Charlotte Hornets vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats
The charlotte hornets vs san antonio spurs match player stats reveal how Charlotte secured a 111-106 victory over San Antonio on January 31, 2026, at Spectrum Center in Charlotte, North Carolina. The Hornets overcame a difficult opening quarter, dominated the second period, and used superior rebounding and ball movement to protect their lead against a Spurs team that remained dangerous until the final minutes. Brandon Miller led Charlotte with 26 points, while Dylan Harper paced San Antonio with 20. Moussa Diabate contributed 10 rebounds and an outstanding plus-minus of +19, making his impact particularly important to the home team’s success.
This matchup offers a useful example of why basketball results cannot be explained by shooting percentages alone. San Antonio shot 48% from the field, compared with Charlotte’s 44%, yet the Hornets collected 15 more rebounds and recorded four additional assists. Those differences created extra scoring opportunities and helped Charlotte compensate for its lower overall field-goal percentage. The final score was close, but the underlying team statistics show how Charlotte built the advantages it needed to win.
Game Overview: Charlotte Hornets vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats
The January 31 meeting brought together two teams with contrasting records. According to the supplied ESPN game data, San Antonio entered the matchup with a 32-16 overall record, while Charlotte stood at 22-28. The Spurs also had a stronger away record at 16-10, making Charlotte’s home victory a notable result.
Charlotte Hornets
Home team · Spectrum Center
111
Record listed: 22-28
San Antonio Spurs
Away team
106
Record listed: 32-16
GAME DATE
January 31, 2026
VENUE
Spectrum Center
LOCATION
Charlotte, North Carolina
ATTENDANCE
19,533
The five-point margin reflected a competitive game, but Charlotte’s rebounding advantage was substantial. The Hornets finished with 51 rebounds, compared with 36 for San Antonio. They also recorded 30 assists, demonstrating that their offense generated productive opportunities through both individual scoring and team play.
The Spurs were more accurate from the field and committed one fewer turnover. However, they could not fully overcome Charlotte’s extra possessions and stronger second-quarter performance.
Quarter-by-quarter scoring
| Quarter | Charlotte Hornets | San Antonio Spurs |
| First | 26 | 30 |
| Second | 35 | 17 |
| Third | 24 | 28 |
| Fourth | 26 | 31 |
| Final | 111 | 106 |
Charlotte’s 35-point second quarter was the turning point. After trailing by four points following the opening period, the Hornets outscored the Spurs by 18 points in the second quarter. That produced a 61-47 halftime advantage, giving Charlotte a 14-point cushion.
San Antonio responded after halftime, outscoring Charlotte 59-50 across the final two quarters. The Spurs won both the third and fourth quarters, but the deficit created during the second period proved too difficult to erase.
The central lesson from this game is that a team does not need to win every quarter to win the contest. Charlotte created enough separation during its strongest stretch to survive San Antonio’s late push.
Charlotte Hornets vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats: Complete Box Score Analysis
The individual numbers explain how Charlotte won despite shooting less efficiently overall. Brandon Miller supplied the highest score for the Hornets, Collin Sexton provided exceptional bench scoring, and LaMelo Ball contributed across multiple categories. San Antonio received an efficient scoring performance from Dylan Harper, but its rebounding disadvantage limited the value of that shooting efficiency.
Charlotte Hornets player statistics
The following table summarizes key individual performances from the game. The figures reflect the official NBA box score, including the players’ scoring, rebounding, assists, and plus-minus where available. View the official NBA box score for the complete player-by-player record.
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Plus-minus |
| Brandon Miller | 26 | 8 | 2 | +13 |
| Collin Sexton | 21 | 0 | 3 | -4 |
| LaMelo Ball | 16 | 8 | 8 | +7 |
| Miles Bridges | 14 | 6 | 4 | +9 |
| Moussa Diabate | 10 | 10 | 3 | +19 |
| Grant Williams | 3 | 4 | 2 | +10 |
| Ryan Kalkbrenner | 6 | 4 | 0 | -14 |
| Josh Green | 0 | 1 | 2 | -2 |
| Sion James | 0 | 4 | 1 | +6 |
Note: The player table highlights the main statistical contributions. Players not shown in this summary may also have appeared in the official box score.
Brandon Miller: Charlotte’s leading scorer
Brandon Miller finished with 26 points, eight rebounds, and two assists. His scoring total led all Charlotte players and gave the Hornets a reliable offensive option throughout the contest.
Miller’s second-quarter performance was particularly important. Charlotte scored 35 points in the period, and Miller accounted for 16 of them. His ability to generate points during this stretch helped transform an early deficit into a 14-point halftime lead.
His overall shooting was less efficient than his scoring total might suggest. Miller made seven of 21 field-goal attempts, including three of nine three-point attempts. However, he converted all nine of his free throws.
This combination illustrates an important distinction in basketball analysis: scoring volume and shooting efficiency are related, but they are not the same thing. A player can accumulate a high point total through a combination of shot creation, three-point shooting, and trips to the free-throw line.
Miller’s 26 points mattered because they arrived during a game in which Charlotte needed someone to sustain its offense. Even when the Spurs improved defensively after halftime, his first-half production had already helped establish the margin.
Collin Sexton: A decisive contribution from the bench
Collin Sexton scored 21 points despite playing 17 minutes and 38 seconds. His efficiency was remarkable: he made seven of eight field-goal attempts and converted all five of his three-point attempts.
Sexton’s performance is one of the clearest examples of how bench production can change an NBA game. A substitute does not need to play 30 minutes to make a major impact. Efficient scoring during a short rotation stint can change the momentum and allow the starters to return without having to recover an early deficit.
His five made three-pointers also helped Charlotte maintain its perimeter threat. San Antonio could not focus exclusively on Miller and Ball when Sexton was converting nearly every opportunity he received.
There is an important qualification, however. A perfect five-for-five three-point performance does not automatically mean a player will repeat that result in another game. Small samples can produce unusually high or low percentages. Sexton’s shooting should therefore be understood as an outstanding performance on this particular night, not a guaranteed future rate.
LaMelo Ball: Playmaking beyond the scoring total
LaMelo Ball recorded 16 points, eight rebounds, and eight assists. His contribution was valuable because it covered three different statistical categories.
Eight assists indicate that Ball repeatedly helped teammates find scoring opportunities. His eight rebounds also supported Charlotte’s effort to finish defensive possessions and begin new offensive ones.
Ball made five of 15 field-goal attempts and two of six three-point attempts. Those figures show that his individual shooting was not especially efficient, but his passing remained a meaningful part of Charlotte’s attack.
When evaluating a primary ball handler, points alone can provide an incomplete picture. Assists help show how often a player creates scoring opportunities for teammates, while turnovers reveal how frequently those possessions end without a shot or successful play.
Ball finished with three turnovers. That is a relevant consideration, but his eight assists and broad contribution show why his performance should not be judged solely on shooting percentage.
Moussa Diabate: The rebounding difference-maker
Moussa Diabate recorded 10 rebounds, three assists, and 10 points. His plus-minus of +19 was the highest among Charlotte players in the supplied game data.
Rebounding was one of the clearest statistical differences between the teams. Charlotte collected 51 rebounds overall, compared with San Antonio’s 36. Diabate’s 10 boards were an important part of that advantage.
A rebound can have value beyond the number recorded in a box score. An offensive rebound can give a team another chance to score after a missed shot. A defensive rebound can prevent the opponent from extending a possession and help a team transition into offense.
Diabate’s impact was therefore not limited to scoring. His work around the basket helped Charlotte control possession and reduce the Spurs’ opportunities to recover from missed shots.
His +19 plus-minus also indicates that Charlotte outscored San Antonio by 19 points during his time on the court. That figure is useful context, but it should not be interpreted as a precise measure of individual responsibility. Plus-minus reflects the combined performance of the player, his teammates, and the opposing lineup while he is playing.
Miles Bridges and the supporting cast
Miles Bridges added 14 points and six rebounds, giving Charlotte another source of production beyond its leading scorers. His contribution helped keep the offense balanced and reduced the pressure on Miller to carry the entire scoring burden.
Ryan Kalkbrenner added six points and four rebounds, while Grant Williams scored three points and collected four rebounds. Josh Green and Sion James did not score, but they contributed two and one assists respectively.
These supporting numbers matter because close games often depend on contributions that are not immediately obvious from the leading scorers. Rebounds, defensive rotations, passing, and successful possession management can help a team maintain a lead even when a particular player is not scoring.
Charlotte’s bench scoring was particularly important because Sexton supplied 21 points. His output gave the Hornets a major offensive contribution without requiring all the scoring to come from the starting lineup.
San Antonio Spurs Player Stats and Individual Performances
San Antonio lost the game, but its individual statistics reveal several strong performances. Dylan Harper led the Spurs with 20 points, while Victor Wembanyama and Stephon Castle each scored 16. Stephon Castle also led the team with nine assists, and Wembanyama collected eight rebounds.
The Spurs shot more accurately from the field than Charlotte. Their 38 made field goals on 80 attempts produced a field-goal percentage of 47.5%, compared with Charlotte’s 44.3%.
That efficiency was not enough to overcome the difference in total possessions and rebounding. The Spurs also received fewer second-chance opportunities because Charlotte secured more missed shots.
San Antonio player statistics
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Plus-minus |
| Dylan Harper | 20 | 1 | 2 | -6 |
| Victor Wembanyama | 16 | 8 | 1 | -7 |
| Stephon Castle | 16 | 5 | 9 | -5 |
| Devin Vassell | 13 | 5 | 2 | +7 |
| Julian Champagnie | 13 | 5 | 1 | -2 |
| Harrison Barnes | 11 | 3 | 2 | +4 |
| Keldon Johnson | 6 | 2 | 1 | -3 |
The table focuses on key Spurs contributors. Individual plus-minus figures describe the team’s point differential while a player was on the court, not points personally scored or conceded by that player.
Dylan Harper: San Antonio’s leading scorer
Dylan Harper finished with 20 points, making him the Spurs’ highest scorer in the matchup. He converted nine of 13 field-goal attempts, including two of three from three-point range.
That equates to a field-goal percentage of approximately 69.2%, an impressive level of accuracy. Harper was able to turn his scoring opportunities into points without needing a high volume of attempts.
His performance also illustrates why bench scoring can be just as important for the visiting team as it was for Charlotte. Harper gave San Antonio a productive offensive option, helping the Spurs stay competitive even as the Hornets built their lead.
The limitation was that Harper’s scoring alone could not repair the team’s rebounding deficit. San Antonio needed more successful possessions across the entire lineup, not just an efficient performance from one player.
Victor Wembanyama: Rebounding and interior presence
Victor Wembanyama recorded 16 points and eight rebounds. His length and ability to influence shots make him an important interior presence, but the final result shows that individual production in the paint does not always translate into team success.
Wembanyama’s eight rebounds placed him among the Spurs’ leading rebounders. Nevertheless, San Antonio finished 15 rebounds behind Charlotte. That difference indicates that the team’s rebounding challenge extended beyond any single player.
The matchup also demonstrates why rebounds should be considered alongside defensive statistics. A player may influence an opponent’s shot without receiving a block, but the defense still needs to secure the ball after the miss.
San Antonio recorded six blocks as a team, compared with Charlotte’s five. The Spurs therefore showed the ability to challenge shots at the rim, but they did not convert that advantage into overall control of the boards.
Stephon Castle: The Spurs’ leading playmaker
Stephon Castle finished with 16 points and nine assists. His assist total led all San Antonio players and demonstrated his role in creating scoring opportunities for teammates.
Nine assists are particularly valuable in a game where the Spurs scored 106 points. They show that Castle helped generate offense beyond his own scoring contribution.
However, team assists depend on successful shots by teammates. A well-created opportunity does not become an assist if the recipient misses the shot or the play does not meet the official scoring criteria. For that reason, assist totals should be considered alongside shooting efficiency and the overall offensive result.
Castle’s performance was a positive individual contribution, but the Spurs needed to combine their passing with more rebounds and a stronger second quarter to turn that effort into a victory.
Devin Vassell, Julian Champagnie, and Harrison Barnes
Devin Vassell scored 13 points on five-of-10 shooting, while Julian Champagnie also finished with 13 points. Champagnie made four of six three-point attempts, giving San Antonio an efficient perimeter-scoring contribution.
Harrison Barnes added 11 points and made three of five three-point attempts. His shooting helped the Spurs maintain a threat from outside, particularly during the later stages of the game.
These performances show that San Antonio had multiple players capable of converting perimeter opportunities. The team’s 13 made three-pointers matched Charlotte’s total, so the Spurs did not lose because they were unable to make shots from beyond the arc.
The more revealing issue was how the teams generated and retained possessions. Charlotte’s rebounding advantage gave it additional opportunities to score, while its second-quarter performance created a margin the Spurs could not fully erase.
Team Statistics Comparison: Hornets vs Spurs
Individual performances tell only part of the story. The team statistics explain why Charlotte won even though San Antonio was more accurate from the field.
| Statistical category | Charlotte | San Antonio |
| Total points | 111 | 106 |
| Field goals made | 39 | 38 |
| Field-goal attempts | 88 | 80 |
| Field-goal percentage | 44.3% | 47.5% |
| Three-pointers made | 13 | 13 |
| Three-point attempts | 35 | 34 |
| Three-point percentage | 37.1% | 38.2% |
| Free throws made | 20 | 17 |
| Free-throw attempts | 22 | 19 |
| Free-throw percentage | 90.9% | 89.5% |
| Total rebounds | 51 | 36 |
| Offensive rebounds | 14 | 6 |
| Defensive rebounds | 37 | 30 |
| Assists | 30 | 26 |
| Turnovers | 11 | 10 |
| Steals | 5 | 7 |
| Blocks | 5 | 6 |
| Personal fouls | 19 | 16 |
Percentages are rounded to one decimal place. The underlying made-shot and attempt totals are more precise than rounded percentages.
1. Rebounding created Charlotte’s biggest advantage
The most striking difference was the 51-36 rebounding count. Charlotte secured 15 more rebounds than San Antonio, including an eight-rebound advantage on the offensive glass.
The Hornets collected 14 offensive rebounds, while the Spurs managed six. That difference matters because an offensive rebound can extend a possession after a missed shot. Even if the original attempt fails, the attacking team may have another chance to score.
Charlotte’s advantage did not guarantee that every extra possession produced points. However, it gave the Hornets more opportunities to compensate for their lower shooting percentage.
San Antonio’s 36 rebounds were not necessarily poor in isolation. The issue was the comparison with Charlotte’s total and the effect on the game’s overall possession balance.
2. Shooting accuracy favored San Antonio
The Spurs made 47.5% of their field-goal attempts, while Charlotte made 44.3%. San Antonio therefore converted a larger proportion of its shots.
Yet a higher field-goal percentage does not automatically produce more points. Teams attempt different numbers of shots, earn different numbers of free throws, and generate different quantities of offensive rebounds.
Charlotte attempted eight more field goals and made one more. It also made three additional free throws. Those extra scoring opportunities helped offset the Spurs’ shooting advantage.
This is why a complete game analysis should consider both efficiency and volume. Efficiency measures how successfully a team converts its opportunities, while volume measures how many opportunities it creates.
3. Free throws helped Charlotte protect the lead
Charlotte converted 20 of 22 free throws, while San Antonio made 17 of 19. Both teams shot well from the line, but Charlotte scored three more points there.
A three-point difference from free throws is meaningful in a five-point game. It does not explain the entire result, but it helped Charlotte maintain its advantage.
Free throws are also particularly important late in close games. Players who convert their attempts can make it harder for an opponent to recover, especially when the trailing team must use fouls to stop the clock.
4. Ball movement favored the Hornets
Charlotte finished with 30 assists, compared with San Antonio’s 26. The difference was not enormous, but it supports the broader picture of a Hornets offense that generated scoring opportunities through several players.
Ball movement can make an offense more difficult to defend because it forces defenders to react to multiple threats. A defense that concentrates on one scorer may leave another player open for a shot or create a driving lane.
San Antonio also moved the ball effectively, particularly through Castle’s nine assists. The Spurs’ passing was not the primary weakness in this game. Instead, Charlotte combined comparable perimeter scoring with more rebounds and more made free throws.
5. Turnovers were not the deciding factor
San Antonio committed 10 turnovers, one fewer than Charlotte’s 11. The Spurs therefore held a small advantage in possession security.
This is an important detail because it prevents an overly simple explanation of the result. Charlotte did not win because San Antonio repeatedly gave the ball away. Both teams generally limited their turnovers, and the one-turnover difference was much smaller than the 15-rebound gap.
A balanced assessment must recognize the categories in which the losing team performed well as well as the categories that explain the winner’s advantage.
Why Charlotte Won: Five Decisive Factors
The charlotte hornets vs san antonio spurs match player stats point to several connected reasons for Charlotte’s victory.
The second-quarter scoring burst
Charlotte’s 35-17 advantage in the second quarter was the most important scoring sequence of the game. The Hornets moved from four points behind to a 14-point halftime lead.
That swing gave Charlotte a cushion it could use when the Spurs improved after the break. Without the second-quarter performance, the final two quarters would have favored San Antonio enough to put the result in serious doubt.
Multiple scoring options
Miller led the Hornets with 26 points, Sexton contributed 21, and Ball added 16. Bridges also scored 14.
Having four players reach double figures made Charlotte less dependent on one source of offense. When the Spurs attempted to reduce the impact of one scorer, other Hornets could still contribute.
Strong work on the offensive glass
Charlotte’s 14 offensive rebounds gave it opportunities to recover missed shots. This was especially valuable because the Hornets did not shoot as accurately as the Spurs.
The offensive glass effectively gave Charlotte another way to create scoring volume without requiring a higher field-goal percentage.
Reliable free-throw shooting
Charlotte converted more free throws than San Antonio and made over 90% of its attempts. This helped preserve its advantage during a contest decided by five points.
Contributions beyond the leading scorers
Diabate’s 10 rebounds, Ball’s eight assists, and Bridges’ balanced scoring and rebounding illustrate how Charlotte benefited from several different types of production.
The result was not simply a case of one player outscoring everyone else. It was a team performance in which scoring, rebounding, and passing combined to overcome a more efficient shooting display from the Spurs.
What San Antonio Could Have Done Differently
San Antonio’s defeat was not the result of a complete offensive failure. The Spurs made 48% of their field goals when rounded to a whole number, converted 13 three-pointers, and recorded 26 assists.
Their biggest opportunity was to limit Charlotte’s second-quarter run and improve their control of missed shots.
Protect the defensive glass
The Spurs needed to finish more defensive possessions by securing rebounds. Charlotte’s 14 offensive rebounds meant the Hornets frequently had opportunities to recover from missed attempts.
Better collective rebounding could have reduced those additional opportunities and made the final margin smaller.
Avoid the second-quarter collapse
San Antonio scored 30 points in the first quarter but managed only 17 in the second. That 13-point reduction in quarter scoring created the game’s decisive momentum shift.
A more consistent offensive approach could have prevented Charlotte from establishing such a substantial halftime lead. This does not mean the Spurs needed to match the Hornets’ 35-point quarter exactly, but they needed to keep the scoring difference under control.
Turn efficient shooting into a stronger team result
Harper’s 20 points on 69.2% shooting showed how effective individual shot-making could be. Champagnie also converted four of six three-point attempts.
However, strong individual efficiency must be combined with possession control. San Antonio needed more rebounds and fewer opportunities for Charlotte to score after missed shots.
Maintain defensive pressure without surrendering rebounds
The Spurs recorded six blocks and seven steals. Those totals suggest they created defensive disruptions, but Charlotte still finished with more rebounds and five more points.
The challenge was to convert defensive stops into possession. A blocked shot or forced miss provides little lasting benefit if the opponent recovers the ball and gets another chance.
Understanding Plus-Minus in This Matchup
Plus-minus measures the difference between a team’s points scored and points conceded while a particular player is on the court.
Diabate’s +19 was Charlotte’s highest figure, while De’Aaron Fox recorded a -15 in the supplied data. These figures can help identify which lineups had the strongest scoring differential during the game.
However, plus-minus requires careful interpretation.
A player with a positive figure may benefit from playing alongside teammates who are performing well. A player with a negative figure may share the court with a struggling lineup or face a particularly effective opposing unit. The statistic does not isolate individual defensive skill, passing ability, or shooting efficiency.
Diabate’s +19 is consistent with his broader contribution to Charlotte’s rebounding advantage, but the number alone cannot establish how much of the victory he personally caused. His rebounds, scoring, minutes, and lineup context should be considered together.
Similarly, Fox’s negative figure should not be treated as proof that he played poorly in every aspect of the game. A fair evaluation requires his full individual box score and the circumstances of his minutes.
How to Read NBA Player Statistics Correctly
For readers comparing box scores or analyzing future games, a few practical rules can prevent common mistakes.
- Check the date and final score first. Confirm that the statistics refer to the correct meeting, since teams often play each other multiple times in one season.
- Separate individual totals from team totals. A player’s rebounds are part of the team’s overall rebounds, not an additional category to add again.
- Compare percentages with attempts. A player who shoots 60% on five attempts has a different workload from someone who shoots 45% on 20 attempts.
- Consider assists alongside turnovers. These figures provide context for a player’s role in creating offense and maintaining possession.
- Use plus-minus as supporting evidence. It is a lineup statistic, not a complete player rating.
- Look at quarter scores. The final score may hide a decisive scoring run or a late comeback.
- Distinguish verified facts from interpretation. Points and rebounds are recorded statistics, while explanations of why a team won require analysis of how those numbers fit together.
These steps are useful for casual fans, fantasy basketball players, sports writers, and anyone comparing team performances across a season.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Charlotte Hornets vs San Antonio Spurs game on January 31, 2026?
The Charlotte Hornets defeated the San Antonio Spurs 111-106 at Spectrum Center in Charlotte, North Carolina. Charlotte’s 35-17 second-quarter advantage proved decisive.
2. Who scored the most points in the game?
Brandon Miller led Charlotte with 26 points. Dylan Harper was San Antonio’s leading scorer with 20 points, shooting nine of 13 from the field.
3. How many rebounds did Moussa Diabate record?
Moussa Diabate collected 10 rebounds for Charlotte. He also scored 10 points and recorded a game-high plus-minus of +19 among the Hornets.
4. How many assists did LaMelo Ball and Stephon Castle record?
LaMelo Ball recorded eight assists for Charlotte, while Stephon Castle led San Antonio with nine assists. Both players contributed to their teams’ offensive creation.
5. Which team had the better shooting percentage?
San Antonio shot 47.5% from the field, compared with Charlotte’s 44.3%. However, Charlotte won the game by collecting 15 more rebounds and making three additional free throws.
6. What was the biggest statistical difference between the teams?
Rebounding was the largest difference. Charlotte collected 51 total rebounds, including 14 offensive rebounds, while San Antonio finished with 36 total rebounds and six offensive rebounds.
Conclusion
The charlotte hornets vs san antonio spurs match player stats show that Charlotte’s 111-106 victory was built on more than individual scoring. Brandon Miller’s 26 points established the offensive foundation, Collin Sexton’s efficient 21-point performance strengthened the bench, and LaMelo Ball contributed 16 points, eight rebounds, and eight assists. Moussa Diabate’s 10 rebounds helped the Hornets control the glass.
San Antonio also produced impressive individual performances. Dylan Harper scored 20 points, while Victor Wembanyama and Stephon Castle each added 16. Castle’s nine assists and the Spurs’ superior field-goal percentage demonstrated that the visitors remained productive offensively.
The decisive differences were Charlotte’s second-quarter surge, its 51-36 rebounding advantage, and its ability to convert more free throws. San Antonio won the first quarter and both quarters after halftime, but Charlotte’s 35-17 second quarter created a lead that the Spurs could not completely overcome.
Ultimately, this game demonstrates why a complete NBA analysis must consider shooting efficiency, possession volume, rebounding, assists, and quarter-by-quarter momentum together. No single statistic explains every result, but the combined numbers provide a clear picture of how Charlotte secured the win.
