Utah Jazz vs Charlotte Hornets Match Player Stats
The utah jazz vs charlotte hornets match player stats from November 3, 2025, reveal how Charlotte used efficient shooting, strong ball movement, and balanced scoring to secure a convincing 126-103 victory at Spectrum Center. The Hornets controlled the opening half, built a substantial lead, and maintained enough offensive pressure to prevent Utah from completing a comeback. Although the Jazz showed improvement in the third quarter, their early defensive problems and poor three-point shooting proved costly.
The game featured several impressive individual performances. Miles Bridges led Charlotte with 29 points, while Kon Knueppel contributed 24 points and Moussa Diabate added an important double-double with 17 points and 12 rebounds. For Utah, Lauri Markkanen scored 29 points, and Keyonte George finished with 25 points and seven assists.
Beyond the final score, this matchup offers an interesting look at shooting efficiency, offensive execution, rebounding, and the impact of individual players. Charlotte made 18 three-pointers, converted every free throw, and recorded 31 assists. Utah, meanwhile, struggled from long range and could not match the Hornets’ overall offensive efficiency.
This detailed breakdown examines the final score, complete team statistics, leading performers, individual contributions, quarter-by-quarter action, and the most important lessons from the contest.
Utah Jazz vs Charlotte Hornets Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The Charlotte Hornets hosted the Utah Jazz on November 3, 2025, at Spectrum Center in Charlotte, North Carolina.
Charlotte entered the game looking to take advantage of its home-court opportunity. Utah needed a stronger road performance, particularly on defense and perimeter shooting.
The Hornets delivered a convincing performance, winning 126-103.
Match Information
| Game Detail | Information |
| Matchup | Utah Jazz vs Charlotte Hornets |
| Date | November 3, 2025 |
| Competition | NBA Regular Season |
| Venue | Spectrum Center |
| Location | Charlotte, North Carolina |
| Attendance | 17,123 |
| Final Score | Hornets 126, Jazz 103 |
| Winning Team | Charlotte Hornets |
| Losing Team | Utah Jazz |
| Game Status | Final |
| Game ID | 401810005 |
The attendance of 17,123 reflected a strong home-court setting for Charlotte. The Hornets rewarded their supporters with an offensive performance that combined individual scoring with effective team basketball.
Final Score by Quarter
The opening two quarters played a major role in determining the result. Charlotte scored 71 points before halftime and created a 23-point advantage.
| Quarter | Utah Jazz | Charlotte Hornets |
| First Quarter | 25 | 39 |
| Second Quarter | 23 | 32 |
| Third Quarter | 38 | 33 |
| Fourth Quarter | 17 | 22 |
| Final Score | 103 | 126 |
Charlotte won three of the four quarters. Utah’s strongest period came in the third quarter, when the Jazz scored 38 points.
However, that improvement was not enough to overcome the damage from the first half.
The Hornets’ 39-point opening quarter established the offensive rhythm that shaped the rest of the game.
Complete Utah Jazz Player Stats
Utah received strong scoring contributions from Lauri Markkanen and Keyonte George. Both players reached the 25-point mark, but the team lacked enough consistent offensive support to challenge Charlotte throughout the game.
The Jazz finished with 103 points on 36-of-88 shooting from the field.
Utah Jazz Player Statistics Table
| Player | PTS | REB | AST | FG |
| Lauri Markkanen | 29 | 7 | 3 | 12-28 |
| Keyonte George | 25 | 2 | 7 | 8-18 |
| Taylor Hendricks | 14 | 7 | 1 | 5-8 |
| Brice Sensabaugh | 7 | 1 | 0 | Not supplied |
| Ace Bailey | 6 | 0 | 1 | Not supplied |
| Kyle Anderson | 5 | 0 | 2 | 2-4 |
| Kyle Filipowski | 4 | 1 | 2 | 2-5 |
| Walter Clayton Jr. | 4 | 2 | 2 | Not supplied |
| Jusuf Nurkic | 3 | 9 | 2 | 1-6 |
| Svi Mykhailiuk | 3 | 2 | 2 | 1-4 |
| Kevin Love | 3 | 5 | 5 | 0-2 |
| Cody Williams | 0 | 2 | 0 | Not supplied |
Player statistics are reproduced from the supplied ESPN box score. Unavailable shooting figures have not been estimated.
Lauri Markkanen: Utah’s Leading Scorer
Lauri Markkanen was Utah’s most productive offensive player, finishing with 29 points, seven rebounds, and three assists.
His shooting performance included:
- 29 points
- 7 rebounds
- 3 assists
- 12-of-28 field goals
- 3-of-10 three-pointers
Markkanen provided the scoring presence Utah needed. His ability to score from different areas of the floor helped the Jazz remain competitive, especially when Charlotte began building its early advantage.
He made 12 field goals and finished as Utah’s leading scorer. However, his three-point shooting was less effective than Charlotte’s overall perimeter performance.
Markkanen converted three of his ten attempts from beyond the arc. That represents 30% shooting from three-point range.
His seven rebounds also demonstrated his contribution beyond scoring. Still, Utah needed more consistent production from the supporting players to make his offensive performance more valuable.
One important point is that individual scoring does not always translate into team success. Markkanen reached 29 points, but Charlotte’s balanced offense created more opportunities across the lineup.
Keyonte George: Scoring and Playmaking
Keyonte George delivered another strong individual performance for the Jazz.
He recorded 25 points, seven assists, two rebounds, and four turnovers.
His shooting numbers included eight successful field goals from 18 attempts.
George’s seven assists were particularly important because they showed his involvement in Utah’s offensive creation. He was not simply looking for his own shots. He also helped teammates generate scoring opportunities.
However, four turnovers reduced some of the value of his playmaking.
Against an opponent that recorded 31 assists, Utah needed to protect possession more carefully and create better offensive sequences.
George’s scoring and distribution were positive signs, but the Jazz could not consistently turn those individual contributions into an effective team attack.
Taylor Hendricks: Efficient Supporting Scoring
Taylor Hendricks provided an important contribution with 14 points and seven rebounds.
His shooting performance was one of Utah’s more efficient individual efforts.
- 14 points
- 7 rebounds
- 1 assist
- 5-of-8 field goals
- 2-of-3 three-pointers
Hendricks converted 62.5% of his field-goal attempts.
His perimeter shooting also gave Utah another offensive option. Making two of three three-point attempts demonstrated that he could provide scoring without needing a high number of possessions.
His seven rebounds added further value.
The challenge for Utah was finding more players capable of producing similar efficiency. Hendricks’ contribution was useful, but the overall offensive performance remained inconsistent.
Jusuf Nurkic: Rebounding Contribution
Jusuf Nurkic finished with three points, nine rebounds, and two assists.
His numbers included one successful field goal from six attempts.
Although his scoring contribution was limited, Nurkic still helped Utah on the glass.
His nine rebounds were among the team’s highest totals, showing his ability to contribute without becoming a major scoring option.
However, his limited offensive production meant Utah received fewer points from the center position than it needed.
Charlotte’s interior players also made an impact, particularly Moussa Diabate, whose 12 rebounds helped the Hornets control the overall rebounding battle.
Kevin Love and the Utah Bench
Kevin Love finished with three points, five rebounds, and five assists.
His five assists were a useful contribution, particularly considering that he did not score efficiently from the field. He went 0-for-2 on field-goal attempts.
Kyle Anderson added five points and two assists, while Kyle Filipowski recorded four points, one rebound, and two assists.
The remaining contributions included:
- Brice Sensabaugh: 7 points and 1 rebound.
- Ace Bailey: 6 points and 1 assist.
- Walter Clayton Jr.: 4 points, 2 rebounds, and 2 assists.
- Svi Mykhailiuk: 3 points, 2 rebounds, 2 assists, and 1 block.
- Cody Williams: 2 rebounds.
Utah’s bench supplied different types of contributions, but the scoring was not enough to match Charlotte’s production.
The central issue was not simply the absence of a second scorer. George and Markkanen both reached 25 points. The bigger challenge was combining individual production with efficient team offense.
Complete Charlotte Hornets Player Stats
Charlotte’s offensive performance was led by Miles Bridges, but the team’s victory was built on contributions from several players.
The Hornets finished with 126 points, shooting 49% from the field and 42% from three-point range.
Their 18 successful three-pointers were a major factor in the result.
Charlotte Hornets Player Statistics Table
| Player | PTS | REB | AST | FG |
| Miles Bridges | 29 | 4 | 6 | 7-18 |
| Kon Knueppel | 24 | 6 | 5 | 9-17 |
| Moussa Diabate | 17 | 12 | 0 | 7-9 |
| Sion James | 15 | 5 | 3 | 6-8 |
| Tre Mann | 13 | 4 | 0 | Not supplied |
| Collin Sexton | 10 | 4 | 12 | Not supplied |
| KJ Simpson | 7 | 4 | 4 | Not supplied |
| Pat Connaughton | 6 | 1 | 0 | Not supplied |
| Liam McNeeley | 3 | 1 | 1 | Not supplied |
| Ryan Kalkbrenner | 2 | 4 | 0 | Not supplied |
| Mason Plumlee | 0 | 1 | 0 | Not supplied |
| Tidjane Salaun | 0 | 0 | 0 | Not supplied |
The table uses the individual statistics supplied for the game. Shooting figures are included only where provided.
Miles Bridges: Charlotte’s Top Scorer
Miles Bridges led Charlotte with 29 points, four rebounds, and six assists.
His shooting statistics included:
- 29 points
- 4 rebounds
- 6 assists
- 7-of-18 field goals
- 3-of-10 three-pointers
Bridges was one of the most important players in Charlotte’s offensive system during this matchup.
His 29 points matched Markkanen’s scoring total, but the difference was the overall team performance surrounding him.
Bridges also recorded six assists, demonstrating his ability to contribute as a playmaker.
His three-point shooting was not particularly efficient at 30%, but Charlotte had enough other perimeter threats to maintain its offensive rhythm.
This is an important distinction when evaluating player performances. A team’s leading scorer does not need to have the highest shooting percentage for the team to win. Other players can compensate through efficient finishing, ball movement, and additional scoring.
Bridges’ combination of scoring and passing helped Charlotte maintain offensive pressure.
Kon Knueppel: A Major Offensive Contributor
Kon Knueppel delivered one of the most efficient scoring performances of the game.
He finished with 24 points, six rebounds, and five assists.
His shooting numbers were:
- 24 points
- 6 rebounds
- 5 assists
- 9-of-17 field goals
- 4-of-9 three-pointers
Knueppel shot approximately 52.9% from the field and 44.4% from three-point range.
His four successful three-pointers were especially valuable.
While Bridges provided the highest individual scoring total, Knueppel offered an effective combination of perimeter shooting, rebounding, and playmaking.
His performance also made it harder for Utah to focus its defensive attention on one player.
If defenders concentrated on Bridges, Knueppel could punish them with open shooting opportunities. If they moved toward the perimeter, Charlotte could create different offensive looks.
This type of offensive balance was one of the biggest reasons the Hornets scored 126 points.
Moussa Diabate: Dominant Rebounding Performance
Moussa Diabate recorded 17 points and 12 rebounds, completing a double-double.
His shooting numbers were particularly impressive.
- 17 points
- 12 rebounds
- 7-of-9 field goals
Diabate converted approximately 77.8% of his field-goal attempts.
His performance demonstrated the value of efficient interior scoring.
Unlike perimeter players who may need several attempts to build their scoring totals, Diabate converted seven of nine shots.
His 12 rebounds also helped Charlotte finish with 46 total rebounds.
This was a significant contribution because Utah recorded only 38 rebounds.
Diabate’s work around the basket gave Charlotte another scoring option and helped prevent Utah from gaining a consistent advantage inside.
His double-double was one of the strongest supporting performances of the game.
Collin Sexton: Charlotte’s Playmaking Leader
Collin Sexton recorded 10 points, four rebounds, and 12 assists.
His 12 assists were the highest individual total among the players listed in the supplied box score.
This performance was especially important because Charlotte finished with 31 team assists.
Sexton’s passing helped create opportunities for Bridges, Knueppel, Diabate, and other teammates.
His six turnovers were a drawback, and they show that his high involvement also came with some possession risk.
Nevertheless, his 12 assists represented a major part of Charlotte’s offensive organization.
A team that scores 126 points needs more than individual shooting ability. It needs players who can recognize defensive positioning, move the ball, and create quality attempts.
Sexton’s performance reflected that responsibility.
Sion James and Tre Mann
Sion James finished with 15 points, five rebounds, and three assists.
He made six of eight field-goal attempts, giving him an impressive 75% field-goal percentage.
He also converted three of five three-point attempts.
His performance provided Charlotte with another efficient scoring option.
Tre Mann added 13 points and four rebounds.
Together, these players helped Charlotte maintain scoring depth beyond its leading performers.
This mattered because Utah could not focus exclusively on Bridges and Knueppel.
Charlotte had multiple players capable of converting opportunities, making its offense harder to defend.
Ryan Kalkbrenner: Defensive Impact
Ryan Kalkbrenner recorded two points, four rebounds, four steals, and four blocks.
His scoring contribution was limited, but his defensive statistics stand out.
Four steals and four blocks represent significant activity on the defensive end.
These numbers show that a player’s impact cannot be measured through points alone.
Steals can interrupt offensive possessions, while blocks can discourage opponents from attacking the basket.
Kalkbrenner’s defensive production provided Charlotte with additional value and complemented the scoring contributions from the team’s leading players.
Team Statistics Comparison: Utah Jazz vs Charlotte Hornets
The overall team statistics explain why Charlotte won by 23 points.
Both teams attempted 88 field goals, but Charlotte converted seven more shots.
The biggest difference appeared in three-point shooting, where the Hornets made 18 shots compared with Utah’s seven.
Complete Team Comparison
| Statistical Category | Utah Jazz | Charlotte Hornets |
| Total Points | 103 | 126 |
| Field Goals | 36-88 | 43-88 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 41% | 49% |
| Three-Pointers | 7-32 | 18-43 |
| Three-Point Percentage | 22% | 42% |
| Free Throws | 24-29 | 22-22 |
| Free Throw Percentage | 83% | 100% |
| Total Rebounds | 38 | 46 |
| Offensive Rebounds | 10 | 9 |
| Defensive Rebounds | 28 | 37 |
| Assists | 27 | 31 |
| Turnovers | 10 | 14 |
| Steals | 7 | 6 |
| Blocks | 3 | 6 |
| Personal Fouls | 24 | 25 |
Field-Goal Efficiency
Charlotte made 43 of its 88 field-goal attempts, compared with Utah’s 36 successful attempts.
Both teams attempted the same number of shots.
This makes the difference in shooting efficiency particularly clear.
Charlotte converted approximately 48.9% of its attempts, while Utah converted approximately 40.9%.
The seven additional successful field goals helped create a significant scoring advantage.
The Hornets did not need more overall shot attempts to win. They simply converted a greater percentage of their opportunities.
Three-Point Shooting Was the Biggest Difference
The perimeter shooting numbers were arguably the most important statistical factor in the game.
Charlotte made 18 three-pointers from 43 attempts.
Utah made seven from 32 attempts.
| Three-Point Category | Utah | Charlotte |
| Successful Attempts | 7 | 18 |
| Total Attempts | 32 | 43 |
| Percentage | 22% | 42% |
| Points from Three-Pointers | 21 | 54 |
Charlotte scored 54 points from beyond the arc.
Utah scored only 21.
That created a 33-point difference in three-point scoring.
This gap was larger than the final 23-point margin.
It demonstrates how perimeter efficiency can shape an NBA game even when both teams have players capable of scoring heavily.
Charlotte’s ability to convert long-range attempts forced Utah to defend a larger area of the floor.
That created additional pressure on the Jazz defense and made it difficult to contain every offensive option.
Free-Throw Performance
Utah actually made more free throws than Charlotte.
The Jazz converted 24 of 29 attempts, while the Hornets made all 22 of their attempts.
Utah’s 83% free-throw percentage was respectable.
Charlotte’s perfect 22-of-22 performance was even better.
The difference in free-throw attempts gave Utah two additional made shots, but that advantage was nowhere near enough to offset Charlotte’s perimeter scoring.
The free-throw figures also show that Charlotte did not waste opportunities at the line.
Rebounding Comparison
Charlotte finished with 46 rebounds, eight more than Utah’s 38.
The difference was especially noticeable in defensive rebounds.
The Hornets collected 37 defensive rebounds, while Utah recorded 28.
Utah had a slight advantage in offensive rebounds, collecting ten compared with Charlotte’s nine.
However, Charlotte’s defensive rebounding advantage helped limit second-chance opportunities and allowed the Hornets to finish more possessions.
Diabate’s 12 rebounds were an important part of that effort.
Assists and Ball Movement
Charlotte recorded 31 assists compared with Utah’s 27.
Both teams showed the ability to create scoring opportunities for teammates.
However, Charlotte’s superior shooting efficiency meant that more of its offensive possessions resulted in successful baskets.
The 12 assists from Collin Sexton were particularly important.
Utah’s Keyonte George led the Jazz with seven assists, while Kevin Love contributed five.
Charlotte’s passing performance showed how multiple players can contribute to an effective offensive system.
Turnovers and Possession Management
Utah committed ten turnovers, while Charlotte committed 14.
This is one statistical category where Utah had an advantage.
The Jazz protected the ball better and finished with four fewer turnovers.
However, fewer turnovers did not lead to a victory because Charlotte was much more efficient when taking shots.
The Hornets’ shooting advantage outweighed their additional turnovers.
This is an important lesson when interpreting team statistics: no single category explains an entire result.
Quarter-by-Quarter Game Analysis
First Quarter: Charlotte Takes Control
Charlotte opened the game with 39 points, establishing an early offensive advantage.
Utah scored 25 points in the same period.
The 14-point difference gave the Hornets immediate control of the scoreboard.
Charlotte’s early scoring set the tone for the rest of the matchup.
The Jazz needed a stronger defensive response, especially against Charlotte’s perimeter threats.
Allowing 39 points in the first quarter made the game much more difficult for Utah.
The Hornets entered the second quarter with a clear advantage and the confidence to continue attacking.
Second Quarter: The Hornets Extend Their Lead
Charlotte scored another 32 points in the second quarter.
Utah managed 23.
The Hornets therefore added nine more points to their advantage.
At halftime, the score stood at:
- Charlotte Hornets: 71
- Utah Jazz: 48
A 23-point halftime lead gave Charlotte considerable control.
The Hornets had scored 71 points in only two quarters, demonstrating the effectiveness of their offensive approach.
Utah needed a major second-half improvement to return to the contest.
Third Quarter: Utah Shows Its Best Response
The Jazz produced their strongest offensive quarter after halftime.
Utah scored 38 points, compared with Charlotte’s 33.
This was a five-point improvement in the scoring margin for the Jazz.
Markkanen and George provided important scoring contributions, while Utah’s overall offensive output increased.
However, the problem was the size of Charlotte’s halftime lead.
Even after winning the third quarter, Utah still entered the final period facing a substantial deficit.
The Jazz showed that they could score against Charlotte, but they had not solved the defensive problems that developed earlier.
Fourth Quarter: Charlotte Protects Its Advantage
Charlotte outscored Utah 22-17 in the final quarter.
The Hornets did not need another explosive offensive period.
Their main objective was to maintain control and prevent Utah from creating a late comeback opportunity.
Utah’s 17 points were its lowest quarter total of the game.
Charlotte eventually secured the 126-103 victory.
The final period confirmed that the Hornets had done enough work in the first three quarters to control the result.
Five Major Reasons Charlotte Won the Game
The final result was shaped by several connected factors rather than one individual performance.
1. Superior Three-Point Shooting
Charlotte made 11 more three-pointers than Utah.
That difference produced 33 additional points from beyond the arc.
The Hornets’ 42% shooting from three-point range was a major advantage over Utah’s 22%.
2. More Efficient Overall Shooting
Charlotte converted 49% of its field-goal attempts.
Utah managed 41%.
Both teams attempted 88 shots, so the difference came from execution rather than volume.
3. Balanced Scoring
Charlotte had five players who scored at least 13 points.
Those players were Bridges, Knueppel, Diabate, James, and Mann.
Utah had three players who reached at least 14 points.
The Hornets received more consistent scoring support across their lineup.
4. Better Rebounding
Charlotte finished with eight more rebounds than Utah.
The 37 defensive rebounds helped the Hornets limit second-chance opportunities.
Diabate’s double-double was particularly important.
5. Strong Offensive Distribution
Charlotte recorded 31 assists.
Sexton contributed 12, while Bridges and Knueppel combined for another 11.
The team’s passing created opportunities for multiple scorers and helped maintain offensive balance.
Why Utah Jazz Lost Despite Two 25-Point Scorers
At first glance, Utah’s offensive production from Markkanen and George looks impressive.
Markkanen scored 29 points, while George added 25.
Together, they produced 54 points.
However, the rest of the team did not provide enough efficient scoring to match Charlotte.
Utah’s total of 103 points was 23 fewer than the Hornets’ output.
The difference becomes clearer when examining the shooting statistics.
Utah converted only seven three-pointers.
Charlotte made 18.
That gap meant the Jazz could not keep pace with the Hornets, even when their leading players were scoring.
Utah also struggled to limit Charlotte’s supporting players.
Knueppel, Diabate, James, and Mann all delivered valuable offensive contributions.
The Jazz had individual scoring talent, but Charlotte displayed stronger collective execution.
Key Statistical Battles That Defined the Matchup
Markkanen vs Bridges
Both players finished with 29 points.
Markkanen recorded seven rebounds and three assists, while Bridges contributed four rebounds and six assists.
Their scoring totals were identical, but their supporting statistics reflected different roles.
Markkanen was Utah’s primary scoring option.
Bridges combined scoring with additional playmaking for Charlotte.
George vs Knueppel
Keyonte George scored 25 points and recorded seven assists.
Kon Knueppel finished with 24 points, six rebounds, and five assists.
George had the higher scoring total, but Knueppel was more efficient from the field.
Knueppel also made four three-pointers, compared with George’s shooting figures not being fully supplied beyond his total field-goal numbers.
Both players demonstrated why young offensive contributors can have a major influence on a game.
Nurkic vs Diabate
Jusuf Nurkic recorded nine rebounds and three points.
Moussa Diabate finished with 17 points and 12 rebounds.
Diabate had the stronger overall statistical performance.
His efficient interior scoring and rebounding helped Charlotte maintain control around the basket.
Team Shooting vs Team Possession
Utah committed fewer turnovers, but Charlotte converted more shots.
This comparison is important because it shows that possession security alone does not guarantee offensive success.
The Hornets were more effective at turning their opportunities into points.
What the Match Reveals About Both Teams
Charlotte’s Offensive Strengths
Charlotte’s performance highlighted several important offensive strengths.
First, the Hornets had multiple reliable scoring options.
Bridges and Knueppel led the scoring, while Diabate and James provided efficient contributions.
Second, Charlotte moved the ball effectively.
The team’s 31 assists showed that scoring opportunities were being created through collective play.
Third, the Hornets converted their perimeter opportunities.
Their 18 three-pointers made it difficult for Utah to defend the entire floor.
Utah’s Areas for Improvement
Utah’s performance also provided several lessons.
The first issue was perimeter defense.
Allowing Charlotte to make 18 three-pointers created a scoring disadvantage that was difficult to overcome.
The second issue was offensive efficiency.
The Jazz shot only 41% overall and 22% from three-point range.
The third issue was supporting production.
Markkanen and George scored heavily, but Utah needed more consistent contributions from the rest of the lineup.
Finally, the Jazz needed to defend more effectively during the opening half.
The 71 points allowed before halftime placed them in a difficult position.
How to Read NBA Player Statistics Correctly
A box score provides a useful overview of a basketball game, but understanding the numbers requires more than looking at points.
Different statistical categories reveal different aspects of player performance.
Points (PTS)
Points measure how many points a player scores.
However, points alone do not reveal shooting efficiency.
A player scoring 20 points on ten attempts has produced a different scoring performance from a player scoring 20 points on 25 attempts.
Rebounds (REB)
Rebounds measure how many missed shots a player collects.
They are divided into two categories:
- Offensive rebounds: Recovering a missed shot by the player’s own team.
- Defensive rebounds: Collecting a missed shot by the opposing team.
Rebounds can create additional scoring opportunities or end an opponent’s possession.
Assists (AST)
Assists measure passes that directly lead to successful field goals under official statistical rules.
They provide insight into playmaking and team offense.
Sexton’s 12 assists were an important part of Charlotte’s performance.
Field-Goal Percentage (FG%)
Field-goal percentage measures the proportion of successful field-goal attempts.
It is calculated using:
Field Goals Made ÷ Field Goals Attempted × 100
Charlotte’s 49% shooting showed greater overall efficiency than Utah’s 41%.
Three-Point Percentage (3P%)
This statistic measures successful three-point attempts.
It is especially useful when evaluating perimeter shooting.
Charlotte’s 42% performance compared with Utah’s 22% was one of the most important differences in this game.
Turnovers (TO)
Turnovers measure possessions lost before a successful shot attempt or another positive offensive outcome.
They can result from bad passes, offensive fouls, or losing control of the ball.
Utah recorded ten turnovers, while Charlotte committed 14.
Steals (STL) and Blocks (BLK)
Steals measure defensive actions that result in gaining possession.
Blocks measure shots legally deflected by defenders.
Kalkbrenner’s four steals and four blocks made his defensive contribution especially notable.
Plus/Minus (+/-)
Plus/minus represents the team’s net point difference while a particular player is on the court.
For example, a positive value means the player’s team outscored its opponent during those minutes.
A negative value means the opponent scored more.
The supplied statistics do not include individual plus/minus figures, so none have been estimated for this article.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Utah Jazz vs Charlotte Hornets game on November 3, 2025?
The Charlotte Hornets defeated the Utah Jazz 126-103 at Spectrum Center in Charlotte, North Carolina.
2. Who was the highest scorer in the game?
Lauri Markkanen and Miles Bridges were tied as the leading scorers, with 29 points each. Markkanen led Utah, while Bridges led Charlotte.
3. How many points did Lauri Markkanen score against Charlotte?
Lauri Markkanen scored 29 points. He also recorded seven rebounds and three assists while shooting 12-of-28 from the field.
4. How many points did Miles Bridges score against Utah?
Miles Bridges scored 29 points, along with four rebounds and six assists. He made seven of 18 field-goal attempts.
5. How many three-pointers did the Charlotte Hornets make?
Charlotte made 18 three-pointers from 43 attempts, shooting approximately 42% from beyond the arc.
6. Which player recorded the most assists?
Collin Sexton led all players in the supplied statistics with 12 assists for Charlotte. Keyonte George led Utah with seven assists.
Conclusion
The November 3, 2025, matchup between the Utah Jazz and Charlotte Hornets demonstrated the importance of shooting efficiency, balanced scoring, and effective team offense.
Charlotte secured a 126-103 victory after building a commanding first-half advantage. Miles Bridges led the Hornets with 29 points, while Kon Knueppel scored 24 and Moussa Diabate recorded a double-double with 17 points and 12 rebounds.
For Utah, Lauri Markkanen and Keyonte George delivered strong individual scoring performances with 29 and 25 points, respectively. However, their contributions were not enough to overcome Charlotte’s offensive efficiency.
The biggest statistical difference was three-point shooting. Charlotte made 18 three-pointers compared with Utah’s seven, creating a 33-point advantage from long range. The Hornets also won the rebounding battle and recorded more assists.
Ultimately, this game showed how balanced team performance can outweigh impressive individual scoring. Utah had two major scoring contributors, but Charlotte received more consistent production throughout its lineup and converted its opportunities more effectively.
The final statistics provide a clear picture of the result: Charlotte’s shooting accuracy, perimeter production, and offensive teamwork were the deciding factors in its 23-point victory.
