Atlanta Hawks vs Celtics Match Player Stats

The atlanta hawks vs celtics match player stats from the January 18, 2026 matchup tell a much clearer story than the final score alone. Boston Celtics defeated the Atlanta Hawks 132-106 at State Farm Arena, turning a competitive opening quarter into a decisive game by exploding for 52 points in the second period. Jaylen Brown led all scorers with 41 points, while Sam Hauser delivered one of the night’s biggest shooting performances with 30 points and 10 made three-pointers.

The game was especially useful for understanding how individual production can shape a team result. Boston did not simply win because one player scored heavily. The Celtics combined efficient shooting, strong ball movement, rebounding, perimeter accuracy, and defensive activity to create a 26-point victory. Atlanta, meanwhile, had several useful individual performances but could not match Boston’s efficiency during the most important stretches.

This breakdown looks beyond the headline score. It examines the leading scorers, playmakers, rebounders, shooting percentages, starting lineups, bench contributions, quarter-by-quarter changes, plus-minus numbers, and the statistical reasons the Celtics pulled away.

Atlanta Hawks vs Celtics Match Player Stats: Game Overview

The matchup took place at State Farm Arena in Atlanta, Georgia, in front of 17,489 spectators. Boston entered the game with a 26-15 record, including a 14-8 road mark. Atlanta entered at 20-24 and was 7-12 at home.

The Celtics eventually controlled the game from the second quarter onward.

Category	Boston Celtics	Atlanta Hawks
Final Score	132	106
Q1	30	23
Q2	52	28
Q3	35	23
Q4	15	32
Field Goals	46-91	38-102
Field Goal %	51%	37%
Three-Pointers	22-52	15-46
Three-Point %	42%	33%
Free Throws	18-22	15-17
Free Throw %	82%	88%
Rebounds	55	47
Assists	27	29
Turnovers	16	11
Steals	9	10
Blocks	8	4

The most important number in the table may be field-goal percentage.

Atlanta attempted 102 shots but made only 38. Boston attempted 91 and made 46. That produced a 14-percentage-point difference in overall shooting efficiency.

Boston also made seven more three-pointers despite taking only six more attempts from behind the arc. That combination created a major scoring advantage without requiring an overwhelming free-throw disparity.

The official NBA game record confirms the 132-106 result, Boston’s 51% field-goal shooting, its 42% three-point shooting, and Brown’s 41-point performance.

Jaylen Brown Leads Boston With 41 Points

Jaylen Brown was the central scoring figure in the game.

He finished with 41 points in only 29 minutes and 30 seconds, shooting 14-of-30 from the field, 2-of-9 from three-point range, and 11-of-12 from the free-throw line. He also collected six rebounds, two assists, one steal, and one block.

That stat line matters because Brown did not need an unusually high three-point percentage to reach 41 points.

His scoring came from multiple areas:

• 14 made field goals
• 11 made free throws
• Two made three-pointers
• Six total rebounds
• Two assists
• One steal
• One block

His free-throw shooting was particularly important. Brown converted 11 of his 12 attempts at the line, giving him 91.7% accuracy.

His +36 plus-minus was also one of the strongest individual indicators of Boston’s control. The Celtics were substantially better during his minutes on the floor.

Brown had 29 points by halftime, according to the NBA’s game recap, and his scoring helped Boston turn an 11-point first-quarter advantage into a 31-point halftime lead.

From a box-score analysis perspective, this is an important distinction. A 41-point performance can sometimes come from excessive shooting volume in a close game. Brown’s production here was different because Boston established a huge advantage while he was still playing meaningful minutes.

Sam Hauser’s Three-Point Shooting Changed the Game

Jaylen Brown received the headline, but Sam Hauser was arguably the biggest tactical difference-maker during Boston’s second-quarter explosion.

Hauser finished with:

• 30 points
• 10-of-21 shooting
• 10-of-21 from three-point range
• Six rebounds
• Three assists
• One steal
• One block
• +30 plus-minus

His 10 made three-pointers were especially significant.

Hauser attempted 21 shots and every one of them came from beyond the arc. He therefore produced 30 points without attempting a single free throw or two-point field goal.

That is an unusually clean example of how spacing can completely change a game.

The NBA’s official recap noted that Hauser was perfect from three-point range during the second quarter, making all six of his attempts from long distance in that period. He ultimately finished with 10 made threes and 30 points.

Boston scored 52 points in that second quarter.

The timing matters as much as the total.

The Celtics entered the second quarter leading 30-23. They then produced 52 points while Atlanta scored only 28. Boston’s 82-51 halftime advantage effectively removed the competitive element from the game.

This is why simply looking at final scoring totals can hide the real story. Brown produced the largest individual scoring number, but Hauser’s perimeter shooting helped create the explosive middle period that decided the contest.

Derrick White Controls the Game as a Playmaker

Derrick White did not lead Boston in scoring, but his 12 assists were critical.

He finished with:

• 7 points
• 12 assists
• 5 rebounds
• 3 steals
• 1 block
• 1 turnover
• +36 plus-minus

Twelve assists against only one turnover is one of the most efficient playmaking performances in the game.

It also shows why Boston’s offense was not dependent on individual shot creation alone.

White’s job was not necessarily to dominate the scoring column. Instead, he helped move the defense, find shooters, and create high-quality possessions.

His 12 assists represented almost half of Boston’s 27 team assists.

That is a major share.

Boston’s offense also benefited from the fact that the Celtics had multiple players capable of converting the opportunities created by their primary playmakers.

When Brown attacked, Atlanta had to respond. When defenses shifted toward Brown, Boston had perimeter shooters available. Also when Atlanta attempted to recover, White could make the next pass.

That chain of actions helps explain how Boston reached 132 points.

Atlanta’s Best Performer: Onyeka Okongwu

Onyeka Okongwu led Atlanta with 21 points.

He shot 8-of-14 from the field and made 3-of-6 attempts from three-point range. He also recorded seven rebounds, three assists, one steal, and three turnovers.

His efficiency was one of the few bright spots for Atlanta.

Okongwu made 57.1% of his field-goal attempts, considerably better than Atlanta’s overall 37.3% mark.

He also provided some perimeter value by making half of his three-point attempts.

The problem was that one efficient individual performance could not compensate for Atlanta’s overall shooting difficulties.

Okongwu’s 21 points represented the Hawks’ highest scoring total, but Boston had two players reach at least 30 points. That created a major scoring imbalance at the top of the box score.

Nickeil Alexander-Walker Provides Secondary Scoring

Nickeil Alexander-Walker finished with 18 points for Atlanta.

He shot 6-of-16 from the field and 4-of-9 from three-point range. He added two rebounds, two assists, one steal, and one block.

His four made three-pointers were useful because Atlanta needed perimeter production against a Boston defense that was creating offensive pressure of its own.

Alexander-Walker was also Atlanta’s listed leading assist contributor in the supplied game summary, although the official scorer’s report records Jalen Johnson and RayJ Dennis with four assists each and Alexander-Walker with two. The official box score is therefore the better reference for the detailed individual line.

That distinction is worth making because detailed player-stat articles should prioritize the official box score over simplified team summaries whenever the two differ.

Corey Kispert Gives the Hawks a Bench Lift

Corey Kispert scored 16 points off the bench.

His line included:

• 5-of-11 field goals
• 2-of-5 three-pointers
• 4-of-4 free throws
• 7 rebounds
• 1 assist
• 1 steal

Kispert was one of Atlanta’s more efficient contributors.

He also helped prevent the fourth quarter from becoming completely one-sided. Atlanta outscored Boston 32-15 in the final period, although that surge came after the Celtics had already built an enormous lead.

That is an important context point when evaluating fourth-quarter production.

A team can win a late quarter while still losing the game comfortably because the outcome has already been decided.

Jalen Johnson’s All-Around Contribution

Jalen Johnson finished with 12 points, eight rebounds, five assists, one steal, and four turnovers.

His eight rebounds tied for Atlanta’s team high.

Johnson’s overall stat line shows why his contribution cannot be judged only by points.

He was involved in several areas:

• Rebounding
• Ball movement
• Defensive activity
• Transition play
• Interior scoring

However, his 4-of-14 shooting limited the impact of that all-around production.

He also committed four turnovers, the highest individual total on Atlanta.

Against an opponent as efficient as Boston, missed shots and lost possessions become particularly damaging because they reduce the number of opportunities Atlanta has to answer.

Jalen Johnson vs. Josh Minott on the Glass

Boston’s leading rebounder was Josh Minott with eight rebounds according to the supplied game data, but the official scorer’s report lists Minott as inactive with a left ankle sprain and gives Hugo Gonzalez eight rebounds as Boston’s highest individual total.

This is an important correction when publishing the article.

The supplied summary identifies Minott as Boston’s top rebounder, but the official box score shows Minott did not play. Hugo Gonzalez recorded eight rebounds, while Neemias Queta, Baylor Scheierman, and others also contributed on the glass.

For a publication-ready statistics article, the official scorer’s report should take priority.

That means Boston’s reliable individual rebound leaders from the official game record were:

• Hugo Gonzalez: 8 rebounds
• Neemias Queta: 7 rebounds
• Baylor Scheierman: 7 rebounds
• Jaylen Brown: 6 rebounds
• Sam Hauser: 6 rebounds

Atlanta’s leaders included Jalen Johnson and Corey Kispert with seven rebounds each, while Okongwu and Mouhamed Gueye also contributed seven apiece.

Boston’s Starting Lineup and Rotation

Boston’s starters were:

• Sam Hauser
• Neemias Queta
• Derrick White
• Jaylen Brown
• Baylor Scheierman

Atlanta’s starters were:

• Onyeka Okongwu
• Jalen Johnson
• CJ McCollum
• Nickeil Alexander-Walker
• Vit Krejci

The difference in starting production was substantial.

Boston’s starting group combined for 101 points.

Atlanta’s starters combined for 65.

That 36-point difference from the starting groups is one of the clearest ways to understand the game.

Boston did not rely entirely on its bench. Its primary lineup generated the majority of the scoring advantage before the reserves entered the game.

CJ McCollum Struggles to Find Efficiency

CJ McCollum finished with 11 points.

He shot 4-of-14 from the field and missed all five of his three-point attempts. He added seven rebounds, four assists, two blocks, and three turnovers.

His defensive contributions were useful, especially the two blocks, but his offensive efficiency was a problem.

McCollum’s 28.6% field-goal shooting made it difficult for Atlanta to keep pace with Boston’s perimeter production.

When a team shoots 37% overall, it needs its primary scoring options to create efficient offense. Atlanta did not get enough of that from its veteran guard in this game.

The Second Quarter Was the Turning Point

The second quarter deserves its own analysis because that is where the game was essentially decided.

The first-quarter score was:

Boston 30, Atlanta 23

An eight-point or 10-point difference after one quarter would still leave a team with plenty of time to respond.

Instead, Boston produced 52 points in the second.

Atlanta scored 28.

Boston therefore won the quarter by 24 points.

The halftime score became:

Boston 82, Atlanta 51

That was a 31-point advantage.

The NBA’s official recap describes the second quarter as the decisive burst, with Boston making 19 of 25 shots in the period, including 11 of 15 three-point attempts.

That shooting efficiency explains why Atlanta could not recover.

Boston’s Three-Point Advantage

Boston made 22 of 52 three-point attempts.

Atlanta made 15 of 46.

That gives Boston:

• 22 made threes
• 42.3% three-point accuracy
• 66 three-point points

Atlanta produced:

• 15 made threes
• 32.6% three-point accuracy
• 45 three-point points

The Celtics therefore gained 21 points from made three-pointers alone.

This was not simply a matter of taking more shots from outside. Boston also converted them at a higher rate.

Hauser was the clearest example, but Scheierman and Simons also contributed from deep. Scheierman made three threes, while Simons made four.

Boston’s perimeter shooting created a mathematical challenge for Atlanta. A team shooting 37% from the field has very little room for error when its opponent is making more than 42% of its threes.

Rebounding Was Competitive, but Boston Still Won the Battle

Boston finished with 55 rebounds.

Atlanta finished with 47.

The eight-rebound advantage was not overwhelming, but it mattered.

Boston had 11 offensive rebounds and 44 defensive rebounds.

Atlanta had 13 offensive rebounds and 34 defensive rebounds.

Interestingly, Atlanta actually had more offensive rebounds.

That suggests the Hawks were capable of creating second-chance opportunities.

The larger issue was what happened after those opportunities were created.

Atlanta’s offensive rebounding advantage could not overcome the Celtics’ shooting efficiency.

This is an important lesson when analyzing basketball statistics: winning one category does not guarantee winning the game. Teams can dominate offensive rebounding and still lose heavily if they give away too much efficiency elsewhere.

Assists and Turnovers Tell a More Interesting Story

Atlanta actually finished with more assists than Boston in the supplied team totals:

Atlanta: 29 assists

Boston: 27 assists

Atlanta also committed fewer turnovers:

Atlanta: 11

Boston: 16

At first glance, those numbers might suggest Atlanta had the cleaner offensive process.

But the final score shows why context matters.

Boston’s advantage was not based on taking care of the ball better. It was based largely on what happened when the Celtics successfully generated shots.

Boston converted 46 of 91 field-goal attempts.

Atlanta converted 38 of 102.

The Hawks had more assists and fewer turnovers, yet Boston still scored 26 more points.

That is a strong reminder that possession efficiency can outweigh basic playmaking totals.

Free Throws Were Not the Main Difference

Atlanta actually had the better free-throw percentage.

The Hawks made 15 of 17 attempts for 88.2%.

Boston made 18 of 22 for 81.8%.

That gave Atlanta an efficiency advantage at the line.

However, Boston attempted five more free throws and made three more.

More importantly, the free-throw difference was tiny compared with the difference in field goals and three-point production.

Boston’s 22 made threes were the bigger story.

This is another reason not to evaluate a game through one percentage alone.

A team can shoot better from the free-throw line and still lose badly because the overall shot profile is less efficient.

Defensive Statistics Show Boston’s Activity

Boston recorded:

• 9 steals
• 8 blocks
• 16 turnovers forced through its defensive pressure and opponent mistakes reflected in the game totals

Atlanta recorded:

• 10 steals
• 4 blocks

The Hawks actually had one more steal.

Yet Boston had twice as many blocks.

The Celtics’ eight blocks provided a strong interior defensive presence and helped limit easy scoring opportunities.

Boston also turned its defensive activity into transition chances. The official game data lists the Celtics with 21 fast-break points compared with 22 for Atlanta, meaning Atlanta was not completely shut down in transition.

Again, the important point is that the game was decided by the combined effect of many categories rather than one isolated defensive statistic.

Plus-Minus Reveals the Scale of Boston’s Control

Plus-minus is not a perfect statistic, but in a game with a large margin it can help show which lineups controlled the floor.

Boston’s major contributors posted strong numbers:

• Jaylen Brown: +36
• Derrick White: +36
• Neemias Queta: +39
• Sam Hauser: +30
• Anfernee Simons: +11
• Hugo Gonzalez: +6

Atlanta’s major starters were much lower:

• Jalen Johnson: -30
• Onyeka Okongwu: -25
• CJ McCollum: -26
• Nickeil Alexander-Walker: -35
• Vit Krejci: -25

The difference between Alexander-Walker’s -35 and the Celtics’ leading +39 is especially striking.

It does not mean Alexander-Walker personally caused the loss. Plus-minus reflects everything happening while a player is on the floor.

But the numbers clearly show that Boston’s most-used lineups controlled the game while Atlanta’s starting groups were being outscored heavily.

Anfernee Simons Adds Valuable Bench Scoring

Anfernee Simons scored 14 points in 23 minutes and 38 seconds.

He shot 5-of-10 overall and 4-of-8 from three-point range.

That gave Boston another efficient perimeter scoring option.

Simons also finished with a +11 plus-minus.

His role was important because Boston did not need Brown and Hauser to carry every possession.

A deep scoring rotation creates a different defensive problem. Opponents cannot simply focus on one or two players when several others can punish a defensive rotation.

That was one of Boston’s major advantages in this matchup.

Atlanta’s Bench Had Useful Contributions

Atlanta’s bench did not completely collapse.

Corey Kispert scored 16.

Asa Newell added 10 points in only nine minutes.

Mouhamed Gueye scored five points and grabbed seven rebounds.

Keaton Wallace contributed five points, two rebounds, two assists, and one steal.

The bench therefore had some productive individual moments.

The issue was timing.

Much of that production came after Boston had already established a massive lead.

Atlanta’s reserves helped the Hawks win the fourth quarter 32-15, but the game was already effectively decided.

That distinction matters when evaluating bench performance. A strong late-quarter statistical showing does not necessarily indicate that a bench unit performed well enough to influence the result.

Why Atlanta Could Not Recover

There were three major reasons.

1. Boston’s second-quarter shooting was overwhelming

The Celtics scored 52 points in the second quarter.

They made 19 of 25 shots and hit 11 of 15 threes.

That created a lead too large for Atlanta to erase.

2. Atlanta’s overall shooting percentage was too low

The Hawks made only 38 of 102 field-goal attempts.

That is 37.3%.

Even with 29 assists and 11 turnovers, the Hawks could not produce enough made shots.

3. Boston had multiple high-level scoring options

Brown scored 41.

Hauser scored 30.

Queta scored 14.

Simons scored 14.

Scheierman added nine.

White added seven while producing 12 assists.

That distribution made Boston difficult to defend.

Atlanta’s top four scorers were Okongwu with 21, Alexander-Walker with 18, Kispert with 16, and Johnson with 12.

The scoring depth was simply different.

What the Game Says About Offensive Efficiency

A useful way to read this matchup is through shot-making rather than raw possession counts.

Boston took fewer field-goal attempts but scored considerably more.

That is the clearest statistical signal in the game.

Boston:

91 attempts → 46 makes → 132 points

Atlanta:

102 attempts → 38 makes → 106 points

Atlanta attempted 11 more field goals.

Boston still scored 26 more points.

That means the Celtics extracted significantly more value from their possessions.

The three-point line amplified the difference.

Boston’s 22 made threes generated 66 points.

Atlanta’s 15 made threes generated 45.

That 21-point gap alone accounts for most of the final scoring difference.

What the Game Says About Defensive Pressure

The Celtics’ defense did not completely shut down Atlanta.

The Hawks scored 106 points.

They also produced 42 points in the paint and 22 fast-break points.

Those are respectable offensive totals.

The difference was that Boston made Atlanta work harder for efficient scoring.

The Celtics’ eight blocks and nine steals showed active defense, while their 44 defensive rebounds limited Atlanta’s second opportunities after missed shots.

The result was a classic situation where the defense did not need to hold an opponent under 100 points.

Instead, Boston needed to prevent Atlanta from matching its own offensive efficiency.

That strategy worked.

A Closer Look at the Quarter-by-Quarter Story

First Quarter: Competitive Start

Boston led 30-23 after 12 minutes.

The Celtics had the early advantage, but Atlanta remained within striking distance.

The first period showed that the matchup could have developed into a competitive game.

Second Quarter: Boston Breaks Away

Boston scored 52.

Atlanta scored 28.

This was the decisive stretch.

The Celtics’ three-point shooting became almost impossible for Atlanta to contain.

Third Quarter: Boston Maintains Control

Boston added another 35 points.

Atlanta managed 23.

The Celtics entered the fourth quarter with a huge advantage.

Fourth Quarter: Atlanta Wins the Period

Atlanta finally found some offensive rhythm and outscored Boston 32-15.

However, the comeback came too late.

Boston’s first three quarters had already produced a 117-74 advantage.

That made the fourth-quarter margin largely academic.

The Most Important Individual Numbers

For readers looking for a quick statistical summary, these were the standout performances.

Boston Celtics

Jaylen Brown: 41 points, 6 rebounds, 2 assists, 1 steal, 1 block

Sam Hauser: 30 points, 6 rebounds, 3 assists, 10 three-pointers

Neemias Queta: 14 points, 7 rebounds, 1 assist, 1 steal, 1 block

Anfernee Simons: 14 points, 2 rebounds, 1 assist, 4 three-pointers

Derrick White: 7 points, 12 assists, 5 rebounds, 3 steals, 1 block

Baylor Scheierman: 9 points, 7 rebounds, 4 assists, 3 steals

Hugo Gonzalez: 7 points, 8 rebounds

Atlanta Hawks

Onyeka Okongwu: 21 points, 7 rebounds, 3 assists

Nickeil Alexander-Walker: 18 points, 2 rebounds, 2 assists, 4 three-pointers

Corey Kispert: 16 points, 7 rebounds, 1 assist

Jalen Johnson: 12 points, 8 rebounds, 5 assists

CJ McCollum: 11 points, 7 rebounds, 4 assists

Asa Newell: 10 points, 2 rebounds

Mouhamed Gueye: 5 points, 7 rebounds, 3 assists

These figures come from the official scorer’s report, which is the appropriate reference when detailed player lines are required.

What Fantasy Basketball Readers Can Take From the Game

For fantasy analysis, the most obvious production came from Brown and Hauser.

Brown’s 41 points, six rebounds, two assists, steal, and block produced a highly productive all-around line.

Hauser was particularly valuable in formats that reward three-point makes.

White’s 12 assists also stand out because he reached that total while committing only one turnover.

On the Atlanta side, Okongwu’s 21 points and seven rebounds were strong, while Johnson’s eight rebounds and five assists showed useful multi-category production despite his shooting struggles.

The lesson is that fantasy value does not always correspond with the winning team alone.

Players such as Okongwu and Johnson produced useful individual statistics even though Atlanta lost by 26.

What This Game Means for Team-Level Analysis

The result should not be interpreted as proof that one game determines the long-term strength of either team.

A single NBA game is a small sample.

However, it can reveal tactical tendencies and execution differences.

In this matchup, Boston showed:

• Strong perimeter shooting
• Efficient scoring from its leading players
• High-level passing from White
• Strong rebounding
• Defensive activity
• Reliable bench scoring

Atlanta showed:

• Competitive offensive rebounding
• Several useful individual scoring performances
• Strong free-throw shooting
• More total assists than Boston
• Fewer turnovers
• A late offensive response

The problem for Atlanta was that those strengths did not offset Boston’s shooting advantage.

A Note About the Game Date

The supplied game information identifies the matchup as January 18, 2026.

The NBA’s game page labels it Saturday, January 17, 2026, while the official game information also displays January 18 at 12:30 AM. This difference comes from the way the game is represented across local and system time references. The official scorer’s report identifies the contest as Saturday, January 17, 2026, at State Farm Arena.

For search purposes, readers may encounter either January 17 or January 18 depending on the source and timezone.

The important point is that the same game produced the 132-106 Boston victory discussed throughout this article.

Common Mistakes When Reading NBA Player Stats

A strong statistical analysis should avoid several common mistakes.

Looking only at the top scorer

Brown scored 41, but Boston’s victory was not created by Brown alone.

Hauser’s 30 points and 10 threes, White’s 12 assists, Queta’s efficient interior production, and the team’s 22 made threes were all important.

Ignoring shooting efficiency

Atlanta attempted more field goals than Boston.

That did not help because the Hawks made only 37.3% of them.

Shot quality and conversion rate can matter more than raw attempts.

Treating plus-minus as an individual judgment

A -30 does not mean a player personally caused 30 points of damage.

Plus-minus reflects team scoring differential while that player is on the floor.

It is most useful when combined with other information.

Ignoring when the statistics were produced

Atlanta’s 32-point fourth quarter looks impressive.

But the Hawks entered that period far behind.

Timing matters.

Final Statistical Verdict

The simplest explanation of this matchup is that Boston was far more efficient when it mattered most.

The Celtics shot 51% from the field and 42% from three.

The Hawks shot 37% from the field and 33% from three.

Boston made seven more three-pointers and 20 more field goals overall.

The Celtics also finished with eight more rebounds and four more blocks.

Atlanta did have advantages in assists, turnovers, steals, and free-throw percentage, but those categories were not enough to overcome Boston’s shot-making.

The second quarter was the decisive moment.

Boston’s 52-point explosion transformed a seven-point first-quarter lead into a 31-point halftime advantage. From there, the Celtics controlled the game even though Atlanta finished strongly in the fourth.

For readers studying player performance, Brown’s 41-point effort was the headline. Hauser’s 10 three-pointers were the shooting story. White’s 12 assists were the playmaking story. Okongwu’s 21 points were Atlanta’s biggest individual positive. And the overall shooting gap was the clearest explanation for the final result.

FAQs

Who scored the most in the Celtics vs Hawks game?

Jaylen Brown led all players with 41 points for Boston. He shot 14-of-30 from the field and 11-of-12 at the free-throw line.

Who led the Hawks in scoring?

Onyeka Okongwu led Atlanta with 21 points. He shot 8-of-14 from the field and also recorded seven rebounds and three assists.

How many three-pointers did Sam Hauser make?

Sam Hauser made 10 three-pointers on 21 attempts. He finished with 30 points and shot 47.6% from beyond the arc.

Who had the most assists in the game?

Derrick White led all players with 12 assists. He also had five rebounds, three steals, one block, and only one turnover.

What was the final score?

The Boston Celtics defeated the Atlanta Hawks 132-106.

Why did Boston win by such a large margin?

Boston’s biggest advantages were shooting efficiency and second-quarter scoring. The Celtics shot 51% overall and 42% from three, while scoring 52 points in the second quarter.

Conclusion

The statistical story of this matchup goes well beyond the 132-106 final score.

Boston won because its most important offensive possessions produced efficient shots, particularly from three-point range. Jaylen Brown supplied the headline scoring performance with 41 points, while Sam Hauser’s 10 made threes created enormous spacing pressure. Derrick White added 12 assists and helped connect Boston’s scoring pieces.

Atlanta had genuine positives. Onyeka Okongwu scored 21, Nickeil Alexander-Walker made four threes, Jalen Johnson collected eight rebounds and five assists, and the Hawks finished with more assists and fewer turnovers than Boston.

But those strengths could not compensate for the shooting gap.

The second quarter ultimately defined the night. Boston’s 52 points against Atlanta’s 28 turned a seven-point game after one period into a 31-point halftime deficit. Once that happened, Atlanta’s fourth-quarter comeback was too late to change the result.

The most useful takeaway from the player statistics is therefore simple: individual scoring matters, but efficiency, shot distribution, playmaking, rebounding, and timing determine how those individual performances translate into a team result.