Orlando Magic vs Cleveland Cavaliers Player Stats

The orlando magic vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats from the March 12, 2026 NBA meeting tell a much more detailed story than the final score alone. Orlando Magic defeated the Cleveland Cavaliers 128-122 at Kia Center in Orlando, Florida, in front of 18,697 fans. Desmond Bane led all scorers with 35 points, while Paolo Banchero added 25 points and 7 assists. Cleveland received 30 points and 8 assists from James Harden, with Donovan Mitchell contributing 25 points, but Orlando’s superior shooting efficiency, ball security, and balanced offensive production proved decisive.

This game was especially interesting because Cleveland had already won the first two meetings of the season. The Cavaliers won 119-105 on January 25 and 114-98 on January 27, making Orlando’s six-point victory an important response in the season series. Cleveland still led the series 2-1 after the March 12 game, but the performance showed that Orlando could match Cleveland’s offensive firepower when its main players converted efficiently and avoided unnecessary turnovers.

The purpose of this breakdown is to go beyond a simple list of points. The most useful way to study player statistics is to connect individual production with shooting efficiency, rebounding, playmaking, turnovers, free throws, and plus-minus figures. That approach helps explain why certain players had a larger impact than their raw scoring totals suggest.

Table of Contents

Orlando Magic vs Cleveland Cavaliers Match Player Stats

Here is the key statistical picture from the March 12 matchup.

Category	Cleveland Cavaliers	Orlando Magic
Final Score	122	128
Field Goals	44-89	44-85
Field Goal Percentage	49%	52%
Three-Pointers	17-44	12-35
Three-Point Percentage	39%	34%
Free Throws	17-26	28-37
Free Throw Percentage	65%	76%
Total Rebounds	42	42
Assists	24	29
Turnovers	9	6
Steals	3	6
Blocks	5	4
Offensive Rebounds	12	8
Defensive Rebounds	30	34
Fouls	22	23

The first major takeaway is that Cleveland and Orlando made the same number of field goals, 44. Orlando nevertheless scored six more points because it generated more free throws and converted them at a higher rate.

Cleveland made 17 three-pointers compared with Orlando’s 12, which gave the Cavaliers a significant advantage from long range. However, Orlando’s 52% field goal shooting and 28 made free throws compensated for that difference.

Another important factor was ball security. Orlando committed only six turnovers compared with Cleveland’s nine. That three-turnover difference may appear small, but in a six-point game every additional possession becomes important.

How the Game Developed Quarter by Quarter

The quarter-by-quarter numbers show that neither team controlled the entire game.

First Quarter: Orlando Starts Fast

Cleveland scored 35 points in the opening period, but Orlando scored 38.

That immediately established the offensive character of the game. Both teams were comfortable scoring, but Orlando created a three-point advantage before the first break.

A 38-point opening quarter was significant because Cleveland was already shooting efficiently from the floor and eventually finished the game at 49%. Orlando’s ability to keep pace without relying heavily on three-point shooting helped establish the foundation for the win.

Second Quarter: Cleveland Responds

The Cavaliers won the second quarter 27-24.

After Orlando’s strong start, Cleveland reduced the deficit and continued producing efficient offense. The Cavaliers entered halftime with a competitive position, and their 17 made three-pointers for the game demonstrate how important perimeter shooting remained throughout the contest.

This was also where Cleveland’s offensive balance began to show. Harden and Mitchell provided perimeter scoring, while Evan Mobley offered interior production and rebounding.

Third Quarter: Orlando Creates Separation

The third quarter was arguably the most important period.

Orlando scored 34 points while Cleveland scored 27. The seven-point advantage gave the Magic the momentum needed to enter the final period with control.

Bane’s scoring, Banchero’s all-around contribution, and da Silva’s unexpected 23-point performance helped Orlando produce a strong offensive stretch. The Magic did not simply depend on one scorer.

Fourth Quarter: Cleveland Pushes Back

Cleveland scored 33 points in the fourth quarter compared with Orlando’s 32.

That means the Cavaliers did not disappear after falling behind in the third. They continued attacking and finished the game with 122 points.

However, Orlando had already built enough separation to protect the lead.

The final margin was six points, so the third-quarter advantage ultimately mattered enormously. A seven-point Orlando edge in the third was larger than the final winning margin.

Desmond Bane Was Orlando’s Offensive Leader

Desmond Bane delivered the strongest scoring performance of the game.

He finished with:

35 points
36 minutes
12-of-19 shooting
2-of-3 from three-point range
9-of-10 free throws
6 rebounds
6 assists
1 steal
+3 plus-minus

The most impressive part of Bane’s line was not simply the 35 points. It was the combination of scoring efficiency and playmaking.

Bane made 12 of his 19 field-goal attempts, which is approximately 63% shooting from the field. He also made nine of ten free throws.

His three-point volume was relatively modest, with only three attempts, but that illustrates something important about this particular game. Orlando did not need to win exclusively from beyond the arc.

Bane also recorded six assists and six rebounds, meaning his contribution extended well beyond scoring.

A 35-point performance with six assists and six rebounds is the type of production that can change the shape of a game because the player is creating value in several different ways.

Paolo Banchero Provided All-Around Production

Paolo Banchero was one of Orlando’s most complete performers.

His final numbers were:

25 points
37 minutes
8-of-18 field goals
2-of-6 three-pointers
7-of-9 free throws
8 rebounds
7 assists
2 turnovers
+11 plus-minus

The +11 plus-minus is particularly notable.

Banchero was not simply a scorer. He was involved in Orlando’s ball movement, rebounding, and half-court creation. Seven assists from a primary offensive player indicate that Cleveland had to account for his passing as well as his scoring.

His eight rebounds also helped Orlando maintain control on the defensive glass.

The combination of 25 points, 8 rebounds, and 7 assists demonstrates why box-score analysis should not focus only on the leading scorer.

Tristan da Silva Delivered a Major Contribution

Tristan da Silva produced one of the most notable supporting performances for Orlando.

He recorded:

23 points
34 minutes
8-of-13 field goals
3-of-8 three-pointers
4-of-5 free throws
4 rebounds
3 assists
1 block
+5 plus-minus

Da Silva’s 8-of-13 shooting was highly efficient.

His three made three-pointers also helped stretch Cleveland’s defense. While Orlando made fewer threes overall than Cleveland, da Silva’s perimeter shooting gave the Magic an important source of spacing.

His 23 points meant that Orlando had three players score at least 23 points. Cleveland, by comparison, had Harden at 30 and Mitchell at 25 as its primary high-volume scorers.

That difference in scoring distribution was one of the clearest features of the matchup.

Wendell Carter Jr. Controlled the Glass

Wendell Carter Jr. scored 11 points, but his rebounding contribution was more important.

He finished with:

11 points
35 minutes
4-of-7 field goals
1-of-3 three-pointers
2-of-6 free throws
11 rebounds
4 assists
1 block
+7 plus-minus

Carter Jr. recorded a double-double through his 11 rebounds and 11 points.

Orlando and Cleveland finished with 42 rebounds each, so there was no overall team rebounding advantage. However, Carter Jr.’s individual work helped Orlando maintain a strong interior presence.

His four assists were also useful because they show that his role was not limited to finishing around the basket.

Jalen Suggs Added Defensive Pressure

Jalen Suggs finished with 12 points, but his defensive contribution stands out.

His line included:

12 points
32 minutes
4-of-9 field goals
1-of-5 three-pointers
3-of-3 free throws
2 rebounds
4 assists
2 turnovers
3 steals
+3 plus-minus

The three steals were particularly valuable.

Orlando finished with six steals as a team, twice Cleveland’s total of three. Suggs accounted for half of Orlando’s steals himself.

His scoring was not as efficient as Bane’s or da Silva’s, but his defensive activity helped Orlando disrupt Cleveland’s possessions.

James Harden Led Cleveland’s Scoring

James Harden was Cleveland’s leading scorer with 30 points.

His complete line was:

37 minutes
30 points
11-of-16 field goals
5-of-9 three-pointers
3-of-5 free throws
5 rebounds
8 assists
4 turnovers
-7 plus-minus

Harden’s 11-of-16 shooting was extremely efficient.

He also made five three-pointers and created eight assists. From an individual offensive standpoint, this was a strong performance.

The main complication was the plus-minus. Harden finished at -7 despite scoring 30 points and shooting 68.8% from the field.

That does not mean he played poorly. Plus-minus reflects the team’s scoring margin while a player is on the court, not the player’s individual efficiency alone.

It does, however, show that Cleveland’s overall performance during Harden’s minutes was not enough to overcome Orlando’s collective production.

Donovan Mitchell Produced 25 Points

Donovan Mitchell finished with:

36 minutes
25 points
9-of-24 field goals
4-of-13 three-pointers
3-of-3 free throws
5 rebounds
5 assists
3 turnovers
1 steal
+0 plus-minus

Mitchell’s 25 points were important, but his shooting efficiency was significantly lower than Harden’s.

He made nine of 24 field-goal attempts, or 37.5%.

He also attempted 13 three-pointers and made four.

That volume tells us Cleveland was willing to let Mitchell create offense from the perimeter, but Orlando’s defense made those attempts less efficient than Harden’s opportunities.

Mitchell still contributed five rebounds and five assists, so his overall impact extended beyond scoring.

Evan Mobley Dominated the Rebounding Battle

Evan Mobley recorded the game’s best individual rebounding performance.

His statistics were:

18 points
32 minutes
8-of-13 field goals
0-of-2 three-pointers
2-of-7 free throws
13 rebounds
4 assists
2 blocks
-5 plus-minus

Mobley’s 13 rebounds were the highest total by any player in the game.

He also scored 18 points on 8-of-13 shooting, giving Cleveland an efficient interior scoring option.

His two blocks added another defensive element.

The main weakness in his line was free-throw shooting. He made only two of seven attempts. In a six-point loss, missed free throws are worth noting because they represent scoring opportunities that were available without needing to beat the defense from the field.

Sam Merrill’s Efficient Supporting Role

Sam Merrill finished with 13 points in 30 minutes.

He shot:

5-of-8 from the field
2-of-5 from three-point range
1-of-2 from the free-throw line

He also added four rebounds, two assists, and one steal.

Merrill’s five made field goals on eight attempts provided efficient support, although Cleveland ultimately needed more production across its rotation to match Orlando’s scoring distribution.

Dean Wade Had a Quiet Offensive Night

Dean Wade played 20 minutes and finished without a point.

His statistics were:

0-of-2 field goals
0-of-1 three-pointers
5 rebounds
1 turnover
1 block
-10 plus-minus

The zero points are the most obvious part of the line, but Wade still contributed five rebounds and a block.

His -10 plus-minus was the lowest among the listed Cleveland players in the supplied statistics.

Bench Production and Rotation Impact

Bench scoring can become critical in closely contested NBA games.

Cleveland’s leading bench scorer was Thomas Bryant with 12 points.

Orlando’s leading bench scorer was Jevon Carter with 9 points.

Neither bench produced a massive scoring total compared with the starters, which makes the starting groups especially important in understanding the result.

Orlando’s starters produced a large share of the team’s offensive output:

Bane: 35 points
Banchero: 25 points
da Silva: 23 points
Carter Jr.: 11 points
Suggs: 12 points

That is 106 combined points from the five listed starters.

Cleveland’s listed starters combined for:

Harden: 30 points
Mitchell: 25 points
Mobley: 18 points
Merrill: 13 points
Wade: 0 points

That totals 86 points.

This 20-point difference in starter scoring is one of the clearest statistical explanations for Orlando’s victory.

Shooting Efficiency Explains a Major Part of the Result

Cleveland actually made more three-pointers.

The Cavaliers went 17-of-44 from three, while Orlando went 12-of-35.

That represents a 15-point difference in made three-pointers, but Cleveland did not win the game.

Why?

Orlando compensated in other areas.

The Magic shot 44-of-85 overall, compared with Cleveland’s 44-of-89. Both teams made exactly 44 field goals, but Orlando needed four fewer attempts to do so.

Orlando also made 28 free throws compared with Cleveland’s 17.

That is an 11-made-free-throw advantage.

The overall picture is therefore more complicated than saying one team shot better from three.

Cleveland had the superior three-point percentage and volume. Orlando had superior overall field-goal efficiency and significantly better free-throw production.

Free Throws Were a Major Difference

Free throws may have been one of the biggest reasons Orlando won.

Orlando attempted 37 free throws and made 28.

Cleveland attempted 26 and made 17.

The difference was 11 made free throws.

Orlando converted 76% from the line, while Cleveland converted 65%.

Bane went 9-of-10.

Banchero went 7-of-9.

Suggs went 3-of-3.

Da Silva went 4-of-5.

Those four Orlando players alone combined for 23 made free throws.

That is a huge contribution to a 128-point total.

Turnovers Favored Orlando

Orlando committed six turnovers.

Cleveland committed nine.

The three-turnover advantage may look minor, but it reflects a broader difference in possession management.

Banchero committed two turnovers.

Suggs committed two.

Bane did not record a turnover in the supplied statistics.

Cleveland’s Harden had four turnovers, while Mitchell had three.

Those seven turnovers from Cleveland’s two leading perimeter creators were particularly relevant because they represented possessions lost from the team’s primary offensive engines.

Assists Show Orlando’s Ball Movement

Orlando finished with 29 assists.

Cleveland recorded 24.

That five-assist advantage provides another clue about the Magic’s offensive structure.

Banchero had seven assists.

Bane had six.

Carter Jr. had four.

Suggs had four.

Da Silva had three.

This is excellent distribution.

Instead of one player carrying all the playmaking responsibility, Orlando received meaningful creation from several positions.

Cleveland also had strong individual playmaking from Harden, who recorded eight assists, while Mitchell and Mobley each had five and four respectively.

However, Orlando’s five-player distribution was more balanced.

Rebounding Was Even at the Team Level

Both teams finished with 42 total rebounds.

That means rebounding alone cannot explain the victory.

Cleveland actually collected more offensive rebounds, 12 to Orlando’s 8.

The Cavaliers also had 30 defensive rebounds compared with Orlando’s 34.

Mobley’s 13 rebounds led Cleveland, while Carter Jr.’s 11 led Orlando.

This is an important reminder that a team can lose despite winning or matching certain statistical categories.

Orlando did not dominate the boards. Instead, it won through a combination of shooting efficiency, free throws, assists, turnovers, and balanced scoring.

Defense and the Small Margins

The defensive numbers were relatively close.

Cleveland recorded five blocks compared with Orlando’s four.

Orlando had six steals compared with Cleveland’s three.

The Magic therefore had a three-steal advantage and a one-block deficit.

The difference in steals is meaningful because steals can create transition opportunities without requiring a team to win a half-court possession.

Suggs led Orlando with three steals.

Mobley recorded two blocks for Cleveland.

The game was not decided by one overwhelming defensive performance. It was decided by several small advantages working together.

Plus-Minus Provides Additional Context

Plus-minus can be useful, but it must be interpreted carefully.

For Orlando:

Banchero: +11
Carter Jr.: +7
da Silva: +5
Bane: +3
Suggs: +3

Every listed Orlando starter finished with a positive plus-minus.

That is a striking statistic.

For Cleveland:

Harden: -7
Mobley: -5
Wade: -10
Merrill: -1
Mitchell: 0

The supplied statistics show every listed Cleveland starter at zero or negative.

This does not mean every Orlando player was automatically better than every Cleveland player. Plus-minus is strongly influenced by lineups and game context. However, the fact that all five listed Orlando starters were positive while all five Cleveland starters were non-positive supports the broader conclusion that Orlando’s starting unit functioned effectively as a group.

What the Player Statistics Say About Orlando’s Win

The most important lesson from this game is that Orlando won through balance.

The Magic did not have the better three-point shooting performance.

They did not win the rebounding battle.

They did not have a huge advantage in blocks.

Instead, Orlando won several smaller categories and converted those advantages into six additional points.

The biggest factors were:

Better overall field-goal efficiency
11 more made free throws
Five more assists
Three fewer turnovers
Three more steals
Three starters scoring at least 23 points
Positive plus-minus figures for all five listed starters

That combination made Orlando’s offense difficult to contain.

What Cleveland Could Take From the Game

Cleveland’s offensive performance was not poor.

The Cavaliers scored 122 points.

They shot 49% from the field.

They made 17 three-pointers.

Harden scored 30 points with eight assists.

Mitchell added 25.

Mobley produced 18 points and 13 rebounds.

The issue was not a lack of individual production.

The bigger issue was efficiency in several high-value areas.

Cleveland made only 17 of 26 free throws. Mobley went 2-of-7 at the line, while Harden went 3-of-5.

The Cavaliers also committed nine turnovers, including four by Harden and three by Mitchell.

At the same time, Dean Wade finished without a point.

When facing an Orlando lineup where Bane, Banchero, and da Silva combined for 83 points, Cleveland needed its entire rotation to remain highly efficient.

What Orlando Can Build On

For Orlando, the March 12 performance offers a strong blueprint.

Bane’s 35 points provided elite scoring.

Banchero supplied 25 points, 8 rebounds, and 7 assists.

Da Silva contributed 23 points.

Carter Jr. grabbed 11 rebounds.

Suggs created defensive pressure with three steals.

This was not a one-player victory.

It was a complete team performance in which several players produced positive contributions at the same time.

The six turnovers were especially encouraging because high-scoring games can often become careless. Orlando avoided that problem.

Comparing the Three Meetings

The season series entered the March 12 game with Cleveland holding a 2-0 advantage.

The supplied matchup results were:

January 25, 2026

Cleveland Cavaliers 119, Orlando Magic 105

Cleveland won by 14 points.

January 27, 2026

Cleveland Cavaliers 114, Orlando Magic 98

Cleveland won by 16 points.

March 12, 2026

Orlando Magic 128, Cleveland Cavaliers 122

Orlando won by six points.

The progression is significant.

Cleveland’s first two wins were relatively comfortable, with margins of 14 and 16 points.

The third meeting went in the opposite direction.

Orlando’s 128 points were also the highest scoring total among the three listed games for either team.

Although Cleveland still led the season series 2-1 after this meeting, the March result showed a clear change in the matchup.

Upcoming Fourth Meeting

The supplied data lists the fourth matchup between Orlando and Cleveland for March 25, 2026.

That meeting would be particularly interesting because the first three games established a clear progression:

Cleveland won the first two
Orlando won the third
The third game was the highest-scoring meeting
Orlando’s primary starters produced 106 combined points in the third matchup

For anyone evaluating the matchup, the most useful question is not simply which team won the previous game.

The better question is whether Orlando can reproduce the same combination of efficient two-point scoring, free-throw generation, ball movement, and low turnovers.

For Cleveland, the key issue would be whether its perimeter shooting can continue to compensate for weaker free-throw efficiency and whether its primary scorers can reduce turnovers.

Important Data Note

The supplied statistical information contains one season-record section that appears inconsistent with the March 12 game date.

The matchup-specific records are listed as Cleveland 40-26 overall and Orlando 36-28 overall. Elsewhere, the supplied table lists 2025-26 standings of Cleveland 52-30 and Orlando 45-37.

Because 52-30 and 45-37 represent 82-game season totals, those figures do not correspond naturally to a March 12 regular-season game.

For that reason, this article relies on the matchup-specific March 12 statistics and does not use the later-looking 52-30 and 45-37 records as evidence about the teams’ standings on March 12.

This distinction matters when publishing sports statistics. A correct box score can still become misleading if later season standings are accidentally presented as though they existed at the time of an earlier game.

Key Statistical Takeaways

The most useful numbers from the game can be summarized as follows:

Orlando’s biggest advantages

128 points
52% field-goal shooting
28 made free throws
29 assists
6 turnovers
6 steals
106 points from the five listed starters
+11 plus-minus for Banchero

Cleveland’s biggest strengths

17 made three-pointers
39% three-point shooting
12 offensive rebounds
30 points from Harden
25 points from Mitchell
18 points and 13 rebounds from Mobley
5 team blocks

Individual performances that stood out

Desmond Bane: 35 points, 6 rebounds, 6 assists

Paolo Banchero: 25 points, 8 rebounds, 7 assists

Tristan da Silva: 23 points on 8-of-13 shooting

James Harden: 30 points, 8 assists on 11-of-16 shooting

Donovan Mitchell: 25 points, 5 rebounds, 5 assists

Evan Mobley: 18 points, 13 rebounds, 4 assists, 2 blocks

Why the Six-Point Margin Matters

A 128-122 result is close enough that individual possessions matter.

Orlando’s advantage was not created by a huge difference in field goals. Both teams made 44.

It was not created by rebounding. Both collected 42.

It was not created by three-point shooting. Cleveland clearly had the edge there.

Instead, Orlando’s advantage came from efficiency and possession quality.

The Magic made four more free throws? More precisely, they made 11 more free throws.

They also committed three fewer turnovers and recorded five more assists.

These are exactly the types of small statistical differences that become decisive in a close NBA game.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who led the Orlando Magic in scoring against Cleveland?

Desmond Bane led Orlando with 35 points. He shot 12-of-19 from the field and also recorded 6 rebounds and 6 assists.

Who led the Cleveland Cavaliers in scoring?

James Harden led Cleveland with 30 points. He shot 11-of-16 from the field, made five three-pointers, and recorded 8 assists.

What was the final score of the game?

The Orlando Magic defeated the Cleveland Cavaliers 128-122 on March 12, 2026, at Kia Center.

Who had the most rebounds?

Evan Mobley led all players with 13 rebounds. Orlando’s Wendell Carter Jr. was the Magic’s leading rebounder with 11.

Which team shot better from the field?

Orlando shot better overall, making 44 of 85 field-goal attempts for 52%. Cleveland made 44 of 89 for 49%.

Who won the season series after this game?

After Orlando’s March 12 victory, Cleveland still led the season series 2-1. The supplied data lists a fourth meeting for March 25, 2026.

Conclusion

The March 12 meeting between Orlando and Cleveland was a strong example of why player statistics need to be viewed as a complete picture rather than a simple scoring leaderboard.

Desmond Bane was the headline performer for Orlando with 35 points, but the Magic’s victory was built on much more than his scoring. Paolo Banchero produced 25 points, 8 rebounds, and 7 assists. Tristan da Silva added 23 points, while Wendell Carter Jr. controlled the boards with 11 rebounds. Jalen Suggs added defensive pressure with three steals.

Cleveland had excellent individual performances as well. James Harden scored 30 points and delivered eight assists, Donovan Mitchell scored 25, and Evan Mobley posted 18 points with 13 rebounds and two blocks.

The difference came from how those performances combined.

Orlando shot 52% from the field, made 28 free throws, recorded 29 assists, committed only six turnovers, and had every listed starter finish with a positive plus-minus. Cleveland’s 17 made three-pointers kept the game competitive, but the Cavaliers could not overcome Orlando’s overall efficiency and balanced scoring.

For readers studying the orlando magic vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats, the central lesson is clear: the six-point result was not determined by one isolated statistic. It came from Orlando combining efficient shooting, free-throw production, ball movement, defensive activity, and strong contributions across its starting lineup.