New Orleans Pelicans vs Charlotte Hornets Match Player Stats
The new orleans pelicans vs charlotte hornets match player stats from February 3, 2026, tell the story of a remarkable comeback at Spectrum Center in Charlotte, North Carolina. The Charlotte Hornets defeated the New Orleans Pelicans 102-95 after overcoming a 15-point halftime deficit. Although New Orleans started strongly and led for much of the first half, Charlotte changed the game’s direction after the break through stronger rebounding, improved scoring efficiency at the free-throw line, and a much better defensive effort. LaMelo Ball led Charlotte with 24 points, while Trey Murphy III scored a game-high 27 points for New Orleans. The final numbers reveal an important contrast: the Pelicans created more assists and committed fewer turnovers, but the Hornets controlled the boards and produced the more effective second-half performance.
New Orleans Pelicans vs Charlotte Hornets Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The February 3 matchup offered a clear example of how a basketball game can change even when one team appears to have control. New Orleans scored 64 points in the first half, while Charlotte managed only 49. However, the Hornets responded with a stronger defensive approach and scored 53 points after halftime, limiting the Pelicans to just 31 points over the same period.
Winning team
Charlotte Hornets
102
Season record shown: 23-28
Losing team
New Orleans Pelicans
95
Season record shown: 13-39
Date
February 3, 2026
Venue
Spectrum Center
Location
Charlotte, North Carolina
Attendance
17,263
Source: ESPN box score data supplied for this game.
The seven-point final margin does not fully explain the contest. Charlotte’s victory came from a substantial second-half turnaround, not from leading throughout the game. New Orleans had the better passing and turnover numbers, but Charlotte’s 25-rebound advantage proved especially important.
Quarter-by-quarter scoring
| Quarter | New Orleans Pelicans | Charlotte Hornets |
| First quarter | 30 | 23 |
| Second quarter | 34 | 26 |
| Third quarter | 18 | 29 |
| Fourth quarter | 13 | 24 |
| Final score | 95 | 102 |
New Orleans won the first quarter by seven points and extended its advantage with a 34-point second quarter. At halftime, the Pelicans led 64-49, a 15-point advantage that appeared to put them in a strong position.
Charlotte then outscored New Orleans 29-18 in the third quarter. The Hornets continued that momentum in the fourth, winning the period 24-13. Their combined 53-31 advantage in the second half turned a difficult position into a seven-point victory.
This sequence is central to understanding the match. A halftime lead is valuable, but it must be supported by defensive consistency and control of possessions after the break. Charlotte improved in both areas, particularly on the defensive glass.
Complete Team Statistics: Pelicans vs Hornets
The team statistics show how Charlotte won despite shooting a lower percentage from three-point range. The Hornets converted more free throws, collected substantially more rebounds, and secured more offensive opportunities.
| Statistical category | New Orleans Pelicans | Charlotte Hornets |
| Points | 95 | 102 |
| Field goals made/attempted | 33/84 | 34/85 |
| Field-goal percentage | 39% | 40% |
| Three-pointers made/attempted | 11/34 | 12/50 |
| Three-point percentage | 32% | 24% |
| Free throws made/attempted | 18/25 | 22/27 |
| Free-throw percentage | 72% | 81% |
| Total rebounds | 34 | 59 |
| Offensive rebounds | 5 | 13 |
| Defensive rebounds | 29 | 46 |
| Assists | 23 | 16 |
| Turnovers | 7 | 16 |
| Steals | 9 | 3 |
| Blocks | 4 | 3 |
| Team fouls | 23 | 19 |
Three statistical differences stand out.
First, Charlotte collected 59 rebounds compared with New Orleans’ 34. That is a difference of 25 rebounds, giving the Hornets far more control over missed shots and second-chance opportunities.
Second, Charlotte made 22 free throws, four more than New Orleans. The Hornets also shot 81% from the line, compared with the Pelicans’ 72%. Those extra points mattered in a game decided by seven.
Third, New Orleans had a much better turnover count, committing seven compared with Charlotte’s 16. The Pelicans also recorded more assists and steals. Those advantages demonstrate why the result cannot be explained by a simple claim that Charlotte won every statistical category.
The more accurate interpretation is that Charlotte dominated the rebounding battle and improved after halftime, while New Orleans did better at protecting possession and creating assists.
New Orleans Pelicans Player Stats and Individual Performances
The Pelicans had several productive individual performances, led by Trey Murphy III. However, their scoring output was not enough to overcome Charlotte’s advantage on the boards. The player statistics suggest that New Orleans had the ability to generate offense, but struggled to maintain that production during the final two quarters.
Trey Murphy III: 27 points
Trey Murphy III was New Orleans’ leading scorer with 27 points. His performance gave the Pelicans a dependable scoring option throughout a game in which the team’s offense slowed considerably after halftime.
Murphy’s scoring total represented more than a quarter of New Orleans’ 95 points. He finished ahead of every other player listed among the game’s leading scorers, including Charlotte’s LaMelo Ball.
His contribution also came with four assists, tying him with Zion Williamson and Saddiq Bey for the Pelicans’ highest assist total. That combination of scoring and playmaking made Murphy one of New Orleans’ most important offensive contributors.
The challenge for the Pelicans was turning individual production into sustained team scoring. After recording 64 points in the first half, New Orleans managed only 31 points in the second half. Even an excellent scoring performance from Murphy could not compensate for the broader offensive decline.
Derik Queen: 16 points
Derik Queen finished with 16 points, making him New Orleans’ second-highest scorer. His contribution helped the Pelicans build their early advantage and provided support behind Murphy.
Queen also recorded three steals, the highest individual steals total highlighted in the supplied game statistics. Steals can interrupt an opponent’s offensive rhythm and create transition scoring opportunities, making this an important defensive contribution.
However, steals alone cannot measure a player’s overall defensive impact. Defensive rebounding, positioning, contesting shots, and limiting second-chance opportunities also matter. Charlotte’s 59 rebounds illustrate why the Pelicans needed a more complete team response despite Queen’s activity on defense.
Zion Williamson: 14 points and 11 rebounds
Zion Williamson recorded 14 points and 11 rebounds, leading New Orleans in rebounding. His double-digit rebound total was a positive individual achievement, but it also highlights the difference between one player’s work and a team’s overall performance.
Williamson collected fewer rebounds than Charlotte’s entire offensive and defensive rebounding groups combined, which is expected when comparing an individual player with a team. More importantly, the Pelicans finished with only 34 rebounds as a team, while Charlotte secured 59.
Williamson also shared the Pelicans’ assist lead with four. His points, rebounds, and passing contribution show that he participated in several areas of the game rather than focusing solely on scoring.
The broader issue was that New Orleans did not collectively secure enough missed shots. Williamson’s 11 rebounds could not prevent Charlotte from establishing a substantial advantage in possession opportunities.
Saddiq Bey: Four assists
Saddiq Bey recorded four assists, matching Murphy and Williamson for the Pelicans’ highest individual total in that category.
His passing contribution matters because assists help show how a team distributes offensive responsibilities. New Orleans finished with 23 assists, seven more than Charlotte. This suggests that the Pelicans were more productive in creating assisted scoring opportunities according to the recorded team totals.
However, assists do not measure every part of offensive efficiency. A team can move the ball effectively and still struggle to score when shots are missed, opponents secure rebounds, or late-game possessions become difficult.
The Pelicans’ 39% field-goal shooting and 31 second-half points demonstrate that their passing advantage did not translate into enough points when the game was on the line.
Herbert Jones and the Pelicans’ starting lineup
Herbert Jones started alongside Williamson, Murphy, Derik Queen, and Bey. The supplied summary does not provide a complete individual statistical line for Jones, so it would be inaccurate to assign him an unverified number of points, rebounds, assists, or steals.
His presence in the starting group is still relevant to understanding the matchup. A starting lineup must balance shot creation, defensive assignments, rebounding, and spacing. Those responsibilities become especially important when a team is protecting a substantial lead.
New Orleans entered halftime ahead by 15 points but lost the second half by 22. The starting group and bench collectively needed to sustain defensive intensity and scoring after the break. The available team totals establish that New Orleans did not manage to do so, although they do not identify a single player as responsible for the change.
Pelicans bench contributions
The listed New Orleans reserves included Jose Alvarado, Jeremiah Fears, Yves Missi, Karlo Matkovic, Kevon Looney, DeAndre Jordan, Jordan Poole, Micah Peavy, and Jordan Hawkins.
Karlo Matkovic was highlighted with a plus/minus of +1, the best listed figure among the Pelicans’ notable individual plus/minus results. Five players, Looney, Jordan, Poole, Peavy, and Hawkins, were listed as DNP, meaning they did not play because of the coach’s decision.
These details need careful interpretation. A player who does not appear in the game cannot contribute to its recorded on-court statistics, while a positive plus/minus does not automatically mean that player had the strongest overall performance. Plus/minus reflects the team’s net scoring margin while the player is on the court.
The supplied summary does not give complete bench scoring totals for every Pelicans reserve. Therefore, the most reliable assessment is to focus on the confirmed team scoring, the identified individual leaders, and the overall rebounding disadvantage rather than infer missing statistics.
Charlotte Hornets Player Stats and Individual Performances
Charlotte’s victory featured a balanced contribution from its leading scorers, important rebounding performances, and a strong second-half response. LaMelo Ball led the scoring, while Kon Knueppel and Brandon Miller also reached double figures. Grant Williams supplied a notable contribution from the bench.
LaMelo Ball: 24 points and five assists
LaMelo Ball led Charlotte with 24 points and five assists. He was the Hornets’ leading scorer and assist leader, making him central to their offensive production.
Ball’s scoring helped Charlotte remain within reach during the first half, when New Orleans built a 15-point lead. His five assists also show that he contributed to creating opportunities for teammates rather than relying exclusively on individual scoring.
The most striking figure associated with Ball was his +24 plus/minus. This means Charlotte outscored New Orleans by 24 points during the minutes Ball was on the court. It does not mean he personally scored 24 points more than an opposing player, nor does it mean that he scored all the points responsible for the comeback.
A plus/minus figure is influenced by teammates, opponents, lineup combinations, and the timing of a player’s minutes. Ball’s +24 is nevertheless a notable indicator of how successful Charlotte’s team performance was during his time on the floor.
His 24 points, five assists, and strong plus/minus make him one of the defining players of the contest.
Kon Knueppel: 17 points and nine rebounds
Kon Knueppel scored 17 points and collected nine rebounds. He was Charlotte’s second-highest scorer and one of the team’s leading rebounders.
His rebounding contribution was particularly useful in a matchup where Charlotte finished with a 25-rebound advantage. Nine rebounds from a perimeter player can help a team finish defensive possessions and initiate offense without needing a center to collect every missed shot.
Knueppel also contributed to Charlotte’s scoring alongside Ball and Miller. That distribution reduced the need for the Hornets to depend on a single player to produce all their points.
Charlotte’s team shot just 24% from three-point range, so its victory cannot be described as a particularly efficient outside-shooting performance. Instead, the Hornets’ total of 102 points reflected a combination of scoring, rebounding, and free-throw production.
Brandon Miller: 16 points
Brandon Miller finished with 16 points, ranking third among Charlotte’s highlighted starters. His scoring gave the Hornets another significant offensive option.
In a comeback, secondary scoring is important because it prevents the opposing defense from focusing exclusively on the leading scorer. Ball’s 24 points attracted attention, but Miller’s 16 and Knueppel’s 17 helped Charlotte spread the scoring responsibility.
The available data does not establish Miller’s individual shooting percentages or full defensive line. It is therefore better to assess his confirmed scoring contribution rather than claim that he was especially efficient or dominant in a category that has not been supplied.
Moussa Diabate: Nine rebounds
Moussa Diabate recorded nine rebounds, matching Knueppel for the highest rebound total among Charlotte’s highlighted starters.
His contribution fits the most important team-level pattern of the game. Charlotte finished with 59 total rebounds, including 13 offensive rebounds and 46 defensive rebounds. New Orleans recorded only five offensive rebounds and 29 defensive rebounds.
Those numbers show that Charlotte did more than collect missed shots at one end of the floor. The Hornets were also effective at limiting the Pelicans’ opportunities to extend possessions with offensive rebounds.
Although the supplied summary does not provide Diabate’s complete individual defensive statistics, his nine rebounds are a confirmed contribution to Charlotte’s overall advantage on the glass.
Grant Williams: 16 points and nine rebounds
Grant Williams provided one of Charlotte’s most notable bench performances, finishing with 16 points and nine rebounds.
His scoring total equaled Brandon Miller’s 16 points and ranked among the highest individual totals in the game. His nine rebounds also matched the rebound totals of Diabate and Knueppel.
This combination made Williams an important contributor beyond the starting lineup. A productive reserve can help maintain a team’s momentum when starters rest, particularly during a comeback that requires sustained effort over two quarters.
Williams’ contribution also demonstrates why team depth matters. Charlotte had multiple players capable of scoring in double figures, and the bench supplied meaningful production rather than leaving the starting lineup to carry the entire offensive burden.
The available data does not provide a full bench-versus-bench scoring comparison. It does, however, confirm Williams’ 16 points and nine rebounds, which are enough to establish his importance in this particular game.
Ryan Kalkbrenner: Three blocks
Ryan Kalkbrenner recorded three blocks, the highest individual blocks total highlighted for either team. Charlotte finished with three blocks as a team, meaning his recorded total accounted for all of the Hornets’ blocks in the supplied statistics.
Blocks are an important defensive measure, but they do not capture every form of rim protection. A defender can influence a shot by forcing an opponent to change direction, take a difficult attempt, or pass to a teammate without recording a block.
Kalkbrenner’s three blocks nevertheless provide a clear example of an individual defensive contribution. Charlotte’s overall improvement after halftime also required more than rim protection, including rebounding and limiting the Pelicans’ scoring opportunities.
Hornets bench and starting lineup
Charlotte’s starters were Miles Bridges, Moussa Diabate, Brandon Miller, LaMelo Ball, and Kon Knueppel. The listed bench included Grant Williams, Ryan Kalkbrenner, Collin Sexton, Josh Green, Sion James, Pat Connaughton, and Tre Mann.
Pat Connaughton and Tre Mann were listed as DNP because of the coach’s decision. The supplied summary does not include complete individual statistical lines for every other Hornets player.
This distinction matters when evaluating a box score. A roster list tells readers who was available or listed for the game, but it does not establish that every player entered the contest or contributed to the final result. Reliable player analysis should separate confirmed statistics from information that is not provided.
First-Half Dominance Versus Second-Half Recovery
The most important feature of the game was the dramatic change in scoring after halftime.
New Orleans scored 30 points in the first quarter and 34 in the second. Charlotte scored 23 and 26, respectively. By the break, the Pelicans had built a 64-49 advantage.
In the second half, the pattern reversed.
| Period | Pelicans points | Hornets points | Period winner |
| First quarter | 30 | 23 | Pelicans |
| Second quarter | 34 | 26 | Pelicans |
| First half total | 64 | 49 | Pelicans |
| Third quarter | 18 | 29 | Hornets |
| Fourth quarter | 13 | 24 | Hornets |
| Second half total | 31 | 53 | Hornets |
Charlotte outscored New Orleans by 22 points after halftime. Since the Pelicans led by 15 at the break, the Hornets’ second-half advantage was enough to turn the game around and finish seven points ahead.
The scoring sequence reveals three important lessons about the matchup.
First, New Orleans’ early offense was not sustained. The team scored 64 points before halftime but only 31 afterward. This is a significant decline, even without assuming a particular tactical adjustment or attributing the slowdown to a specific player.
Second, Charlotte improved defensively as the game progressed. The Hornets allowed 31 points in the second half, compared with 64 in the first half. The final result confirms that New Orleans could not maintain its earlier scoring pace.
Third, rebounding provided a structural advantage. Charlotte finished with 59 rebounds, including eight more offensive rebounds than New Orleans. Those extra opportunities can help a team survive missed shots and put additional pressure on an opponent’s defense.
The statistics do not identify the exact play or coaching instruction that triggered the comeback. They do establish when the change occurred and which team-level categories most clearly distinguished the two sides.
Shooting Efficiency and the Three-Point Battle
The shooting statistics reveal another interesting aspect of the contest. Charlotte won the game despite making a smaller percentage of its three-point attempts than New Orleans.
The Pelicans shot 32% from beyond the arc, converting 11 of 34 attempts. Charlotte made 12 of 50 three-point attempts, a 24% success rate. Although the Hornets made one more three-pointer, they needed 16 additional attempts to do so.
This difference matters because three-point shooting should be assessed through both makes and attempts. A team can make more shots from long range without being more accurate, and a high volume of attempts does not automatically indicate a successful offensive strategy.
Field-goal shooting
New Orleans converted 33 of 84 field-goal attempts, while Charlotte made 34 of 85. The reported percentages were 39% for the Pelicans and 40% for the Hornets.
These figures show that Charlotte held a small advantage in overall field-goal percentage. However, the difference was not large enough to explain the final result by itself.
The Pelicans’ 95 points and Charlotte’s 102 points were shaped by several other categories, particularly rebounds and free throws. Shooting percentage is useful, but it should be considered alongside the number of possessions and the ways each team generated scoring opportunities.
Free throws made the difference
Charlotte converted 22 of 27 free throws, while New Orleans made 18 of 25.
| Free-throw statistic | Pelicans | Hornets |
| Made | 18 | 22 |
| Attempted | 25 | 27 |
| Reported percentage | 72% | 81% |
Charlotte made four additional free throws and attempted two more. Its 81% success rate also exceeded New Orleans’ 72%.
In a seven-point game, four additional made free throws represent a meaningful scoring advantage. They do not explain the entire comeback, but they helped Charlotte turn its improved second-half performance into a winning score.
The broader lesson is that free throws can become especially important when three-point shooting is inconsistent. Charlotte’s 24% shooting from beyond the arc was not impressive, but its stronger free-throw conversion helped offset that weakness.
Rebounding: The Biggest Statistical Difference
Rebounding was the clearest team-level advantage in the game.
Charlotte finished with 59 rebounds, while New Orleans recorded 34. The 25-rebound difference was substantially larger than the seven-point margin on the scoreboard.
That gap deserves attention because rebounds affect possession control. Defensive rebounds generally end the opponent’s possession, while offensive rebounds can create additional scoring opportunities after a missed shot.
Offensive rebounds
Charlotte collected 13 offensive rebounds compared with New Orleans’ five. The Hornets therefore secured eight more missed shots on the offensive glass.
Those extra rebounds can produce second-chance points, extend possessions, and force the opposing defense to work for longer stretches. Even when an offensive rebound does not lead directly to a basket, it can prevent the defending team from ending the possession.
New Orleans’ five offensive rebounds indicate that the Pelicans had fewer opportunities to recover their own misses. In a game where their second-half scoring fell to 31 points, this difference was particularly significant.
Defensive rebounds
Charlotte recorded 46 defensive rebounds, compared with 29 for New Orleans.
This category helps explain how the Hornets controlled the game after halftime. Securing defensive rebounds limits an opponent’s ability to generate repeated attempts on the same possession.
The defensive rebounding advantage also complements Charlotte’s three-point shooting numbers. The Hornets missed many long-range attempts, but their overall rebounding advantage helped them retain control of the game’s possession battle.
Why total rebounds should not be viewed in isolation
A rebound total is not a complete measure of team quality. Teams can collect more rebounds because opponents miss more shots, and the value of an individual rebound depends partly on the situation in which it occurs.
In this matchup, however, the difference was large enough to be an important part of the analysis. Charlotte led in offensive rebounds, defensive rebounds, and total rebounds. That consistency across all three categories makes the rebounding advantage more meaningful than a single isolated statistic.
Assists, Turnovers, Steals, and Blocks
New Orleans had advantages in several categories that are often associated with ball movement and defensive activity. These numbers complicate the story and show why a thorough box-score analysis should not focus on only the winning team’s strengths.
Assists: New Orleans moved the ball more
The Pelicans recorded 23 assists, compared with Charlotte’s 16.
An assist is generally credited when a pass directly leads to a made basket under the applicable statistical rules. Team assist totals can therefore provide insight into how frequently successful scoring plays involve passing.
New Orleans’ seven-assist advantage suggests that the Pelicans created more assisted baskets. It does not necessarily prove that every offensive possession was better organized or that the team had greater overall offensive efficiency.
Charlotte still won because assists were only one part of the contest. The Hornets generated enough scoring through their overall offense, free throws, and additional possession opportunities to overcome New Orleans’ passing advantage.
Turnovers: A clear Pelicans advantage
New Orleans committed seven turnovers, while Charlotte committed 16.
This was one of the Pelicans’ strongest statistical advantages. Fewer turnovers generally mean fewer possessions wasted before a shot is attempted, and they can reduce an opponent’s opportunities to score in transition.
Charlotte’s victory despite committing nine more turnovers shows how a team can overcome a weakness in one category by dominating others. The Hornets’ rebounding advantage and additional made free throws helped offset the lost possessions.
Turnovers should not be dismissed, however. If the teams meet again, Charlotte’s ability to reduce mistakes while maintaining its rebounding advantage could make its offense more effective.
Steals: New Orleans created more defensive disruptions
The Pelicans recorded nine steals, while Charlotte had three.
Steals can generate immediate transition opportunities and disrupt an opponent’s offensive rhythm. New Orleans’ six-steal advantage is consistent with the team’s lower turnover total, although steals and turnovers are separate statistics and should not be treated as interchangeable.
A team can force turnovers without recording a steal, such as when an opponent loses the ball out of bounds or commits an offensive foul. Similarly, a steal does not guarantee that the defending team will score on the ensuing possession.
Blocks: A small Hornets advantage
Charlotte recorded three blocks, compared with four for New Orleans. The Pelicans therefore held a one-block advantage in the team totals, although Ryan Kalkbrenner’s three blocks were the standout individual performance in this category for Charlotte according to the supplied summary.
Blocks are only one way to measure defense near the basket. They do not capture every contested shot or the deterrent effect of a defender’s positioning.
The most useful conclusion is that neither steals nor blocks explain the final result on their own. Charlotte’s rebounding and second-half defense were more prominent differences in the supplied statistics.
What the Plus/Minus Numbers Tell Us
Plus/minus measures the difference between a team’s points scored and points allowed while a particular player is on the court.
LaMelo Ball recorded a +24 plus/minus for Charlotte, while Karlo Matkovic posted +1 for New Orleans in the supplied highlights.
Ball’s figure means the Hornets outscored the Pelicans by 24 points during his playing time. This is especially notable because Charlotte won the game by seven points overall. It indicates that the team’s net performance was particularly strong during the minutes Ball played.
However, plus/minus is not an isolated measure of individual skill. It can be affected by teammates, opposing lineups, substitutions, and the timing of scoring runs. A player can contribute well in ways that do not appear in this figure, and a high plus/minus does not establish that one player caused a team’s victory.
Matkovic’s +1 indicates that New Orleans narrowly outscored Charlotte during his minutes on the floor. It should not be interpreted as proof that he outperformed every teammate in every aspect of the game.
For readers comparing individual performances, plus/minus is most useful when considered alongside scoring, rebounds, assists, defensive statistics, and the game’s progression.
Season Series and Head-to-Head Context
The February 3 result left the season series tied at 1-1 according to the supplied data.
| Meeting | Result | Winner |
| November 5, 2025 | Hornets 116, Pelicans 112 | Charlotte Hornets |
| February 3, 2026 | Hornets 102, Pelicans 95 | Charlotte Hornets |
Charlotte won both listed meetings, although the supplied season-series field reports the series as tied 1-1. These statements conflict, so the series record should be verified against the original game logs before publication. The two individual scores above are reproduced from the supplied data, but they do not support a tied series if both games were between the same teams during the same season.
The first listed game was a higher-scoring contest, with 228 combined points. The February game produced 197 combined points. That difference of 31 points shows that the two reported results had different scoring profiles, although the supplied information is insufficient to establish why.
The February contest is particularly notable for its second-half turnaround. New Orleans had the stronger opening, but Charlotte’s rebounding and late-game scoring proved decisive.
Readers comparing head-to-head results should pay attention to more than wins and losses. Quarter-by-quarter scoring, shooting efficiency, turnovers, rebounds, and player availability can help explain why one game unfolds differently from another.
For the official game record, consult the ESPN box score for Hornets vs. Pelicans on February 3, 2026. It is the appropriate reference for checking the recorded team and player statistics.
Key Takeaways From the Match
The numbers from this contest point to several conclusions that are useful for understanding the result beyond the final score.
- Charlotte’s comeback was driven by the second half. The Hornets scored 53 points after halftime while holding New Orleans to 31.
- Rebounding was the largest statistical difference. Charlotte collected 59 rebounds, 25 more than the Pelicans.
- Trey Murphy III was New Orleans’ leading scorer. His 27 points were the highest individual scoring total in the game.
- LaMelo Ball led Charlotte’s offense. He finished with 24 points, five assists, and a +24 plus/minus.
- The Hornets benefited from free-throw accuracy. They made 22 free throws at an 81% rate, compared with 18 at 72% for New Orleans.
- The Pelicans protected the ball more effectively. Their seven turnovers were well below Charlotte’s 16.
- Charlotte’s outside shooting was a weakness. The Hornets made 24% of their three-point attempts, but their rebounding and free-throw advantages helped them win.
Taken together, these statistics suggest that Charlotte did not need to win every aspect of the game. It needed to improve its defense, control missed shots, and generate enough points to overcome the early deficit. The Hornets accomplished those objectives in the second half.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the New Orleans Pelicans vs Charlotte Hornets game on February 3, 2026?
The Charlotte Hornets defeated the New Orleans Pelicans 102-95 at Spectrum Center in Charlotte, North Carolina. Charlotte overcame a 15-point halftime deficit to secure the victory.
2. Who scored the most points in the game?
Trey Murphy III led all players with 27 points for New Orleans. LaMelo Ball was Charlotte’s leading scorer with 24 points.
3. What were LaMelo Ball’s stats against the Pelicans?
LaMelo Ball recorded 24 points and five assists. He also finished with a +24 plus/minus, indicating that Charlotte outscored New Orleans by 24 points during his time on the court.
4. Why did the Hornets win despite shooting poorly from three-point range?
Charlotte shot 24% from three-point range, compared with New Orleans’ 32%. However, the Hornets collected 59 rebounds to the Pelicans’ 34 and made 22 free throws compared with New Orleans’ 18. Their stronger second-half defense also limited the Pelicans to 31 points.
5. Which team had more rebounds and assists?
Charlotte led in rebounds, collecting 59 compared with New Orleans’ 34. The Pelicans recorded more assists, finishing with 23 compared with Charlotte’s 16.
6. What was the score at halftime?
New Orleans led Charlotte 64-49 at halftime. The Hornets then outscored the Pelicans 53-31 in the second half to win by seven points.
Conclusion
The February 3, 2026, matchup between New Orleans and Charlotte demonstrated how rebounding, free throws, and second-half defense can determine a close NBA game. The Hornets won 102-95 after recovering from a 15-point halftime deficit, with LaMelo Ball leading the team in scoring and Trey Murphy III producing the game’s highest individual point total.
The most significant difference was on the boards. Charlotte collected 59 rebounds, compared with New Orleans’ 34, while also converting four more free throws. The Pelicans performed better in assists, steals, and turnovers, but those advantages could not compensate for their second-half scoring decline.
For anyone studying the player statistics, the central lesson is that individual scoring totals tell only part of the story. Rebounding, possession management, free-throw conversion, and performance across all four quarters provide a fuller explanation of why Charlotte won.
