Golden State Warriors vs Pacers Match Player Stats

The golden state warriors vs pacers match player stats from November 10, 2025, tell a much bigger story than the final score alone. Golden State defeated Indiana 114-83 at Chase Center in San Francisco, turning a competitive-looking opening half into a dominant second-half performance. The Warriors finished with a 31-point victory, improved to 6-5 overall and remained unbeaten at home at 5-0, while the Pacers dropped to 1-9 overall and 0-5 on the road.

For anyone studying the game beyond the scoreboard, several numbers immediately stand out. Golden State committed only 10 turnovers compared with Indiana’s 20, recorded 11 steals, made 38 of 88 field-goal attempts, and produced 39 points in the fourth quarter alone. Indiana, meanwhile, shot just 34 percent from the field and struggled to turn 53 rebounds into sustained offensive production.

The individual numbers were also spread across the Warriors lineup. Jimmy Butler III led all Golden State scorers with 21 points, while Quinten Post and Brandin Podziemski each contributed 14. Moses Moody added 13 and Al Horford scored 12. For Indiana, Andrew Nembhard led the Pacers with 14 points, while Isaiah Jackson, Jarace Walker, and Jay Huff each finished with 12.

This breakdown examines the player production, team statistics, quarter-by-quarter progression, and the tactical reasons the game developed into such a wide margin.

Golden State Warriors vs Pacers Match Player Stats at a Glance

The most important figures from the November 10 meeting are summarized below.

Category	Golden State Warriors	Indiana Pacers
Final Score	114	83
Field Goals	38-88	32-94
Field-Goal Percentage	43%	34%
Three-Pointers	12-44	11-39
Three-Point Percentage	27%	28%
Free Throws	26-37	8-11
Free-Throw Percentage	70%	73%
Rebounds	50	53
Assists	22	21
Turnovers	10	20
Steals	11	7
Blocks	6	6
Top Scorer	Jimmy Butler III, 21	Andrew Nembhard, 14
Winning Margin	+31	-31

One of the most useful ways to understand these numbers is to separate shooting efficiency from possession control.

The Warriors did not dominate the Pacers from three-point range. In fact, Indiana’s 28 percent three-point shooting was slightly better than Golden State’s 27 percent. The decisive difference came elsewhere.

Golden State made six more field goals despite attempting six fewer shots. The Warriors also made 26 free throws compared with only eight for Indiana. Most importantly, Golden State turned the ball over only 10 times while forcing Indiana into 20 turnovers.

That combination created a much more efficient offensive profile for the Warriors.

How the Game Developed Quarter by Quarter

The final 114-83 score might suggest that Golden State controlled every minute, but the quarter scores show a more gradual separation.

The Pacers scored 21, 20, 24, and 18 points across the four quarters. Golden State scored 23, 25, 27, and 39.

That produced the following progression:

Quarter	Pacers	Warriors	Warriors Lead
First	21	23	2
Second	20	25	7
Third	24	27	10
Fourth	18	39	31

First Quarter: A Close Opening

The Warriors led 23-21 after the opening quarter, meaning the game initially looked relatively balanced.

A two-point difference does not normally indicate a matchup that is heading toward a 31-point blowout. Both teams were still within one possession of each other, and Indiana was not yet overwhelmed by Golden State’s defensive pressure.

The opening period is important because it demonstrates that the final margin was built over time rather than appearing immediately.

Second Quarter: Golden State Creates Separation

Golden State extended its advantage in the second period, scoring 25 points while limiting Indiana to 20.

The Warriors entered halftime with a seven-point advantage. A seven-point halftime lead is meaningful, but it is far from decisive in an NBA game.

At this stage, the biggest warning sign for Indiana was not simply the score. The turnover gap was becoming increasingly important. Golden State ultimately finished with half as many turnovers as Indiana.

Third Quarter: The Warriors Maintain Control

The third quarter produced another five-point advantage for Golden State, with the Warriors scoring 27 points against Indiana’s 24.

The difference reached 10 points entering the final period.

For Indiana, this was the last opportunity to make the game competitive. Instead, the Pacers entered the fourth quarter needing a strong offensive run while also slowing down an opponent that had already demonstrated superior ball security.

Fourth Quarter: The Game Breaks Open

The fourth quarter completely changed the scale of the result.

Golden State scored 39 points, its highest-scoring period of the game by a wide margin. Indiana managed only 18.

That 21-point difference in the final quarter transformed a 10-point game into a 31-point Warriors victory.

This is arguably the most important number in the entire box score. The Warriors did not merely protect their lead. They dramatically increased it.

Jimmy Butler III Leads Golden State’s Scoring

Jimmy Butler III was Golden State’s leading scorer with 21 points.

His scoring total represented the highest individual output for either team in this game. That matters because the Warriors did not need one player to produce an unusually large scoring total.

Instead, Golden State received contributions from several players.

Butler’s 21 points gave the Warriors a dependable scoring leader, while the secondary production prevented Indiana from focusing all of its defensive attention on one offensive threat.

The Warriors’ scoring distribution included:

• Jimmy Butler III: 21 points
• Quinten Post: 14 points
• Brandin Podziemski: 14 points
• Moses Moody: 13 points
• Al Horford: 12 points

The five listed contributors alone combined for 74 points.

That is a significant portion of Golden State’s 114-point total and illustrates why the Warriors were difficult to contain.

Quinten Post and Brandin Podziemski Provide Secondary Scoring

Quinten Post and Brandin Podziemski each scored 14 points.

Their identical scoring totals are notable because secondary production often determines whether an offense can maintain efficiency when its primary scorer is not carrying the entire workload.

The Warriors did not need Butler to approach 30 or 40 points. Instead, the supporting cast consistently added points.

Moses Moody’s 13 points and Al Horford’s 12 further strengthened that balance.

This type of scoring distribution is particularly relevant when evaluating a team performance. A box score should not be interpreted only through the highest scorer. The gap between the top scorer and the rest of the lineup can reveal how dependent a team was on individual shot creation.

In this matchup, Golden State’s scoring profile was comparatively broad.

Andrew Nembhard Leads Indiana’s Scoring

Andrew Nembhard led Indiana with 14 points.

That total was seven points below Butler’s 21 and also matched the scoring output of Golden State’s second-highest scorers.

Indiana’s leading scoring group was:

• Andrew Nembhard: 14 points
• Isaiah Jackson: 12 points
• Jarace Walker: 12 points
• Jay Huff: 12 points

The Pacers therefore had multiple players reaching double figures, but the overall offensive output remained limited to 83 points.

This is an important distinction.

Having several double-digit scorers does not automatically mean an offense was efficient. Indiana’s 32 made field goals on 94 attempts resulted in only a 34 percent field-goal percentage.

The Pacers also made only eight free throws.

So although individual players reached respectable scoring totals, Indiana struggled to turn its opportunities into efficient team offense.

Shooting Efficiency Explains Part of the Difference

The shooting numbers provide one of the clearest explanations for the result.

Golden State shot 38-for-88 from the field, which was listed as 43 percent.

Indiana shot 32-for-94, or 34 percent.

The difference is seven percentage points.

Golden State attempted fewer field goals but made six more.

That is a major efficiency advantage.

Three-Point Shooting Was Not the Main Story

Interestingly, three-point shooting does not explain the 31-point difference by itself.

Golden State went 12-for-44 from three-point range, which was 27 percent.

Indiana went 11-for-39, which was 28 percent.

Indiana actually held a slight advantage in three-point percentage.

This is an important point for readers analyzing the golden state warriors vs pacers match player stats. Looking only at three-point shooting would lead to an incomplete conclusion.

Golden State’s victory was driven by a combination of factors rather than a three-point shooting explosion.

Free Throws Created a Significant Gap

The free-throw numbers were much more revealing.

Golden State made 26 of 37 free throws.

Indiana made only 8 of 11.

That created an 18-point difference in made free throws.

The Warriors’ 26 made free throws represented nearly one-quarter of their total score.

Indiana’s eight made free throws represented a much smaller contribution to its 83-point total.

The percentages were relatively close, with Golden State at 70 percent and Indiana at 73 percent. The meaningful difference was opportunity volume, not conversion rate.

Golden State attempted 37 free throws, compared with 11 for Indiana.

That is one of the clearest statistical reasons why the final scoring totals separated so dramatically.

Turnovers Were a Major Turning Point

Golden State committed 10 turnovers.

Indiana committed 20.

The Pacers therefore turned the ball over twice as often as the Warriors.

That is a substantial possession-management disadvantage.

Golden State also recorded 11 steals compared with Indiana’s seven. The combination suggests that the Warriors were able to create additional defensive events while protecting their own possessions.

Turnovers matter because a missed shot can still produce a rebound and another defensive or offensive sequence. A turnover ends the possession immediately and can sometimes create transition opportunities for the opposing team.

The Warriors’ 11 steals indicate that defensive pressure contributed directly to their ability to generate extra possessions.

Rebounding Was Surprisingly Close

Indiana actually finished with more rebounds.

The Pacers collected 53 rebounds compared with 50 for Golden State.

That is an important counterpoint to the final score.

A team can lose the rebounding battle and still win comfortably if it gains enough advantages in other categories. That is exactly what happened here.

Indiana’s three-rebound advantage did not compensate for its shooting efficiency, turnover problems, or free-throw disadvantage.

This is why box-score analysis should not focus on a single category.

Rebounding is important, but its impact depends on what a team does with those additional possessions.

Assists Showed a Competitive Passing Battle

The assist totals were also relatively close.

Golden State recorded 22 assists.

Indiana recorded 21.

That one-assist difference suggests that the passing volume between the teams was not responsible for the 31-point margin.

The larger distinction was what happened after those possessions were created.

Golden State converted its overall offensive opportunities more efficiently, while Indiana struggled with its shooting percentage and turnovers.

This provides another useful lesson from the game: a team can have a similar assist total to its opponent and still lose by a wide margin if the resulting possessions do not produce enough efficient scoring.

Defensive Activity Was Strong on Both Sides

Both teams finished with six blocks.

That means neither side held a clear advantage in shot blocking.

The bigger defensive distinction came through steals.

Golden State recorded 11 steals compared with seven for Indiana.

The Warriors also held the Pacers to 34 percent shooting.

Indiana’s inability to convert a large number of field-goal attempts became increasingly costly as the game progressed.

Golden State’s defensive performance was therefore less about one spectacular defensive category and more about a collection of disruptive actions.

Why the 31-Point Margin Happened

The final score becomes easier to understand when the major statistical differences are combined.

Golden State had:

1. Six more made field goals despite taking six fewer attempts.
2. An 18-point advantage in made free throws.
3. Ten turnovers compared with Indiana’s 20.
4. Eleven steals compared with Indiana’s seven.
5. A seven-percentage-point advantage in overall field-goal shooting.
6. A 39-point fourth quarter.
7. Five players listed among the team’s leading scorers reaching at least 12 points.

Indiana had some positive numbers, especially its 53 rebounds and slightly better three-point percentage.

But those advantages were not enough to offset the Warriors’ efficiency and possession control.

The Fourth Quarter Deserves Special Attention

If someone wanted to identify a single part of the game that best explains the final score, the fourth quarter would be the obvious starting point.

Golden State scored 39 points.

Indiana scored 18.

That means the Warriors outscored the Pacers by 21 points in only 12 minutes.

The difference was large enough to double the 10-point lead Golden State carried into the fourth quarter and add another 11 points.

This kind of late-game separation can reflect several things, including defensive pressure, shot-making, transition opportunities, turnovers, fatigue, or an opponent struggling to generate efficient offense.

The available team statistics strongly support the importance of possession control and offensive efficiency, although the supplied data does not establish a single specific tactical sequence as the cause of every fourth-quarter possession.

That distinction matters when interpreting box-score information responsibly.

Comparing the Warriors’ and Pacers’ Offensive Profiles

The offensive profiles were quite different.

Golden State scored 114 points from 88 field-goal attempts and 37 free-throw attempts.

Indiana scored 83 points from 94 field-goal attempts and 11 free-throw attempts.

The contrast is striking.

Indiana attempted six more field goals but scored 31 fewer total points.

That tells us that shot volume alone did not translate into scoring success.

The Warriors were more productive per field-goal attempt and generated substantially more free-throw opportunities.

At the same time, Golden State did not shoot exceptionally well from three-point range. Its 27 percent mark from outside was actually lower than Indiana’s 28 percent.

This means the Warriors’ offensive advantage came from the overall combination of shot conversion, free throws, possession security, and scoring distribution.

What the Player Scoring Distribution Tells Us

The individual scoring numbers also reveal how the teams approached the game.

Golden State’s leading scorer finished with 21 points, but the next four listed scorers combined for 53.

Indiana’s leading scorer had 14, while three other listed players had 12 each.

The gap between the teams was therefore not simply a case of one superstar dominating.

Instead, Golden State received stronger collective production.

This is particularly important for readers researching player statistics because individual points should always be interpreted within the team context.

A player scoring 14 points on a team that scores 83 can have a different statistical impact from a player scoring 14 points on a team that scores 114.

The surrounding offensive environment changes how those individual numbers should be understood.

Warriors’ Home Performance Adds Context

The Warriors entered the game with a 6-5 overall record and a 5-0 home record.

The Pacers entered with a 1-9 overall record and an 0-5 road record.

Those records provide context for the result.

Golden State had already been perfect at home according to the supplied game data, while Indiana had yet to win on the road.

The 114-83 result therefore extended two contrasting trends.

For Golden State, it represented another home victory.

For Indiana, it continued a difficult start away from home.

Records should not be treated as proof that a particular game had to end a certain way, but they help place the performance within the teams’ broader season context.

The Previous Meeting Adds Another Layer

The teams had met previously on November 2, 2025, when Golden State defeated Indiana 114-109.

That result is useful because it shows that the November 10 matchup was dramatically different from the previous meeting.

Golden State scored exactly 114 points in both games according to the supplied information.

But the defensive outcome changed significantly.

The earlier game ended with a five-point Warriors victory.

The November 10 meeting ended with a 31-point Warriors victory.

The supplied series information lists the season series as tied 1-1, which indicates that the teams had split their meetings despite Golden State winning the November 10 game described here. For readers comparing both games, the exact game date is therefore important when interpreting the series context.

Attendance and Game Setting

The game was played at Chase Center in San Francisco, California, with an attendance of 18,064.

The venue matters when considering the home-road context.

Golden State entered the matchup 5-0 at home, while Indiana entered 0-5 away.

The setting was therefore consistent with the broader home and road records supplied for the teams.

The listed officials were Courtney Kirkland, Dedric Taylor, and Matt Kallio.

The broadcast information included FanDuel SN IN and NBC Sports BA +1.

These details are useful for readers who want a complete game record rather than only the final score and leading scorers.

What Readers Should Take From the Box Score

The most useful lesson from this matchup is that the final score was produced by several connected advantages.

First, Golden State shot better overall.

Second, the Warriors made significantly more free throws.

Third, Golden State protected the ball much better.

Fourth, the Warriors created more steals.

Fifth, their scoring was spread among multiple contributors.

Sixth, the fourth-quarter performance turned a manageable lead into a decisive victory.

Meanwhile, Indiana’s strongest statistical areas were not enough to change the result.

The Pacers won the rebounding battle by three and narrowly won the three-point percentage comparison, but neither advantage translated into enough efficient scoring.

A Practical Way to Read Player Stats

When evaluating a game like this, readers can avoid misleading conclusions by following a simple process.

Start With the Score

The final score establishes the result, but it does not explain it.

Check Overall Shooting

Compare made field goals, attempts, and percentages.

Here, Golden State made more shots while attempting fewer.

Check Free Throws

Large differences in free-throw attempts can have a major impact.

The Warriors had 37 attempts compared with Indiana’s 11.

Check Turnovers

A significant turnover gap can reveal a possession advantage.

Golden State had 10 turnovers, while Indiana had 20.

Check Rebounding

Rebounding helps determine which team gained additional opportunities.

Indiana actually held a three-rebound advantage.

Check Individual Scoring

Finally, look at how the points were distributed.

Golden State had several meaningful contributors rather than relying entirely on its leading scorer.

This method provides a much clearer picture than simply searching for the player with the most points.

Golden State Warriors vs Pacers Match Player Stats: Key Takeaways

The golden state warriors vs pacers match player stats show that the Warriors’ 114-83 win was built on efficiency, possession control, and a dominant final quarter.

Jimmy Butler III led Golden State with 21 points, while Quinten Post and Brandin Podziemski scored 14 each. Moses Moody contributed 13 and Al Horford added 12.

Andrew Nembhard led Indiana with 14 points. Isaiah Jackson, Jarace Walker, and Jay Huff each scored 12.

The biggest team-level differences were just as important as the individual numbers.

Golden State shot 43 percent from the field compared with Indiana’s 34 percent. The Warriors made 26 free throws compared with eight for the Pacers. Golden State committed 10 turnovers while Indiana committed 20. The Warriors also recorded 11 steals.

Perhaps most importantly, Golden State scored 39 points in the fourth quarter while Indiana scored only 18.

The game therefore illustrates why a complete statistical analysis needs more than a list of top scorers. The combination of efficiency, turnovers, free-throw opportunities, defensive activity, and late-game scoring explains the result far better than any single statistic.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who was the top scorer in the Warriors vs Pacers game?

Jimmy Butler III was Golden State’s leading scorer with 21 points. He also finished as the highest scorer for either team in the November 10, 2025 matchup.

Who led the Pacers in scoring?

Andrew Nembhard led Indiana with 14 points. Isaiah Jackson, Jarace Walker, and Jay Huff each scored 12 points.

What was the final score of Warriors vs Pacers?

The Golden State Warriors defeated the Indiana Pacers 114-83 on November 10, 2025, at Chase Center.

How much did the Warriors win by?

Golden State won by 31 points. The Warriors led 75-65 after three quarters before outscoring Indiana 39-18 in the fourth.

Which team shot better from the field?

Golden State shot 43 percent from the field, making 38 of 88 attempts. Indiana shot 34 percent, making 32 of 94 attempts.

Did the Pacers have any statistical advantages?

Yes. Indiana collected 53 rebounds compared with Golden State’s 50 and shot slightly better from three-point range at 28 percent compared with 27 percent. However, those advantages were outweighed by the Warriors’ stronger overall shooting, free-throw production, and turnover control.

Conclusion

The golden state warriors vs pacers match player stats provide a clear example of how a basketball game can be decided by several smaller advantages working together.

Golden State did not win because of an overwhelming three-point shooting performance. Instead, the Warriors were more effective from the field overall, generated far more free-throw attempts, protected their possessions, created steals, and received balanced scoring from several players.

Jimmy Butler III’s 21 points led the way, but the supporting contributions from Quinten Post, Brandin Podziemski, Moses Moody, and Al Horford helped produce a much more balanced offensive performance.

Indiana’s leading scorer, Andrew Nembhard, finished with 14 points, while three additional Pacers reached 12. Yet the team struggled to convert its 94 field-goal attempts efficiently.

The fourth quarter ultimately became the defining period. Golden State scored 39 points and held Indiana to 18, turning a 10-point lead into a 31-point victory.

For anyone studying this matchup, the central statistical lesson is straightforward: the box score tells a much deeper story when shooting efficiency, free throws, turnovers, steals, rebounds, and scoring distribution are considered together.