Pacers vs Charlotte Hornets Match Player Stats
The pacers vs charlotte hornets match player stats from January 9, 2026, reveal how the Indiana Pacers secured a narrow 114-112 victory over the Charlotte Hornets at Spectrum Center in Charlotte, North Carolina. In a closely contested NBA matchup, Indiana relied on Pascal Siakam’s impressive double-double, T.J. McConnell’s all-around contribution, and excellent free-throw shooting to escape with a two-point win. Charlotte also produced an outstanding offensive performance, led by LaMelo Ball, who finished with 33 points and eight assists. Despite scoring more three-pointers and recording more assists, the Hornets could not overcome Indiana’s efficiency inside the arc and at the free-throw line.
The game offered an interesting contrast between two different offensive approaches. Charlotte attempted 44 three-pointers and made 16, while Indiana focused on balanced scoring and converted 50% of its field-goal attempts. The Pacers also made 20 of their 21 free throws, giving them a significant advantage in a game decided by just two points. With 17,342 fans attending the contest, the matchup delivered a competitive finish and several notable individual performances.
For readers examining the box score, the most important takeaway is that Indiana did not need to dominate every statistical category to win. The Pacers made better use of their scoring opportunities, received valuable production from McConnell, and benefited from Siakam’s dominance on both ends of the floor.
Pacers vs Charlotte Hornets Match Player Stats: Complete Game Overview
The January 9 meeting was an important example of how small statistical advantages can determine the outcome of an NBA game. Indiana finished with 114 points, while Charlotte managed 112. Both teams remained competitive throughout all four quarters, and neither side established a comfortable lead.
Here is a quick overview of the contest.
| Game Information | Details |
| Matchup | Indiana Pacers vs. Charlotte Hornets |
| Date | January 9, 2026 |
| Sport | NBA Basketball |
| Final Score | Pacers 114, Hornets 112 |
| Winning Team | Indiana Pacers |
| Losing Team | Charlotte Hornets |
| Venue | Spectrum Center |
| Location | Charlotte, North Carolina |
| Attendance | 17,342 |
| Game Status | Final |
| ESPN Game ID | 401810383 |
| Season Series | Indiana leads 2-0 |
| Point Difference | Indiana +2 |
Indiana’s victory came through a combination of efficient shooting, strong individual performances, and reliable execution at the foul line.
Charlotte had several reasons to believe it could win. The Hornets made four more three-pointers than Indiana and recorded four additional assists. LaMelo Ball also produced the highest individual scoring total of the night.
However, the Pacers converted their field-goal opportunities more efficiently and made nearly every free throw. Those advantages proved especially valuable in the final minutes.
Final Quarter-by-Quarter Score
The scoring remained close from the opening quarter until the final buzzer.
| Quarter | Indiana Pacers | Charlotte Hornets |
| First Quarter | 33 | 30 |
| Second Quarter | 27 | 28 |
| Third Quarter | 30 | 29 |
| Fourth Quarter | 24 | 25 |
| Total | 114 | 112 |
Indiana won the first quarter by three points and maintained a small advantage through the third. Charlotte responded with competitive basketball in the second and fourth quarters, but the early deficit ultimately mattered.
The fourth-quarter score was particularly important. Charlotte outscored Indiana 25-24, showing that the Hornets continued fighting until the end. However, a one-point advantage in the final period was not enough to erase the Pacers’ earlier lead.
Indiana Pacers Player Stats and Individual Performances
Indiana’s offensive production came from several players rather than one scoring option. Pascal Siakam led the team with 30 points and 14 rebounds, while T.J. McConnell contributed 23 points, eight assists, and four steals.
Aaron Nesmith added another 16 points, providing useful support to the Pacers’ leading scorers.
The team’s overall performance demonstrated the importance of combining scoring, rebounding, playmaking, and defensive activity.
Pascal Siakam: Indiana’s Leading Performer
30 points | 14 rebounds
Pascal Siakam delivered one of the most important performances of the game.
His 30 points made him Indiana’s leading scorer, while his 14 rebounds gave the Pacers a strong presence on the glass. Recording at least 30 points and 10 rebounds in a closely contested road game is a significant individual achievement.
Siakam’s performance mattered for several reasons:
- Scoring production: His 30 points provided Indiana with a reliable offensive foundation.
- Rebounding contribution: His 14 rebounds helped the Pacers compete for possession.
- Offensive responsibility: He gave Indiana a dependable scoring option throughout the contest.
- Game influence: His production helped the Pacers maintain their advantage despite Charlotte’s offensive pressure.
The most important aspect of Siakam’s contribution was his ability to combine scoring with rebounding. A high-scoring performance can attract attention, but adding 14 rebounds makes the overall contribution more valuable.
For Indiana, Siakam was not simply a scorer. He was a central part of the team’s offensive and rebounding effort.
T.J. McConnell: Scoring, Assists, and Defensive Activity
23 points | 8 assists | 4 steals
T.J. McConnell produced an outstanding all-around performance.
His 23 points made him Indiana’s second-highest scorer. He also led the Pacers in assists with eight and recorded four steals, giving him an important influence across multiple areas of the game.
McConnell’s contribution was particularly valuable because he helped Indiana maintain offensive organization.
His statistical impact included:
- 23 points to support Siakam’s scoring.
- Eight assists to create opportunities for teammates.
- Four steals to disrupt Charlotte’s offensive possessions.
The eight assists demonstrated his playmaking value. Rather than focusing exclusively on his own scoring, McConnell helped create opportunities for other Indiana players.
His four steals were another important part of the performance. Defensive possessions can become especially valuable in close games because they prevent opponents from developing scoring opportunities.
McConnell’s contribution illustrates why evaluating a player through points alone can be misleading. His combination of scoring, passing, and defensive activity made him one of the most influential players on the court.
Aaron Nesmith: Valuable Supporting Scoring
16 points
Aaron Nesmith finished as Indiana’s third-highest scorer with 16 points.
His contribution helped prevent the Pacers from becoming overly dependent on Siakam and McConnell.
In competitive games, supporting scorers often determine whether a team’s leading players receive enough offensive help. Nesmith’s 16 points gave Indiana another dependable scoring option.
His production also helped maintain offensive balance. Charlotte had to account for multiple Indiana players instead of concentrating its defensive attention on Siakam.
Indiana’s Starting Lineup
According to the supplied game data, Indiana’s starting five consisted of:
| Player | Starting Status |
| Pascal Siakam | Starter |
| Jay Huff | Starter |
| Aaron Nesmith | Starter |
| Quenton Jackson | Starter |
| Johnny Furphy | Starter |
This lineup provided the starting structure for Indiana’s approach.
Siakam and Nesmith were particularly important in the scoring department, while the other starters contributed to the team’s overall rotation.
Indiana Pacers Bench Players
The supplied box-score information identifies the following players as Indiana’s bench personnel:
- Jarace Walker
- Tony Bradley
- Micah Potter
- T.J. McConnell
- Ethan Thompson
- Ben Sheppard
- Kam Jones
- Andrew Nembhard
McConnell’s 23-point contribution was particularly notable because it gave Indiana substantial production beyond its starting group.
Andrew Nembhard was listed as unavailable for this game because of lower back soreness. His absence was a relevant rotation detail, although the available data does not establish exactly how it changed individual playing responsibilities.
Indiana’s DNP information: Andrew Nembhard was listed as DNP because of lower back soreness.
Charlotte Hornets Player Stats and Individual Performances
Charlotte had several impressive individual performances despite losing by two points.
LaMelo Ball led the Hornets with 33 points and eight assists. Miles Bridges scored 19 points, while Kon Knueppel contributed 18 points and eight rebounds.
The Hornets also demonstrated strong ball movement, finishing with 29 assists compared with Indiana’s 25.
Their biggest statistical advantage came from three-point shooting. Charlotte made 16 three-pointers, four more than Indiana.
However, the team struggled to convert its free throws consistently. That difference became especially important in a game where the final margin was extremely small.
LaMelo Ball: Charlotte’s Leading Scorer
33 points | 8 assists | 3 steals
LaMelo Ball delivered the highest-scoring individual performance of the contest.
His 33 points demonstrated his offensive importance to Charlotte, while eight assists highlighted his ability to create scoring opportunities for teammates.
He also recorded three steals, adding defensive activity to an already impressive offensive performance.
Ball’s contribution was important in three main areas.
- Scoring responsibility
His 33 points made him the game’s leading scorer. He supplied Charlotte with a consistent offensive presence and helped the team remain competitive against Indiana.
- Playmaking
Eight assists showed that Ball was not simply looking for his own shots. He also helped organize the Hornets’ offense and create opportunities for teammates.
- Defensive contribution
His three steals provided additional value by helping Charlotte interrupt Indiana’s offensive possessions.
Ball’s performance deserves recognition even though Charlotte did not win. Individual production and team results are related, but they are not always identical.
His 33-point performance was one of the defining stories of the game.
Miles Bridges: Important Secondary Scoring
19 points
Miles Bridges finished with 19 points, making him Charlotte’s second-highest scorer.
His scoring contribution gave Ball another option in the offensive rotation.
A team becomes easier to defend when most of its scoring depends on one player. Bridges’ 19 points helped reduce that pressure by giving Indiana another player it needed to monitor.
Although Charlotte ultimately fell short, his offensive contribution helped keep the contest close.
Kon Knueppel: Scoring and Rebounding Support
18 points | 8 rebounds
Kon Knueppel recorded 18 points and eight rebounds.
His performance was especially useful because it combined offensive production with rebounding.
Knueppel finished as Charlotte’s third-highest scorer and leading rebounder. His eight rebounds helped the Hornets compete on the glass despite Indiana finishing with a six-rebound advantage overall.
His contribution also showed the importance of secondary players in competitive NBA games.
When a team’s leading scorer produces 33 points, other players still need to provide enough support to turn that performance into a victory. Knueppel helped fulfill that responsibility.
Charlotte Hornets Starting Lineup
The supplied starting lineup for Charlotte included:
| Player | Starting Status |
| Miles Bridges | Starter |
| Moussa Diabate | Starter |
| Brandon Miller | Starter |
| Collin Sexton | Starter |
| Kon Knueppel | Starter |
This group provided Charlotte’s starting structure.
Bridges and Knueppel were among the team’s leading contributors, while the other starters formed part of the offensive and defensive rotation.
Charlotte Hornets Bench Players
The Hornets’ listed bench personnel included:
- Tidjane Salaun
- PJ Hall
- Josh Green
- LaMelo Ball
- Sion James
- Liam McNeeley
- Pat Connaughton
- Tre Mann
LaMelo Ball’s 33 points and eight assists represented an important contribution from the bench-listed group.
Pat Connaughton and Tre Mann were listed as DNP because of the coach’s decision.
This distinction matters when reviewing the box score. A player listed as DNP due to a coach’s decision is not necessarily unavailable because of injury.
Complete Pacers vs Charlotte Hornets Match Player Stats Comparison
The team comparison provides a clearer picture of why Indiana won.
Both teams performed well in different statistical categories. Charlotte created more assists and made more three-pointers, but Indiana converted its shots at a higher overall rate.
| Statistical Category | Indiana Pacers | Charlotte Hornets |
| Points | 114 | 112 |
| Field Goals | 41-82 | 39-86 |
| Field-Goal Percentage | 50% | 45% |
| Three-Pointers | 12-27 | 16-44 |
| Three-Point Percentage | 44% | 36% |
| Free Throws | 20-21 | 18-24 |
| Free-Throw Percentage | 95% | 75% |
| Total Rebounds | 41 | 35 |
| Assists | 25 | 29 |
| Turnovers | 19 | 16 |
| Steals | 9 | 8 |
| Blocks | 6 | 3 |
Several differences stand out.
Indiana Had the Better Overall Shooting Percentage
Indiana made 41 of 82 field-goal attempts, producing a 50% shooting percentage.
Charlotte made 39 of 86 attempts, finishing at 45%.
The five-percentage-point difference was meaningful because it showed that Indiana converted a greater share of its overall shooting opportunities.
The Pacers also attempted four fewer field goals but made two more.
That is a strong indication of their offensive efficiency.
Charlotte Made More Three-Pointers
Charlotte connected on 16 of 44 three-point attempts.
Indiana made 12 of 27.
This means the Hornets scored 48 points from three-point range, compared with Indiana’s 36.
Charlotte therefore gained a 12-point advantage from three-point shooting.
However, the number of attempts also tells an important story.
Charlotte attempted 17 more three-pointers than Indiana. The Hornets used a much more perimeter-focused approach, while the Pacers converted a greater share of their overall field-goal attempts.
A high three-point total does not automatically guarantee a victory. Teams must also consider shooting efficiency, turnovers, rebounding, and free throws.
Indiana’s Free-Throw Advantage Was Crucial
One of the most important differences appeared at the free-throw line.
Indiana converted 20 of 21 attempts, while Charlotte made 18 of 24.
| Team | Free Throws Made | Attempts | Percentage |
| Indiana Pacers | 20 | 21 | 95% |
| Charlotte Hornets | 18 | 24 | 75% |
Indiana scored two more points from free throws despite attempting three fewer.
The Pacers converted almost every opportunity, while Charlotte missed six free throws.
In a game decided by two points, this difference deserves particular attention.
It would be incorrect to claim that the missed free throws alone caused Charlotte’s defeat. However, the numbers show that Indiana gained a significant advantage in this category.
Charlotte Recorded More Assists
Charlotte finished with 29 assists, four more than Indiana’s 25.
This suggests that the Hornets generated more assisted scoring opportunities.
LaMelo Ball’s eight assists were central to this effort.
Indiana, however, did not need to win the assist category to secure the game. The Pacers benefited from efficient shooting and important individual scoring performances.
This is an important lesson when interpreting team statistics: winning more categories does not necessarily mean winning the game.
Indiana Won the Rebounding Battle
The Pacers collected 41 rebounds compared with Charlotte’s 35.
That gave Indiana a six-rebound advantage.
Pascal Siakam’s 14 rebounds were a major part of this result.
Rebounding matters because it influences how many opportunities a team receives to score. Defensive rebounds can end an opponent’s possession, while offensive rebounds can create additional chances.
Indiana’s advantage in this area helped balance Charlotte’s greater three-point production.
Turnovers Favored Charlotte
Charlotte committed 16 turnovers, while Indiana recorded 19.
The Hornets therefore had three fewer turnovers.
This was one area where Charlotte performed better.
Fewer turnovers generally help teams maintain possession and limit the number of opportunities opponents receive from mistakes.
However, the Hornets could not turn this advantage into a victory.
Indiana’s shooting efficiency and free-throw accuracy helped offset its higher turnover total.
Why the Indiana Pacers Defeated the Charlotte Hornets
The final score was close, but the statistical breakdown identifies several factors that explain Indiana’s success.
1. Efficient Field-Goal Shooting
Indiana’s 50% field-goal percentage was better than Charlotte’s 45%.
The Pacers made 41 shots from 82 attempts, while the Hornets made 39 from 86.
This difference gave Indiana more points from its overall field-goal opportunities.
Charlotte’s greater reliance on three-point attempts created scoring potential, but it also resulted in a lower overall field-goal percentage.
2. Exceptional Free-Throw Accuracy
Indiana’s 95% free-throw percentage was among the most important numbers in the box score.
Making 20 of 21 attempts meant the Pacers converted nearly every opportunity they received.
Charlotte’s 75% conversion rate was considerably lower.
When games are decided by narrow margins, free throws can become one of the most important parts of the final result.
Indiana demonstrated excellent execution in this area.
3. Pascal Siakam’s Double-Double
Siakam’s 30 points and 14 rebounds gave Indiana a strong individual foundation.
His scoring helped the Pacers maintain offensive production, while his rebounding contributed to their six-rebound advantage.
His double-double was one of the clearest individual reasons Indiana remained competitive throughout the game.
4. T.J. McConnell’s All-Around Contribution
McConnell recorded 23 points, eight assists, and four steals.
That combination provided Indiana with scoring, playmaking, and defensive activity.
His performance was particularly valuable because it gave the Pacers another major contributor alongside Siakam.
5. Charlotte Could Not Turn Its Three-Point Advantage Into a Win
The Hornets made four more three-pointers than Indiana.
That advantage represented 12 additional points from beyond the arc.
However, Charlotte’s 36% three-point percentage was lower than Indiana’s 44%.
The Hornets also struggled at the free-throw line.
Their perimeter production kept the game close, but it was not enough to overcome Indiana’s stronger overall shooting efficiency.
A Deeper Statistical Look at the Game
Looking beyond the basic box score helps explain the different ways these teams approached the contest.
Indiana’s Offensive Efficiency
Indiana scored 114 points from 82 field-goal attempts and 21 free-throw attempts.
Its 50% field-goal percentage and 95% free-throw percentage indicate a highly efficient shooting performance.
The Pacers did not need to attempt as many three-pointers as Charlotte to remain productive.
Their 12 made three-pointers still represented an important part of the offense, but the team also generated points through other scoring opportunities.
Charlotte’s Perimeter-Heavy Approach
Charlotte attempted 44 three-pointers.
That accounted for slightly more than half of its total field-goal attempts.
The Hornets made 16 of those attempts, which gave them 48 points from beyond the arc.
This approach created opportunities to score quickly and helped Charlotte stay within reach.
However, its effectiveness was limited by the team’s overall shooting percentage and free-throw accuracy.
A perimeter-focused offense can produce significant scoring runs, but it also requires consistent shot conversion.
The Importance of Possession Management
Turnovers provide another useful perspective.
Indiana committed 19 turnovers, compared with Charlotte’s 16.
This suggests that Charlotte protected possession somewhat better.
However, the Pacers recorded nine steals compared with Charlotte’s eight.
Indiana’s defensive activity helped offset its higher turnover count.
The result demonstrates why turnovers should not be evaluated independently. A complete assessment should also consider steals, shooting efficiency, rebounding, and the points generated from possessions.
Why Two Points Can Reveal So Much
A two-point result is often decided by a combination of small advantages.
In this game, Indiana had:
- A five-percentage-point advantage in field-goal shooting.
- A 20-percentage-point advantage in free-throw shooting.
- Six more total rebounds.
- Two more steals.
- Three more made field goals.
Charlotte had:
- Four more made three-pointers.
- Four more assists.
- Three fewer turnovers.
The final result shows how different statistical strengths can balance each other.
Indiana’s advantages in shooting efficiency and rebounding were enough to secure the win despite Charlotte performing better in several other categories.
Head-to-Head Context and Season Series
The supplied game data indicates that Indiana led the season series 2-0 following this contest.
That detail provides additional context for understanding the matchup.
Winning multiple meetings against the same opponent can reveal useful information about how teams match up. It may also indicate that one side has found ways to exploit the other’s weaknesses.
However, two games are not enough to establish a permanent advantage or predict future results with certainty.
The January 9 contest showed that Indiana could succeed against Charlotte through efficient shooting and strong contributions from its leading players.
For Charlotte, the game highlighted areas that could require attention:
- Improving free-throw consistency.
- Maintaining shooting efficiency from three-point range.
- Reducing turnovers.
- Converting strong individual performances into team victories.
The Pacers, meanwhile, had reasons to value their offensive balance and defensive rebounding.
Record note: The supplied ESPN text lists Indiana at 7-31 overall and 2-16 away, while Charlotte is listed at 13-25 overall and 7-12 at home. These displayed records may reflect a different page snapshot than the January 9 game date. They should not be treated as independently verified standings from the exact moment of the game.
Key Players Who Defined the Contest
Three players stand out when evaluating the most influential individual performances.
| Player | Team | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Steals |
| Pascal Siakam | Pacers | 30 | 14 | Not supplied | Not supplied |
| T.J. McConnell | Pacers | 23 | Not supplied | 8 | 4 |
| Aaron Nesmith | Pacers | 16 | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied |
| LaMelo Ball | Hornets | 33 | Not supplied | 8 | 3 |
| Miles Bridges | Hornets | 19 | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied |
| Kon Knueppel | Hornets | 18 | 8 | Not supplied | Not supplied |
The table includes only individual statistics provided in the supplied data. Missing values have not been estimated.
Best Scoring Performance: LaMelo Ball
Ball’s 33 points made him the leading scorer in the matchup.
His offensive production was particularly impressive because he also recorded eight assists and three steals.
Best Rebounding Performance: Pascal Siakam
Siakam led all listed players with 14 rebounds.
His ability to contribute in both scoring and rebounding made him one of Indiana’s most important players.
Best All-Around Supporting Performance: T.J. McConnell
McConnell’s 23 points, eight assists, and four steals made him an important contributor in multiple statistical categories.
His performance demonstrated the value of a player who can influence the game beyond scoring.
Strongest Supporting Scoring: Miles Bridges and Kon Knueppel
Bridges scored 19 points, while Knueppel added 18 points and eight rebounds.
Their performances helped Charlotte maintain offensive balance around Ball.
What the Result Means for Both Teams
The 114-112 result offers several lessons for evaluating Indiana and Charlotte.
What Indiana Can Take From the Victory
The Pacers demonstrated that efficient shooting can be more valuable than simply attempting more shots.
Their 50% field-goal percentage and 95% free-throw accuracy were central to the victory.
Indiana also received strong contributions from its leading players.
Siakam supplied scoring and rebounding, McConnell added playmaking and defensive activity, and Nesmith contributed valuable points.
These performances created a balanced offensive foundation.
What Charlotte Can Learn From the Defeat
Charlotte had several positive statistical outcomes.
The team recorded more assists, made more three-pointers, and committed fewer turnovers.
However, its 75% free-throw percentage represented a clear opportunity for improvement.
The Hornets also need to consider the relationship between three-point volume and overall shooting efficiency.
Attempting 44 three-pointers can be effective when shots fall consistently. However, teams must also maintain other scoring options when perimeter shooting becomes less reliable.
The narrow defeat should therefore be evaluated through the complete statistical picture rather than the final score alone.
Game Details, Officials, and Broadcast Information
The contest took place at Spectrum Center in Charlotte, North Carolina.
The venue hosted 17,342 spectators for the matchup.
The supplied game information also identifies the officials and broadcast networks.
| Category | Information |
| Venue | Spectrum Center |
| City | Charlotte, North Carolina |
| Attendance | 17,342 |
| Referee | Kevin Cutler |
| Official | Jacyn Goble |
| Official | Simone Jelks |
| Indiana Broadcast | FanDuel Sports Network Indiana |
| Charlotte Broadcast | FanDuel Sports Network Southeast |
| ESPN Game ID | 401810383 |
For readers interested in the original box score, the complete game record is available through the ESPN Pacers vs. Hornets box score.
This is the most useful reference for checking the recorded game statistics and player information.
How to Read NBA Player Statistics From This Matchup
Understanding the numbers is important for anyone comparing NBA players, reviewing a box score, or evaluating team performance.
The Indiana-Charlotte matchup provides a useful example of how different statistics work together.
Points
Points measure how much scoring a player contributes.
LaMelo Ball led this game with 33 points, followed by Pascal Siakam with 30.
However, points alone do not reveal how efficiently a player scored or how much they contributed in other areas.
Rebounds
Rebounds measure how many missed shots a player recovers.
Siakam’s 14 rebounds were particularly important because Indiana finished with a six-rebound team advantage.
Rebounding can influence possession control and create additional scoring opportunities.
Assists
Assists measure passes that directly lead to made field goals.
McConnell and Ball each recorded eight assists.
These numbers show that both teams had players capable of creating opportunities for teammates.
Steals
Steals measure defensive actions in which a player takes possession of the ball from an opponent.
McConnell recorded four steals, while Ball finished with three.
Steals can change the momentum of a game by preventing an opponent from completing an offensive possession.
Field-Goal Percentage
Field-goal percentage measures the proportion of field-goal attempts that become successful shots.
Indiana’s 50% shooting percentage was higher than Charlotte’s 45%.
This metric provides a useful way to compare shooting efficiency, although it does not distinguish between two-point and three-point attempts.
Three-Point Percentage
Three-point percentage measures the success rate of shots taken from beyond the three-point line.
Indiana shot 44%, while Charlotte shot 36%.
This statistic helps explain why Indiana made better use of its perimeter attempts despite Charlotte recording more made three-pointers.
Free-Throw Percentage
Free-throw percentage measures the proportion of successful foul shots.
Indiana converted 95% of its free throws, compared with Charlotte’s 75%.
In a close game, this statistic deserves particular attention.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Pacers vs Charlotte Hornets game on January 9, 2026?
The Indiana Pacers defeated the Charlotte Hornets 114-112 on January 9, 2026, at Spectrum Center in Charlotte, North Carolina. Indiana secured the two-point victory.
2. Who scored the most points in the Pacers vs Hornets game?
LaMelo Ball was the leading scorer with 33 points for Charlotte. Pascal Siakam led Indiana with 30 points and also recorded 14 rebounds.
3. How many points did Pascal Siakam score against Charlotte?
Pascal Siakam scored 30 points and collected 14 rebounds. His double-double was one of the most important individual performances in Indiana’s victory.
4. How many assists did LaMelo Ball record?
LaMelo Ball recorded eight assists along with 33 points and three steals. He was Charlotte’s leading scorer and one of the game’s most productive players.
5. Which team had better shooting statistics?
Indiana had better overall shooting efficiency. The Pacers shot 50% from the field and 95% from the free-throw line. Charlotte shot 45% from the field and 75% from the free-throw line. However, Charlotte made more three-pointers, finishing with 16 compared with Indiana’s 12.
6. Where was the Pacers vs Hornets game played?
The game was played at Spectrum Center in Charlotte, North Carolina. The contest attracted 17,342 spectators, according to the supplied game information.
Conclusion
The January 9, 2026, matchup between the Indiana Pacers and Charlotte Hornets was a competitive NBA game decided by a narrow two-point margin. Indiana earned a 114-112 victory by combining efficient shooting, strong rebounding, and outstanding free-throw accuracy.
Pascal Siakam was central to the Pacers’ success with 30 points and 14 rebounds. T.J. McConnell also delivered an excellent performance, recording 23 points, eight assists, and four steals. Aaron Nesmith added 16 points to provide further offensive support.
For Charlotte, LaMelo Ball led the contest with 33 points, eight assists, and three steals. Miles Bridges scored 19 points, while Kon Knueppel contributed 18 points and eight rebounds.
The team statistics explain the final result. Charlotte made more three-pointers and recorded more assists, but Indiana shot more efficiently overall and dominated the free-throw comparison. The Pacers also collected six more rebounds.
Ultimately, this game demonstrated that winning basketball is about more than scoring from the perimeter or leading individual statistical categories. Efficient shooting, rebounding, possession management, and execution at the free-throw line all contributed to Indiana’s success.
