Milwaukee Bucks vs Golden State Warriors Match Player Stats

The milwaukee bucks vs golden state warriors match player stats from the October 30, 2025 meeting at Fiserv Forum tell a much more interesting story than the final 120-110 score alone. Milwaukee won without Giannis Antetokounmpo, while Ryan Rollins produced a career-best 32 points and eight assists to lead an offense that shot 48% from the field and 41% from three-point range. Golden State had three major scorers in Stephen Curry, Jonathan Kuminga, and Jimmy Butler III, but the Warriors could not match Milwaukee’s fourth-quarter execution. The official NBA record lists the game as October 30 in Milwaukee, while some databases display October 31 because of date and time conventions.

The matchup was especially notable because the Bucks entered at 4-1 and 3-0 at home, while Golden State arrived at 4-2 and 1-2 on the road. Milwaukee ultimately improved its season series advantage to 1-0. The game also showed why individual scoring totals need to be viewed alongside shooting efficiency, assists, turnovers, rebounding, and late-game performance.

Milwaukee Bucks vs Golden State Warriors Match Player Stats

The most important numbers from this matchup are straightforward. Milwaukee scored 120 points to Golden State’s 110, but the margin was created through several connected advantages rather than one statistical category.

Category	Golden State Warriors	Milwaukee Bucks
Final Score	110	120
Field Goals	36-85	46-96
Field Goal %	42%	48%
3-Point Shooting	13-38	19-46
3-Point %	34%	41%
Free Throws	25-26	9-13
Free Throw %	96%	69%
Rebounds	44	34
Assists	23	25
Turnovers	19	12
Steals	8	7
Blocks	6	2
Offensive Rebounds	9	7
Defensive Rebounds	35	27
Team Fouls	17	22

The contrast is revealing. Golden State had a significant rebounding advantage and made 96% of its free throws, yet Milwaukee still won comfortably. The Bucks compensated by making 10 more field goals, seven more three-pointers, and committing seven fewer turnovers.

That combination produced a strong offensive profile.

The NBA’s official game record confirms the 120-110 result, the quarter scores, attendance of 17,341, and the game’s official scorer information.

How the Bucks Won the Game

Milwaukee’s victory can be explained through three major factors: shot-making, ball security, and fourth-quarter execution.

The Bucks scored 34 points in the first quarter and 33 in the fourth. Those two periods established the shape of the game. Golden State actually scored 33 points in the second quarter and 26 in both the third and fourth, so the Warriors were never completely shut down offensively.

The problem was that Milwaukee consistently created better offensive stretches.

The Bucks finished 46-for-96 from the field, compared with Golden State’s 36-for-85. That means Milwaukee made 10 additional field goals on 11 more attempts.

More importantly, the Bucks converted 19 of 46 three-point attempts. Golden State made 13 of 38.

That six-make advantage from three-point range was worth 18 points.

Milwaukee also protected possessions much better. The Bucks committed only 12 turnovers, while Golden State turned the ball over 19 times.

In a game decided by 10 points, that difference matters enormously.

A useful way to evaluate this game is to avoid asking only who scored the most points. Instead, ask which team converted more of its possessions into useful outcomes. Milwaukee’s combination of shooting and lower turnover volume gave it a stronger offensive foundation.

Ryan Rollins Delivered the Defining Performance

Ryan Rollins was the central figure in the matchup.

He finished with:

• 32 points
• 13-for-21 shooting
• 5-for-7 from three-point range
• 1-for-3 at the free-throw line
• 3 rebounds
• 8 assists
• 1 turnover
• 5 personal fouls
• Plus-8 rating

His 32 points were a career high at the time, and he reached that total while shooting 61.9% from the field.

The five three-pointers were particularly important. Rollins was not simply accumulating points through high-volume attempts. He made five of his seven three-point shots, giving Milwaukee a high-efficiency perimeter scoring source.

His eight assists were equally valuable.

Rollins therefore contributed directly to both scoring and creation. He scored 32 of Milwaukee’s 120 points, while his eight assists helped generate additional offense for teammates.

The official box score records Rollins at 13-for-21 overall and 5-for-7 from beyond the arc.

His performance was even more impressive because Giannis Antetokounmpo did not play. Antetokounmpo had been averaging 36.3 points and 14.0 rebounds entering the contest, according to the game recap, but left the game inactive because of left knee soreness.

That absence dramatically changed Milwaukee’s offensive responsibilities.

Instead of relying on its normal superstar-driven structure, the Bucks needed other players to create shots, attack space, and generate efficient offense.

Rollins answered that challenge.

Stephen Curry Still Led Golden State in Scoring

Stephen Curry finished as Golden State’s leading scorer with 27 points.

His complete line included:

• 27 points
• 8-for-19 field goals
• 4-for-10 three-pointers
• 7-for-8 free throws
• 6 rebounds
• 4 assists
• 1 steal
• 5 turnovers
• Plus-minus of minus-6

Curry’s scoring efficiency was respectable, particularly from three-point range. He made 40% of his attempts from beyond the arc and 42.1% from the field overall.

The problem was not that Curry played poorly.

The larger issue was that Golden State needed more possession-level efficiency around him.

His five turnovers were significant. Golden State’s overall total reached 19, and Milwaukee’s ability to capitalize on mistakes helped prevent the Warriors from turning their strong free-throw shooting and rebounding into a winning formula.

Curry’s six rebounds also show that his contribution extended beyond perimeter scoring. He remained involved across multiple areas of the game, but Milwaukee ultimately forced enough difficult possessions to keep the Warriors below their opponent’s offensive output.

The official box score lists Curry at 27 points, six rebounds, four assists, and four made three-pointers.

Jonathan Kuminga Provided Efficient Secondary Scoring

Jonathan Kuminga was another major positive for Golden State.

He recorded:

• 24 points
• 7-for-11 shooting
• 2-for-4 from three
• 8-for-8 free throws
• 8 rebounds
• 4 assists
• 1 block
• 5 turnovers
• Minus-1 plus-minus

Kuminga’s 7-for-11 shooting translated to 63.6% from the field.

That was one of the most efficient scoring performances among Golden State’s primary offensive players.

His eight rebounds and four assists also made his contribution broader than the scoring column suggests.

However, five turnovers reduced some of that value.

This is an important lesson when interpreting milwaukee bucks vs golden state warriors match player stats. A player can have an excellent scoring night and still leave room for criticism when possession management becomes an issue.

Kuminga’s performance was productive, but Golden State needed that production to come with cleaner decision-making.

Jimmy Butler III Added a Double-Double

Jimmy Butler III produced one of Golden State’s most complete statistical performances.

He finished with:

• 23 points
• 7-for-18 shooting
• 1-for-2 from three
• 8-for-8 free throws
• 10 rebounds
• 3 assists
• 1 steal
• 1 block
• 2 turnovers
• Minus-7 plus-minus

Butler’s 10 rebounds led the Warriors.

His ability to reach the free-throw line was also important. He converted all eight attempts, helping Golden State maintain a high team free-throw percentage.

Yet his overall shooting percentage was 38.9%, and the Warriors needed more efficient production to overcome Milwaukee’s superior perimeter shooting.

Butler’s double-double demonstrates why raw scoring alone is not enough to evaluate a player’s impact.

He contributed on the glass, created some offense, defended, and avoided excessive turnovers. Still, Milwaukee’s overall offensive efficiency meant his complete game was not enough to swing the result.

Myles Turner Made an Immediate Impact for Milwaukee

Myles Turner finished with 17 points and seven rebounds.

His shooting line was especially strong:

• 7-for-12 field goals
• 3-for-6 from three
• 0-for-0 free throws
• 7 rebounds
• 3 assists
• 1 block
• 1 turnover
• Minus-4 plus-minus

Turner shot 58.3% from the field and 50% from three.

That combination created a difficult matchup for Golden State’s interior defenders because Turner could contribute from outside while still providing size and rebounding.

His three made three-pointers were also important in a game where Milwaukee ultimately won the long-range battle.

Turner’s offensive spacing helped prevent Golden State from simply loading defensive attention toward Milwaukee’s primary creators.

The official box score confirms Turner’s 17 points, seven rebounds, three assists, and three made three-pointers.

Bobby Portis Provided Valuable Bench Scoring

Bobby Portis scored 12 points for Milwaukee.

He went:

• 5-for-10 from the field
• 2-for-3 from three
• 5 rebounds
• 2 assists
• 2 turnovers
• Plus-14

His plus-14 rating was one of the strongest marks among Milwaukee’s contributors.

Portis did not need to dominate the scoring column. His value came from keeping the offense productive when the Bucks were using their bench.

Milwaukee’s bench ultimately outscored Golden State’s reserves 38-29, another factor that helped the home team sustain its offensive pressure.

Cole Anthony’s Bench Contribution Mattered

Cole Anthony scored 16 points in 21 minutes.

He shot 7-for-15 from the field and made two of seven three-point attempts.

Although he eventually fouled out, his offensive contribution helped Milwaukee maintain scoring pressure beyond its starting lineup.

This matters because Golden State had strong scoring from its top three players. The Bucks answered by spreading production across more contributors.

That balance reduced the pressure on Rollins to carry every offensive possession.

Kyle Kuzma Quietly Filled Several Gaps

Kyle Kuzma scored 10 points while adding eight rebounds and four assists.

His shooting line was 4-for-10 from the field, including 1-for-4 from three.

The scoring total does not immediately stand out, but the eight rebounds and four assists show why his contribution was useful.

Kuzma’s role was particularly important in a game without Antetokounmpo. Milwaukee needed players capable of creating secondary offense while also helping control the defensive glass.

He did not replace Antetokounmpo statistically, nor was that realistic.

Instead, he helped distribute the workload.

The Quarter-by-Quarter Story

The final score becomes easier to understand when the four quarters are separated.

Quarter	Warriors	Bucks	Margin
Q1	25	34	Bucks +9
Q2	33	26	Warriors +7
Q3	26	27	Bucks +1
Q4	26	33	Bucks +7
Final	110	120	Bucks +10

Milwaukee’s nine-point first-quarter advantage was immediately important.

Golden State responded in the second quarter, outscoring Milwaukee 33-26. That reduced the halftime deficit and demonstrated that the Warriors could adjust.

The third quarter was almost even.

That left the game positioned for a decisive fourth quarter.

And that was where Milwaukee’s shot-making separated the teams.

The Warriors came within two points at 106-104 after a Curry three-pointer with 4:03 remaining.

Rollins answered with a three-pointer only seconds later.

That shot changed the pressure of the final minutes.

Milwaukee then went on an 11-2 run, turning a close contest into a much safer advantage.

Rollins later capped the scoring with another three-pointer.

The sequence is important because it shows the difference between being productive for four quarters and being decisive when the game is most fragile.

Shooting Efficiency Decided the Matchup

The Bucks’ shooting numbers are one of the clearest reasons for the victory.

Milwaukee:

• 48% from the field
• 41% from three
• 19 made three-pointers

Golden State:

• 42% from the field
• 34% from three
• 13 made three-pointers

Milwaukee made six more threes.

At three points per make, that represents an 18-point scoring advantage from made threes alone.

Golden State partially compensated by shooting 25-for-26 from the free-throw line.

Milwaukee went only 9-for-13.

So the Bucks did not win because they were better everywhere.

They won because their field-goal production, perimeter shooting, and turnover control outweighed Golden State’s free-throw and rebounding advantages.

That distinction is essential when evaluating the box score.

Turnovers Were a Hidden Swing Factor

Golden State committed 19 turnovers.

Milwaukee committed 12.

That seven-possession difference is substantial.

Even without assuming a specific conversion rate, every lost possession represents an opportunity that disappears for the offense and can become an opportunity for the opponent.

The NBA’s official game summary also records Golden State with 19 turnovers and Milwaukee with 12.

Curry had five turnovers and Kuminga had five.

Those two players alone accounted for 10 of Golden State’s 19 turnovers.

That is especially important because both were major scoring contributors.

Their offensive value was high, but their possession cost was also high.

Milwaukee had a cleaner distribution of creation responsibility, with Rollins producing eight assists against only one turnover.

That 8-to-1 assist-to-turnover profile is one of the strongest individual indicators from the game.

Rebounding Favored Golden State, But It Was Not Enough

At first glance, the rebounding numbers appear to favor the Warriors.

Golden State’s provided team totals list 44 rebounds, while Milwaukee recorded 34.

But the official NBA scorer’s report records team-level totals differently because of the way team rebounds are counted in the full statistical book. The important point is that Golden State clearly had a strong rebounding presence, particularly through Butler, Kuminga, and Curry.

But rebounding did not automatically translate into victory.

This is a useful reminder that basketball statistics are interconnected.

A team can win the glass and still lose because it:

• shoots less efficiently
• turns the ball over more often
• loses the three-point battle
• struggles in late-game execution

That is exactly what happened here.

Milwaukee’s Three-Point Volume Changed the Game

Milwaukee attempted 46 three-pointers and made 19.

Golden State attempted 38 and made 13.

The Bucks therefore had both higher volume and higher efficiency.

Their 41% three-point shooting meant that the extra attempts were not empty possessions.

Rollins was the most obvious example. His five made threes came on seven attempts.

Turner made three.

Portis made two.

AJ Green made three.

Gary Trent Jr. made two.

Cole Anthony made two.

That distribution made Milwaukee difficult to defend because the Warriors could not focus exclusively on one perimeter scorer.

The Warriors’ Free-Throw Shooting Was Excellent

One statistical category clearly belonged to Golden State.

The Warriors shot 25-for-26 from the free-throw line, or roughly 96%.

Curry went 7-for-8.

Butler went 8-for-8.

Kuminga went 8-for-8.

Those three players combined for 23 made free throws.

That is extraordinary efficiency.

Yet free throws could not compensate for the difference in field goals and three-pointers.

Milwaukee’s offense simply generated too much successful shooting from the floor.

This is why a box score should be read as a complete system rather than as a collection of isolated leaderboards.

What the Plus-Minus Numbers Tell Us

Plus-minus should never be treated as a perfect measure of individual quality, but it can add context.

Among Milwaukee’s notable contributors:

• Bobby Portis: +14
• Taurean Prince: +11
• Kyle Kuzma: +10
• Ryan Rollins: +8
• AJ Green: +4

Among Golden State’s major players:

• Jonathan Kuminga: -1
• Stephen Curry: -6
• Jimmy Butler III: -7
• Draymond Green: +4

The striking figure is Portis at +14.

He scored only 12 points, but Milwaukee was substantially better during his minutes.

That does not mean Portis was individually more important than Rollins. Rather, it suggests his minutes coincided with stretches in which Milwaukee’s overall lineup functioned efficiently.

The same caution applies to Curry’s minus-6. It does not mean he was one of Golden State’s worst players. He scored 27 points and made four threes.

Plus-minus is context, not a verdict.

Why Giannis Antetokounmpo’s Absence Matters

Any serious analysis of this matchup must address Giannis Antetokounmpo.

He did not play because of left knee soreness after being listed as probable before the game. He watched from the bench while Milwaukee found another way to generate offense.

This changed the strategic context.

Normally, Antetokounmpo’s combination of scoring, rebounding, transition pressure, and interior gravity changes how an opponent defends Milwaukee.

Without him, the Bucks needed more creation from the backcourt and more shooting from their supporting players.

Rollins became the most obvious beneficiary.

Turner also became more important because his shooting provided spacing that helped Milwaukee avoid becoming overly dependent on difficult isolation possessions.

The result was not a conventional superstar-driven victory.

It was a depth-driven victory.

What Golden State Could Have Done Differently

The Warriors’ statistics suggest several areas that could have changed the game.

Protect the Basketball

Nineteen turnovers were too many.

Curry and Kuminga accounted for 10 combined, so improving decision-making from the primary creators would have been an obvious starting point.

Reduce Milwaukee’s Three-Point Volume

Allowing 46 three-point attempts created a difficult defensive environment.

Even if Golden State could not eliminate Milwaukee’s perimeter shooting, reducing open or rhythm attempts would have improved its chances.

Finish the Fourth Quarter

The Warriors were within two points at 106-104 with 4:03 remaining.

That means the game was still realistically available.

The final stretch changed everything.

Milwaukee responded with an 11-2 run, and Rollins repeatedly hit timely shots.

Golden State needed a defensive stop after Curry’s shot made it 106-104.

Instead, Rollins answered immediately.

That sequence represents the difference between a close loss and a potential comeback.

What Milwaukee Can Take From the Win

For Milwaukee, the victory demonstrated that the offense had multiple sources of production.

The Bucks had:

• Rollins creating and scoring
• Turner spacing the floor
• Portis providing bench offense
• Anthony producing reserve points
• Kuzma contributing rebounding and passing
• Green and Trent providing perimeter shooting

That balance was particularly valuable without Antetokounmpo.

However, Milwaukee’s 69% free-throw shooting and 22 team fouls show that the game was not flawless.

The Bucks also had fewer rebounds than Golden State in the supplied team totals.

Those areas could become more important against teams that convert offensive rebounds into second-chance points or attack the paint more aggressively.

A Deeper Look at the Star Matchups

The most interesting individual comparison is not simply Curry versus Rollins.

Curry produced 27 points, six rebounds, and four assists.

Rollins produced 32 points, three rebounds, and eight assists.

Curry had the larger established offensive role, while Rollins had the more efficient scoring night and a better assist-to-turnover ratio.

But the broader comparison is about responsibility.

Curry was expected to be one of Golden State’s primary creators.

Rollins was thrust into a larger offensive role because of Antetokounmpo’s absence.

Rollins responded by shooting 13-for-21 and making five threes.

That makes his performance one of the defining individual stories of the matchup.

Why the Bench Battle Matters

The Bucks’ bench outscored Golden State’s reserves 38-29.

Nine points may not look enormous, but it becomes meaningful when combined with the starting lineup’s production.

Milwaukee did not require every starter to have a huge scoring night.

That reduced offensive pressure.

Golden State’s top three scorers combined for 74 points:

• Curry: 27
• Kuminga: 24
• Butler: 23

That was 67.3% of the Warriors’ 110 points.

Milwaukee’s scoring was more distributed.

Rollins led with 32, but Turner had 17, Anthony had 16, and Portis had 12, while several other players reached double figures.

That balance made the Bucks less dependent on one or two offensive engines.

Season Series Context

The October meeting gave Milwaukee a 1-0 lead in the season series.

The next listed meeting was scheduled for January 8, with Golden State hosting Milwaukee.

That creates an important future comparison point.

The next matchup should not be analyzed as a simple rematch.

The biggest variables will include:

• player availability
• lineup changes
• current form
• home-court advantage
• three-point volume
• turnover rate
• how each team defends the opposing primary creators

The October game established one important benchmark: Milwaukee could beat Golden State even without Antetokounmpo when its supporting cast shot efficiently.

The Most Important Player Stats at a Glance

For readers looking for the fastest answer, these were the standout individual performances.

Milwaukee Bucks

Ryan Rollins: 32 points, 8 assists, 3 rebounds, 13-for-21 shooting, 5-for-7 from three.

Myles Turner: 17 points, 7 rebounds, 3 assists, 3-for-6 from three.

Cole Anthony: 16 points, 3 rebounds, 2 assists.

Bobby Portis: 12 points, 5 rebounds, 2 assists.

Kyle Kuzma: 10 points, 8 rebounds, 4 assists.

AJ Green: 10 points, 2 rebounds.

Golden State Warriors

Stephen Curry: 27 points, 6 rebounds, 4 assists, 4-for-10 from three.

Jonathan Kuminga: 24 points, 8 rebounds, 4 assists, 7-for-11 shooting.

Jimmy Butler III: 23 points, 10 rebounds, 3 assists.

Brandin Podziemski: 9 points, 5 rebounds, 3 assists.

Buddy Hield: 8 points, 1 rebound.

Draymond Green: 7 points, 4 rebounds, 6 assists.

These figures come from the official scorer’s report and game records.

What These Stats Reveal About Both Teams

The box score reveals two different offensive identities.

Golden State relied heavily on its established stars.

Curry, Kuminga, and Butler combined for most of the Warriors’ scoring while also contributing heavily in rebounds and free throws.

Milwaukee, meanwhile, spread the offensive burden.

That difference became especially important without Antetokounmpo.

The Bucks did not attempt to recreate his production through one player.

Instead, they increased contributions across the lineup.

That is one of the strongest tactical lessons from the game.

Depth is not simply about having many good players.

Depth becomes valuable when the team can redistribute responsibilities without losing offensive structure.

Milwaukee demonstrated that ability on this night.

A Practical Way to Read Match Player Stats

If you are evaluating future games between these teams, focus on five numbers before looking at individual scoring totals.

1. Three-Point Differential

The team that creates more quality three-point attempts often has a major scoring advantage.

2. Turnover Differential

Possession security is especially important when two teams have high-level creators.

3. Free-Throw Rate

Golden State’s excellent free-throw shooting showed how efficiently a team can score when it reaches the line.

4. Secondary Scoring

Watch how many points come from the third, fourth, and fifth scoring options.

This helps determine whether an offense is resilient.

5. Fourth-Quarter Efficiency

A team can dominate three quarters and still lose.

Late-game execution often reveals which players can create efficient shots under pressure.

Those five categories provide a more reliable evaluation than points per game alone.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who led the Bucks in scoring against the Warriors?

Ryan Rollins led Milwaukee with 32 points. He shot 13-for-21 from the field and made five three-pointers while also recording eight assists.

Who led the Warriors in scoring?

Stephen Curry led Golden State with 27 points. He added six rebounds and four assists while making four three-pointers.

What was the final score of Bucks vs Warriors?

The Milwaukee Bucks defeated the Golden State Warriors 120-110 at Fiserv Forum.

Did Giannis Antetokounmpo play?

No. Antetokounmpo was ruled out shortly before tipoff because of left knee soreness.

Who had the most rebounds for the Warriors?

Jimmy Butler III led Golden State with 10 rebounds, producing a double-double with 23 points.

Which team shot better from three-point range?

Milwaukee shot 19-for-46, or about 41%, while Golden State shot 13-for-38, or about 34%. The Bucks therefore had both more made threes and a higher three-point percentage.

Conclusion

The milwaukee bucks vs golden state warriors match player stats show why Milwaukee’s 120-110 victory cannot be explained by scoring alone.

Ryan Rollins was the headline performer with 32 points and eight assists, but the victory was built around a wider statistical foundation. Milwaukee shot 48% overall, made 19 three-pointers, committed only 12 turnovers, and received meaningful contributions from Myles Turner, Cole Anthony, Bobby Portis, Kyle Kuzma, and its perimeter shooters.

Golden State had plenty of production. Stephen Curry scored 27, Jonathan Kuminga added 24, and Jimmy Butler III recorded 23 points and 10 rebounds. The Warriors also shot an outstanding 96% from the free-throw line and competed well on the glass.

Still, Milwaukee won the more important statistical battles.

The Bucks made more field goals, made more three-pointers, shot better from three, and protected the basketball more effectively. Most importantly, when Golden State cut the deficit to 106-104 with just over four minutes remaining, Milwaukee responded immediately.

That final stretch captured the entire game.

Golden State had enough talent to make the contest close. Milwaukee had enough balance and shot-making to finish it.

For anyone studying the milwaukee bucks vs golden state warriors match player stats, the clearest takeaway is that the Bucks’ victory was a team offensive achievement led by an unexpected star. Rollins supplied the headline number, but Milwaukee’s spacing, depth, possession control, and fourth-quarter execution supplied the winning formula.