Celtics vs Atlanta Hawks Match Player Stats

The celtics vs atlanta hawks match player stats from Boston’s 132-106 victory over Atlanta show how quickly a competitive NBA game can become a one-sided contest when shooting efficiency, shot creation, rebounding, and ball movement all tilt toward one team. Boston turned a 30-23 first-quarter advantage into an enormous 82-51 halftime lead, then controlled the game comfortably despite Atlanta winning the fourth quarter 32-15.

The game was played at State Farm Arena in Atlanta, with an announced attendance of 17,489. Boston improved to 26-15, including a 14-8 road record, while Atlanta fell to 20-24 and 7-12 at home. The official NBA record lists the game as January 17, 2026 in Atlanta, although the game information also reflects January 18 in the overnight schedule window.

For readers analyzing the box score rather than simply looking for the final score, the most important story was Boston’s second-quarter explosion. The Celtics scored 52 points in that period, shooting 19-for-25 while making 11 of 15 three-point attempts. Jaylen Brown finished with 41 points, Sam Hauser added 30, and Derrick White produced 12 assists.

Table of Contents

Celtics vs Atlanta Hawks Match Player Stats: Game Overview

Boston won 132-106, but the 26-point margin does not completely explain how dominant the Celtics were during the middle portion of the game.

The quarter-by-quarter scoring tells the story:

Quarter	Boston Celtics	Atlanta Hawks
1st	30	23
2nd	52	28
3rd	35	23
4th	15	32
Final	132	106

The game remained relatively manageable after the opening quarter. Boston led 30-23, a seven-point margin that still left plenty of room for Atlanta to respond.

Instead, Boston produced one of its most decisive stretches of the game in the second quarter.

A 52-point quarter is significant on its own. The way Boston achieved it was even more revealing. The Celtics shot 19-for-25 from the field in the period and connected on 11 of 15 attempts from three-point range. Hauser made all six of his three-point attempts during that quarter, while Brown continued attacking from multiple areas of the floor.

At halftime, Boston led 82-51.

That 31-point halftime advantage effectively determined the outcome.

Boston added another 35 points in the third quarter and entered the final period with a commanding lead. Atlanta did respond in the fourth, winning that quarter 32-15, but the deficit was already too large to overcome.

The official NBA game record confirms Boston’s 132-106 victory and the 26-15 Celtics and 20-24 Hawks records following the contest.

Jaylen Brown Leads Boston With 41 Points

Jaylen Brown was the clear individual scoring standout.

He finished with:

41 points
14-of-30 field goals
2-of-9 three-pointers
11-of-12 free throws
6 rebounds
2 assists
1 steal
1 block
1 turnover
+36 plus/minus
30 minutes

The most impressive part of Brown’s scoring night was not simply the 41-point total.

He was able to score despite not having an especially efficient three-point shooting night. Brown made just 2 of 9 attempts from beyond the arc, but compensated by attacking other areas of the floor and getting to the free-throw line 12 times.

He converted 11 of those attempts.

That distinction matters when evaluating individual performance. A player does not need to shoot exceptionally from every area to create an efficient scoring game. Brown generated scoring opportunities through drives, interior attempts, free throws, and perimeter shooting.

His 41 points were therefore more than a volume-scoring performance.

They reflected multiple methods of offensive creation.

The official NBA box score lists Brown at 14-for-30 from the field, 2-for-9 from three, and 11-for-12 at the line.

His +36 plus/minus also illustrates how strongly Boston performed during his minutes.

Brown’s First-Half Impact

Brown had already scored 29 points by halftime.

That number becomes even more impressive when viewed beside Boston’s 82 total points at the break. Brown accounted for more than one-third of the Celtics’ first-half scoring.

His performance also helped prevent Atlanta from settling into a defensive rhythm.

When a primary scorer can create points through different methods, the opposing defense has fewer opportunities to simply force one type of shot. That was particularly important in a game where Boston’s perimeter shooting became devastating in the second quarter.

Sam Hauser’s 30-Point Shooting Explosion

Sam Hauser delivered one of the most efficient scoring performances in the game.

His final line was:

30 points
10-of-21 field goals
10-of-21 three-pointers
6 rebounds
3 assists
1 steal
1 block
2 turnovers
+30
30 minutes

Hauser attempted 21 shots, and every one came from three-point range.

That makes his 10 made three-pointers especially important.

The official NBA recap notes that Hauser tied his career high with 10 three-pointers and scored 30 points.

His performance changed the geometry of the game.

When a shooter is making shots at that volume, defenders cannot comfortably leave him to help against Brown or other Celtics creators. That creates wider driving lanes and cleaner passing opportunities elsewhere.

Hauser’s six-for-six three-point shooting during the second quarter was particularly damaging.

It was not simply that Boston was making threes. Boston was making threes at a rate that forced Atlanta’s defense into increasingly difficult decisions.

Derrick White Controls the Game With 12 Assists

Derrick White scored only 7 points, but his contribution should not be judged through scoring alone.

His numbers included:

7 points
3-of-4 field goals
1-of-2 three-pointers
5 rebounds
12 assists
3 steals
1 block
1 turnover
+36
25 minutes

The 12 assists were the standout figure.

White was one of the primary reasons Boston’s offense remained connected. His value came from creating opportunities for teammates rather than trying to dominate possessions himself.

This is an important lesson when interpreting celtics vs atlanta hawks match player stats. A box score can make a seven-point performance appear ordinary if the reader focuses only on points.

White’s game was anything but ordinary.

He created 12 assists while committing only one turnover. That is an excellent assist-to-turnover profile for a primary ball-handler.

He also added three steals and a block, meaning his impact extended into defensive possessions.

The result was a +36 plus/minus, matching Brown for the strongest figure among the Celtics’ principal contributors.

Neemias Queta Provides Interior Efficiency

Neemias Queta quietly delivered one of Boston’s most efficient all-around performances.

His line:

14 points
5-of-7 field goals
4-of-5 free throws
7 rebounds
1 offensive rebound
1 assist
1 steal
1 block
1 turnover
+39
24 minutes

Queta did not need a large number of attempts to produce 14 points.

He converted five of seven field goals and four of five free throws.

His seven rebounds also helped Boston control the glass.

Most notably, Queta finished with a +39 plus/minus, the highest figure among the Celtics players listed in the supplied game data.

That number should not be interpreted as a standalone measure of individual quality, because plus/minus is heavily influenced by team context. Still, in this game it fits the broader picture: Boston consistently won the minutes in which its main rotation players were on the floor.

Baylor Scheierman Adds Rebounding and Perimeter Shooting

Baylor Scheierman produced a versatile line:

9 points
3-of-7 field goals
3-of-6 three-pointers
7 rebounds
4 assists
3 steals
3 turnovers
+2
32 minutes

His nine points do not fully describe his contribution.

Scheierman grabbed seven rebounds, distributed four assists, and collected three steals. He also made three of six attempts from long range.

That combination gave Boston another player capable of contributing without requiring a high usage rate.

His +2 was notably lower than the other major Boston starters, but that does not mean he played poorly. Plus/minus is most useful when considered alongside minutes, lineup combinations, and game context.

In a blowout with substantial rotation changes, it can become especially noisy.

Atlanta’s Onyeka Okongwu Leads the Hawks in Scoring

Onyeka Okongwu was Atlanta’s leading scorer with 21 points.

His final numbers:

21 points
8-of-14 field goals
3-of-6 three-pointers
2-of-2 free throws
7 rebounds
3 offensive rebounds
3 assists
1 steal
3 turnovers
-25
33 minutes

Okongwu was one of Atlanta’s most efficient offensive players.

He shot 57.1% from the field and 50% from three-point range according to the official box score.

That is important because Atlanta’s overall shooting performance was much weaker.

The Hawks finished 38-for-102 from the field, or 37%, and made 15 of 46 three-point attempts, or 33%. Boston, by comparison, shot 46-for-91 overall and 22-for-52 from three.

Okongwu therefore represented one of the few areas where Atlanta maintained strong individual efficiency.

The problem was that his production could not offset Boston’s broader offensive advantage.

Jalen Johnson’s All-Around Contribution

Jalen Johnson finished with:

12 points
4-of-14 field goals
2-of-6 three-pointers
2-of-4 free throws
8 rebounds
5 assists
1 steal
4 turnovers
-30
35 minutes

His eight rebounds and five assists show that he contributed in several areas.

The problem was shooting efficiency.

Johnson made only four of 14 field-goal attempts. That limited the scoring pressure Atlanta needed from one of its key offensive players.

His four turnovers also created additional possessions for Boston.

A player can produce rebounds and assists and still have a difficult overall game if inefficient shooting and turnovers occur at the same time.

That was the case here.

CJ McCollum Struggles From Three

CJ McCollum recorded:

11 points
4-of-14 field goals
0-of-5 three-pointers
3-of-3 free throws
7 rebounds
4 assists
2 offensive rebounds
5 defensive rebounds
2 blocks
3 turnovers
-26
27 minutes

His five missed three-point attempts were particularly costly because Atlanta needed perimeter scoring to keep pace with Boston.

McCollum still contributed seven rebounds, four assists, and two blocks, but his 4-of-14 shooting limited his offensive impact.

Against a Boston team that was making 22 three-pointers, Atlanta needed its perimeter creators to generate efficient offense.

That did not happen consistently enough.

Nickeil Alexander-Walker Provides Atlanta’s Best Perimeter Threat

Nickeil Alexander-Walker finished with:

18 points
6-of-16 field goals
4-of-9 three-pointers
2-of-2 free throws
2 rebounds
6 assists
1 steal
1 block
-35
29 minutes

His four made three-pointers were valuable for Atlanta.

He also led the Hawks with six assists.

That made him one of Atlanta’s more productive offensive connectors, even though the team struggled badly overall.

His -35 plus/minus was the lowest among the primary Atlanta players listed in the supplied statistics.

Again, that number should be viewed in context rather than treated as a complete evaluation of his individual performance.

Vit Krejci’s Difficult Shooting Night

Vit Krejci recorded:

3 points
1-of-6 field goals
1-of-4 three-pointers
1 rebound
1 steal
4 personal fouls
-25
19 minutes

Krejci’s shooting efficiency was a problem.

He converted only one of six attempts from the field and one of four from three.

Against a Boston team producing efficient perimeter offense, Atlanta needed better shot-making from its supporting players.

Team Shooting Explains Much of the Final Score

The clearest statistical difference between the teams was shooting.

Boston:

46-of-91 from the field
51% field-goal shooting
22-of-52 from three
42% three-point shooting
18-of-22 free throws
82% free-throw shooting

Atlanta:

38-of-102 from the field
37% field-goal shooting
15-of-46 from three
33% three-point shooting
15-of-17 free throws
88% free-throw shooting

The free-throw numbers are interesting because Atlanta actually shot slightly better from the line.

That did not matter.

The difference was field-goal volume and efficiency, especially from three.

Boston made 22 three-pointers.

Atlanta made 15.

That seven-three gap alone represents 21 points.

Boston also shot 51% overall compared with Atlanta’s 37%.

When a team combines a higher field-goal percentage with more made three-pointers, the scoreboard can move very quickly.

That is precisely what happened in the second quarter.

Boston Won the Rebounding Battle

Boston finished with 55 rebounds compared with Atlanta’s 47.

That eight-rebound advantage gave the Celtics additional control over possessions.

Queta and Scheierman each collected seven rebounds, while Brown added six and Hauser added six.

Atlanta’s Jalen Johnson led the Hawks with eight rebounds, while Okongwu and McCollum each had seven.

Rebounding is particularly important when evaluating a shooting-heavy game.

Missed shots are only half the story. The next question is who controls the resulting possession.

Boston’s 55 rebounds helped ensure that its offensive efficiency translated into sustained possession control.

Ball Movement Was Another Major Difference

Boston finished with 27 assists.

Atlanta had 29.

At first glance, that might suggest Atlanta moved the ball slightly better.

But the assist total must be interpreted alongside shooting efficiency and turnovers.

Boston produced 27 assists while making 46 field goals.

Atlanta produced 29 assists while making 38 field goals.

Atlanta therefore generated assists without converting enough of its resulting shots.

White’s 12 assists were particularly important for Boston.

Atlanta spread its assists more broadly, with Alexander-Walker producing six and Johnson and McCollum each recording five and four respectively.

The numbers demonstrate why assist totals alone do not determine offensive quality.

Creating a shot and making the shot are separate parts of the offensive process.

Turnovers Favored Atlanta, But It Wasn’t Enough

Atlanta committed 11 turnovers.

Boston committed 16.

On the surface, that is an advantage for the Hawks.

Yet Atlanta still lost by 26 points.

This is one of the most useful lessons from this box score.

A team can win a specific statistical category and still lose comfortably if it loses more important efficiency battles.

Atlanta’s five-turnover advantage could not compensate for Boston’s:

14-point field-goal percentage advantage
seven additional made three-pointers
eight-rebound advantage
dominant second quarter
superior scoring efficiency

The official game data also shows Boston’s largest lead reached 43 points.

Boston’s 52-Point Second Quarter Changed Everything

The second quarter deserves separate attention because it was the decisive phase of the game.

Boston entered the period ahead by seven.

It left the period ahead by 31.

That means Boston gained 24 points on Atlanta during a single 12-minute period.

Boston scored 52.

Atlanta scored 28.

The Celtics’ 19-for-25 shooting in the quarter produced an extraordinary 76% field-goal percentage.

Their 11-for-15 three-point shooting was even more damaging.

Hauser was perfect from long distance in the period.

Brown was also scoring at a high level.

The Celtics reached 82 points before halftime.

That offensive avalanche removed much of the strategic uncertainty that normally defines an NBA game.

Atlanta had to spend the second half trying to erase an enormous deficit rather than executing a normal game plan.

Why Atlanta’s Fourth Quarter Did Not Change the Result

Atlanta won the fourth quarter 32-15.

That sounds significant, but the context matters.

Boston had already built a 43-point maximum lead and entered the final period comfortably ahead.

Once the outcome became effectively settled, rotations and game tempo naturally changed.

The fourth-quarter result therefore should not be interpreted as evidence that Atlanta had solved Boston’s offense.

Instead, it shows that the Hawks continued competing and were able to produce better offensive output after the game had already been decided.

For game analysis, quarter results should always be interpreted relative to the score and game state.

Plus/Minus Leaders and What They Tell Us

Boston’s strongest plus/minus figures included:

Player	Plus/Minus
Neemias Queta	+39
Jaylen Brown	+36
Derrick White	+36
Sam Hauser	+30
Baylor Scheierman	+2

Atlanta’s principal figures included:

Player	Plus/Minus
Onyeka Okongwu	-25
Jalen Johnson	-30
CJ McCollum	-26
Nickeil Alexander-Walker	-35
Vit Krejci	-25

The contrast is striking.

But plus/minus should not be treated as a standalone player rating.

It measures the score differential while a player is on the floor. Lineups, teammates, opponent lineups, game situation, and rotation patterns all influence it.

In this particular game, however, the plus/minus data broadly supports what the rest of the box score already shows: Boston’s primary rotation groups dominated the central portion of the game.

What the Matchup Reveals About Boston

The game offered several useful insights into Boston’s offensive profile.

1. Boston Had Multiple Scoring Sources

Brown scored 41.

Hauser scored 30.

Queta scored 14.

Other contributors supplied additional offense.

That distribution matters because opposing defenses cannot simply focus on one scorer.

2. Boston Could Win Without Derrick White Scoring Big

White scored only seven points.

Yet he produced 12 assists and three steals.

That is evidence of offensive balance.

3. Boston’s Three-Point Volume Was Decisive

The Celtics attempted 52 three-pointers and made 22.

That is a huge amount of perimeter production.

4. Boston Controlled the Glass

The 55-47 rebounding advantage gave the Celtics additional possession control.

5. Boston’s Best Stretch Was Overwhelming

The second quarter effectively transformed the contest.

What the Matchup Reveals About Atlanta

Atlanta’s box score also provides useful lessons.

Okongwu Was Efficient

His 8-of-14 shooting and 3-of-6 three-point shooting were among Atlanta’s best individual offensive figures.

Alexander-Walker Provided Perimeter Scoring

His four made threes gave Atlanta an important outside threat.

Johnson Contributed Across Categories

His 12 points, eight rebounds, and five assists show that his influence extended beyond scoring.

The Main Problem Was Efficiency

Atlanta shot only 37% from the field.

That is the biggest issue visible in the game data.

Celtics vs Atlanta Hawks Match Player Stats Comparison

A direct comparison makes the differences easier to understand.

Category	Celtics	Hawks
Points	132	106
FG	46-91	38-102
FG%	51%	37%
3PT	22-52	15-46
3PT%	42%	33%
FT	18-22	15-17
FT%	82%	88%
Rebounds	55	47
Assists	27	29
Turnovers	16	11
Steals	9	10
Blocks	8	4

This table shows why the final score was so lopsided.

Atlanta had advantages in assists, turnovers, and steals.

Boston still won comfortably because its shooting and rebounding advantages were much larger.

The Most Important Player Matchups

Jaylen Brown vs Atlanta’s Wing Defense

Brown’s 41 points indicate Atlanta could not consistently prevent him from creating efficient scoring opportunities.

His three-point percentage was not the main source of his production.

Instead, he mixed perimeter attempts with drives and free throws.

Derrick White vs Atlanta’s Ball Pressure

White’s 12 assists and only one turnover show excellent decision-making.

His ability to create without excessive mistakes helped Boston maintain offensive rhythm.

Sam Hauser vs Atlanta’s Perimeter Coverage

Hauser’s 10 made threes made defensive mistakes extremely expensive.

His shooting was especially damaging during the second quarter.

Onyeka Okongwu vs Boston’s Interior Defense

Okongwu was one of Atlanta’s strongest offensive performers.

His efficiency suggests Boston did not completely shut down Atlanta’s frontcourt.

The broader issue was that Atlanta did not receive enough efficient scoring from the rest of the lineup.

How to Read This Box Score Like an Analyst

For readers who regularly search for player statistics, the best approach is not to start with points.

A stronger process is:

Check the final score and quarter-by-quarter progression.
Compare field-goal percentage.
Compare three-point volume and accuracy.
Look at rebounds.
Examine assists alongside turnovers.
Identify the highest-impact individual performances.
Use plus/minus as context rather than a final verdict.
Consider how the game state affected late rotations.

That method prevents a common mistake: assuming the highest scorer was automatically the only important player.

In this game, Brown was the obvious scoring star, but White’s playmaking, Hauser’s shooting, and Queta’s interior efficiency were also central to Boston’s dominance.

Statistical Takeaways for Fantasy Basketball Analysis

For fantasy basketball readers, this game offers several useful lessons.

Brown’s 41-point performance naturally stands out.

His six rebounds, two assists, one steal, and one block added category value.

White’s 12 assists and three steals were particularly valuable in formats that reward playmaking and defensive statistics.

Hauser’s 30 points and 10 three-pointers represent a massive shooting contribution.

Queta’s 14 points and seven rebounds provide a different type of value through interior production.

For Atlanta, Okongwu’s 21 points, seven rebounds, and three assists made him one of the stronger fantasy performers on the roster despite the team’s loss.

Alexander-Walker’s 18 points and six assists also provided useful production.

The broader lesson is that fantasy value and real-world team success are not identical.

A player can produce solid fantasy numbers while his team loses badly.

Statistical Takeaways for Basketball Betting Analysis

This game also demonstrates why a single headline statistic can be misleading.

Suppose someone focused only on turnovers.

Atlanta committed 11.

Boston committed 16.

That category favored Atlanta.

But Boston still won by 26.

A more comprehensive approach would examine shooting efficiency, three-point performance, rebounding, and scoring runs.

The Celtics’ 51% field-goal shooting compared with Atlanta’s 37% was far more consequential.

The 22 made Boston three-pointers compared with Atlanta’s 15 also created a major scoring gap.

The second-quarter scoring differential then magnified those advantages.

For responsible statistical analysis, no single box-score category should be treated as a guaranteed predictor of an outcome.

Official Source for the Game Data

The official NBA box score is the strongest reference point for checking individual minutes, shooting numbers, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, points, and plus/minus from this matchup. NBA official box score for Celtics vs Hawks

The official record confirms the 132-106 Boston victory and provides the detailed player-by-player statistical breakdown.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who scored the most points in Celtics vs Hawks?

Jaylen Brown led all scorers with 41 points for Boston. He shot 14-of-30 from the field and made 11 of 12 free throws.

Who led the Celtics in assists?

Derrick White led Boston with 12 assists. He also recorded three steals, five rebounds, one block, and only one turnover.

Who led the Hawks in scoring?

Onyeka Okongwu led Atlanta with 21 points. He shot 8-of-14 from the field and made three of six three-point attempts.

What was the final score between Boston and Atlanta?

Boston defeated Atlanta 132-106 at State Farm Arena.

Which team shot better?

Boston shot 51% from the field and 42% from three-point range. Atlanta shot 37% overall and 33% from three.

Why did Boston win by 26 points?

Boston’s second-quarter offense was the main turning point. The Celtics scored 52 points in the period, shooting 19-of-25 from the field and 11-of-15 from three-point range. Their overall shooting, rebounding, and sustained offensive efficiency created a lead Atlanta could not overcome.

Conclusion

The celtics vs atlanta hawks match player stats tell a much richer story than the 132-106 final score alone.

Jaylen Brown was the headline performer with 41 points, but Boston’s victory came from a complete offensive performance. Sam Hauser added 30 points and made 10 three-pointers, Derrick White delivered 12 assists with excellent ball security, and Neemias Queta supplied efficient scoring and seven rebounds.

Boston finished with a 51% field-goal percentage, made 22 three-pointers, and controlled the rebounding battle 55-47.

Atlanta had several individual positives. Onyeka Okongwu scored 21 points efficiently, Nickeil Alexander-Walker added 18 points and six assists, and Jalen Johnson contributed eight rebounds and five assists.

The decisive difference was efficiency.

Atlanta actually won the turnover battle and recorded more assists, but those advantages could not overcome the Celtics’ superior shooting. Boston’s 52-point second quarter transformed a seven-point first-quarter lead into a 31-point halftime advantage.

For anyone studying this matchup, that is the central lesson. Player statistics become much more useful when they are connected to the game context. Points explain who scored, assists show who created, rebounds reveal possession control, shooting percentages measure efficiency, and plus/minus helps show how the scoreboard moved during a player’s minutes.

Taken together, those numbers explain why Boston controlled the matchup so thoroughly and why Brown’s 41-point performance became the defining individual story of the game.