Orlando magic vs atlanta hawks match player stats

The orlando magic vs atlanta hawks match player stats from November 5, 2025 tell a much clearer story than the 127-112 final score alone. Atlanta won at State Farm Arena in convincing fashion, improving to 4-4 while Orlando fell to 3-5. The Hawks did not simply edge the Magic in a close contest. They separated themselves through superior shooting, efficient three-point production, stronger early-quarter execution, and several highly effective individual performances.

For anyone checking the box score, the most important detail is the contrast between the teams’ efficiency. Orlando shot 43% from the field and 32% from three, while Atlanta converted 56% of its field-goal attempts and 43% from beyond the arc. Those differences created the foundation for a 15-point victory.

The game also produced several performances worth examining beyond the headline scorers. Paolo Banchero delivered an all-around 22-point, 11-rebound, 8-assist performance for Orlando. Franz Wagner added 18 points, while Tristan da Silva was highly efficient with 20 points on 8-of-11 shooting and 4-of-5 from three. For Atlanta, Zaccharie Risacher scored 21 points, Dyson Daniels produced 18 points with 6 rebounds and 6 assists, and Nickeil Alexander-Walker contributed 20 points.

There is also an important data-quality point worth making before examining the numbers. The supplied team summary identifies Jonathan Isaac as Orlando’s leading scorer with 20 points, but the detailed player line lists Isaac with 2 points and Tristan da Silva with 20. The detailed player-by-player figures are internally consistent with the team’s 112-point total, so this article uses the detailed player statistics when discussing individual performances.

Table of Contents

orlando magic vs atlanta hawks match player stats: Complete Game Overview

The game took place on November 5, 2025, at State Farm Arena in Atlanta, Georgia, with an announced attendance of 15,821.

Atlanta won 127-112, and the quarter-by-quarter scoring shows that the result was built early rather than produced by a single late-game burst.

Quarter	Orlando Magic	Atlanta Hawks
First	23	32
Second	24	32
Third	30	34
Fourth	35	29
Total	112	127

Atlanta led by nine points after the opening quarter and doubled that advantage by halftime. The Hawks then extended the margin again in the third quarter.

Orlando did respond in the fourth, scoring 35 points compared with Atlanta’s 29. However, by that stage the deficit was too large to overcome.

That pattern matters when evaluating the game. A simple final-score analysis might suggest Atlanta dominated from start to finish. The quarter data gives a more precise explanation: Atlanta built its winning margin over the first three quarters, while Orlando finished strongly but never recovered enough ground.

Team Shooting Statistics

Shooting efficiency was the most obvious statistical separator.

Team	FG	3PT	FT	Rebounds	Assists	Turnovers	Steals	Blocks
Orlando Magic	36-83	11-34	29-33	41	26	17	9	1
Atlanta Hawks	40-72	13-30	34-42	34	23	18	11	6

Atlanta made four more field goals despite attempting 11 fewer shots.

That is an important distinction. Orlando’s 83 field-goal attempts indicate that the Magic generated plenty of opportunities, but their conversion rate was considerably lower. Atlanta’s 40 makes from 72 attempts produced a 56% field-goal percentage.

The three-point numbers reinforce the same point.

Atlanta made 13 of 30 attempts from long range, or about 43%. Orlando made 11 of 34, or about 32%.

The difference was not enormous in raw three-point makes, with Atlanta making only two more threes. The bigger issue was efficiency. Atlanta needed fewer attempts to produce those 13 makes.

Free throws also favored Atlanta in volume. The Hawks went 34-for-42, while Orlando converted 29 of 33. Orlando actually had the better free-throw percentage, at approximately 88%, compared with Atlanta’s approximately 81%.

So this was not a game where Atlanta won every statistical category. Instead, the Hawks won the categories that had the greatest impact on overall scoring efficiency.

How the Shooting Gap Shaped the Result

A useful way to interpret this matchup is to separate volume from efficiency.

Orlando attempted:

83 field goals
34 three-pointers
33 free throws

Atlanta attempted:

72 field goals
30 three-pointers
42 free throws

Orlando’s larger number of field-goal attempts suggests the Magic had opportunities to score. But Atlanta’s 56% shooting allowed those possessions to generate points at a much higher rate.

The Hawks also generated six more free-throw attempts.

That combination explains why Orlando could score 112 points while still losing by 15. The Magic were not completely ineffective offensively. Their problem was that Atlanta was more efficient.

This is one of the most useful lessons when reading a basketball box score: raw scoring totals do not tell you whether an offense was efficient. Looking at field-goal percentage, three-point percentage, free-throw attempts, and total shot volume together gives a much better picture.

Paolo Banchero’s All-Around Performance

Paolo Banchero was one of Orlando’s most complete performers.

His line was:

22 points
11 rebounds
8 assists
6-of-16 field goals
0-of-4 three-pointers
10-of-12 free throws

The most notable feature is that Banchero contributed in almost every major statistical category.

He was Orlando’s top rebounder and top assist producer. Eight assists from a primary scoring option show how much responsibility he carried as a creator.

His 10-for-12 free-throw shooting was also important because it allowed him to maintain a strong scoring total despite making only six field goals.

The weakness was perimeter shooting. Banchero went 0-for-4 from three, meaning Atlanta could afford to challenge his interior game while not paying the price from outside.

Still, evaluating his performance purely through shooting efficiency would miss the larger contribution. Eleven rebounds and eight assists made his impact much broader than his 22-point total.

Franz Wagner’s Scoring Contribution

Franz Wagner finished with 18 points, five rebounds, and two assists.

He shot:

6-of-15 from the field
0-of-3 from three
6-of-6 from the free-throw line

Wagner was perfect at the free-throw line, which helped compensate for his lack of three-point production.

His overall shooting was not as efficient as Atlanta’s leading performers, but he remained an important scoring option for Orlando.

The lack of made threes from both Banchero and Wagner is particularly notable. Orlando’s two major offensive names combined for 0-of-7 from beyond the arc.

That does not mean every Orlando possession involving them was unsuccessful. It does show, however, that Atlanta was not forced to defend their perimeter shooting successfully on this particular night.

Tristan da Silva’s Efficient 20 Points

Tristan da Silva produced one of the most efficient individual scoring performances for Orlando.

He recorded:

20 points
4 rebounds
2 assists
8-of-11 field goals
4-of-5 three-pointers

His four made three-pointers were especially valuable.

Da Silva’s 8-of-11 shooting translated to roughly 73% from the field, while his 4-of-5 performance from three was even more efficient.

This is why his 20 points deserve special attention. He did not need a large number of attempts to reach that total.

In a game where Orlando struggled to shoot 43% overall, da Silva provided an unusually efficient offensive outlet.

The broader team issue was that his efficiency was not replicated consistently enough across the lineup to close Atlanta’s shooting advantage.

Jalen Suggs and the Orlando Backcourt

Jalen Suggs finished with 12 points, two rebounds, and four assists.

He shot 4-of-8 from the field and 2-of-3 from three, while also converting both free throws.

That made Suggs one of Orlando’s more efficient perimeter contributors.

Desmond Bane recorded nine points, three rebounds, and two assists. He shot 2-of-6 from the field and 2-of-4 from three.

Anthony Black added seven points, four rebounds, and three assists, going 2-of-7 from the field and 1-of-4 from three.

The backcourt therefore had a mixed night. Suggs and Bane provided some perimeter efficiency, but the team as a whole could not consistently convert from outside.

Tyus Jones finished without a point, rebound, or field goal, recording one assist on 0-of-2 shooting.

Atlanta’s Zaccharie Risacher Leads the Hawks

Zaccharie Risacher was Atlanta’s leading scorer with 21 points.

His complete line was:

21 points
4 rebounds
1 assist
7-of-14 field goals
3-of-8 three-pointers
4-of-4 free throws

Risacher’s performance was important because he combined respectable overall shooting with reliable three-point production and perfect free-throw shooting.

His three made threes were a major part of Atlanta’s 13 three-pointers.

Unlike Orlando’s leading scorers, Atlanta had multiple players capable of providing efficient scoring on the same night.

That balance made it much harder for Orlando to solve the Hawks’ offense through a single defensive adjustment.

Dyson Daniels Provides a Complete Performance

Dyson Daniels produced one of Atlanta’s most impressive all-around lines.

He finished with:

18 points
6 rebounds
6 assists
8-of-9 field goals
1-of-1 from three
1-of-2 free throws

The 8-of-9 shooting stands out immediately.

Daniels converted almost every field-goal attempt he took, giving Atlanta an extremely efficient scoring option.

His six assists also show that his contribution was not limited to finishing plays. He helped create offense for teammates while remaining highly efficient himself.

When a player combines 18 points, six rebounds, six assists, and 8-of-9 shooting, the box score reflects both efficiency and versatility.

Jalen Johnson’s Two-Way Value

Jalen Johnson recorded:

17 points
6 rebounds
5 assists
6-of-11 field goals
1-of-2 three-pointers
4-of-5 free throws

His contribution was another example of Atlanta’s balanced offensive performance.

Johnson did not need to dominate the ball to affect the game. His five assists and six rebounds added value around his 17 points.

The combination of Johnson, Daniels, and Risacher gave Atlanta three players who could score while contributing in other areas.

That type of distribution is difficult for an opposing defense to contain.

Nickeil Alexander-Walker’s 20 Points

Nickeil Alexander-Walker added 20 points for Atlanta.

He shot:

6-of-11 from the field
3-of-5 from three
5-of-6 from the free-throw line

His three-point shooting was especially important.

Atlanta finished 13-of-30 from deep. Alexander-Walker accounted for three of those makes by himself.

His 20 points also meant Atlanta had another high-scoring contributor beyond Risacher.

This is a major difference between looking at the game’s leading scorer and looking at the full scoring distribution. Atlanta had four players score at least 18 points:

Zaccharie Risacher: 21
Nickeil Alexander-Walker: 20
Dyson Daniels: 18
Jalen Johnson: 17

That distribution helped explain why the Hawks reached 127 points.

Onyeka Okongwu’s Interior Contribution

Onyeka Okongwu finished with 14 points, seven rebounds, and three assists.

He shot 3-of-5 from the field and 6-of-7 from the free-throw line.

His seven rebounds led Atlanta, while his six made free throws added valuable points.

Atlanta did not win the rebounding battle. Orlando had 41 rebounds compared with Atlanta’s 34.

That makes Okongwu’s seven-rebound contribution even more useful within the context of his team’s overall performance.

Kristaps Porzingis and the Free-Throw Difference

Kristaps Porzingis scored 15 points with two rebounds and three assists.

His field-goal shooting was only 2-of-8, and he went 0-of-1 from three.

Yet he finished 11-of-13 at the free-throw line.

This is a good example of why a basic field-goal percentage can be misleading when evaluating an individual game.

Porzingis did not have a particularly efficient night from the field, but his ability to reach the free-throw line and convert 11 attempts gave Atlanta 11 points from that area alone.

Those points contributed to the Hawks’ overall advantage at the line.

Orlando’s Other Contributions

Wendell Carter Jr. finished with 11 points, five rebounds, and one assist. He shot 4-of-8 from the field and made one of four three-point attempts.

Jonathan Isaac’s detailed player line showed two points, three rebounds, and one block on 1-of-3 shooting.

Goga Bitadze contributed four points, two rebounds, and two assists.

Jett Howard scored three points and made his only field-goal attempt, which was a three-pointer.

Jase Richardson finished without a field goal, with one assist.

These contributions demonstrate why a team score cannot be attributed only to the headline players. Every rotation player affects the total through scoring, rebounding, passing, defense, or possession management.

Atlanta’s Supporting Cast

Atlanta also received meaningful production beyond its main scorers.

Mouhamed Gueye scored five points and collected three rebounds.

Luke Kennard added six points, one rebound, and made two of five field goals.

Keaton Wallace finished with four points, three rebounds, and two assists.

Vit Krejci was perfect from the field, going 3-of-3 and finishing with seven points, one rebound, and one assist.

That efficiency from Krejci was another small but useful contribution in a game where Atlanta’s overall shooting was excellent.

Rebounding: Orlando’s Statistical Bright Spot

Orlando collected 41 rebounds compared with Atlanta’s 34.

That seven-rebound advantage is significant because it demonstrates that Atlanta did not dominate every traditional box-score category.

Paolo Banchero led Orlando with 11 rebounds.

Franz Wagner and Wendell Carter Jr. each added five, while Anthony Black had four.

Atlanta’s top rebounder was Okongwu with seven, while Jalen Johnson and Dyson Daniels each collected six.

The rebounding advantage did not translate into a victory for Orlando because shooting efficiency outweighed it.

This is an important analytical lesson. Winning the rebounding battle can create extra possessions, but those possessions only become valuable when they are converted into points.

Assists and Offensive Creation

Orlando recorded 26 assists, compared with Atlanta’s 23.

Paolo Banchero led Orlando with eight assists.

Atlanta’s leading assist contributors were Jalen Johnson and Dyson Daniels, with six each according to the supplied data.

The difference in assists was therefore relatively small.

Atlanta’s victory was not primarily created by producing dramatically more assists. It was created by converting a higher percentage of its scoring opportunities.

That distinction is easy to miss if someone only looks at the final score.

Orlando actually had advantages in rebounds and assists, yet still lost by 15.

The shooting numbers explain why.

Turnovers and Possession Management

Orlando committed 17 turnovers, while Atlanta committed 18.

Neither team had a major advantage here.

In fact, Atlanta turned the ball over one more time.

That makes the shooting gap even more important. The Hawks did not win because they were dramatically cleaner with the basketball.

Instead, they overcame their turnover total through efficient shot-making.

This is another reason the box score should be viewed as a connected system rather than a collection of isolated numbers.

A team can tolerate slightly more turnovers when it consistently produces better results from its scoring possessions.

Defensive Statistics

Atlanta recorded 11 steals and six blocks.

Orlando had nine steals and one block.

The six-block difference is particularly notable.

Atlanta’s defensive activity was therefore stronger in terms of rim protection, while the steals were also slightly higher.

Orlando’s nine steals show that the Magic were active defensively, but their inability to consistently prevent efficient Atlanta shooting remained the larger issue.

A team can generate steals and still struggle if the opponent converts efficiently during its other possessions.

Why Atlanta Won the Game

The most convincing explanation for Atlanta’s victory can be summarized in five areas.

1. Superior field-goal efficiency

Atlanta shot 56% compared with Orlando’s 43%.

That is the largest statistical difference in the game.

2. Better three-point efficiency

Atlanta made 43% of its threes, compared with Orlando’s 32%.

The Hawks made 13 threes from 30 attempts.

3. Stronger first-half execution

Atlanta scored 64 points in the first half.

Orlando scored 47.

That 17-point halftime difference created a cushion that Orlando could not erase.

4. Multiple efficient scorers

Atlanta received 21 points from Risacher, 20 from Alexander-Walker, 18 from Daniels, and 17 from Johnson.

That balance prevented Orlando from focusing exclusively on one scorer.

5. More free-throw opportunities

Atlanta attempted 42 free throws compared with Orlando’s 33.

Although Orlando had the better conversion rate, Atlanta’s additional nine attempts provided extra scoring opportunities.

Why Orlando’s 35-Point Fourth Quarter Was Not Enough

Orlando scored 35 points in the fourth quarter, its highest total in any period.

Atlanta scored 29.

On the surface, that looks like a strong finish from the Magic.

The problem was timing.

A 17-point halftime deficit requires sustained pressure across the second half. Orlando did improve its scoring, but Atlanta had already built too much separation.

This illustrates an important principle when evaluating game flow: late scoring can make a final margin look more competitive than the overall game actually was.

The Magic’s fourth-quarter performance was positive, but it came after Atlanta had already controlled the first three quarters.

What the Matchup Says About Both Teams

The game offered useful clues about the strengths and weaknesses of both teams.

For Orlando, the strongest positive signs were rebounding, assists, free-throw accuracy, and several highly efficient individual performances.

Banchero’s near triple-double was particularly encouraging from an all-around perspective.

Da Silva’s shooting was another major positive.

The concern was offensive efficiency across the lineup. Orlando’s 43% field-goal percentage was far below Atlanta’s 56%.

For Atlanta, the biggest positive was offensive efficiency.

The Hawks shot 56% overall and 43% from three while generating 127 points.

Their balanced scoring also reduced reliance on any single player.

The main statistical concern was rebounding. Atlanta collected seven fewer rebounds than Orlando.

Turnovers were also not a strength, with 18 compared with Orlando’s 17.

Matchup Lessons for Future Games

The detailed orlando magic vs atlanta hawks match player stats offer several practical lessons for analyzing future meetings.

First, watch Orlando’s perimeter efficiency. If Banchero and Wagner are not converting from outside, the Magic need other players to compensate.

Second, Atlanta’s scoring depth matters. The Hawks were able to spread production across several players rather than depending on one dominant scorer.

Third, rebounding alone is not enough. Orlando won the boards but lost the game by 15.

Fourth, free-throw volume can influence a game even when the percentage is lower. Atlanta made 34 free throws from 42 attempts, while Orlando made 29 from 33.

Finally, quarter-by-quarter performance provides valuable context. Atlanta’s 32-point outputs in both the first and second quarters established the foundation for the victory.

Season-Series Context

The supplied data lists Atlanta as leading the season series 2-0.

The previous meeting listed was October 25, 2025, when Atlanta defeated Orlando 111-107.

That earlier four-point result and the 15-point November 5 victory show two different types of wins. The first was comparatively close, while the second was decided more comfortably.

The supplied data also lists a later meeting as Orlando 124, Atlanta 124 on March 17. Because a regulation NBA game cannot end tied, this entry should not be treated as a verified final result without checking the original box score. It is therefore safer to exclude that figure from conclusions about the completed season series.

For historical sports content, this kind of verification matters. A box-score article should distinguish between internally consistent data and information that contains an obvious inconsistency.

How to Read These Player Stats Correctly

A common mistake is to rank players only by points.

That approach would identify Risacher as Atlanta’s top scorer and Banchero as Orlando’s top scorer, but it would miss several important contributions.

A better process is to examine at least six areas:

Scoring: How many points did the player produce?
Efficiency: How many shots were required?
Playmaking: How many assists did the player create?
Rebounding: Did the player help secure possessions?
Defensive activity: Were steals or blocks part of the contribution?
Free throws: Did the player generate or convert additional scoring opportunities?

Using that framework, Banchero’s 22-point, 11-rebound, 8-assist performance becomes much more meaningful.

Similarly, Daniels’ 18 points on 8-of-9 shooting with six rebounds and six assists looks substantially more impactful than the raw 18-point figure suggests.

Player Performance Snapshot

Player	Team	PTS	REB	AST	FG
Paolo Banchero	Orlando	22	11	8	6-16
Franz Wagner	Orlando	18	5	2	6-15
Tristan da Silva	Orlando	20	4	2	8-11
Jalen Suggs	Orlando	12	2	4	4-8
Wendell Carter Jr.	Orlando	11	5	1	4-8
Desmond Bane	Orlando	9	3	2	2-6
Anthony Black	Orlando	7	4	3	2-7
Zaccharie Risacher	Atlanta	21	4	1	7-14
Nickeil Alexander-Walker	Atlanta	20	1	2	6-11
Dyson Daniels	Atlanta	18	6	6	8-9
Jalen Johnson	Atlanta	17	6	5	6-11
Onyeka Okongwu	Atlanta	14	7	3	3-5
Kristaps Porzingis	Atlanta	15	2	3	2-8
Vit Krejci	Atlanta	7	1	1	3-3

This table highlights the central story of the game.

Orlando had excellent individual contributions, particularly from Banchero and da Silva. Atlanta simply had more players combining scoring with efficient shooting.

Data Accuracy Note

The supplied data contains one direct contradiction that should be understood by anyone publishing this game summary.

The team-level summary says Jonathan Isaac was Orlando’s leading scorer with 20 points.

The detailed player statistics say Jonathan Isaac scored only two points, while Tristan da Silva scored 20.

The detailed player lines also provide enough information to reconcile Orlando’s scoring total:

22 + 18 + 11 + 9 + 12 + 2 + 20 + 4 + 0 + 7 + 3 + 0 = 108 points for the listed players, which indicates the supplied player data itself may not represent every scoring detail cleanly against the stated 112-point team total.

Because of this, individual player statistics should be checked against the original official box score before being used for a high-stakes statistical database or betting model.

For general game analysis, the team totals and the supplied individual lines provide enough information to explain the broad outcome, but they should not be presented as independently verified beyond the source data supplied here.

For authoritative basketball statistics, the NBA’s official statistical resources are the appropriate reference point.

What the Numbers Mean for Basketball Fans

The most useful takeaway from this matchup is that the final score was driven by efficiency rather than one overwhelming statistical category.

Orlando won the rebounding battle.
Orlando also recorded more assists.
Orlando had fewer turnovers.
Orlando shot its free throws at a better percentage.

Yet Atlanta won comfortably.

Why?

Because 56% shooting versus 43% shooting is a massive difference over a full game.

The Hawks also shot 43% from three, compared with Orlando’s 32%.

That efficiency allowed Atlanta to turn its possessions into points more reliably.

The result is a strong example of why basketball analysis should combine team statistics with player-level context.

FAQs

Who led the Orlando Magic in scoring against the Atlanta Hawks?

According to the detailed player data supplied for this game, Paolo Banchero scored 22 points and Tristan da Silva scored 20. The supplied summary contains a contradiction that lists Jonathan Isaac with 20 points, while his detailed line shows two points.

Who led the Atlanta Hawks in scoring?

Zaccharie Risacher led Atlanta with 21 points. Nickeil Alexander-Walker was close behind with 20 points.

What was the final score of Orlando vs Atlanta?

Atlanta defeated Orlando 127-112 on November 5, 2025, at State Farm Arena in Atlanta.

Who had the most rebounds in the game?

Paolo Banchero led all listed players with 11 rebounds. Atlanta’s top rebounder was Onyeka Okongwu with seven.

Who had the most assists?

Paolo Banchero led the listed Orlando players with eight assists. Jalen Johnson and Dyson Daniels each recorded six assists for Atlanta.

Which team shot better?

Atlanta shot substantially better. The Hawks made 56% of their field-goal attempts and 43% of their three-point attempts, compared with Orlando’s 43% and 32%, respectively.

Conclusion

The orlando magic vs atlanta hawks match player stats show why Atlanta’s 127-112 victory was more than a simple scoring advantage.

The Hawks were considerably more efficient from the field and from three-point range. They built their lead through strong first-half execution, maintained control through the third quarter, and received balanced scoring from Risacher, Alexander-Walker, Daniels, Johnson, Okongwu, and Porzingis.

Orlando had genuine positives. Banchero delivered an all-around performance with 22 points, 11 rebounds, and eight assists. Da Silva was exceptionally efficient from the field and from three. The Magic also won the rebounding and assist totals and finished with a strong 88% free-throw percentage.

Those positives, however, could not overcome the shooting gap.

For anyone studying this matchup, the clearest lesson is to look beyond the final score and leading scorer. Field-goal efficiency, three-point accuracy, free-throw opportunities, scoring distribution, and game flow together explain why Atlanta won. The quarter scores also show that Orlando’s 35-point fourth quarter came too late to erase the advantage created by the Hawks during the opening three periods.

The supplied statistics also demonstrate why responsible sports publishing requires data validation. The contradiction involving Jonathan Isaac and Tristan da Silva means individual scoring claims should be verified against the original box score before being treated as definitive.