Pacers vs Charlotte Hornets Match Player Stats

The pacers vs charlotte hornets match player stats from the February 27, 2026 matchup tell a much deeper story than the 133-109 final score alone. Charlotte turned a competitive opening quarter into a dominant performance, shooting 56% from the field and 48% from three while building a 21-point halftime advantage. Indiana, meanwhile, struggled badly in the second quarter and could not recover despite scoring 36 points in the third.

The game was played at Gainbridge Fieldhouse in Indianapolis and drew 17,073 spectators. Charlotte finished with 133 points on 48-of-86 shooting, including 22-of-46 from three-point range. Indiana scored 109 points on 41-of-87 shooting and made 11 of 35 attempts from beyond the arc.

Brandon Miller led Charlotte with 33 points, while Kon Knueppel added 28 and LaMelo Ball scored 20. Moussa Diabate controlled the glass with 11 rebounds, while Ball created offense with eight assists. For Indiana, Andrew Nembhard led the team with 20 points and seven assists, while Micah Potter scored 19 points off the bench.

The official NBA game record confirms Charlotte’s 133-109 victory, the 48-of-86 shooting performance, Knueppel’s 28 points and Nembhard’s 20 points. (NBA.com)

Pacers vs Charlotte Hornets Match Player Stats at a Glance

Here is the quickest statistical snapshot of the game.

Category	Charlotte Hornets	Indiana Pacers
Final Score	133	109
Field Goals	48-86	41-87
Field Goal Percentage	55.8%	47.1%
Three-Pointers	22-46	11-35
Three-Point Percentage	47.8%	31.4%
Free Throws	15-19	16-20
Free Throw Percentage	78.9%	80.0%
Rebounds	46	37
Assists	35	28
Turnovers	16	12
Steals	10	7
Blocks	4	3

Charlotte’s advantage was especially clear from three-point range. The Hornets made 11 more three-pointers than Indiana, producing a 33-point difference from that area alone.

That shooting gap was too large for Indiana to overcome.

How the Game Developed Quarter by Quarter

The final margin can make this look like a one-sided game from the opening tip, but the quarter scores show something more interesting.

Quarter	Charlotte	Indiana	Charlotte Lead
First	31	34	Indiana +3
Second	36	12	Charlotte +21
Third	40	36	Charlotte +25
Fourth	26	27	Charlotte +24
Final	133	109	Charlotte +24

Indiana actually won the first quarter 34-31.

That changed dramatically in the second period.

The Second Quarter Changed Everything

Indiana managed only 12 points in the second quarter while Charlotte scored 36. That 24-point swing effectively transformed the game.

The Pacers shot only 3-for-18 during that quarter, according to the official game recap. Charlotte used the opportunity to build a 67-46 halftime lead. (NBA.com)

This is one of the most important details when analyzing the pacers vs charlotte hornets match player stats. Looking only at the final score hides the fact that Indiana was competitive early.

Charlotte did not simply win every phase from the opening minute. Instead, the Hornets created separation through an explosive second quarter and then maintained enough offensive pressure to prevent Indiana from making a serious comeback.

Charlotte Exploded Again in the Third

The Hornets scored 40 points in the third quarter.

Brandon Miller was particularly important during that period. The official recap notes that Miller hit four consecutive three-pointers during the third quarter as Charlotte extended its advantage. (NBA.com)

By the end of three quarters, Charlotte led 107-82.

At that point, the fourth quarter became more about managing the existing advantage than deciding the winner.

Brandon Miller’s 33-Point Performance

Brandon Miller was the leading scorer in the game.

He finished with:

Stat	Brandon Miller
Minutes	26
Points	33
Field Goals	11-19
Three-Pointers	6-11
Free Throws	5-6
Rebounds	7
Assists	4
Steals	1
Turnovers	4
Plus/Minus	+14

Miller’s 11-of-19 shooting translated to an excellent 57.9% field-goal percentage. More importantly, he made six three-pointers on 11 attempts.

That combination gave Charlotte efficient high-volume scoring without requiring Miller to dominate the ball for an extended period.

He played only 26 minutes, yet produced 33 points.

That is an important part of understanding this matchup. Charlotte did not need to rely on one player playing 35 or 40 minutes. The team’s shooting efficiency allowed its leading scorer to have a major offensive impact in limited minutes.

The official NBA recap also identifies Miller’s 33-point performance as one of the defining features of the game. (NBA.com)

Kon Knueppel’s 28 Points and Historic Three-Point Shooting

Kon Knueppel produced one of the most efficient shooting performances of the night.

His line was:

Stat	Kon Knueppel
Minutes	31
Points	28
Field Goals	10-17
Three-Pointers	8-12
Rebounds	4
Assists	2
Steals	1
Blocks	1
Turnovers	1
Plus/Minus	+26

Knueppel shot 58.8% from the field and 66.7% from three.

Eight made three-pointers from 12 attempts is an exceptional shooting night.

The official NBA recap reported that Knueppel broke the NBA rookie record for made three-pointers in a season, reaching 209 made threes. The previous mark was 206 by Keegan Murray in 2022-23. (NBA.com)

That achievement adds historical context to the box score.

His 28 points were not simply the product of volume. He made 10 of his 17 field-goal attempts and committed only one turnover.

His +26 plus/minus was also the highest mark among the players listed in the game.

LaMelo Ball’s All-Around Contribution

LaMelo Ball did not lead Charlotte in scoring, but his overall offensive influence was significant.

He recorded:

Stat	LaMelo Ball
Minutes	22
Points	20
Field Goals	7-12
Three-Pointers	3-8
Free Throws	3-3
Rebounds	4
Assists	8
Steals	1
Blocks	1
Turnovers	3
Plus/Minus	+24

Ball’s eight assists were the highest total on the Hornets.

He also shot 7-of-12 from the field, giving Charlotte another efficient scoring option alongside Miller and Knueppel.

The key point is that Charlotte’s offense was not dependent on one creator. Ball could create opportunities, Miller could score at volume and Knueppel could punish Indiana from outside.

That distribution made the Hornets difficult to contain.

Moussa Diabate Dominated the Rebounding Battle

Moussa Diabate provided Charlotte with a different type of impact.

He scored 14 points while grabbing 11 rebounds.

His complete line included:

• 30 minutes
• 14 points
• 7-of-8 shooting
• 11 rebounds
• 4 assists
• 2 steals
• +18 plus/minus

Diabate’s 7-of-8 shooting was one of the most efficient scoring performances among Charlotte’s starters.

His 11 rebounds also helped Charlotte finish with 46 total rebounds compared with Indiana’s 37.

That nine-rebound advantage mattered because it gave Charlotte additional control over possessions and reduced the Pacers’ ability to create second-chance opportunities.

Miles Bridges Provided Efficient Supporting Production

Miles Bridges scored seven points in 24 minutes.

His shooting line was 3-of-6 from the field and 1-of-2 from three.

He also recorded three rebounds, two assists, two steals and one block.

His +23 plus/minus indicates that his contribution was not reflected by scoring alone.

Bridges helped Charlotte maintain its defensive and transition structure while the team’s leading scorers handled much of the offensive workload.

Charlotte’s Bench Production

Charlotte’s bench was not built around one huge scoring performance, but several players added useful contributions.

Grant Williams

Williams scored nine points in 23 minutes.

He made three of five field-goal attempts and three of four three-point attempts. He also added four rebounds, two assists and one block.

His outside shooting helped preserve spacing around Charlotte’s primary scorers.

Coby White

White scored seven points and added six assists in 17 minutes.

He shot 2-of-8 from the field and did not make a three-pointer, but his six assists gave Charlotte another passing option.

Pat Connaughton

Connaughton scored five points in eight minutes while making both of his field-goal attempts and his lone free throw.

He also recorded one rebound, one assist and one steal.

Ryan Kalkbrenner

Kalkbrenner played 12 minutes and went 2-for-2 from the field for four points.

He also grabbed four rebounds.

Tre Mann

Mann scored four points in 10 minutes, including one three-pointer.

Sion James

James scored two points, grabbed four rebounds and recorded two assists in 19 minutes.

Josh Green

Green did not score, but he contributed one assist and one steal.

The important team-level observation is that Charlotte did not require every bench player to score heavily. Its starters generated enough efficient offense to create a comfortable margin.

Andrew Nembhard Led Indiana’s Offense

Andrew Nembhard was Indiana’s leading scorer with 20 points.

His line was:

Stat	Andrew Nembhard
Minutes	29
Points	20
Field Goals	6-14
Three-Pointers	3-6
Free Throws	5-6
Rebounds	3
Assists	7
Steals	1
Turnovers	4
Plus/Minus	-12

Nembhard’s seven assists tied him for the team lead with T.J. McConnell.

He shot 42.9% from the field and 50% from three.

His scoring and playmaking made him one of Indiana’s more productive offensive players, but the Pacers needed considerably more efficiency and defensive resistance around him.

The official NBA record lists Nembhard as Indiana’s scoring leader with 20 points and seven assists. (NBA.com)

Micah Potter Was Indiana’s Most Efficient Scorer

Micah Potter supplied 19 points from the bench.

His line included:

• 26 minutes
• 19 points
• 6-of-11 field goals
• 5-of-7 three-pointers
• 2-of-2 free throws
• 4 rebounds
• 1 assist
• 2 steals
• +1 plus/minus

Potter’s five made three-pointers were especially valuable.

He shot 71.4% from three, making him one of Indiana’s most efficient offensive players on the night.

His +1 plus/minus was also notable because most Indiana players finished in negative territory.

The problem was that Potter’s efficiency did not receive enough support from the rest of the Pacers’ shooting attack.

Jarace Walker’s 16 Points

Jarace Walker finished with 16 points and six rebounds.

He shot 7-of-17 from the field and 2-of-7 from three.

His complete contribution included:

• 31 minutes
• 16 points
• 6 rebounds
• 1 assist
• 1 steal
• 1 block
• 2 turnovers
• -10 plus/minus

Walker was one of Indiana’s higher-volume scorers, but his 41.2% field-goal percentage shows the difficulty Indiana had converting consistently.

Ben Sheppard Added Efficient Scoring

Ben Sheppard was one of Indiana’s more efficient starters.

He scored 11 points on 5-of-7 shooting and made his only free-throw attempt.

He also recorded five rebounds, three assists and one steal.

His +/− was -13, reflecting the broader team problem rather than a simple lack of offensive efficiency from him individually.

T.J. McConnell’s Seven Assists

T.J. McConnell played 17 minutes and scored nine points.

He shot 4-of-9 from the field and added seven assists.

That seven-assist total tied Nembhard for the Indiana team lead.

McConnell’s contribution demonstrates that Indiana did have reliable passing production. The larger issue was converting those possessions into enough points.

Other Indiana Contributors

Quenton Jackson scored 13 points in 31 minutes.

He made four of nine field goals and all five of his free throws. He also recorded four rebounds, two assists and one steal.

Kobe Brown scored six points with five rebounds, one assist and one block.

Kam Jones added five points, two rebounds and two assists.

Jay Huff scored seven points while adding four rebounds, three assists and one block.

Obi Toppin played eight minutes and scored three points.

The distribution shows that Indiana had several players capable of contributing, but the overall offensive efficiency did not match Charlotte’s.

The Three-Point Gap Explains Much of the Result

One of the clearest lessons from the pacers vs charlotte hornets match player stats is the importance of three-point efficiency.

Charlotte:

• 22 made threes
• 46 attempts
• 47.8% from three

Indiana:

• 11 made threes
• 35 attempts
• 31.4% from three

Charlotte therefore made twice as many three-pointers as Indiana.

That produced a 33-point advantage from behind the arc.

This is especially important because Indiana actually scored 58 points in the paint compared with Charlotte’s 50.

So the Pacers were not completely ineffective offensively.

They actually held a sizable advantage in points in the paint.

The problem was that Charlotte’s perimeter shooting overwhelmed that advantage.

Field-Goal Efficiency Was Also in Charlotte’s Favor

Charlotte finished 48-of-86 from the field.

Indiana finished 41-of-87.

That means Charlotte made seven more field goals despite taking one fewer overall attempt.

The resulting shooting percentages were approximately:

• Charlotte: 55.8%
• Indiana: 47.1%

An eight-point field-goal percentage advantage is substantial over a full game.

Charlotte combined that efficiency with its three-point volume to produce a very high offensive total.

Rebounding and Ball Movement

Charlotte also won the rebounding battle 46-37.

The nine-rebound advantage gave the Hornets a meaningful possession edge.

Charlotte also recorded 35 assists compared with Indiana’s 28.

That seven-assist difference suggests Charlotte’s offensive success was not purely individual shot-making.

The Hornets moved the ball effectively enough to create quality scoring opportunities across multiple players.

LaMelo Ball led the team with eight assists, while Brandon Miller added four and Moussa Diabate contributed four.

Turnovers Did Not Decide the Game

Indiana actually committed fewer turnovers.

The Pacers had 12 turnovers.

Charlotte had 16.

Normally, that could be a significant advantage for the team protecting the basketball.

But Charlotte’s shooting was so much more efficient that the turnover difference did not become decisive.

This is an important analytical point. A box score should not be interpreted by selecting one favorable category and ignoring everything else.

Indiana protected the ball better, but Charlotte compensated through superior shooting, rebounding, assists and overall offensive efficiency.

Plus/Minus Shows Charlotte’s Control

Charlotte’s leading plus/minus figures included:

• Kon Knueppel: +26
• LaMelo Ball: +24
• Miles Bridges: +23
• Moussa Diabate: +18
• Brandon Miller: +14

Indiana’s numbers were more difficult:

• Micah Potter: +1
• Obi Toppin: -1
• T.J. McConnell: -10
• Jarace Walker: -10
• Andrew Nembhard: -12
• Ben Sheppard: -13
• Kobe Brown: -17
• Quenton Jackson: -22
• Jay Huff: -32

Plus/minus is not a complete measure of individual performance because it reflects the team’s scoring margin while a player is on the court.

Still, the distribution supports what the rest of the box score shows: Charlotte’s main rotation controlled the game.

Indiana’s Second-Quarter Collapse

The biggest tactical statistic was Indiana’s second-quarter scoring.

The Pacers produced only 12 points.

Charlotte scored 36.

That means Charlotte outscored Indiana 36-12 during the period.

Indiana’s poor shooting during that stretch created a situation where every Charlotte basket became more valuable.

Once Charlotte established the 67-46 halftime lead, Indiana had to play from behind for the rest of the game.

The Missing Indiana Players

Indiana entered the game without Pascal Siakam and Aaron Nesmith according to the supplied injury information.

Siakam was listed as out with a sprained left wrist.

Nesmith was listed as out with a sprained right ankle.

Their absence is relevant context when reviewing the Pacers’ rotation and offensive distribution.

However, it should not be used to erase what happened on the court. The players who participated still produced the statistical profile shown in the box score.

A useful game analysis should separate availability context from actual performance.

Charlotte’s Offensive Formula

Charlotte’s winning formula can be summarized in five areas.

1. Elite perimeter shooting

The Hornets made 22 threes.

2. Efficient scoring from Miller

Miller scored 33 points on 19 field-goal attempts.

3. High-value shooting from Knueppel

Knueppel made eight threes.

4. Playmaking from Ball

Ball finished with eight assists.

5. Rebounding from Diabate

Diabate grabbed 11 rebounds.

Together, these contributions created an offense that Indiana struggled to disrupt.

Indiana’s Offensive Formula

Indiana’s production was more fragmented.

Nembhard led the team with 20 points.

Potter provided 19 points with excellent three-point shooting.

Walker added 16.

Jackson scored 13.

Sheppard scored 11.

McConnell added nine.

The problem was not a complete lack of scoring options.

The problem was that the Pacers could not match Charlotte’s efficiency and perimeter production.

What the Matchup Teaches About Player Stats

Player statistics are most useful when they are connected to the team result.

For example, Potter’s five made threes look excellent in isolation.

But Charlotte had three players who collectively made 17 three-pointers:

• Knueppel: 8
• Miller: 6
• Ball: 3

That trio alone nearly matched Indiana’s entire three-point output.

Similarly, Nembhard’s 20 points and seven assists were strong individual numbers.

But Charlotte had Ball’s eight assists plus 35 total team assists.

The deeper lesson is that individual statistics become more meaningful when viewed alongside team efficiency and game flow.

Season Series Context

The supplied season-series information lists four meetings between the teams.

Game	Result
November 20	Indiana 127, Charlotte 118
January 9	Indiana 114, Charlotte 112
February 27	Charlotte 133, Indiana 109
April 4	Indiana 129, Charlotte 108

The February meeting therefore represented Charlotte’s first win over Indiana in the listed season series.

The first two games were close Indiana victories.

The February game was dramatically different, with Charlotte winning by 24 points.

The April result later moved the listed season series to 3-1 in Indiana’s favor.

This context is useful because it prevents readers from treating one matchup as a complete representation of the teams.

Why the Final Score Can Be Misleading

A 24-point victory might suggest a game that was never competitive.

That was not exactly the case.

Indiana won the first quarter 34-31.

The game changed in the second quarter.

Charlotte then extended its lead in the third and comfortably controlled the fourth.

This is why quarter-by-quarter data matters.

The pacers vs charlotte hornets match player stats show a game that turned on one extreme scoring swing rather than a uniform 48-minute advantage.

Most Important Numbers From the Game

For readers who want the statistics without the long analysis, these are the numbers worth remembering:

• Final score: Charlotte 133, Indiana 109
• Charlotte field goals: 48-of-86
• Indiana field goals: 41-of-87
• Charlotte threes: 22-of-46
• Indiana threes: 11-of-35
• Charlotte rebounds: 46
• Indiana rebounds: 37
• Charlotte assists: 35
• Indiana assists: 28
• Brandon Miller: 33 points
• Kon Knueppel: 28 points
• LaMelo Ball: 20 points and 8 assists
• Moussa Diabate: 11 rebounds
• Andrew Nembhard: 20 points and 7 assists
• Micah Potter: 19 points and 5 three-pointers
• Jarace Walker: 16 points and 6 rebounds

Where to Verify the Official Box Score

Readers who want to check the complete official player-by-player record can use the NBA official box score, which contains the game totals and individual statistics. (NBA.com)

How to Read These Player Stats Correctly

When evaluating an NBA box score, it is useful to follow a consistent process.

First, check the final score.

Second, compare shooting percentages.

Third, examine three-point volume and accuracy.

Fourth, check rebounding and assists.

Fifth, review turnovers.

Sixth, identify the leading scorers and playmakers.

Finally, compare individual numbers with the game flow.

This process prevents one statistic from dominating the entire interpretation.

For example, Indiana’s 12 turnovers were better than Charlotte’s 16.

But Charlotte still won comfortably.

Likewise, Indiana scored 58 points in the paint compared with Charlotte’s 50.

Yet the Hornets won by 24.

The reason becomes clear once the three-point numbers are considered.

What Stands Out About Charlotte’s Shooting

Charlotte’s 22 made threes represented nearly half of its total field goals.

That is a major offensive characteristic of the game.

The Hornets did not need to generate all of their offense through drives and interior scoring.

Instead, they combined perimeter shooting with enough interior efficiency to keep Indiana’s defense under pressure.

Knueppel’s 8-of-12 three-point performance was especially important.

Miller’s 6-of-11 shooting from deep added another high-volume threat.

Ball also made three threes.

Grant Williams contributed another three.

Tre Mann added one.

The scoring was therefore spread across the rotation.

What Stands Out About Indiana’s Shooting

Indiana’s 11-of-35 three-point performance was much less efficient.

There were still individual bright spots.

Potter went 5-of-7.

Nembhard went 3-of-6.

Walker went 2-of-7.

But Indiana needed more consistent production from the rest of the roster.

The Pacers shot 47.1% overall, which is not disastrous.

The bigger problem was the contrast with Charlotte’s 55.8% shooting and 47.8% three-point accuracy.

The Role of Free Throws

Both teams were relatively efficient from the free-throw line.

Charlotte made 15 of 19 for 78.9%.

Indiana made 16 of 20 for 80%.

Indiana actually had a small advantage in free-throw percentage and made one more free throw.

That category therefore did not explain the result.

This is another reason why the three-point and field-goal differences deserve greater attention.

Why Knueppel’s Performance Matters Historically

Knueppel’s eight made threes were not just a personal scoring achievement.

The official NBA recap reported that the performance moved him to 209 made three-pointers for the season, breaking the rookie record of 206. (NBA.com)

That gives this particular box score additional historical relevance.

A standard player-stat article might simply list his 28 points.

A deeper review recognizes that the eight made threes had both game-level and season-level significance.

Final Statistical Assessment

The most useful way to summarize this matchup is through efficiency rather than scoring alone.

Charlotte won because it combined:

• 55.8% field-goal shooting
• 47.8% three-point shooting
• 22 made threes
• 46 rebounds
• 35 assists
• Strong production from multiple starters
• A 36-12 second quarter

Indiana produced:

• 47.1% field-goal shooting
• 31.4% three-point shooting
• 11 made threes
• 37 rebounds
• 28 assists
• 12 turnovers
• Several double-digit scorers

The Pacers had enough individual production to score 109 points.

They simply could not match Charlotte’s efficiency or explosive perimeter scoring.

FAQs About Pacers vs Charlotte Hornets Match Player Stats

Who scored the most points in the game?

Brandon Miller led all players with 33 points for Charlotte. He shot 11-of-19 from the field and made six three-pointers.

Who led the Pacers in scoring?

Andrew Nembhard led Indiana with 20 points. He also recorded seven assists.

How many three-pointers did the Hornets make?

Charlotte made 22 of 46 three-point attempts, shooting 47.8% from beyond the arc.

How many rebounds did Moussa Diabate have?

Moussa Diabate led Charlotte with 11 rebounds. He also scored 14 points and shot 7-of-8 from the field.

Who had the most assists?

LaMelo Ball led Charlotte with eight assists. Andrew Nembhard and T.J. McConnell each had seven assists for Indiana.

What was the final score?

Charlotte defeated Indiana 133-109.

Conclusion

The pacers vs charlotte hornets match player stats reveal a game defined by shooting efficiency, perimeter production and a dramatic second-quarter swing.

Brandon Miller was Charlotte’s leading scorer with 33 points, while Kon Knueppel added 28 points on 10-of-17 shooting and eight made three-pointers. LaMelo Ball contributed 20 points and eight assists, while Moussa Diabate controlled the boards with 11 rebounds.

Indiana received 20 points and seven assists from Andrew Nembhard, 19 points from Micah Potter and 16 points from Jarace Walker. The Pacers also had several other double-digit contributors.

However, Charlotte’s 22 made three-pointers compared with Indiana’s 11 created a decisive scoring gap. The Hornets also shot nearly 56% from the field, won the rebounding battle 46-37 and recorded 35 assists.

The second quarter was the turning point. Indiana scored only 12 points while Charlotte scored 36, turning a three-point first-quarter deficit into a 21-point halftime lead.

The result is a strong example of why a complete NBA box-score analysis needs more than the final score. Individual points, assists and rebounds matter, but their significance becomes much clearer when combined with shooting efficiency, quarter-by-quarter scoring, team totals and game context.