The game between the Atlanta Hawks and the Milwaukee Bucks was one for the books. It wasn’t just about who scored more. It was about ball movement, hustle, defense, and smart playmaking. The Hawks came out on top with a strong 145–124 win. This wasn’t a close win. This was a team that played connected basketball. On the other side, Milwaukee had good individual performances but couldn’t match Atlanta’s teamwork. The atlanta hawks vs milwaukee bucks match player stats clearly show how depth and passing led to dominance.
Game Summary: Quarter-by-Quarter Flow
The game started fast. Milwaukee looked sharp in the first quarter. But after that, it was all Hawks. They crushed it in the second and third quarters.
Their energy was high. Their bench helped a lot. The Bucks tried to come back in the fourth, but it was too late.
Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Total |
Atlanta Hawks | 37 | 45 | 36 | 27 | 145 |
Milwaukee Bucks | 44 | 31 | 17 | 32 | 124 |
This breakdown shows how Atlanta turned the game around after the first quarter.
Risacher’s Breakout Game
Zaccharie Risacher had a huge night. He was efficient and confident. He hit 5 three-pointers and led the game with 36 points.
This performance showed why he’s one of the rising stars. He helped stretch the floor and opened space for others.
Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists |
Z. Risacher | 36 | 6 | 0 |
He also played smart defense and kept up pressure off the ball.
Giannis Led the Bucks
Giannis Antetokounmpo tried hard to keep the Bucks in the game. He fought in the paint. He hit 11 of 18 shots and got to the free-throw line often.
Despite his 31 points and 9 rebounds, he couldn’t do it alone. His effort was high, but the support wasn’t there.
Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists |
G. Antetokounmpo | 31 | 9 | 5 |
He also had five turnovers, which slowed down the Bucks’ rhythm.
Atlanta’s Starting Five Dominated
The Hawks’ starters played like a unit. They passed well. They shot with confidence and rebounded hard. Each one contributed.
Trae Young didn’t score a ton, but his passing was world-class. His 19 assists tied everything together.
Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists |
Z. Risacher | 36 | 6 | 0 |
D. Daniels | 22 | 9 | 6 |
T. Young | 19 | 3 | 19 |
O. Okongwu | 13 | 10 | 3 |
M. Gueye | 9 | 9 | 1 |
They all shot efficiently and kept Milwaukee’s defense busy.
Milwaukee’s Starters Fell Short
The Bucks’ starting lineup had talent. But they couldn’t stop the Hawks. They lacked movement. They missed open looks. And their defense was loose.
Even though Kuzma added 25 points, the team didn’t flow well.
Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists |
G. Antetokounmpo | 31 | 9 | 5 |
K. Kuzma | 25 | 6 | 1 |
R. Rollins | 10 | 4 | 5 |
T. Prince | 7 | 4 | 0 |
B. Lopez | 5 | 1 | 1 |
Rollins was a bright spot, but others struggled under pressure.
Bench Showdown: Hawks Had Depth
The Hawks’ bench players played big minutes. They scored, defended, and moved the ball. Niang hit four threes. Mann added assists. The entire unit kept the energy up.
This depth helped Atlanta maintain their lead and rest starters.
Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists |
G. Niang | 17 | 1 | 1 |
C. LeVert | 9 | 3 | 1 |
T. Mann | 9 | 1 | 4 |
D. Barlow | 8 | 2 | 1 |
V. Krejci | 3 | 2 | 0 |
Atlanta’s bench outscored Milwaukee’s by a wide margin.
Bucks’ Bench Couldn’t Keep Pace
Porter was the only Bucks bench player who truly showed up. He played with energy and added 28 points. But the rest of the bench faded.
Milwaukee needed more help. And it just didn’t come.
Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists |
K. Porter | 28 | 4 | 5 |
G. Trent Jr. | 10 | 3 | 0 |
P. Connaughton | 6 | 1 | 3 |
C. Livingston | 1 | 0 | 0 |
A. Jackson Jr. | 1 | 3 | 1 |
This hurt them most during the third quarter run by Atlanta.
Team Shooting Comparison
The atlanta hawks vs milwaukee bucks match player stats also tell a clear shooting story. Atlanta shot better from all areas. Their three-point shooting stretched the Bucks’ defense.
Team | FG Made | FG % | 3PT Made | FT Made |
Atlanta Hawks | 50/94 | 53.2% | 17 | 28/35 |
Milwaukee Bucks | 39/82 | 47.6% | 12 | 34/43 |
The Hawks also had fewer missed opportunities at the line.
Ball Movement and Rebounds
Smart passes and rebounds help win games. And that’s what Atlanta did. They moved the ball 36 times for assists. Milwaukee only had 21.
They also grabbed 10 more rebounds. Those extra possessions added up.
Team | Assists | Rebounds |
Atlanta Hawks | 36 | 46 |
Milwaukee Bucks | 21 | 36 |
These numbers show teamwork over individual effort.
Turnovers and Steals: Key Differences
Ball security was another win for Atlanta. They kept turnovers low and stole the ball 10 times. Milwaukee gave it away 14 times.
That resulted in easy points for the Hawks and lost possessions for the Bucks.
Team | Turnovers | Steals |
Atlanta Hawks | 8 | 10 |
Milwaukee Bucks | 14 | 5 |
Games are often won on small things. This was one of them.
Trae Young: The True Floor General
While Risacher had the points, Young controlled the pace. He wasn’t the top scorer, but he was the best playmaker on the floor.
With 19 assists and just 2 turnovers, he ran the show.
Player | Points | Assists | TO |
T. Young | 19 | 19 | 2 |
This is why Young remains the engine of the Hawks.
More Bench Production Means More Wins
If you compare the atlanta hawks vs milwaukee bucks match player stats, you’ll notice one pattern. The team with the better bench won. Atlanta’s bench gave them 46 points. Milwaukee’s gave less than 50% of that. This changed the pace and allowed starters to rest.
Conclusion: What This Game Tells Us?
The Atlanta Hawks delivered a statement win. They shared the ball. They defended hard. Their bench played with passion. Meanwhile, Milwaukee leaned on Giannis and couldn’t keep pace. This game was more than just highlights. It was a clinic on team basketball.
The atlanta hawks vs milwaukee bucks match player stats show that passing, rebounding, and bench play matter more than just scoring stars. Atlanta checked all those boxes. That’s why they walked off with a 21-point win.
Read More Blogs:-) Atlanta Hawks vs Boston Celtics Match Player Stats: Full Breakdown
Leave a Reply