The Charlotte Hornets vs Milwaukee Bucks match player stats from July 15, 2026, tell the story of a convincing Milwaukee victory in the NBA Summer League. The Bucks defeated the Hornets 110-91 at Cox Pavilion in Las Vegas, controlling the game from the opening quarter and maintaining their advantage through the final buzzer.

While the Summer League is different from the regular NBA season, these games are important opportunities for young players, prospects, draft picks, and developing talents to demonstrate their abilities. In this matchup, Milwaukee’s balanced offense and efficient three-point shooting proved too much for Charlotte.

Nate Ament led the Bucks with 23 points and six rebounds, while Charlotte received an outstanding 27-point, 15-rebound double-double from Hannes Steinbach. Tidjane Salaun also added 21 points for the Hornets.

This detailed breakdown looks at the most important Charlotte Hornets vs Milwaukee Bucks player stats, team numbers, shooting efficiency, standout performers, and the key reasons Milwaukee came away with the 19-point victory.

Charlotte Hornets vs Milwaukee Bucks Final Score

The final score was:

Milwaukee Bucks 110, Charlotte Hornets 91

The Bucks started strongly, taking an 18-28 lead after the first quarter. They extended their advantage during the second period and went into halftime ahead 53-37. Charlotte improved after the break, scoring 27 points in the third quarter and another 27 in the fourth, but Milwaukee had already created too large a cushion.

Quarter-by-Quarter Score

The game was played as part of the 2026 NBA Summer League in Las Vegas.

Milwaukee Bucks Player Stats

Milwaukee’s biggest strength was its balanced scoring. Instead of relying on one player for the entire offensive load, several Bucks players reached double figures.

Nate Ament Leads Milwaukee With 23 Points

Nate Ament was the Bucks’ leading scorer and one of the game’s most efficient offensive players.

His final numbers were:

• 23 points
• 6 rebounds
• 1 assist
• 2 steals
• 7-of-13 field goals
• 2-of-7 three-pointers
• 5-of-6 free throws
• 25:09 minutes

Ament’s 23 points came on 53.8% shooting from the field. He also contributed on the glass and defensively, making him one of Milwaukee’s most complete performers.

His performance was particularly valuable because Charlotte had one of its strongest interior contributors in Steinbach. Ament helped Milwaukee match that production with scoring from the wing.

Kam Jones Provides Playmaking

Kam Jones finished with:

• 11 points
• 3 rebounds
• 9 assists
• 1 steal
• 4-of-8 shooting
• 3-of-6 from three-point range
• 24:09 minutes

Although Jones scored 11 points, his nine assists were arguably even more important. He helped create opportunities for Milwaukee’s shooters and contributed to the team’s overall offensive balance.

His three made three-pointers also helped stretch Charlotte’s defense.

B.J. Boston Jr. Scores 11

B.J. Boston Jr. recorded:

• 11 points
• 2 rebounds
• 2 assists
• 3-of-9 field goals
• 3-of-7 three-pointers
• 1-of-1 free throws
• 20:01 minutes

Boston’s three-point shooting was an important part of Milwaukee’s perimeter attack. He made three of his seven attempts from beyond the arc.

Bogoljub Markovic Adds 11 Points

Bogoljub Markovic also finished with 11 points.

He shot 4-of-8 from the field and made 3-of-5 three-point attempts. He added two rebounds and one assist in 18:24 of playing time.

His ability to knock down outside shots gave Milwaukee another floor-spacing option.

Pete Nance Finishes With 11

Pete Nance recorded:

• 11 points
• 2 rebounds
• 4 assists
• 1 steal
• 1 block
• 4-of-9 field goals
• 3-of-8 three-pointers

Nance’s four assists were useful from the center position, while his three made three-pointers demonstrated Milwaukee’s willingness to spread the floor.

Milwaukee’s Bench Makes a Difference

The Bucks also received important contributions from their second unit.

Luke Travers

Luke Travers scored 12 points, grabbed four rebounds, and handed out four assists. He shot 3-of-9 overall and made two three-pointers.

Zack Austin

Zack Austin added 10 points, four rebounds, three blocks, and one assist. His three blocks were particularly notable for a player coming off the bench.

Boopie Miller

Boopie Miller contributed 10 points, two rebounds, three assists, and two steals in 14:25. His defensive activity and ability to create plays gave Milwaukee another useful backcourt option.

The depth of Milwaukee’s production was a major reason the Bucks were able to maintain control.

Charlotte Hornets Player Stats

Charlotte’s overall result was disappointing, but several individual performances stood out.

Hannes Steinbach Records a Double-Double

The biggest statistical performance for the Hornets came from Hannes Steinbach.

He finished with:

• 27 points
• 15 rebounds
• 3 assists
• 1 steal
• 13-of-22 field goals
• 1-of-2 free throws
• 26:59 minutes

Steinbach’s 13 made field goals were the most by any player in the game. He also collected seven offensive rebounds and eight defensive rebounds, giving him 15 total.

His performance demonstrated strong interior scoring and rebounding, even though Charlotte ultimately lost by 19 points.

Tidjane Salaun Scores 21

Tidjane Salaun was Charlotte’s second-leading scorer with 21 points.

He shot 8-of-13 from the field, including 2-of-7 from three-point range, and made both of his free throws. He also recorded three rebounds, four steals, and two personal fouls.

Salaun’s four steals were especially valuable from a defensive standpoint.

Kylan Boswell Adds 11

Kylan Boswell finished with:

• 11 points
• 7 rebounds
• 1 assist
• 1 steal
• 4-of-7 field goals
• 3-of-5 three-pointers
• 25:27 minutes

Boswell’s three made three-pointers helped Charlotte’s outside attack, while his seven rebounds were a strong contribution from the guard position.

Christian Anderson Jr. Shows Playmaking Ability

Christian Anderson Jr. had a difficult scoring night, shooting just 1-of-8 from the field.

However, he finished with 10 assists, showing that his contribution went beyond scoring.

His final line included three points, one rebound, 10 assists, and three turnovers.

For a young point guard, the ability to create opportunities for teammates can be just as important as putting up points.

Complete Key Player Comparison

These numbers show an interesting contrast. Steinbach was the game’s leading individual scorer and rebounder, but Milwaukee had more players contributing consistently across the box score.

Team Shooting Statistics

One of the clearest differences between the two teams was three-point shooting.

Milwaukee made 19 of 45 three-point attempts, finishing at 42.2% from long range.

Charlotte made only 7 of 28, or 25.0%.

That is a substantial difference.

Milwaukee’s 19 three-pointers accounted for 57 points. Charlotte’s seven produced 21 points. The 36-point difference in three-point scoring was a major factor in the final result.

Overall Field-Goal Shooting

Charlotte actually shot slightly better overall:

• Milwaukee: 35-of-75, 46.7%
• Charlotte: 40-of-83, 48.2%

However, overall field-goal percentage alone does not tell the complete story.

Milwaukee’s superior three-point efficiency gave the Bucks considerably more value from their perimeter attempts.

Rebounding Battle

Charlotte finished with 48 total rebounds, compared with Milwaukee’s 41.

Steinbach was the biggest reason for Charlotte’s advantage, collecting 15 rebounds by himself.

Milwaukee, however, was still able to win comfortably despite being outrebounded.

This demonstrates that rebounding was not the deciding statistical category in this matchup.

Ball Movement and Assists

The Bucks finished with 26 team assists, while the Hornets recorded 23.

Kam Jones played a major role for Milwaukee with nine assists.

Charlotte’s Christian Anderson Jr. led the game with 10 assists, but Milwaukee’s overall offensive balance meant several players could create and finish opportunities.

Good ball movement helped Milwaukee produce high-quality three-point looks throughout the game.

Why Milwaukee Won the Game

Several factors explain the Bucks’ 110-91 victory.

1. Strong Start

Milwaukee established control immediately.

The Bucks scored 28 points in the first quarter while limiting Charlotte to 18. The early advantage gave Milwaukee confidence and forced the Hornets to play from behind.

2. Excellent Three-Point Shooting

The biggest statistical advantage came from beyond the arc.

Milwaukee shot 42.2% from three-point range, while Charlotte managed only 25.0%.

That difference created valuable extra scoring opportunities.

3. Balanced Scoring

Five Bucks players scored at least 11 points, while three additional players reached double figures off the bench.

This balance made Milwaukee difficult to defend.

4. Efficient Offensive Execution

Milwaukee posted an effective field-goal percentage of 59.3%, compared with Charlotte’s 52.4%. The Bucks also had a better offensive rating in the game.

5. Charlotte’s Slow First Half

The Hornets scored only 37 points through the first two quarters.

Although they improved offensively after halftime, the deficit was already significant.

What the Game Says About Both Teams

Summer League statistics should not be treated exactly like regular-season NBA statistics. Rosters, rotations, minutes, and roles can change significantly.

Still, individual performances can provide useful clues.

Milwaukee Bucks

The Bucks showed strong perimeter shooting and balanced scoring.

Ament’s 23 points, Jones’ nine assists, and the contributions from several other players created a well-rounded offensive performance.

Charlotte Hornets

Charlotte can take positives from Steinbach’s dominant double-double and Salaun’s efficient scoring.

The development of young players is one of the central purposes of Summer League, making performances like these valuable even when the team does not win.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Who won the Charlotte Hornets vs Milwaukee Bucks game?

The Milwaukee Bucks defeated the Charlotte Hornets 110-91 on July 15, 2026, in an NBA Summer League game in Las Vegas.

2. Who was the leading scorer?

Hannes Steinbach of Charlotte led all players with 27 points. Milwaukee’s leading scorer was Nate Ament with 23 points.

3. What were Hannes Steinbach’s stats?

Steinbach recorded 27 points, 15 rebounds, and three assists, shooting 13-of-22 from the field.

4. How many three-pointers did Milwaukee make?

The Bucks made 19 of 45 three-point attempts, shooting 42.2% from beyond the arc.

5. Did Charlotte have any strong individual performances?

Yes. Steinbach recorded a 27-point, 15-rebound double-double, while Tidjane Salaun scored 21 points and Kylan Boswell added 11 points and seven rebounds.

Conclusion

The Charlotte Hornets vs Milwaukee Bucks match player stats from July 15, 2026 show a game in which individual talent was evident on both sides, but Milwaukee’s overall balance and shooting efficiency ultimately determined the result.

The Bucks won 110-91, taking control early and never allowing Charlotte to fully erase the deficit. Nate Ament led Milwaukee with 23 points and six rebounds, while Kam Jones contributed nine assists. Several other Bucks players reached double figures, creating an offensive attack that was difficult for Charlotte to contain.

For Charlotte, Hannes Steinbach delivered the standout statistical performance of the night with 27 points and 15 rebounds. Tidjane Salaun added 21 points and four steals, while Christian Anderson Jr. demonstrated his playmaking ability with 10 assists.

The biggest difference came from three-point shooting. Milwaukee connected on 19 of 45 attempts from outside, compared with only seven made threes for Charlotte. That shooting advantage helped the Bucks overcome Charlotte’s edge on the boards and Steinbach’s impressive interior performance.

Ultimately, this Summer League matchup offered more than just a final score. It provided a snapshot of young players competing for opportunities, developing their games, and demonstrating the skills that could shape their basketball careers. For anyone researching Charlotte Hornets vs Milwaukee Bucks match player stats, the game stands out for Milwaukee’s perimeter efficiency, Charlotte’s strong rebounding, and several promising individual performances.