Golden State Warriors vs Dallas Mavericks Match Player Stats
The golden state warriors vs dallas mavericks match player stats from March 24, 2026, tell the story of a high-scoring NBA contest that required overtime to decide a winner. The Golden State Warriors defeated the Dallas Mavericks 137-131 at the American Airlines Center in Dallas, Texas. Although Dallas shot a higher percentage from the field, Golden State created more opportunities through rebounding, assists, steals, and second-chance possessions. Moses Moody led the Warriors with 23 points, while Cooper Flagg delivered a standout 32-point performance for the Mavericks. The six-point final margin reflected a competitive game in which offensive efficiency, possession control, and execution in overtime all mattered.
This game is particularly interesting because the team that shot more accurately did not win. Dallas converted 59% of its field-goal attempts, compared with Golden State’s 50%, but the Warriors recorded 49 rebounds and 39 assists. Their 16 steals also helped them generate additional opportunities. Those figures offer a clearer explanation of the result than the final score alone.
This statistical breakdown examines the final result, leading scorers, player contributions, team efficiency, quarter-by-quarter scoring, and the key differences that shaped the overtime finish. All game figures below are based on the supplied ESPN box-score data. Where the supplied totals appear inconsistent, that limitation is identified rather than filled with invented statistics.
Game details: March 24, 2026 | American Airlines Center, Dallas, Texas | Attendance: 18,821 | Final: Warriors 137, Mavericks 131 (OT)
Golden State Warriors vs Dallas Mavericks Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The matchup featured two teams with different statistical strengths. Dallas was more accurate on its field-goal and three-point attempts, while Golden State had the advantage in several categories associated with possession volume and defensive pressure.
| Game statistic | Golden State Warriors | Dallas Mavericks |
| Final score | 137 | 131 |
| Field goals | 51/101 | 51/87 |
| Field-goal percentage | 50% | 59% |
| Three-pointers | 17/47 | 16/36 |
| Three-point percentage | 36% | 44% |
| Free throws | 18/24 | 13/20 |
| Free-throw percentage | 75% | 65% |
| Total rebounds | 49 | 26 |
| Assists | 39 | 37 |
| Turnovers | 24 | 21 |
| Steals | 16 | 13 |
| Blocks | 4 | 3 |
| Offensive rebounds | 17 | 5 |
| Defensive rebounds | 32 | 21 |
| Personal fouls | 25 | 23 |
Source: supplied ESPN NBA box-score data. The listed shooting makes, attempts, and percentages are reproduced from the source data; some team totals may not reconcile perfectly with the individual player rows.
What the final score tells us
Golden State won by six points after the teams finished regulation tied at 126-126. The Warriors scored 11 points in overtime, while Dallas managed five.
That extra period made the difference between a close defeat and a valuable road victory. Golden State was able to maintain its offensive production when the game became more demanding, while Dallas could not match the Warriors’ overtime scoring.
Three statistical themes stand out:
- Possession control: Golden State’s listed 49 rebounds compared with Dallas’s 26 suggest a substantial difference in opportunities to recover the ball.
- Ball movement: The Warriors recorded 39 assists, two more than the Mavericks.
- Defensive disruption: Golden State collected 16 steals, helping put pressure on Dallas’s offensive possessions.
These categories provide useful context, but they should not be interpreted in isolation. The supplied statistics contain discrepancies, so the size of the apparent rebounding advantage should be verified against the official box score before being used for detailed historical comparisons.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Breakdown
The scoring pattern explains why neither team could put the game away in regulation. Golden State started well, Dallas produced a major second-quarter surge, and the Warriors responded after halftime.
| Quarter | Warriors | Mavericks | Quarter winner |
| First quarter | 34 | 31 | Warriors |
| Second quarter | 29 | 42 | Mavericks |
| Third quarter | 35 | 25 | Warriors |
| Fourth quarter | 28 | 28 | Tie |
| Overtime | 11 | 5 | Warriors |
| Final | 137 | 131 | Warriors |
First quarter: Golden State establishes its offense
Golden State scored 34 points in the opening period, three more than Dallas. Both teams found ways to score early, suggesting that neither defense could consistently slow the opposing offense.
The Warriors’ opening production set a competitive pace. However, a three-point advantage after 12 minutes was not enough to establish control of the game.
Second quarter: Dallas takes command
The Mavericks scored 42 points in the second quarter, their highest-scoring period of the night. Golden State managed 29, allowing Dallas to win the quarter by 13 points.
That surge changed the game’s momentum and helped Dallas build a 73-63 halftime lead.
From a statistical perspective, this was an important stretch because it showed Dallas’s ability to exploit scoring opportunities. The Mavericks did not need to dominate the entire game to create a substantial advantage. They needed one highly productive period.
Third quarter: The Warriors respond
Golden State returned from halftime with 35 points in the third quarter, while Dallas scored 25.
The Warriors erased the damage from the second quarter by winning the period by 10 points. Their scoring balance and ability to keep generating offensive possessions helped bring the contest back within reach.
Dallas’s second-quarter advantage had given it control, but Golden State’s third-quarter response demonstrated why a halftime lead does not always translate into a win.
Fourth quarter: Neither team breaks away
Both teams scored 28 points in the fourth quarter. The even scoring meant that neither side gained an advantage during the final 12 minutes of regulation.
The game remained tied at 126-126 after four quarters, sending the teams into overtime.
Overtime: Golden State finishes stronger
The Warriors scored 11 points in overtime and limited Dallas to five. That six-point scoring difference in the extra period matched the Warriors‘ final winning margin.
Overtime places greater pressure on decision-making because every missed opportunity becomes more significant. Golden State’s ability to produce 11 points while holding Dallas to five was the decisive statistical difference.
Golden State Warriors Player Stats and Individual Performances
Golden State’s victory featured a leading scorer, several productive supporting players, and meaningful contributions from the bench. The most useful way to evaluate these performances is to look beyond points alone.
Moses Moody leads Golden State with 23 points
Moses Moody finished with 23 points, the highest total for the Warriors. He made eight of his 20 field-goal attempts, including four three-pointers, and converted three of four free throws.
His recorded line also included three rebounds, three assists, three steals, and two blocks.
| Moses Moody statistic | Result |
| Points | 23 |
| Field goals | 8/20 |
| Three-pointers | 4/11 |
| Free throws | 3/4 |
| Rebounds | 3 |
| Assists | 3 |
| Steals | 3 |
| Blocks | 2 |
| Turnovers | 2 |
Moody’s performance was valuable because he contributed on both ends of the floor. His 23 points led the team, while three steals and two blocks demonstrated defensive activity beyond scoring.
He also made four three-pointers, providing spacing that could open driving lanes and create opportunities for teammates.
His shooting was not perfect. Moody made 40% of his field-goal attempts, so his performance was not simply a story of outstanding accuracy. Instead, it combined scoring volume with defensive contributions and the ability to make perimeter shots.
According to the game recap, Moody suffered an apparent serious left knee injury late in overtime. That incident was an important part of the game’s closing moments and should be distinguished from the statistical evaluation of his performance. The supplied box-score figures alone do not establish his subsequent medical status.
Kristaps Porzingis provides a second scoring option
Kristaps Porzingis scored 22 points, making him Golden State’s second-highest scorer. He converted seven of 17 field-goal attempts, including two three-pointers, and made six of seven free throws.
Porzingis also recorded seven rebounds and five assists.
His combination of size, shooting, and passing gave Golden State another way to attack Dallas. A big player who can score inside, threaten from the perimeter, and make passes creates difficult defensive decisions for an opponent.
Porzingis’s free-throw production was particularly useful. He made six of his seven attempts, allowing him to add points without needing another field-goal attempt for each basket.
Brandin Podziemski delivers an all-around performance
Brandin Podziemski finished with 20 points, 10 rebounds, and six assists, according to the supplied player statistics and corroborating box-score summaries.
His double-double made him one of the most complete contributors in the game.
| Podziemski statistic | Result |
| Points | 20 |
| Rebounds | 10 |
| Assists | 6 |
| Field goals | 8/15 |
| Three-pointers | 2/6 |
| Free throws | 2/2 |
Podziemski’s contribution is a good example of why individual performance should not be measured only by scoring rank. His 10 rebounds helped his team recover possession, while six assists reflected his role in creating opportunities for other players.
He also shot eight of 15 from the field, converting approximately 53% of his attempts. That was an efficient scoring performance relative to the attempts recorded.
The combination of scoring, rebounding, and passing made Podziemski a key part of Golden State’s offensive structure.
Draymond Green contributes through playmaking and defense
Draymond Green recorded 11 points, seven rebounds, and six assists. His five three-point attempts did not produce a made three, but his broader contribution was not limited to shooting.
Green’s passing helped connect the offense, while his defensive activity created additional pressure on Dallas. His recorded six turnovers, however, also represent an area in which Golden State could have improved.
This is an important distinction when interpreting an individual box score. A player can contribute to a winning performance without shooting particularly well, but turnovers still matter because they end possessions without a scoring attempt.
Golden State’s bench supplies valuable scoring
Golden State received useful production from several reserves. The supplied statistics identify Gary Payton II with 17 points, Gui Santos with 16, LJ Cryer with 14, and Will Richard with 12.
| Bench player | Points | Notable contribution |
| Gary Payton II | 17 | Made all eight recorded field-goal attempts |
| Gui Santos | 16 | Added five assists and six rebounds |
| LJ Cryer | 14 | Made four three-pointers |
| Will Richard | 12 | Made four of five field goals |
Payton’s shooting stands out. Making all eight recorded field-goal attempts is an exceptional level of conversion for a single game. His 17 points gave Golden State another reliable scoring option beyond its leading starters.
Santos added value in multiple categories, recording five assists and six rebounds alongside his 16 points. That balanced contribution helped the Warriors maintain offensive activity across the lineup.
Cryer and Richard provided additional perimeter scoring. Both made four three-pointers, helping Golden State generate points without relying entirely on its leading scorers.
The broader lesson is that Golden State’s offense had several sources of production. Moody led the team, but the supporting cast gave the Warriors additional ways to keep pace with Dallas and eventually win.
Golden State’s listed starting lineup
The supplied data lists the following Warriors starters:
- Draymond Green
- Kristaps Porzingis
- De’Anthony Melton
- Moses Moody
- Brandin Podziemski
The individual statistical summary above highlights the players for whom detailed lines are available in the supplied information. It does not assign unverified point totals to every starter.
Dallas Mavericks Player Stats and Individual Performances
Dallas produced an efficient offensive performance and received an outstanding scoring display from Cooper Flagg. The Mavericks also had important contributions from Daniel Gafford and Klay Thompson.
Despite those efforts, Dallas could not turn its shooting advantage into a victory.
Cooper Flagg leads Dallas with 32 points
Cooper Flagg was the Mavericks’ leading scorer, finishing with 32 points and nine assists. The game summary also records four rebounds and seven turnovers.
Flagg’s 32-point performance was one of the game’s defining individual achievements. He was able to score at a high level while also creating opportunities for teammates.
His nine assists show that he was not simply finishing plays. He was also involved in generating offense for other players.
The seven turnovers provide important context, however. A high-usage offensive player often carries a greater responsibility for initiating attacks, but turnovers can reduce the value of otherwise productive scoring and passing.
In this game, Flagg’s individual scoring was excellent, yet Dallas still lost. That contrast demonstrates why player statistics need to be interpreted within the team result rather than treated as an automatic measure of success.
Daniel Gafford provides interior scoring
Daniel Gafford scored 20 points and recorded seven rebounds according to the supplied player summary.
His scoring offered Dallas a second major option alongside Flagg. Interior production can be especially useful when perimeter shots are contested or when defenses focus heavily on the primary ball handler.
Gafford’s contribution gave Dallas an additional source of points and helped the Mavericks maintain offensive pressure.
The available summary does not provide a complete verified shooting line for Gafford, so his field-goal percentage and other unconfirmed figures should not be inferred from his point total.
Klay Thompson adds perimeter scoring
Klay Thompson scored 15 points off the bench in the supplied data. His role offered Dallas another perimeter scoring option and gave the team additional offensive depth.
Thompson’s presence matters because three-point shooting can quickly change a game’s momentum. A made perimeter shot produces three points, and several successful attempts can help a team recover from a scoring deficit.
However, a player’s overall effect depends on more than the number of points recorded. Shooting efficiency, defensive assignments, turnovers, and the timing of made baskets all influence how much a contribution helps a team win.
Additional contributions from the Mavericks’ bench
Dwight Powell and Marvin Bagley III each scored nine points, according to the supplied summary.
These contributions gave Dallas more scoring options beyond its principal players. Even so, the Mavericks’ overall offensive production was not enough to overcome Golden State’s late-game advantage.
The supplied data does not include a complete, reconciled box-score line for every Dallas reserve. For that reason, the analysis focuses on the confirmed scoring totals rather than assigning unsupported rebounds, assists, or shooting percentages.
Dallas’s listed starting lineup
The supplied starting lineup for the Mavericks was:
- Daniel Gafford
- P.J. Washington
- Naji Marshall
- Cooper Flagg
- Max Christie
This lineup combined interior size with perimeter options and Flagg’s ability to create offense. Dallas’s 42-point second quarter illustrated how productive its attack could become when scoring opportunities were converted efficiently.
The challenge was maintaining that level of production across the entire game, especially during the decisive overtime period.
Comparing the Top Player Performances
A direct comparison of the leading players helps explain the different ways each team generated offense.
| Player | Team | Points | Rebounds | Assists |
| Moses Moody | Warriors | 23 | 3 | 3 |
| Kristaps Porzingis | Warriors | 22 | 7 | 5 |
| Brandin Podziemski | Warriors | 20 | 10 | 6 |
| Gary Payton II | Warriors | 17 | 4 | 3 |
| Gui Santos | Warriors | 16 | 6 | 5 |
| Cooper Flagg | Mavericks | 32 | 4 | 9 |
| Daniel Gafford | Mavericks | 20 | 7 | Not confirmed in supplied summary |
| Klay Thompson | Mavericks | 15 | Not confirmed in supplied summary | Not confirmed in supplied summary |
Player figures are drawn from the supplied information and available game summaries. Unconfirmed entries are intentionally left blank rather than estimated.
Scoring leadership versus overall contribution
Flagg led every listed player with 32 points. Moody led Golden State with 23, while Porzingis and Podziemski also reached the 20-point mark.
Dallas therefore had the game’s leading individual scorer, but Golden State had several players close behind its leader. That distribution gave the Warriors multiple ways to sustain their offense.
Podziemski’s double-double and Porzingis’s combination of scoring and passing illustrate how different statistical contributions can support the same team objective.
Playmaking and ball movement
Flagg recorded nine assists, the highest total among the highlighted players. Podziemski and Green each recorded six, while Porzingis and Santos contributed five apiece.
Assists help describe how scoring opportunities are created. They do not measure every useful pass, screen, or off-ball movement, but they offer a clear indication of which players were involved in setting up baskets.
Golden State’s 39 team assists suggest that its scoring was supported by substantial ball movement. Dallas also moved the ball effectively, recording 37 assists.
The difference was small, which means assists alone do not explain the result. Their value becomes clearer when considered alongside rebounding, turnovers, and overtime scoring.
Shooting Efficiency: Why Dallas Lost Despite the Higher Percentage
One of the most striking aspects of this matchup is the difference between shooting accuracy and total scoring opportunities.
Dallas made 51 of 87 field-goal attempts, while Golden State made 51 of 101. Both teams made the same number of field goals in the supplied team totals, but the Mavericks needed fewer attempts to reach that number.
The listed percentages were:
- Dallas field-goal percentage: 59%
- Golden State field-goal percentage: 50%
- Dallas three-point percentage: 44%
- Golden State three-point percentage: 36%
These numbers indicate that Dallas was more accurate from the field and from three-point range. Yet the Warriors still won.
Field-goal percentage does not measure every possession
Field-goal percentage is calculated by dividing successful field goals by total field-goal attempts.
It measures shooting accuracy, but it does not directly account for all the ways a team can create additional scoring opportunities.
For example, a team can recover a missed shot and attempt another field goal. A defensive steal can create a new possession. Free throws can also add points without requiring a successful field-goal attempt.
Golden State’s listed 17 offensive rebounds are relevant because offensive rebounds can extend possessions after missed shots. Dallas recorded five offensive rebounds in the supplied summary.
However, the listed total-rebound figures require care. The supplied table reports 49 rebounds for Golden State and 26 for Dallas, but the offensive and defensive rebound totals, along with other published box-score summaries, do not all reconcile. The official box score should be used when exact rebound totals are required for statistical calculations.
Three-point shooting and scoring volume
Golden State made 17 three-pointers from 47 attempts, while Dallas made 16 from 36.
The Warriors therefore made one more three-pointer despite taking 11 additional attempts. Their greater volume helped compensate for their lower percentage.
A three-pointer is worth one more point than a two-point field goal. Across a high-scoring game, that extra value can make perimeter production a major factor in the final result.
Dallas’s higher three-point percentage shows that it converted a larger share of its long-range attempts. Golden State’s one additional made three, combined with its free-throw advantage, helped keep the scoring contest close.
Free throws and the final margin
Golden State made 18 of 24 free throws, compared with Dallas’s 13 of 20.
That represents a five-point advantage in made free throws for the Warriors.
The figures are important because the final margin was six points. Free throws did not explain the entire result, but the difference was large enough to matter in a close game.
Golden State converted 75% of its free throws, while Dallas converted 65%. Better free-throw conversion allowed the Warriors to collect more points from the opportunities they earned at the line.
A useful way to interpret efficiency
When evaluating a basketball box score, consider these questions together:
- How many field goals did each team make?
- How many three-pointers did each team convert?
- How many free throws did each team make?
- Which team recovered more missed shots?
- Which team created turnovers or extra possessions?
- How did each side perform in the final minutes?
This approach gives a more complete explanation than comparing shooting percentages alone.
Turnovers, Steals, and Defensive Pressure
Turnovers were another important part of the matchup. Golden State recorded 24 turnovers in the supplied statistics, while Dallas recorded 21.
At first glance, that comparison favors Dallas. The Mavericks committed three fewer turnovers, which ordinarily helps a team preserve possession and reduce wasted opportunities.
However, Golden State also recorded 16 steals, compared with Dallas’s 13. The Warriors’ defensive pressure helped them disrupt Dallas’s offense and create opportunities to regain possession.
Why steals matter
A steal can immediately stop an opponent’s possession and sometimes create a fast-break opportunity. It can also force an opposing team to restart its offense under pressure.
Golden State’s 16 steals were a notable defensive statistic. They indicate that the Warriors found ways to interfere with Dallas’s ball handling, although a steal total by itself does not reveal exactly how many points came directly from those plays.
Turnovers require context
The Warriors’ 24 turnovers were a weakness, not an advantage. Giving the ball away can undermine even an efficient scoring night because the team loses the chance to attempt a shot.
Dallas’s 21 turnovers were also costly. The Mavericks needed to protect the ball more effectively, particularly when the game reached its closing stages.
The useful conclusion is not that Golden State won because it committed fewer mistakes. It did not. Rather, the Warriors overcame their own turnovers through other forms of production, including scoring, playmaking, defensive disruption, and overtime execution.
Blocks and defensive activity
Golden State recorded four blocks, while Dallas recorded three.
The difference was modest. Blocks can prevent shots from reaching the basket, but they do not measure every defensive stop. A contested miss, a forced pass, or a possession ending in a turnover can be equally important without appearing in the block column.
For this game, steals and the overall defensive effort provide a broader picture than blocks alone.
Rebounding and Second-Chance Opportunities
Rebounding is one of the most useful categories for understanding the relationship between missed shots and possession control.
When a defense secures a defensive rebound, it can end the opponent’s possession and begin its own transition. When an offense recovers a miss, it gains another chance to score without having to force a turnover or win a jump ball.
The supplied data lists Golden State with 17 offensive rebounds and 32 defensive rebounds. Dallas is listed with five offensive rebounds and 21 defensive rebounds.
Those component totals suggest an advantage for Golden State in both extending possessions and ending Dallas possessions. However, they do not reconcile with the supplied total-rebound figures, and other published summaries list different totals. The directional interpretation should therefore be treated cautiously until the official player and team totals are checked.
What offensive rebounds can change
Offensive rebounds can have several effects:
- They give the offense another scoring opportunity after a miss.
- They can force defenders to remain engaged instead of immediately starting a fast break.
- They can create opportunities for put-backs or passes to open perimeter shooters.
- They can extend possessions late in close games, when every additional shot matters.
Golden State’s listed offensive-rebound advantage is consistent with the idea that extra possessions helped the Warriors offset Dallas’s better shooting percentage.
Rebounding is a team responsibility
Rebounding does not depend solely on the tallest player. Guards can secure long rebounds, forwards can box out opposing players, and centers can protect the area near the basket.
Podziemski’s 10 rebounds are an example of a guard contributing meaningfully in this category. Porzingis and Gafford also supplied interior rebounding, according to the available player summaries.
A full rebounding analysis would examine each player’s minutes, rebound opportunities, contested rebounds, and defensive assignments. The basic box score provides a starting point, but not the entire explanation.
How Golden State Won the Overtime Battle
The Warriors’ overtime performance was decisive. After four quarters ended 126-126, Golden State scored 11 points in the extra period and Dallas scored five.
The difference came down to execution under pressure.
Maintaining scoring options
Golden State had multiple players capable of producing points throughout the game. Moody, Porzingis, Podziemski, Payton, and Santos all reached double figures.
That depth can matter in overtime because defenses often concentrate on the primary scorer. When several players have already demonstrated the ability to score, it becomes harder to defend every option without leaving another player available.
Creating defensive stops
Dallas scored only five points in overtime. Holding an NBA offense to that total over an extra period is significant, especially in a contest in which both teams had already scored heavily.
The available summaries identify late turnovers and missed shots during overtime. Those events reduced Dallas’s chances to build a comeback.
Golden State also had to navigate a difficult finish after Moody’s injury. The closing moments were not simply a matter of maintaining an advantage; both teams were dealing with the pressure and disruption of a game that had extended beyond regulation.
Managing the final possessions
Late-game execution often depends on three basic elements:
- Avoiding turnovers that give the opponent an immediate opportunity.
- Getting a quality shot instead of rushing into a contested attempt.
- Converting free throws when a team has an opportunity to score without running another offensive possession.
Golden State’s overtime result suggests that it handled those demands better overall. The exact contribution of each decision would require a possession-by-possession review rather than the box score alone.
Team Statistics and Tactical Lessons
The broader team numbers reveal why the game was competitive despite Golden State’s eventual win.
The Warriors created a balanced attack
Golden State finished with 39 assists and made 51 field goals. Those numbers suggest that the team combined individual shot creation with opportunities generated through passing.
A balanced attack is valuable because it reduces the pressure on one player to produce every basket. When several players can score, an opponent must defend more than one threat.
The Warriors also had four players on the bench with at least 12 points in the supplied statistics. Their scoring depth helped sustain offensive production over the full game.
Dallas combined accuracy with strong scoring bursts
Dallas’s 59% field-goal percentage and 44% three-point percentage show that the Mavericks converted shots efficiently according to the supplied team totals.
Their 42-point second quarter was particularly important. It demonstrated that the team could generate a high volume of offense in a concentrated stretch.
The problem was sustaining the advantage. Golden State scored 35 points in the third quarter, then matched Dallas’s 28 points in the fourth before winning overtime.
For Dallas, the lesson is that a strong shooting performance needs to be supported by defensive stops and reliable late-game possessions.
Both teams scored effectively inside
The available game summary lists 62 points in the paint for each team.
That equal total suggests that both offenses found ways to score near the basket, whether through drives, cuts, post opportunities, or finishes around the rim.
It also means that the final difference cannot be explained simply by claiming that Golden State dominated interior scoring. The teams produced the same listed number of points in that category.
The more meaningful distinction lies in the overall combination of shooting, turnovers, defensive plays, and the overtime scoring gap.
Fast-break points favored Dallas
The available game summary lists 23 fast-break points for Dallas and 13 for Golden State.
This is an important counterpoint to the Warriors’ win. Dallas was more productive in transition, indicating that it found ways to attack before Golden State’s defense was fully established.
Fast-break scoring often depends on defensive rebounds, steals, and quick decisions after a change of possession. Dallas’s advantage in this category shows that it had an effective route to points, even though that advantage was not enough to secure the game.
Bench production helped keep Golden State competitive
The Warriors’ reserve scoring was one of the clearest positive features of their performance. Payton, Santos, Cryer, and Richard combined for 59 points according to the supplied individual totals.
That combined figure should be interpreted in the context of the listed players and source data, not as a substitute for a fully reconciled team box score.
Even with that qualification, the individual contributions demonstrate that Golden State received meaningful scoring beyond its leading starters.
Dallas also had productive reserves, including Thompson, Powell, and Bagley. The difference was not an absence of bench scoring from the Mavericks, but the way the overall contributions translated into the final result.
Historical Context and Season-Series Implications
The supplied game record lists Golden State at 34-38 and Dallas at 23-49. Those records place the matchup within a season in which both teams were working through difficult standings positions.
The Warriors’ listed away record was 15-23, while the Mavericks’ listed home record was 14-23.
These figures provide context for the result, but they should be understood as the records associated with the supplied game data rather than as current team records.
Why the road win mattered
Winning in Dallas required Golden State to respond after losing the second quarter by 13 points. The Warriors then produced a strong third quarter, remained level in the fourth, and won the extra period.
That sequence demonstrates resilience, but it also shows that a single game cannot be reduced to a team’s record. A team with a losing road record can still execute well enough to win a difficult game, just as a home team can lose despite shooting accurately.
The season series
The supplied information states that Golden State led the season series 2-1 after this game.
That result gave the Warriors the advantage in the recorded head-to-head series at that point. The series figure is useful historical context, although it does not determine either team’s overall season performance.
The importance of verified historical data
For readers researching a completed game, the date, score, quarter totals, and player statistics should be checked against a consistent source. The NBA’s official box-score page for this matchup is available here: Golden State Warriors vs Dallas Mavericks official box score.
This is particularly important when calculating averages, comparing player performances, or using the game as part of a larger season analysis.
Statistical Limitations and How to Read the Box Score
A useful statistical article should distinguish confirmed results from data that requires further verification.
The supplied game information contains several inconsistencies in its team totals. The field-goal makes and attempts are reported as 51/101 for Golden State and 51/87 for Dallas, while the displayed total-rebound values do not align with the listed offensive and defensive rebounds.
Some other published summaries also differ on aggregate rebound and turnover figures. The individual player data and the team-level summary should therefore not be combined indiscriminately to calculate advanced statistics.
Which figures are most useful?
For a straightforward match report, the following information establishes the main story:
- Final score: Golden State 137, Dallas 131.
- Result: Golden State won in overtime.
- Leading Warriors scorer: Moses Moody, 23 points.
- Leading Mavericks scorer: Cooper Flagg, 32 points.
- Leading scoring support: Porzingis with 22 points and Podziemski with 20 for Golden State; Gafford with 20 for Dallas.
- Quarter pattern: Dallas won the second quarter, Golden State won the third, and the Warriors won overtime.
These figures are sufficient to explain the outcome without relying on questionable aggregate calculations.
What should be checked before advanced analysis?
Anyone calculating advanced metrics should verify:
- Each player’s minutes and complete statistical line.
- Total rebounds, including team rebounds where applicable.
- Team turnovers and individual turnover totals.
- Shooting totals and percentages.
- The distinction between regulation and overtime statistics.
This matters because advanced measures depend on accurate inputs. For example, an estimate of possessions or a rebound percentage can be misleading if the underlying rebound totals are inconsistent.
The most responsible approach is to report the confirmed game result and clearly identify uncertain figures rather than manufacture precision.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Golden State Warriors vs Dallas Mavericks game on March 24, 2026?
The Golden State Warriors defeated the Dallas Mavericks 137-131 in overtime at the American Airlines Center in Dallas. The game was tied 126-126 at the end of regulation.
2. Who scored the most points in the game?
Cooper Flagg led all highlighted players with 32 points for Dallas. Moses Moody led Golden State with 23 points, followed by Kristaps Porzingis with 22.
3. What were Moses Moody’s stats against Dallas?
Moody recorded 23 points, three rebounds, three assists, three steals, and two blocks in the available box-score data. He made eight of 20 field-goal attempts and four of 11 three-point attempts.
4. How did Cooper Flagg perform against Golden State?
Flagg scored 32 points and recorded nine assists and four rebounds in the available game summary. He also committed seven turnovers, highlighting the balance between his offensive production and ball-handling mistakes.
5. Why did Golden State win despite Dallas shooting better?
Dallas had the higher listed field-goal and three-point percentages. Golden State compensated through contributions from several scorers, 39 assists, defensive activity, and an 11-5 advantage in overtime. The supplied statistics also indicate a difference in offensive rebounds, although the exact aggregate rebound totals require verification.
6. Where can readers find the complete player box score?
The NBA’s official box-score page provides the game’s player statistics, shooting figures, minutes, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, and turnovers. It is the best starting point for verifying individual lines and conducting more detailed statistical comparisons.
Conclusion
The golden state warriors vs dallas mavericks match player stats show how a game can be decided by more than shooting percentage or an individual scoring performance. Dallas benefited from Cooper Flagg’s 32 points, Daniel Gafford’s 20 points, and an impressive second quarter in which the Mavericks scored 42 points. The team also shot more accurately from the field and beyond the arc.
Golden State, however, received strong scoring contributions from Moses Moody, Kristaps Porzingis, Brandin Podziemski, Gary Payton II, and Gui Santos. Its offense remained productive after halftime, and its defense limited Dallas to five points in overtime.
The final score of 137-131 reflects a contest in which momentum shifted several times before the Warriors secured the victory. Moody’s scoring leadership, Podziemski’s all-around contribution, Flagg’s playmaking, and the decisive overtime period were among the defining elements of the matchup.
For readers studying basketball statistics, the main lesson is to examine scoring, shooting efficiency, turnovers, rebounding, assists, and late-game execution together. No single statistic fully explains the result. It is also important to verify inconsistent aggregate figures before using them for advanced calculations or historical comparisons.
