Charlotte Hornets vs Phoenix Suns Match Player Stats
The Charlotte Hornets vs Phoenix Suns match player stats from March 9, 2026, reveal how Phoenix secured a 111-99 victory through efficient scoring, reliable free-throw shooting, and better control of the basketball. Although Charlotte finished with more total rebounds and the same number of assists, the Suns made better use of their possessions and received outstanding performances from Devin Booker, Collin Gillespie, and Jalen Green. The game at Mortgage Matchup Center in Phoenix, Arizona, offered a useful example of how shooting efficiency and turnovers can influence an NBA result even when the losing team competes on the boards.
Phoenix won the game by 12 points after trailing Charlotte 30-28 at the end of the first quarter. The Suns responded with a 32-point second quarter, maintained their advantage after halftime, and scored 30 points in the final period to close out the contest. Booker led all scorers with 30 points and added 10 assists, while Gillespie and Green contributed 24 points apiece. For Charlotte, LaMelo Ball led the way with 22 points, seven rebounds, and six assists.
The numbers tell a deeper story than the final score alone. Phoenix shot better from the field, converted substantially more free throws, and committed five fewer turnovers. Charlotte produced 13 offensive rebounds and 15 three-pointers, but those strengths were not enough to overcome the Suns’ scoring efficiency. Examining the individual performances, team statistics, and quarter-by-quarter progression helps explain why Phoenix won and what the box score says about both teams.
Charlotte Hornets vs Phoenix Suns Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The March 9 matchup brought together two teams with different approaches to generating offense. Charlotte relied on perimeter shooting, ball movement, and second-chance opportunities. Phoenix combined outside shooting with aggressive drives that generated trips to the free-throw line.
Here are the key details from the supplied ESPN box-score data.
| Game detail | Information |
| Matchup | Charlotte Hornets vs Phoenix Suns |
| Date | March 9, 2026 |
| Final score | Phoenix Suns 111, Charlotte Hornets 99 |
| Winner | Phoenix Suns |
| Venue | Mortgage Matchup Center |
| Location | Phoenix, Arizona |
| Attendance | 17,071 |
| Hornets pregame record | 32-33 |
| Suns pregame record | 37-27 |
| Hornets away record before game | 18-16 |
| Suns home record before game | 22-13 |
Phoenix entered the contest with the stronger overall record and a solid home record. Charlotte, however, had been competitive on the road, making the matchup more interesting than the final margin might suggest.
The decisive factor was not simply which team scored more three-pointers or collected more rebounds. Phoenix generated 23 successful free throws compared with Charlotte’s 10, giving the home team a substantial advantage in points from the charity stripe.
That difference became especially important because Charlotte actually made one more field goal than Phoenix. The Hornets converted 37 shots from the field, while the Suns made 36. Yet Phoenix won comfortably because the Suns’ shooting efficiency and free-throw production generated more points from fewer field-goal attempts.
Quarter-by-Quarter Score Breakdown
The scoring pattern explains how Phoenix turned a competitive opening period into a controlled home victory. Charlotte started well, but the Suns found a more productive offensive rhythm in the second quarter and maintained their advantage through the remainder of the game.
| Quarter | Charlotte Hornets | Phoenix Suns |
| First | 30 | 28 |
| Second | 28 | 32 |
| Third | 19 | 21 |
| Fourth | 22 | 30 |
| Final | 99 | 111 |
First Quarter: Charlotte Makes an Early Statement
Charlotte scored 30 points in the opening quarter, two more than Phoenix. The Hornets demonstrated that they could create scoring opportunities against the Suns’ defense, using their perimeter options and half-court offense to establish an early rhythm.
LaMelo Ball’s playmaking and ability to score from the perimeter gave Charlotte an important offensive foundation. Miles Bridges also offered a scoring option, while Brandon Miller provided additional size and shooting.
Phoenix stayed close despite trailing after the first 12 minutes. The Suns did not need to establish a large early lead because their offense would become more effective as the game progressed.
Second Quarter: Phoenix Takes Control
The second quarter was the first major turning point. Phoenix scored 32 points while holding Charlotte to 28, changing a two-point deficit into a two-point halftime lead.
This improvement reflected the Suns’ ability to produce points through multiple methods. Devin Booker could create shots and distribute the ball, while Collin Gillespie and Jalen Green supplied additional scoring from the perimeter and off the dribble.
The importance of this period becomes clearer when looking at the final result. Phoenix did not need to dominate every quarter. It needed to respond when Charlotte had momentum, and the second-quarter performance allowed the Suns to enter halftime in front.
Third Quarter: Both Teams Slow Down
The third quarter produced the lowest combined scoring of the game. Charlotte managed 19 points, while Phoenix scored 21.
The Suns extended their lead from two points to four. Although that was not a large margin, it meant Charlotte entered the final quarter needing to make up ground against a team that was shooting more efficiently and protecting the ball.
For the Hornets, the third quarter represented a missed opportunity to reclaim the lead. Their 13 offensive rebounds across the game suggest that they generated second-chance opportunities, but the team did not convert enough of its overall possessions into points to reverse the momentum.
Fourth Quarter: Phoenix Seals the Win
The final period separated the teams decisively. Phoenix scored 30 points, compared with Charlotte’s 22, producing an eight-point advantage in the quarter alone.
The Suns’ lead grew from four points to 12 by the final buzzer. Their ability to finish possessions at the free-throw line was especially important in protecting the advantage.
Phoenix converted 23 of 26 free throws during the game. Charlotte attempted only 15 and made 10. When a team is trying to overcome a late deficit, those additional points can make the difference between a realistic comeback and a difficult finish.
The fourth-quarter performance demonstrated that Phoenix could maintain offensive pressure rather than simply defend its lead.
Complete Charlotte Hornets Player Statistics
Charlotte’s individual performances featured a strong scoring effort from LaMelo Ball, contributions from Miles Bridges and Kon Knueppel, and useful production from several reserves.
The following figures come from the supplied game data. Where a statistic was not included in the provided information, it is marked as unavailable rather than estimated.
Hornets Starting Lineup
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Field goals | 3-pointers | Free throws | Blocks |
| LaMelo Ball | 22 | 7 | 6 | 9/19 | 4/12 | Not supplied | Not supplied |
| Miles Bridges | 16 | 7 | 1 | 7/16 | 1/6 | 1/2 | Not supplied |
| Kon Knueppel | 15 | 1 | 4 | 4/11 | 2/8 | 5/6 | Not supplied |
| Brandon Miller | 11 | 9 | 3 | 4/12 | 2/7 | Not supplied | 1 |
| Moussa Diabate | 2 | 4 | 2 | 1/4 | Not supplied | Not supplied | 4 |
Note: The supplied player summary does not provide every individual statistic. Missing figures should not be interpreted as zero.
LaMelo Ball: Charlotte’s Leading Scorer
LaMelo Ball led the Hornets with 22 points, seven rebounds, and six assists. He made nine of his 19 field-goal attempts and converted four of 12 three-point attempts.
His performance combined scoring with playmaking. Six assists show that Ball was involved in creating opportunities for teammates rather than concentrating exclusively on his own shot.
However, his three-point shooting was less efficient than his overall field-goal performance. Ball made four of 12 attempts from beyond the arc, a conversion rate of 33.3%. That production helped Charlotte maintain its perimeter threat, but it also meant that eight of his long-range attempts did not result in three-pointers.
Ball’s seven rebounds added value beyond his scoring responsibilities. For a lead guard, collecting rebounds can help a team transition quickly from defense to offense and reduce the time required to establish a half-court attack.
The broader lesson from his performance is that an effective individual line does not automatically produce a team victory. Charlotte needed additional scoring efficiency and stronger defensive control to convert Ball’s contribution into a more competitive final result.
Miles Bridges: Consistent Interior and Perimeter Scoring
Miles Bridges finished with 16 points, seven rebounds, and one assist. He made seven of 16 field-goal attempts, giving him a field-goal percentage of 43.8%.
Bridges contributed through a mixture of finishing and perimeter shooting. He made one of six three-point attempts, so most of his scoring came from inside the arc.
His seven rebounds were also important. Charlotte finished with 41 total rebounds, and Bridges helped support that effort from the forward position.
The challenge was efficiency from long range. Bridges’ three-point conversion rate was 16.7%, which limited the value of his outside attempts. That does not mean every missed three-pointer was a poor decision, since shot quality and defensive pressure also matter. It does show, however, that Charlotte did not receive enough successful perimeter shooting from every major scoring option.
Kon Knueppel: Useful Scoring and Free-Throw Production
Kon Knueppel recorded 15 points and four assists while making four of 11 field-goal attempts. He converted two of eight three-point attempts and five of six free throws.
His 83.3% free-throw accuracy was one of the stronger elements of his performance. Free throws offer a way to add points without needing another field-goal attempt, and Knueppel made the most of the opportunities recorded in his line.
He also contributed as a passer. Four assists helped Charlotte maintain ball movement and create shots for teammates.
His shooting from three-point range was less successful, with a 25% conversion rate. Still, his overall contribution showed why a player’s value cannot be judged only by field-goal percentage. Scoring, passing, and the ability to earn or convert free throws all influence offensive production.
Brandon Miller: Rebounding and Two-Way Potential
Brandon Miller finished with 11 points, nine rebounds, three assists, and one block. He made four of 12 field-goal attempts, including two of seven from three-point range.
Miller came close to a double-double, falling one rebound short of reaching 10. His nine rebounds were the highest among Charlotte’s listed starters, giving the Hornets additional support on the glass.
His shooting line, however, indicates room for improvement. Miller made 33.3% of his field-goal attempts and 28.6% of his three-point attempts.
The single block also shows a defensive contribution that is not captured by points and assists alone. Blocks can interrupt an opponent’s attack, protect the rim, and change the type of shots the offense is willing to attempt.
For Charlotte, Miller’s combination of size, rebounding, and perimeter ability remained valuable even though his scoring efficiency was limited in this game.
Moussa Diabate: Defensive Impact Beyond Scoring
Moussa Diabate scored two points and collected four rebounds and two assists. His most notable recorded contribution was four blocks.
That total led the listed Hornets players and matched a significant defensive output for a single game. Blocks can prevent direct scoring opportunities and force opponents to reconsider drives into the paint.
Diabate’s limited scoring should therefore be viewed in context. His role included defensive work, rebounding, and supporting possession creation. A player can contribute meaningfully without producing a large points total.
At the same time, the Suns scored 111 points, so the team’s overall defensive result remained insufficient to secure a win. Individual rim protection is most effective when it works alongside disciplined perimeter defense and controlled defensive rebounds.
Charlotte Hornets Bench Performance
Charlotte’s reserves provided several important contributions, particularly through three-point shooting and interior scoring.
| Bench player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Field goals | Three-pointers | Other recorded stats |
| Grant Williams | 10 | 2 | 2 | 3/4 | 3/4 | 1 steal |
| Ryan Kalkbrenner | 10 | 7 | Not supplied | 4/6 | Not supplied | 1 block |
| Coby White | 7 | 1 | 4 | 3/10 | 1/5 | Not supplied |
| Josh Green | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1/3 | 1/2 | Not supplied |
| Sion James | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 | Not supplied |
Other players listed among Charlotte’s reserves were Pat Connaughton, Tre Mann, and Xavier Tillman. The supplied summary does not include complete individual statistical lines for these players, so no additional figures are assumed here.
Grant Williams Provides Efficient Perimeter Shooting
Grant Williams scored 10 points on four field-goal attempts, making three of four shots from the field and three of four from three-point range.
His 75% three-point accuracy was especially notable. He converted three shots from beyond the arc while using relatively few attempts, offering Charlotte a highly efficient source of perimeter scoring.
This type of performance can be important when a team’s main creators attract defensive attention. A reliable outside shooter can punish defensive rotations and make it more difficult for opponents to focus on the ball handler.
Williams also recorded two rebounds, two assists, and one steal. His contribution was not limited to scoring, although his shooting efficiency was the standout feature of his line.
Ryan Kalkbrenner Adds Interior Production
Ryan Kalkbrenner contributed 10 points, seven rebounds, and one block. He made four of six field-goal attempts and two of four free throws.
His 66.7% field-goal percentage was strong, and his seven rebounds helped Charlotte compete on the glass. Kalkbrenner supplied a different scoring profile from the perimeter-oriented players, producing much of his value through interior opportunities.
The contrast between Kalkbrenner and Williams illustrates how Charlotte’s bench could generate points in different ways. One supplied efficient outside shooting, while the other provided interior finishing and rebounding.
Coby White Supports Ball Movement
Coby White scored seven points and recorded four assists. He made three of 10 field-goal attempts, including one of five from three-point range.
Although his shooting was inefficient in this game, his four assists offered additional playmaking. Bench guards often have to balance personal scoring with keeping the offense organized, especially when the starting point guard is resting.
White’s line suggests that Charlotte received some useful creation from its reserves but did not get the same scoring efficiency from every guard who entered the game.
The Bench Comparison
Charlotte’s listed bench players supplied scoring, rebounds, assists, and perimeter shooting. The team therefore did not depend entirely on its starters for offensive production.
However, the provided figures are not a complete statistical breakdown of every reserve, and a precise total for all bench points cannot be established from the available summary alone.
The more reliable conclusion is that Charlotte had several effective individual contributions but still lost the overall efficiency battle. Phoenix’s scoring from Booker, Gillespie, Green, and reserve Rasheer Fleming created a balanced attack that was difficult to contain over four quarters.
Complete Phoenix Suns Player Statistics
Phoenix received an excellent performance from Devin Booker, strong complementary scoring from Collin Gillespie and Jalen Green, and an efficient contribution from reserve Rasheer Fleming.
Suns Starting Lineup
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Field goals | 3-pointers | Free throws | Steals | Blocks |
| Devin Booker | 30 | 3 | 10 | 7/18 | 1/6 | 15/15 | Not supplied | Not supplied |
| Collin Gillespie | 24 | 5 | 4 | 8/15 | 5/10 | 3/3 | Not supplied | Not supplied |
| Jalen Green | 24 | 4 | 2 | 8/19 | 4/10 | 4/6 | 1 | Not supplied |
| Royce O’Neale | 3 | 7 | 1 | 1/6 | 1/6 | Not supplied | 3 | 2 |
| Oso Ighodaro | 2 | 4 | 5 | 1/3 | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied | 1 |
The table reflects the supplied player summary. Individual statistics not provided in that summary are marked as unavailable.
Devin Booker: The Leading Scorer and Playmaker
Devin Booker delivered the most complete offensive performance of the game, finishing with 30 points, three rebounds, and 10 assists.
His 10 assists are particularly important because they demonstrate that Phoenix’s offense was not built entirely around his personal scoring. Booker also created opportunities for teammates, helping Gillespie and Green contribute 24 points apiece.
Booker made seven of 18 field-goal attempts, including one of six three-point attempts. His scoring efficiency from the field was therefore not exceptional by itself. However, he converted all 15 of his free-throw attempts, making the line a major source of his production.
His perfect free-throw performance illustrates how a player can reach 30 points without relying on a high field-goal percentage. Booker earned opportunities to score without needing another shot from the field, and he converted every one.
His combination of 30 points and 10 assists also means he recorded a double-double. That milestone captures both his scoring output and his role in organizing the offense.
For Phoenix, Booker’s value was not merely that he scored the most points. He helped sustain the attack by making decisions that gave teammates opportunities to score, while his free-throw accuracy converted those opportunities into reliable points.
Collin Gillespie: Perimeter Shooting That Changed the Game
Collin Gillespie finished with 24 points, five rebounds, and four assists. He made eight of 15 field-goal attempts, five of 10 three-point attempts, and all three of his free throws.
His 50% three-point accuracy was a major advantage for Phoenix. Gillespie connected on five shots from beyond the arc, providing a consistent scoring threat alongside Booker and Green.
The volume matters as much as the percentage. Gillespie attempted 10 three-pointers and converted half of them, giving Phoenix 15 points from those shots alone.
He also shot 53.3% from the field overall. His combination of perimeter scoring and playmaking allowed him to contribute without requiring every possession to run through Booker.
Gillespie’s performance is a useful reminder that supporting scorers can have a major influence on an NBA game. When a defense concentrates on a primary creator, a secondary guard who converts open shots can make that defensive approach costly.
Jalen Green: A Second Scoring Option
Jalen Green also scored 24 points, adding four rebounds, two assists, and one steal. He made eight of 19 field-goal attempts, including four of 10 from three-point range.
Green’s four successful three-pointers gave Phoenix another reliable source of outside scoring. His 40% accuracy from long range was better than Charlotte’s overall three-point percentage of 33%.
He and Gillespie scored the same number of points, but they reached that total through somewhat different shooting profiles. Gillespie converted five three-pointers, while Green made four and added four successful free throws.
The significance of Green’s performance lies in the balance it created. Phoenix did not have to rely on Booker to score 40 or 50 points. Two teammates reached 24 points, spreading the scoring responsibility across the starting lineup.
Green’s steal also contributed to the defensive effort. While one steal does not explain a team’s overall defensive performance, it adds another element to a game in which Phoenix finished with five steals compared with Charlotte’s one.
Royce O’Neale: Defensive Contributions and Rebounding
Royce O’Neale recorded three points, seven rebounds, one assist, three steals, and two blocks.
His scoring total was modest, but the defensive numbers stand out. Three steals and two blocks represented five recorded defensive events that disrupted or prevented Charlotte’s scoring opportunities.
O’Neale’s seven rebounds also helped Phoenix finish defensive possessions. Although Charlotte won the overall rebounding count by one, Phoenix still collected 30 defensive rebounds.
This distinction matters because a team’s total rebounds do not tell the whole story. Defensive rebounds prevent opponents from getting additional attempts, while offensive rebounds create extra chances for the attacking team.
O’Neale’s contribution was therefore valuable in areas that do not always attract attention in a headline scoreline. He offered defensive activity, rebounding, and lineup support while the team’s main scorers handled much of the offensive workload.
Oso Ighodaro: Playmaking From the Frontcourt
Oso Ighodaro scored two points, grabbed four rebounds, and recorded five assists and one block.
Five assists from a frontcourt player can help an offense maintain movement and create opportunities from positions beyond the traditional point guard role. Ighodaro’s passing complemented Booker’s 10 assists and Gillespie’s four.
His modest scoring total does not fully represent his involvement in the offense. The Suns had multiple players contributing to ball movement, which made their attack less dependent on one player’s ability to create every shot.
Ighodaro’s one block added a defensive contribution, while his four rebounds helped support the team’s work on the boards.
Phoenix Suns Bench Performance
The Suns also benefited from their reserves, especially Rasheer Fleming, who delivered one of the most efficient scoring performances in the game.
| Bench player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Field goals | Three-pointers | Other recorded stats |
| Rasheer Fleming | 16 | 2 | Not supplied | 6/8 | 4/6 | Not supplied |
| Khaman Maluach | 4 | 9 | Not supplied | 2/4 | Not supplied | 2 blocks |
| Haywood Highsmith | 3 | 4 | 2 | 1/4 | Not supplied | 1 steal |
| Ryan Dunn | 3 | 1 | Not supplied | 1/1 | 1/1 | Not supplied |
| Amir Coffey | 2 | 1 | Not supplied | 1/1 | Not supplied | Not supplied |
Other Suns reserves listed in the supplied information were Isaiah Livers and Jamaree Bouyea. Their complete individual statistics were not included in the provided summary.
Rasheer Fleming: An Efficient Scoring Spark
Rasheer Fleming scored 16 points in a highly efficient performance. He made six of eight field-goal attempts and four of six three-point attempts.
His 75% field-goal accuracy and 66.7% three-point accuracy made him one of Phoenix’s most efficient scorers by the percentages supplied.
Fleming’s four three-pointers were especially valuable because they provided scoring beyond the starting lineup’s production. The Suns could get points from their main creators and still receive a significant boost from a reserve.
This is an important distinction when analyzing bench impact. A reserve does not necessarily need a high volume of attempts to influence the result. Efficient shooting can allow a team to maintain its offensive level when the starters are not responsible for every possession.
Fleming’s 16 points also gave Phoenix a fourth player with at least 16 points, joining Booker, Gillespie, and Green. That distribution made it more difficult for Charlotte to limit the Suns by concentrating exclusively on their leading scorer.
Khaman Maluach: Rebounding and Rim Protection
Khaman Maluach contributed four points, nine rebounds, and two blocks. He made both of his field-goal attempts, finishing with four points from four successful attempts at the free-throw or field-goal level not being fully represented in the supplied summary? The listed figures specifically show two of four field goals, so his four points came from those two baskets.
His nine rebounds were the highest among the Suns players listed in the provided bench data. The two blocks also added defensive protection near the basket.
Maluach’s line shows why a reserve center can influence a game without scoring heavily. Rebounding creates possession security, while blocks can reduce opponents’ chances around the rim. These contributions complement the work of perimeter scorers rather than replacing it.
How the Suns’ Bench Supported the Starters
The most notable bench contribution came from Fleming’s shooting, while Maluach supplied rebounding and shot-blocking. Highsmith, Dunn, and Coffey also added points in their listed appearances.
These performances helped Phoenix spread its scoring responsibilities. The Suns did not need their starting five to produce every point, and their reserves offered different types of support.
A complete bench comparison would require the minutes played and full statistical lines for all reserves. Those figures are not included in the supplied summary, so it would be misleading to claim a precise bench advantage based only on the partial player data.
What can be established is that Phoenix received 16 points from Fleming, alongside additional production from other listed reserves. That support complemented the three leading scorers and helped the Suns reach 111 points.
Team Statistics Comparison: Hornets vs Suns
Individual performances explain who contributed, but team statistics show why the final score favored Phoenix.
| Statistic | Charlotte Hornets | Phoenix Suns |
| Total points | 99 | 111 |
| Field goals made | 37 | 36 |
| Field-goal attempts | 88 | 79 |
| Field-goal percentage | 42% | 46% |
| Three-pointers made | 15 | 16 |
| Three-point attempts | 45 | 41 |
| Three-point percentage | 33% | 39% |
| Free throws made | 10 | 23 |
| Free-throw attempts | 15 | 26 |
| Free-throw percentage | 67% | 88% |
| Total rebounds | 41 | 40 |
| Assists | 24 | 24 |
| Turnovers | 11 | 6 |
| Steals | 1 | 5 |
| Blocks | 6 | 5 |
| Offensive rebounds | 13 | 10 |
| Defensive rebounds | 28 | 30 |
| Team fouls | 21 | 17 |
Percentages are reproduced from the supplied team summary and rounded as shown.
Field-Goal Efficiency Favored Phoenix
Charlotte made 37 field goals, one more than Phoenix’s 36. However, the Hornets attempted nine more shots.
Phoenix’s field-goal percentage was approximately 45.6%, compared with about 42.0% for Charlotte. That difference means Phoenix generated more successful shots per attempt.
A team can make more field goals and still score fewer points if it needs significantly more attempts to do so. This game illustrates that principle clearly.
Phoenix also scored 111 points from 79 field-goal attempts, while Charlotte scored 99 points from 88 attempts. Those totals reflect the importance of efficiency and free throws rather than raw shot volume alone.
Three-Point Shooting Provided an Additional Edge
The Suns made 16 three-pointers from 41 attempts, compared with Charlotte’s 15 from 45 attempts.
Phoenix therefore made one more three-pointer despite attempting four fewer shots. Its listed three-point percentage was 39%, while Charlotte’s was 33%.
The difference amounted to three additional points from successful three-point shots. That advantage was meaningful, but it was not the main reason Phoenix won by 12.
The larger gap came from free throws and turnovers. The Suns combined perimeter accuracy with more trips to the line, making their overall offense more productive.
Free Throws Were the Biggest Scoring Difference
Phoenix made 23 free throws, while Charlotte made 10. The 13-point difference in free throws made was larger than the final 12-point margin of victory.
That does not mean free throws alone explain every aspect of the result. Phoenix also shot more accurately from the field and committed fewer turnovers. Still, the free-throw gap was the most striking numerical difference in the team comparison.
The Suns converted 88% of their free throws, compared with Charlotte’s 67%. Phoenix not only reached the line more frequently, but also converted its opportunities at a higher rate.
For Charlotte, this was a particularly costly disadvantage because the team made more field goals and collected more offensive rebounds. Better free-throw production could have made the contest much closer.
Rebounding Was Nearly Even
Charlotte finished with 41 rebounds, while Phoenix collected 40. The Hornets also recorded 13 offensive rebounds, three more than the Suns.
Offensive rebounds can be especially valuable because they create additional chances after missed shots. Charlotte’s total indicates that it was able to recover several of its own misses.
However, a rebounding advantage does not guarantee a scoring advantage. Those extra possessions must still result in made shots, free throws, or other productive outcomes.
Phoenix’s 30 defensive rebounds helped it end possessions, while Charlotte recorded 28. The Suns’ ability to secure defensive rebounds, despite losing the total rebound count, was one part of their overall possession management.
Turnovers Gave Phoenix More Control
Charlotte committed 11 turnovers, compared with just six for Phoenix.
That five-turnover difference is important because turnovers can end offensive possessions without producing a shot. They may also allow the opposing team to attack before the defense is organized.
Phoenix’s lower turnover total suggests that the Suns were more effective at preserving their opportunities. Combined with their better shooting percentages, this helped them make more productive use of their possessions.
Charlotte’s 24 assists show that the team moved the ball and created scoring chances. The problem was not a complete lack of passing or rebounding. Instead, the Hornets failed to match Phoenix’s overall efficiency across the key categories.
Defensive Statistics Tell a Mixed Story
Charlotte recorded six blocks, one more than Phoenix’s five. The Hornets also collected 13 offensive rebounds and finished with more total rebounds.
Phoenix, however, recorded five steals compared with Charlotte’s one. The Suns also committed fewer team fouls, finishing with 17 against Charlotte’s 21.
These figures show that the teams had different defensive strengths. Charlotte produced more blocks, while Phoenix created more steals and committed fewer fouls.
A block total by itself cannot measure defensive quality. Defending the perimeter, contesting shots without fouling, and securing rebounds all influence the final outcome. Phoenix performed well enough across those areas to limit Charlotte to 99 points and maintain its lead.
Why the Phoenix Suns Won the Game
The final score was the result of several connected factors rather than one outstanding statistic. Phoenix’s offensive efficiency, free-throw production, and ball security worked together to create the winning margin.
1. Phoenix Scored More Efficiently
The Suns made 36 field goals on 79 attempts, while Charlotte made 37 on 88 attempts. Phoenix’s higher field-goal percentage helped offset Charlotte’s slight advantage in the number of shots made.
The Suns also made more three-pointers on fewer attempts. This combination meant they could generate points without needing the same volume of shots as the Hornets.
2. Booker Balanced Scoring With Playmaking
Booker’s 30 points and 10 assists gave Phoenix both a primary scorer and an effective creator.
His performance helped distribute offensive responsibility. Gillespie and Green each scored 24 points, meaning the Suns had three players with at least 24 points.
This balance can be difficult to defend because an opponent cannot focus entirely on one scorer without leaving other offensive threats available.
3. Free-Throw Production Created Separation
Phoenix’s 23 successful free throws compared with Charlotte’s 10 created a 13-point advantage at the line.
This was particularly important in a game decided by 12 points. The Suns converted opportunities that Charlotte did not match, allowing them to maintain a scoring advantage even though the Hornets made more field goals.
4. Fewer Turnovers Protected Possessions
Phoenix committed six turnovers, five fewer than Charlotte.
Every possession matters in a game where teams are producing roughly 100 points. Losing a possession without attempting a shot can be costly, particularly when the opposing team is shooting efficiently.
Phoenix’s ability to limit mistakes helped preserve its scoring opportunities and reduced the chances of giving Charlotte easy transition opportunities.
5. The Suns Finished Strongly
Phoenix scored 30 points in the fourth quarter, compared with Charlotte’s 22. The Suns had already established a narrow lead, and their final-quarter advantage increased it to 12.
Charlotte needed a strong offensive finish to make the game close. Instead, Phoenix produced the better scoring period when it mattered most.
What the Match Player Stats Reveal About Both Teams
The statistical comparison offers several useful lessons for anyone analyzing basketball performance.
What Charlotte Can Take From the Game
Charlotte’s performance was not without positives. The Hornets made 15 three-pointers, recorded 24 assists, collected 41 rebounds, and received 22 points from Ball.
Their 13 offensive rebounds also created additional opportunities. These numbers suggest that Charlotte was capable of generating shots and competing for possessions.
The main areas for improvement were:
- Shot efficiency: Charlotte shot 42% from the field, below Phoenix’s 46%.
- Free throws: The Hornets made 10 of 15, leaving a substantial scoring gap at the line.
- Ball security: Eleven turnovers gave Phoenix more opportunities to control the game.
- Perimeter consistency: The team made 33% of its three-point attempts, compared with Phoenix’s 39%.
Improving those areas would not guarantee a different result in a future matchup, but they identify where Charlotte could gain the most from more effective execution.
What Phoenix Can Take From the Game
Phoenix’s performance showed the benefits of combining efficient shooting with disciplined possession management.
The Suns had 24 assists, five steals, and only six turnovers. Their 23 made free throws also gave them a reliable scoring source when field-goal attempts did not fall.
The most important strengths were:
- Multiple scoring threats: Booker, Gillespie, and Green each reached 24 points or more.
- Reliable free-throw shooting: Phoenix made 88% of its attempts.
- Perimeter accuracy: The Suns converted 39% of their three-point attempts.
- Possession control: Six turnovers limited wasted offensive opportunities.
- A strong finish: Phoenix outscored Charlotte by eight points in the final quarter.
The result suggests that Phoenix did not need to dominate rebounds or assists to win. The team made better use of its offensive possessions and capitalized on scoring opportunities at the line.
How to Read NBA Player Statistics Correctly
For readers looking beyond the final score, understanding individual statistics helps reveal the reasons behind a result.
Points, Field Goals, and Shooting Percentage
Points measure a player’s direct scoring output. Field goals made and attempted show how many shots were successful, while field-goal percentage measures the proportion that went in.
For example, Ball scored 22 points on nine made field goals from 19 attempts. His field-goal percentage was approximately 47.4%.
Gillespie scored 24 points on eight made field goals from 15 attempts, producing a field-goal percentage of approximately 53.3%.
Although both players contributed significantly, Gillespie converted a higher proportion of his field-goal attempts.
Three-Point Shooting
Three-point statistics show how often players convert shots from beyond the arc. Since each successful attempt is worth three points, perimeter accuracy can significantly affect a team’s offensive output.
Gillespie made five of 10 three-point attempts, while Ball made four of 12. The difference was one successful three-pointer, but Gillespie needed fewer attempts to make it.
This comparison is useful when examining efficiency, although shot difficulty, defensive pressure, and player roles also influence how the numbers should be interpreted.
Rebounds and Assists
Rebounds measure possession recovery after missed shots. Offensive rebounds extend a team’s possession, while defensive rebounds help end the opponent’s possession.
Assists record passes credited with directly setting up a made basket. Booker’s 10 assists demonstrate his role in Phoenix’s offense, while Ball’s six assists show that he also contributed to teammates’ scoring.
Neither statistic tells the whole story independently. Rebounds must be considered alongside missed shots and possession outcomes, while assists do not capture every pass that creates an advantage.
Turnovers, Steals, and Blocks
Turnovers indicate lost possessions. Steals record defensive plays that take possession from the opponent, while blocks record shots that a defender deflects or prevents from reaching the basket under the official scoring rules.
Phoenix’s six turnovers compared with Charlotte’s 11 suggest better ball security. The Suns’ five steals also indicate more recorded plays that directly disrupted Charlotte’s possession.
Charlotte’s six blocks show that it was able to contest shots at the rim. However, the Hornets still allowed 111 points, illustrating why defensive statistics need to be evaluated together rather than in isolation.
Plus-Minus and Its Limitations
Plus-minus measures the difference between a team’s points scored and points allowed while a particular player is on the court.
A positive value means the player’s team outscored its opponent during those minutes. A negative value means the opponent scored more during that period.
Plus-minus is useful for understanding how a team performed during a player’s time on the floor, but it does not prove that the player individually caused the result. Teammates, opposing lineups, substitutions, and game situations all affect the number.
The supplied summary defines plus-minus but does not include complete values for the players in this matchup. Consequently, individual plus-minus rankings cannot be established reliably from the available figures.
Head-to-Head Context and Season-Series Information
The supplied game summary lists the March 9 meeting as Phoenix’s 111-99 victory and also lists an April 3 result in which Phoenix defeated Charlotte 127-107.
The two listed results indicate that Phoenix won both meetings represented in the supplied summary. However, the March 9 matchup summary separately labels the season-series status as 1-0, which appears to describe the series at that particular point rather than the later listed game.
The distinction matters because a season-series record can change as teams meet again. A result from March should not be treated as a complete summary of games played later in the season.
For the March 9 game itself, the final result remains clear: Phoenix won by 12 points, with Booker leading all scorers and Gillespie and Green supplying 24 points apiece.
For readers checking individual box-score details, the ESPN game box score is the relevant reference for the matchup.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Charlotte Hornets vs Phoenix Suns game on March 9, 2026?
The Phoenix Suns defeated the Charlotte Hornets 111-99 at Mortgage Matchup Center in Phoenix, Arizona. Phoenix outscored Charlotte by 12 points.
2. Who scored the most points in the game?
Devin Booker was the leading scorer with 30 points. He also recorded 10 assists and three rebounds for Phoenix.
3. How many points did LaMelo Ball score against the Suns?
LaMelo Ball scored 22 points, collected seven rebounds, and recorded six assists. He made nine of 19 field-goal attempts and four of 12 three-point attempts.
4. Which Suns players scored 24 points?
Collin Gillespie and Jalen Green each scored 24 points. Gillespie made five three-pointers, while Green converted four three-point attempts.
5. Why did Phoenix win despite Charlotte having more rebounds?
Charlotte collected 41 rebounds compared with Phoenix’s 40, but the Suns shot more efficiently and made 23 free throws against Charlotte’s 10. Phoenix also committed only six turnovers, compared with 11 by the Hornets.
6. How many assists did each team record?
Both teams recorded 24 assists. Phoenix’s Devin Booker led the individual assist totals with 10, while LaMelo Ball led Charlotte with six.
Conclusion
The Charlotte Hornets vs Phoenix Suns match player stats show that Phoenix won through efficient scoring, accurate free throws, and better control of possessions. The Suns finished with 111 points despite making one fewer field goal than Charlotte, illustrating the importance of shot efficiency and scoring opportunities at the line.
Devin Booker led Phoenix with 30 points and 10 assists, while Collin Gillespie and Jalen Green added 24 points each. Rasheer Fleming contributed 16 points from the bench, giving the Suns another productive scoring option. For Charlotte, Ball led with 22 points, while Bridges and Knueppel added 16 and 15 points, respectively.
The team statistics reinforce the main finding. Charlotte won the rebounding battle by one and matched Phoenix’s 24 assists, but the Suns made 23 free throws, shot 46% from the field, and committed five fewer turnovers. Phoenix also finished the fourth quarter with an eight-point scoring advantage, turning a close contest into a 12-point victory.
For readers evaluating basketball performances, this game demonstrates why a complete statistical review matters. Points show who scored, but shooting percentages, turnovers, free throws, assists, and rebounds help explain how the result developed. Together, those figures provide a clearer understanding of Phoenix’s victory and Charlotte’s areas for improvement.
