Charlotte Hornets vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats
The charlotte hornets vs san antonio spurs match player stats from January 31, 2026, tell the story of a close game that was decided by Charlotte’s rebounding advantage, second-quarter surge, interior defense, and timely scoring from multiple contributors. The Hornets defeated the Spurs 111-106 at Spectrum Center in Charlotte, overcoming a strong San Antonio start and holding on after the Spurs made a late push. Brandon Miller led Charlotte with 26 points, while Collin Sexton delivered one of the most efficient scoring performances of the night with 21 points on 7-of-8 shooting and a perfect 5-of-5 from three-point range.
For San Antonio, Dylan Harper led the team with 20 points on 9-of-13 shooting, while Victor Wembanyama finished with 16 points and eight rebounds. Stephon Castle added 16 points, five rebounds, and nine assists, giving the Spurs an important playmaking presence. The final score was close, but the statistical profile shows why Charlotte was able to control enough of the game to secure the five-point victory.
The matchup was played at Spectrum Center before an attendance of 19,533. Charlotte finished with 51 rebounds, 30 assists, and 14 blocks, compared with 36 rebounds, 26 assists, and six blocks for San Antonio. Those differences provide an important starting point for understanding the result.
Charlotte Hornets vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The game finished with Charlotte ahead 111-106, but the score alone does not fully explain how the contest developed.
San Antonio opened the game strongly, scoring 30 points in the first quarter while holding Charlotte to 26. The Spurs appeared to have the early offensive advantage, particularly with their ability to move the ball and convert from the field.
Charlotte changed the momentum in the second quarter.
The Hornets scored 35 points while limiting San Antonio to only 17. That 18-point swing completely changed the shape of the game. Charlotte entered halftime with a significant advantage and had created enough separation to withstand San Antonio’s attempts to recover later.
The quarter-by-quarter scoring was:
| Quarter | Spurs | Hornets |
| First | 30 | 26 |
| Second | 17 | 35 |
| Third | 28 | 24 |
| Fourth | 31 | 26 |
| Final | 106 | 111 |
San Antonio actually outscored Charlotte 59-50 over the second half, which demonstrates why the final margin remained only five points. However, the Hornets’ second-quarter performance proved too important to overcome.
The game featured nine lead changes and five ties, showing that the contest was competitive even though Charlotte built a substantial advantage during the middle portion of the game.
Team Statistical Comparison
The broader team numbers reveal several important differences.
| Category | San Antonio Spurs | Charlotte Hornets |
| Final Score | 106 | 111 |
| Field Goals | 38-80 | 39-88 |
| Field Goal % | 47.5% | 44.3% |
| Three-Pointers | 13-34 | 13-35 |
| Three-Point % | 38.2% | 37.1% |
| Free Throws | 17-19 | 20-22 |
| Free Throw % | 89.5% | 90.9% |
| Rebounds | 36 | 51 |
| Assists | 26 | 30 |
| Turnovers | 10 | 11 |
| Steals | 7 | 5 |
| Blocks | 6 | 14 |
One of the most interesting aspects of the box score is that San Antonio shot better from the field. The Spurs made 47.5% of their field-goal attempts compared with Charlotte’s 44.3%.
That means the Hornets did not win because they were more accurate overall.
Instead, Charlotte created advantages in other areas.
The 51-36 rebounding difference is particularly significant. Charlotte collected 15 more rebounds than San Antonio, giving the Hornets a major advantage in possession control. Charlotte also recorded 14 blocks, more than twice San Antonio’s six.
The Hornets also had four more assists, suggesting that their offense generated more connected team play despite the lower field-goal percentage.
Brandon Miller’s 26-Point Performance
Brandon Miller was Charlotte’s leading scorer with 26 points.
He shot 7-of-21 from the field and 3-of-9 from three-point range. His most efficient area was the free-throw line, where he converted all nine attempts.
His complete statistical line was:
| Statistic | Brandon Miller |
| Points | 26 |
| Rebounds | 8 |
| Assists | 2 |
| Steals | 1 |
| Blocks | 1 |
| Turnovers | 2 |
| FG | 7-21 |
| 3PT | 3-9 |
| FT | 9-9 |
The shooting percentage does not immediately stand out, but his overall contribution was larger than the field-goal number suggests.
Miller’s nine free throws were especially important. Free throws can compensate for difficult shooting nights when a scorer continues to attack the defense and draw contact. His perfect 9-of-9 performance from the line gave Charlotte a reliable source of points.
He also contributed eight rebounds, which fit into the Hornets’ broader advantage on the glass.
Miller’s second quarter was particularly important to the game flow. Charlotte’s 35-point period created the separation that ultimately protected the team from San Antonio’s second-half comeback.
Collin Sexton’s Efficient Scoring
Collin Sexton produced one of the most striking individual shooting performances in the game.
He scored 21 points while shooting 7-of-8 from the field. Even more impressive, he made all five of his three-point attempts and converted both free throws.
That created the following line:
| Statistic | Collin Sexton |
| Points | 21 |
| Rebounds | 0 |
| Assists | 3 |
| Steals | 1 |
| Turnovers | 1 |
| FG | 7-8 |
| 3PT | 5-5 |
| FT | 2-2 |
Sexton’s 87.5% field-goal percentage and 100% three-point percentage were major efficiency advantages for Charlotte.
His five made three-pointers were particularly valuable because they came without a large number of attempts. Instead of requiring high usage to produce his points, Sexton converted nearly every opportunity that came his way.
This is one of the clearest examples of why raw scoring totals should not be analyzed in isolation. Miller led Charlotte with 26 points, but Sexton’s 21 points came with dramatically fewer attempts.
Together, their performances gave Charlotte two different scoring profiles: Miller provided volume and free-throw pressure, while Sexton provided exceptional perimeter efficiency.
LaMelo Ball’s All-Around Contribution
LaMelo Ball finished with 16 points, eight rebounds, and eight assists.
His shooting line was 5-of-15 from the field, 2-of-6 from three, and 4-of-5 from the free-throw line.
Although Ball was not Charlotte’s most efficient scorer, his eight assists were important because they connected scoring opportunities across the lineup.
His eight rebounds also contributed to Charlotte’s major advantage on the glass.
| Statistic | LaMelo Ball |
| Points | 16 |
| Rebounds | 8 |
| Assists | 8 |
| Steals | 0 |
| Blocks | 0 |
| Turnovers | 3 |
| FG | 5-15 |
| 3PT | 2-6 |
| FT | 4-5 |
The eight assists are especially relevant when viewed alongside Charlotte’s 30 total assists.
Ball’s role was not simply to score. He helped create opportunities for Miller, Sexton, Miles Bridges, Moussa Diabate, and other Hornets players.
Moussa Diabate’s Two-Way Impact
Moussa Diabate recorded 12 points, 10 rebounds, six assists, and two blocks.
That is an unusual statistical combination for a frontcourt player.
His 10 rebounds helped Charlotte maintain its substantial advantage on the glass. His six assists also showed that his contribution was not limited to finishing plays.
Diabate shot 6-of-9 from the field and did not record a turnover.
His line was:
| Statistic | Moussa Diabate |
| Points | 12 |
| Rebounds | 10 |
| Assists | 6 |
| Steals | 0 |
| Blocks | 2 |
| Turnovers | 0 |
| FG | 6-9 |
The combination of 10 rebounds, six assists, and zero turnovers is particularly useful when evaluating his overall impact.
Charlotte needed physicality against San Antonio’s size, and Diabate supplied it without sacrificing ball security.
Miles Bridges and Kon Knueppel
Miles Bridges scored 14 points and added six rebounds, two assists, and two steals.
He shot 5-of-12 from the field and 1-of-6 from three, while going 3-of-3 at the free-throw line.
Kon Knueppel finished with 13 points, six rebounds, and four assists. He shot 5-of-11 from the field and 1-of-4 from three.
Neither player led the team in scoring, but both added enough across multiple categories to support Charlotte’s balanced performance.
The Hornets did not rely on one player to generate every aspect of the offense. Miller, Sexton, Ball, Diabate, Bridges, and Knueppel all contributed meaningful numbers.
That balance becomes even more important when considering that Charlotte shot only 44.3% from the field as a team.
Dylan Harper Leads San Antonio’s Scoring
Dylan Harper was San Antonio’s leading scorer with 20 points.
He finished 9-of-13 from the field and 2-of-3 from three-point range.
That translated to an impressive 69.2% field-goal percentage and 66.7% three-point percentage.
| Statistic | Dylan Harper |
| Points | 20 |
| Rebounds | 1 |
| Assists | 2 |
| Steals | 1 |
| Blocks | 1 |
| Turnovers | 2 |
| FG | 9-13 |
| 3PT | 2-3 |
Harper’s efficiency stands out immediately.
He needed only 13 field-goal attempts to score 20 points, and his nine made shots were the most on either team.
The challenge for San Antonio was that his efficient scoring was not enough to offset Charlotte’s production across several players.
The Spurs received 20 points from Harper, 16 from Wembanyama, 16 from Castle, 13 from Vassell, 13 from Champagnie, and 11 from Barnes. The scoring was distributed, but the team could not turn its better shooting percentage into a victory.
Victor Wembanyama’s Statistical Profile
Victor Wembanyama finished with 16 points and eight rebounds.
He shot 6-of-15 from the field and missed all three of his three-point attempts. He made all four of his free throws.
His statistical line was:
| Statistic | Victor Wembanyama |
| Points | 16 |
| Rebounds | 8 |
| Assists | 1 |
| Steals | 1 |
| Blocks | 0 |
| Turnovers | 2 |
| FG | 6-15 |
| 3PT | 0-3 |
| FT | 4-4 |
For a player capable of influencing games in multiple ways, the most notable part of this line is the absence of a blocked shot despite his defensive reputation.
Charlotte recorded 14 blocks as a team, which indicates that the Hornets were extremely active as a defensive unit.
Wembanyama still contributed eight rebounds and 16 points, but Charlotte’s collective defensive activity prevented San Antonio from turning its size into a decisive advantage.
Stephon Castle’s Nine Assists
Stephon Castle provided San Antonio with an important playmaking contribution.
He scored 16 points, collected five rebounds, and finished with nine assists.
He shot 5-of-11 from the field, 1-of-2 from three, and 5-of-6 from the free-throw line.
| Statistic | Stephon Castle |
| Points | 16 |
| Rebounds | 5 |
| Assists | 9 |
| Steals | 0 |
| Blocks | 1 |
| Turnovers | 3 |
| FG | 5-11 |
| 3PT | 1-2 |
| FT | 5-6 |
His nine assists nearly accounted for a third of San Antonio’s 26 total assists.
The combination of Castle’s playmaking and Harper’s scoring efficiency gave the Spurs a strong offensive foundation. However, Charlotte’s rebounding and defensive production created enough resistance to keep San Antonio from converting those advantages into a win.
Devin Vassell and Julian Champagnie
Devin Vassell scored 13 points on 5-of-10 shooting and added five rebounds, two assists, one steal, and one block.
He shot 2-of-7 from three and 1-of-2 from the free-throw line.
Julian Champagnie also scored 13 points, but his perimeter efficiency was stronger. He made 4-of-7 field goals and 4-of-6 three-point attempts.
Champagnie’s four made threes were especially valuable for San Antonio.
| Player | PTS | REB | AST | FG | 3PT |
| Devin Vassell | 13 | 5 | 2 | 5-10 | 2-7 |
| Julian Champagnie | 13 | 5 | 1 | 4-7 | 4-6 |
The Spurs therefore received useful shooting from their supporting players, but Charlotte’s rebounding advantage remained a major counterweight.
Harrison Barnes and Keldon Johnson
Harrison Barnes scored 11 points while shooting 3-of-6 from the field and 3-of-5 from three.
His 60% three-point shooting helped San Antonio maintain perimeter pressure.
Keldon Johnson added six points on 1-of-5 shooting, although he converted all four of his free throws.
Barnes provided efficient outside scoring, while Johnson contributed at the free-throw line. Neither player, however, matched the scoring efficiency of Harper or the three-point accuracy of Champagnie.
Charlotte’s Rebounding Advantage
The 51-36 rebounding difference is arguably one of the most important team statistics in the game.
Charlotte collected 15 more rebounds than San Antonio.
That advantage matters because rebounds can create additional possessions, prevent second chances, and help a team control the physical rhythm of a game.
Charlotte’s rebounding was also spread across several players.
Moussa Diabate recorded 10, while Brandon Miller and LaMelo Ball each collected eight. Miles Bridges had six, and Kon Knueppel added six.
San Antonio had only one player with more than five rebounds, with Wembanyama recording eight.
This distribution shows that Charlotte’s rebounding success was a team-wide effort rather than the result of one dominant interior player.
The 14-Block Defensive Difference
Charlotte recorded 14 blocks compared with six for San Antonio.
That eight-block difference is enormous in a single NBA game.
Ryan Kalkbrenner recorded two blocks, Diabate had two, and several other Hornets contributed one each. Brandon Miller and Kon Knueppel were among those adding defensive activity.
The Hornets’ block total reflects a broader defensive approach in which multiple players were active around the rim.
Blocks alone do not measure overall defense, but in this particular game they provide a useful indicator of how aggressively Charlotte challenged San Antonio’s shots.
Shooting Efficiency Versus Possession Control
The game presents an interesting statistical contrast.
San Antonio was the more accurate shooting team:
- Spurs field-goal percentage: 47.5%
- Hornets field-goal percentage: 44.3%
- Spurs three-point percentage: 38.2%
- Hornets three-point percentage: 37.1%
Yet Charlotte won.
Why?
The answer is that shooting accuracy was only one part of the possession battle.
Charlotte had:
- 51 rebounds to San Antonio’s 36
- 30 assists to San Antonio’s 26
- 20 made free throws to San Antonio’s 17
- 14 blocks to San Antonio’s 6
The Hornets also kept turnovers relatively close, committing 11 compared with San Antonio’s 10.
This is a useful reminder for anyone analyzing charlotte hornets vs san antonio spurs match player stats: the team with the higher shooting percentage does not automatically win.
A box score must be read as a collection of connected statistics.
Why the Second Quarter Mattered So Much
The second quarter was the turning point.
Charlotte scored 35 points while San Antonio managed only 17.
That produced an 18-point advantage for the Hornets during one quarter.
The importance of that stretch becomes clear when looking at the rest of the game. San Antonio scored 30 in the first quarter, 28 in the third, and 31 in the fourth.
The Spurs were capable of scoring throughout the contest.
Their problem was that the second quarter created a deficit that required sustained recovery over the remaining 24 minutes.
Charlotte did not need to dominate the entire game. It needed to create enough separation and then protect it.
That is exactly what the scoring pattern shows.
How San Antonio Nearly Changed the Result
Despite falling behind, San Antonio did not simply fade away.
The Spurs scored 31 points in the fourth quarter, their highest total of the second half.
That late offensive push reduced Charlotte’s margin and turned the closing minutes into a competitive finish.
This is important when interpreting the final five-point margin. The game was not decided by Charlotte maintaining a comfortable lead from start to finish.
Instead, the Hornets built a meaningful advantage and then survived San Antonio’s late response.
That makes the final 111-106 score more informative when paired with the quarter-by-quarter data.
Free-Throw Shooting
Both teams were highly efficient from the free-throw line.
Charlotte went 20-of-22 for 90.9%.
San Antonio went 17-of-19 for 89.5%.
Neither team left many points at the line.
The difference was only three made free throws, but those points still mattered in a game decided by five.
Brandon Miller was perfect at 9-of-9, while Collin Sexton went 2-of-2. LaMelo Ball made 4-of-5.
For San Antonio, Wembanyama went 4-of-4, Keldon Johnson went 4-of-4, and Stephon Castle made 5-of-6.
The free-throw numbers show that poor foul shooting was not responsible for the Spurs’ loss.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Charlotte committed 11 turnovers, while San Antonio committed 10.
That is a narrow difference.
The Spurs therefore did not lose because they repeatedly gave away possessions while Charlotte protected the ball perfectly.
Both teams had some mistakes, but the turnover gap was only one.
This is another reason why the rebounding and defensive numbers deserve more attention.
Charlotte’s victory came despite a slightly higher turnover count.
The Hornets compensated by winning the rebounding battle and producing significantly more blocks.
Assists and Offensive Connectivity
Charlotte recorded 30 assists.
San Antonio recorded 26.
The difference of four assists is not enormous, but it supports the idea that Charlotte’s offense was more collectively connected.
LaMelo Ball led the Hornets with eight assists.
Moussa Diabate contributed six.
Kon Knueppel had four.
Collin Sexton added three.
This distribution allowed Charlotte to create offense through several players rather than relying on a single primary creator.
San Antonio’s nine assists from Castle were excellent, while De’Aaron Fox added seven.
Fox finished with 11 points, two rebounds, seven assists, two steals, and one turnover.
His seven assists helped keep San Antonio’s offense organized, but Charlotte’s overall assist total remained higher.
De’Aaron Fox’s Playmaking Contribution
Fox did not lead the Spurs in scoring, but his seven assists were an important part of San Antonio’s offensive structure.
He scored 11 points on 5-of-13 shooting and made one of his five three-point attempts.
His complete line included two rebounds, seven assists, two steals, and one turnover.
The low turnover number is particularly notable relative to his playmaking responsibilities.
Fox helped create opportunities without frequently giving the ball away, while Castle also provided nine assists.
San Antonio therefore had two players capable of creating offense for teammates.
The challenge was converting that playmaking into enough total production to overcome Charlotte’s defensive and rebounding advantages.
What the Player Stats Reveal About Both Teams
The most useful way to interpret the game is to look beyond the leading scorer.
Charlotte’s statistical profile was built on several complementary strengths:
- Brandon Miller supplied high-volume scoring and perfect free-throw shooting.
- Collin Sexton provided elite perimeter efficiency.
- LaMelo Ball created offense and rebounded from the guard position.
- Moussa Diabate controlled the glass and contributed as a passer.
- The team collectively produced 14 blocks.
- Charlotte generated 30 assists.
- The Hornets won the rebounding battle by 15.
San Antonio’s profile was different:
- Dylan Harper was highly efficient as a scorer.
- Stephon Castle provided nine assists.
- Victor Wembanyama contributed 16 points and eight rebounds.
- Julian Champagnie shot 4-of-6 from three.
- Devin Vassell shot 5-of-10 from the field.
- The Spurs shot 47.5% overall.
- San Antonio committed only 10 turnovers.
The contrast is useful because the game was not simply about one team playing well and the other playing poorly.
San Antonio had several strong statistical areas.
Charlotte simply combined more complementary advantages in the areas that directly influenced the final score.
Key Numbers to Remember
For readers looking for the most important figures from the game, these numbers summarize the matchup:
- Final score: Hornets 111, Spurs 106
- Charlotte rebounds: 51
- San Antonio rebounds: 36
- Charlotte assists: 30
- San Antonio assists: 26
- Charlotte blocks: 14
- San Antonio blocks: 6
- Brandon Miller: 26 points
- Collin Sexton: 21 points
- Dylan Harper: 20 points
- LaMelo Ball: 16 points, 8 rebounds, 8 assists
- Stephon Castle: 16 points, 5 rebounds, 9 assists
- Victor Wembanyama: 16 points, 8 rebounds
- Charlotte field-goal percentage: 44.3%
- San Antonio field-goal percentage: 47.5%
These numbers explain why a simple look at shooting percentage can produce an incomplete understanding of the contest.
How to Analyze These Stats Correctly
When researching a matchup like this, it is useful to separate individual production from team impact.
A player can score 20 points while taking a large number of shots. Another player can score 20 points on extremely efficient shooting.
Those performances are not statistically identical.
Similarly, a player with 10 rebounds may influence the game differently depending on whether those rebounds prevent second chances, create new possessions, or simply occur after missed shots that were already secured by teammates.
For this reason, the best analysis combines:
- Scoring
- Shooting efficiency
- Rebounding
- Assists
- Turnovers
- Free throws
- Three-point shooting
- Defensive statistics
- Quarter-by-quarter performance
- Overall team totals
That approach provides much more context than simply listing the top scorers.
Season Series Context
At the time of the January 31 matchup, Charlotte had taken a 1-0 lead in the season series by winning 111-106.
The supplied schedule data also records a later meeting on March 15, 2026, when San Antonio defeated Charlotte 115-102.
That means the January game should be treated as the first meeting of the season rather than as the final season-series result.
This distinction matters for readers researching historical statistics because a matchup record can change after subsequent meetings.
The January 31 game itself remains a Charlotte victory, regardless of what happened in the later meeting.
Why This Game Is Useful for Basketball Analysis
This matchup provides a strong example of why basketball statistics should be interpreted together.
Charlotte shot worse from the field than San Antonio but won the game.
The Hornets also committed one more turnover.
Yet Charlotte controlled the boards, produced more assists, blocked significantly more shots, and received highly efficient scoring from Sexton.
The Spurs, meanwhile, had strong shooting numbers and several efficient individual performances.
The final result therefore came from the interaction of multiple statistical categories rather than a single dominant number.
For readers studying charlotte hornets vs san antonio spurs match player stats, this is one of the clearest lessons from the box score: efficiency matters, but possession control, defensive disruption, rebounding, and distribution can change the outcome.
Final Statistical Takeaways
The Hornets’ 111-106 victory was supported by a 51-36 rebounding advantage, a 30-26 assist edge, and a 14-6 advantage in blocks.
Brandon Miller led all Charlotte scorers with 26 points, while Collin Sexton added 21 on remarkably efficient shooting. LaMelo Ball supplied 16 points, eight rebounds, and eight assists, and Moussa Diabate posted a valuable 12-point, 10-rebound, six-assist performance.
San Antonio received 20 points from Dylan Harper, who shot 9-of-13 from the field. Victor Wembanyama and Stephon Castle each scored 16, with Castle adding nine assists. Julian Champagnie also provided efficient three-point shooting with four makes from six attempts.
The most revealing team statistic may be the rebounding margin. Charlotte collected 15 more rebounds despite shooting 3.2 percentage points worse from the field.
That difference illustrates how a basketball game can be won through several smaller advantages working together.
The second quarter was the decisive stretch. Charlotte scored 35 points while San Antonio scored 17, creating the separation that ultimately survived the Spurs’ strong fourth-quarter response.
The game also demonstrates why player statistics should be read in context. Miller’s 26 points led the Hornets, but Sexton’s 21 points came on only eight field-goal attempts. Ball’s 16 points were paired with eight assists and eight rebounds. Diabate’s 12 points came with 10 rebounds and six assists. For San Antonio, Harper’s 20 points came with exceptional shooting efficiency, while Castle’s nine assists were central to the team’s offensive creation.
Taken together, the charlotte hornets vs san antonio spurs match player stats show a competitive game in which Charlotte overcame San Antonio’s superior shooting percentage through rebounding, defensive activity, balanced creation, and timely scoring.
The January 31, 2026 box score therefore offers more than a list of points and percentages. It provides a detailed picture of how different forms of production combine to decide an NBA game.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who scored the most points in the Hornets vs Spurs game?
Brandon Miller led Charlotte with 26 points. Dylan Harper led San Antonio with 20 points.
What was the final score between Charlotte and San Antonio?
The Charlotte Hornets defeated the San Antonio Spurs 111-106 on January 31, 2026, at Spectrum Center.
How many rebounds did Charlotte have against San Antonio?
Charlotte recorded 51 rebounds, compared with 36 rebounds for San Antonio.
How did Victor Wembanyama perform?
Wembanyama finished with 16 points, eight rebounds, one assist, one steal, two turnovers, and six made field goals on 15 attempts.
Did LaMelo Ball record a triple-double?
No. Ball finished with 16 points, eight rebounds, and eight assists, leaving him two rebounds and two assists short of a triple-double.
Who was the most efficient three-point shooter?
Collin Sexton had the most efficient three-point performance among the listed players, making all five of his attempts from beyond the arc.
Conclusion
The January 31, 2026 meeting between the Charlotte Hornets and San Antonio Spurs was decided by a combination of team rebounding, defensive disruption, efficient individual scoring, and a major second-quarter swing.
Charlotte finished with 51 rebounds and 14 blocks, while San Antonio shot better from the field at 47.5%. The difference was that the Hornets found other ways to control the game.
Brandon Miller’s 26 points led the scoring, Collin Sexton’s perfect five-for-five three-point shooting supplied exceptional efficiency, LaMelo Ball contributed across multiple categories, and Moussa Diabate added a versatile interior performance.
San Antonio had its own standout performances. Dylan Harper scored 20 points on 9-of-13 shooting, Stephon Castle recorded nine assists, and Victor Wembanyama contributed 16 points and eight rebounds.
The five-point final margin reflects how competitive the game became after Charlotte’s second-quarter advantage. San Antonio continued to fight and scored 31 points in the fourth quarter, but the Hornets had created enough separation earlier to protect the lead.
For anyone studying the charlotte hornets vs san antonio spurs match player stats, the central lesson is that the final result cannot be explained by shooting percentage alone. Charlotte’s rebounding, blocks, assists, free throws, and balanced contributions were all important parts of the winning formula.
The box score ultimately shows two teams with meaningful strengths, but Charlotte’s combination of possession control and defensive activity proved decisive on this particular night.
