Milwaukee Bucks vs Toronto Raptors Match Player Stats

The milwaukee bucks vs toronto raptors match player stats from February 23, 2026, tell a much clearer story than the final score alone. Toronto defeated Milwaukee 122-94 at Fiserv Forum, but the 28-point margin was built through several measurable differences: Toronto shot 47% from the field, made 16 three-pointers, recorded 34 assists, forced 17 Bucks turnovers, and received a 32-point performance from Immanuel Quickley. Milwaukee, meanwhile, struggled to generate efficient offense and finished with only 18 assists against those 17 turnovers.

This was the fourth meeting between the two teams during the 2025-26 season, and Toronto finished the season series with a 3-1 advantage. The result also reflected an important contrast in playing styles during this particular matchup. The Raptors moved the ball effectively, protected possession, created more scoring opportunities from three-point range, and converted Milwaukee’s mistakes into additional chances. The Bucks collected 46 rebounds, one more than Toronto, but that advantage did not compensate for the difference in shooting, ball movement, and turnovers.

For readers researching the milwaukee bucks vs toronto raptors match player stats, the most useful approach is to look beyond the leading scorers. Points explain only part of the game. Assists, rebounds, shooting efficiency, turnovers, three-point production, and individual workloads help explain why Toronto controlled the contest.

Table of Contents

Milwaukee Bucks vs Toronto Raptors Match Player Stats: Game Overview

The game took place on February 23, 2026, at Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, with an announced attendance of 17,341.

Toronto entered the matchup with a 34-23 record and an 18-10 road record. Milwaukee entered at 24-31 with a 12-13 home record. Toronto’s stronger overall record was reflected in the result, but the statistical gap in this individual game was particularly significant.

Category	Toronto Raptors	Milwaukee Bucks
Final Score	122	94
Field Goals	44-94	35-85
Field Goal Percentage	47%	41%
Three-Pointers	16-46	9-32
Three-Point Percentage	35%	28%
Free Throws	18-23	15-19
Free Throw Percentage	78%	79%
Rebounds	45	46
Assists	34	18
Turnovers	6	17
Steals	11	4
Blocks	3	4
Offensive Rebounds	14	13
Defensive Rebounds	31	33
Fouls	19	16

The most striking numbers are assists and turnovers.

Toronto produced 34 assists while committing only six turnovers. Milwaukee recorded 18 assists and committed 17 turnovers. That means Toronto created a much cleaner offensive process while also putting considerably more pressure on Milwaukee’s possessions.

Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown

The final 122-94 score can be understood by looking at how the game developed.

Quarter	Raptors	Bucks
First	22	27
Second	38	24
Third	32	22
Fourth	30	21
Total	122	94

Milwaukee actually won the opening quarter 27-22. That makes the final margin even more revealing because Toronto did not start the game with immediate control.

The second quarter changed the direction of the contest. Toronto scored 38 points while Milwaukee managed 24. A 14-point advantage in one quarter erased Milwaukee’s early lead and gave the Raptors a five-point halftime advantage.

Toronto then continued to separate itself after halftime. The Raptors scored 32 points in the third quarter compared with 22 from Milwaukee. They added another 30 points in the fourth while holding the Bucks to 21.

The game therefore followed a clear pattern:

Milwaukee started better.
Toronto dramatically improved its offensive output in the second quarter.
Toronto maintained the advantage after halftime.
Milwaukee never produced a comeback quarter.
The Raptors turned a close opening period into a 28-point victory.

This progression is important when interpreting player statistics. A player who performed well early could still have a very different overall impact once the game became more one-sided.

Immanuel Quickley Leads Toronto With 32 Points

Immanuel Quickley was Toronto’s leading scorer with 32 points and also led the Raptors with nine assists.

That combination is one of the most important individual details in the game. Quickley was not simply the team’s highest-volume scorer. He also served as the primary creator, helping Toronto generate opportunities for other players.

His nine assists were nearly half of Milwaukee’s entire team total of 18. At the same time, Toronto finished with 34 assists overall, demonstrating that the team’s ball movement extended beyond one individual.

Quickley’s 32 points also gave Toronto a reliable scoring source throughout a game in which the Raptors steadily increased their offensive production.

For statistical analysis, his performance can therefore be viewed through three connected areas:

32 points as Toronto’s leading scorer
9 assists as Toronto’s leading playmaker
A major role in an offense that produced 122 points

The combination is more informative than the scoring number by itself.

Brandon Ingram Adds 22 Points

Brandon Ingram finished as Toronto’s second-highest scorer with 22 points.

His contribution gave Toronto another significant scoring option alongside Quickley. Having multiple players capable of carrying offensive responsibility can make it harder for a defense to focus entirely on one scorer.

In this matchup, Toronto’s overall 47% field-goal shooting suggests that its scoring was not dependent on low-efficiency attempts. The Raptors made 44 of 94 field-goal attempts.

Ingram was also part of Toronto’s starting five, alongside RJ Barrett, Jakob Poeltl, Immanuel Quickley, and Ja’Kobe Walter.

Sandro Mamukelashvili Scores 15

Sandro Mamukelashvili was Toronto’s third-highest scorer with 15 points.

His 15-point contribution was meaningful because Toronto did not need to rely exclusively on its top two scorers. Quickley scored 32 and Ingram scored 22, while Mamukelashvili added another 15.

That distribution helped support a 122-point team total.

A useful way to evaluate a high-scoring team performance is to ask whether the points were concentrated in one player or distributed across several contributors. Toronto’s scoring profile in this game was clearly broader than a one-player effort.

Jakob Poeltl Leads the Raptors in Rebounding

Jakob Poeltl led Toronto with eight rebounds.

Toronto finished with 45 total rebounds, only one fewer than Milwaukee’s 46. That means the Raptors did not dominate the game through overall rebounding volume.

Instead, their advantage came from what happened with those possessions and from other statistical categories.

Toronto also collected 14 offensive rebounds and 31 defensive rebounds. The 14 offensive boards created additional opportunities after missed shots and helped the Raptors maintain pressure on Milwaukee’s defense.

Poeltl’s eight rebounds were therefore part of a larger team rebounding effort rather than an overwhelming individual rebounding performance.

Kevin Porter Jr. Leads Milwaukee in Assists

Kevin Porter Jr. led Milwaukee with 10 assists and also scored 21 points.

That gave him a double contribution as both scorer and primary facilitator. His 10 assists were more than half of Milwaukee’s total of 18.

However, the team’s overall offensive numbers show that individual playmaking did not translate into the same level of collective efficiency as Toronto’s passing.

Milwaukee shot 41% from the field and 28% from three-point range. The Bucks also committed 17 turnovers.

This illustrates why assists should not be examined in isolation. A player can produce a strong individual assist total while the team still struggles to create efficient offense.

Ryan Rollins Also Scores 21 Points

Ryan Rollins matched Kevin Porter Jr. with 21 points, making the pair Milwaukee’s joint-leading scorers.

Rollins also led the Bucks with nine rebounds.

His contribution was therefore spread across scoring and rebounding. The nine rebounds were the highest individual total for Milwaukee in the game.

Milwaukee’s starting lineup included Kyle Kuzma, Myles Turner, Kevin Porter Jr., AJ Green, and Ryan Rollins.

Myles Turner Finishes With 14 Points

Myles Turner was Milwaukee’s third-highest scorer with 14 points.

His scoring contribution came in a game where Milwaukee had difficulty generating efficient offense. The Bucks made 35 of 85 field-goal attempts and only nine of 32 attempts from three-point range.

The 41% overall shooting percentage was six percentage points below Toronto’s 47%.

The difference becomes even clearer from outside the arc. Toronto made 16 threes compared with nine for Milwaukee.

Team Shooting Explains Much of the Difference

One of the clearest findings from the milwaukee bucks vs toronto raptors match player stats is the difference in shooting efficiency.

Toronto:

44 made field goals on 94 attempts
47% field-goal shooting
16 made three-pointers on 46 attempts
35% three-point shooting
18 made free throws on 23 attempts
78% free-throw shooting

Milwaukee:

35 made field goals on 85 attempts
41% field-goal shooting
9 made three-pointers on 32 attempts
28% three-point shooting
15 made free throws on 19 attempts
79% free-throw shooting

Free-throw shooting was almost identical. Milwaukee actually had a slightly higher percentage at the line.

The major differences were therefore field goals and three-pointers.

Toronto made nine more field goals overall and seven more three-pointers. That shooting gap was large enough to become a major factor in the final result.

Toronto’s Three-Point Production Was a Major Factor

Toronto attempted 46 three-pointers and made 16.

Milwaukee attempted 32 and made nine.

The Raptors therefore attempted 14 more threes and made seven more.

At 35%, Toronto was not extraordinarily efficient from three-point range in isolation. The important point is the combination of volume and conversion.

The Bucks shot only 28% from outside. That reduced the value of their perimeter attempts and made it harder to keep pace with Toronto’s scoring.

Three-point shooting also changes the scoring equation quickly. Each made three-pointer is worth 50% more than a made two-point field goal, so a seven-make difference from deep can have a substantial effect on the scoreboard.

The Biggest Statistical Difference Was Turnovers

If one category deserves special attention, it is turnovers.

Toronto committed only six turnovers.

Milwaukee committed 17.

That is an 11-turnover difference.

Toronto also recorded 11 steals, compared with four for Milwaukee. Those numbers fit together logically. The Raptors were able to pressure Milwaukee’s ball handlers and turn defensive activity into additional possessions.

For Milwaukee, 17 turnovers meant that several offensive possessions ended without a shot attempt.

This is particularly important because shooting percentages only measure attempts that reach the shooting stage. A turnover removes the opportunity entirely.

Toronto’s combination of six turnovers and 34 assists is especially notable. It indicates a highly efficient passing performance at the team level.

Assists Show the Difference in Ball Movement

Toronto recorded 34 assists.

Milwaukee recorded 18.

The 16-assist difference is substantial.

Toronto’s assist total represented a large portion of its 44 made field goals. This suggests that many of the Raptors’ successful shots came through team-created opportunities rather than isolated scoring.

Milwaukee’s 18 assists compared with 35 made field goals also indicates a considerably different offensive profile.

Kevin Porter Jr. individually recorded 10 assists, which was an excellent share of Milwaukee’s team total. However, the team still finished with fewer than half of Toronto’s assists.

This is one reason box-score analysis should consider both individual and team numbers.

Rebounding Was Surprisingly Close

Despite the 28-point final difference, the rebounding battle was nearly even.

Toronto recorded 45 rebounds.

Milwaukee recorded 46.

The Bucks actually finished one rebound ahead.

Milwaukee also had 33 defensive rebounds compared with Toronto’s 31. On the offensive glass, Toronto had 14 and Milwaukee had 13.

This is an important reminder that a team does not need to dominate every statistical category to win comfortably.

The Raptors’ advantage came primarily through shooting, assists, turnovers, steals, and overall offensive efficiency rather than a major rebounding advantage.

Toronto’s Defensive Pressure Created Extra Opportunities

Toronto recorded 11 steals.

Milwaukee recorded four.

That seven-steal advantage contributed to the broader turnover differential.

The Raptors also held Milwaukee to 94 points, while Toronto scored 122. Milwaukee’s 94 points were not enough to keep the game competitive after Toronto’s second-quarter surge.

Toronto’s three blocks were slightly below Milwaukee’s four blocks, so rim protection was not where the biggest defensive statistical difference appeared.

Instead, the Raptors’ defensive impact was more visible in ball pressure and possession disruption.

Milwaukee’s Offensive Problem Was Broader Than Shooting

It would be easy to look at Milwaukee’s 41% shooting and conclude that missed shots alone caused the loss.

The full box score shows a broader problem.

The Bucks:

Shot 41% from the field
Shot 28% from three
Recorded 18 assists
Committed 17 turnovers
Scored 94 points

Any one of those numbers might be manageable. Together, they created a difficult offensive environment.

The 17 turnovers were particularly costly because Milwaukee was already struggling to convert shots efficiently.

A team can sometimes overcome poor shooting by creating extra possessions through offensive rebounds or forcing turnovers. Milwaukee did collect 13 offensive rebounds, but Toronto’s 14 offensive rebounds meant there was no major advantage there either.

Toronto Won the Season Series 3-1

The February 23 matchup was the fourth meeting between Toronto and Milwaukee during the season.

Toronto won the season series 3-1.

The four reported results were:

Game	Result
Game 1	Milwaukee 116, Toronto 122
Game 2	Milwaukee 128, Toronto 100
Game 3	Toronto 111, Milwaukee 105
Game 4	Toronto 122, Milwaukee 94

The series was therefore not a simple one-sided progression.

Milwaukee won Game 2 by 28 points, while Toronto won Game 4 by the same 28-point margin.

Toronto won the other two meetings by seven and six points respectively.

Looking at all four games provides more context than using the February 23 result alone. The teams had already produced different types of games during the season, including a high-scoring Milwaukee victory and several Toronto wins.

Starting Lineups

Toronto’s starting five was:

Brandon Ingram
RJ Barrett
Jakob Poeltl
Immanuel Quickley
Ja’Kobe Walter

Milwaukee’s starting five was:

Kyle Kuzma
Myles Turner
Kevin Porter Jr.
AJ Green
Ryan Rollins

Starting lineups matter when analyzing player statistics because they establish the initial structure of the matchup.

They also provide context for individual roles. Quickley, for example, was both a starter and Toronto’s leading scorer and assist provider. Porter Jr. played a similar dual role for Milwaukee as a starter who led the team in assists while tying for the team scoring lead.

What the Box Score Says About Toronto’s Offense

Toronto’s offense was defined by three characteristics.

Efficient shooting

The Raptors shot 47% overall.

That gave them a strong foundation for scoring 122 points.

High-volume perimeter shooting

Toronto attempted 46 threes and made 16.

The combination gave the Raptors a major source of scoring beyond the paint.

Excellent possession management

Six turnovers across a 122-point performance is one of the clearest signs that Toronto protected the ball effectively.

The Raptors did not need to generate an unusually high number of possessions through reckless pace. They maximized the possessions they had.

What the Box Score Says About Milwaukee’s Offense

Milwaukee’s numbers point toward a different pattern.

The Bucks made 35 of 85 field-goal attempts and nine of 32 three-point attempts.

Their 15 made free throws provided some scoring support, but free throws alone could not offset the shooting and turnover disadvantages.

The 18 assists also show that Milwaukee’s passing output was much lower than Toronto’s.

Porter Jr.’s 10 assists demonstrate that the team had individual playmaking, but the overall offense still struggled to convert possessions into points.

Player Impact Cannot Be Reduced to Points

A common mistake when researching player statistics is to list the leading scorers and stop there.

This game provides a good example of why that approach is incomplete.

Quickley’s 32 points obviously stand out, but his nine assists add another dimension.

Porter Jr.’s 21 points are important, but his 10 assists tell us that he also carried substantial playmaking responsibility.

Rollins’ 21 points are complemented by his nine rebounds.

Poeltl’s eight rebounds show his contribution on the glass even though he was not one of Toronto’s top three scorers.

This is why a complete player-statistics article should examine scoring, assists, rebounds, shooting, and team context together.

Key Statistical Takeaways

Several numbers deserve to be remembered from this matchup.

122-94: Toronto’s final winning margin.

32 points: Immanuel Quickley’s team-leading scoring total.

22 points: Brandon Ingram’s scoring total.

21 points: The scoring totals for Kevin Porter Jr. and Ryan Rollins.

34 assists: Toronto’s team total.

18 assists: Milwaukee’s team total.

6 turnovers: Toronto’s total.

17 turnovers: Milwaukee’s total.

16 three-pointers: Toronto’s total.

9 three-pointers: Milwaukee’s total.

45 rebounds: Toronto’s total.

46 rebounds: Milwaukee’s total.

11 steals: Toronto’s total.

4 steals: Milwaukee’s total.

These numbers explain why the game ended with such a large margin even though the rebounding totals were almost identical.

How to Read These Stats Correctly

For anyone analyzing an NBA box score, the best method is to connect related categories.

Do not look at points alone.

Instead, ask:

How efficiently did each team shoot?
How many three-pointers did each team make?
Which team protected the ball?
Which team created more assists?
Who controlled offensive rebounds?
Which players contributed in more than one statistical category?
Did the game change significantly by quarter?

Applying those questions here produces a much clearer picture.

Toronto’s advantage was not based on one statistic. It was the combined effect of better shooting, significantly better ball movement, fewer turnovers, more steals, and strong scoring distribution.

Why the Second Quarter Mattered So Much

The second quarter deserves special attention because it changed the game.

Milwaukee led 27-22 after the first quarter.

Toronto then scored 38 points in the second while Milwaukee scored only 24.

That 14-point quarter advantage turned a five-point deficit into a five-point halftime lead for Toronto.

From there, the Raptors did not give Milwaukee an opportunity to regain control.

Toronto’s third-quarter advantage was 32-22, followed by a 30-21 advantage in the fourth.

The lesson is important for player-stat analysis: final numbers can hide when the game actually changed.

A player or team may have had a relatively balanced first quarter before dramatically changing its performance later.

The Role of Ball Security

Toronto’s six turnovers are particularly impressive when compared with its 34 assists.

The Raptors generated more than five assists for every turnover at the team level.

That ratio provides useful context for understanding why Toronto was able to maintain offensive flow.

Milwaukee’s 17 turnovers, meanwhile, were almost equal to its 18 assists.

That is a major contrast in possession management.

Turnovers do not automatically mean a team played poorly, but a large differential becomes significant when combined with a shooting disadvantage.

The Role of Free Throws

Free-throw shooting was one area where the teams were closely matched.

Toronto made 18 of 23 attempts for 78%.

Milwaukee made 15 of 19 for 79%.

The difference was only one percentage point.

That means the game was not decided by poor free-throw shooting.

Instead, the most important shooting differences came from field goals and three-pointers.

This distinction matters because it prevents an inaccurate explanation of the final score.

What Makes This Box Score Interesting

The most interesting aspect of this game is the contrast between the final margin and some of the individual categories.

Milwaukee actually won the total rebounding battle 46-45.

The Bucks also had four blocks compared with Toronto’s three.

They shot 79% from the free-throw line compared with Toronto’s 78%.

Yet Toronto won by 28 points.

Why?

Because the major possession and shooting categories moved strongly in Toronto’s direction.

The Raptors shot six percentage points better overall, made seven more three-pointers, recorded 16 more assists, committed 11 fewer turnovers, and recorded seven more steals.

That combination is much more informative than any single category.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who was the top scorer in the Milwaukee Bucks vs Toronto Raptors game?

Immanuel Quickley was Toronto’s leading scorer with 32 points. He also led the Raptors with nine assists.

What was the final score between Toronto and Milwaukee?

Toronto defeated Milwaukee 122-94 at Fiserv Forum on February 23, 2026.

Who led the Bucks in scoring?

Kevin Porter Jr. and Ryan Rollins were Milwaukee’s joint-leading scorers with 21 points each. Myles Turner followed with 14 points.

Who had the most assists in the game?

Kevin Porter Jr. led Milwaukee with 10 assists, while Immanuel Quickley led Toronto with nine assists. Toronto finished with 34 team assists compared with Milwaukee’s 18.

Which team had more rebounds?

Milwaukee had 46 total rebounds, one more than Toronto’s 45. Toronto had 14 offensive rebounds, while Milwaukee had 13.

Who won the 2025-26 season series?

Toronto won the season series 3-1. The Raptors won the first, third, and fourth meetings, while Milwaukee won the second meeting.

Conclusion

The milwaukee bucks vs toronto raptors match player stats from February 23, 2026, show how a game can be decided by several connected statistical advantages rather than one individual category.

Immanuel Quickley led Toronto with 32 points and nine assists, while Brandon Ingram added 22 and Sandro Mamukelashvili scored 15. Jakob Poeltl led the Raptors with eight rebounds.

For Milwaukee, Kevin Porter Jr. and Ryan Rollins each scored 21 points. Porter Jr. led the Bucks with 10 assists, while Rollins led the team with nine rebounds. Myles Turner contributed 14 points.

Toronto’s team numbers provide the strongest explanation for the 122-94 result. The Raptors shot 47% compared with Milwaukee’s 41%, made 16 three-pointers compared with nine, produced 34 assists compared with 18, and committed only six turnovers compared with Milwaukee’s 17.

The rebounding battle was almost even, with Milwaukee holding a 46-45 advantage. Free-throw shooting was also nearly identical. Those categories demonstrate why a complete box-score analysis needs to look at the whole statistical picture rather than simply identifying the winning team’s highest scorer.

Toronto’s 38-point second quarter was the major turning point. After trailing 27-22 after one quarter, the Raptors outscored Milwaukee in each of the final three quarters and built a 28-point victory.

Across the four-game season series, Toronto finished 3-1 against Milwaukee. The final matchup was therefore part of a broader season-long statistical story, not an isolated result.

For readers studying this game, the most useful figures are the combination of Quickley’s 32 points, Toronto’s 34 assists, six turnovers, 16 made three-pointers, and Milwaukee’s 17 turnovers. Together, these numbers provide the clearest statistical explanation for how Toronto turned an initially competitive game into a decisive road victory.