Pacers vs Charlotte Hornets Match Player Stats

The pacers vs charlotte hornets match player stats from the January 2026 meeting tell the story of a close game that was decided by efficiency, rebounding, late execution, and one of Pascal Siakam’s most important performances of the season. Indiana defeated Charlotte 114-112 at Spectrum Center, with Siakam leading the Pacers with 30 points and 14 rebounds while LaMelo Ball produced 33 points and 8 assists for the Hornets. The game was much closer than the final two-point margin suggests, as neither team led by a huge amount for most of the contest.

For readers studying the box score, the headline numbers are only the starting point. Indiana shot 50% from the field and 44% from three, while Charlotte made more three-pointers but shot only 36% from long range. The Pacers also converted 20 of 21 free throws, giving them a major advantage at the foul line. Charlotte had the superior assist total, but Indiana’s combination of shooting efficiency, rebounding, and defensive activity proved more valuable in the final result.

There is also an important date detail worth noting. The official NBA record lists the game as January 8, 2026, in Charlotte, while some other feeds and reporting systems display January 9 based on publication or time-zone handling. The game itself was played at Spectrum Center in Charlotte and finished 114-112 in Indiana’s favor.

Pacers vs Charlotte Hornets Match Player Stats: Game Overview

Indiana entered the matchup at 7-31 overall and 2-16 on the road, while Charlotte was 13-25 overall and 7-12 at home. On paper, that made the contest look like a favorable opportunity for the Hornets.

The actual game did not follow that expectation.

Indiana opened strongly, scoring 33 points in the first quarter compared with 30 for Charlotte. The Hornets responded with a 28-point second quarter and went into halftime only two points behind.

The third quarter again favored Indiana, 30-29. Charlotte then won the fourth quarter 25-24, but that one-point advantage was not enough to overcome Indiana’s earlier work.

Quarter-by-quarter scoring

Quarter	Pacers	Hornets	Difference
1st	33	30	Pacers +3
2nd	27	28	Hornets +1
3rd	30	29	Pacers +1
4th	24	25	Hornets +1
Final	114	112	Pacers +2

This scoring pattern is important because it shows how little separated the teams. Charlotte won two of the four quarters, yet Indiana won the game because its margins in the first and third quarters created enough cushion.

The Pacers never needed a dominant fourth quarter. They needed to avoid giving back everything they had built earlier.

That is exactly what happened.

Final Score and Team Statistical Comparison

The final score was Indiana Pacers 114, Charlotte Hornets 112.

The overall statistical profile explains why the game stayed close despite Indiana holding several efficiency advantages.

Team Stat	Pacers	Hornets
Points	114	112
Field Goals	41-82	39-86
Field Goal %	50%	45%
3-Point FG	12-27	16-44
3-Point %	44%	36%
Free Throws	20-21	18-24
Free Throw %	95%	75%
Rebounds	41	35
Assists	25	29
Steals	9	8
Blocks	6	3
Offensive Rebounds	10	8
Defensive Rebounds	31	27
Player Turnovers	19	16
Fouls	27	22

The most obvious difference is shooting efficiency.

Indiana made 41 of 82 field-goal attempts. That is exactly 50%. Charlotte made 39 of 86, which worked out to 45%.

That five-percentage-point gap matters in a two-point game.

Charlotte attempted four more field goals and made 16 three-pointers compared with Indiana’s 12. Yet Indiana’s better overall field-goal percentage and superior free-throw accuracy helped compensate for Charlotte’s additional perimeter volume.

The official NBA box score confirms Indiana’s 114 points, Charlotte’s 112 points, Siakam’s 30 points and 14 rebounds, and the individual player statistics from the contest.

Pascal Siakam’s 30-Point Double-Double

Pascal Siakam was the most influential Pacers player in the game.

He finished with:

• 30 points
• 14 rebounds
• 3 assists
• 12-of-23 shooting
• 3-of-4 from three
• 3-of-3 from the free-throw line
• 4 offensive rebounds
• 10 defensive rebounds
• 6 turnovers
• +7 plus-minus

His 30 points came on 52.2% shooting from the field. More importantly, he did not rely exclusively on outside shooting.

Siakam scored 15 points in the first quarter, establishing Indiana’s offensive tone immediately. That early production helped the Pacers build the small advantage that ultimately mattered.

His rebounding was just as important.

Siakam collected 14 rebounds, including four offensive boards. In a game where Charlotte finished with 35 total rebounds compared with Indiana’s 41, those extra possessions had real value.

The official game recap also identifies Siakam’s late driving layup with 11.5 seconds remaining as the decisive basket that put Indiana ahead.

Why Siakam’s rebounding mattered

A 30-point performance gets attention, but the 14 rebounds may have been just as important.

Indiana finished with 10 offensive rebounds. Charlotte had eight.

That means the Pacers were able to create additional possessions even when their initial offensive attempts did not fall.

Siakam contributed directly to that advantage.

His four offensive rebounds were especially useful because offensive rebounds often lead to second-chance points, defensive fouls, kick-out threes, or additional pressure around the basket.

In a game decided by two points, the value of those possessions becomes much larger.

Siakam’s efficiency

Siakam shot:

• 12-of-23 overall
• 3-of-4 from three
• 3-of-3 from the line

His three-point shooting was particularly efficient. A 75% rate from three is not something a team can reasonably expect every night, but it gave Indiana an important boost from its primary scoring option.

At the same time, his six turnovers show that his offensive responsibility came with a cost.

That is an important part of analyzing player performance. A player can dominate the scoring column while still having areas that need improvement.

Siakam’s overall impact was positive because his scoring, rebounding, shooting efficiency, and late-game shot outweighed those mistakes.

T.J. McConnell’s Complete Backcourt Impact

T.J. McConnell provided one of the most valuable supporting performances for Indiana.

He recorded:

• 23 points
• 8 assists
• 4 steals
• 4 rebounds
• 10-of-17 shooting
• 1-of-3 from three
• 2-of-2 free throws
• +10 plus-minus

McConnell’s 23 points were second on the Pacers.

What makes the performance particularly interesting is how efficiently he scored. He made 10 of his 17 attempts, which translates to 58.8% shooting.

His eight assists also matched LaMelo Ball’s eight assists for the game.

That combination made McConnell more than a secondary scorer. He was simultaneously creating offense and applying pressure defensively.

His four steals were the highest total on Indiana.

McConnell as a momentum player

McConnell’s value is often easier to understand through possessions rather than traditional scoring averages.

When he entered the game, Indiana gained another ball handler capable of attacking gaps, keeping the offense moving, and creating shots without requiring Siakam to initiate every possession.

• His 23 points meant Charlotte could not simply focus its defensive attention on Siakam.
• His eight assists meant the Hornets also had to account for his passing.
• His four steals added another source of transition opportunities.

This is why his performance should not be reduced to the phrase “23 points and 8 assists.” The combination of scoring, playmaking, and defensive disruption made his contribution unusually complete.

Aaron Nesmith Provides Efficient Scoring

Aaron Nesmith finished with 16 points, five rebounds, two assists, one steal, and one block.

He shot 5-of-12 from the field and 3-of-7 from three.

His 16 points ranked third for Indiana.

Nesmith also finished with a team-best +17 plus-minus according to the game box score.

That number should not be interpreted as a perfect measure of individual performance, but it does provide useful context. Indiana performed especially well during his minutes.

His 3-of-7 shooting from three gave the Pacers another perimeter threat.

That mattered because Charlotte could not concentrate all of its defensive resources on Siakam or McConnell.

Jay Huff’s Defensive Contribution

Jay Huff produced a quieter but highly useful performance.

He finished with:

• 10 points
• 2 rebounds
• 3 blocks
• 4-of-4 field goals
• 2-of-2 from three
• +13 plus-minus

The most striking part of that line is the combination of perfect shooting and rim protection.

Huff did not need a high number of attempts to influence the game.

He made all four of his field-goal attempts and all two of his three-point attempts.

His three blocks also helped Indiana protect the interior.

This is a good example of why box-score analysis should go beyond the leading scorers. A player with 10 points can still have a major effect on the result if those points come efficiently and the player adds defensive value.

Charlotte Hornets Player Stats

Charlotte’s offensive leader was LaMelo Ball.

Ball finished with:

• 33 points
• 3 rebounds
• 8 assists
• 3 steals
• 12-of-24 shooting
• 7-of-15 from three
• 2-of-2 free throws
• +19 plus-minus

His 33 points were the highest individual total by either team.

He also made seven three-pointers.

That performance is even more notable because Ball came off the bench and played only 27 minutes.

The Charlotte Hornets‘ official recap confirmed that Ball scored 33 points on 12-of-24 shooting, made seven three-pointers, recorded eight assists and three steals, and did so in 27 minutes.

LaMelo Ball’s offensive efficiency

Ball’s 12-of-24 shooting gave him a 50% field-goal rate.

His three-point shooting was 7-of-15, or 46.7%.

Those numbers made him extremely difficult for Indiana to contain.

Charlotte also benefited from his eight assists.

When a player scores 33 points while creating eight assists, the defense is forced into difficult choices.

<span style=”font-weight: 400;”>If defenders pressure the ball, Ball can pass.

If they give him space, he can shoot.</span>

<p>If they chase him over screens, he can attack the next gap.

That offensive flexibility helped Charlotte remain within striking distance throughout the game.

The significance of his plus-minus

Ball’s +19 was the best plus-minus on Charlotte.

That is important because the Hornets lost the game.

It shows that Ball’s individual minutes were highly productive even though Charlotte could not maintain that level across the entire contest.

Plus-minus should never be treated as a standalone player ranking. However, in this particular game it supports the broader observation that Ball was highly effective whenever he was on the floor.

Miles Bridges Delivers a Solid Supporting Game

Miles Bridges recorded:

• 19 points
• 6 rebounds
• 4 assists
• 1 steal
• 7-of-13 field goals
• 3-of-6 three-pointers
• 36 minutes

Bridges was Charlotte’s second-leading scorer.

His 7-of-13 shooting produced an efficient 53.8% field-goal percentage.

He also contributed across several areas rather than simply scoring.

Six rebounds and four assists gave Charlotte additional value from the forward position.

The problem for Charlotte was that even strong performances from Bridges and Ball were not enough to overcome Indiana’s overall efficiency.

Kon Knueppel’s Balanced Contribution

Kon Knueppel finished with:

• 18 points
• 8 rebounds
• 3 assists
• 1 steal
• 5-of-12 shooting
• 2-of-6 from three
• 6-of-6 free throws

His eight rebounds were the team high for Charlotte.

Knueppel also converted every free throw he attempted.

His performance shows how Charlotte generated offense from multiple players.

Ball scored 33.

Bridges scored 19.

Knueppel scored 18.

Those three players combined for 70 points.

Yet Charlotte still finished with only 112 points because the supporting production outside that group was less consistent.

Brandon Miller’s Unusual Low-Scoring Night

Brandon Miller finished with:

• 6 points
• 4 rebounds
• 3 assists
• 2 blocks
• 2-of-8 field goals
• 1-of-5 three-pointers

The scoring total stands out because Miller was one of Charlotte’s important offensive players.

He did, however, contribute defensively.

His two blocks were the highest individual total for Charlotte.

This is an example of why a player stat line should be read in context.

Miller did not have a strong shooting night, but he still contributed through passing, rebounding, and rim protection.

His 19 minutes also indicate that his role and availability were different from the team’s heavier-minute players.

Collin Sexton and Moussa Diabate

Collin Sexton contributed 11 points and five assists.

He shot 5-of-9 from the field and added two steals.

His playmaking was useful because Charlotte finished with 29 assists overall.

Moussa Diabate added 10 points, five rebounds, and one assist.

He shot 2-of-5 from the field but went 6-of-8 from the free-throw line.

The combination of Sexton’s scoring and Diabate’s interior work helped Charlotte maintain offensive balance.

Still, neither player matched the efficiency or volume of the team’s leading scorers.

Pacers vs Charlotte Hornets Match Player Stats: Who Had the Edge?

The most useful way to compare the teams is not simply to ask which players scored the most.

Instead, the game can be broken into several performance categories.

Scoring

Advantage: Charlotte’s LaMelo Ball individually

Ball scored 33 points, the highest total in the game.

However, Indiana had a more balanced top end:

• Siakam: 30
• McConnell: 23
• Nesmith: 16
• Huff: 10

That gave the Pacers four players in double figures from the main rotation.

Charlotte also had four players in double figures:

• Ball: 33
• Bridges: 19
• Knueppel: 18
• Sexton: 11
• Diabate: 10

Charlotte actually had five players reach double figures when Diabate is included.

So the difference was not simply scoring depth.

Shooting

Advantage: Indiana

Indiana shot 50% from the field.

Charlotte shot 45%.

The Pacers also shot 44% from three compared with 36% for Charlotte.

The Hornets made more three-pointers, 16 to 12, but Indiana got better results from its attempts.

Free throws

Advantage: Indiana

Indiana went 20-of-21.

Charlotte went 18-of-24.

Indiana’s 95% free-throw shooting was one of the clearest efficiency advantages in the game.

The Pacers missed only one free throw.

Charlotte missed six.

In a two-point game, that difference is significant.

Rebounding

Advantage: Indiana

Indiana collected 41 rebounds.

Charlotte collected 35.

The Pacers also had 10 offensive rebounds compared with eight for the Hornets.

This created additional possessions and helped offset Charlotte’s advantage in three-point volume.

Playmaking

Advantage: Charlotte

Charlotte recorded 29 assists.

Indiana recorded 25.

Ball’s eight assists and Sexton’s five helped Charlotte generate a strong passing total.

McConnell’s eight assists led Indiana.

Defensive activity

Advantage: Indiana

Indiana finished with nine steals and six blocks.

Charlotte had eight steals and three blocks.

The difference was particularly noticeable in rim protection.

Indiana’s six blocks were double Charlotte’s three.

That defensive activity helped the Pacers survive Charlotte’s high-volume three-point attack.

The Real Story Behind the Two-Point Margin

A two-point final score can make a game look like a coin flip.

This game was close, but the underlying numbers show why Indiana deserved to win.

The Pacers had several small advantages:

1. Five more total rebounds.
2. Two more offensive rebounds.
3. A five-percentage-point advantage in field-goal shooting.
4. An eight-percentage-point advantage in three-point shooting.
5. A 20-of-21 performance from the free-throw line.
6. Six blocks compared with Charlotte’s three.

Charlotte had advantages too:

1. More three-pointers made.
2. More assists.
3. More fast-break opportunities.
4. More total three-point attempts.
5. A game-high 33 points from Ball.

The deciding factor was efficiency.

Charlotte generated a lot of perimeter volume.

Indiana converted its opportunities at a higher overall rate.

That distinction is central to understanding this game.

Late-Game Execution Decided the Contest

The final possessions deserve special attention.

Indiana entered the final moments with the game still within reach for both teams.

Siakam then attacked and converted the driving layup that gave Indiana a 114-112 lead with 11.5 seconds remaining.

Charlotte had an opportunity to respond but could not turn its final possession into the tying or winning basket.

This is where individual player statistics become connected to game context.

Siakam’s 30 points tell us how much he scored.

His final basket tells us when he scored it.

Those are not the same piece of information.

For game analysis, timing matters.

A basket in the first quarter and a basket with 11.5 seconds remaining in a tie or one-possession game have very different competitive value.

What the Turnover Numbers Really Tell Us

The player-level box score lists Indiana with 19 turnovers and Charlotte with 16.

That does not necessarily mean the broader team-stat displays will always show exactly those same figures.

Some basketball statistical systems include team turnovers separately from individual player turnovers. In fact, the ESPN team-stat display for this game shows 20 total turnovers for Indiana and 17 for Charlotte, while the individual player totals sum to 19 and 16 respectively.

For readers comparing box scores across websites, this distinction is important.

It prevents a common mistake: assuming that every statistical category is calculated or displayed in precisely the same way across platforms.

For player analysis, individual credited turnovers are usually the more relevant figure.

For team-level analysis, the provider’s official team total should be used.

Why Charlotte Lost Despite Ball’s 33 Points

It is tempting to conclude that Charlotte simply needed more from Ball.

That explanation is too simple.

Ball delivered an outstanding offensive performance.

The larger issue was efficiency across the entire team.

Charlotte shot 45% overall and 36% from three.

The Hornets also missed six free throws.

At the same time, Indiana shot 50% from the field and 44% from three.

That meant Charlotte needed its superior three-point volume to produce a larger scoring advantage than it ultimately did.

It did not.

Ball scored 33, but Indiana had multiple efficient contributors.

That balance made the difference.

Why Indiana’s Supporting Players Mattered

Siakam’s 30 points understandably dominate the discussion.

But the Pacers would likely have struggled to win without the contributions around him.

McConnell scored 23 and supplied eight assists.

Nesmith scored 16 on 5-of-12 shooting.

Huff scored 10 without missing a field goal and blocked three shots.

Johnny Furphy added seven points, six rebounds and two assists.

Even smaller contributions matter in a game decided by two points.

The Pacers did not need one player to carry every possession.

They needed enough players to win different parts of the game.

That is what happened.

Pacers vs Charlotte Hornets Match Player Stats and the Season Series

The January meeting was the second game between these teams during the 2025-26 regular season.

Indiana won the first meeting 127-118 on November 20, 2025.

Indiana then won the second meeting 114-112.

That gave the Pacers a 2-0 lead in the season series after the January matchup.

The two victories were different in character.

The first game produced 245 combined points.

The second produced 226.

The January game was therefore more defensive and more dependent on late execution.

For readers looking at the broader matchup, that is useful context. The season series was not decided by one identical formula.

Indiana won both games, but the circumstances were different.

What This Game Reveals About Player Value

One of the strongest lessons from this box score is that player value cannot be reduced to scoring.

Consider the different contributions:

Siakam: scoring and rebounding.

McConnell: scoring, assists and steals.

Nesmith: efficient perimeter scoring and two-way activity.

Huff: perfect shooting and rim protection.

Ball: elite scoring, three-point shooting, assists and steals.

Bridges: efficient scoring, rebounding and playmaking.

Knueppel: scoring, rebounding and perfect free-throw shooting.

Miller: defensive protection and passing despite a poor shooting night.

Every player contributes differently.

That is why a good player-stat analysis should examine several categories together.

Advanced Reading of the Shooting Numbers

The Pacers attempted 82 field goals.

The Hornets attempted 86.

So Charlotte had four more attempts.

Yet Indiana scored two more points.

That immediately tells us the Pacers received more value per attempt.

Indiana’s 41 made field goals at 50% shooting were more efficient than Charlotte’s 39 makes at 45%.

Charlotte’s three-point strategy was also aggressive.

The Hornets attempted 44 threes.

Indiana attempted 27.

Charlotte therefore took 17 more three-point attempts.

Despite that huge difference in volume, Indiana still won the game.

This is a useful reminder that three-point volume is not automatically superior to balanced shot selection.

The Hornets made 16 threes, which was excellent volume.

But they made only 36% of those attempts.

Indiana made 12 of 27, producing a much stronger 44% rate.

The Free-Throw Difference Was Huge

Free throws can be overlooked because they do not always create highlight moments.

In this game, they mattered.

Indiana:

20-of-21, 95%

Charlotte:

18-of-24, 75%

Charlotte had six missed free throws.

Indiana had one.

The difference is five made free throws in Indiana’s favor.

The final margin was two points.

That does not mean the free throws alone explain the entire game, but it shows how important foul-line efficiency was.

A team cannot afford to leave easy points behind in a game this close.

Rebounding Created a Hidden Advantage

Indiana won the rebounding battle 41-35.

That is a six-rebound advantage.

The Pacers also won offensive rebounds 10-8.

Offensive rebounds are particularly valuable because they extend possessions.

A missed shot normally ends an offensive possession.

An offensive rebound gives the offense another chance.

Siakam’s four offensive rebounds were therefore more than an individual statistic.

They contributed to a broader team advantage.

Indiana’s 31 defensive rebounds also limited Charlotte’s second opportunities.

The Hornets had only eight offensive rebounds.

That kept the Pacers from facing repeated possessions after initial defensive stops.

Defensive Statistics That Deserve Attention

Indiana recorded six blocks.

Charlotte recorded three.

Indiana also had nine steals.

Charlotte had eight.

The difference was not enormous in steals, but the block advantage was meaningful.

Huff accounted for three Indiana blocks by himself.

Nesmith also recorded one.

Siakam’s overall line did not include a block or steal, but his rebounding helped Indiana finish possessions.

This is another reason the defensive story should not be based only on steals.

A defensive possession can end through:

• A steal
• A blocked shot
• A defensive rebound
• A forced miss
• A turnover
• A missed free throw

The Pacers were effective in several of those areas.

Individual Player Table

Pacers Player	PTS	REB	AST	STL	BLK
Pascal Siakam	30	14	3	0	0
T.J. McConnell	23	4	8	4	0
Aaron Nesmith	16	5	2	1	1
Jay Huff	10	2	0	0	3
Johnny Furphy	7	6	2	1	1
Ben Sheppard	7	4	2	0	0
Tony Bradley	7	3	0	1	0
Micah Potter	5	0	0	0	0
Quenton Jackson	4	0	5	1	1
Ethan Thompson	3	0	0	0	0
Jarace Walker	2	3	1	1	0
Kam Jones	0	0	2	0	0

The table shows the Pacers’ unusual distribution.

Siakam and McConnell did most of the scoring work, but several other players contributed useful secondary numbers.

That balance allowed Indiana to remain competitive even when some players struggled to score.

Charlotte Player Table

Hornets Player	PTS	REB	AST	STL	BLK
LaMelo Ball	33	3	8	3	0
Miles Bridges	19	6	4	1	0
Kon Knueppel	18	8	3	1	0
Collin Sexton	11	0	5	2	0
Moussa Diabate	10	5	1	0	1
Tidjane Salaun	4	2	1	0	0
Sion James	4	2	2	0	0
Josh Green	3	0	0	1	0
PJ Hall	2	4	1	0	0
Liam McNeeley	2	1	1	0	0
Brandon Miller	6	4	3	0	2

The Charlotte table shows a fascinating contrast.

Ball was spectacular.

Bridges and Knueppel were productive.

Sexton and Diabate reached double figures.

Yet the team still lost because Indiana’s efficiency and rebounding advantages outweighed Charlotte’s perimeter production.

What Searchers Should Take Away From This Box Score

If you are researching this game for fantasy basketball, statistical analysis, historical comparison, betting research, or simply trying to understand what happened, several conclusions stand out.

1. Siakam was Indiana’s most complete player

Thirty points and 14 rebounds made him the obvious centerpiece.

His late basket also directly influenced the final result.

2. McConnell was arguably Indiana’s most efficient secondary weapon

His 23 points on 10-of-17 shooting, combined with eight assists and four steals, gave Indiana a major two-way contribution.

3. Ball was the game’s highest-scoring player

His 33 points led everyone.

His seven three-pointers and eight assists made his performance even more impressive.

4. Indiana won the efficiency battle

The Pacers shot 50% overall and 44% from three.

Charlotte shot 45% overall and 36% from three.

5. Free throws mattered

Indiana went 20-of-21.

Charlotte went 18-of-24.

6. Rebounding helped Indiana control possessions

The Pacers won the rebounding battle 41-35.

7. The final margin hides how many small advantages favored Indiana

A two-point victory can come down to one possession, but the Pacers built their advantage across shooting, rebounding, free throws, and defense.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who was the leading scorer in the Pacers vs Hornets game?

LaMelo Ball was the game’s leading scorer with 33 points for Charlotte. Pascal Siakam led Indiana with 30 points.

How many rebounds did Pascal Siakam have?

Pascal Siakam grabbed 14 rebounds, including four offensive rebounds and 10 defensive rebounds.

How many points did LaMelo Ball score?

LaMelo Ball scored 33 points. He also recorded eight assists and three steals while making seven three-pointers.

Who led the Pacers in assists?

T.J. McConnell led Indiana with eight assists. He also scored 23 points and recorded four steals.

Who won the Pacers vs Hornets game?

The Indiana Pacers defeated the Charlotte Hornets 114-112 at Spectrum Center.

What was the Pacers’ season series record against the Hornets?

Indiana won both meetings listed in the 2025-26 season series, giving the Pacers a 2-0 advantage after the January matchup.

Conclusion

The pacers vs charlotte hornets match player stats show a game in which Indiana won through a combination of individual production and team efficiency rather than overwhelming Charlotte in one statistical category.

Pascal Siakam was the central figure for Indiana with 30 points and 14 rebounds, while T.J. McConnell added 23 points, eight assists, and four steals. Aaron Nesmith supplied 16 points, and Jay Huff provided efficient scoring with three blocks.

Charlotte had the game’s leading scorer in LaMelo Ball, who produced 33 points, eight assists, and seven three-pointers in only 27 minutes. Miles Bridges and Kon Knueppel also delivered strong scoring performances, while Charlotte’s 29 assists showed effective ball movement.

The deciding difference came from several smaller advantages working together. Indiana shot 50% from the field compared with Charlotte’s 45%, converted 95% of its free throws, won the rebounding battle 41-35, and recorded six blocks.

Charlotte’s 16 made three-pointers and 29 assists kept the game competitive, but the Hornets could not turn their greater three-point volume into enough efficient scoring.

Most importantly, Indiana executed when the game reached its most important moment. Siakam’s driving layup with 11.5 seconds remaining gave the Pacers the lead they needed, and Charlotte could not answer.

That is why the final 114-112 score should not be viewed as merely a two-point game. It was the result of many small statistical edges, with Indiana consistently finding slightly more value from its possessions.

For anyone analyzing the pacers vs charlotte hornets match player stats, the clearest lesson is that the leading scorer does not always determine the winner. Ball had the biggest scoring total, but Siakam’s combination of scoring, rebounding, efficiency, and late-game execution ultimately had the greater impact on the result.