Atlanta Hawks vs Milwaukee Bucks Match Player Stats

The atlanta hawks vs milwaukee bucks match player stats from March 5, 2026, tell the story of a dramatic turnaround in Milwaukee. The Hawks overcame a 13-point halftime deficit to defeat the Bucks 131-113 at Fiserv Forum. Atlanta finished with 50 made field goals on 92 attempts, connected on 20 of 45 three-point attempts, and produced 33 assists. Milwaukee shot a respectable 50% from the field, but Atlanta’s superior three-point shooting, ball security, second-half execution, and defensive activity ultimately decided the game. (ESPN)

The final score can look straightforward, but the game itself was anything but. Milwaukee opened strongly, led 71-66 at halftime, and appeared to have control. Atlanta then produced a 32-18 third quarter, followed that with 33 points in the fourth, and turned a five-point halftime deficit into an 18-point victory. The Hawks also won the second half 65-42, which was the clearest statistical explanation for the result. (ESPN)

This breakdown examines the individual performances, team numbers, turning points, shooting efficiency, playmaking, rebounding, defensive impact, and the broader meaning of the result.

Atlanta Hawks vs Milwaukee Bucks Match Player Stats: Game Overview

The game was played at Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, with an attendance of 14,889. Atlanta entered the matchup at 32-31 overall and 18-15 on the road, while Milwaukee was 26-35 overall and 14-16 at home.

Category	Atlanta Hawks	Milwaukee Bucks
Final Score	131	113
Q1	25	38
Q2	41	33
Q3	32	18
Q4	33	24
Field Goals	50-92	43-86
Field Goal %	54%	50%
Three-Pointers	20-45	13-39
Three-Point %	44%	33%
Free Throws	11-16	14-20
Free Throw %	69%	70%
Rebounds	40	41
Assists	33	27
Turnovers	11	15
Steals	9	8
Blocks	7	2
Points in Paint	54	42
Fast Break Points	13	5

The official ESPN game data confirms that Atlanta’s biggest advantages came from three-point shooting, assists, turnovers, blocks, points in the paint, and fast-break production. (ESPN)

The most important contrast is not simply that Atlanta scored 18 more points. The Hawks created more efficient possessions and protected those possessions better.

Atlanta committed four fewer turnovers and scored 26 points off Milwaukee’s turnovers. The Bucks scored only 15 points off Atlanta’s turnovers. That 11-point difference alone represented a meaningful portion of the final margin.

First-Half Story: Milwaukee Takes Control

The opening half belonged to Milwaukee.

The Bucks won the first quarter 38-25, creating a 13-point advantage almost immediately. Atlanta responded in the second quarter by scoring 41 points, but Milwaukee still entered halftime ahead 71-66.

That first half is important because it shows that the final score does not accurately describe the balance of the entire contest.

Both teams shot extremely well early. Milwaukee eventually finished at 50% from the field, while Atlanta ended at 54%. ESPN’s game recap noted that both teams shot at least 60% during the first half. (ESPN)

The Bucks therefore had good offensive rhythm early, and Giannis Antetokounmpo was able to influence the game without needing an enormous scoring total.

Atlanta’s response in the second quarter was also significant. Instead of allowing the early deficit to become a runaway game, the Hawks increased their offensive pace and scored 41 points.

That kept the deficit manageable.

The Third Quarter Changed Everything

The third quarter was the decisive period.

Atlanta outscored Milwaukee 32-18, turning a five-point halftime deficit into a nine-point lead entering the fourth quarter.

The Hawks began the second half by scoring the first 10 points, according to ESPN’s game recap. Milwaukee then struggled offensively, scoring only two points during the first 5:56 of the third quarter. (ESPN)

This was the game’s critical swing.

A team can survive a difficult shooting stretch for a few possessions. It is much harder to survive nearly six minutes of offensive stagnation against an opponent that is simultaneously creating efficient shots.

Atlanta took advantage.

The Hawks’ third-quarter performance was not merely about scoring. It reflected a broader change in control:

• Atlanta generated cleaner offensive possessions.
• Milwaukee’s scoring efficiency dropped sharply.
• Atlanta converted turnovers into offense.
• The Hawks increased their defensive pressure.
• Atlanta’s three-point shooting created additional spacing.
• Milwaukee struggled to regain its first-half rhythm.

By the end of the third quarter, the game’s momentum had completely changed.

Fourth Quarter: Atlanta Finishes the Job

Atlanta entered the fourth quarter with a 98-89 advantage.

Instead of allowing Milwaukee to mount a comeback, the Hawks scored another 33 points.

The Bucks managed 24.

That gave Atlanta a 131-113 victory.

The fourth quarter also demonstrated that the third-quarter surge was not a temporary burst. Atlanta maintained its offensive efficiency and prevented Milwaukee from producing the kind of scoring run needed to make the final minutes competitive.

ESPN reported that Atlanta eventually built a 23-point lead, while Milwaukee’s largest lead was 16. (ESPN)

That progression tells us something important about the matchup. Milwaukee had the better start, but Atlanta had the better response.

Nickeil Alexander-Walker Leads Atlanta’s Scoring

Nickeil Alexander-Walker finished as Atlanta’s leading scorer with 23 points.

He shot 9-for-14 from the field and 5-for-9 from three-point range. That is an exceptionally efficient shooting performance, especially considering the volume from outside.

His 23 points came on 14 field-goal attempts, giving Atlanta efficient perimeter production at a critical time.

Alexander-Walker’s three-point shooting was particularly valuable because Milwaukee could not afford to collapse excessively toward Atlanta’s interior scorers without giving up open perimeter opportunities.

His performance also illustrates why raw points alone do not tell the complete story.

A 23-point performance on 9-for-14 shooting and 5-for-9 from deep is considerably different from scoring 23 points through a high number of inefficient attempts.

Onyeka Okongwu Provides a Two-Way Impact

Onyeka Okongwu delivered one of Atlanta’s most complete performances.

He finished with:

• 21 points
• 8 rebounds
• 3 steals
• 2 blocks
• 9-for-14 shooting
• 3-for-7 from three-point range
• Plus-19 rating

His defensive numbers stand out.

Okongwu was Atlanta’s leader in both steals and blocks according to the supplied game data, and his three steals plus two blocks gave him five recorded defensive plays that directly disrupted Milwaukee possessions.

His offensive efficiency was equally important.

Okongwu shot 64.3% from the field, while also contributing from three-point range. That combination forced Milwaukee to respect him both inside and outside.

The plus-19 rating was also the best among Atlanta’s starters in the supplied box score. (ESPN)

This is the type of performance that can easily be overlooked if someone only searches for the leading scorer.

Jalen Johnson Controls the Game as a Playmaker

Jalen Johnson scored 20 points and added 9 assists and 5 rebounds.

His 9 assists were the highest total among Atlanta players.

Johnson’s importance was therefore broader than his scoring.

He helped connect Atlanta’s half-court offense, found shooters, and contributed to the team’s 33 total assists.

Atlanta averaged 33 assists across 50 made field goals in this game. That is a strong indication that a large percentage of the Hawks’ successful shots were connected to effective ball movement.

Johnson also shot 7-for-17 from the field and 5-for-7 from the free-throw line.

His 20 points combined with nine assists made him one of the most influential players on the floor even though Alexander-Walker finished with more points.

CJ McCollum Adds Efficient Secondary Creation

CJ McCollum recorded:

• 18 points
• 8 assists
• 2 rebounds
• 2 three-pointers
• 6-for-6 free throws

His eight assists were second on Atlanta.

That gave the Hawks two major playmaking sources in Johnson and McCollum. Together, they accounted for 17 assists.

McCollum’s perfect 6-for-6 performance at the free-throw line was another positive detail. While free throws were not the primary reason Atlanta won, converting all six attempts helped maximize his offensive contribution.

His 18 points also meant Atlanta did not need one player to carry the scoring burden.

Dyson Daniels Produces a Double-Digit Rebounding Performance

Dyson Daniels scored 14 points and collected 10 rebounds, giving him a double-double.

He also recorded three assists.

His 10 rebounds were the most by any Atlanta player.

What makes the performance particularly interesting is that Daniels was not simply collecting defensive rebounds. His overall contribution helped Atlanta stay competitive on the glass despite Milwaukee finishing with a 41-40 rebounding advantage.

Daniels also had a strong plus-21 rating, the highest among Atlanta’s starters in the supplied box score. (ESPN)

That number reflects how effective Atlanta was while he was on the floor.

Giannis Antetokounmpo Leads Milwaukee in Scoring

Giannis Antetokounmpo scored 24 points, making him Milwaukee’s leading scorer.

He shot 10-for-15 from the field, which represents a highly efficient 66.7% shooting performance.

He also recorded:

• 5 rebounds
• 4 assists
• 1 steal

The important context is that Giannis was playing in only his second game after returning from a right calf strain that had kept him out for five weeks. ESPN reported that he scored 24 points in his return to action and received a technical foul during the game. (ESPN)

His individual efficiency was not the central problem for Milwaukee.

The larger issue was that the Bucks did not get enough collective offensive production once Atlanta’s defense tightened after halftime.

Ryan Rollins Delivers a Major Playmaking Performance

Ryan Rollins produced one of Milwaukee’s most notable statistical performances.

He finished with:

• 13 points
• 8 rebounds
• 12 assists
• 3 steals
• 2 three-pointers

His 12 assists were the highest total by any player in the game.

That is a major positive despite Milwaukee’s loss.

Rollins was also one of Milwaukee’s strongest all-around contributors because he combined playmaking with rebounding and defensive activity.

However, his team-high 12 assists could not overcome Atlanta’s superior overall efficiency.

Milwaukee finished with 27 assists compared with Atlanta’s 33, meaning Rollins accounted for nearly half of the Bucks’ assists himself.

Ousmane Dieng Provides Secondary Scoring

Ousmane Dieng scored 14 points and grabbed four rebounds.

He shot 6-for-14 from the field and made two three-pointers.

His 14 points were tied for the second-highest total among Milwaukee starters.

Dieng’s scoring helped Milwaukee’s early offensive performance, but the Bucks needed greater production from the starting lineup after halftime.

Kyle Kuzma Gives Milwaukee a Bench Boost

Kyle Kuzma scored 16 points off the bench.

He shot 7-for-8 from the field and 1-for-1 from three-point range.

That was one of Milwaukee’s most efficient individual shooting performances.

Kuzma also recorded two rebounds and two assists.

His scoring demonstrated that Milwaukee had useful offensive production beyond Giannis and Rollins. The problem was that the overall team offense could not maintain its first-half efficiency.

Pete Nance Dominates the Rebounding Numbers

Pete Nance recorded 11 rebounds, the highest total by any Milwaukee player.

He added four points and three assists while shooting 2-for-2 from the field.

His 11 rebounds helped Milwaukee win the overall rebounding battle 41-40.

However, rebounding dominance was not enough to compensate for Atlanta’s advantages elsewhere.

This is a useful reminder when evaluating basketball box scores: winning one statistical category does not necessarily mean winning the game.

Atlanta’s Shooting Efficiency Was the Major Difference

One of the clearest reasons for Atlanta’s victory was three-point shooting.

Atlanta:

20-for-45, 44%

Milwaukee:

13-for-39, 33%

That represents a seven-made-three advantage for the Hawks.

Each made three is worth three points, so Atlanta produced 21 more points from made three-pointers alone.

The difference becomes even more meaningful when combined with Atlanta’s higher overall field-goal percentage.

The Hawks shot 54% overall compared with Milwaukee’s 50%.

Milwaukee was not inefficient in an absolute sense. A 50% shooting night is usually respectable.

The issue was that Atlanta was better.

When one team shoots 54% overall and 44% from three while also committing fewer turnovers, the opponent needs exceptional production elsewhere to compensate.

Milwaukee did not get enough of it.

Turnovers Became a Hidden Deciding Factor

Atlanta committed 11 turnovers.

Milwaukee committed 15.

Four possessions may not sound like a huge difference, but turnover value extends beyond the lost possession itself.

ESPN’s team statistics show that Atlanta scored 26 points off Milwaukee turnovers, while Milwaukee scored only 15 points off Atlanta turnovers. (ESPN)

That produced an 11-point advantage for Atlanta in points off turnovers.

This was one of the most important differences in the game.

The Hawks did not merely protect the ball better. They punished Milwaukee when the Bucks failed to do the same.

Atlanta Won the Battle for Interior Production

The Hawks scored 54 points in the paint.

Milwaukee scored 42.

That gave Atlanta a 12-point advantage in interior scoring.

This is interesting because Atlanta also made 20 three-pointers.

The Hawks therefore hurt Milwaukee in two different areas.

They could attack inside and also punish defensive rotations outside.

When an offense can generate efficient production from both the paint and perimeter, defensive adjustments become much harder.

Milwaukee’s defense also recorded only two blocks compared with Atlanta’s seven.

That difference reinforces the idea that Atlanta was able to attack effectively while limiting Milwaukee’s ability to disrupt shots.

Rebounding Was Nearly Even

Milwaukee won the overall rebounding battle 41-40.

The Bucks also collected 12 offensive rebounds compared with Atlanta’s 11.

So rebounding was not the reason Milwaukee lost.

This is an important distinction.

If a team loses despite winning the rebounding category, analysts should look toward shooting, turnovers, transition opportunities, and defensive execution.

That is exactly what happened here.

Atlanta’s 54% shooting, 44% three-point shooting, 33 assists, 11 turnovers, and 13 fast-break points created enough advantages to overcome Milwaukee’s one-rebound edge.

Atlanta’s Ball Movement Stood Out

Atlanta recorded 33 assists on 50 made field goals.

Milwaukee recorded 27 assists on 43 made field goals.

The six-assist difference shows that Atlanta’s offense involved more successful passing sequences.

Jalen Johnson and CJ McCollum were particularly important.

Johnson had nine assists.

McCollum had eight.

Together, they produced 17 of Atlanta’s 33 assists.

That is more than half of the team’s total.

Their combined playmaking allowed Atlanta to keep its offense functioning even when Milwaukee’s defense was initially successful.

Defensive Activity Helped Atlanta Pull Away

Atlanta recorded:

• 9 steals
• 7 blocks

Milwaukee recorded:

• 8 steals
• 2 blocks

The steal numbers were relatively close, but the block difference was significant.

Atlanta’s seven blocks helped limit second chances around the rim and gave the Hawks another way to interrupt Milwaukee possessions.

Okongwu was particularly influential with two blocks and three steals.

Daniels also contributed to Atlanta’s defensive pressure through his overall activity.

The Second-Half Numbers Explain the Final Score

The most useful way to understand this game is to separate the halves.

First Half

Milwaukee: 71

Atlanta: 66

Second Half

Atlanta: 65

Milwaukee: 42

The Bucks won the first half by five.

The Hawks won the second half by 23.

That produced Atlanta’s final 18-point victory.

This is why simply looking at the final score can be misleading.

The game was competitive for a significant portion of the opening half. The decisive difference emerged after halftime.

Why Milwaukee Lost Despite Strong Individual Performances

Milwaukee had several encouraging individual numbers.

Giannis scored 24 points on 10-for-15 shooting.

Rollins had 12 assists.

Kuzma scored 16 points on 7-for-8 shooting.

Nance grabbed 11 rebounds.

The Bucks shot 50% overall.

Yet they lost by 18.

The reason is that basketball games are determined by the combination of individual and team efficiency.

Milwaukee’s primary weaknesses were:

1. Poorer three-point shooting.
2. More turnovers.
3. Fewer assists overall.
4. Fewer points in the paint.
5. Much weaker second-half offense.
6. Only two blocks.
7. A major third-quarter scoring collapse.

The biggest issue was not one player.

It was the team’s inability to maintain offensive execution after halftime.

Why Atlanta Won

Atlanta’s victory can be reduced to several connected advantages.

1. Superior Three-Point Shooting

The Hawks made seven more threes and shot 44% from deep.

2. Better Ball Security

Atlanta committed four fewer turnovers.

3. More Playmaking

The Hawks recorded 33 assists compared with 27 for Milwaukee.

4. Stronger Defensive Disruption

Atlanta had seven blocks and nine steals.

5. Better Interior Production

The Hawks scored 54 points in the paint.

6. Dominant Second Half

Atlanta outscored Milwaukee 65-42 after halftime.

These factors worked together.

Season Series Context

The result made the season series 1-1 at that point.

Milwaukee had won the previous meeting 112-110 on January 19, 2026.

That makes the March 5 result especially interesting because Atlanta did not merely respond to the earlier close defeat. The Hawks produced an 18-point victory in the next listed meeting.

The supplied schedule information also lists another meeting on March 15, 2026, which Milwaukee won 122-99.

That later result provides useful context for anyone studying the full season series rather than treating one game as representative of every matchup.

Atlanta Hawks vs Milwaukee Bucks Match Player Stats: Most Important Performers

Player	Team	Points	Rebounds	Assists	Key Impact
Nickeil Alexander-Walker	Hawks	23	1	2	Efficient scoring and 5 threes
Onyeka Okongwu	Hawks	21	8	1	Two-way impact, 3 steals, 2 blocks
Jalen Johnson	Hawks	20	5	9	Primary playmaker
CJ McCollum	Hawks	18	2	8	Secondary creation
Dyson Daniels	Hawks	14	10	3	Double-double and defensive activity
Giannis Antetokounmpo	Bucks	24	5	4	Milwaukee’s leading scorer
Ryan Rollins	Bucks	13	8	12	Game-high assists
Ousmane Dieng	Bucks	14	4	0	Secondary scoring
Kyle Kuzma	Bucks	16	2	2	Efficient bench scoring
Pete Nance	Bucks	4	11	3	Team-high rebounds

These numbers show why the matchup was more complicated than a simple star-versus-star comparison.

Atlanta received balanced production from several starters, while Milwaukee had strong individual efforts but struggled to combine them into sustained team offense.

What the Plus/Minus Numbers Tell Us

Plus/minus should never be treated as a standalone measurement of player quality, but it can help provide context.

Atlanta’s starters finished with strong positive numbers:

• Okongwu: +19
• Johnson: +16
• McCollum: +14
• Alexander-Walker: +19
• Daniels: +21

That consistency is notable.

Every Atlanta starter was strongly positive.

Milwaukee’s starting lineup, by comparison, finished with negative plus/minus figures:

• Giannis: -24
• Dieng: -25
• Turner: -18
• AJ Green: -21
• Rollins: -22

The numbers reflect the dramatic second-half swing.

Rollins’ 12 assists and Giannis’ 24 points were individually valuable, but Milwaukee’s starting group still struggled to match Atlanta’s overall impact.

What This Game Teaches About Player Evaluation

A good player-stat analysis should look beyond points.

For Atlanta:

• Alexander-Walker provided efficient scoring.
• Okongwu supplied two-way production.
• Johnson controlled playmaking.
• McCollum created additional offense.
• Daniels contributed rebounding and defensive activity.

For Milwaukee:

• Giannis remained highly efficient.
• Rollins was an outstanding facilitator.
• Kuzma supplied efficient bench scoring.
• Nance dominated the boards.
• Dieng provided useful scoring.

The difference was how those individual performances interacted.

Atlanta’s players complemented each other more effectively after halftime.

Data Source and Verification

The statistics discussed in this article are based on the supplied game data and the official ESPN game record for Game ID 401810752. ESPN’s box score lists the complete starter and bench statistics, while its matchup page provides the team shooting, rebounding, turnover, assist, points-in-the-paint, and fast-break figures. (ESPN)

Readers who want to inspect the complete ESPN box score can review individual minutes, field-goal attempts, three-point shooting, free throws, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, fouls, and plus/minus.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who was Atlanta’s leading scorer against Milwaukee?

Nickeil Alexander-Walker led Atlanta with 23 points. He shot 9-for-14 from the field and made 5 of 9 three-point attempts.

Who led the Bucks in scoring?

Giannis Antetokounmpo led Milwaukee with 24 points. He shot 10-for-15 from the field and also recorded five rebounds and four assists.

Who had the most assists in the game?

Ryan Rollins led all players with 12 assists for Milwaukee. Jalen Johnson led Atlanta with nine assists.

Who had the most rebounds?

Pete Nance led all players with 11 rebounds for Milwaukee. Dyson Daniels was Atlanta’s leading rebounder with 10.

What was the final score?

Atlanta defeated Milwaukee 131-113 at Fiserv Forum on March 5, 2026.

Why did Atlanta win?

The biggest differences were Atlanta’s 44% three-point shooting, 33 assists, 11 turnovers, 54 points in the paint, and dominant 65-42 second half. Milwaukee shot 33% from three and committed 15 turnovers.

Conclusion

The atlanta hawks vs milwaukee bucks match player stats from this matchup show that Atlanta’s victory was built on more than one standout performance.

Nickeil Alexander-Walker led the Hawks with 23 points, while Onyeka Okongwu delivered an impressive two-way performance with 21 points, eight rebounds, three steals, and two blocks. Jalen Johnson controlled the offense with 20 points and nine assists, and CJ McCollum added 18 points and eight assists. Dyson Daniels completed the starting group’s balanced effort with 14 points and 10 rebounds.

Milwaukee had strong individual contributions as well. Giannis Antetokounmpo scored 24 points on efficient shooting, Ryan Rollins produced 12 assists, Kyle Kuzma added 16 points, and Pete Nance collected 11 rebounds.

The decisive difference came from the way Atlanta performed as a team after halftime. The Hawks turned a 71-66 deficit into a 131-113 victory by winning the second half 65-42. Their 44% three-point shooting, 33 assists, 11 turnovers, 54 points in the paint, and seven blocks provided a statistical foundation for the comeback.

The result is therefore best understood as a complete team performance rather than simply a victory produced by one star player.