Cleveland Cavaliers vs Orlando Magic Match Player Stats
Cleveland Cavaliers vs Orlando Magic match player stats from January 27, 2026, tell the story of a game that changed completely after the opening quarter. Orlando came out aggressively and led 32-22 after 12 minutes, but Cleveland responded with a 39-point second quarter and never gave the lead back. The Cavaliers eventually won 114-98 at Rocket Arena in Cleveland, overcoming the early 10-point deficit and outscoring Orlando 92-66 across the final three quarters.
The individual numbers make the comeback even more interesting. Donovan Mitchell produced the biggest scoring performance of the night with 45 points on 15-of-25 shooting, including 5-of-8 from three-point range and 10-of-12 at the free-throw line. Paolo Banchero was outstanding for Orlando as well, finishing with 37 points and 10 rebounds. Despite Banchero’s production, Cleveland’s superior shooting efficiency, stronger second-half execution, and balanced supporting contributions ultimately decided the game.
This breakdown examines the Cleveland Cavaliers vs Orlando Magic match player stats beyond the basic box score. It looks at who scored, who controlled the glass, which players created opportunities, how the shooting numbers influenced the result, and why Cleveland was able to turn a difficult first quarter into a convincing 16-point victory.
Cleveland Cavaliers vs Orlando Magic Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The matchup took place on January 27, 2026, at Rocket Arena in Cleveland, Ohio, in front of 19,432 fans. Cleveland entered the game with a 28-20 overall record and a 16-11 home record, while Orlando came in at 23-22 overall and 9-13 on the road.
The final score was:
Cleveland Cavaliers 114, Orlando Magic 98
The final margin does not fully describe how competitive the game looked early. Orlando controlled the opening period and built a 10-point advantage. Cleveland then made a major adjustment in the second quarter, scoring 39 points while holding Orlando to 24.
The quarter-by-quarter scoring was:
| Quarter | Orlando Magic | Cleveland Cavaliers |
| 1st | 32 | 22 |
| 2nd | 24 | 39 |
| 3rd | 25 | 30 |
| 4th | 17 | 23 |
| Final | 98 | 114 |
The most important number is the 92-66 advantage Cleveland created after the first quarter. That means the Cavaliers did not simply edge Orlando late. They fundamentally changed the game after a poor start.
The season series also moved to 2-0 in Cleveland’s favor following this result.
Donovan Mitchell Leads Cleveland With 45 Points
The headline number in the Cleveland Cavaliers vs Orlando Magic match player stats is Donovan Mitchell’s 45-point performance.
Mitchell finished with:
| Statistic | Donovan Mitchell |
| Points | 45 |
| Field Goals | 15-25 |
| Three-Pointers | 5-8 |
| Free Throws | 10-12 |
| Rebounds | 4 |
| Assists | 4 |
| Turnovers | 4 |
| Steals | 1 |
| Plus/Minus | +23 |
The scoring efficiency stands out immediately. Mitchell made 60% of his field-goal attempts and 62.5% of his three-point attempts. He also converted 10 of 12 free throws.
This was not a case of a player reaching 45 points simply because he took an enormous number of shots. Mitchell attempted 25 field goals, but his 15 makes, five three-pointers, and 10 free throws gave Cleveland an efficient scoring engine.
His +23 plus/minus also provides useful context. Cleveland was substantially better during Mitchell’s minutes, although plus/minus should always be interpreted alongside the rest of the box score rather than treated as an isolated measure of individual quality.
Mitchell also contributed four rebounds and four assists. Those numbers show that his influence was not restricted entirely to scoring.
From an offensive perspective, his performance gave Cleveland exactly what was needed after Orlando’s fast start. When a team falls behind by double digits in the opening quarter, having a reliable shot creator can prevent the deficit from growing. Mitchell’s scoring helped Cleveland reverse the game’s direction quickly.
Paolo Banchero Gives Orlando a 37-Point Performance
Paolo Banchero was the clear offensive centerpiece for Orlando.
His numbers were:
| Statistic | Paolo Banchero |
| Points | 37 |
| Field Goals | 13-21 |
| Three-Pointers | 2-5 |
| Free Throws | 9-13 |
| Rebounds | 10 |
| Assists | 4 |
| Turnovers | 2 |
| Plus/Minus | +0 |
Banchero shot 13-of-21 from the field, which works out to nearly 62% shooting. He also added 10 rebounds and four assists while committing only two turnovers.
That combination is important because Orlando did receive elite individual production from its primary scorer. The problem was that the team could not maintain the same level of offensive efficiency around him.
Banchero’s 37 points represented a major share of Orlando’s 98 total points. His scoring kept the Magic competitive, particularly during the periods when Cleveland was trying to build separation.
The supplied game data lists Banchero’s plus/minus as +0. That is unusual considering Orlando lost by 16, but it should be treated as the provided box-score figure rather than interpreted as proof that he had no impact. A plus/minus number measures the team’s scoring margin during a player’s minutes and does not independently capture offensive creation, defensive attention, or individual shot quality.
Cleveland’s Shooting Efficiency Was a Major Difference
One of the clearest differences in the Cleveland Cavaliers vs Orlando Magic match player stats is team shooting.
Cleveland finished:
- 42-of-79 from the field
- 11-of-25 from three-point range
- 19-of-27 from the free-throw line
Orlando finished:
- 38-of-94 from the field
- 11-of-39 from three-point range
- 11-of-15 from the free-throw line
The shooting percentages were:
| Shooting Category | Orlando | Cleveland |
| Field Goal % | 40% | 53% |
| Three-Point % | 28% | 44% |
| Free Throw % | 73% | 70% |
The field-goal difference is especially significant.
Cleveland made four more field goals despite taking 15 fewer attempts. That tells us much more than the final scoring margin alone. The Cavaliers were substantially more efficient with their possessions.
Cleveland also made the same number of three-pointers as Orlando, but did so on 14 fewer attempts. The Cavaliers therefore generated their perimeter production with considerably greater efficiency.
This is one of the strongest statistical explanations for the result.
Orlando’s 94 field-goal attempts indicate that the Magic generated plenty of shooting opportunities. However, making only 38 of them limited the value of that volume.
Cleveland’s 42 makes on 79 attempts produced a much stronger offensive return.
Jaylon Tyson Provides Important Two-Way Support
Jaylon Tyson was another important contributor for Cleveland.
He recorded:
| Statistic | Jaylon Tyson |
| Points | 14 |
| Field Goals | 5-10 |
| Three-Pointers | 2-3 |
| Free Throws | 2-2 |
| Rebounds | 9 |
| Assists | 4 |
| Turnovers | 3 |
| Steals | 1 |
| Blocks | 1 |
| Plus/Minus | +12 |
Tyson’s 14 points were useful, but his nine rebounds and four assists make his contribution more interesting.
He also shot 2-of-3 from beyond the arc and made both free throws. That gave Cleveland efficient secondary scoring without requiring another extremely high shot volume.
His nine rebounds were tied for the team lead, alongside Evan Mobley.
The +12 plus/minus also reflects a strong overall team performance during his minutes.
This is a good example of why evaluating a basketball game solely through the leading scorer can miss important details. Mitchell supplied the headline scoring, but Cleveland also needed players such as Tyson to provide rebounds, passing, perimeter shooting, and defensive plays.
Evan Mobley Controls the Interior
Evan Mobley finished with 20 points, nine rebounds, two assists, one turnover, and two blocks.
His shooting line was 9-of-16 from the field, including 1-of-3 from three-point range.
| Statistic | Evan Mobley |
| Points | 20 |
| Field Goals | 9-16 |
| Three-Pointers | 1-3 |
| Free Throws | 1-4 |
| Rebounds | 9 |
| Assists | 2 |
| Turnovers | 1 |
| Blocks | 2 |
| Plus/Minus | +5 |
Mobley’s 20 points gave Cleveland a second major scoring option behind Mitchell.
His nine rebounds were also important because Orlando had a productive rebounding performance from Banchero. Mobley helped Cleveland avoid being dominated on the glass.
His two blocks added another layer to his defensive contribution.
The one area that reduced his scoring efficiency was the free-throw line, where he went 1-of-4. Even so, his 9-of-16 field-goal shooting represented a strong interior scoring performance.
Desmond Bane Adds 19 Points
Desmond Bane finished with 19 points for Cleveland.
His numbers included:
- 19 points
- 7-of-17 field goals
- 3-of-7 three-pointers
- 2-of-2 free throws
- 4 rebounds
- 1 steal
- 1 block
Bane’s three three-pointers were especially valuable because Cleveland did not need Mitchell to produce every perimeter basket.
His 19 points also meant Orlando had multiple Cleveland scoring threats to deal with.
The 7-of-17 shooting line was less efficient than Mitchell’s performance, but Bane still supplied important scoring volume and defensive activity.
Jarrett Allen and Dean Wade Complete Cleveland’s Balanced Effort
Jarrett Allen scored nine points on 4-of-6 shooting and added four rebounds and one assist. He also recorded a +18 plus/minus.
Dean Wade scored six points on 2-of-4 shooting, made both of his free throws, and collected seven rebounds. He added two assists, one steal, and one block.
Wade’s +21 plus/minus was one of the strongest figures on Cleveland’s roster.
These numbers show how the Cavaliers received useful contributions from several players beyond their primary scorers.
Allen’s efficient finishing helped Cleveland convert inside, while Wade provided rebounding and defensive versatility.
The combined contribution of the supporting cast made it harder for Orlando to focus exclusively on stopping Mitchell.
Orlando’s Supporting Cast Struggles to Match Cleveland
Orlando’s supporting numbers were more uneven.
Jalen Suggs recorded four points, five rebounds, six assists, three turnovers, two steals, and one block, but shot just 2-of-13 from the field.
His six assists were Orlando’s best total among the listed players, showing that he remained useful as a facilitator even while struggling to score.
Anthony Black had a stronger offensive night, finishing with 14 points on 6-of-14 shooting. He also made two three-pointers, collected four rebounds, delivered five assists, and recorded three steals and one block.
Wendell Carter Jr. contributed nine points, seven rebounds, one assist, and one block on 4-of-8 shooting.
These performances illustrate Orlando’s central problem. There were useful individual contributions, but the Magic did not receive enough efficient scoring outside Banchero to keep pace with Cleveland’s second-half offense.
Jalen Suggs Shows the Importance of Looking Beyond Points
Suggs’ four points may look disappointing at first glance, but the rest of his box score provides more context.
He recorded:
- 5 rebounds
- 6 assists
- 3 turnovers
- 2 steals
- 1 block
His six assists were important because Orlando needed secondary creation.
The bigger issue was his shooting. At 2-of-13 from the field, Suggs struggled to turn his offensive opportunities into points.
This is exactly why player evaluation should not be reduced to a single category.
A guard can contribute through passing, defense, rebounding, and ball pressure even when the shot is not falling. At the same time, a poor shooting night can still place pressure on the rest of the lineup.
Suggs’ performance contained both sides of that equation.
Orlando’s Team Numbers Explain the Defeat
The team statistics provide perhaps the clearest overall explanation.
| Category | Orlando Magic | Cleveland Cavaliers |
| Field Goals | 38-94 | 42-79 |
| Three-Pointers | 11-39 | 11-25 |
| Free Throws | 11-15 | 19-27 |
| Rebounds | 42 | 45 |
| Assists | 21 | 23 |
| Turnovers | 11 | 14 |
| Steals | 10 | 6 |
| Blocks | 6 | 5 |
| Field Goal % | 40% | 53% |
| Three-Point % | 28% | 44% |
| Free Throw % | 73% | 70% |
There is an interesting contrast here.
Orlando actually committed fewer turnovers and recorded more steals and blocks. Those are positive defensive and possession-related indicators.
Yet Cleveland’s shooting advantage was too large.
The Cavaliers made four more field goals while taking 15 fewer attempts. They also made the same number of three-pointers on dramatically fewer attempts.
That level of efficiency can overcome a modest disadvantage in turnovers.
The 10-Point First-Quarter Deficit Was Not the Full Story
The most revealing trend from the Cleveland Cavaliers vs Orlando Magic match player stats is what happened after the first quarter.
Orlando led 32-22.
Then Cleveland scored 39 points in the second quarter while Orlando managed 24.
That transformed the game from a 10-point Orlando advantage into a five-point Cleveland lead at halftime.
The Cavaliers then continued to win both remaining quarters:
Third quarter: Cleveland 30, Orlando 25
Fourth quarter: Cleveland 23, Orlando 17
Cleveland therefore won the final three quarters by a combined 92-66.
This suggests that the second quarter was the turning point, but the third and fourth quarters confirmed the adjustment rather than representing a temporary burst.
How Cleveland Turned the Game Around
Several factors stand out when the box score is viewed as a complete story.
1. Cleveland Improved Its Shot Quality
The Cavaliers finished at 53% from the field compared with Orlando’s 40%.
That 13-percentage-point gap is substantial.
Cleveland did not need to dominate every possession. It simply converted its offensive opportunities much more effectively.
2. Mitchell Became the Primary Scoring Solution
Mitchell’s 45 points gave Cleveland a reliable source of offense.
When Orlando built an early lead, Cleveland needed someone capable of creating shots without waiting for perfect offensive possessions. Mitchell’s performance supplied that pressure.
3. Cleveland Received Multiple Secondary Scorers
Mobley added 20 points.
Bane added 19.
Tyson added 14.
Allen contributed nine.
That distribution prevented Orlando from treating Mitchell as Cleveland’s only offensive concern.
4. The Cavaliers Won the Rebounding Battle
Cleveland collected 45 rebounds compared with Orlando’s 42.
The margin was only three, but it helped Cleveland maintain control of the overall possession battle.
Mobley and Tyson each grabbed nine rebounds, while Wade added seven.
5. Orlando Could Not Maintain Its Opening Pace
Scoring 32 points in the first quarter gave Orlando an excellent start.
But the Magic scored only 24 in the second, 25 in the third, and 17 in the fourth.
That decline allowed Cleveland to control the game’s later stages.
A Closer Look at Offensive Efficiency
The field-goal attempts reveal an important strategic difference.
Orlando attempted 94 field goals compared with Cleveland’s 79.
At first glance, more attempts can seem like an advantage. More attempts often mean more opportunities to score.
But volume without efficiency can create misleading box-score impressions.
Orlando made only 38 of those 94 attempts.
Cleveland made 42 of 79.
So Cleveland made more shots while taking significantly fewer attempts.
That is the statistical signature of a more efficient offense.
The three-point numbers tell a similar story. Both teams made 11 threes, but Orlando needed 39 attempts to get there while Cleveland needed only 25.
That difference matters because missed three-point attempts can create transition opportunities and defensive rebounds for the opponent.
Cleveland’s perimeter efficiency therefore had value beyond the points directly produced by its 11 made threes.
Free Throws Were Another Difference
Cleveland also reached the free-throw line more often.
The Cavaliers went 19-of-27.
Orlando went 11-of-15.
Although Orlando had the slightly better free-throw percentage at 73% compared with Cleveland’s 70%, Cleveland’s greater number of attempts produced eight additional made free throws.
Those eight points represented half of Cleveland’s final winning margin.
That does not mean free throws alone decided the game. The shooting difference from the field was more significant. But Cleveland’s ability to generate 27 free-throw attempts added another important source of scoring.
Rebounding Was Close, But Cleveland Had Useful Contributors
The rebounding margin was only three, but Cleveland received strong contributions from multiple players.
Mobley: 9 rebounds
Tyson: 9 rebounds
Wade: 7 rebounds
Allen: 4 rebounds
Mitchell: 4 rebounds
Orlando’s Banchero led the game with 10 rebounds.
Carter added seven, while Suggs recorded five.
The important takeaway is that Orlando did not dominate the glass despite having a strong rebounding performance from Banchero.
Cleveland’s contributions were spread across the lineup, which helped the Cavaliers maintain possession control without relying on one player.
Turnovers Tell a Different Story
One area where Orlando actually had an advantage was turnovers.
Orlando committed 11 turnovers.
Cleveland committed 14.
That means Cleveland gave away three more possessions through turnovers.
Orlando also recorded 10 steals compared with Cleveland’s six.
Yet the Magic still lost by 16 points.
This is a useful reminder that basketball games are rarely determined by one statistical category.
Orlando generated defensive events and protected the ball relatively well, but its shooting efficiency was not strong enough to turn those advantages into a winning result.
For analysts, this is an important distinction. A team can win the turnover battle and still lose comfortably if it struggles to convert shots.
Defensive Contributions From Both Teams
The defensive box score also contained several notable performances.
For Cleveland, Mobley recorded two blocks. Tyson and Wade each added one block.
Tyrese Proctor recorded two steals, while Lonzo Ball and Mitchell each recorded one.
For Orlando, Black led the listed players with three steals. Suggs had two steals and one block, while Banchero contributed two steals.
Tristan da Silva recorded two steals according to the supplied game data.
Orlando finished with six blocks and 10 steals, compared with Cleveland’s five blocks and six steals.
Those numbers again demonstrate that the Cavaliers’ victory was not built around dominating every defensive category.
Instead, Cleveland compensated for Orlando’s activity with significantly better offensive efficiency.
What the Plus/Minus Numbers Add
Plus/minus can be useful when interpreted carefully.
Mitchell’s +23 was excellent.
Tyson was +12.
Allen was +18.
Wade was +21.
Mobley was +5.
These figures broadly support the conclusion that Cleveland’s main contributors were effective while on the floor.
Wade’s +21 is particularly interesting because he scored only six points. His number demonstrates why plus/minus can highlight contributions that raw scoring totals overlook.
On Orlando’s side, Banchero’s supplied figure was +0 despite the team’s 16-point defeat. That should not be interpreted as evidence that he played poorly. His 37 points and 10 rebounds were among the game’s strongest individual performances.
Plus/minus is most useful as one piece of evidence alongside shooting, rebounding, assists, turnovers, and defensive activity.
What the Match Says About Team Construction
The deeper lesson from these Cleveland Cavaliers vs Orlando Magic match player stats is that elite individual scoring is not always enough.
Orlando had the second-highest individual scorer in the game with Banchero’s 37 points.
Cleveland still won because Mitchell’s 45-point performance was supported by Mobley’s 20, Bane’s 19, and Tyson’s 14.
That balance matters.
When one team has multiple players capable of producing efficient offense, defensive game planning becomes more difficult.
If Orlando focused heavily on Mitchell, other Cleveland players could contribute.
If the Magic tried to limit Mobley’s interior scoring, Cleveland could use perimeter options.
The box score therefore shows more than individual production. It demonstrates the importance of having multiple offensive answers during a game that changes direction.
Key Takeaways From the Match
The most important lessons from the game can be summarized simply:
- Donovan Mitchell was the game’s leading scorer with 45 points.
- Paolo Banchero led Orlando with 37 points and 10 rebounds.
- Cleveland shot 53% from the field compared with Orlando’s 40%.
- Both teams made 11 three-pointers, but Cleveland needed 14 fewer attempts.
- Cleveland won the rebounding battle 45-42.
- Orlando committed fewer turnovers, 11 compared with Cleveland’s 14.
- Cleveland scored 39 points in the second quarter to erase Orlando’s early advantage.
- The Cavaliers outscored Orlando 92-66 over the final three quarters.
- Evan Mobley and Jaylon Tyson each collected nine rebounds.
- Cleveland finished the season series 2-0 against Orlando after this game.
Cleveland Cavaliers vs Orlando Magic Match Player Stats and What to Watch in Future Meetings
When comparing future meetings between these teams, several statistical areas are worth monitoring.
The first is three-point efficiency. Orlando made 11 threes in this game but needed 39 attempts. Cleveland also made 11 but attempted only 25.
The second is secondary scoring. Banchero carried a major portion of Orlando’s offensive load, while Cleveland received four players with at least 14 points.
The third is shooting efficiency from the field. A 53% shooting night gave Cleveland a major advantage.
The fourth is quarter-by-quarter performance. Orlando’s 32-point first quarter showed that the Magic could attack Cleveland successfully early. The inability to maintain that production later was much more important than the opening advantage.
The fifth is ball security. Cleveland won comfortably despite committing three more turnovers, which suggests that Orlando’s future path to victory may depend on combining its defensive pressure with much more efficient shooting.
For readers who want to compare these numbers with broader league information, the official NBA statistics and standings provide a useful reference point.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who scored the most points in the Cleveland vs Orlando game?
Donovan Mitchell led all players with 45 points for Cleveland. He shot 15-of-25 from the field, made five three-pointers, and converted 10 of 12 free throws.
How many points did Paolo Banchero score against Cleveland?
Paolo Banchero scored 37 points and grabbed 10 rebounds. He shot 13-of-21 from the field and also recorded four assists.
What was the final score between Cleveland and Orlando?
The Cleveland Cavaliers defeated the Orlando Magic 114-98 at Rocket Arena on January 27, 2026.
Which team shot better from the field?
Cleveland shot 53% from the field, while Orlando shot 40%. Cleveland also made 11 three-pointers on 25 attempts compared with Orlando’s 11 on 39 attempts.
Who led the game in rebounds?
Paolo Banchero led all players with 10 rebounds. Cleveland’s Jaylon Tyson and Evan Mobley each finished with nine rebounds.
How did Cleveland overcome Orlando’s first-quarter lead?
Orlando led 32-22 after the first quarter, but Cleveland scored 39 points in the second quarter and then won both the third and fourth quarters. Cleveland outscored Orlando 92-66 over the final three periods.
Conclusion
The Cleveland Cavaliers vs Orlando Magic match player stats reveal a game defined by efficiency, adjustment, and balanced production.
Orlando’s opening 32-point quarter showed why the Magic were capable of putting Cleveland under pressure. Banchero was especially effective, finishing with 37 points and 10 rebounds. Suggs also contributed six assists, while Anthony Black provided 14 points, five assists, and three steals.
Cleveland’s response was stronger.
Mitchell’s 45 points were the obvious headline, but the victory was not a one-player performance. Mobley added 20 points and nine rebounds, Bane scored 19, Tyson produced 14 points and nine rebounds, and several other Cavaliers contributed useful defensive and rebounding numbers.
The team shooting comparison provides the clearest explanation for the final result. Cleveland shot 53% from the field and 44% from three-point range, while Orlando finished at 40% and 28%, respectively. Cleveland also made 19 free throws compared with Orlando’s 11.
Perhaps the most meaningful number was the 92-66 scoring advantage Cleveland built after the first quarter. A 10-point deficit became a 16-point victory because the Cavaliers consistently improved their offensive execution after Orlando’s fast start.
For anyone studying the game from a player-stat perspective, the biggest lesson is that scoring totals should always be viewed alongside efficiency, rebounding, assists, turnovers, defensive plays, and plus/minus. The complete box score explains the result much better than any single statistic.
