This study employs hypergraph modeling to examine how research content novelty and team background diversity influence scientific impact and research disruptiveness in projects funded by the Management Science Department of China's National Natural Science Foundation (NSFC). We focus specifically on youth funding projects to understand how these key dimensions of scientific research affect knowledge production and paradigm shifts in different career stages. Through constructing two distinct types of hypergraphs - content hypergraphs reflecting research content novelty and team context hypergraphs capturing team background diversity - we analyze 8,100 English publications by NSFC-funded researchers from 2008 to 2023, including 2,812 Young Scientists, 44 Outstanding Young Scientists, and 55 Distinguished Young Scientists. The content hypergraphs are built based on the Web of Science categories of each paper, while team context hypergraphs are constructed using the historical publication records (203,191 papers in total) of team members, allowing us to comprehensively capture both the novelty of knowledge combinations and the diversity of team academic backgrounds. Our analysis reveals complex relationships between these dimensions and research outcomes. Research content novelty shows a significant positive correlation with citation counts but, surprisingly, demonstrates a generally negative relationship with disruptiveness indices. This finding challenges conventional assumptions about novel research and breakthrough innovations, suggesting that while novel knowledge combinations may attract scholarly attention, they don't necessarily lead to paradigm-shifting discoveries. Team background diversity exhibits non-linear relationships with both citation impact and disruptiveness. The analysis indicates that moderate levels of knowledge diversity among team members may be optimal for producing both high-impact and disruptive research outcomes. This "sweet spot" in team composition suggests that while diversity brings fresh perspectives and innovative approaches, some degree of common knowledge foundation remains essential for effective collaboration and knowledge integration. Examining these relationships across different career stages reveals distinct patterns of innovation. Young Scientists tend to produce more disruptive findings despite receiving fewer citations, suggesting a greater propensity to challenge existing paradigms. In contrast, Distinguished Young Scientists generate research with higher content novelty and team diversity, resulting in more citations. This pattern demonstrates the complementary roles that researchers at different career stages play in scientific advancement. The distribution analysis of our indicators shows that while most research concentrates in low-novelty regions, there exists a significant peak in high-novelty areas, reflecting researchers' strategic choices between incremental advances and radical innovation. Team background diversity shows a right-skewed distribution, indicating that while most research teams maintain relatively homogeneous backgrounds, there is a growing trend toward more diverse team compositions, particularly among senior researchers. These findings have important implications for science funding policies and talent development strategies. First, evaluation criteria should be redesigned to better support potentially disruptive research, particularly from early-career scientists, whose innovative contributions might be undervalued by traditional metrics. Second, differentiated support mechanisms should be developed for researchers at various career stages, recognizing their distinct approaches to innovation. Third, funding programs should actively promote interdisciplinary collaboration while maintaining domain expertise. Our results suggest that current evaluation metrics focusing primarily on citation counts might systematically undervalue young researchers' contributions to scientific disruption. This indicates a need to develop more sophisticated assessment systems that can capture different dimensions of scientific impact. These insights contribute to our understanding of how research novelty and team diversity influence scientific outcomes in China's research funding system, offering practical guidance for optimizing funding mechanisms to foster both steady knowledge advancement and breakthrough discoveries.