Charlotte Hornets vs Milwaukee Bucks Match Player Stats

The Charlotte Hornets vs Milwaukee Bucks match player stats from this overtime thriller tell a much richer story than the final score alone. Milwaukee defeated Charlotte 147-134 at Fiserv Forum after the game was tied at 129 at the end of regulation. The Bucks produced a remarkable 65% shooting night from the field and received a historic playmaking performance from Giannis Antetokounmpo, while Charlotte received 32-point performances from both Miles Bridges and Kon Knueppel. (ESPN)

This was also a particularly useful game for evaluating how individual production translates into team results. Charlotte had five players in double figures among its main rotation, including two 32-point scorers, while Milwaukee combined efficient shooting with 37 assists. The numbers show why a game that appeared balanced for long stretches ultimately moved decisively toward Milwaukee in overtime.

Game: Charlotte Hornets vs Milwaukee Bucks
Final: Milwaukee Bucks 147, Charlotte Hornets 134
Result: Bucks won in overtime
Venue: Fiserv Forum, Milwaukee, Wisconsin
Attendance: 17,341
Game ID: 401809785
Competition: NBA Cup Group Play

Charlotte Hornets vs Milwaukee Bucks Match Player Stats: Game Overview

The game developed into one of the more entertaining high-scoring contests of the matchup. Charlotte scored 33 points in the opening quarter and 36 in the second, taking a 69-61 halftime lead despite Milwaukee beginning the night with a strong offensive rhythm.

Milwaukee changed the game in the third quarter.

The Bucks scored 42 points in the third period while holding Charlotte to 29. That 13-point swing essentially erased Charlotte’s halftime advantage and created the foundation for the overtime finish.

Charlotte responded in the fourth quarter, scoring 31 points to Milwaukee’s 26. Kon Knueppel hit a late three-pointer to tie the game at 129 with 21 seconds remaining, sending the contest into overtime.

Milwaukee then dominated the extra period.

The Bucks scored 18 overtime points while Charlotte managed only five. That 18-5 overtime margin turned a competitive game into a 13-point Milwaukee victory. NBA’s official game page also records the 34-27-42-26-18 scoring sequence for Milwaukee and 33-36-29-31-5 for Charlotte. (NBA.com)

Quarter-by-Quarter Score

Period	Charlotte	Milwaukee
1st Quarter	33	34
2nd Quarter	36	27
3rd Quarter	29	42
4th Quarter	31	26
Overtime	5	18
Final	134	147

The most important lesson from the scoring pattern is that Milwaukee did not simply win because of one hot quarter. The Bucks recovered from a poor second period, produced an enormous third quarter, survived Charlotte’s fourth-quarter comeback, and then executed far better in overtime.

Team Shooting Comparison

The shooting numbers provide perhaps the clearest explanation for the result.

Team	FG	FG%	3PT	3PT%	FT	FT%
Charlotte Hornets	47-98	48%	17-45	38%	23-29	79%
Milwaukee Bucks	55-85	65%	20-34	59%	17-22	77%

Charlotte attempted 13 more field goals than Milwaukee, yet the Bucks made eight more shots.

That difference is enormous.

Charlotte’s 47 made field goals came from 98 attempts, while Milwaukee converted 55 of 85. Milwaukee therefore generated substantially more value from each possession that ended in a shot.

The three-point difference was also significant. Charlotte made 17 three-pointers, which is an excellent total in isolation. Milwaukee made 20, but did so on only 34 attempts.

That means Milwaukee shot 58.8% from three-point range, compared with Charlotte’s 37.8%. The official NBA box score records the Bucks at 55-for-85 from the field and 20-for-34 from three-point range. (NBA.com)

This is an important distinction when reading a box score. A team can win the three-point volume battle without winning the three-point efficiency battle. Charlotte attempted 45 threes to Milwaukee’s 34, but Milwaukee’s accuracy was dramatically higher.

Miles Bridges Leads Charlotte’s Scoring

Miles Bridges finished with 32 points, seven rebounds and two assists.

He shot 12-for-24 from the field and 6-for-15 from three-point range. He also went 2-for-2 at the free-throw line.

Bridges was one of Charlotte’s primary scoring engines throughout the contest. His 32 points represented 23.9% of the Hornets’ total scoring.

His six made three-pointers were particularly important because they allowed Charlotte to remain competitive against Milwaukee’s efficient offense.

However, the overall shooting efficiency of the Bucks meant Bridges’ production was not enough to secure the win.

His 12-for-24 shooting was solid, but Milwaukee collectively shot 55-for-85. That difference in team efficiency became more important as the game entered its final stages.

Kon Knueppel Produces a 32-Point Performance

Kon Knueppel matched Bridges with 32 points, adding three rebounds, three assists and three steals.

He shot:

• 12-for-20 from the field
• 4-for-9 from three-point range
• 4-for-5 from the free-throw line

That works out to 60% shooting from the field.

Knueppel’s performance was especially important because his scoring continued into the most pressurized moments of regulation. According to the official game recap, he hit two late three-pointers that tied the contest, including the shot that made it 129-129 with 21 seconds remaining. (NBA.com)

That sequence demonstrates why basic points totals can sometimes understate a player’s influence. Knueppel did not merely accumulate points during the game. His late scoring directly helped Charlotte force overtime.

The official NBA recap described the performance as a season-high 32 points in his first NBA game in his hometown. (NBA.com)

LaMelo Ball’s 16 Points and 10 Assists

LaMelo Ball finished with 16 points, three rebounds and 10 assists.

He shot 5-for-15 from the field, 2-for-6 from three-point range and 4-for-5 at the free-throw line.

The scoring efficiency was not the main value of Ball’s performance. His 10 assists were much more important to Charlotte’s offensive structure.

A double-double of 16 points and 10 assists shows how Charlotte used him as both a scorer and primary creator.

His two turnovers were also relatively controlled considering his high involvement in the offense.

For a team that scored 134 points, Ball’s ability to create shots for teammates was central to the offensive output. Charlotte finished with 31 total assists, compared with 37 for Milwaukee.

Moussa Diabate Controls the Glass

Moussa Diabate delivered one of Charlotte’s most useful interior performances.

He recorded:

• 15 points
• 11 rebounds
• 1 assist
• 1 steal
• 5-for-8 shooting
• 5-for-6 free throws

The 11 rebounds gave Charlotte an important interior presence against a Milwaukee lineup that was highly efficient offensively.

Diabate also shot 62.5% from the field, making him one of Charlotte’s more efficient scorers.

His double-double was important because the Hornets needed interior production to balance their heavy perimeter workload.

Sion James Provides Defensive Activity

Sion James scored 12 points, but his defensive statistics stand out.

He recorded five steals, along with seven rebounds and three assists.

Five steals in a single game can dramatically influence a team’s ability to generate transition opportunities. Charlotte finished with 11 steals overall, one more than Milwaukee’s 10.

James’ 4-for-10 shooting was less efficient than some of Charlotte’s other key contributors, but his defensive activity added another dimension to his performance.

Charlotte’s Bench Production

The Hornets received useful contributions from several reserves.

Collin Sexton

Sexton scored 14 points in 16 minutes, shooting 4-for-7 from the field, 2-for-3 from three-point range and 4-for-4 at the line.

His efficiency made him one of Charlotte’s most productive bench scorers.

Tre Mann

Mann recorded 9 points, seven rebounds and seven assists.

The seven assists were particularly valuable. He nearly produced a triple-double despite playing 29 minutes.

His four-for-10 shooting meant the offensive efficiency was mixed, but his rebounding and playmaking gave Charlotte additional ball-handling depth.

Mason Plumlee

Plumlee finished with four points on 1-for-1 shooting from the field and 2-for-4 from the free-throw line.

Pat Connaughton

Connaughton did not score but recorded one assist and two steals.

Antonio Reeves

Reeves finished without a point, rebound or assist in his listed playing time.

The broader takeaway is that Charlotte’s scoring burden was concentrated heavily among Bridges, Knueppel and the starting group, with Sexton providing an important secondary scoring contribution.

Giannis Antetokounmpo’s 25 Points and 18 Assists

The defining individual statistical performance came from Giannis Antetokounmpo.

He finished with:

• 25 points
• 7 rebounds
• 18 assists
• 2 steals
• 1 block
• 7 turnovers
• 12-for-18 shooting

The 18 assists are the most striking figure.

Antetokounmpo’s scoring was efficient, but his playmaking was arguably even more important. He created opportunities throughout the Milwaukee offense and helped the Bucks produce 37 assists as a team.

His seven turnovers should not be ignored. They were a genuine negative in an otherwise exceptional statistical performance.

Still, the overall numbers show how much Milwaukee relied on him to connect scoring, rebounding and playmaking.

The official game recap confirms that Antetokounmpo returned to the lineup and finished with 25 points, 18 assists and seven rebounds. (ESPN)

Kyle Kuzma Provides 29 Points and 10 Rebounds

Kyle Kuzma led Milwaukee in scoring with 29 points and added 10 rebounds and five assists.

He shot 11-for-17 from the field, 2-for-4 from three-point range and 5-for-7 from the free-throw line.

Kuzma’s 10 rebounds gave Milwaukee another double-double alongside a major scoring contribution.

His four steals and one block also showed that his impact was not restricted to offense.

Most importantly, Kuzma finished with a +25 plus/minus, one of Milwaukee’s strongest marks.

The official Bucks game page identifies Kuzma as the game’s leading scorer and rebounder, while Antetokounmpo led in assists. (NBA.com)

Myles Turner Changes the Floor Spacing

Myles Turner scored 18 points and added three rebounds.

The most unusual part of his line was his three-point shooting.

Turner made 6-of-8 three-point attempts, an outstanding 75% conversion rate from beyond the arc.

That shooting forced Charlotte’s defense to respect a frontcourt player away from the basket.

Turner also finished with a +27 plus/minus, the highest mark among Milwaukee players listed in the supplied box-score data.

His contribution demonstrates the importance of spacing. Even without a huge rebounding or assist total, efficient perimeter shooting from a big man can reshape defensive positioning.

Ryan Rollins Adds 20 Points

Ryan Rollins scored 20 points, grabbed eight rebounds and handed out four assists.

He shot 8-for-12 from the field and 4-for-6 from three-point range.

That is an extremely efficient scoring line.

Rollins also posted a +26 plus/minus, showing how strongly Milwaukee performed during his minutes.

His four made three-pointers were especially valuable because they added another perimeter threat around Antetokounmpo and Kuzma.

AJ Green’s Perfect Free-Throw Night

AJ Green scored 13 points and shot 2-for-4 from three-point range.

His most notable statistic was his free-throw shooting.

Green went 7-for-7 from the free-throw line.

He also posted a +25 plus/minus.

His scoring total was lower than Kuzma’s or Antetokounmpo’s, but his efficiency and floor spacing helped Milwaukee maintain an offensive advantage.

Milwaukee’s Bench Contributions

Milwaukee received several important contributions outside the starting lineup.

Bobby Portis

Portis scored 12 points, grabbed four rebounds and made two of four three-point attempts.

Gary Harris

Harris produced 10 points, two steals and one block while shooting 4-for-5 from the field.

Cole Anthony

Anthony finished with 10 points, three rebounds and five assists.

He also had four turnovers, making his performance a mixture of useful playmaking and possession losses.

Gary Trent Jr.

Trent Jr. scored eight points and made his only three-point attempt.

Jericho Sims

Sims contributed two points and three rebounds.

Thanasis Antetokounmpo and Andre Jackson Jr.

Neither player scored in the recorded rotation.

The distribution of Milwaukee’s production is significant. The Bucks were not dependent on one scorer. Kuzma, Antetokounmpo, Rollins, Turner, Green and several reserves all contributed.

Charlotte Hornets vs Milwaukee Bucks Match Player Stats: Key Statistical Differences

Looking at the individual numbers alongside the team totals reveals several important differences.

1. Milwaukee’s Shooting Efficiency Was the Biggest Gap

Charlotte shot 48% from the field.

Milwaukee shot 65%.

That 17-percentage-point difference is enormous.

Even though Charlotte attempted 98 shots compared with Milwaukee’s 85, the Bucks made eight more field goals.

2. Milwaukee Won the Three-Point Efficiency Battle

Charlotte made 17 threes.

Milwaukee made 20.

But the more important difference was accuracy:

• Charlotte: 17-for-45, 38%
• Milwaukee: 20-for-34, 59%

The Bucks therefore made three more threes while taking 11 fewer attempts.

3. Charlotte Had More Steals

Charlotte recorded 11 steals.

Milwaukee had 10.

Sion James was especially influential with five steals.

This shows that Milwaukee’s victory was not simply a result of defensive disruption. Their biggest advantage came from offensive efficiency.

4. Milwaukee Had More Assists

Milwaukee finished with 37 assists.

Charlotte finished with 31.

The six-assist difference reflects the Bucks’ ability to create efficient shots through ball movement.

Antetokounmpo’s 18 assists accounted for almost half of Milwaukee’s total.

5. Both Teams Had 39 Rebounds

The rebounding battle was completely even at 39-39.

That is important because it removes rebounding dominance as an explanation for the final result.

The game was instead decided primarily by shooting efficiency, playmaking and overtime execution.

Why the Game Went to Overtime

The overtime finish was built on Charlotte’s resilience.

Milwaukee had already scored 42 points in the third quarter and entered the fourth quarter with momentum. Charlotte responded with 31 fourth-quarter points.

Knueppel’s late shooting was crucial.

The official recap notes that he hit one three-pointer to tie the game at 125 and another to tie it at 129 with 21 seconds left. (NBA.com)

Milwaukee had a chance to win in regulation, but the game remained tied after the final possessions.

That created a five-minute test of execution.

Charlotte scored only five points in overtime.

Milwaukee scored 18.

That 13-point difference in five minutes explains the final margin almost by itself.

Overtime Was a Completely Different Game

The regulation score was 129-129.

Milwaukee then outscored Charlotte 18-5.

The contrast is remarkable.

During regulation, both offenses consistently found answers. Charlotte had 31 fourth-quarter points, while Milwaukee had 26.

In overtime, Charlotte’s offense effectively disappeared.

Milwaukee’s offense, meanwhile, became even more efficient and aggressive.

The Bucks’ ability to turn a tied game into a 13-point victory in five minutes is one of the most important pieces of this box score.

What the Plus/Minus Numbers Tell Us

Plus/minus should never be treated as a complete player evaluation, but it can help identify which lineups controlled the scoreboard.

Milwaukee’s strongest plus/minus figures included:

• Myles Turner: +27
• Ryan Rollins: +26
• Kyle Kuzma: +25
• AJ Green: +25
• Giannis Antetokounmpo: +18

On Charlotte’s side, LaMelo Ball was listed at +11, while several other major contributors finished negative despite large scoring totals.

This creates an interesting contrast.

Ball scored 16 points and had 10 assists while finishing positive.

Bridges and Knueppel each scored 32, but both finished negative.

That does not mean Bridges or Knueppel played poorly. Instead, it demonstrates that individual scoring totals and overall lineup results measure different things.

The Role of Ball Movement

Milwaukee’s 37 assists deserve special attention.

A team can shoot well because of individual shot-making, but sustaining 55 made field goals from 85 attempts generally requires consistent shot creation and favorable opportunities.

Antetokounmpo’s 18 assists were the central engine.

Kuzma added five.

Rollins had four.

Cole Anthony had five.

This distribution gave Milwaukee multiple passing options rather than forcing every possession through one player.

Charlotte also moved the ball well with 31 assists, led by Ball’s 10 and Mann’s seven.

The difference was not that Charlotte failed to pass.

The difference was that Milwaukee converted its offensive opportunities at a much higher rate.

Turnovers: An Important Complication

Milwaukee had 22 turnovers, compared with Charlotte’s 13.

At first glance, that appears to be a major advantage for Charlotte.

And it was.

Charlotte generated more possessions by taking better care of the ball.

But Milwaukee’s shooting efficiency overwhelmed that disadvantage.

The Bucks made 55 field goals on 85 attempts.

Charlotte made 47 on 98 attempts.

This is an excellent example of why one box-score category should not be isolated from the rest.

Milwaukee gave the ball away nine more times, yet still won comfortably because its shot-making was so efficient.

Previous Meeting and Series Context

The teams had met two days earlier in Charlotte.

The Hornets won that contest 111-100, with Milwaukee playing without Antetokounmpo. The two teams therefore split the home-and-home sequence, with the series level at 1-1 after this game. (NBA.com)

That context matters when examining the second game.

Milwaukee’s offensive profile changed considerably with Antetokounmpo back in the lineup.

His 18 assists were particularly significant because they changed the way Milwaukee generated offense.

The result was not simply a larger scoring night from one superstar. The Bucks’ entire offense benefited from the additional playmaking.

Charlotte’s Main Takeaways

Charlotte can take several meaningful positives from the statistical record despite the loss.

Two 32-Point Scorers

Bridges and Knueppel both reached 32 points.

That gave Charlotte two high-volume scoring options capable of carrying the offense.

Strong Three-Point Volume

The Hornets attempted 45 threes and made 17.

The volume was aggressive and helped keep the game competitive.

Excellent Free-Throw Shooting

Charlotte went 23-for-29 at the line, or 79%.

That was slightly better than Milwaukee’s 77%.

Strong Ball Security

Charlotte committed only 13 turnovers.

Compared with Milwaukee’s 22, that was a substantial advantage.

Competitive Fourth Quarter

After falling behind in the third quarter, Charlotte did not collapse.

The Hornets scored 31 fourth-quarter points and forced overtime.

Those are meaningful positives even in a defeat.

Milwaukee’s Main Takeaways

Milwaukee’s numbers point to a different set of strengths.

Elite Field-Goal Efficiency

The Bucks made 65% of their shots.

That was the foundation of the victory.

Outstanding Three-Point Shooting

Milwaukee made 59% from three-point range.

Turner, Rollins, Kuzma, Green and the bench all contributed perimeter shooting.

Elite Playmaking From Antetokounmpo

His 18 assists were the most unusual individual statistic of the game.

Strong Supporting Production

Kuzma scored 29.

Rollins scored 20.

Turner scored 18.

Green scored 13.

Portis scored 12.

Harris and Anthony each scored 10.

That balance made it difficult for Charlotte to focus its defense on one player.

Full Charlotte Player Statistics

Player	PTS	REB	AST	STL	BLK	FG
Miles Bridges	32	7	2	0	1	12-24
Moussa Diabate	15	11	1	1	0	5-8
LaMelo Ball	16	3	10	0	0	5-15
Sion James	12	7	3	5	0	4-10
Kon Knueppel	32	3	3	3	0	12-20
Mason Plumlee	4	0	0	0	0	1-1
Pat Connaughton	0	0	1	2	0	0-3
Collin Sexton	14	1	4	0	0	4-7
Tre Mann	9	7	7	0	0	4-10
Antonio Reeves	0	0	0	0	0	0-0

Charlotte’s statistical profile shows a clear division between high-volume starters and supporting playmakers. Bridges and Knueppel carried the scoring load, Ball and Mann created opportunities, Diabate controlled the glass, and James supplied defensive pressure.

Full Milwaukee Player Statistics

Player	PTS	REB	AST	STL	BLK	FG
Giannis Antetokounmpo	25	7	18	2	1	12-18
Kyle Kuzma	29	10	5	4	1	11-17
Myles Turner	18	3	1	0	0	6-9
AJ Green	13	0	2	0	0	2-4
Ryan Rollins	20	8	4	0	0	8-12
Bobby Portis	12	4	1	0	0	4-7
Thanasis Antetokounmpo	0	0	0	0	0	0-0
Jericho Sims	2	3	0	0	0	1-1
Gary Harris	10	1	0	2	1	4-5
Gary Trent Jr.	8	0	1	1	0	3-5
Andre Jackson Jr.	0	0	0	0	0	0-0
Cole Anthony	10	3	5	1	0	4-7

The Milwaukee numbers show unusually strong efficiency across several players. Antetokounmpo, Kuzma, Turner and Rollins combined for 92 points while shooting at highly efficient rates.

How to Read This Box Score Correctly

For readers looking beyond the headline score, the best approach is to examine several categories together.

First, look at shooting efficiency.

Milwaukee’s 65% field-goal percentage immediately stands out.

Second, examine three-point efficiency.

The Bucks made 20 threes at a 59% rate.

Third, examine playmaking.

Milwaukee produced 37 assists, with Antetokounmpo responsible for 18.

Fourth, examine turnovers.

Charlotte had a substantial advantage there, committing nine fewer turnovers.

Finally, examine the scoring by period.

The overtime result shows how the game ended, but the third quarter explains how Milwaukee recovered from the halftime deficit.

This combination provides a much more complete picture than simply identifying the highest scorer.

Why the Final Score Can Be Misleading

A 147-134 score might suggest a one-sided offensive performance throughout the night.

It was not.

Charlotte led at halftime.

The game was tied after four quarters.

Knueppel and Bridges both scored 32.

Charlotte committed fewer turnovers.

Both teams finished with 39 rebounds.

The decisive separation came from Milwaukee’s efficiency and overtime execution.

This is why player-stat analysis should always include game flow.

The same 13-point margin could represent a wire-to-wire blowout, a late comeback, or an overtime game.

Here, it represented an extremely competitive contest that was decided in the extra period.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who led the Charlotte Hornets in scoring?

Miles Bridges and Kon Knueppel each scored 32 points for Charlotte. Bridges shot 12-for-24 from the field, while Knueppel shot 12-for-20.

Who led the Milwaukee Bucks in scoring?

Kyle Kuzma led Milwaukee with 29 points. He also recorded 10 rebounds and five assists.

How many assists did Giannis Antetokounmpo have?

Giannis Antetokounmpo recorded 18 assists, along with 25 points and seven rebounds.

Did the Charlotte Hornets win the game?

No. Milwaukee defeated Charlotte 147-134 in overtime.

Which team shot better?

Milwaukee shot 65% from the field and 59% from three-point range. Charlotte shot 48% from the field and 38% from three-point range.

How did the game reach overtime?

Charlotte erased Milwaukee’s fourth-quarter advantage and tied the game at 129. Kon Knueppel hit a late three-pointer with 21 seconds remaining to make it 129-129 before the game went to overtime. (NBA.com)

Conclusion

The Charlotte Hornets vs Milwaukee Bucks match player stats reveal a game that was far more competitive than the final 13-point margin suggests.

Charlotte received outstanding scoring from Miles Bridges and Kon Knueppel, with each player reaching 32 points. LaMelo Ball contributed 10 assists, Moussa Diabate posted a double-double, Sion James supplied five steals, and Tre Mann added seven assists and seven rebounds.

Milwaukee’s statistical profile was different. Kyle Kuzma delivered 29 points and 10 rebounds, Ryan Rollins scored 20, Myles Turner added 18 while shooting 6-for-8 from three-point range, and AJ Green contributed 13 points.

The biggest individual number was Giannis Antetokounmpo’s 18 assists.

The biggest team number was Milwaukee’s 65% field-goal shooting.

The decisive stretch was overtime, when Milwaukee scored 18 points against Charlotte’s five.

The complete box score is available through the ESPN box score for readers who want to verify the individual lines and game information.