The knicks vs atlanta hawks match player stats from April 26, 2026, provide a detailed look at how the New York Knicks defeated the Atlanta Hawks 114-98 at State Farm Arena in Atlanta, Georgia. According to the supplied ESPN box-score data, New York’s stronger shooting efficiency, balanced scoring, and lower turnover count helped the team secure a 16-point victory. OG Anunoby led the Knicks with 22 points, while Karl-Anthony Towns recorded a triple-double with 20 points, 10 rebounds, and 10 assists. For Atlanta, CJ McCollum led the scoring with 17 points, followed by Nickeil Alexander-Walker with 15.

This statistical breakdown goes beyond the final score. It examines individual performances, team shooting percentages, rebounding, assists, turnovers, and plus-minus figures to explain why New York produced the stronger result. The supplied box score identifies the game as part of the 2026 NBA Playoffs, although its series information contains an inconsistency that should be checked before publication. The analysis below preserves the supplied statistics rather than presenting unverified corrections as fact.

Data note: Player and team figures in this article come from the supplied ESPN box-score information. The original game record can be checked against the official ESPN box score.

Table of Contents

Knicks vs Atlanta Hawks Match Player Stats: Game Overview

The Knicks finished with 114 points, while the Hawks scored 98. New York maintained an advantage through the first three quarters and entered the fourth with a substantial lead. Atlanta scored 33 points in the final period, but that late improvement was not enough to overcome the deficit.

Knicks

114

53-29 regular-season record

FINAL

16-point margin

April 26, 2026

Hawks

98

46-36 regular-season record

Venue

State Farm Arena

Attendance

18,763

Competition listed

NBA Playoffs

Broadcast listed

NBC / Peacock

Final score by quarter

Quarter	New York Knicks	Atlanta Hawks
First quarter	27	20
Second quarter	31	24
Third quarter	28	21
Fourth quarter	28	33
Final score	114	98

New York outscored Atlanta in each of the first three quarters. The Knicks built a seven-point advantage in the opening period, added seven points to that margin in the second, and extended it further in the third.

The Hawks’ 33-point fourth quarter was their strongest scoring period. However, New York also scored 28 points, preventing Atlanta from turning its late offensive improvement into a comeback.

The important distinction is between a productive final quarter and a successful comeback. Atlanta improved its scoring output, but the team needed to reduce the existing deficit more quickly to change the result.

Complete Team Statistical Comparison

The team figures provide a clearer explanation of the result than the final score alone. Both teams attempted 83 field goals, so New York’s advantage did not come from taking more total shots. It came largely from making a greater proportion of those attempts, particularly from three-point range.

Team statistic	New York Knicks	Atlanta Hawks
Points	114	98
Field goals made	41	34
Field-goal attempts	83	83
Field-goal percentage	49%	41%
Three-pointers made	14	10
Three-point attempts	31	41
Three-point percentage	45%	24%
Free throws made	18	20
Free-throw attempts	23	25
Free-throw percentage	78%	80%
Total rebounds	43	38
Offensive rebounds	12	12
Defensive rebounds	31	26
Assists	23	20
Turnovers	14	18
Steals	9	8
Blocks	3	5
Personal fouls	23	21

Percentages are reproduced from the supplied data and may be rounded.

What the team numbers reveal

Shooting efficiency favored New York. The Knicks made 41 of 83 field-goal attempts, compared with Atlanta’s 34 of 83. That seven-basket difference was significant because both teams took the same number of shots.
Three-point shooting created a major gap. New York made 14 three-pointers on 31 attempts. Atlanta made 10 on 41 attempts. The Knicks therefore scored 42 points from beyond the arc, while the Hawks scored 30.
Turnovers gave the Knicks more opportunities. Atlanta recorded 18 turnovers, four more than New York’s 14. Those extra possessions represented opportunities the Hawks could not use to attempt a shot or otherwise continue an offensive sequence.
Rebounding also favored New York. The Knicks collected 43 total rebounds to Atlanta’s 38. Both teams recorded 12 offensive rebounds, so the five-rebound difference came from defensive rebounding.
Atlanta’s free-throw accuracy was slightly better. The Hawks converted 80% of their free throws, compared with 78% for the Knicks. However, that small advantage was not enough to offset the Knicks’ superior field-goal and three-point percentages.

These figures show why a team can lose despite performing reasonably well in certain areas. Atlanta made more free throws and recorded more blocks, but the Knicks were more efficient with their shot attempts and committed fewer turnovers.

New York Knicks Player Stats and Individual Performances

The individual box score highlights how New York combined scoring from its starting lineup with useful contributions from the bench. OG Anunoby led the team in points, Karl-Anthony Towns delivered an all-around performance, and Jalen Brunson provided another important scoring option.

Knicks player statistics

Player	Points	Rebounds	Assists	Key contribution
OG Anunoby	22	Not supplied	Not supplied	Team-high scorer, +19 plus-minus
Karl-Anthony Towns	20	10	10	Triple-double
Jalen Brunson	19	Not supplied	Not supplied	Third major scoring contributor
Josh Hart	10	9	Not supplied	Rebounding support
Miles McBride	11	Not supplied	Not supplied	Bench scoring
Mitchell Robinson	6	8	Not supplied	Interior rebounding
Mikal Bridges	Not supplied	Not supplied	Not supplied	Starting lineup contributor

The table separates confirmed figures from statistics that were not included in the supplied data. Missing numbers should not be interpreted as zero. They simply were not available in the information provided for this analysis.

OG Anunoby: New York’s leading scorer

OG Anunoby finished with 22 points, the highest scoring total among the Knicks players listed. His plus-minus rating of +19 was also the largest positive figure in the supplied player data.

These two numbers tell different stories. His points show how much he contributed to New York’s scoring total, while his plus-minus indicates that the Knicks outscored Atlanta by 19 points during the minutes he was on the court.

Plus-minus is useful, but it needs context. It does not measure only an individual player’s scoring, defense, or effort. Teammates, opponents, substitutions, and the timing of scoring runs all influence the figure. Anunoby’s +19 is therefore evidence of a strong team result during his minutes, not proof that he personally caused all 19 points of the difference.

His 22 points also helped distribute the scoring responsibility across the Knicks lineup. New York did not depend on one player reaching an unusually high individual total. Instead, Anunoby, Towns, and Brunson combined for 61 points.

That concentration of production among three players gave the Knicks several ways to sustain their offense. When one player was not scoring, another could still contribute to the team’s overall output.

Karl-Anthony Towns: A triple-double that shaped the game

Karl-Anthony Towns recorded 20 points, 10 rebounds, and 10 assists. This combination qualifies as a triple-double because he reached double figures in three statistical categories.

His performance is especially important because it shows that his contribution extended beyond shooting. The 20 points helped New York build its total, while the 10 rebounds added to its work on the glass. His 10 assists also indicate that he was directly involved in creating scoring opportunities for teammates.

A center or frontcourt player who can contribute as a scorer, rebounder, and passer presents a difficult defensive problem. Opponents cannot focus exclusively on preventing shots near the basket if that player can also distribute the ball effectively.

The available numbers do not establish exactly how many of Towns’ assists led to three-pointers or which defensive assignments he faced. Those details would require the full play-by-play record. Still, the triple-double itself establishes that his influence extended across several areas of the game.

For readers evaluating player performance, Towns’ line is a reminder that points alone do not capture a player’s complete offensive contribution. His rebounding and passing were also important components of New York’s balanced statistical profile.

Jalen Brunson: A reliable scoring contribution

Jalen Brunson scored 19 points, giving the Knicks another major contributor alongside Anunoby and Towns.

His total placed him just one point behind Towns and three points behind Anunoby. That narrow spread illustrates how three players shared much of the team’s scoring responsibility.

The Knicks’ overall shooting efficiency makes this distribution especially relevant. New York finished with 41 field goals and 14 three-pointers, but the supplied figures do not identify the precise shooting splits for each individual player. It would therefore be inaccurate to attribute the team’s 45% three-point percentage to Brunson or any other player without individual shooting data.

The more defensible conclusion is that Brunson’s 19 points provided substantial scoring support in a game where New York had multiple productive options. This reduced the need for one player to account for an overwhelming share of the team’s points.

Josh Hart: Rebounding and secondary scoring

Josh Hart finished with 10 points and nine rebounds. Although his scoring total was lower than those of the Knicks’ three leading scorers, his rebounding helped support the team’s overall advantage.

Rebounds influence how frequently a team gets possession of the ball. Defensive rebounds can end an opponent’s possession, while offensive rebounds give a team another opportunity after a missed shot.

Hart’s nine rebounds represented a substantial contribution to New York’s 43 total rebounds. His line also shows why evaluating a player solely by points can overlook useful work in other categories.

The supplied figures do not include Hart’s assists, steals, or shooting percentages, so his complete statistical impact cannot be measured from this dataset alone. His documented scoring and rebounding totals nevertheless establish that he contributed in more than one way.

Miles McBride: Bench scoring support

Miles McBride scored 11 points as a bench contributor. His total was higher than Hart’s 10 points and placed him among New York’s productive scorers in the supplied figures.

Bench scoring matters because a team must maintain its offensive output when starters rest or matchups change. A reserve who can contribute points gives the coaching staff another option without requiring every possession to run through the same starters.

However, the supplied information does not show McBride’s minutes, field-goal attempts, or exact scoring distribution by quarter. It is not possible to calculate his points per minute or determine precisely when his scoring occurred.

The important confirmed point is that New York received 11 points from McBride, adding another scoring source beyond its three leading scorers.

Mitchell Robinson: Rebounding and interior presence

Mitchell Robinson recorded six points and eight rebounds. His eight rebounds were close to Hart’s nine, showing that New York had multiple players contributing to its work on the glass.

Robinson’s statistical profile in this game emphasizes rebounding rather than high-volume scoring. A player does not need to lead the team in points to provide useful value, particularly when rebounding helps secure possessions and limits second chances.

The Knicks recorded 31 defensive rebounds and 12 offensive rebounds. Robinson’s eight total rebounds formed part of that collective output, although the supplied information does not distinguish how many of his rebounds came at either end of the court.

It is also important not to infer his defensive impact solely from his presence in the lineup. The Knicks recorded three blocks as a team, but individual block totals were not supplied. His exact rim-protection numbers cannot be established from the available data.

Knicks starting lineup

The supplied starting lineup consisted of:

OG Anunoby
Karl-Anthony Towns
Josh Hart
Mikal Bridges
Jalen Brunson

This group included the team’s leading scorer, its triple-double contributor, and two other established rotation players. The lineup’s composition provides context for the range of roles represented in the box score.

The available data do not include complete individual statistics for Mikal Bridges. His inclusion in the starting lineup should not be mistaken for evidence of a particular scoring or defensive total.

Atlanta Hawks Player Stats and Individual Performances

Atlanta’s individual statistics reveal a more distributed scoring picture than a single glance at the final score might suggest. CJ McCollum led the Hawks with 17 points, Nickeil Alexander-Walker scored 15, and Jalen Johnson added 14. Jonathan Kuminga and Gabe Vincent each contributed 10 points from the bench.

The challenge for Atlanta was not simply finding players capable of scoring. It was converting those contributions into a more efficient team performance.

Hawks player statistics

Player	Points	Rebounds	Assists	Key contribution
CJ McCollum	17	Not supplied	Not supplied	Team-high scorer
Nickeil Alexander-Walker	15	Not supplied	Not supplied	Second-highest scorer listed
Jalen Johnson	14	Not supplied	Not supplied	Team-low listed plus-minus of -19
Dyson Daniels	Not supplied	9	6	Rebounding and playmaking
Jonathan Kuminga	10	Not supplied	Not supplied	Bench scoring
Gabe Vincent	10	Not supplied	Not supplied	Bench scoring
Onyeka Okongwu	Not supplied	Not supplied	Not supplied	Starting lineup contributor

The table uses only the individual figures supplied for this game. Where a player’s total is missing, the number should be verified against the complete box score before adding it to a published statistical record.

CJ McCollum: Atlanta’s leading scorer

CJ McCollum led Atlanta with 17 points. His total made him the Hawks’ top scorer among the players identified in the supplied data.

However, a leading scorer’s performance must be evaluated against team efficiency and the opponent’s production. McCollum’s 17 points were useful, but New York’s three leading scorers combined for 61 points, compared with 46 points from Atlanta’s three leading scorers listed here.

That 15-point difference between the two groups helps explain the offensive gap, although it does not represent the complete difference between the teams because other players also scored.

The team shooting figures add further context. Atlanta made 34 of 83 field-goal attempts, while New York made 41 from the same number of attempts. Even with a productive individual scoring leader, the Hawks struggled to turn their shot volume into as many made baskets.

The supplied data do not include McCollum’s individual shooting splits, so his field-goal percentage and three-point accuracy should not be estimated from the team totals.

Nickeil Alexander-Walker: Another important scoring option

Nickeil Alexander-Walker recorded 15 points, giving Atlanta a second player with a double-digit total near the top of its scoring list.

His 15 points helped Atlanta avoid relying exclusively on McCollum for offense. A team with several scoring options can create different matchups and avoid having every possession depend on one player.

Even so, Atlanta’s overall three-point shooting remained a significant problem. The Hawks made 10 of 41 attempts from beyond the arc, a conversion rate of approximately 24% as listed in the supplied figures.

That team percentage does not establish Alexander-Walker’s personal accuracy. It does show that Atlanta’s outside shooting as a whole did not match New York’s effectiveness.

Jalen Johnson: Scoring contribution and plus-minus context

Jalen Johnson scored 14 points and recorded a plus-minus of -19, the lowest listed figure among the players in the supplied data.

The scoring total demonstrates that he contributed to Atlanta’s offense. The negative plus-minus means the Hawks were outscored by 19 points during his time on the floor.

These statistics can coexist. A player may score in double figures while the team struggles during his minutes because basketball outcomes depend on all five players on the court, the opposing lineup, defensive execution, turnovers, and shot-making.

A negative plus-minus should not automatically be interpreted as an individual defensive failure. It is a measure of the team’s scoring margin during a player’s court time, not an isolated grade of that player’s overall performance.

Johnson’s numbers therefore provide two different pieces of information: he scored 14 points, and Atlanta had a difficult scoring margin during his minutes. More detailed film or possession-level data would be needed to identify the reasons for that margin.

Dyson Daniels: Rebounding and playmaking

Dyson Daniels led the Hawks in the supplied rebounding and assist figures, collecting nine rebounds and six assists.

His nine rebounds placed him among Atlanta’s most productive players on the glass. His six assists also show that he helped create opportunities for teammates rather than contributing only as a scorer.

Those figures matter because a team can generate offense through several routes. Direct scoring, passing that leads to baskets, and recovering missed shots all influence how possessions develop.

Atlanta finished with 20 assists, three fewer than New York’s 23. Daniels’ six assists represented a meaningful part of the Hawks’ passing production.

The available statistics do not identify his turnovers or shooting percentages, so they cannot establish his complete efficiency as a ball handler. His documented assists and rebounds nevertheless show that his contribution extended beyond the scoring column.

Jonathan Kuminga and Gabe Vincent: Bench production

Jonathan Kuminga and Gabe Vincent each scored 10 points for Atlanta.

Their contributions gave the Hawks two additional double-digit scorers beyond McCollum, Alexander-Walker, and Johnson. That distribution is important because it shows Atlanta received some offensive help from its reserves.

However, bench scoring alone does not establish that a team won the minutes played by its second unit. To assess that question, a reader would need lineup-based plus-minus data, playing time, substitutions, and opponent rotations.

The supplied information does not provide those details. It supports the narrower conclusion that Kuminga and Vincent each contributed 10 points.

Hawks starting lineup

The supplied starting lineup was:

Onyeka Okongwu
Jalen Johnson
CJ McCollum
Nickeil Alexander-Walker
Dyson Daniels

This group included the Hawks’ leading scorer, two other leading scoring contributors, and Daniels, who led the team in the supplied rebound and assist categories.

The combination of scoring and playmaking provided Atlanta with multiple potential offensive options. The difficulty was translating those individual contributions into team-wide efficiency, especially from three-point range.

The starting lineup information should be read alongside the full team statistics rather than used as proof that the starting five alone determined the result.

Why the Knicks Won: Five Statistical Factors

The final result becomes easier to understand when the individual performances are connected to the team totals. New York held advantages in several categories that directly affected its scoring opportunities.

1. More made field goals from the same number of attempts

Both teams attempted 83 field goals, but the Knicks made 41 and the Hawks made 34.

That difference of seven made baskets is one of the clearest explanations for the 16-point result. New York did not need to generate more total field-goal attempts to score more points. It converted a greater share of its opportunities.

The listed shooting percentages were 49% for New York and 41% for Atlanta. The difference was eight percentage points, which is substantial over a game with 83 attempts per team.

For readers comparing basketball statistics, this is a useful distinction between shot volume and shot efficiency. Shot volume describes how many attempts a team takes. Efficiency describes how successfully it converts those attempts into points.

A team can generate plenty of attempts and still fall behind if its conversion rate is too low. Atlanta’s numbers illustrate that problem in this game.

2. The three-point gap had a measurable effect

New York made 14 three-pointers, compared with Atlanta’s 10. Because each successful three-pointer is worth three points, that difference represented 12 additional points from beyond the arc.

The shooting percentages were also far apart. The Knicks converted approximately 45% of their 31 attempts, while the Hawks converted approximately 24% of their 41 attempts.

Atlanta attempted 10 more three-pointers than New York but made four fewer. This suggests that the Hawks relied more heavily on perimeter attempts without achieving comparable returns.

That does not mean taking fewer three-pointers is always the right strategy. Three-point attempts can be valuable when they come from good opportunities and are taken by capable shooters. The problem is the combination of high volume and low conversion.

The supplied figures do not reveal the quality of each attempt, the distance of the shots, or whether defenders contested them. Those details would be needed to judge Atlanta’s shot selection fully. Nevertheless, the team totals show that New York extracted substantially more value from its perimeter shooting.

3. Turnovers reduced Atlanta’s opportunities

The Hawks committed 18 turnovers, while the Knicks committed 14.

The four-turnover difference matters because a turnover can end a possession without a shot. Depending on the situation, it may also allow the opponent to attack before the defense is organized.

New York’s lower turnover count indicates that it protected possession more effectively in the supplied team totals. Atlanta had fewer opportunities to convert some of its offensive possessions into scoring attempts.

Turnover totals alone do not identify the cause. They can result from passing mistakes, offensive fouls, lost handles, or defensive pressure. The figures provided do not break down the 18 Atlanta turnovers by type.

For a more complete assessment, the box score should be supplemented with play-by-play information. That would show whether the turnovers occurred during important scoring stretches or were spread throughout the game.

4. New York controlled the overall rebounding margin

The Knicks recorded 43 rebounds, compared with Atlanta’s 38. Both teams had 12 offensive rebounds, so neither held an advantage in that category.

The difference came from defensive rebounds: New York collected 31, while Atlanta collected 26.

Defensive rebounds help a team finish a defensive possession. If the defending team fails to secure the ball after a missed shot, the offense may get another chance to score. New York’s five-rebound advantage in defensive boards suggests it ended more missed-shot sequences with possession of the ball.

However, the identical offensive-rebound totals mean it would be inaccurate to claim that New York dominated Atlanta on the offensive glass. The rebounding advantage was real, but it was concentrated on the defensive side.

This distinction is important for anyone analyzing team performance. A total-rebound figure provides a useful summary, but the split between offensive and defensive rebounds explains where the advantage came from.

5. Multiple Knicks contributed across different categories

New York’s production was not limited to one player. Anunoby scored 22 points, Towns scored 20 and recorded a triple-double, and Brunson added 19. Hart contributed 10 points and nine rebounds, while McBride supplied 11 points off the bench.

That distribution gave the Knicks several meaningful statistical contributions. Towns’ assists and rebounds were particularly relevant because they show how his performance extended beyond scoring.

Atlanta also had contributions from multiple players, including McCollum, Alexander-Walker, Johnson, Kuminga, and Vincent. Its problem was that this scoring was not supported by comparable overall shooting efficiency.

The lesson is not that balanced scoring always guarantees victory. It is that scoring depth becomes more effective when the team converts shots efficiently, protects possessions, and collects defensive rebounds.

Knicks vs Atlanta Hawks Match Player Stats: Advanced Interpretation

The knicks vs atlanta hawks match player stats are particularly useful when basic totals are combined with calculations that reveal how teams used their opportunities.

The following calculations are derived from the supplied figures. They are analytical estimates rather than additional official box-score statistics.

Effective field-goal percentage

Effective field-goal percentage, commonly abbreviated as eFG%, adjusts ordinary field-goal percentage to account for the extra point earned by a successful three-pointer.

The formula is:

\[ \text{eFG\%}=\frac{\text{FGM}+0.5(\text{3PM})}{\text{FGA}}\times100 \]

Using the supplied numbers:

Knicks: (41+0.514)/83, approximately 57.8%.
Hawks: (34+0.510)/83, approximately 47.0%.

This calculation places New York about 10.8 percentage points ahead in effective field-goal percentage.

The metric is helpful because it recognizes that a made three-pointer is worth more than a made two-pointer. Two teams could have similar ordinary field-goal percentages but different eFG% values if one team makes more threes.

Here, New York had the advantage in both ordinary shooting percentage and the adjusted measure.

Turnover difference

The Knicks committed 14 turnovers and the Hawks committed 18.

18-14=4

Atlanta had four more turnovers. This is a straightforward count rather than a possession-adjusted turnover rate.

A turnover rate would require a more complete calculation involving possessions or an accepted estimate of possessions. The supplied information does not provide all the details needed to establish an official possession-based rate, so the four-turnover difference is the more defensible comparison.

Three-point attempt share

The proportion of field-goal attempts taken from three-point range can also be calculated.

3PAshare=3PAFGA100

Knicks: 31/83, approximately 37.3%.
Hawks: 41/83, approximately 49.4%.

Almost half of Atlanta’s field-goal attempts came from three-point range, compared with slightly more than one-third of New York’s attempts.

The combination of these results is revealing. Atlanta took a larger share of its shots from beyond the arc, but New York converted its overall attempts more efficiently. The Hawks’ three-point strategy produced fewer made threes despite the additional attempts.

This is a useful analytical observation, but it does not prove that Atlanta’s strategy was wrong. Shot quality, defensive coverage, player availability, and game context would be necessary to evaluate the decisions behind those attempts.

Scoring margin

The final margin was:

114-98=16

New York won by 16 points. That figure provides the simplest summary of the outcome, but it does not explain the reasons behind it.

The shooting data, turnover totals, and rebounding split supply the necessary context. Taken together, they show a Knicks team that converted more shots, made more threes, committed fewer turnovers, and collected more total rebounds.

How to Read Plus-Minus Without Misinterpreting It

Plus-minus is often one of the most misunderstood figures in a basketball box score.

The supplied player data lists Anunoby at +19 and Johnson at -19. These numbers indicate the scoring margins for their respective teams while each player was on the court.

A positive value does not automatically mean a player had an excellent individual performance in every category. Likewise, a negative value does not establish that a player played poorly in every possession.

Several factors influence plus-minus:

Which teammates share the floor with the player.
Which opposing players are on the court.
How efficiently both teams shoot during those minutes.
Whether turnovers lead to easy scoring opportunities.
How substitutions align with scoring runs.

For example, a player may defend well but finish with a negative plus-minus because teammates miss open shots or the opponent scores heavily during another part of the rotation. A player can also record a positive value while benefiting from a strong lineup around them.

The correct approach is to compare plus-minus with individual box-score figures and, where possible, game film or lineup data. In this matchup, Anunoby’s 22 points and +19 rating provide complementary information, while Johnson’s 14 points and -19 rating show that scoring production and team scoring margin are not the same thing.

What the Box Score Does Not Tell Us

A detailed statistical analysis should also identify its limits. The supplied figures support several strong conclusions, but they do not answer every question about the game.

First, individual shooting percentages are not provided for all players. It is therefore impossible to determine which specific Hawks player struggled most from three-point range or which Knicks player had the highest individual shooting efficiency.

Second, the dataset does not provide playing minutes. Without minutes, analysts cannot fairly compare scoring rates or determine how much production each player generated per minute.

Third, the available information does not give a complete breakdown of turnovers, transition points, points in the paint, or second-chance points. The team totals establish that New York shot more efficiently and committed fewer turnovers, but they do not identify every possession that created the difference.

Fourth, the data do not provide a complete record of injuries, tactical adjustments, or substitutions. Those details can affect how a playoff game develops, but they should not be invented to make an analysis sound more authoritative.

Finally, the supplied source information contains an inconsistency between the stated Game 4 series header and the wider playoff matchup details. The listed record says the series was tied 2-2 before the game, but that information should be independently reconciled with the official game record before making claims about the series outcome.

These limitations do not prevent a useful statistical breakdown. They simply establish the difference between what the figures demonstrate and what would require additional evidence.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Who was the highest scorer in the Knicks vs Hawks game on April 26, 2026?

OG Anunoby was the highest scorer for the New York Knicks with 22 points. CJ McCollum led the Atlanta Hawks with 17 points, according to the supplied box-score data.

2. What was the final score of Knicks vs Atlanta Hawks?

The New York Knicks defeated the Atlanta Hawks 114-98, winning by 16 points. The game was listed as taking place at State Farm Arena in Atlanta, Georgia.

3. Did Karl-Anthony Towns record a triple-double?

Yes. Towns recorded 20 points, 10 rebounds, and 10 assists. Reaching double figures in all three categories qualifies as a triple-double.

4. Which team shot better from three-point range?

The Knicks shot approximately 45% from three-point range, making 14 of 31 attempts. The Hawks made 10 of 41 attempts, shooting approximately 24%.

5. Which team had more rebounds and assists?

The Knicks recorded 43 rebounds and 23 assists. The Hawks finished with 38 rebounds and 20 assists. New York therefore led by five rebounds and three assists.

6. Why did the Knicks win despite Atlanta scoring 33 points in the fourth quarter?

New York had already established an advantage through the first three quarters. The Knicks also finished with better field-goal efficiency, more made three-pointers, and four fewer turnovers. Atlanta’s stronger fourth quarter was not enough to erase the existing deficit.

Conclusion

The knicks vs atlanta hawks match player stats show how shooting efficiency, individual contributions, and possession management can combine to determine a basketball result. New York won 114-98, supported by OG Anunoby’s 22 points, Karl-Anthony Towns’ triple-double, and Jalen Brunson’s 19 points.

The team comparison reveals the clearest reasons for the result. The Knicks made seven more field goals despite attempting the same number of shots, converted four more three-pointers, committed four fewer turnovers, and collected five more rebounds. Atlanta’s 80% free-throw percentage and five-block total were positive contributions, but they could not offset its lower shooting efficiency.

The individual statistics also demonstrate why a complete box-score analysis should extend beyond points. Towns contributed as a scorer, rebounder, and passer. Hart and Robinson supported New York on the glass, while McBride added bench scoring. For Atlanta, Daniels contributed nine rebounds and six assists, while McCollum, Alexander-Walker, and Johnson provided scoring support.

One important qualification remains: the supplied series information contains an inconsistency that should be checked before publishing any definitive statement about the playoff series progression. The game statistics can still be analyzed as provided, but accurate reporting requires separating confirmed figures from details that need verification.