Chicago Bulls vs Milwaukee Bucks Match Player Stats

The chicago bulls vs milwaukee bucks match player stats from the October 2025 preseason meeting tell a more interesting story than the final score alone. Milwaukee defeated Chicago 127-121 at the United Center, but the six-point margin does not fully explain how the game unfolded. The Bucks created separation through superior three-point shooting, stronger rebounding and a balanced scoring attack, while the Bulls stayed competitive through efficient free-throw shooting, points in the paint and several productive individual performances. ESPN’s official box score lists the game as a Milwaukee preseason victory, with the Bucks improving to 3-0 and Chicago moving to 2-1 in preseason play.

For readers searching for Chicago Bulls vs Milwaukee Bucks match player stats, the most important numbers are not simply the points scored by the leading players. The matchup provides useful insight into shooting efficiency, shot selection, playmaking, rebounding, bench production and the ways a team can lose despite making a similar percentage of its overall field goals.

Milwaukee shot 48 percent from the field, exactly matching Chicago’s 48 percent. The major difference came from outside the arc. The Bucks converted 20 of 48 three-point attempts for 42 percent, while Chicago made only 11 of 41 for 27 percent. That 27-point difference in made three-pointers was one of the clearest statistical reasons Milwaukee finished ahead.

The game also showed why box-score analysis should go beyond the leading scorer. Myles Turner scored 19 points for Milwaukee, Bobby Portis also scored 19, and Giannis Antetokounmpo produced a double-double with 13 points and 10 rebounds. For Chicago, Ayo Dosunmu led all Bulls scorers with 22 points, while Matas Buzelis added 19 and Josh Giddey posted a balanced 14-point, eight-rebound, seven-assist performance.

Table of Contents

Game Overview and Final Score

Milwaukee won 127-121 after leading 35-29 at the end of the first quarter. Chicago responded in the second period by outscoring Milwaukee 32-30, but the Bucks restored control with a 37-point third quarter.

The quarter-by-quarter scoring was:

Quarter	Milwaukee Bucks	Chicago Bulls
First	35	29
Second	30	32
Third	37	32
Fourth	25	28
Final	127	121

The most important swing came in the third quarter. Milwaukee scored 37 points and extended its advantage even though Chicago continued to score efficiently around the basket.

Chicago did not collapse in the final period. The Bulls actually outscored Milwaukee 28-25 in the fourth quarter. However, the deficit created during the earlier stages of the game proved too large to overcome.

The official box score records the matchup as a preseason game at the United Center. The game is dated October 12 on ESPN’s U.S. listing, while some international listings display October 13 because of time-zone differences.

Chicago Bulls vs Milwaukee Bucks Match Player Stats: Team Comparison

The team numbers reveal why Milwaukee won despite both clubs shooting 48 percent from the field.

Statistical Category	Bucks	Bulls
Points	127	121
Field Goals	45-93	42-88
Field Goal %	48%	48%
Three-Pointers	20-48	11-41
Three-Point %	42%	27%
Free Throws	17-23	26-36
Free Throw %	74%	72%
Rebounds	49	45
Assists	28	30
Turnovers	13	10
Steals	4	7
Blocks	3	2
Offensive Rebounds	9	6
Defensive Rebounds	40	39
Points in the Paint	50	62
Fast-Break Points	11	17
Largest Lead	12	3

These figures are particularly useful because they show two very different offensive approaches.

Chicago scored 62 points in the paint compared with 50 for Milwaukee. The Bulls also scored 17 fast-break points compared with 11 for the Bucks. Those numbers indicate that Chicago was able to generate significant production from inside and in transition.

Milwaukee, however, produced a much more valuable advantage from three-point range. The Bucks made nine more three-pointers than Chicago.

That is the central statistical lesson from this game.

When two teams shoot the same percentage from the field, the location and value of those attempts can still create a major scoring difference.

Why Milwaukee Won Despite Identical Field-Goal Percentages

At first glance, the 48 percent field-goal percentage for both teams makes the final score seem surprising.

Chicago made 42 of 88 shots. Milwaukee made 45 of 93.

Both teams therefore finished at approximately the same overall shooting efficiency. Yet Milwaukee scored six more points.

The explanation is largely three-point volume and accuracy.

Milwaukee attempted 48 three-pointers and made 20. Chicago attempted 41 and made 11. The Bucks therefore received 60 points from made threes, while Chicago received only 33.

That is a 27-point difference.

Chicago compensated partially by making more free throws. The Bulls went 26-for-36 at the line, while Milwaukee went 17-for-23. Chicago therefore scored nine more points from free throws.

But that was not enough to offset Milwaukee’s perimeter advantage.

This is an excellent example of why overall field-goal percentage should never be viewed in isolation. Two teams can both shoot 48 percent while producing very different offensive results depending on three-point volume, free throws, offensive rebounds and shot distribution.

Milwaukee Bucks Player Stats

Myles Turner

Myles Turner was one of Milwaukee’s most efficient offensive players in the matchup.

He finished with:

19 points
6 rebounds
1 assist
5-for-8 field goals
5-for-8 three-pointers
1 block
Plus/minus of +8

The most eye-catching statistic is the three-point shooting.

Turner made five of his eight attempts from beyond the arc. That means he alone produced 15 points from three-point range.

For a frontcourt player, that kind of perimeter efficiency changes the defensive geometry of the game. Chicago could not treat him as a traditional interior-only threat.

His 5-for-8 three-point performance was one of the clearest individual examples of Milwaukee’s overall shooting advantage.

Bobby Portis

Bobby Portis also scored 19 points for Milwaukee.

His official line included:

19 points
5 rebounds
1 assist
7-for-15 field goals
2-for-4 three-pointers
3-for-3 free throws
Plus/minus of +1

Portis provided a different type of scoring from Turner. While Turner was highly efficient from outside, Portis supplied volume and versatility.

Having two players reach 19 points gave Milwaukee a dependable scoring base without requiring one player to dominate the ball.

Giannis Antetokounmpo

Giannis Antetokounmpo finished with:

13 points
10 rebounds
3 assists
6-for-10 shooting
3 offensive rebounds
Plus/minus of +9

The double-double is important, but the rebounding contribution may be even more revealing.

Giannis collected 10 rebounds in only 21 minutes. Three of those came on the offensive glass.

His presence helped Milwaukee control second-chance opportunities and maintain physical pressure around the basket.

He did not need a huge scoring night for Milwaukee to win. That is significant because it demonstrates how the Bucks’ offensive production was distributed across the roster.

Gary Trent Jr.

Gary Trent Jr. scored 13 points.

His statistical line was:

13 points
2 rebounds
1 assist
5-for-14 field goals
3-for-10 three-pointers
2 steals
Plus/minus of +10

His three-point shooting was not especially efficient at 3-for-10, but his willingness to take perimeter shots helped maintain Milwaukee’s spacing.

The +10 plus/minus also indicates that Milwaukee performed well during his minutes.

Kevin Porter Jr.

Kevin Porter Jr. contributed more as a facilitator than as a scorer.

He recorded:

7 points
4 rebounds
8 assists
2-for-9 shooting
3-for-3 free throws
1 steal
Plus/minus of +9

The eight assists stand out.

Porter Jr. did not shoot efficiently, but his playmaking helped Milwaukee create opportunities for other players. His performance is a useful reminder that a point guard’s value cannot be judged only by points.

AJ Green

AJ Green scored 11 points while shooting 4-for-9 from the field.

He also made three of eight three-point attempts and added four rebounds and three assists.

Green’s shooting helped Milwaukee maintain its perimeter threat, particularly when combined with Turner, Trent Jr. and other shooters.

Chicago Bulls Player Stats

Ayo Dosunmu

Ayo Dosunmu was Chicago’s leading scorer with 22 points.

His line included:

22 points
3 rebounds
2 assists
8-for-12 field goals
1-for-3 three-pointers
5-for-5 free throws
Plus/minus of +11

Dosunmu’s 8-for-12 shooting was one of Chicago’s most efficient offensive performances.

Even more interesting is his plus/minus. Chicago lost the game by six points, but Dosunmu finished at +11.

That suggests Chicago’s most productive stretches occurred while he was on the court.

His performance was not simply a matter of scoring volume. He combined efficient shooting with strong overall impact.

Matas Buzelis

Matas Buzelis scored 19 points.

He finished with:

19 points
4 rebounds
6-for-11 field goals
2-for-6 three-pointers
5-for-5 free throws

Buzelis was another bright spot for Chicago.

His 6-for-11 field-goal shooting translated to approximately 55 percent from the field. He also converted every free-throw attempt.

Although he did not record an assist in the official box score, his scoring efficiency made him one of Chicago’s most effective offensive players.

Josh Giddey

Josh Giddey produced one of the most balanced statistical lines for Chicago:

14 points
8 rebounds
7 assists
4-for-7 field goals
1-for-3 three-pointers
5-for-8 free throws
1 block

The seven assists were particularly important.

Giddey’s value came from his ability to contribute in several areas rather than relying solely on scoring.

He was also one of Chicago’s strongest rebounders despite operating primarily as a perimeter player.

The combination of 14 points, eight rebounds and seven assists shows why a traditional points-only ranking would undersell his contribution.

Nikola Vucevic

Nikola Vucevic recorded:

6 points
9 rebounds
3 assists
3-for-10 field goals
0-for-4 three-pointers
1 offensive rebound

The nine rebounds were useful, but his shooting was one of Chicago’s weaker areas.

Vucevic’s 0-for-4 performance from three reduced Chicago’s ability to stretch the floor through the center position.

Because Milwaukee was shooting so well from outside, Chicago needed consistent offensive efficiency from its own frontcourt players to keep pace.

Tre Jones

Tre Jones finished with:

8 points
4 rebounds
6 assists
1-for-2 field goals
6-for-8 free throws

His shooting from the field was limited, but he generated value at the free-throw line and created six assists.

That is an important distinction when evaluating the box score. A player can have modest scoring numbers while still contributing significantly to offensive organization.

Isaac Okoro

Isaac Okoro finished with:

7 points
1 rebound
1 steal
1 block
2-for-7 field goals
1-for-4 three-pointers
2-for-2 free throws

His statistical impact was modest offensively, but his defensive contributions were visible in the box score.

He also recorded one offensive rebound.

Chicago’s Bench Production

One of the more interesting aspects of the matchup was the contribution from Chicago’s reserves.

Zach Collins scored eight points while going 4-for-4 from the field. He also recorded three assists and two rebounds.

Jalen Smith added 7 points, 1 rebound and 2 blocks in the official ESPN box score.

Patrick Williams scored one point.

Dalen Terry did not score.

Mouhamadou Gueye scored two points.

Noa Essengue scored five points and recorded three steals.

Jevon Carter scored 12 points while making three three-pointers.

Dosunmu’s 22 points came from the bench according to the official lineup classification in the ESPN box score, making his performance particularly valuable for Chicago’s second-unit scoring.

This is an important detail for anyone studying the chicago bulls vs milwaukee bucks match player stats from a roster-depth perspective.

Chicago did not depend entirely on its starting lineup for scoring.

The problem was that Milwaukee’s overall shooting efficiency, particularly from three-point range, remained difficult to match.

Comparing the Top Scorers

The leading scorers from the game were:

Player	Team	Points
Ayo Dosunmu	Chicago	22
Myles Turner	Milwaukee	19
Bobby Portis	Milwaukee	19
Matas Buzelis	Chicago	19
Giannis Antetokounmpo	Milwaukee	13
Gary Trent Jr.	Milwaukee	13
Josh Giddey	Chicago	14

Ayo Dosunmu was the game’s highest scorer with 22 points.

However, Milwaukee had more players clustered around double figures.

That distribution matters.

Chicago’s offense received major contributions from Dosunmu and Buzelis, while Milwaukee had scoring from Turner, Portis, Giannis, Trent Jr., Green and several reserves.

The Bucks therefore did not need one player to carry the entire offense.

Three-Point Shooting Was the Deciding Factor

The most important statistic in the game was the three-point difference.

Milwaukee:

20-for-48, 42 percent

Chicago:

11-for-41, 27 percent

The Bucks made nine more three-pointers.

At three points per make, that represents 27 additional points from made threes.

Chicago’s advantage at the free-throw line narrowed that gap, but Milwaukee still maintained the overall scoring advantage.

This is where the matchup becomes particularly useful for basketball analysis.

The Bulls actually won several categories:

More assists
More steals
More fast-break points
More points in the paint
More free throws made
Fewer turnovers

Yet Milwaukee still won.

The reason was that not every statistical category carries the same scoring weight.

Three-point shooting can create a substantial scoring advantage very quickly.

Rebounding Battle

Milwaukee won the rebounding battle 49-45.

The Bucks also collected nine offensive rebounds compared with six for Chicago.

That difference produced three additional offensive possessions through second-chance opportunities.

Giannis was particularly important, grabbing 10 rebounds in his limited minutes.

Myles Turner added six, while Bobby Portis and several other Milwaukee players contributed additional boards.

Chicago’s best rebounders included Vucevic with nine, Giddey with eight and Jalen Smith with one according to the official box score.

The four-rebound team advantage was not overwhelming, but it complemented Milwaukee’s three-point advantage.

Playmaking and Ball Movement

Chicago actually finished with more assists.

The Bulls recorded 30 assists compared with Milwaukee’s 28.

Josh Giddey led Chicago with seven assists, while Tre Jones added six and Jalen Smith contributed five.

For Milwaukee, Kevin Porter Jr. led the team with eight assists.

That difference tells an interesting story.

Chicago’s offensive ball movement was strong enough to produce 30 assists, but efficient passing did not automatically translate into victory.

Milwaukee’s 28 assists were enough because its shooting conversion was more damaging.

In other words, the Bulls generated good opportunities but did not finish enough of their perimeter attempts.

Turnovers and Defensive Events

Chicago committed 10 turnovers according to ESPN’s team statistics, compared with 13 for Milwaukee.

The Bulls also recorded seven steals, three more than Milwaukee.

Those numbers favored Chicago.

The Bulls also converted 16 points off turnovers, compared with six for Milwaukee.

That was a substantial advantage.

Chicago’s defense therefore created transition and possession opportunities, but Milwaukee’s offensive efficiency still proved strong enough to absorb that pressure.

This is one reason the final six-point margin is more informative than simply saying Milwaukee controlled every aspect of the game.

It did not.

Chicago won several individual statistical categories.

The Bucks simply won the categories that had the biggest effect on the scoreboard.

Points in the Paint vs Perimeter Efficiency

Chicago scored 62 points in the paint.

Milwaukee scored 50.

That 12-point advantage indicates that Chicago was effective attacking the interior.

The Bulls also scored 17 fast-break points, six more than Milwaukee.

But Milwaukee’s perimeter production outweighed those advantages.

This creates a useful contrast:

Chicago’s strengths

Interior scoring
Free-throw generation
Transition offense
Steals
Assists
Turnover control

Milwaukee’s strengths

Three-point shooting
Rebounding
Offensive rebounding
Balanced scoring
Efficient perimeter shot-making

The final result reflects that balance.

What the Player Stats Reveal About Team Strategy

The box score provides clues about how both teams approached the game.

Chicago appeared comfortable attacking the paint and generating transition opportunities.

The 62 points in the paint and 17 fast-break points support that interpretation.

Milwaukee, meanwhile, generated considerable value from perimeter shooting.

The 20 made three-pointers were the clearest statistical signature of its offensive approach.

The Bucks also had several players capable of stretching the floor.

Turner’s five made threes were particularly important because they came from a frontcourt player who could also contribute six rebounds and a block.

That combination can force difficult defensive decisions.

If a big defender stays near the basket, Turner can punish the defense from outside. If the defender moves out, driving lanes and interior opportunities can become more available.

The Importance of Free Throws

Chicago made 26 of 36 free throws.

Milwaukee made 17 of 23.

The Bulls therefore made nine more free throws.

That helped keep Chicago within striking distance.

However, free-throw accuracy was almost identical:

Milwaukee: 74 percent
Chicago: 72 percent

The difference was opportunity volume.

Chicago reached the line more often.

This is another example of why shooting percentage alone does not tell the whole story.

Chicago’s ability to generate free throws helped compensate for its weak three-point shooting.

Without that free-throw advantage, the final margin could have been significantly larger.

Plus/Minus: What It Adds to the Analysis

Plus/minus should not be treated as a perfect measure of individual performance, especially in preseason basketball where rotations and minutes can be unusual.

Still, it can provide useful context.

For Chicago, Ayo Dosunmu finished at +11 despite the Bulls losing by six.

Jalen Smith finished at +2.

Noa Essengue finished at +4.

On Milwaukee’s side, Gary Trent Jr. finished at +10, Giannis at +9, Kevin Porter Jr. at +9 and Myles Turner at +8.

Those numbers suggest that several Milwaukee starters were part of strong team stretches.

Dosunmu’s +11 is particularly interesting because it was better than the team’s overall result.

It reinforces the idea that his individual minutes were highly productive.

Biggest Individual Performances

Ayo Dosunmu: Best Scoring Performance

Dosunmu’s 22 points on 8-for-12 shooting made him Chicago’s most efficient high-volume scorer.

His perfect 5-for-5 free-throw shooting added further value.

Myles Turner: Most Efficient Perimeter Impact

Turner’s 19 points included five made three-pointers on eight attempts.

That was arguably the most strategically important individual shooting performance for Milwaukee.

Giannis Antetokounmpo: Best All-Around Interior Contribution

Giannis posted a double-double with 13 points and 10 rebounds.

His three offensive rebounds also helped Milwaukee generate second chances.

Josh Giddey: Best Playmaking Performance

Giddey’s 14 points, eight rebounds and seven assists gave Chicago a broad statistical contribution.

He affected the game in multiple areas.

Kevin Porter Jr.: Milwaukee’s Primary Facilitator

Porter Jr.’s eight assists led the Bucks.

His scoring was limited, but his ability to create for teammates supported Milwaukee’s balanced attack.

What Chicago Could Have Done Differently

The most obvious statistical adjustment would have been improving three-point efficiency.

Chicago attempted 41 three-pointers and made only 11.

At 27 percent, those attempts produced far less value than Milwaukee’s 42 percent conversion rate.

The Bulls did not necessarily need to abandon their interior attack. Their 62 points in the paint were a major positive.

Instead, the ideal adjustment would have been to combine interior pressure with more efficient perimeter opportunities.

Chicago also had opportunities created by its defensive activity.

The Bulls recorded seven steals and scored 16 points off Milwaukee turnovers.

Those advantages could have been amplified by converting more possessions into efficient shots.

What Milwaukee Could Take From the Game

Milwaukee’s most obvious positive was its shooting.

Making 20 three-pointers at a 42 percent rate is a major offensive advantage.

The Bucks also demonstrated that they could win without relying on an enormous scoring night from Giannis.

Giannis scored 13, while Turner and Portis each scored 19.

That balance makes an offense harder to defend because opponents cannot focus exclusively on one scoring source.

Milwaukee also won the rebounding battle and offensive-rebounding battle.

Those secondary advantages reinforced its shooting edge.

A Closer Look at the Preseason Context

It is important not to treat one preseason game as a complete prediction of the regular season.

Preseason games often involve unusual rotations, controlled minutes and experimentation.

That context matters when interpreting player statistics.

A player scoring 20 points in a preseason game does not automatically mean that player will average 20 points during the regular season.

Likewise, a poor shooting night does not necessarily indicate a long-term problem.

The more useful approach is to examine patterns.

For this matchup, the most useful patterns were:

Milwaukee generated a major three-point advantage.
Chicago generated more interior scoring.
Chicago produced more assists and steals.
Milwaukee won the rebounding battle.
Both teams shot 48 percent overall.
Chicago’s free-throw advantage helped reduce the impact of its perimeter shooting deficit.
Milwaukee’s scoring was distributed across several players.

Those observations are more valuable than making broad predictions from a single preseason result.

How to Read Chicago Bulls vs Milwaukee Bucks Match Player Stats Correctly

A useful box-score reading process starts with the final score but should not end there.

First, compare overall shooting percentage.

Then examine three-point shooting.

After that, look at free throws, rebounds, turnovers and assists.

Finally, study individual efficiency and minutes.

For this game, that process produces a clear conclusion.

The overall field-goal percentage was tied.

The three-point percentage was not.

Free throws favored Chicago.

Rebounding favored Milwaukee.

Assists favored Chicago.

Turnovers favored Chicago.

Points in the paint favored Chicago.

Yet Milwaukee won.

That tells us that the three-point gap was powerful enough to outweigh several smaller Chicago advantages.

Data Accuracy Note

There are a few differences between the supplied data and ESPN’s official box score.

The supplied table lists Milwaukee with 11 turnovers, while ESPN’s team statistics show 13 total turnovers. ESPN also lists Bobby Portis with 19 points, matching the supplied data, but the complete official player table provides additional bench scoring details that differ from some of the supplied entries.

For a published statistical article, the official box score should be treated as the primary reference.

This matters because even small errors in player statistics can undermine reader trust, particularly for articles whose main purpose is to answer a player-statistics search query.

Quick Statistical Summary

The most important numbers from the matchup are:

Category	Key Result
Final Score	Milwaukee 127, Chicago 121
Highest Scorer	Ayo Dosunmu, 22 points
Milwaukee Leaders	Myles Turner and Bobby Portis, 19 points each
Giannis Antetokounmpo	13 points, 10 rebounds, 3 assists
Matas Buzelis	19 points, 4 rebounds
Josh Giddey	14 points, 8 rebounds, 7 assists
Milwaukee 3PT	20-for-48, 42%
Chicago 3PT	11-for-41, 27%
Milwaukee Rebounds	49
Chicago Rebounds	45
Milwaukee Assists	28
Chicago Assists	30
Milwaukee Turnovers	13
Chicago Turnovers	10
Milwaukee Points in Paint	50
Chicago Points in Paint	62

Frequently Asked Questions

Who was the highest scorer in the Bulls vs Bucks game?

Ayo Dosunmu was Chicago’s leading scorer with 22 points. He shot 8-for-12 from the field and made all five of his free-throw attempts.

Who led the Milwaukee Bucks in scoring?

Myles Turner and Bobby Portis each scored 19 points for Milwaukee. Turner was especially effective from three-point range, making five of eight attempts.

What was the final score between the Bulls and Bucks?

The Milwaukee Bucks defeated the Chicago Bulls 127-121 in the preseason matchup.

Why did Milwaukee beat Chicago?

The biggest statistical difference was three-point shooting. Milwaukee made 20 of 48 three-point attempts for 42 percent, while Chicago made 11 of 41 for 27 percent.

Did Giannis Antetokounmpo record a double-double?

Yes. Giannis Antetokounmpo recorded 13 points and 10 rebounds, giving him a double-double.

Which team had more assists?

Chicago recorded 30 assists, compared with 28 for Milwaukee. Josh Giddey led the Bulls with seven assists, while Kevin Porter Jr. led Milwaukee with eight.

Conclusion

The chicago bulls vs milwaukee bucks match player stats provide a strong example of why basketball analysis needs more than a simple look at the final score.

Milwaukee won 127-121, but Chicago performed well in several important areas. The Bulls had more assists, steals, fast-break points, points in the paint and free throws made. They also committed fewer turnovers.

The decisive difference was perimeter efficiency.

Milwaukee made 20 three-pointers at a 42 percent rate. Chicago made only 11 at 27 percent. That nine-made-three advantage created a scoring gap that Chicago’s strong interior production and free-throw advantage could not fully erase.

Ayo Dosunmu was Chicago’s leading scorer with 22 points and one of the most efficient players on either side. Matas Buzelis added 19 points, while Josh Giddey supplied a versatile 14-point, eight-rebound and seven-assist performance.

For Milwaukee, Myles Turner and Bobby Portis each scored 19 points. Turner stood out with five made three-pointers, while Giannis Antetokounmpo contributed a double-double with 13 points and 10 rebounds. Kevin Porter Jr. added eight assists, giving Milwaukee another important playmaking presence.

The broader lesson from this matchup is simple: identical overall field-goal percentages do not mean identical offensive efficiency. Shot value, three-point conversion, free throws, rebounding and possession quality all shape the final result.

That is what makes the full box score more useful than the final score alone.