Toronto raptors vs charlotte hornets match player stats

The toronto raptors vs charlotte hornets match player stats from November 18, 2025 tell a much more detailed story than the 110-108 final score alone. Toronto defeated Charlotte by two points at Scotiabank Arena, but the box score shows a game shaped by several contrasting factors: Toronto’s superior shooting efficiency, Charlotte’s strong rebounding, 19 three-point attempts converted into only 10 makes, and four Hornets players who reached at least 17 points. Brandon Ingram led all scorers with 27 points, while Kon Knueppel paced Charlotte with 24.

For anyone studying this matchup, the most useful approach is to look beyond the headline scoring totals. A close NBA game can turn on shooting efficiency, turnovers, free throw opportunities, second-chance possessions, and how several players contribute at once. This matchup is a good example. Charlotte actually collected more rebounds and forced eight more steals than Toronto, yet the Raptors finished with a meaningful advantage in field-goal percentage and three-point accuracy.

The result was Toronto’s ninth win of the season against five losses, while Charlotte dropped to 4-10 overall and 1-6 on the road. Toronto also took a 1-0 lead in the season series.

Table of Contents

toronto raptors vs charlotte hornets match player stats

The clearest starting point is the individual scoring production provided in the game data.

Team	Player	Points
Toronto Raptors	Brandon Ingram	27
Toronto Raptors	RJ Barrett	16
Toronto Raptors	Scottie Barnes	16
Toronto Raptors	Immanuel Quickley	15
Charlotte Hornets	Kon Knueppel	24
Charlotte Hornets	Miles Bridges	22
Charlotte Hornets	LaMelo Ball	20
Charlotte Hornets	Tre Mann	17

Brandon Ingram was the game’s leading scorer with 27 points. That was seven more than Toronto’s next-highest listed scorers, RJ Barrett and Scottie Barnes, who each finished with 16.

Charlotte’s scoring was more evenly spread among its leading contributors. Knueppel scored 24, Miles Bridges added 22, LaMelo Ball finished with 20, and Tre Mann contributed 17. Those four players combined for 83 points, giving the Hornets a broad scoring base despite the narrow defeat.

That difference in scoring distribution is one of the most interesting elements of the matchup. Toronto had one player clearly separate himself as the leading scorer, while Charlotte relied on several players to carry significant offensive responsibility.

The final score and how the game unfolded

Toronto won 110-108, with the quarter-by-quarter numbers showing a game that remained competitive throughout.

Quarter	Charlotte	Toronto
1st	24	28
2nd	28	29
3rd	31	28
4th	25	25
Total	108	110

Toronto built its largest advantage during the first half. The Raptors led 28-24 after the opening quarter and extended that margin slightly by halftime, leading 57-52.

Charlotte responded in the third quarter, outscoring Toronto 31-28. That reduced Toronto’s lead to three points entering the final period.

The fourth quarter ended 25-25, meaning Toronto protected its narrow advantage rather than creating separation late.

This is important when evaluating the game. The 110-108 result was not produced by a dominant final-quarter performance. Toronto’s winning margin came primarily from building a lead earlier and then surviving Charlotte’s third-quarter response.

Toronto’s shooting efficiency was the decisive statistical edge

The biggest team-level difference was shooting.

Toronto made 44 of 88 field-goal attempts, producing a 50% field-goal percentage. Charlotte made 37 of 87, or approximately 43%.

That means Toronto made seven more field goals despite attempting only one additional shot.

This is a meaningful advantage in a two-point game.

Toronto also shot 40% from three-point range, making 10 of 25 attempts. Charlotte made 10 three-pointers as well, but needed 40 attempts to do it. The Hornets therefore shot 25% from beyond the arc.

The contrast is striking:

Shooting category	Charlotte	Toronto
Field goals	37-87	44-88
Field-goal percentage	43%	50%
Three-pointers	10-40	10-25
Three-point percentage	25%	40%
Free throws	24-30	12-16
Free-throw percentage	80%	75%

Toronto’s 25 three-point attempts were 15 fewer than Charlotte’s. Yet both teams made exactly 10.

In practical terms, Toronto received much more value from its perimeter attempts.

Charlotte’s 10-for-40 three-point shooting meant the team generated a large number of attempts without converting them at a high rate. Toronto’s 10-for-25 performance was far more efficient.

This is one of the strongest explanations for why Charlotte could remain within two points despite shooting worse overall.

Brandon Ingram led Toronto’s scoring

Brandon Ingram’s 27 points made him the most productive scorer in the matchup.

His total represented nearly one quarter of Toronto’s 110 points. More importantly, he was the only listed Raptors player to break the 20-point mark.

Toronto’s other leading scorers were:

RJ Barrett: 16 points
Scottie Barnes: 16 points
Immanuel Quickley: 15 points

Those three players combined for 47 points.

Adding Ingram’s 27 gives the four leading Toronto scorers 74 points, leaving 36 points for the rest of the Raptors’ scoring group.

That distribution suggests Toronto’s offense was not dependent on one player alone. Ingram led the way, but three other major contributors supplied 15 or more points.

For readers comparing individual scoring performances, the key takeaway is that Ingram had the game’s highest individual total, while Toronto’s overall efficiency helped convert its scoring opportunities into a narrow victory.

Kon Knueppel was Charlotte’s leading scorer

Kon Knueppel finished with 24 points, making him Charlotte’s highest-scoring player.

His 24 points came in a balanced Hornets scoring effort that also included 22 from Miles Bridges, 20 from LaMelo Ball, and 17 from Tre Mann.

That group accounted for 83 of Charlotte’s 108 points.

The Hornets therefore had four players responsible for more than three quarters of their total scoring.

That is significant because it shows the loss was not caused by a complete offensive collapse. Charlotte generated enough scoring from its principal contributors to stay close.

The bigger issue was efficiency.

A team can produce several strong individual scoring performances and still lose when too many possessions end in low-efficiency shots. Charlotte’s 25% three-point shooting is the clearest example from this game.

LaMelo Ball’s 20 points were part of a balanced attack

LaMelo Ball scored 20 points, placing him third among Charlotte’s listed scorers.

The significance of his scoring total becomes clearer when viewed alongside Knueppel, Bridges, and Mann. Charlotte did not need one player to score 30 or more because four players reached 17 or more.

The problem was that the collective output was not supported by efficient perimeter shooting.

Charlotte’s offense produced 87 field-goal attempts and 40 three-point attempts, but only 37 total field goals and 10 three-pointers were converted.

That is a useful distinction for anyone analyzing player statistics. Raw scoring totals tell you who produced points. Shooting percentages help explain how effectively those points were generated.

RJ Barrett, Scottie Barnes and Immanuel Quickley provided balance

Toronto’s second tier of scorers was closely grouped.

RJ Barrett and Scottie Barnes each scored 16 points, while Immanuel Quickley added 15.

The narrow one-point difference between Quickley and the two 16-point scorers shows how evenly Toronto’s next three leading contributors performed in terms of scoring.

Combined with Ingram’s 27 points, they produced 74 points.

This balance matters in close games because opponents cannot focus solely on the leading scorer. If a defense limits the primary scorer but gives up efficient opportunities to three other offensive contributors, the overall defensive objective can still fail.

Toronto’s 50% shooting percentage reinforces that point. The Raptors did not simply score more because they attempted dramatically more shots. They converted a higher percentage of their opportunities.

Charlotte won the rebounding battle

One of the most revealing statistics is that Charlotte collected 48 rebounds compared with Toronto’s 43.

That gives the Hornets a five-rebound advantage.

Normally, winning the rebounding battle can create additional possessions and second-chance scoring opportunities. In this game, however, the advantage was not enough to overcome Toronto’s shooting efficiency.

This is an important lesson when interpreting box scores.

A team does not automatically win because it leads in one major statistical category. Charlotte’s rebounding edge was real, but Toronto compensated through more accurate shooting.

For analysts, this creates a useful framework:

Identify which team won possession-related categories.
Identify which team converted those possessions more efficiently.
Determine whether turnovers or free throws changed the balance.
Compare those advantages against the final scoring margin.

Here, Charlotte had the rebounding advantage, while Toronto had a substantial shooting advantage.

Assists show another Toronto advantage

Toronto recorded 25 assists, compared with 19 for Charlotte.

That is a six-assist advantage.

The Raptors also shot 50% from the field, which makes the assist total particularly interesting. Efficient shooting combined with more assists can indicate that Toronto generated a greater proportion of successful field goals through coordinated offensive possessions.

Charlotte’s 19 assists were not poor in isolation, but they trailed Toronto by a noticeable margin.

In a two-point game, six additional assists are worth examining because they can point to differences in ball movement and shot creation.

The box score does not tell us every detail of how each possession unfolded, so it would be inappropriate to claim that every assist directly caused a made basket or that Toronto’s passing alone determined the outcome. Still, the combination of 25 assists and 50% shooting is an important part of the Raptors’ statistical profile on this night.

Turnovers nearly offset Toronto’s advantages

Toronto committed 17 turnovers, while Charlotte committed 16.

This was one area where neither team gained a meaningful statistical edge.

Charlotte had one fewer turnover.

That is particularly interesting because Charlotte also recorded 11 steals compared with Toronto’s eight. The Hornets were active defensively and created disruption, yet Toronto still finished with the higher field-goal percentage.

The turnover numbers also show why the final score was so close. Toronto’s shooting advantage was partially offset by its 17 turnovers.

If the Raptors had protected the ball more effectively, the statistical profile could have produced a larger margin. Conversely, Charlotte’s ability to force turnovers helped compensate for its poor three-point shooting.

Free throws gave Charlotte another efficiency advantage

Charlotte went 24-for-30 at the free-throw line, shooting 80%.

Toronto went 12-for-16, shooting 75%.

Charlotte therefore attempted 14 more free throws and made 12 more.

This is an important counterweight to Toronto’s shooting advantage.

The Hornets were more productive at the line both in volume and percentage. Yet the additional free throws did not erase Toronto’s field-goal and three-point efficiency.

That tells us something about the game’s scoring structure. Charlotte generated valuable points from the foul line, while Toronto generated more efficient scoring through made field goals and three-pointers.

When a final margin is only two points, these contrasting strengths are essential to understanding how the result developed.

The defensive numbers were competitive

Charlotte recorded 11 steals and nine blocks.

Toronto had eight steals and seven blocks.

The Hornets therefore led both categories.

That is another reminder that the losing team was not statistically inferior in every area. Charlotte produced more steals, more blocks, and more rebounds.

Toronto’s advantage came from other areas, especially shooting efficiency and assists.

This type of mixed box score is often more informative than a one-sided statistical profile. It shows that Charlotte had several ways of creating pressure but struggled to turn those defensive contributions into enough efficient offense.

What the team statistics really say

Looking at the full statistical picture, the game can be summarized through a series of contrasts.

Toronto’s advantages

Toronto:

Shot 50% from the field.
Shot 40% from three-point range.
Made 44 field goals.
Recorded 25 assists.
Scored 110 points.
Had four listed leading scorers contributing at least 15 points.

Charlotte’s advantages

Charlotte:

Collected 48 rebounds.
Made 24 free throws.
Shot 80% from the free-throw line.
Recorded 11 steals.
Recorded nine blocks.
Had four players score at least 17 points.

The statistical trade-off

Toronto won because its strongest advantages were directly tied to efficient scoring.

Charlotte’s strengths were largely related to possessions, defensive activity, and free-throw production.

Neither profile was overwhelming.

That is why the final score was 110-108.

A closer look at the three-point difference

The three-point numbers deserve special attention because the volume difference was enormous.

Charlotte attempted 40 three-pointers.

Toronto attempted 25.

Both teams made 10.

This means Charlotte needed 15 additional attempts to produce the same number of made threes.

At 25% shooting, Charlotte’s 40 attempts generated 30 points from three-point range.

Toronto’s 25 attempts at 40% generated the same 30 points.

So despite Charlotte taking considerably more perimeter shots, the two teams received exactly the same number of points from made threes.

That is perhaps the cleanest single example of efficiency defining this matchup.

It also explains why simply saying that Charlotte “shot more threes” would be misleading. Volume and effectiveness are different measurements.

Why the 110-108 result was so close

Several statistical factors pulled the game in opposite directions.

Toronto’s 50% field-goal shooting helped it build the advantage.

Charlotte’s 48 rebounds created extra opportunities.

Toronto’s 40% three-point shooting was significantly better.

Charlotte made 24 free throws compared with Toronto’s 12.

Charlotte forced 11 steals.

Toronto recorded six more assists.

Toronto committed 17 turnovers.

Charlotte committed 16.

The teams finished with similar three-point makes.

When these categories are viewed together, the final two-point margin becomes logical.

Toronto did not dominate Charlotte across the box score. Instead, the Raptors won by being more efficient in the areas most directly connected to converting possessions into points.

What this matchup reveals about player evaluation

Individual player statistics should never be interpreted in isolation.

Brandon Ingram’s 27 points make him the obvious scoring leader, but the Raptors also needed Barrett, Barnes, and Quickley to contribute double-digit scoring.

Likewise, Knueppel’s 24 points were important, but Charlotte received substantial scoring from Bridges, Ball, and Mann.

The more useful question is not simply “Who scored the most?”

It is:

Which players helped their team convert possessions into a winning offensive profile?

That question requires looking at scoring alongside shooting, team efficiency, and the surrounding contributions of teammates.

For this game, the supplied data clearly supports Ingram as Toronto’s leading scorer and Knueppel as Charlotte’s leading scorer. It also supports the broader conclusion that Toronto’s team shooting efficiency was the key statistical separator.

Season context after the game

The matchup also mattered in the standings.

Charlotte entered the game at 4-10 overall and 1-6 away.

Toronto entered at 9-5 overall and 3-2 at home.

After the result, Toronto held the season-series advantage at 1-0.

The home setting was also relevant. The game was played at Scotiabank Arena in Toronto, with an attendance of 19,037.

These contextual details help explain why this was more than an isolated box-score event. Toronto was already carrying the stronger record, and the victory improved its position while extending its advantage in the season series.

Charlotte, meanwhile, continued to face a difficult road profile.

How to read NBA player statistics more intelligently

For readers who regularly search for matchup statistics, there is a better method than checking only points.

Start with the following sequence.

1. Check the leading scorers

This tells you which players carried the scoring load.

In this game, Ingram led all players with 27 points.

2. Compare the second and third scoring options

This shows whether the offense depended heavily on one player.

Toronto had Barrett and Barnes at 16, with Quickley at 15.

Charlotte had Bridges at 22, Ball at 20, and Mann at 17.

3. Check shooting percentage

This helps distinguish high-volume scoring from efficient scoring.

Toronto’s 50% field-goal rate was considerably better than Charlotte’s 43%.

4. Examine three-point efficiency

This can explain large differences in scoring even when three-point makes are similar.

Both teams made 10 threes, but Toronto needed 25 attempts while Charlotte needed 40.

5. Look at rebounds and turnovers

These numbers provide clues about possession control.

Charlotte led rebounds 48-43 and turnovers were nearly even, with Charlotte committing 16 compared with Toronto’s 17.

6. Check assists

Assists provide useful context about team offense.

Toronto led 25-19.

7. Finish with free throws and defensive events

Free throws, steals, and blocks can explain why the losing team stayed competitive.

Charlotte made 24 free throws and recorded 11 steals and nine blocks.

This process produces a more complete understanding than a simple list of points.

Common mistakes when analyzing this matchup

One common mistake is assuming the team with more rebounds should have won.

Charlotte led the rebounding battle but lost.

Another mistake is focusing on three-point attempts without considering percentage.

Charlotte attempted 40 threes, but Toronto attempted only 25 and both teams made 10.

A third mistake is treating the leading scorer as the only meaningful player.

Ingram’s 27 points were important, but Toronto also received 16 each from Barrett and Barnes and 15 from Quickley.

The same principle applies to Charlotte. Knueppel led the team with 24, but Bridges, Ball, and Mann combined to provide another 59 points.

The final lesson is that close games require a multi-category view.

What fans should take from the box score

The most useful takeaway is that Toronto won through efficiency rather than overwhelming statistical dominance.

The Raptors:

Shot seven percentage points better from the field.
Shot 15 percentage points better from three.
Recorded six more assists.
Scored two more points overall.

Charlotte:

Won rebounds by five.
Made 12 more free throws.
Had three more steals.
Had two more blocks.
Committed one fewer turnover.

That balance makes the 110-108 final score understandable.

Toronto had the cleaner shooting profile, while Charlotte found several other ways to remain competitive.

A practical framework for comparing future Raptors and Hornets games

If you are tracking future meetings between these teams, use the same framework rather than relying solely on the final score.

First, compare the leading scorers.

Second, examine how many players reached double figures.

Third, compare field-goal and three-point efficiency.

Fourth, check whether one team created a large rebounding advantage.

Fifth, examine turnovers and steals together.

Sixth, compare free-throw attempts because they can reveal how often a team reached the line.

Finally, consider the game flow. A team that wins the first half but loses the third quarter may have a very different performance profile from a team that controls every period.

The November 18 matchup demonstrates why this method works. Toronto led after the first half, Charlotte responded in the third, and neither team separated in the fourth.

Data limitations to keep in mind

The statistics provided for this analysis include the final score, quarter scores, team shooting numbers, major team categories, selected player scoring totals, records, venue, attendance, officials, and broadcast information.

They do not provide every traditional player box-score field.

For example, the supplied data does not list each player’s complete minutes, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, field-goal attempts, three-point attempts, free throws, plus-minus, or advanced metrics.

That distinction matters.

It would be misleading to invent those figures simply to make the analysis appear more comprehensive.

The safest way to use this article is to treat the listed player scoring totals as verified within the supplied dataset and the team statistics as the basis for the game-level analysis.

For broader player evaluation, a complete official box score should be consulted before drawing conclusions about workload, efficiency by player, defensive impact, or advanced metrics.

Who performed best?

If “best” means highest scoring output, Brandon Ingram was the clear answer for Toronto with 27 points.

For Charlotte, Kon Knueppel led with 24.

If “best” means the most balanced team performance, the answer is more complicated.

Toronto’s four listed leading scorers produced 74 points, while Charlotte’s four leading scorers produced 83.

Charlotte therefore had greater concentration of its scoring among its top four contributors, while Toronto had the game’s highest individual scorer.

At the team level, Toronto’s shooting efficiency gives the Raptors the stronger statistical performance.

That is the most defensible conclusion from the supplied data.

Why efficiency matters more than raw volume

Raw totals can be deceptive.

Charlotte attempted 87 field goals and 40 three-pointers.

Toronto attempted 88 field goals and 25 three-pointers.

The teams were nearly identical in total field-goal volume, but Toronto made seven more field goals.

That is the difference between 37 made field goals and 44.

The same principle applies to three-point shooting. Both teams made 10, but Toronto achieved that total with 15 fewer attempts.

Efficiency converted similar or smaller volumes into a better scoring return.

This is why serious basketball analysis should pair every major volume statistic with an efficiency statistic whenever possible.

The bigger lesson from a two-point NBA game

A 110-108 game is a useful reminder that NBA results are often determined by several small advantages rather than one overwhelming category.

Toronto did not dominate the glass.

It did not win the free-throw battle.

It did not force fewer turnovers.

It did not make more three-pointers.

Instead, Toronto shot the ball better, passed for more assists, and converted its field-goal opportunities at a higher rate.

Charlotte remained competitive because it rebounded well, attacked the free-throw line effectively, and generated defensive plays.

That combination produced a game where both teams had legitimate statistical strengths.

The Raptors simply had the strengths that produced the more efficient scoring profile.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who was Toronto’s leading scorer against Charlotte on November 18, 2025?

Brandon Ingram led Toronto with 27 points in the Raptors’ 110-108 victory.

Who led Charlotte in scoring?

Kon Knueppel was Charlotte’s leading scorer with 24 points. Miles Bridges scored 22, LaMelo Ball scored 20, and Tre Mann scored 17.

What was the final score between Toronto and Charlotte?

Toronto defeated Charlotte 110-108 at Scotiabank Arena in Toronto.

Which team shot better from three-point range?

Toronto shot 40% from three-point range, making 10 of 25 attempts. Charlotte shot 25%, making 10 of 40 attempts.

Did Charlotte win any major statistical categories?

Yes. Charlotte had more rebounds, free throws made, steals, and blocks. The Hornets collected 48 rebounds compared with Toronto’s 43 and recorded 11 steals compared with Toronto’s eight.

What was the biggest statistical difference in the game?

Toronto’s field-goal and three-point efficiency stood out. The Raptors shot 50% from the field and 40% from three, compared with Charlotte’s 43% and 25%, respectively.

Conclusion

The November 18, 2025 meeting between Toronto and Charlotte was a close game, but the statistical story is clearer when the full team profile is considered.

Toronto won 110-108 after leading at halftime and surviving a strong Charlotte third quarter. Brandon Ingram’s 27 points led all scorers, while Kon Knueppel’s 24 points topped the Hornets’ scoring list.

Charlotte had several statistical strengths. The Hornets won the rebounding battle 48-43, made 24 free throws, recorded 11 steals, and blocked nine shots. Their leading four scorers also combined for 83 points.

Toronto’s advantage was efficiency. The Raptors shot 50% from the field compared with Charlotte’s 43% and made the same number of three-pointers while taking 15 fewer attempts. Toronto also recorded 25 assists to Charlotte’s 19.

Those differences explain why the Raptors were able to win despite Charlotte performing better in several traditional box-score categories.

The broader lesson is simple: player points matter, but they do not tell the whole story. To understand a close NBA matchup, readers should combine individual scoring with shooting efficiency, team ball movement, rebounding, turnovers, free throws, and defensive activity.

For this game, the numbers point to a balanced contest decided largely by Toronto’s superior shot-making efficiency.