22.8% of Milwaukee’s total rebounds.

His performance was particularly valuable because Indiana had a productive offensive attack.

The Pacers finished with 50 made field goals and 36 assists.

Turner’s rebounding and rim protection provided Milwaukee with defensive support against that offensive production.

His plus/minus of +11 also indicates that Milwaukee outscored Indiana during his minutes.

Tyrese Haliburton Provides Indiana With 17 Points and Six Assists

Tyrese Haliburton recorded 17 points for the Pacers.

His statistical line included:

• 17 points
• Seven field goals made from 14 attempts
• Three three-pointers made from six attempts
• Three rebounds
• Six assists
• One turnover
• One steal
• Plus/minus of +15

Haliburton’s performance was important because Indiana needed consistent offensive creation.

He finished with six assists, placing him among the Pacers’ leading playmakers.

His seven made field goals also provided a significant scoring contribution.

Haliburton’s Passing Impact

Haliburton’s six assists helped Indiana reach 36 total assists.

The Pacers recorded seven more assists than Milwaukee.

That difference suggests Indiana’s offense generated more scoring opportunities through recorded passing contributions.

Haliburton was not the only player responsible for the team’s passing performance.

Andrew Nembhard and Quenton Jackson each recorded seven assists.

However, Haliburton’s combination of scoring and passing made him an important contributor.

Haliburton’s Shooting

Haliburton made seven of 14 field-goal attempts.

His field-goal percentage was 50%.

He also made three of six three-point attempts.

That gave him a 50% three-point percentage.

His shooting efficiency allowed him to contribute scoring while maintaining a substantial passing role.

Haliburton recorded only one turnover.

That is an important detail because Indiana committed 21 turnovers as a team.

His individual possession management was more efficient than the team’s overall turnover performance.

Andrew Nembhard and Quenton Jackson Lead Indiana’s Passing

Andrew Nembhard and Quenton Jackson each recorded seven assists.

Their performances were particularly important because Indiana finished with 36 assists.

The two players combined for 14 assists.

That represents approximately 38.9% of the Pacers’ total assists.

Andrew Nembhard’s Performance

Nembhard finished with:

• 11 points
• Eight field goals attempted
• Five field goals made
• One three-pointer made from three attempts
• Seven assists
• Plus/minus of +21

His five made field goals from eight attempts represented a 62.5% field-goal percentage.

Nembhard’s seven assists also demonstrated his role in creating scoring opportunities.

His plus/minus of +21 was one of the strongest figures among the Pacers’ players.

The combination of efficient shooting and passing made his performance particularly valuable.

Quenton Jackson’s Contribution

Jackson recorded:

• Nine points
• Two rebounds
• Two assists
• One steal
• Plus/minus of -14

Although Jackson’s supplied statistical line lists two assists, the game data identifies him as one of Indiana’s leading assist players with seven assists.

These figures conflict.

The available information therefore requires verification before the individual assist total can be treated as definitive.

For accuracy, the complete box score should be consulted before publishing a corrected player-level assist figure.

This distinction matters because reliable basketball analysis should separate confirmed statistics from inconsistent source data.

Kevin Porter Jr. Leads Milwaukee’s Listed Assist Production

Kevin Porter Jr. recorded 11 points for Milwaukee.

His supplied statistics include:

• 11 points
• Two rebounds
• Three assists
• Two steals
• Plus/minus of -7

The game summary identifies Porter as Milwaukee’s leading assist player with six assists.

However, the individual statistical line lists three assists.

That inconsistency means his exact assist total should be verified against the official box score.

The available information still demonstrates that Porter contributed scoring and defensive activity.

His two steals were particularly relevant because Milwaukee finished with nine team steals.

Porter’s contribution also illustrates the importance of evaluating multiple statistical categories.

His scoring was useful, but his defensive activity added another dimension to his performance.

Ivica Zubac Provides Strong Interior Production

Ivica Zubac recorded 11 points and 11 rebounds for Indiana.

His statistical line included:

• 11 points
• Five field goals made from eight attempts
• 11 rebounds
• Two assists
• One turnover
• One steal
• One block
• Plus/minus of +13

Zubac recorded a double-double.

A double-double occurs when a player reaches at least 10 in two statistical categories.

His 11 points and 11 rebounds satisfied that requirement.

Zubac’s Rebounding Performance

Zubac was Indiana’s leading rebounder.

His 11 rebounds represented approximately 20.8% of the Pacers’ 53 total rebounds.

His contribution was important because Milwaukee recorded 57 rebounds.

Indiana needed productive interior rebounding to compete against the Bucks’ size.

Zubac’s performance helped limit the overall difference.

Zubac’s Shooting Efficiency

Zubac made five of eight field-goal attempts.

His field-goal percentage was 62.5%.

That efficiency provided Indiana with productive scoring near the basket.

His two assists also demonstrated that his contribution was not limited to finishing offensive possessions.

Zubac’s one block and one steal added defensive value.

The combination of scoring, rebounding, and defense made him one of Indiana’s important interior contributors.

Bench Production: Milwaukee’s Scoring Depth

Milwaukee received several useful contributions from its bench.

Kel’el Ware scored 13 points.

Brayden Burries recorded 14 points.

Kevin Porter Jr. added 11 points.

AJ Green contributed nine points.

Bogoljub Markovic scored seven points.

Jaime Jaquez Jr. and Kyle Kuzma also recorded important scoring contributions.

The available statistics demonstrate that Milwaukee did not depend exclusively on Tyler Herro.

Its supporting players contributed enough scoring to maintain offensive production throughout the game.

Brayden Burries Scores 14 Points

Burries recorded:

• 14 points
• Seven rebounds
• Three assists
• Two steals
• Plus/minus of +6

His 14 points were the second-highest listed scoring total for Milwaukee.

The seven rebounds also provided additional support.

His two steals contributed to the Bucks’ defensive production.

Burries’ combination of scoring, rebounding, passing, and defensive activity made him one of Milwaukee’s productive supporting players.

Kel’el Ware Adds 13 Points

Ware scored 13 points.

He also recorded:

• Three rebounds
• Two steals
• One block
• Plus/minus of -13

Ware’s scoring contribution helped Milwaukee distribute its offensive production.

However, his plus/minus was negative.

That means Milwaukee was outscored by 13 points during his minutes.

The statistic does not establish that Ware was individually responsible for that difference.

It reflects the overall performance of both teams while he was on the court.

Milwaukee’s Supporting Scorers

Several other Bucks contributed:

• Kevin Porter Jr. scored 11 points.
• Kyle Kuzma scored 11 points.
• AJ Green scored nine points.
• Jaime Jaquez Jr. scored nine points.
• Bogoljub Markovic scored seven points.
• Ryan Rollins scored eight points.
• Ousmane Dieng scored four points.
• Cormac Ryan scored four points.
• Kam Jones scored three points.
• Kasparas Jakucionis scored three points.

This distribution demonstrates that Milwaukee received scoring from multiple players.

The team’s offensive production was therefore spread across its rotation.

Indiana’s Bench Production

Indiana also received meaningful contributions from its reserves.

Kobe Brown scored 14 points.

Obi Toppin recorded 12 points.

Keba Keita scored 10 points.

Quenton Jackson added nine points.

These performances helped Indiana maintain offensive production beyond its starting group.

Kobe Brown Scores 14 Points

Kobe Brown recorded:

• 14 points
• Five rebounds
• Three assists
• Plus/minus of -6

His scoring total was tied for the second-highest listed Pacers output.

Brown also contributed rebounds and assists.

His performance demonstrated that Indiana received offensive support from its bench.

However, his plus/minus was negative.

The Pacers were outscored by six points during his minutes.

Obi Toppin Provides Shooting and Rebounding

Obi Toppin finished with:

• 12 points
• Seven rebounds
• Two assists
• Four field goals made from seven attempts
• Four three-pointers made from seven attempts
• One steal
• Plus/minus of -1

Toppin’s three-point shooting was particularly notable.

He made four of seven attempts from beyond the arc.

That gave him a 57.1% three-point percentage.

His seven rebounds also contributed to Indiana’s overall rebounding production.

Toppin’s combination of perimeter shooting and rebounding made him an important offensive contributor.

Keba Keita Adds Interior Scoring

Keba Keita recorded:

• 10 points
• Six rebounds
• One block

His 10 points placed him among Indiana’s double-digit scorers.

His six rebounds also provided interior support.

Keita’s one block contributed to Indiana’s seven total blocks.

The Pacers therefore received defensive production from multiple frontcourt players.

Defensive Analysis: Blocks, Steals, and Possession Control

The defensive statistics show that both teams produced different types of defensive contributions.

Milwaukee recorded nine steals.

Indiana recorded six.

The Bucks therefore finished with a three-steal advantage.

Indiana recorded seven blocks.

Milwaukee recorded four.

The Pacers therefore finished with a three-block advantage.

These numbers suggest that Milwaukee generated more defensive activity through steals, while Indiana recorded more shot-blocking production.

Milwaukee’s Steals

Milwaukee’s nine steals were supported by contributions from several players.

Tyler Herro recorded one steal.

Kyle Kuzma recorded one.

Myles Turner recorded one.

Kevin Porter Jr. recorded two.

Brayden Burries recorded two.

The supplied statistics therefore identify multiple Bucks players who contributed to the team’s defensive activity.

Steals can create additional offensive opportunities.

A steal allows the defending team to gain possession without waiting for a missed shot or rebound.

However, the number of steals alone does not measure overall defensive quality.

Teams also need to consider defensive positioning, shot contests, rebounding, and the ability to limit scoring opportunities.

Indiana’s Blocks

Indiana recorded seven blocks.

Jalen Slawson contributed three.

Jay Huff recorded two.

Keba Keita added one.

Ivica Zubac recorded one.

These listed individual totals add up to seven.

Indiana’s shot-blocking production demonstrates the team’s ability to challenge attempts near the basket.

However, blocks do not always result in a change of possession.

A blocked shot can remain with the attacking team.

Therefore, evaluating defensive impact requires considering rebounds and possession outcomes alongside blocks.

Turnovers and Defensive Pressure

Indiana committed 21 turnovers.

Milwaukee committed 15.

The Bucks’ six-turnover advantage represents a meaningful difference.

Turnovers can occur because of defensive pressure, passing mistakes, offensive fouls, or poor possession management.

The supplied team statistics do not identify the specific causes of every turnover.

It would therefore be inaccurate to attribute all of Indiana’s turnovers to Milwaukee’s defensive pressure.

The reliable conclusion is that Milwaukee finished with fewer turnovers and more steals.

That combination helped the Bucks create a more favorable possession balance.

Understanding Plus/Minus in the Box Score

Plus/minus is one of the most misunderstood basketball statistics.

It measures the team’s net scoring difference while a player is on the court.

A positive figure means the player’s team outscored its opponent during those minutes.

A negative figure means the player’s team was outscored.

For example:

• Pascal Siakam finished at +23.
• Andrew Nembhard finished at +21.
• Tyrese Haliburton finished at +15.
• Myles Turner finished at +11.
• Tyler Herro finished at +4.
• Kel’el Ware finished at -13.

These figures describe team scoring results during individual players’ minutes.

They do not establish how many points a player personally contributed.

Why Plus/Minus Requires Context

A player can record a positive plus/minus without scoring many points.

This may happen when the team performs well defensively or when teammates score efficiently.

Similarly, a player can finish with a negative plus/minus despite recording strong individual statistics.

The player’s team may have been outscored during those minutes.

This is particularly important when analyzing preseason games.

Coaches may experiment with different lineups, substitutions, and player combinations.

Those changes can influence plus/minus.

The statistic is useful, but it should be interpreted alongside points, rebounds, assists, turnovers, and shooting efficiency.

What the Statistics Reveal About Milwaukee

The Bucks’ victory was supported by several statistical advantages.

1. More Rebounds

Milwaukee collected 57 rebounds.

Indiana collected 53.

The four-rebound difference helped Milwaukee generate additional possessions.

The Bucks’ 19 offensive rebounds were particularly important.

2. Fewer Turnovers

Milwaukee committed 15 turnovers.

Indiana committed 21.

The Bucks therefore finished with six fewer turnovers.

This helped offset Indiana’s better shooting percentage.

3. More Steals

Milwaukee recorded nine steals.

Indiana recorded six.

The Bucks’ three-steal advantage provided additional opportunities to regain possession.

4. Consistent Perimeter Scoring

Milwaukee made 17 three-pointers.

Indiana made 16.

Both teams finished with a 33% three-point percentage.

The Bucks therefore generated slightly more total perimeter scoring.

5. Balanced Scoring

Herro led Milwaukee with 25 points.

However, Burries, Ware, Porter, Kuzma, and other players also contributed.

The team received scoring from multiple positions.

This helped Milwaukee maintain offensive production across the rotation.

What the Statistics Reveal About Indiana

Indiana’s performance also included several strengths.

1. Better Field-Goal Percentage

The Pacers made 49% of their field-goal attempts.

Milwaukee made 46%.

Indiana therefore finished with a three-percentage-point advantage.

2. Better Free-Throw Percentage

Indiana converted 73% of its free throws.

Milwaukee converted 44%.

The Pacers’ four-point advantage at the free-throw line was an important scoring difference.

3. More Assists

Indiana recorded 36 assists.

Milwaukee recorded 29.

The Pacers generated more recorded passing contributions leading to baskets.

4. Strong Interior Defense

Indiana recorded seven blocks.

Milwaukee recorded four.

The Pacers’ three-block advantage demonstrates their ability to challenge shots near the basket.

5. Productive Individual Scoring

Siakam scored 24 points.

Haliburton recorded 17.

Kobe Brown added 14.

Toppin scored 12.

Zubac recorded 11.

The Pacers therefore received scoring from several players.

Their offensive production was not limited to one individual.

Why Milwaukee Won Despite Indiana’s Shooting Efficiency

The final score was decided by one point.

Indiana finished with a higher field-goal percentage.

The Pacers also recorded more assists and converted free throws at a higher percentage.

Yet Milwaukee won.

The difference becomes clearer when examining possession-related statistics.

Milwaukee recorded four more rebounds.

The Bucks collected seven more offensive rebounds.

They committed six fewer turnovers.

They also recorded three more steals.

These advantages helped Milwaukee create additional opportunities.

The Bucks attempted 114 field goals.

Indiana attempted 102.

Milwaukee therefore attempted 12 more field goals.

Although the Bucks were less accurate, they generated more attempts.

That difference is important.

A team can shoot less efficiently but still score more points when it receives additional opportunities.

Milwaukee’s advantage in field-goal attempts helped compensate for Indiana’s shooting percentage.

The Bucks also made one more three-pointer.

The combined impact of additional attempts, offensive rebounds, and fewer turnovers helped Milwaukee secure the narrow victory.

Important Statistical Limitations

The available game information contains several inconsistencies that should be considered before using the statistics for advanced analysis.

Individual Assist Totals

Kevin Porter Jr. is identified as Milwaukee’s leading assist player with six assists.

However, his individual line lists three assists.

Andrew Nembhard and Quenton Jackson are identified as Indiana’s leading assist players with seven each.

Nembhard’s individual line lists seven assists.

Jackson’s individual line lists two assists.

These differences require verification.

Game Date and Competition

The supplied information identifies the game as a preseason matchup on October 17, 2026.

The article therefore treats it as a preseason game.

Preseason results should not be interpreted as regular-season standings results.

Player Rotation

The game data includes a large number of players.

Several players were listed as DNP.

The available information does not establish the precise reason for every absence.

A coach’s decision should not automatically be interpreted as an injury.

Missing Individual Statistics

Several player lines do not include complete shooting, rebounding, assist, steal, or block information.

Those missing figures have not been estimated.

A complete statistical comparison should use the official box score when the missing data is required.

These limitations are important because accurate sports reporting depends on distinguishing verified numbers from incomplete information.

Historical and Season Context

The October 17 game was listed as a preseason matchup.

The supplied season schedule identifies four future regular-season meetings between Milwaukee and Indiana.

Game	Date	Location
Game 1	October 27, 2026	Milwaukee
Game 2	January 10, 2027	Indiana
Game 3	January 14, 2027	Indiana
Game 4	March 21, 2027	Milwaukee

The preseason result does not determine the outcome of those future games.

Regular-season matchups can differ because of player availability, rotations, coaching decisions, and tactical adjustments.

The October 17 contest provides a statistical reference point, but it should not be treated as a prediction of the teams’ future performances.

The supplied standings information also lists Indiana and Milwaukee with different records.

Those standings should be considered separate from the preseason result.

Where to Find Official NBA Player Statistics

For readers who want to verify individual player numbers, the official NBA statistics database provides a useful reference.

The NBA’s official statistical resources include player performance, team statistics, game results, and historical records.

You can explore the official NBA statistics page to review player and team data.

For this matchup, the ESPN box score supplied with the game information is the primary reference for the listed statistics.

Readers should compare the complete official box score with the individual figures before relying on disputed assist totals or missing player statistics.

This is especially important when publishing detailed statistical tables.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Who won the Pacers vs Milwaukee Bucks game on October 17, 2026?

The Milwaukee Bucks defeated the Indiana Pacers 128-127 in overtime. The game was played at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis, Indiana, and was listed as an NBA preseason matchup.

2. Who scored the most points for Milwaukee?

Tyler Herro led the Milwaukee Bucks with 25 points. He made 10 of 16 field-goal attempts and five of seven three-point attempts.

3. Who was Indiana’s leading scorer?

Pascal Siakam led the Indiana Pacers with 24 points. He made eight of 10 field-goal attempts and five of seven three-point attempts.

4. Who recorded the most rebounds in the game?

Myles Turner led Milwaukee with 13 rebounds. Ivica Zubac was Indiana’s leading rebounder with 11 rebounds.

5. Which team recorded more assists?

Indiana recorded 36 assists, while Milwaukee finished with 29. Andrew Nembhard and Quenton Jackson were identified as Indiana’s leading assist players, while Kevin Porter Jr. led Milwaukee according to the supplied game summary. Some individual assist figures require verification.

6. Why did Milwaukee win despite shooting a lower percentage?

Milwaukee recorded more rebounds, more offensive rebounds, more steals, and fewer turnovers. The Bucks also attempted 12 more field goals than Indiana. Those additional scoring opportunities helped compensate for their lower field-goal percentage.

Conclusion

The October 17, 2026, preseason matchup between the Milwaukee Bucks and Indiana Pacers produced an exciting 128-127 overtime victory for Milwaukee.

Tyler Herro led the Bucks with 25 points, while Pascal Siakam recorded 24 points for Indiana. Myles Turner collected 13 rebounds, and Ivica Zubac finished with 11 rebounds. Indiana recorded more assists and higher shooting percentages, but Milwaukee created additional scoring opportunities through rebounding, steals, and better turnover management.

The most important statistical difference was possession control. Milwaukee collected 57 rebounds, including 19 offensive rebounds, and committed 15 turnovers. Indiana recorded 53 rebounds and committed 21 turnovers.

Those differences helped the Bucks overcome Indiana’s more efficient shooting and secure the narrow victory.

The game also demonstrated the importance of balanced contributions. Milwaukee received scoring from Herro, Burries, Ware, Porter, and several supporting players. Indiana benefited from Siakam, Haliburton, Nembhard, Zubac, and its bench rotation.

For readers analyzing the pacers vs milwaukee bucks match player stats, the key takeaway is that individual scoring totals tell only part of the story. Rebounding, assists, turnovers, defensive contributions, and shooting efficiency all provide valuable context for understanding the final result.

The preseason contest offers a useful statistical snapshot of both teams, while the upcoming regular-season meetings will provide further opportunities to evaluate their performance in a competitive NBA environment.