Orlando Magic vs Phoenix Suns Match Player Stats
The Orlando Magic vs Phoenix Suns match player stats from April 1, 2026, tell the story of a close NBA contest decided by shooting efficiency, rebounding, defensive pressure, and the ability to finish in the fourth quarter. The Orlando Magic defeated the Phoenix Suns 115-111 at the Kia Center in Orlando, Florida, in front of 19,117 fans. Devin Booker led Phoenix with 34 points, while Desmond Bane paced Orlando with 21 points. Jalen Suggs added 20 points, eight rebounds, and seven assists, and Paolo Banchero contributed 19 points, nine rebounds, and eight assists. Despite committing more turnovers, Orlando found a way to secure the four-point victory and split the season series with Phoenix at one win apiece.
The game offered an interesting contrast between Phoenix’s three-point volume and Orlando’s ability to create scoring opportunities at the free-throw line. Both teams finished with 24 assists, but Orlando collected more rebounds and steals. Those differences help explain how the Magic overcame a difficult third quarter and protected their lead late in the game.
Orlando Magic vs Phoenix Suns Match Player Stats: Final Score and Game Overview
The final score was Orlando Magic 115, Phoenix Suns 111. Although the margin was narrow, the game featured several important statistical differences that shaped the result.
| Game Detail | Information |
| Date | April 1, 2026 |
| Venue | Kia Center |
| Location | Orlando, Florida |
| Attendance | 19,117 |
| Final Score | Orlando Magic 115, Phoenix Suns 111 |
| Winning Team | Orlando Magic |
| Losing Team | Phoenix Suns |
| Phoenix Record | 42-34 |
| Orlando Record | 40-35 |
| Phoenix Away Record | 18-19 |
| Orlando Home Record | 24-15 |
| Season Series | Tied 1-1 |
| Game Status | Final |
Orlando entered the matchup with a 24-15 home record, while Phoenix had an 18-19 record on the road. The Magic’s home-court advantage provided a favorable setting, but the final result came down to how the teams converted their possessions and managed the game’s changing momentum.
Phoenix had the stronger individual scoring performance through Booker, who recorded 34 points. However, Orlando received meaningful production from several players, allowing the team to remain competitive without relying on a single scorer.
The most revealing part of the box score is the contrast between the teams’ turnovers and defensive activity. Orlando committed 25 turnovers compared with Phoenix’s 20, a significant disadvantage. Yet the Magic recorded 13 steals to Phoenix’s nine and grabbed 46 rebounds to the Suns’ 41. Orlando also converted free throws at a higher rate, helping offset the possessions it lost.
These numbers show why a basketball game cannot be evaluated through the final score or leading scorer alone. Shooting accuracy, possession management, rebounding, and defensive plays all influence the outcome.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Breakdown
The scoring pattern changed considerably throughout the game. Orlando established an early advantage, exploded offensively in the second quarter, and then had to withstand Phoenix’s response after halftime.
| Quarter | Orlando Magic | Phoenix Suns |
| First Quarter | 28 | 21 |
| Second Quarter | 42 | 35 |
| Third Quarter | 24 | 38 |
| Fourth Quarter | 21 | 17 |
| Final Score | 115 | 111 |
First Quarter: Orlando Establishes Control
Orlando scored 28 points in the opening quarter while limiting Phoenix to 21. The seven-point advantage gave the Magic an early platform and allowed them to begin the contest with control of the scoreboard.
A strong opening quarter is valuable because it can force an opponent to adjust its offensive approach. When a team falls behind, it may begin taking more perimeter shots or pushing the pace to recover the deficit. That can create opportunities, but it can also increase the risk of rushed possessions.
Phoenix remained within reach, however, and its subsequent scoring surge showed that the early deficit did not determine the final outcome.
Second Quarter: The Magic Reach 70 Points
The second quarter was Orlando’s most productive period. The Magic scored 42 points, while Phoenix added 35.
Orlando reached halftime with 70 points, compared with Phoenix’s 56. The 14-point halftime lead represented the largest documented scoring advantage in the quarter-by-quarter breakdown.
Scoring 42 points in a single quarter generally requires several elements to work together. Teams need efficient shooting, effective transition opportunities, successful trips to the free-throw line, or some combination of those factors. The available team totals support Orlando’s overall efficiency advantage, although the precise scoring sequence and individual shot distribution require the detailed play-by-play record.
At halftime, Orlando appeared well positioned to win. Phoenix, however, had enough offensive firepower to make the second half far more competitive.
Third Quarter: Phoenix Produces a Major Comeback
Phoenix scored 38 points in the third quarter, its highest-scoring period of the game. Orlando managed 24, allowing the Suns to erase the 14-point halftime deficit and enter the fourth quarter with a 94-94 tie.
The 14-point swing was the game’s most significant change in momentum.
Phoenix’s ability to score 38 points after halftime demonstrated the team’s offensive potential. Booker remained the leading individual scorer, and the Suns had enough perimeter shooting and free-throw production to keep pressure on Orlando.
For the Magic, the third quarter exposed a vulnerability. A large halftime lead can disappear when defensive stops become less frequent and the opponent begins converting possessions at a higher rate.
The key lesson is that a halftime lead is not the same as control of the entire game. Teams must continue defending effectively after the break, particularly against opponents with established scoring options.
Fourth Quarter: Orlando Wins the Decisive Period
The teams entered the final quarter tied at 94. Orlando scored 21 points in the fourth, while Phoenix scored 17.
That four-point difference matched the final margin of victory.
The Magic did not need to recreate their second-quarter offensive explosion. They needed to score consistently, limit Phoenix’s opportunities, and make enough plays to finish the game. Orlando’s superior free-throw percentage across the full contest is especially relevant when evaluating a close result, although the supplied data does not identify every late-game free throw or defensive possession.
Phoenix’s 17-point fourth quarter was its lowest-scoring period of the game. After scoring 38 points in the third, the Suns could not maintain the same level of production.
Orlando’s ability to regain the advantage in the final period ultimately decided the matchup.
Orlando Magic Player Stats and Individual Performances
Orlando’s leading contributors combined scoring, rebounding, and playmaking to deliver the victory. The supplied player statistics identify five particularly important performances, although complete individual box-score figures for every starter and reserve are not available in the provided dataset.
| Orlando Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists |
| Desmond Bane | 21 | Not provided | Not provided |
| Jalen Suggs | 20 | 8 | 7 |
| Paolo Banchero | 19 | 9 | 8 |
| Wendell Carter Jr. | 15 | 12 | Not provided |
Desmond Bane: Orlando’s Leading Scorer
Desmond Bane led Orlando with 21 points. His scoring output gave the Magic a reliable source of offense in a game where the team needed contributions from multiple players.
Bane’s importance becomes clearer when his performance is viewed alongside those of Suggs and Banchero. Orlando had three leading contributors score at least 19 points, reducing its dependence on a single player to carry the offense.
Balanced scoring can make a team more difficult to defend. Opponents cannot concentrate exclusively on one scorer without potentially leaving other players with opportunities to attack.
The supplied figures do not include Bane’s field-goal attempts, three-point shooting, or free-throw totals. Consequently, his scoring efficiency cannot be calculated accurately from the available player data alone.
Jalen Suggs: A Complete Two-Way Contribution
Jalen Suggs finished with 20 points, eight rebounds, and seven assists. His line stands out because it covers three major areas of basketball performance.
His 20 points provided substantial scoring support. Eight rebounds helped Orlando compete for possession of the ball, while seven assists showed that he also contributed to teammates’ scoring opportunities.
Suggs’ combination of points, rebounds, and assists offers a better picture of his performance than points alone. A player can influence a game through rebounds that end an opponent’s possession, passes that create efficient shots, and defensive pressure that changes how an opponent attacks.
Orlando recorded 13 steals as a team, but the available data does not establish how many of those steals belonged to Suggs. His individual defensive contribution should therefore not be inferred from the team total.
Paolo Banchero: Scoring, Rebounding, and Playmaking
Paolo Banchero recorded 19 points, nine rebounds, and eight assists. He came close to a triple-double, falling short of double figures in both rebounds and assists by one and two, respectively.
Banchero’s line illustrates the value of an all-around offensive player. His scoring helped Orlando maintain pressure on Phoenix, while his rebounding and passing allowed him to contribute beyond direct shot-making.
Eight assists also indicate that Banchero played an important role in creating opportunities for teammates. Against a defense that must account for both a player’s scoring and passing, help defenders face difficult decisions about when to leave their assignments.
His nine rebounds were one short of a double-double in points and rebounds. While that statistical milestone is notable, the broader value of his performance lies in the combination of production across several categories.
Wendell Carter Jr.: Interior Presence on the Glass
Wendell Carter Jr. recorded 15 points and 12 rebounds, producing a double-double.
His 12 rebounds were particularly relevant in a contest where Orlando finished with a 46-41 advantage on the boards. Rebounding is not simply about accumulating statistics. It determines which team gains another possession and which team can end an opponent’s attack.
Defensive rebounds prevent opponents from generating second-chance points. Offensive rebounds can extend a possession and create additional opportunities to score. Carter’s individual offensive and defensive rebound totals were not included in the supplied figures, so the exact distribution of his 12 boards remains unconfirmed.
His scoring also provided Orlando with an additional contributor beyond its perimeter players. That interior production helped the Magic maintain a balanced offensive profile.
Orlando’s Starting Lineup
The supplied starting lineup for Orlando consisted of Paolo Banchero, Tristan da Silva, Wendell Carter Jr., Desmond Bane, and Jalen Suggs.
This group included multiple players capable of contributing in different ways. Banchero offered scoring and playmaking, Carter provided interior size, and Bane and Suggs supplied additional offensive production.
Tristan da Silva was also listed as a starter, but his individual statistics were not included in the provided data. A complete player-by-player assessment would require his points, rebounds, assists, shooting splits, and minutes played.
It is important not to treat missing figures as zeroes. A reliable statistical article distinguishes between a player who recorded no production in a category and a category for which the available source does not provide information.
Phoenix Suns Player Stats and Individual Performances
Phoenix lost by four points despite receiving a standout scoring performance from Devin Booker. The Suns’ individual production highlights the difference between having a leading scorer and producing enough efficient possessions to win the entire game.
| Phoenix Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists |
| Devin Booker | 34 | Not provided | Not provided |
| Royce O’Neale | 14 | 9 | 4 |
| Jalen Green | 8 | 1 | 2 |
The table includes the individual figures available in the supplied dataset. It is not a complete statistical record for every Phoenix player.
Devin Booker: Phoenix’s Leading Scorer
Devin Booker led all identified scorers with 34 points. His scoring output was central to Phoenix’s ability to recover from a 14-point halftime deficit and tie the game at 94 entering the fourth quarter.
Booker’s 34 points represented a substantial share of Phoenix’s 111-point total. His ability to generate offense was particularly important during a game in which the Suns needed a strong response after the first half.
However, high individual scoring does not automatically translate into victory. Basketball outcomes depend on the efficiency of the full team, the number of possessions available, defensive stops, rebounds, turnovers, and scoring support from other players.
The supplied data does not include Booker’s field-goal attempts, three-point attempts, free throws made, or minutes played. His exact shooting efficiency and usage rate cannot be established from the available figures.
Even with those limitations, the scoring total confirms that Booker was Phoenix’s most productive identified scorer.
Royce O’Neale: Valuable Production Beyond Points
Royce O’Neale recorded 14 points, nine rebounds, and four assists. His contribution extended across scoring, rebounding, and playmaking.
Nine rebounds from a player who also scores and distributes the ball can help a team in several ways. Rebounding ends defensive possessions or creates second chances, while assists can help teammates generate more favorable shots.
O’Neale’s four assists also provided additional playmaking support beyond Phoenix’s leading scorer. His 14 points gave the Suns another meaningful scoring source.
Although O’Neale came close to a double-double, he finished one rebound short of reaching ten in that category. The combined line is a useful reminder that supporting players can have a substantial impact even when they do not lead the team in points.
Jalen Green: A More Limited Scoring Return
Jalen Green finished with eight points, one rebound, and two assists according to the supplied data.
Those figures were lower than Booker’s scoring total and O’Neale’s combined production. However, a complete evaluation would require additional context, including minutes played, field-goal attempts, defensive assignments, and the timing of his contributions.
Eight points alone do not establish whether a player performed poorly. A player who receives fewer minutes or takes fewer shots has a different statistical role from a primary scorer.
The available figures allow a factual summary of Green’s production but do not support a definitive assessment of his overall performance.
Phoenix’s Starting Lineup
Phoenix’s listed starters were Dillon Brooks, Oso Ighodaro, Devin Booker, Collin Gillespie, and Jalen Green.
Booker supplied the leading scoring performance among the identified Suns players. Green was another starting guard, while Brooks, Ighodaro, and Gillespie completed the listed starting group.
Individual box-score figures for Brooks, Ighodaro, and Gillespie were not included in the supplied dataset. Their exact scoring totals, shooting percentages, and defensive contributions should be verified against the full official box score before being reported.
This distinction matters because a starting lineup’s overall effectiveness cannot be determined by looking at only two or three players. Bench contributions, substitutions, foul trouble, and minutes distribution can all influence the result.
Team Statistical Comparison: Magic vs Suns
The team statistics provide the clearest explanation of how Orlando won despite committing more turnovers. Both sides scored 115 or more points across the game, but they reached their totals through somewhat different statistical profiles.
| Team Statistic | Orlando Magic | Phoenix Suns |
| Points | 115 | 111 |
| Field Goals | 35-79 | 35-88 |
| Field-Goal Percentage | 44% | 40% |
| Three-Pointers | 10-29 | 14-46 |
| Three-Point Percentage | 34% | 30% |
| Free Throws | 35-41 | 27-35 |
| Free-Throw Percentage | 85% | 77% |
| Total Rebounds | 46 | 41 |
| Offensive Rebounds | 9 | 11 |
| Defensive Rebounds | 37 | 30 |
| Assists | 24 | 24 |
| Turnovers | 25 | 20 |
| Steals | 13 | 9 |
| Blocks | 1 | 4 |
| Personal Fouls | 29 | 32 |
The table shows that the Magic made the same number of field goals as Phoenix despite taking nine fewer attempts. Orlando also made eight more free throws and converted them at a higher percentage.
Phoenix’s advantage came from three-point volume and offensive rebounds. The Suns made four more three-pointers and collected two more offensive rebounds, but those strengths were not enough to overcome Orlando’s other advantages.
Field-Goal Efficiency
Orlando made 35 of 79 field-goal attempts, while Phoenix made 35 of 88. Both teams converted the same number of shots from the field, but Orlando required nine fewer attempts to reach that total.
Using the supplied makes and attempts, Orlando’s field-goal percentage was approximately 44.3%, compared with approximately 39.8% for Phoenix. These figures are consistent with the rounded percentages in the data.
The difference suggests that Orlando converted its overall shot attempts more efficiently. It does not, by itself, establish which team generated better shot quality, because that would require details about shot location, defensive pressure, and the types of attempts taken.
Even so, matching an opponent’s field-goal makes on fewer attempts is a meaningful efficiency advantage.
Three-Point Shooting
Phoenix made 14 three-pointers on 46 attempts, compared with Orlando’s 10 on 29 attempts.
The Suns therefore scored 12 more points from three-point field goals than the Magic. That difference helped Phoenix remain competitive, particularly during its strong third quarter.
However, the Suns attempted 17 more three-pointers and converted them at a lower rate. Phoenix’s three-point percentage was approximately 30.4%, while Orlando’s was approximately 34.5%.
The comparison highlights an important distinction between shot volume and shooting efficiency. More attempts can produce more points from a particular area, but the value of those attempts depends on how frequently they are converted and what other scoring opportunities are sacrificed.
Phoenix’s perimeter volume was a strength in terms of total three-pointers made, but Orlando’s overall field-goal efficiency and free-throw production compensated for that advantage.
Free-Throw Production
Free throws were one of the most important statistical differences in the matchup.
Orlando made 35 of 41 attempts, while Phoenix made 27 of 35. The Magic made eight more free throws and attempted six more.
At the percentages reported in the data, Orlando converted approximately 85% of its free throws, compared with 77% for Phoenix. Calculating from the raw totals produces approximately 85.4% for Orlando and 77.1% for Phoenix.
This category had a direct effect on the final score. Orlando’s eight-point advantage in made free throws was larger than its four-point margin of victory.
That does not mean free throws alone decided the game, because other scoring categories also mattered. It does demonstrate how efficient conversion at the line can compensate for disadvantages elsewhere.
In close games, missed free throws can be especially costly because the points are available without requiring a made field goal. Teams that reach the line frequently and convert consistently gain a valuable scoring advantage.
Rebounding and Second-Chance Opportunities
Orlando finished with 46 total rebounds, five more than Phoenix’s 41. The difference was driven by defensive rebounds rather than offensive boards.
The Magic collected 37 defensive rebounds, compared with 30 for the Suns. Phoenix recorded 11 offensive rebounds, while Orlando had nine.
The two offensive-rebound figures suggest that Phoenix generated slightly more opportunities to recover its own missed shots. However, Orlando’s seven-rebound advantage on the defensive glass helped it finish possessions.
A defensive rebound is valuable because it prevents the opposition from taking another shot on the same possession. Offensive rebounds can produce additional attempts, but they do not guarantee points.
Orlando’s overall rebounding edge therefore reflects more than the five-rebound difference in the total. The distribution shows that the Magic were more successful at securing defensive rebounds, while Phoenix had a small advantage in offensive rebounding.
Assists and Ball Movement
Both teams recorded 24 assists. That equality indicates that each side generated a comparable number of made field goals credited to teammate passes.
However, equal assist totals do not necessarily mean the offenses operated in the same way. One team may create open perimeter shots, while another generates baskets through drives, interior passes, or transition opportunities.
Orlando made 35 field goals, as did Phoenix, so both teams recorded the same number of field goals from which assists could be generated. A complete assessment of ball movement would require individual assist totals, potential assists, time of possession, and shot-quality information.
The available figures nevertheless show that neither side held a numerical advantage in total assists.
Turnovers and Steals
Turnovers were Orlando’s most obvious statistical weakness. The Magic committed 25, five more than Phoenix’s 20.
Turnovers can be costly because they end possessions without a field-goal attempt. They may also create fast-break opportunities for the opposing team, although not every turnover results in a transition basket.
Orlando partially offset that weakness by recording 13 steals to Phoenix’s nine. The four-steal advantage indicates that the Magic were more successful at taking the ball away directly.
It would be incorrect to assume that all 13 steals caused Phoenix turnovers or that every turnover was a live-ball mistake. The full play-by-play data would be needed to determine how many turnovers came from steals, offensive fouls, bad passes, or other causes.
The broader conclusion is clear: Orlando gave the ball away too frequently but created additional defensive pressure that helped balance the possession battle.
Blocks and Defensive Pressure
Phoenix recorded four blocks, while Orlando registered one. The Suns therefore had a clear advantage in recorded blocked shots.
Blocks can discourage drives and protect the rim, but they are only one measure of defensive effectiveness. Deflections, steals, forced turnovers, contested shots, and defensive rebounds also affect the quality of an opponent’s possessions.
Orlando’s higher steal total and stronger defensive-rebound numbers show why blocks alone do not capture the complete defensive picture.
Phoenix protected the rim more effectively in terms of blocks, but Orlando produced more steals and secured more defensive rebounds. The teams’ different defensive strengths contributed to a game in which neither side dominated every statistical category.
Personal Fouls
Orlando committed 29 personal fouls, while Phoenix committed 32.
The Suns were called for three more personal fouls. Foul totals can influence game flow by sending opponents to the free-throw line, creating foul trouble, and changing substitution patterns.
However, team foul totals do not tell us exactly how many free throws came from shooting fouls, bonus situations, technical fouls, or other circumstances. The supplied data also does not include each player’s foul count.
The higher number of Phoenix fouls is consistent with Orlando’s greater free-throw attempt total, but the exact relationship requires a play-by-play review.
Why Orlando Won Despite Committing More Turnovers
One of the most interesting lessons from this matchup is that Orlando won despite losing the turnover comparison. The Magic committed 25 turnovers, five more than Phoenix, yet still finished four points ahead.
Several statistical advantages help explain the result.
First, Orlando was more efficient from the field. The Magic made 35 field goals on 79 attempts, while Phoenix needed 88 attempts to make the same number. That gave Orlando a better field-goal percentage and reduced the number of attempts required to produce its field-goal total.
Second, Orlando made eight more free throws. The Magic’s 35-for-41 performance at the line provided a substantial scoring advantage over Phoenix’s 27-for-35 result.
Third, Orlando controlled the total rebounds, finishing with 46 compared with Phoenix’s 41. The Magic also held a clear advantage in defensive rebounds, limiting the Suns’ ability to extend possessions after missed shots.
Fourth, Orlando recorded four more steals. Although the turnover totals show that the Magic gave the ball away more frequently overall, their defensive activity created additional opportunities to disrupt Phoenix’s offense.
Finally, Orlando outscored Phoenix 21-17 in the fourth quarter after the teams entered the period tied. That late advantage converted the earlier statistical strengths into a winning result.
These factors demonstrate why no single category should be used to judge an entire basketball game. Turnovers matter, but their effect must be evaluated alongside shooting, free throws, rebounds, and defensive plays.
The Statistical Meaning of Orlando’s Shooting Advantage
The shooting numbers offer a useful way to understand the matchup beyond the basic field-goal percentage.
Orlando made 35 field goals and 35 free throws. Phoenix made 35 field goals and 27 free throws. The Magic’s greater free-throw production helped them reach 115 points without making as many three-pointers as the Suns.
A simple measure of shooting efficiency is effective field-goal percentage, which adjusts field-goal percentage to account for the additional value of three-point shots.
The formula is:
Effective Field-Goal Percentage = (Field Goals Made + 0.5 × Three-Pointers Made) ÷ Field-Goal Attempts
Using the supplied totals, Orlando’s effective field-goal percentage was approximately 50.6%. Phoenix’s was approximately 47.7%.
This calculation reinforces the conclusion that Orlando was more efficient from the field after accounting for the extra point awarded for three-pointers.
Another useful measure is true shooting percentage, which estimates scoring efficiency across field goals, three-pointers, and free throws. A commonly used formula is:
True Shooting Percentage = Points ÷ [2 × (Field-Goal Attempts + 0.44 × Free-Throw Attempts)]
Using the team totals, Orlando’s estimated true shooting percentage was approximately 59.0%, while Phoenix’s was approximately 54.7%.
These are calculations from the supplied box-score totals, not separately reported official statistics. The 0.44 multiplier is an estimate used to account for the way free-throw attempts relate to possessions.
Both measures point in the same direction: Orlando was more efficient overall, even though Phoenix made more three-pointers.
What the Matchup Reveals About Both Teams
The April 1 game offers useful observations about the teams’ statistical profiles, although one contest should not be treated as a complete description of either team’s season.
Orlando’s Balanced Scoring Was Valuable
Orlando had four identified players score at least 15 points: Bane, Suggs, Banchero, and Carter Jr.
That distribution allowed the Magic to receive meaningful contributions from the perimeter and interior. Banchero’s eight assists and Suggs’ seven also indicate that two of Orlando’s leading scorers contributed to playmaking.
The balance was especially useful because Phoenix had a 34-point performance from Booker. Orlando did not need a single player to match Booker’s scoring total. Instead, multiple players supplied production across different areas.
Phoenix Demonstrated Offensive Resilience
Phoenix’s 38-point third quarter was a major reason the game remained competitive. The Suns recovered from a 14-point halftime deficit and entered the final period tied.
That response showed the team’s ability to generate offense under pressure. Phoenix also made four more three-pointers than Orlando, helping it recover ground despite a lower overall field-goal percentage.
The problem was sustaining that offensive output in the fourth quarter. The Suns scored only 17 points in the final period, four fewer than Orlando.
The Rebounding Battle Favored Orlando Overall
Phoenix had two more offensive rebounds, but Orlando finished with five more total rebounds and seven more defensive rebounds.
The distinction matters because offensive rebounds and defensive rebounds serve different purposes. Phoenix’s offensive boards created opportunities to extend possessions, while Orlando’s defensive boards helped prevent the Suns from doing the same.
A team can win one part of the rebounding battle without winning the category overall. This game illustrates that difference.
Free-Throw Accuracy Created a Meaningful Gap
Orlando made 85% of its free throws, compared with Phoenix’s 77%. The Magic also attempted six more free throws.
In a four-point game, that combination was particularly important. Free-throw performance does not explain every part of the result, but it represents one of the clearest numerical advantages Orlando held.
Season Series: Phoenix Won the First Game, Orlando the Second
The two teams split their reported 2025-26 season meetings.
| Meeting | Result | Outcome |
| February 22, 2026 | Phoenix Suns 113, Orlando Magic 110 | Phoenix won in double overtime |
| April 1, 2026 | Orlando Magic 115, Phoenix Suns 111 | Orlando won |
| Season Series | 1-1 | Tied |
The February 22 meeting ended with Phoenix winning 113-110 in double overtime. Orlando responded in the April 1 matchup with a four-point victory at the Kia Center.
The two results show how closely matched the teams were across their reported meetings. Phoenix won the first game by three points after extended play, while Orlando won the second by four.
A split season series does not establish that the teams were equal in every respect. Different lineups, injuries, shooting performances, and game conditions can influence individual matchups. However, the narrow margins suggest that both contests were competitive.
The April result also demonstrates how a team can respond after losing an earlier meeting. Orlando secured the second game through more efficient shooting, stronger defensive rebounding, and a better fourth-quarter scoring performance.
How to Read an NBA Box Score Correctly
Readers searching for player statistics often want more than a list of points. A box score becomes more useful when its categories are interpreted together.
Start With Points, but Do Not Stop There
Points identify a player’s scoring output, but they do not show how many attempts were needed to reach that total. A player who scores 20 points efficiently may have a different impact from a player who scores the same number on many more attempts.
Field-goal percentage, three-point percentage, and free-throw percentage help provide that context.
Use Rebounds to Understand Possession Control
Total rebounds show how frequently a team recovered the ball after missed shots. Offensive rebounds can create second-chance opportunities, while defensive rebounds help end an opponent’s possession.
In this game, Orlando’s 46 rebounds compared with Phoenix’s 41 provide evidence of an overall advantage on the boards.
Interpret Assists as One Measure of Playmaking
Assists record passes directly leading to made field goals under the official scoring rules. They do not capture every useful pass, screen, or off-ball movement that contributes to a scoring opportunity.
Both teams recorded 24 assists, but that does not prove their offensive systems were identical.
Consider Turnovers Alongside Defensive Activity
Turnovers measure lost possessions, while steals record a specific type of defensive action. Comparing the two can reveal how teams manage the ball and pressure opponents.
Orlando committed more turnovers but also recorded more steals. That combination shows why a single negative statistic cannot explain the final result.
Separate Confirmed Figures From Missing Data
A trustworthy statistical recap should identify the source of its numbers and avoid filling gaps with assumptions. If an individual player’s rebounds or shooting percentages are not available in the dataset, those statistics should be checked against the full box score rather than estimated.
The same principle applies to minutes, plus-minus, blocks, turnovers, and bench production. Accurate reporting is more useful than a complete-looking table built from unverified numbers.
Points in the Paint and Points Off Turnovers
Two additional statistics provide useful context for understanding the game: points in the paint and points scored off turnovers.
| Statistic | Orlando Magic | Phoenix Suns |
| Points in the Paint | 42 | 32 |
| Points Off Turnovers | 18 | 26 |
| Fast-Break Points | 16 | 18 |
| Largest Lead | 16 | 2 |
Orlando scored 10 more points in the paint than Phoenix. This advantage indicates that the Magic generated more scoring production from inside the painted area, which can include layups, dunks, and other two-point attempts near the basket.
Phoenix, meanwhile, scored eight more points off turnovers. That advantage reflects the Suns’ ability to capitalize on Orlando’s ball-handling mistakes. It also explains why the Magic’s 25 turnovers were a significant concern despite the victory.
The Suns recorded two more fast-break points, 18 compared with Orlando’s 16. Their transition offense provided another way to create scoring opportunities, but the advantage was not large enough to overcome Orlando’s overall shooting efficiency and interior scoring.
Orlando’s largest lead was 16 points, while Phoenix’s largest lead was just two. These figures help illustrate the game’s changing momentum. The Magic built a substantial advantage before Phoenix fought back to tie the score entering the final quarter.
Taken together, the numbers reveal a contest in which Phoenix benefited from turnovers and transition scoring, while Orlando found greater success in the paint and at the free-throw line.
The Final Minutes: How Orlando Secured the Win
The fourth quarter was decisive because neither team carried a lead into the period. After Phoenix’s 38-point third quarter, the score stood at 94-94.
Phoenix briefly moved ahead 107-105 following a long jumper by Dillon Brooks. Orlando responded through Banchero and Bane, who helped put the Magic back in front.
Booker continued to threaten Orlando’s lead late in the game. His three-pointer brought Phoenix within two points with 3.1 seconds remaining.
Tristan da Silva then made two free throws to secure Orlando’s 115-111 victory, according to the game recap. These late possessions highlight the importance of execution under pressure. Phoenix created a final opportunity to challenge the result, but Orlando converted the free throws it needed to protect its advantage.
The finish also gives context to the team’s overall free-throw numbers. Orlando made 35 of 41 attempts, and those points proved valuable in a game decided by four.
For readers who want to verify the final score, quarter-by-quarter results, and individual performances, the official game box score provides the detailed statistical record.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Orlando Magic vs Phoenix Suns game on April 1, 2026?
The Orlando Magic defeated the Phoenix Suns 115-111 at the Kia Center in Orlando. The victory came after Phoenix erased a 14-point halftime deficit to tie the game entering the fourth quarter.
2. Who scored the most points in the game?
Devin Booker led all identified scorers with 34 points for Phoenix. Desmond Bane was Orlando’s leading scorer with 21 points, followed by Jalen Suggs with 20.
3. What were Jalen Suggs’ stats against the Phoenix Suns?
Jalen Suggs recorded 20 points, eight rebounds, and seven assists. His all-around performance contributed to Orlando’s scoring, rebounding, and playmaking.
4. What were Paolo Banchero’s stats in the matchup?
Paolo Banchero finished with 19 points, nine rebounds, and eight assists. He contributed across three major statistical categories and came close to recording a triple-double.
5. Why did Orlando beat Phoenix despite committing more turnovers?
Orlando committed 25 turnovers compared with Phoenix’s 20, but the Magic shot more efficiently from the field, made eight additional free throws, grabbed five more rebounds, and recorded four more steals. Orlando also outscored Phoenix in the paint, 42-32.
6. What was the season-series result between Orlando and Phoenix?
The teams split their two reported meetings, finishing the season series tied 1-1. Phoenix won 113-110 in double overtime on February 22, 2026, while Orlando won 115-111 in the April 1 matchup.
Conclusion
The Orlando Magic vs Phoenix Suns match player stats reveal how a four-point victory can emerge from several small but important statistical advantages. Orlando won 115-111 through better overall field-goal efficiency, stronger defensive rebounding, more steals, and superior free-throw production.
Devin Booker delivered the game’s leading scoring performance with 34 points, but Orlando countered with balanced contributions from Desmond Bane, Jalen Suggs, Paolo Banchero, and Wendell Carter Jr. Their combined production helped the Magic overcome a difficult third quarter and finish the game with a stronger fourth-quarter performance.
Phoenix demonstrated its offensive potential by scoring 38 points in the third quarter and recovering from a 14-point halftime deficit. However, the Suns’ lower field-goal percentage and smaller free-throw return limited their ability to turn that comeback into a victory.
The most important takeaway is that individual scoring totals tell only part of the story. Shooting efficiency, rebounds, turnovers, defensive activity, and late-game execution must be considered together to understand why Orlando won and Phoenix fell short.
For anyone reviewing this matchup, the full team comparison and individual player lines provide a more complete explanation of the result than the final score alone.
