2026-10-11 · 6:00 PM CT · Preseason
Milwaukee Bucks32-50
Charlotte Hornets44-38ESPN standings data retrieved October 6, 2026. NBA comparisons use the completed 2025–26 regular season. Each upcoming fixture labels preseason or regular-season status.
Milwaukee Bucks2025–26 regular season
| Measure | Season average | League rank |
|---|---|---|
| STANDARD STATS | ||
| Points / game | 110.6 | 29 / 30 |
| Rebounds / game | 40.7 | 28 / 30 |
| Assists / game | 25.8 | 18 / 30 |
| Turnovers / game | 14.5 | 23 / 30 |
| Steals / game | 7.4 | 26 / 30 |
| Blocks / game | 4.0 | 27 / 30 |
| FG% | 47.7% | 12 / 30 |
| 3PT% | 38.7% | 2 / 30 |
| FT% | 73.0% | 30 / 30 |
| THE LAB MEASURES | ||
| eFG% | 56.5% | 3 / 30 |
| Turnover rate | 13.3% | 28 / 30 |
| Offensive rebound rate | — | — |
| Free-throw pressure | 0.223 | 29 / 30 |
Charlotte Hornets2025–26 regular season
| Measure | Season average | League rank |
|---|---|---|
| STANDARD STATS | ||
| Points / game | 116.0 | 13 / 30 |
| Rebounds / game | 46.1 | 5 / 30 |
| Assists / game | 26.3 | 15 / 30 |
| Turnovers / game | 14.4 | 22 / 30 |
| Steals / game | 7.0 | 29 / 30 |
| Blocks / game | 4.5 | 21 / 30 |
| FG% | 46.0% | 25 / 30 |
| 3PT% | 37.8% | 3 / 30 |
| FT% | 81.8% | 2 / 30 |
| THE LAB MEASURES | ||
| eFG% | 55.2% | 12 / 30 |
| Turnover rate | 12.8% | 24 / 30 |
| Offensive rebound rate | — | — |
| Free-throw pressure | 0.244 | 23 / 30 |
ESPN team totals and game box scores checked October 6. NBA season averages and ranks use 2025–26; preseason game results are shown separately. Ranks are within the league, with ties sharing a rank; a lower turnover rate is better. Season offensive rebound rate needs opponent defensive-rebound totals, which this feed does not supply. A dash means unavailable. This game’s offensive rebound rate uses the opponent’s actual rebounds.
eFG% gives a made three its extra value. Turnover rate estimates the share of plays lost before a shot. Offensive rebound rate is the share of available offensive rebounds collected. Free-throw pressure is FTA/FGA. The calculations are (FGM + 0.5 × 3PM)/FGA; TOV/(FGA + 0.44 × FTA + TOV); OREB/(OREB + opponent DREB); and FTA/FGA.
This is preseason. Use the team numbers as background and watch how the new lineups play together. No spread or Lab win probability is published for this game.
Last season 32-50 | 11th in the East | Missed postseason
2025-26 efficiency 112.2 offense | 118.3 defense | -6.1 net per 100 possessions
Milwaukee finished 11th at 32-50 and missed the postseason. Its minus-6.1 net rating showed that the attempted contender was already well short of that description. Giannis Antetokounmpo's departure changes the objective, but it does not explain away the defensive and possession problems that existed before he left.
Jon Horst's return from Miami includes Tyler Herro, Kel'el Ware, Jaime Jaquez Jr., Kasparas Jakucionis and future draft assets, with Nate Ament also part of the incoming group. Brayden Burries joins through the draft and Taylor Jenkins takes over the bench. Ware provides the most interesting immediate two-way development opportunity, while Herro supplies established scoring.
The concern is whether the veterans and prospects serve a coherent new timeline. Milwaukee devoted very few minutes to first- and second-year players last season, so the development structure now needs to catch up with the roster. Herro can keep the offense respectable without producing a reliable defense. Management has collected useful pieces, but the future pick position remains constrained and no replacement star should be assumed. Jenkins needs enough continuity to establish roles rather than constantly reassign them.
Projected finish is 15th in the East. The departure of the team's best player and an already weak baseline justify a low immediate forecast. A productive season would make Ware and the younger players more dependable and clarify which veterans belong. The front office should be judged on building the next competitive team, not making a rebuilding roster imitate the one it could no longer sustain.
Last season 44-38 | 9th in the East | Lost in SoFi NBA Play-In Tournament
2025-26 efficiency 118.4 offense | 113.5 defense | +4.9 net per 100 possessions
Charlotte finished ninth at 44-38 and lost in the Play-In. Its 118.4 offensive rating and plus-4.9 net rating made the season more impressive than that ending. LaMelo Ball was important to the improvement, and the offense was 12.6 points per 100 possessions better with him on the floor. Removing that creation changes what the returning shooting can accomplish.
Jeff Peterson shifted the core toward Brandon Miller and Kon Knueppel, trading Ball and Miles Bridges while adding Naz Reid, Grayson Allen, Royce O'Neale and Dennis Schroder. Coby White provides another guard option. Late trades reshuffled the supporting guards without replacing Ball's established offensive responsibility. The central plan is more balanced development around the young wings.
The concern is creating good attempts without the passer who made so many of them available. Miller's shoulder recovery and Knueppel's hamstring injury also complicate the opening weeks. Management has assembled shooting and useful veterans, but the immediate creation burden still shifts toward players adjusting to larger roles. Keeping the floor spread does not help enough if the ball never reaches the open player on time.
Projected finish is 11th in the East. We respect the efficiency baseline, but discount it for the departure of Ball and early availability questions. Charlotte should remain competitive and can get back into the Play-In race. The clearer long-term identity is a positive. The next proof is that it can produce an efficient offense without borrowing the credit from last year's point guard.
A matching published game video is not available in the verified archive yet.
