Orlando Magic vs Cleveland Cavaliers Match Player Stats
The orlando magic vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats from the January 26, 2026 meeting show how quickly a competitive game can change when shooting efficiency and half-court execution shift. Cleveland defeated Orlando 114-98 at Rocket Arena after trailing 32-22 through the opening quarter. Donovan Mitchell led all scorers with 45 points, while Paolo Banchero produced 37 points and 10 rebounds for Orlando. The Cavaliers then controlled the middle two quarters, outscoring the Magic 69-49 across the second and third periods.
For readers studying this matchup through the box score, the final score only tells part of the story. Cleveland shot 53.2% from the field and 44.0% from three-point range, compared with Orlando’s 40.4% field-goal shooting and 28.2% three-point shooting. Those differences created a major efficiency gap even though the Magic won the first quarter by 10 points.
The game also provides a useful example of why individual statistics should be viewed alongside team numbers. Banchero delivered an outstanding scoring performance, but Mitchell’s 45 points came with 15 made field goals on 25 attempts, five made three-pointers, and 10 made free throws. Evan Mobley added 20 points and nine rebounds, while Jaylon Tyson contributed 14 points and nine rebounds.
Game Overview
The Cavaliers entered the matchup with a 28-20 record and a 16-11 home record. Orlando came in at 23-22 overall and 9-13 on the road.
The game was played at Rocket Arena in Cleveland, Ohio, in front of 19,432 spectators. Cleveland ultimately won 114-98, taking another victory over Orlando in the season series.
The official NBA records list this game as January 26, 2026. The supplied data identifies January 27, but the NBA game record and official game book identify the contest as January 26.
Official NBA game book and box score record
Final Score
| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Final |
| Orlando Magic | 32 | 24 | 25 | 17 | 98 |
| Cleveland Cavaliers | 22 | 39 | 30 | 23 | 114 |
Orlando had the better start, but Cleveland finished every remaining quarter with more points.
That quarter-by-quarter pattern is one of the most important details in the game. The Magic did not lose because they were dominated from the opening tip. Instead, the Cavaliers gradually changed the game after the first quarter.
Orlando Magic vs Cleveland Cavaliers Match Player Stats
The orlando magic vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats highlight two very different offensive stories.
Orlando received a huge scoring contribution from Paolo Banchero. He finished with 37 points, 10 rebounds, and four assists while shooting 13-for-21 from the field.
Cleveland had the game’s highest individual scoring performance. Donovan Mitchell scored 45 points on 15-for-25 shooting. He also made five of his eight three-point attempts and converted 10 of 12 free throws.
Here are the most significant individual numbers from both teams.
Cleveland Cavaliers Player Leaders
| Player | Points | FG | 3PT | FT | Rebounds | Assists | Other |
| Donovan Mitchell | 45 | 15-25 | 5-8 | 10-12 | 4 | 4 | 1 STL, 4 TO, +23 |
| Evan Mobley | 20 | 9-16 | 1-3 | 1-4 | 9 | 2 | 2 BLK, 1 TO, +5 |
| Jaylon Tyson | 14 | 5-10 | 2-3 | 2-2 | 9 | 4 | 1 STL, 1 BLK, +12 |
| Jarrett Allen | 9 | 4-6 | 0-0 | 1-3 | 4 | 1 | +18 |
| Dean Wade | 6 | 2-4 | 0-0 | 2-2 | 7 | 2 | 1 STL, 1 BLK, +21 |
Mitchell was the centerpiece of Cleveland’s offense. His 45 points accounted for a substantial portion of the Cavaliers’ 114-point total.
Mobley’s contribution was more balanced. His 20 points and nine rebounds gave Cleveland another reliable scoring and rebounding option. Tyson also supplied nine rebounds, four assists, and two made three-pointers.
Orlando Magic Player Leaders
| Player | Points | FG | 3PT | FT | Rebounds | Assists | Other |
| Paolo Banchero | 37 | 13-21 | 2-5 | 9-13 | 10 | 4 | 2 TO |
| Desmond Bane | 19 | 7-17 | 3-7 | 2-2 | 4 | Not listed | 1 STL, 1 BLK |
| Anthony Black | 14 | 6-14 | 2-9 | 0-0 | 4 | 5 | 3 STL, 1 BLK, 2 TO |
| Jalen Suggs | 4 | 2-13 | 0-5 | 0-0 | 5 | 6 | 2 STL, 1 BLK, 3 TO |
Banchero clearly carried the largest scoring load for Orlando. He combined high scoring with double-digit rebounding, making his performance one of the strongest individual displays in the game.
Desmond Bane added 19 points, including three three-pointers. Anthony Black contributed 14 points and five assists while making an impact defensively with three steals.
Jalen Suggs had a difficult shooting night. He scored four points on 2-for-13 shooting and missed all five of his three-point attempts. However, his six assists, five rebounds, two steals, and one block show that his overall contribution extended beyond scoring.
Donovan Mitchell’s 45-Point Performance
Donovan Mitchell was the defining scorer in this matchup.
He finished with:
- 45 points
- 15-for-25 field goals
- 5-for-8 three-pointers
- 10-for-12 free throws
- 4 rebounds
- 4 assists
- 4 turnovers
- 1 steal
- +23 plus/minus
The efficiency is particularly important.
Mitchell attempted 25 field goals and made 15, producing a 60% field-goal rate. His five made three-pointers also meant Orlando could not simply focus on defending him inside the arc.
His free-throw performance added another layer. He converted 10 of 12 attempts, giving him an efficient scoring route when Orlando’s defense sent him to the line.
A 45-point game is impressive by itself, but the context makes the performance even more significant. Cleveland scored 114 points, meaning Mitchell accounted for nearly 40% of the team’s total scoring.
The official NBA coverage also recorded Mitchell’s 45-point performance and noted that it was his sixth 40-point game of the season and the 33rd of his career.
Paolo Banchero’s 37-Point Double-Double
Paolo Banchero provided Orlando with an equally important individual storyline.
His final numbers were:
- 37 points
- 13-for-21 field goals
- 2-for-5 three-pointers
- 9-for-13 free throws
- 10 rebounds
- 4 assists
- 2 turnovers
Banchero shot approximately 61.9% from the field. That was significantly better than Orlando’s overall 40.4% mark.
This difference matters because it shows that Orlando’s problem was not simply an inability to score. Banchero was highly effective, but the team’s overall shooting performance did not match his efficiency.
He also reached a double-double with 10 rebounds.
The combination of 37 points and 10 rebounds made Banchero the clear statistical centerpiece for Orlando. His performance kept the Magic competitive even as Cleveland gained control of the game.
Cleveland’s Shooting Advantage
One of the clearest explanations for the final result is shooting efficiency.
Team Shooting Comparison
| Statistic | Orlando | Cleveland |
| Field Goals | 38-94 | 42-79 |
| Field Goal % | 40.4% | 53.2% |
| Three-Pointers | 11-39 | 11-25 |
| Three-Point % | 28.2% | 44.0% |
| Free Throws | 11-15 | 19-27 |
| Free Throw % | 73.3% | 70.4% |
Both teams made 11 three-pointers.
That is an important detail because Cleveland’s advantage from outside did not come from making more three-pointers. The Cavaliers created the difference by attempting fewer threes and converting them at a much higher rate.
Cleveland made 44% of its three-point attempts.
Orlando made only 28.2%.
The Cavaliers also made four more field goals despite attempting 15 fewer shots. Cleveland went 42-for-79, while Orlando went 38-for-94.
That is a major efficiency difference.
The Magic needed 94 field-goal attempts to make 38 baskets. Cleveland needed only 79 attempts to make 42.
This is why simply looking at total shots can be misleading. Orlando had more attempts, but Cleveland extracted much more value from each possession.
The Game Changed in the Second Quarter
The first quarter belonged to Orlando.
The Magic scored 32 points and limited Cleveland to 22. That gave Orlando a 10-point advantage heading into the second period.
Then the game shifted.
Cleveland scored 39 points in the second quarter while Orlando scored only 24.
That erased the entire Magic lead and gave the Cavaliers a five-point advantage at halftime.
The third quarter continued in Cleveland’s favor. The Cavaliers scored 30 points compared with Orlando’s 25.
By the end of three quarters, Cleveland had built a 91-81 lead.
The fourth quarter then became about maintaining that advantage. Cleveland scored 23 points while Orlando managed 17.
Quarter-by-Quarter Swing
The overall scoring pattern can be summarized like this:
- Orlando won the first quarter by 10.
- Cleveland won the second quarter by 15.
- Cleveland won the third quarter by 5.
- Cleveland won the fourth quarter by 6.
- Cleveland finished with a 16-point victory.
The 15-point second-quarter advantage was the largest turning point.
Rebounding Was Close
Rebounding did not create a major statistical gap.
Orlando finished with 42 total rebounds.
Cleveland recorded 45.
That is only a three-rebound difference.
Banchero led Orlando with 10 rebounds, while Mobley and Tyson each recorded nine for Cleveland.
Dean Wade also contributed seven rebounds.
The small overall difference suggests that Cleveland’s victory was driven more by shooting efficiency and scoring execution than by a major rebounding advantage.
This is useful when analyzing the orlando magic vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats, because the box score does not support the idea that Cleveland simply overwhelmed Orlando on the glass.
The Cavaliers won because they converted their offensive opportunities more effectively.
Assists and Ball Movement
Cleveland recorded 23 assists.
Orlando recorded 21.
Again, the difference was relatively small.
This suggests that both teams generated a similar level of assisted scoring overall, although their offensive efficiency was very different.
Jalen Suggs led Orlando with six assists. Anthony Black added five, while Banchero had four.
For Cleveland, Jaylon Tyson recorded four assists and Mitchell also finished with four.
The Cavaliers’ 23 assists on 42 made field goals indicate that more than half of their baskets came through assisted plays.
That is a useful indicator of team involvement. Mitchell produced a huge individual scoring performance, but Cleveland was not relying exclusively on isolation basketball.
Turnovers and Defensive Activity
Orlando was charged with 11 turnovers in the supplied team data, while Cleveland recorded 14.
At first glance, that gives Orlando a small advantage in ball security.
The Magic also recorded 10 steals compared with six for Cleveland.
Orlando finished with six blocks, while Cleveland had five.
These numbers show that the Magic were active defensively.
However, defensive activity did not completely compensate for Cleveland’s offensive efficiency.
A team can force turnovers and still lose if the opponent consistently converts its half-court possessions into efficient shots.
That is essentially what happened here.
The Cavaliers shot 53.2% overall and 44% from three-point range. That efficiency reduced the impact of Orlando’s defensive activity.
Jalen Suggs’ All-Around Contribution
Jalen Suggs had one of the more interesting statistical profiles on the Orlando roster.
His scoring line was poor:
- 4 points
- 2-for-13 shooting
- 0-for-5 from three-point range
But the rest of his box score was considerably stronger.
Suggs collected five rebounds, six assists, two steals, and one block.
This is an important reminder that a player’s value cannot always be summarized by points.
His six assists were the highest total listed for either team. His two steals also contributed to Orlando’s 10 total steals.
The challenge for Orlando was that the team’s other contributions could not fully offset the shooting struggles.
A 2-for-13 night from one of the team’s important perimeter players puts additional pressure on the primary scorer.
Banchero responded with 37 points, but Cleveland had enough offensive firepower to keep pace and eventually pull away.
Anthony Black’s Two-Way Contribution
Anthony Black finished with 14 points, four rebounds, five assists, two turnovers, three steals, and one block.
His three steals were particularly notable.
Black also made two three-pointers on nine attempts from beyond the arc. His perimeter shooting was inconsistent, but his defensive activity helped Orlando generate extra opportunities.
For a young perimeter player, the combination of scoring, passing, steals, and blocks gives a broader view of his role.
The box score shows that Black was not used only as a scorer. He contributed across multiple categories.
Evan Mobley’s Interior Impact
Evan Mobley finished with 20 points and nine rebounds.
He shot 9-for-16 from the field, which gave him a 56.3% field-goal rate.
He also made one three-pointer and recorded two blocks.
Mobley’s performance was important because it gave Cleveland a strong second scoring option behind Mitchell.
His nine rebounds also helped Cleveland stay competitive on the glass.
The official Cavaliers organization reported after the game that Mobley had suffered a left calf strain during the contest and was expected to miss approximately one to three weeks. The same official report confirmed his 20-point, nine-rebound performance in the 114-98 victory.
That postgame development is relevant when examining the game beyond the final score because individual performance statistics can also provide context for subsequent roster availability.
Jaylon Tyson’s Efficient Supporting Performance
Jaylon Tyson scored 14 points on 5-for-10 shooting.
He also made two of his three three-point attempts and converted both free throws.
His nine rebounds were tied with Mobley for Cleveland’s second-highest total.
Tyson also recorded four assists, one steal, and one block.
His +12 plus/minus further reflected Cleveland’s strong overall performance during his minutes.
The combination of shooting efficiency, rebounding, passing, and defense made Tyson an important complementary contributor.
He did not need to match Mitchell’s scoring volume. Instead, his value came from filling several statistical categories efficiently.
Dean Wade’s Plus/Minus Impact
Dean Wade scored only six points, but his box score included seven rebounds, two assists, one steal, and one block.
He also finished with a +21 plus/minus, one of the strongest figures in the game.
Plus/minus should not be treated as a standalone measure of individual performance because it reflects what happens while a player is on the court. Still, when combined with other statistics, it can provide useful context.
Wade’s seven rebounds and defensive contributions show that his impact extended well beyond scoring.
This is another reason why readers should examine complete player statistics rather than looking only at the leading scorers.
Orlando’s Offensive Challenge
Orlando scored 98 points.
That was 16 fewer than Cleveland.
The Magic’s offensive challenge was not a lack of attempts. They took 94 field-goal attempts.
The bigger issue was conversion.
Orlando made only 38 of those attempts.
The 40.4% field-goal rate was substantially below Cleveland’s 53.2%.
The Magic also attempted 39 three-pointers but made only 11.
That 28.2% conversion rate made it difficult to keep pace with a Cleveland team shooting 44% from outside.
When a team misses 28 three-point attempts, the opportunity cost becomes significant. Even if some misses lead to offensive rebounds or transition opportunities, the overall scoring efficiency remains under pressure.
Cleveland’s Offensive Balance
Cleveland’s offense was led by Mitchell, but it was not one-dimensional.
Mitchell scored 45.
Mobley scored 20.
Tyson scored 14.
Allen added nine.
Wade scored six.
This distribution shows a useful scoring structure.
Mitchell created the largest individual scoring advantage, while the supporting players maintained enough production to prevent Orlando from loading every defensive possession toward one player.
Cleveland also made 42 field goals.
That total was four higher than Orlando despite taking 15 fewer field-goal attempts.
That is perhaps the simplest statistical explanation for the final result.
What the Matchup Reveals
The orlando magic vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats reveal several broader lessons about evaluating a basketball game.
1. Efficiency can outweigh volume
Orlando attempted more field goals.
Cleveland made more field goals.
That difference came from shooting efficiency.
2. One elite scorer does not guarantee a win
Banchero scored 37 points and recorded a double-double.
Mitchell scored 45 and Cleveland won.
Both stars delivered excellent offensive performances, but Cleveland received greater efficiency from its overall lineup.
3. Three-point percentage mattered
Both teams made 11 threes.
The difference was the number of attempts.
Orlando needed 39 attempts to make 11.
Cleveland needed only 25.
That is a significant efficiency advantage.
4. Supporting production matters
Mobley and Tyson combined for 34 points.
Banchero’s 37 points were not enough to overcome that level of complementary scoring alongside Mitchell’s 45.
5. The first quarter was not predictive of the final result
Orlando won the opening quarter 32-22.
Cleveland responded with a 39-point second quarter.
The game demonstrates why quarter-by-quarter analysis can be more informative than looking only at the final margin.
Team Statistics at a Glance
| Category | Orlando Magic | Cleveland Cavaliers |
| Final Score | 98 | 114 |
| Field Goals | 38-94 | 42-79 |
| FG Percentage | 40% | 53% |
| Three-Pointers | 11-39 | 11-25 |
| 3PT Percentage | 28% | 44% |
| Free Throws | 11-15 | 19-27 |
| FT Percentage | 73% | 70% |
| Rebounds | 42 | 45 |
| Assists | 21 | 23 |
| Turnovers | 11 | 14 |
| Steals | 10 | 6 |
| Blocks | 6 | 5 |
The table shows why the final result cannot be explained by one category.
Orlando had fewer turnovers and more steals.
Cleveland had better shooting, slightly more rebounds, more assists, and significantly better three-point efficiency.
The shooting numbers were the clearest difference.
Key Player Matchup: Mitchell vs Banchero
The most obvious individual comparison is Donovan Mitchell against Paolo Banchero.
| Category | Donovan Mitchell | Paolo Banchero |
| Points | 45 | 37 |
| Field Goals | 15-25 | 13-21 |
| 3PT | 5-8 | 2-5 |
| Free Throws | 10-12 | 9-13 |
| Rebounds | 4 | 10 |
| Assists | 4 | 4 |
| Turnovers | 4 | 2 |
Mitchell had the higher scoring total.
Banchero had the stronger rebounding total and fewer turnovers.
Both players recorded four assists.
The most notable shooting difference came from three-point accuracy. Mitchell made five of eight from deep, while Banchero made two of five.
This matchup illustrates two different offensive profiles. Mitchell generated high-volume perimeter scoring, while Banchero combined scoring with interior rebounding and playmaking.
Why the Final Margin Reached 16 Points
Cleveland won by 16 points.
That margin was created largely during the second and third quarters.
Orlando led by 10 after the first period.
Cleveland then outscored Orlando by 15 in the second quarter and five in the third.
That produced a 10-point Cleveland lead entering the fourth quarter.
The Cavaliers added another six points to the margin in the final period.
The sequence is important because the game was not a wire-to-wire Cleveland victory.
It was a comeback-style performance in which the Cavaliers responded strongly after a slow start.
Season Series Context
The supplied data states that Cleveland led the season series 2-0 after this matchup.
The official NBA postseason guide confirms that Cleveland won both January meetings, including a 119-105 victory in Orlando on January 24 and a 114-98 victory at Rocket Arena on January 26.
The January 24 game also featured a strong Mitchell performance, meaning the second meeting followed another game in which Cleveland’s lead scorer played a major role.
This makes the two-game sequence particularly useful for understanding the matchup.
Orlando faced the same opponent twice within a short period, while Cleveland demonstrated that it could win in different game environments.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who scored the most points in the Orlando Magic vs Cleveland Cavaliers game?
Donovan Mitchell led all players with 45 points for Cleveland. Paolo Banchero led Orlando with 37 points.
What was the final score between Orlando and Cleveland?
The Cleveland Cavaliers defeated the Orlando Magic 114-98 at Rocket Arena.
How many points did Paolo Banchero score?
Paolo Banchero scored 37 points. He also recorded 10 rebounds and four assists.
How many points did Donovan Mitchell score?
Donovan Mitchell scored 45 points on 15-for-25 shooting. He also made five three-pointers and 10 free throws.
Which team shot better from three-point range?
Cleveland shot better from three-point range. The Cavaliers made 11 of 25 attempts for 44%, while Orlando made 11 of 39 for 28.2%.
Who had the most rebounds for Orlando?
Paolo Banchero led Orlando with 10 rebounds.
Conclusion
The orlando magic vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats tell a clear statistical story once the numbers are viewed together.
Paolo Banchero delivered 37 points and 10 rebounds for Orlando, while Donovan Mitchell produced 45 points for Cleveland. Both stars carried major offensive responsibilities, but Cleveland received stronger overall shooting efficiency from its lineup.
The Cavaliers made 42 of 79 field-goal attempts, compared with Orlando’s 38 of 94. Cleveland also shot 44% from three-point range, while Orlando finished at 28.2%.
The rebounding and assist margins were relatively small. Orlando also recorded more steals and fewer turnovers in the supplied team statistics. Those advantages were not enough to offset Cleveland’s shooting efficiency.
The quarter-by-quarter numbers provide the clearest picture of the game’s progression. Orlando opened with a 32-22 advantage, but Cleveland responded with a 39-point second quarter. The Cavaliers then extended their advantage in the third and fourth periods to secure a 114-98 victory.
For individual analysis, Mitchell’s 45-point performance was the headline number, while Banchero’s 37-point double-double stood out for Orlando. Mobley’s 20 points and nine rebounds, Tyson’s 14 points and nine rebounds, and the defensive contributions from several players helped Cleveland build a balanced team performance around its leading scorer.
The matchup ultimately demonstrates why a complete box-score review is more useful than focusing on the final score or one player’s point total. Shooting efficiency, supporting production, rebounding, playmaking, turnovers, and quarter-by-quarter scoring all contributed to the final result.
