Charlotte Hornets vs Orlando Magic Match Player Stats
The Charlotte Hornets vs Orlando Magic match player stats tell the story of a one sided NBA Play In Tournament battle where Orlando controlled the game from the opening tip. Played on April 18, 2026, at the Kia Center in Orlando, Florida, the Eastern Conference 8th Seed Game ended with the Magic securing a convincing 121 to 90 victory in front of 19,005 fans. While the final score reflects Orlando’s dominance, the player statistics provide a much deeper understanding of how the game unfolded, which players influenced the result, and where Charlotte struggled throughout the contest.
For basketball fans, coaches, fantasy basketball players, and analysts, reviewing player statistics is about much more than points scored. Shooting efficiency, rebounding, assists, defensive plays, turnovers, and overall team execution often reveal why one team succeeds while another falls short. This game is an excellent example of how balanced team basketball, defensive intensity, and efficient shot selection can outweigh individual scoring performances.
Throughout this analysis, every major performance will be examined using the official game statistics. Rather than focusing only on the box score, this article also explains how those numbers translated into the outcome on the court, giving readers practical insights into one of the most decisive Play In victories of the 2026 NBA postseason.
Match Overview
| Match Detail | Information |
| Tournament | NBA Play In Tournament Eastern Conference 8th Seed Game |
| Match | Charlotte Hornets vs Orlando Magic |
| Date | April 18, 2026 |
| Venue | Kia Center |
| Location | Orlando, Florida |
| Attendance | 19,005 |
| Final Score | Orlando Magic 121, Charlotte Hornets 90 |
| Winner | Orlando Magic |
Both teams entered the Play In Tournament with similar regular season records.
| Team | Regular Season Record |
| Orlando Magic | 45 and 37 |
| Charlotte Hornets | 44 and 38 |
Although only one game separated them during the regular season, the Play In contest looked far more one sided than many expected.
Charlotte Hornets vs Orlando Magic Match Player Stats Overview
The Charlotte Hornets vs Orlando Magic match player stats immediately highlight Orlando’s superiority across nearly every major statistical category.
| Team Statistics | Charlotte | Orlando |
| Points | 90 | 121 |
| Field Goals | 28 of 83 (34%) | 42 of 84 (50%) |
| Three Point Shooting | 12 of 45 (27%) | 8 of 27 (30%) |
| Free Throws | 22 of 25 (88%) | 29 of 37 (78%) |
| Rebounds | 34 | 49 |
| Assists | 17 | 27 |
| Turnovers | 16 | 14 |
| Steals | 7 | 6 |
| Blocks | 4 | 8 |
Several numbers immediately stand out.
- Orlando shot 50 percent from the field.
- Charlotte managed only 34 percent shooting.
- Orlando won the rebound battle by 15 rebounds.
- The Magic recorded 10 more assists.
- Orlando doubled Charlotte’s blocked shots.
These numbers demonstrate a team that executed offensively while protecting the paint and controlling possession.
Quarter by Quarter Breakdown
First Quarter
| Team | Points |
| Charlotte | 16 |
| Orlando | 38 |
The opening quarter effectively decided the game.
Charlotte struggled to establish any offensive rhythm, missing quality opportunities while Orlando converted high percentage shots inside and outside the paint. The Magic also pushed the pace in transition, forcing Charlotte into difficult defensive situations.
A 22 point first quarter deficit placed enormous pressure on the Hornets for the remaining three quarters.
Second Quarter
| Team | Points |
| Charlotte | 21 |
| Orlando | 30 |
Charlotte showed slightly better offensive execution but still failed to slow Orlando’s balanced attack.
Paolo Banchero consistently created scoring opportunities while Franz Wagner and Wendell Carter Jr. capitalized on defensive breakdowns.
By halftime, Orlando led comfortably.
Third Quarter
| Team | Points |
| Charlotte | 34 |
| Orlando | 34 |
This was Charlotte’s best offensive period.
LaMelo Ball became more aggressive attacking the basket while Brandon Miller and Miles Bridges found scoring opportunities.
However, Orlando matched every basket, preventing any momentum swing.
Fourth Quarter
| Team | Points |
| Charlotte | 19 |
| Orlando | 19 |
With the outcome already decided, both teams played a relatively even final quarter.
Orlando maintained complete control and comfortably advanced with a 31 point victory.
Charlotte Hornets Team Performance Analysis
Charlotte entered the game with confidence after finishing the regular season above .500, but several weaknesses became apparent throughout the matchup.
The biggest issue was shooting efficiency.
Converting only 34 percent of field goal attempts is rarely enough to win an NBA playoff style game. Even though the Hornets made twelve three pointers, they needed forty five attempts to achieve that total.
Another concern was rebounding.
Giving Orlando fifteen extra rebounds resulted in more second chance opportunities while limiting Charlotte’s own offensive possessions.
Ball movement also slowed considerably.
Only seventeen assists indicate that Charlotte often relied on isolation basketball rather than creating open shots through consistent passing.
Turnovers also proved costly.
Although sixteen turnovers may not seem excessive, many occurred during Orlando scoring runs that quickly increased the lead.
Orlando Magic Team Performance Analysis
Orlando produced one of its most complete performances of the season.
Rather than relying on one superstar, the Magic received contributions throughout the lineup.
Their offensive balance stood out immediately.
The team shot 50 percent from the floor despite making only eight three pointers. Most scoring came through disciplined ball movement, effective cuts, transition opportunities, and efficient finishes near the basket.
Defensively, Orlando consistently forced Charlotte into contested jump shots.
Eight blocked shots disrupted drives while solid rebounding prevented second chance opportunities.
Perhaps the most impressive statistic was the team’s 27 assists, reflecting excellent chemistry and decision making throughout the game.
As someone who regularly studies NBA postseason basketball, performances like this often translate well into future playoff success because they rely on teamwork instead of individual heroics.
Charlotte Hornets Player Statistics
LaMelo Ball
| Statistic | Total |
| Points | 23 |
| Assists | 5 |
LaMelo Ball finished as Charlotte’s leading scorer with 23 points while also leading the team with five assists.
Despite his production, Orlando consistently pressured him defensively, limiting his ability to create easy scoring opportunities for teammates.
Much of his offense came while Charlotte was already facing a significant deficit.
Miles Bridges
| Statistic | Total |
| Points | 15 |
Bridges provided valuable secondary scoring.
He attacked aggressively when opportunities appeared but never established sustained offensive momentum because Orlando frequently rotated defenders onto him.
Brandon Miller
| Statistic | Total |
| Points | 14 |
Miller continued showing why he remains one of Charlotte’s important young players.
Although his scoring was respectable, Orlando’s defense prevented him from becoming a consistent perimeter threat.
Moussa Diabate
| Statistic | Total |
| Rebounds | 8 |
Diabate led Charlotte in rebounding with eight boards.
However, Orlando’s frontcourt depth limited his impact throughout the contest.
Kon Knueppel
Making his Play In appearance alongside Charlotte’s core players, Knueppel worked hard defensively but found limited offensive opportunities against Orlando’s disciplined defense.
Orlando Magic Player Statistics
Orlando’s victory was built on outstanding teamwork, efficient shot selection, and disciplined defense. While Paolo Banchero led the offense, every starter contributed in meaningful ways, making it difficult for Charlotte to focus on stopping a single player.
Unlike many postseason games where one star carries the scoring load, Orlando displayed a balanced attack. Multiple players scored in double figures, shared playmaking responsibilities, and defended aggressively throughout the night.
Paolo Banchero
| Statistic | Total |
| Points | 25 |
| Assists | 6 |
Paolo Banchero once again proved why he is the centerpiece of Orlando’s franchise. He finished with a game high 25 points while also sharing the team lead with six assists.
What stood out most was his decision making. Rather than forcing difficult shots, Banchero consistently read Charlotte’s defensive coverages and made the correct play. When defenders collapsed into the paint, he found open teammates. When single covered, he attacked confidently and finished efficiently.
His combination of scoring and playmaking set the tone for Orlando’s offense from the opening possession.
Franz Wagner
| Statistic | Total |
| Points | 18 |
| Rebounds | 7 |
| Assists | 6 |
Franz Wagner delivered one of the most complete all around performances of the game.
His 18 points came within the flow of the offense, while his seven rebounds helped Orlando dominate the glass. Wagner also matched Banchero with six assists, demonstrating how frequently the offense ran through both forwards.
Throughout the game, Wagner showed patience with the ball, rarely forcing contested attempts and consistently making high percentage decisions.
Wendell Carter Jr.
| Statistic | Total |
| Points | 16 |
Wendell Carter Jr. quietly controlled the interior.
His scoring around the basket punished Charlotte whenever defenders focused too heavily on Orlando’s perimeter players. Defensively, his positioning helped limit second chance opportunities while contributing to Orlando’s rebounding advantage.
Although his numbers may not attract the most attention, his physical presence played an important role in Orlando’s overall success.
Desmond Bane
| Statistic | Total |
| Rebounds | 7 |
Desmond Bane’s contribution extended beyond scoring.
Matching the team high with seven rebounds highlighted his willingness to compete on both ends of the floor. His defensive effort also helped Orlando limit Charlotte’s transition opportunities.
Players who consistently rebound from the guard position often create extra possessions, and Bane fulfilled that role effectively throughout the contest.
Jalen Suggs
| Statistic | Total |
| Assists | 6 |
Jalen Suggs provided steady leadership at point guard.
Sharing the team lead with six assists, he orchestrated Orlando’s offense with poise while maintaining defensive pressure on Charlotte’s backcourt.
His ball distribution allowed Orlando’s offense to remain unpredictable, making it difficult for Charlotte to anticipate where the next scoring opportunity would develop.
Jamal Cain
| Statistic | Total |
| Bench Points | 9 |
Every successful playoff team benefits from productive bench scoring, and Jamal Cain supplied exactly that.
His nine points gave Orlando valuable offensive production without requiring extended minutes from the starters, helping maintain the team’s energy throughout the game.
Starting Lineups
Charlotte Hornets Starters
| Player |
| LaMelo Ball |
| Miles Bridges |
| Brandon Miller |
| Moussa Diabate |
| Kon Knueppel |
Orlando Magic Starters
| Player |
| Paolo Banchero |
| Franz Wagner |
| Wendell Carter Jr. |
| Desmond Bane |
| Jalen Suggs |
Comparing the Star Performers
| Category | Charlotte Hornets | Orlando Magic |
| Leading Scorer | LaMelo Ball (23) | Paolo Banchero (25) |
| Second Leading Scorer | Miles Bridges (15) | Franz Wagner (18) |
| Third Leading Scorer | Brandon Miller (14) | Wendell Carter Jr. (16) |
| Leading Rebounder | Moussa Diabate (8) | Franz Wagner and Desmond Bane (7) |
| Leading Playmaker | LaMelo Ball (5 assists) | Banchero, Wagner and Suggs (6 assists each) |
One interesting takeaway is that Charlotte relied heavily on LaMelo Ball to generate offense, while Orlando distributed both scoring and playmaking responsibilities among several players.
That balance made Orlando much more difficult to defend.
Why Orlando Won the Game
Looking beyond the final score, several statistical advantages explain Orlando’s dominant performance.
Superior Shooting Efficiency
Perhaps the biggest difference was field goal percentage.
Charlotte converted only 34 percent of its attempts, while Orlando finished at an impressive 50 percent.
That sixteen percentage point gap represents numerous additional made baskets over the course of the game and created a scoring cushion that Charlotte never overcame.
Rebounding Control
Winning the rebounding battle by fifteen boards had a significant impact.
Every defensive rebound prevented Charlotte from earning extra possessions, while offensive rebounds allowed Orlando to extend possessions and wear down the Hornets’ defense.
Strong rebounding often reflects effort and positioning, and Orlando excelled in both areas.
Better Ball Movement
The Magic recorded 27 assists compared to Charlotte’s 17.
This difference illustrates Orlando’s commitment to sharing the basketball instead of relying on isolation plays.
Teams that consistently move the ball force defenders to rotate more frequently, creating open looks and higher quality scoring opportunities.
Interior Defense
Although Charlotte attempted forty five three point shots, many of those attempts came because Orlando protected the paint effectively.
The Magic finished with eight blocked shots while contesting numerous additional attempts near the rim.
That defensive presence forced Charlotte into difficult perimeter shots throughout the evening.
Team Statistical Comparison
| Category | Advantage |
| Points | Orlando Magic |
| Field Goal Percentage | Orlando Magic |
| Three Point Percentage | Orlando Magic |
| Rebounds | Orlando Magic |
| Assists | Orlando Magic |
| Blocks | Orlando Magic |
| Ball Movement | Orlando Magic |
| Offensive Efficiency | Orlando Magic |
Charlotte’s only notable statistical edge came from free throw accuracy, converting 88 percent compared to Orlando’s 78 percent.
However, free throw percentage alone could not overcome deficits in nearly every other category.
Coaching and Game Management
Play In Tournament basketball places enormous pressure on coaching staffs because every possession can influence a team’s season.
Orlando’s coaching approach emphasized patience on offense and discipline on defense.
Rather than speeding up the game unnecessarily, the Magic consistently worked for quality scoring opportunities while forcing Charlotte into rushed possessions.
Charlotte, on the other hand, struggled to recover after falling behind early.
Once the first quarter ended with a substantial deficit, the Hornets were forced to chase the game. That often resulted in quicker shot attempts and increased offensive pressure, making a comeback even more difficult.
What This Game Means for Both Teams
For Orlando, this performance demonstrated the value of balanced basketball.
Instead of depending on one player to dominate statistically, multiple contributors stepped forward in different aspects of the game. That type of depth is especially valuable during postseason competition, where opponents have more time to prepare defensively.
For Charlotte, the loss highlights several areas that deserve attention moving forward.
Improving shooting consistency, strengthening interior rebounding, and reducing offensive stagnation could help the team become more competitive in future postseason appearances.
The talent within Charlotte’s roster remains evident, but translating individual ability into collective success will be an important next step.
The Charlotte Hornets vs Orlando Magic match player stats reveal much more than a 121 to 90 final score. They showcase how efficient offense, balanced scoring, disciplined defense, and consistent teamwork can decide a high stakes postseason game.
Advanced Insights From the Match
The Charlotte Hornets vs Orlando Magic match player stats reveal several trends that extend beyond the traditional box score. Looking closely at the numbers helps explain why Orlando controlled the contest from the opening minutes and why Charlotte was unable to mount a comeback.
The most significant factor was efficiency. Orlando attempted 84 field goals and converted 42 of them, resulting in a 50 percent shooting performance. Charlotte attempted almost the same number of shots, 83, but made only 28. That difference of 14 made field goals equals 28 points, which accounts for nearly the entire margin of victory.
Another important statistic was assists. Orlando finished with 27 assists, indicating that most of its scoring opportunities came from organized ball movement rather than isolation basketball. Charlotte managed only 17 assists, suggesting that the offense became stagnant for long stretches.
Rebounding also shaped the outcome. Orlando collected 49 rebounds compared to Charlotte’s 34. Winning the rebound battle by 15 possessions meant the Magic controlled the pace while limiting Charlotte’s second chance opportunities.
Defensively, Orlando recorded eight blocked shots and consistently disrupted Charlotte’s drives into the paint. Those defensive plays forced the Hornets to rely heavily on perimeter shooting, where they connected on only 27 percent of their three point attempts.
Biggest Takeaways
Several lessons emerge from this Eastern Conference Play In matchup.
Orlando’s Balanced Offense Was the Difference
Three different Orlando starters scored at least 16 points, while multiple players contributed as facilitators. This balanced production prevented Charlotte from focusing its defensive attention on one player.
Charlotte Needed a Faster Start
The opening quarter ended 38 to 16 in favor of Orlando. Falling behind by 22 points in a postseason game dramatically reduced Charlotte’s chances of recovering, even though the remaining three quarters were much more competitive.
Team Basketball Outperformed Individual Brilliance
LaMelo Ball played well individually with 23 points and five assists, but Orlando’s collective execution proved far more effective than relying on one primary playmaker.
Defense Created Offensive Opportunities
Many of Orlando’s scoring possessions began with strong defensive stops, rebounds, or forced turnovers. That defensive discipline allowed the Magic to attack before Charlotte’s defense became organized.
Experience Under Pressure Mattered
Play In Tournament games often reward teams that remain composed during high pressure moments. Orlando maintained its offensive structure throughout the game and rarely allowed Charlotte to build meaningful momentum.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who scored the most points in the Charlotte Hornets vs Orlando Magic game?
Paolo Banchero led all players with 25 points for Orlando Magic, while LaMelo Ball scored 23 points for Charlotte Hornets.
What was the final score?
Orlando Magic defeated Charlotte Hornets by a final score of 121 to 90 in the NBA Play In Tournament Eastern Conference 8th Seed Game.
Which team had better shooting efficiency?
Orlando shot 50 percent from the field, while Charlotte finished at 34 percent, giving the Magic a significant offensive advantage.
Who led the game in assists?
Paolo Banchero, Franz Wagner, and Jalen Suggs each recorded six assists to share the team lead for Orlando.
Which player grabbed the most rebounds?
Moussa Diabate led Charlotte with eight rebounds, while Franz Wagner and Desmond Bane each collected seven rebounds for Orlando.
Conclusion
The Charlotte Hornets vs Orlando Magic match player stats provide a complete picture of why Orlando secured a convincing victory in this Eastern Conference Play In Tournament matchup. While Charlotte featured solid individual performances from LaMelo Ball, Miles Bridges, and Brandon Miller, Orlando’s balanced offensive attack, efficient shooting, superior rebounding, and disciplined defense ultimately decided the contest.
The first quarter established the tone, and Orlando never surrendered control. Contributions from Paolo Banchero, Franz Wagner, Wendell Carter Jr., Jalen Suggs, Desmond Bane, and the supporting cast highlighted the value of teamwork over individual scoring. The statistical comparison confirms that Orlando excelled in nearly every major category, including field goal percentage, rebounds, assists, and defensive impact.
For analysts, basketball fans, and fantasy sports enthusiasts, this game serves as an excellent example of how efficiency and ball movement often determine postseason success more than individual scoring totals alone.
