The orlando magic vs charlotte hornets match player stats from April 18, 2026, tell the story of a dominant Orlando performance in the NBA Play-In Tournament. The Magic defeated the Hornets 121-90 at the Kia Center in Orlando, Florida, using a remarkable first quarter, efficient shooting, and superior rebounding to establish control. Paolo Banchero led Orlando with 25 points, five rebounds, and six assists, while LaMelo Ball scored 23 points for Charlotte. The 31-point victory reflected the difference between the teams across several important statistical categories, particularly field-goal percentage, total rebounds, assists, and interior defense.

The result was especially significant because the game was an Eastern Conference Play-In matchup with an eighth seed at stake. Orlando entered with a 45-37 regular-season record, while Charlotte finished at 44-38. Despite their similar overall records, the teams produced very different performances on the court. Orlando built a 38-16 advantage in the opening quarter and never surrendered its commanding lead.

This breakdown examines the final score, individual player performances, team shooting numbers, quarter-by-quarter scoring, tactical differences, and the most important lessons from the game. The goal is to explain not only who scored the most points, but also why Orlando won so convincingly and which statistics best explain Charlotte’s struggles.

Table of Contents

Orlando Magic vs Charlotte Hornets Match Player Stats: Game Overview

The April 18 matchup took place at the Kia Center before an announced attendance of 19,005. Orlando used its home-court advantage to establish an early rhythm and put Charlotte under immediate pressure.

Orlando Magic

45-37 regular season

121

FINAL

90

31-point margin

Charlotte Hornets

44-38 regular season

Date

April 18, 2026

Venue

Kia Center, Orlando

Competition

Eastern Conference Play-In

Attendance

19,005

Final score by quarter

Quarter	Orlando Magic	Charlotte Hornets
First	38	16
Second	30	21
Third	34	34
Fourth	19	19
Final	121	90

Orlando won the first half 68-37. Both teams scored 34 points in the third quarter and 19 in the fourth, meaning Charlotte did not lose additional ground during the second half. However, the Hornets could not reduce the substantial deficit created before halftime.

The opening quarter was the decisive stretch. Orlando outscored Charlotte by 22 points in those 12 minutes, giving the Magic enough separation to manage the remainder of the contest without needing another scoring surge.

Complete Team Statistics

The team numbers explain how Orlando converted its early lead into a comfortable victory. The Magic shot more accurately, collected more rebounds, created more assists, and recorded twice as many blocks as Charlotte.

Team statistic	Orlando Magic	Charlotte Hornets
Points	121	90
Field goals	42/84	28/83
Field-goal percentage	50%	34%
Three-pointers	8/27	12/45
Three-point percentage	30%	27%
Free throws	29/37	22/25
Free-throw percentage	78%	88%
Total rebounds	49	34
Offensive rebounds	11	7
Defensive rebounds	38	27
Assists	27	17
Turnovers	14	16
Steals	6	7
Blocks	8	4
Personal fouls	31	33

Percentages are rounded to whole numbers from the supplied game statistics.

Three categories stand out immediately.

First, Orlando made 42 of 84 field-goal attempts, while Charlotte converted only 28 of 83. That is a difference of 14 made field goals despite both teams attempting almost the same number of shots.

Second, Orlando collected 15 more rebounds. That advantage helped the Magic control missed shots and limited Charlotte’s opportunities to extend possessions through offensive rebounds.

Third, Orlando recorded 27 assists compared with Charlotte’s 17. The difference suggests that the Magic generated more successful scoring opportunities through passing and coordinated offense.

Charlotte’s seven steals exceeded Orlando’s six, and the Hornets also had a higher free-throw percentage. Neither advantage was large enough to offset their problems converting field goals and securing rebounds.

Orlando Magic Player Stats and Individual Performances

Orlando’s victory was a team effort, but several players made particularly important contributions. Banchero led the scoring, Wagner provided secondary creation, and Carter gave the offense an efficient presence around the basket. The starting group combined scoring with passing, rebounding, and defensive pressure.

Paolo Banchero: 25 points, 5 rebounds, 6 assists

Paolo Banchero

Forward | Orlando Magic

25 PTS

5 rebounds · 6 assists · 2 steals · 1 block

Field goals: 9/17 | Three-pointers: 2/6

Banchero was Orlando’s leading scorer and one of the main reasons the Magic established control early. He finished with 25 points on 9-of-17 shooting, along with five rebounds, six assists, two steals, and one block.

His scoring efficiency was particularly valuable. Banchero made more than half of his field-goal attempts while contributing as a passer. That combination made him difficult to defend because Charlotte had to account for both his ability to finish possessions and his capacity to create opportunities for teammates.

His six assists also demonstrate that his influence extended beyond scoring. When defenders focused on stopping him, Orlando had other players available to benefit from the space created.

Key takeaway: Banchero’s performance combined efficient scoring, playmaking, and defensive activity. He was not simply the leading scorer on the winning team; he helped Orlando maintain control in several areas.

Franz Wagner: 18 points, 7 rebounds, 6 assists

Franz Wagner

Forward | Orlando Magic

18 PTS

7 rebounds · 6 assists · 1 steal

Field goals: 5/10 | Free throws: 8/10

Wagner scored 18 points and matched Banchero with six assists. He also collected seven rebounds, giving Orlando another reliable contributor in the frontcourt.

One notable part of his performance was his ability to score at the free-throw line. Wagner converted eight of ten attempts, adding points without requiring additional field-goal attempts. His five made field goals on ten attempts also gave him a 50% field-goal percentage.

Having two players who can score and facilitate reduces the pressure on any single creator. Charlotte could not concentrate exclusively on Banchero without also accounting for Wagner’s ability to attack scoring opportunities and involve teammates.

Key takeaway: Wagner’s balanced stat line strengthened Orlando’s offensive structure. His scoring, rebounding, and passing helped prevent Charlotte from focusing its defensive attention on one player.

Wendell Carter Jr.: 16 points, 6 rebounds

Wendell Carter Jr.

Center | Orlando Magic

16 PTS

6 rebounds · 1 assist · 1 block

Field goals: 6/7 | Three-pointers: 2/2

Carter produced one of Orlando’s most efficient scoring performances. He made six of seven field-goal attempts, including both of his three-point attempts, to finish with 16 points.

His shooting percentage of approximately 85.7% stands out, although it must be considered alongside his relatively low number of attempts. It would be misleading to assume he could maintain that rate with a much larger scoring workload. Still, converting six of seven shots gave Orlando substantial value from its center position.

Carter’s ability to finish efficiently also complemented the creation of Banchero and Wagner. When primary ball handlers draw defensive attention, an effective interior player can turn the resulting opportunities into high-value shots.

Key takeaway: Carter supplied efficient interior scoring and contributed to Orlando’s overall advantage on the glass.

Desmond Bane: 13 points, 7 rebounds, 3 steals

Desmond Bane scored 13 points and recorded seven rebounds and three steals. His defensive activity was particularly notable because he generated more steals individually than any other Orlando player listed in the supplied statistics.

Bane shot 4-of-14 from the field, so his scoring efficiency was below that of several teammates. However, his total contribution cannot be judged from shooting alone. The three steals created additional defensive value, while his seven rebounds helped Orlando control possession.

His performance illustrates why individual box scores need context. A player can have a difficult shooting night and still contribute through defense, rebounding, and other areas.

Jalen Suggs: 12 points, 5 rebounds, 6 assists

Suggs finished with 12 points, five rebounds, six assists, and one block. He made five of eight field-goal attempts and two of five three-point attempts.

His six assists matched the totals of Banchero and Wagner. That distribution matters because it shows Orlando had several players capable of organizing its offense rather than depending on a single facilitator.

Suggs also added defensive presence and helped connect the starting lineup. His contribution was not the largest by points, but his balanced numbers supported Orlando’s ability to move the ball and sustain offensive pressure.

Orlando’s bench contribution

Orlando received useful production from its reserves, including nine points from Jamal Cain and seven from Goga Bitadze.

Bitadze added four rebounds, two assists, and four blocks in the supplied box-score data. His rim protection was a particularly important supporting contribution, even though his scoring total was modest.

Cain’s nine points gave Orlando another scoring option outside its main group. Bench scoring can be especially useful in a game where the starting lineup establishes an early lead because reserves can help preserve momentum when starters rest.

Orlando’s success was therefore not limited to its two leading scorers. Multiple players supplied points, defensive activity, or passing that helped the team sustain its advantage.

Charlotte Hornets Player Stats and Individual Performances

Charlotte’s individual numbers reveal a more complicated picture. LaMelo Ball scored 23 points, and Miles Bridges and Brandon Miller also reached double figures. Yet the team’s poor first-quarter shooting created a deficit that individual scoring could not overcome.

LaMelo Ball: 23 points, 5 assists

LaMelo Ball

Guard | Charlotte Hornets

23 PTS

2 rebounds · 5 assists

Scored 21 points in the third quarter

Ball led Charlotte with 23 points and five assists. The most striking detail was the timing of his scoring: according to the game recap, he scored 21 of his 23 points in the third quarter.

That scoring burst demonstrated his ability to generate offense, but it also highlighted the challenge Charlotte faced. The Hornets had scored only 37 points in the first half, when Orlando had already built a 35-point advantage. Ball’s third-quarter production helped Charlotte match Orlando’s 34 points in that period, but it could not erase the earlier damage.

Ball’s first-half difficulties were also important. The game recap reported that he was scoreless when he left the floor with three fouls during the second quarter. Losing a primary creator’s normal impact during a crucial stretch made it harder for Charlotte to build an early offensive rhythm.

Key takeaway: Ball’s scoring ability was clear, but the timing of his production limited its effect on the final result. Earlier contributions could have helped Charlotte avoid such a large deficit.

Miles Bridges: 15 points, 2 rebounds

Miles Bridges

Forward | Charlotte Hornets

15 PTS

2 rebounds · 1 assist

Bridges finished with 15 points, making him Charlotte’s second-highest scorer in the supplied summary. His scoring provided support alongside Ball, but the team needed more efficient production across the lineup.

When an opponent opens with a 22-point first-quarter advantage, scoring contributions must be supported by defense and rebounding. Charlotte’s overall field-goal percentage of 34% made it difficult for Bridges and his teammates to turn offensive possessions into consistent progress on the scoreboard.

Brandon Miller: 14 points, 3 rebounds, 2 steals

Miller scored 14 points and added three rebounds, one assist, and two steals. His defensive contributions helped Charlotte generate some disruption, but the Hornets still struggled to stop Orlando’s offense.

Miller’s two steals were part of a team total of seven, one more than Orlando recorded. However, forcing occasional turnovers is not enough if the resulting offensive possessions do not produce points at an adequate rate.

Charlotte needed a more consistent combination of perimeter defense, defensive rebounding, and accurate shooting. Miller’s individual activity could contribute to that objective, but the team statistics show that Charlotte did not achieve it over the full game.

Moussa Diabate: 2 points, 8 rebounds, 3 blocks

Diabate’s stat line included only two points, but he contributed eight rebounds, two assists, and three blocks. Those numbers make him an important example of why scoring totals do not capture every part of a basketball performance.

His eight rebounds tied for the highest individual total among the Charlotte players listed in the supplied data, and his three blocks demonstrated defensive activity near the basket.

However, Charlotte’s total of 34 rebounds was still well below Orlando’s 49. Diabate’s work on the boards could not compensate for the team’s collective rebounding disadvantage.

Kon Knueppel: 11 points, 3 rebounds

Knueppel contributed 11 points, three rebounds, one assist, and one steal. His double-digit scoring offered another source of offense, but Charlotte needed more players to convert their opportunities efficiently.

When the team’s overall field-goal percentage is just 34%, even several players reaching double figures may not be enough to remain competitive against a team shooting 50%.

Charlotte’s bench production

The supplied summary credits Josh Green with six points and Tre Mann with four. These contributions provided some scoring support, but Charlotte did not generate enough collective offense to challenge Orlando’s lead.

The available summary does not provide complete individual shooting details for every Hornets reserve. For that reason, conclusions about each bench player’s efficiency should be based on the full official box score rather than points alone.

Why Orlando Won: Five Statistical Factors

The final score was not the result of one isolated advantage. Orlando performed better in several areas that reinforced one another. The most useful way to understand the game is to connect the statistics with the decisions and possessions they represent.

1. The first quarter changed the game

Orlando scored 38 points in the opening quarter, while Charlotte managed only 16. A 22-point advantage after 12 minutes placed the Hornets in a difficult position before the game had developed fully.

Charlotte’s shooting struggles were central to that opening. The game recap reported that the Hornets made five of their first 20 shots and committed six turnovers in the first quarter. That combination limited their scoring while giving Orlando opportunities to extend the lead.

A large early deficit changes the choices available to an offense. A team trailing by a few points can continue running its normal sets, but a team facing a deficit of more than 20 points may feel pressure to create quicker shots and attempt more three-pointers.

Charlotte’s eventual total of 45 three-point attempts reflects how heavily the team relied on the perimeter. Although the game statistics do not establish that the early deficit alone caused every later shot selection, the sequence helps explain why the Hornets struggled to get back into the contest.

2. Orlando’s field-goal accuracy created a major advantage

Orlando converted 42 of 84 field-goal attempts, compared with Charlotte’s 28 of 83.

Shooting measure	Orlando	Charlotte
Field goals made	42	28
Field goals attempted	84	83
Field-goal percentage	50.0%	33.7%
Made field goals advantage	+14	-14

The difference was not primarily the number of attempts. Both teams attempted almost the same number of field goals, but Orlando made 14 more.

This is one of the clearest explanations for the final margin. When teams have similar shot volumes, the team that converts a larger share of its opportunities is more likely to control the scoreboard.

Orlando’s 50% shooting also reduced the pressure on its offense to rely exclusively on three-pointers. The Magic could score through different types of field goals and use their passing to find more favorable opportunities.

3. Rebounding gave Orlando greater control of possession

Orlando collected 49 rebounds, while Charlotte recorded 34. The 15-rebound difference was one of the largest statistical gaps in the game.

The breakdown is equally revealing:

Offensive rebounds: Orlando 11, Charlotte 7.
Defensive rebounds: Orlando 38, Charlotte 27.
Total rebounds: Orlando 49, Charlotte 34.

Defensive rebounds matter because they end an opponent’s possession. When a team secures a missed shot, it can move into offense instead of allowing the other team another chance to score.

Offensive rebounds create the opposite opportunity. They allow a team to recover its own miss and continue attacking.

Orlando held the advantage in both categories. That indicates the Magic were better at ending Charlotte’s possessions and recovering their own missed shots.

Rebounding also has a psychological and tactical effect. A team that repeatedly loses the battle for loose balls and missed shots may find it harder to establish defensive positioning and maintain its preferred pace.

4. Orlando created more scoring opportunities for teammates

Orlando recorded 27 assists, ten more than Charlotte’s 17.

An assist is not a complete measure of offensive quality, but it offers useful evidence about how scoring opportunities are created. The Magic’s higher total suggests that a greater share of their successful field goals came from passes credited as assists.

Banchero, Wagner, and Suggs each recorded six assists. Having three players reach that total made Orlando’s offense less dependent on a single playmaker.

Charlotte, meanwhile, relied heavily on Ball for creation. He recorded five assists, but the team finished with ten fewer assists than Orlando overall.

A balanced passing attack can make a defense harder to predict. If one player attracts extra attention, teammates can benefit from the resulting space. Orlando’s distribution of assists is consistent with an offense that had several players involved in generating successful possessions.

5. Orlando protected the advantage without needing a late scoring surge

The third quarter ended 34-34, and both teams scored 19 points in the fourth. Charlotte did not lose additional ground in either period.

This detail matters because it separates the decisive part of the game from the closing stages. Orlando did not need to win every quarter to secure a comfortable victory. Its first-half performance had already created a margin large enough to absorb Charlotte’s improved third-quarter scoring.

The Magic’s approach after halftime can therefore be understood in the context of the scoreboard. Once a team has established a substantial lead, maintaining control and avoiding a collapse may be more important than increasing the margin further.

The final 31-point difference reflected Orlando’s early dominance rather than a late-game scoring separation.

Shooting Efficiency and Three-Point Strategy

The perimeter numbers offer another useful way to examine the matchup. Charlotte made more three-pointers than Orlando, but that advantage did not translate into a better overall offensive result.

Three-point statistic	Orlando Magic	Charlotte Hornets
Three-pointers made	8	12
Three-pointers attempted	27	45
Three-point percentage	29.6%	26.7%

Charlotte made four more three-pointers, but it attempted 18 more. The Hornets’ 45 attempts represented more than half of their 83 field-goal attempts.

This strategy created opportunities for additional points from beyond the arc, but the conversion rate was low. Charlotte made approximately 26.7% of its three-point attempts, compared with Orlando’s 29.6%.

There is an important distinction between making more three-pointers and having a more efficient offense. A made three-pointer is worth three points, but missed attempts do not help the scoreboard. A team can win the three-point count and still lose comfortably if it struggles with two-point shooting, rebounding, turnovers, or free-throw opportunities.

Orlando’s eight made three-pointers were not an exceptional volume, but its 42 total field goals and 29 made free throws provided scoring through other routes.

The role of free throws

Orlando attempted 37 free throws and made 29, converting approximately 78.4%. Charlotte attempted 25 and made 22, converting 88%.

Charlotte was more accurate at the line, but Orlando made seven more free throws because it attempted 12 more.

The difference illustrates why percentage and volume should be assessed together. A high conversion rate is valuable, but it does not guarantee a team will score more points from the line when the opponent has substantially more attempts.

Orlando’s free-throw volume complemented its field-goal advantage and helped the Magic reach 121 points.

Defensive Impact: Blocks, Steals, and Turnovers

The defensive statistics also favored Orlando in several important categories.

Defensive measure	Orlando	Charlotte
Blocks	8	4
Steals	6	7
Opponent turnovers	16 by Charlotte	14 by Orlando
Personal fouls	31	33

Orlando recorded twice as many blocks as Charlotte. That difference suggests the Magic had a greater statistical impact on attempts near the basket, although blocks alone cannot show every aspect of rim protection.

Bitadze’s four blocks were particularly notable in the supplied player statistics. Diabate led Charlotte’s listed players with three.

Charlotte recorded one more steal than Orlando, but the Hornets also committed 16 turnovers compared with Orlando’s 14. The Magic’s ability to limit turnovers helped them retain possession while their shooting advantage did the rest.

Personal fouls were high for both teams, with Orlando committing 31 and Charlotte 33. Those figures should be interpreted carefully: a foul count alone does not establish whether a team defended poorly, since fouls vary in location, timing, and consequence. In this game, the free-throw totals provide a more direct view of the resulting scoring opportunities.

For a detailed verification of the final team and individual figures, readers can consult the official ESPN box score for Hornets vs. Magic.

How the First Half Established Orlando’s Control

The halftime score was Orlando 68, Charlotte 37. That 31-point gap was already equal to the final margin of victory.

The first two quarters show how the lead developed:

Orlando won the first quarter 38-16.
Orlando won the second quarter 30-21.
The Magic entered halftime ahead by 31 points.

The opening quarter was especially damaging for Charlotte. Its poor shooting and six turnovers restricted scoring while Orlando built momentum. The Hornets then lost the second quarter by another nine points, allowing the deficit to grow rather than stabilize.

Ball’s foul trouble in the first half added another challenge. As the team’s leading scorer and an important playmaker, his limited early impact made it harder for Charlotte to generate the offense needed to match Orlando.

The broader lesson is that a strong first quarter can have an effect beyond the points scored. It can force the opponent to play from behind, make adjustments earlier than planned, and spend the rest of the game trying to repair a deficit.

What the Second Half Reveals

Charlotte’s second-half performance was better in terms of scoring output. The Hornets scored 53 points after halftime, compared with Orlando’s 53.

Ball’s 21-point third quarter was the central individual contribution during that period. His scoring helped Charlotte match Orlando’s 34 points in the third quarter, and both teams then scored 19 in the fourth.

However, matching the opponent’s output is not enough when the initial deficit is so large. Charlotte needed to outscore Orlando by a substantial margin in the second half to make the contest competitive, not merely keep pace.

Orlando’s ability to avoid a major collapse was just as important as its first-half dominance. The Magic did not allow the Hornets to build the sustained run required to threaten the lead.

This is why quarter-by-quarter analysis provides more information than the final score alone. It shows that Orlando’s advantage was established early and maintained, while Charlotte’s most productive stretch arrived after the game had already tilted heavily in Orlando’s favor.

Orlando Magic vs Charlotte Hornets Match Player Stats: Key Takeaways

The individual and team figures provide several practical conclusions for anyone studying this matchup.

Paolo Banchero led Orlando’s offense. His 25 points, six assists, and five rebounds made him the team’s leading scorer and one of its main creators.
Orlando’s supporting cast was highly effective. Wagner contributed 18 points and six assists, while Carter scored 16 points on seven field-goal attempts.
LaMelo Ball produced a major scoring burst. He finished with 23 points, including 21 in the third quarter, but his scoring came too late to change the outcome.
Shooting accuracy was a decisive difference. Orlando made 50% of its field goals, compared with Charlotte’s approximately 34%.
Rebounding favored Orlando. The Magic collected 49 rebounds against 34 for the Hornets.
Passing helped separate the teams. Orlando recorded 27 assists, while Charlotte had 17.
The first half decided the contest. Orlando’s 68-37 halftime lead gave Charlotte an extremely difficult deficit to overcome.

These takeaways are useful when evaluating player performances because they connect individual contributions to the final result. Points identify the leading scorers, but rebounds, assists, shooting percentages, turnovers, and defensive plays help explain why one team won.

How to Read Basketball Player Statistics Correctly

A box score is a useful record of a game, but interpreting it well requires more than ranking players by points.

Compare scoring with shooting efficiency

A player who scores 20 points on efficient shooting may provide more offensive value than a player who scores the same amount after taking many additional attempts. Field-goal attempts, three-point attempts, and free throws help explain how those points were produced.

Carter’s 16 points on 6-of-7 shooting are a good example from this game. His scoring total was lower than Banchero’s, but he converted his opportunities at a much higher rate.

Look at the timing of production

Scoring totals do not reveal when a player made an impact. Ball’s 23 points included a 21-point third quarter, illustrating how a strong individual period can coexist with a team defeat.

For a complete evaluation, quarter-by-quarter scoring and the game situation should be considered alongside the final box score.

Evaluate contributions beyond scoring

Rebounds, assists, steals, and blocks help explain how players contribute in different roles. Diabate’s eight rebounds and three blocks, for example, reveal defensive value that his two points would not communicate.

Likewise, Suggs’ six assists help explain his contribution to Orlando’s offense even though he was not among the team’s top three scorers.

Separate team results from individual performance

A team can lose despite strong performances from individual players. Ball’s scoring was an example of that distinction. His offensive output did not erase the team’s poor first-quarter shooting or overall rebounding disadvantage.

A balanced evaluation recognizes individual achievements without ignoring the team factors that determined the result.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Who won the Orlando Magic vs Charlotte Hornets game on April 18, 2026?

The Orlando Magic defeated the Charlotte Hornets 121-90 in an Eastern Conference Play-In Tournament game at the Kia Center in Orlando, Florida.

2. Who was the leading scorer for Orlando?

Paolo Banchero led Orlando with 25 points. He also recorded five rebounds, six assists, two steals, and one block.

3. How many points did LaMelo Ball score against Orlando?

LaMelo Ball scored 23 points and recorded five assists. He scored 21 of his 23 points in the third quarter.

4. Which team shot better from the field?

Orlando shot 50% from the field, making 42 of 84 attempts. Charlotte made 28 of 83 attempts, shooting approximately 33.7%.

5. How did Orlando build such a large lead?

Orlando outscored Charlotte 38-16 in the first quarter and 30-21 in the second. The Magic entered halftime ahead 68-37 and maintained their advantage through the second half.

6. Which team won the rebounding battle?

Orlando won the rebounding battle 49-34. The Magic collected 11 offensive rebounds and 38 defensive rebounds, compared with Charlotte’s seven offensive rebounds and 27 defensive rebounds.

Conclusion

The Orlando Magic defeated the Charlotte Hornets 121-90 by combining a dominant first quarter with efficient shooting, strong rebounding, and balanced playmaking. Paolo Banchero led the winners with 25 points and six assists, while Franz Wagner and Wendell Carter Jr. provided valuable secondary scoring. LaMelo Ball led Charlotte with 23 points, but his third-quarter scoring surge could not overcome the deficit established in the first half.

The most important statistical differences were Orlando’s 50% field-goal percentage against Charlotte’s 34%, its 49-34 rebounding advantage, and its 27-17 lead in assists. Charlotte made more three-pointers and shot better from the free-throw line, but those advantages were not enough to compensate for its overall shooting struggles.

Ultimately, the game demonstrates why basketball results should be assessed through a combination of individual player statistics and team performance. Scoring leaders tell part of the story, while shooting efficiency, ball movement, defensive pressure, and control of rebounds explain how a 31-point victory developed.