Atlanta Hawks vs Charlotte Hornets Match Player Stats

The atlanta hawks vs charlotte hornets match player stats from November 24, 2025, tell the story of a close 113-110 Atlanta victory at State Farm Arena. The final margin was only three points, but the box score shows several important differences between the teams. Atlanta shot 49% from the field, recorded 32 assists, and committed only seven turnovers, while Charlotte produced 90% free throw shooting and won the rebounding battle 43-37. Individual performances were equally important, with Jalen Johnson leading Atlanta with 28 points and 11 assists, while Kon Knueppel paced Charlotte with 28 points.

This was not a game decided by one overwhelming statistical category. Instead, Atlanta created its advantage through efficient shooting, ball movement, and superior possession management. Charlotte stayed within striking distance because it attacked the free throw line effectively, generated 43 rebounds, and received strong scoring contributions from several players.

For anyone studying the game beyond the final score, this matchup provides a useful example of why player statistics need context. A 28-point performance can mean something very different depending on shooting efficiency, assists, turnovers, rebounding, and the team’s overall offensive structure.

Atlanta Hawks vs Charlotte Hornets Match Player Stats: Game Overview

The game took place on November 24, 2025, at State Farm Arena in Atlanta, Georgia, with an attendance of 17,460.

Atlanta entered the contest with an 11-7 overall record and a 3-4 home record. Charlotte came in at 4-13 overall and 1-8 on the road. Despite the difference in records, the game was competitive throughout all four quarters.

The final score was:

Team	1Q	2Q	3Q	4Q	Final
Charlotte Hornets	25	30	33	22	110
Atlanta Hawks	28	25	39	21	113

Atlanta led by three points after the first quarter, trailed by two at halftime, and then produced the decisive third-quarter surge.

The third quarter was particularly important. Atlanta scored 39 points compared with Charlotte’s 33, turning a two-point halftime deficit into a four-point lead entering the final period. Charlotte then won the fourth quarter 22-21, but that small advantage was not enough to overturn Atlanta’s third-quarter response.

Final Score and Game Context

Atlanta’s 113-110 victory moved the Hawks ahead 1-0 in the season series.

The narrow margin makes the underlying numbers especially useful. Atlanta did not dominate Charlotte on the glass or from the free throw line. Charlotte actually had advantages in both areas.

The Hawks instead separated themselves through:

• Better overall field goal shooting
• More assists
• Far fewer turnovers
• More steals
• More blocks
• A major third-quarter offensive burst

Those factors combined to give Atlanta enough control over possessions to survive Charlotte’s late push.

Team Statistical Comparison

A team-level comparison provides the clearest starting point before examining individual performances.

Statistical Category	Charlotte Hornets	Atlanta Hawks
Final Score	110	113
Field Goals	39-86	45-91
Field Goal Percentage	45%	49%
Three-Pointers	14-44	11-31
Three-Point Percentage	32%	35%
Free Throws	18-20	12-16
Free Throw Percentage	90%	75%
Rebounds	43	37
Assists	26	32
Turnovers	15	7
Steals	4	6
Blocks	2	5

The table immediately shows that Atlanta’s advantage was not based on winning every statistical category.

Charlotte shot 90% from the free throw line and collected six more rebounds. Those are meaningful advantages. However, Atlanta made six more field goals overall and produced six additional assists while committing eight fewer turnovers.

That turnover difference is one of the most significant numbers in the entire box score.

Field Goal Efficiency Favored Atlanta

Atlanta finished 45-for-91 from the field, good for 49%. Charlotte finished 39-for-86, or 45%.

The four percentage-point difference may appear modest, but it was meaningful in a three-point game.

Atlanta attempted five more field goals and made six more shots. That combination helped create a substantial difference in made baskets.

Charlotte’s 45% shooting was not poor. In fact, 39 made field goals helped the Hornets score 110 points. The issue was that Atlanta converted its opportunities at a higher rate while also generating more possessions through better ball security.

Three-Point Shooting

Charlotte attempted more three-pointers than Atlanta.

The Hornets went 14-for-44 from three-point range, while the Hawks went 11-for-31.

Although Charlotte made three more three-pointers, Atlanta still shot slightly better from beyond the arc:

• Charlotte: 32%
• Atlanta: 35%

This is an important detail when interpreting the game. Charlotte’s greater three-point volume helped keep its offense competitive, but the extra attempts did not translate into an overall shooting advantage.

Atlanta’s offense was more balanced between perimeter and interior opportunities.

Free Throw Shooting Favored Charlotte

One of Charlotte’s clearest statistical advantages came at the free throw line.

The Hornets made 18 of 20 free throws for 90%. Atlanta made 12 of 16 for 75%.

Charlotte therefore scored six more points at the line.

In a game decided by three points, that contribution was significant. Without Charlotte’s strong free throw performance, the final margin could have been considerably wider.

This is also a reminder that a team’s overall shooting percentage does not capture every aspect of scoring efficiency. Charlotte compensated for its lower field goal percentage in part by converting its free throw opportunities at an excellent rate.

Rebounding: Charlotte Won the Battle

Charlotte collected 43 rebounds compared with Atlanta’s 37.

Moussa Diabate led the Hornets with 11 rebounds, giving Charlotte a strong presence on the glass.

Winning the rebounding battle by six is normally a useful foundation for controlling a game. Yet Charlotte did not convert that advantage into a win.

Why?

The answer appears in the turnover and assist numbers.

Charlotte’s 15 turnovers gave Atlanta additional opportunities, while Atlanta’s seven turnovers limited the number of possessions Charlotte could gain from defensive mistakes.

The lesson is straightforward: rebounding is valuable, but it does not automatically outweigh inefficient possession management.

Ball Movement Was a Major Atlanta Advantage

Atlanta recorded 32 assists against Charlotte’s 26.

The six-assist advantage reflects more than just a single number. It suggests that Atlanta generated a larger share of its offense through coordinated passing and shared creation.

Jalen Johnson was particularly important, finishing with 11 assists in addition to his 28 points.

That combination is one of the most notable individual performances in the game. Johnson was not simply a scorer. He was also Atlanta’s leading facilitator.

Atlanta’s seven turnovers make the assist total even more impressive from a team perspective.

The Hawks produced 32 assists while giving the ball away only seven times. That is an excellent assist-to-turnover relationship for a single game.

Turnovers May Have Been the Deciding Factor

The turnover comparison deserves special attention.

Charlotte committed 15 turnovers.

Atlanta committed only seven.

That is an eight-turnover difference.

In a game decided by three points, giving away eight more possessions is extremely costly. Even when those turnovers do not immediately become points, they remove opportunities for a team to shoot, draw fouls, or create second chances.

Atlanta’s ability to protect the basketball helped offset Charlotte’s advantages in rebounding and free throw shooting.

This is arguably one of the clearest statistical explanations for the result.

Atlanta Hawks Player Performances

Atlanta had three players who reached at least 22 points.

Jalen Johnson

Jalen Johnson was Atlanta’s most complete statistical contributor.

He finished with:

• 28 points
• 11 assists

His 28 points tied him for the game-high scoring mark, while his 11 assists were the highest total for either team.

The combination of scoring and playmaking made Johnson central to Atlanta’s offensive production.

A player scoring 28 points can influence a game through individual shot creation, but adding 11 assists changes the nature of that performance. Johnson’s contribution extended to teammates and helped explain Atlanta’s 32 total assists.

His performance is therefore better understood as an all-around offensive performance rather than simply a scoring night.

Nickeil Alexander-Walker

Nickeil Alexander-Walker scored 23 points for Atlanta, ranking second among Hawks scorers.

His scoring was particularly important because Atlanta needed multiple contributors to overcome Charlotte’s balanced attack.

When a close game features several high-scoring players on both sides, secondary scoring can become decisive. Alexander-Walker’s 23 points reduced the pressure on Johnson to generate the entire offense.

Dyson Daniels

Dyson Daniels finished with 22 points and nine rebounds.

He also led Atlanta with a plus/minus of +5.

His statistical profile was therefore broader than scoring alone.

Daniels came close to a double-double and contributed across several areas. His nine rebounds were particularly valuable because Charlotte won the overall rebounding battle.

Atlanta did not have a single dominant rebounding performance comparable to Charlotte’s 11-rebound showing from Diabate, so Daniels’ contribution helped provide additional support on the glass.

Charlotte Hornets Player Performances

Charlotte also received major contributions from three players.

Kon Knueppel

Kon Knueppel led the Hornets with 28 points.

His scoring total matched Jalen Johnson’s game-high mark, making the individual scoring battle particularly interesting.

Knueppel’s 28 points were a major reason Charlotte remained competitive after Atlanta’s third-quarter push.

A 28-point performance in a 110-point team total means Knueppel supplied a substantial portion of Charlotte’s offense.

His production also demonstrates why the final score cannot be interpreted simply as an indication that Atlanta had significantly better individual scoring.

Both teams had a player capable of reaching 28 points.

Collin Sexton

Collin Sexton added 22 points for Charlotte.

His scoring gave the Hornets another reliable source of offense alongside Knueppel.

Sexton’s contribution was important because Charlotte’s offense needed multiple players to respond to Atlanta’s scoring throughout the game.

Miles Bridges

Miles Bridges scored 21 points.

That gave Charlotte three players with at least 21 points:

• Kon Knueppel: 28
• Collin Sexton: 22
• Miles Bridges: 21

This distribution shows that Charlotte was not dependent on one scorer.

The Hornets had a balanced top end, but Atlanta ultimately received enough production from its leading players to hold onto the three-point victory.

Rebounding and Playmaking Leaders

The supporting statistics provide another layer of context.

Charlotte’s Rebounding Leader

Moussa Diabate led Charlotte with 11 rebounds.

His double-digit rebounding performance was one of the strongest individual contributions on the Hornets’ side.

Charlotte finished with 43 total rebounds, six more than Atlanta. Diabate’s 11 rebounds therefore formed an important part of Charlotte’s success on the glass.

Charlotte’s Assists Leader

Mason Plumlee led Charlotte with six assists.

That contribution helped the Hornets reach 26 total assists.

Although Charlotte did not match Atlanta’s 32 assists, the team still generated meaningful ball movement.

Atlanta’s Rebounding Leader

Dyson Daniels led Atlanta with nine rebounds.

His nine boards were just two short of Diabate’s team-leading total.

Given that Atlanta finished six rebounds behind Charlotte overall, Daniels’ contribution was important in keeping the rebounding gap manageable.

Atlanta’s Assists Leader

Jalen Johnson led both teams with 11 assists.

That was five more assists than Charlotte’s leading individual total from Plumlee.

His passing performance was one of the strongest indicators of Atlanta’s offensive organization.

Plus/Minus Provides an Additional Perspective

The plus/minus figures offer an interesting contrast.

Dyson Daniels led Atlanta with a +5.

For Charlotte, Sion James posted the highest plus/minus at +16.

At first glance, Charlotte’s +16 individual mark may seem surprising in a game the Hornets lost by three points.

However, plus/minus should not be interpreted as an isolated measure of individual quality.

It represents the team’s point differential while that player was on the court. It does not independently measure every offensive and defensive action performed by that player.

Sion James’ +16 therefore does not mean Charlotte’s overall performance was better. It simply indicates that the Hornets performed strongly during his minutes according to the plus/minus measure provided.

This is an important distinction for anyone using box-score statistics to evaluate player performance.

How Atlanta Won the Game

The most useful way to understand the result is to combine the major statistical categories rather than focusing on one number.

1. Atlanta Shot More Efficiently

The Hawks shot 49% compared with Charlotte’s 45%.

They made six more field goals.

2. Atlanta Protected the Ball

The Hawks committed only seven turnovers.

Charlotte committed 15.

That eight-turnover difference created a meaningful possession advantage for Atlanta.

3. Atlanta Moved the Ball Better

The Hawks recorded 32 assists.

Charlotte had 26.

Jalen Johnson’s 11 assists were especially influential.

4. Atlanta Created More Defensive Disruption

Atlanta recorded six steals and five blocks.

Charlotte had four steals and two blocks.

The Hawks therefore produced more defensive plays in both categories.

5. Atlanta Survived Charlotte’s Free Throw Advantage

Charlotte converted 90% of its free throws.

Atlanta shot only 75%.

Despite that disadvantage, the Hawks produced enough field goal efficiency and possession control to finish ahead.

How Charlotte Nearly Won

The Hornets had several reasons to believe they could take the game.

First, they won the rebounding battle.

Second, they shot 90% from the free throw line.

Third, they made 14 three-pointers compared with Atlanta’s 11.

Fourth, three Charlotte players scored at least 21 points.

The third quarter ultimately hurt Charlotte. Atlanta scored 39 points during that period, six more than the Hornets.

Charlotte responded by winning the fourth quarter 22-21, but the recovery came too late.

This is one of the clearest examples of how a single high-scoring quarter can influence a close basketball game.

Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown

First Quarter

Atlanta opened with a 28-25 advantage.

The three-point lead was small, but it gave the Hawks an early foundation.

Charlotte remained close enough that there was no indication of a runaway game.

Second Quarter

Charlotte responded strongly in the second quarter.

The Hornets scored 30 points while Atlanta scored 25.

That five-point difference allowed Charlotte to enter halftime ahead.

The halftime score was:

Charlotte 55, Atlanta 53

The game had effectively reset after Atlanta’s first-quarter advantage.

Third Quarter

The third quarter was the turning point.

Atlanta scored 39 points.

Charlotte scored 33.

That six-point advantage completely changed the scoreboard, moving Atlanta from a two-point halftime deficit to a four-point lead.

Atlanta’s offensive efficiency during this period was the most important scoring swing of the night.

Fourth Quarter

Charlotte did not collapse.

The Hornets actually outscored Atlanta 22-21 in the final quarter.

However, the one-point advantage was insufficient.

Atlanta entered the final period with a four-point lead and finished with a three-point victory.

What the Player Stats Reveal About Team Style

The numbers provide clues about how each team approached the game.

Atlanta’s profile was centered around efficiency and ball movement.

The Hawks:

• Shot 49% overall
• Recorded 32 assists
• Committed seven turnovers
• Made 45 field goals

Charlotte’s profile was more varied.

The Hornets:

• Collected 43 rebounds
• Made 18 free throws
• Attempted 44 three-pointers
• Had three players score at least 21 points

Neither statistical profile was inherently one-dimensional.

Instead, the teams succeeded in different areas, which helped produce such a close final score.

Why the 113-110 Margin Matters

A three-point margin makes the game particularly useful for statistical analysis.

If Atlanta had won by 20 points, individual differences in free throws, turnovers, or rebounding might have been less consequential.

Here, almost every possession mattered.

Charlotte’s six-rebound advantage was meaningful.

Charlotte’s six additional made free throws were meaningful.

Atlanta’s eight fewer turnovers were meaningful.

Atlanta’s six additional made field goals were meaningful.

The final result was therefore the product of several small advantages rather than one overwhelming statistical edge.

A Practical Way to Analyze Player Stats

When reviewing a box score from a close NBA game, it is useful to follow a consistent process.

Step 1: Start With the Final Score

Identify the winning margin and whether the game was competitive throughout.

Step 2: Review Shooting Efficiency

Look at field goal percentage before focusing on raw scoring totals.

Step 3: Check Three-Point Volume

A team can make more threes without necessarily shooting a better percentage from deep.

Step 4: Examine Free Throws

Free throw attempts and percentage can explain why a team remains competitive despite lower field goal efficiency.

Step 5: Compare Rebounding

Look for offensive and defensive rebounding information when available, rather than treating total rebounds as the complete story.

Step 6: Study Turnovers

In close games, turnover differences can be extremely important.

Step 7: Examine Assists

Assists provide context for whether scoring came primarily through individual creation or coordinated offense.

Step 8: Review Individual Leaders

Identify scoring, rebounding, and assist leaders separately.

Step 9: Put Plus/Minus in Context

Use plus/minus as supporting information rather than a standalone player ranking.

This method produces a much more useful analysis than simply listing the top scorers.

Key Statistical Takeaways

The most important numbers from the matchup are easy to summarize.

Atlanta finished with:

• 113 points
• 49% field goal shooting
• 35% three-point shooting
• 32 assists
• Seven turnovers
• 37 rebounds
• Six steals
• Five blocks

Charlotte finished with:

• 110 points
• 45% field goal shooting
• 32% three-point shooting
• 26 assists
• 15 turnovers
• 43 rebounds
• Four steals
• Two blocks

The contrast is clear.

Charlotte controlled the glass and free throw line.

Atlanta controlled shooting efficiency, passing, turnovers, steals, and blocks.

In the end, Atlanta’s strengths were better suited to overcoming Charlotte’s advantages.

Atlanta Hawks vs Charlotte Hornets Match Player Stats: Main Leaders

The following summary captures the most notable individual numbers from the game.

Player	Team	Key Performance
Jalen Johnson	Atlanta	28 points, 11 assists
Nickeil Alexander-Walker	Atlanta	23 points
Dyson Daniels	Atlanta	22 points, 9 rebounds, +5
Kon Knueppel	Charlotte	28 points
Collin Sexton	Charlotte	22 points
Miles Bridges	Charlotte	21 points
Moussa Diabate	Charlotte	11 rebounds
Mason Plumlee	Charlotte	6 assists
Sion James	Charlotte	+16

This table highlights why the matchup was so competitive.

The leading scorer for each team finished with 28 points, yet Atlanta won.

That fact alone demonstrates why individual scoring should never be used as the only measure of a team’s performance.

The Most Important Individual Performance

Jalen Johnson’s 28-point, 11-assist performance stands out because it combined two of the most important offensive responsibilities.

Scoring creates direct points.

Assists create opportunities for teammates.

Johnson contributed heavily in both areas.

His performance also fits the larger team statistical picture. Atlanta finished with 32 assists and only seven turnovers, meaning the team’s offensive organization was one of its strongest advantages.

The Most Important Charlotte Performance

Kon Knueppel’s 28 points were essential to Charlotte’s offensive output.

However, the Hornets also benefited from balanced contributions by Collin Sexton and Miles Bridges.

Their 22 and 21 points respectively meant Charlotte had three major scoring options.

That balance explains why the Hornets were able to score 110 points despite shooting 45% from the field.

What Could Have Changed the Result?

Because the game ended with a three-point difference, several statistical improvements could potentially have changed the outcome.

For Charlotte, the biggest area was turnover control.

Reducing 15 turnovers to something closer to Atlanta’s seven would have created more offensive possessions and reduced Atlanta’s opportunities.

For Atlanta, the biggest concern was free throw efficiency.

The Hawks made 12 of 16 free throws, while Charlotte made 18 of 20.

Improving Atlanta’s free throw conversion could have created a larger cushion.

The rebounding gap was another area where Atlanta could have improved.

Charlotte’s six-rebound advantage gave the Hornets additional control over missed shots.

These observations do not change the result, but they explain how closely matched the teams were in practical terms.

Why Box Score Context Matters

A raw player-stat table tells you what happened numerically.

A proper analysis attempts to explain why those numbers mattered.

For example, Charlotte’s 43 rebounds sound like a clear advantage. They were an advantage, but they did not decide the game.

Likewise, Atlanta’s 49% shooting was better than Charlotte’s 45%, but the difference was not enormous.

The more revealing comparison is the combination of:

49% shooting + 32 assists + 7 turnovers

versus:

45% shooting + 26 assists + 15 turnovers

That combination gives a much clearer explanation for Atlanta’s three-point victory.

Information Readers Should Take From This Matchup

For readers tracking NBA player statistics, this game offers several practical lessons.

First, always compare efficiency rather than raw shot totals.

Second, never ignore turnovers in a close game.

Third, distinguish scoring leaders from all-around contributors.

Fourth, consider team statistics before judging an individual player.

Fifth, treat plus/minus as contextual information.

Sixth, examine quarter-by-quarter scoring when the final margin is small.

This approach makes box-score analysis more accurate and useful.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who was the top scorer in the Atlanta Hawks vs Charlotte Hornets game?

Jalen Johnson and Kon Knueppel both scored 28 points, making them the joint-highest scorers in the game.

Who led the Atlanta Hawks in assists?

Jalen Johnson led Atlanta with 11 assists.

Who led the Charlotte Hornets in rebounds?

Moussa Diabate led Charlotte with 11 rebounds.

Which team won the game?

The Atlanta Hawks defeated the Charlotte Hornets 113-110 on November 24, 2025.

Which team had more turnovers?

Charlotte committed 15 turnovers, while Atlanta committed seven.

Who led the game in plus/minus?

Sion James recorded Charlotte’s highest plus/minus at +16. Dyson Daniels led Atlanta at +5.

Conclusion

The atlanta hawks vs charlotte hornets match player stats show a game in which Atlanta won through a combination of shooting efficiency, ball movement, defensive activity, and careful possession management.

Charlotte had several statistical advantages. The Hornets collected more rebounds, converted free throws at a much higher rate, and made more three-pointers. They also received 28 points from Kon Knueppel, 22 from Collin Sexton, and 21 from Miles Bridges.

Atlanta’s response was more efficient overall. The Hawks shot 49% from the field, produced 32 assists, committed only seven turnovers, and recorded six steals and five blocks. Jalen Johnson was especially influential with 28 points and 11 assists, while Nickeil Alexander-Walker and Dyson Daniels added 23 and 22 points respectively.

The third quarter ultimately separated the teams. Atlanta scored 39 points to Charlotte’s 33, turning a halftime deficit into a lead that the Hawks managed to protect through the final period.

The broader lesson from this matchup is that player statistics should be read as a connected system. Scoring matters, but so do efficiency, passing, turnovers, rebounding, defensive plays, and game situation. In a three-point contest, those details explain much more than the final score alone.