Golden State Warriors vs Milwaukee Bucks Match Player Stats
The Golden State Warriors vs Milwaukee Bucks match player stats from October 31, 2025, reveal how Milwaukee secured a 120-110 victory over Golden State at Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Ryan Rollins led the Bucks with 32 points and eight assists, while Stephen Curry scored 27 points for the Warriors. Jonathan Kuminga added 24 points, and Jimmy Butler III contributed 23 points and 10 rebounds. Although Golden State converted 25 of 26 free throws and collected 44 rebounds, Milwaukee’s superior field-goal efficiency and better ball security proved decisive.
This game offers a useful example of how individual scoring, shooting percentages, turnovers, and team execution combine to determine an NBA result. The final margin was 10 points, but the underlying numbers tell a more detailed story about Milwaukee’s offensive production and Golden State’s missed opportunities.
Match information at a glance
| Match detail | Information |
| Matchup | Milwaukee Bucks vs. Golden State Warriors |
| Date | October 31, 2025 |
| Venue | Fiserv Forum |
| Location | Milwaukee, Wisconsin |
| Final score | Bucks 120, Warriors 110 |
| Winning team | Milwaukee Bucks |
| Losing team | Golden State Warriors |
| Attendance | 17,341 |
| Game status | Final |
| Warriors’ leading scorer | Stephen Curry, 27 points |
| Bucks’ leading scorer | Ryan Rollins, 32 points |
The figures in this analysis come from the ESPN game and box-score information supplied for this matchup. The distinction between recorded statistics and their tactical interpretation is important: the numbers establish what happened, while explanations of why it happened should be treated as analysis rather than confirmed statements about the coaches’ intentions.
Golden State Warriors vs Milwaukee Bucks Match Player Stats: Complete Game Analysis
Milwaukee’s 120-110 victory was built on two major statistical advantages: the Bucks made 46 field goals compared with Golden State’s 36, and they committed only 12 turnovers compared with the Warriors’ 19.
Those differences help explain why Golden State remained competitive despite Milwaukee’s more efficient shooting. The Warriors made enough free throws to offset some of their shooting struggles, but their opponents produced more successful shots from the field and wasted fewer possessions.
Final Score and Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown
The scoring pattern shows that Milwaukee established an early advantage, briefly allowed Golden State to make progress, and then finished strongly in the fourth quarter.
| Quarter | Golden State Warriors | Milwaukee Bucks |
| First quarter | 25 | 34 |
| Second quarter | 33 | 26 |
| Third quarter | 26 | 27 |
| Fourth quarter | 26 | 33 |
| Final score | 110 | 120 |
Milwaukee won the first quarter by nine points, giving itself an early cushion. Golden State responded with a 33-point second quarter and outscored the Bucks by seven during that period.
However, the Warriors could not carry that momentum through the remainder of the game. Milwaukee edged the third quarter and then outscored Golden State 33-26 in the fourth.
The fourth-quarter difference was especially important because it prevented Golden State from turning its second-quarter recovery into a late comeback.
What the Quarter Scores Reveal
First quarter: Milwaukee takes control
The Bucks scored 34 points in the opening period, compared with 25 from the Warriors. That nine-point difference gave Milwaukee room to manage the rest of the game without needing to win every subsequent quarter.
Second quarter: Golden State responds
The Warriors scored 33 points and limited Milwaukee to 26. This was Golden State’s strongest quarter relative to its opponent, reducing the deficit and demonstrating that its offense could generate points against the Bucks.
Third quarter: The contest remains close
Milwaukee scored 27 points to Golden State’s 26. The one-point difference meant neither team produced a major scoring separation during the period.
Fourth quarter: Milwaukee closes the game
The Bucks scored 33 points in the final quarter. Golden State managed 26, leaving Milwaukee with a 10-point victory.
The lesson is that a strong middle quarter does not automatically produce a comeback. The Golden State needed to maintain its improved scoring while also limiting Milwaukee’s offense, but the Bucks delivered the stronger finish.
Golden State Warriors Player Stats
Golden State had three major scoring contributors in this matchup. Curry led the team, Kuminga delivered the most efficient high-volume scoring performance among the Warriors’ leading scorers, and Butler added a double-double.
However, their combined scoring was not enough to overcome Milwaukee’s higher shooting volume and lower turnover count.
Stephen Curry Player Stats
Golden State Warriors | Starting guard
| Statistic | Performance |
| Points | 27 |
| Rebounds | 6 |
| Assists | 4 |
| Steals | 1 |
| Field goals | 8 of 19 |
| Three-pointers | 4 of 10 |
| Free throws | 7 of 8 |
Curry finished with 27 points, making him Golden State’s leading scorer. He connected on four three-pointers and converted seven free throws, providing scoring from multiple areas of the court.
His 8-of-19 field-goal performance translated to approximately 42.1% shooting. From beyond the arc, he made 40% of his attempts. Those numbers reflect a productive scoring night, although not one efficient enough to match Milwaukee’s overall shooting output.
Curry also recorded six rebounds, four assists, and one steal. These contributions show that his impact extended beyond scoring, but the five turnovers recorded in his individual box score were a notable drawback.
Why his performance mattered: Curry’s perimeter shooting kept Golden State’s offense dangerous. His late three-pointer helped the Warriors close the gap to 106-104, according to the game recap. Milwaukee answered almost immediately, and Rollins’ response helped launch the decisive scoring run.
ESPN
+1
This sequence illustrates an important point when evaluating a high-scoring guard: total points show offensive production, but the timing of those points can be just as important to the game’s outcome.
Jonathan Kuminga Player Stats
Golden State Warriors | Forward
| Statistic | Performance |
| Points | 24 |
| Rebounds | 8 |
| Assists | 4 |
| Field goals | 7 of 11 |
| Three-pointers | 2 of 4 |
| Free throws | 8 of 8 |
Kuminga recorded 24 points, eight rebounds, and four assists. His shooting efficiency stands out because he made seven of 11 field-goal attempts, converting approximately 63.6%.
He also made both of his three-pointers and converted all eight free throws. That combination allowed him to score heavily without requiring a large number of shot attempts.
Compared with Curry’s 19 field-goal attempts, Kuminga needed only 11 attempts to score 24 points. This does not automatically make one player’s overall performance better than the other’s, since their offensive roles differ, but it highlights Kuminga’s efficiency in this particular game.
His eight rebounds also helped Golden State compete on the glass. When a forward scores efficiently while contributing as a rebounder and passer, that production can ease the offensive burden on a primary ball handler.
Key takeaway: Kuminga’s performance was one of Golden State’s strongest individual statistical contributions. The team’s larger problem was converting good individual performances into a more efficient collective result.
Jimmy Butler III Player Stats
Golden State Warriors | Forward
| Statistic | Performance |
| Points | 23 |
| Rebounds | 10 |
| Assists | 3 |
| Steals | 1 |
| Blocks | 1 |
| Field goals | 7 of 18 |
| Three-pointers | 1 of 2 |
| Free throws | 8 of 8 |
Butler finished with 23 points and 10 rebounds, giving Golden State another major scoring option and a strong presence on the boards.
His free-throw shooting was perfect at eight for eight. That was valuable because he could add points even when his field-goal attempts were not consistently falling. His 7-of-18 field-goal performance, however, equated to approximately 38.9%.
Butler’s contributions included three assists, one steal, and one block. Those defensive and playmaking numbers indicate that his role extended beyond putting the ball in the basket.
The contrast between Butler’s free-throw accuracy and his overall field-goal percentage is worth noting. Free throws can help maintain an individual scoring total, but they cannot entirely offset an opponent’s advantage in made field goals.
What his numbers mean: Butler provided scoring and rebounding support alongside Curry and Kuminga. Golden State received 74 points from its three leading scorers, yet the team still lost by 10. The remaining challenge was getting more efficient production from the rest of the lineup and protecting possessions.
Draymond Green Player Stats
Golden State Warriors | Forward
| Statistic | Performance |
| Points | 7 |
| Rebounds | 4 |
| Assists | 6 |
| Blocks | 1 |
| Field goals | 3 of 7 |
| Three-pointers | 1 of 3 |
Green scored seven points, but his six assists were a significant part of his contribution. His passing is especially relevant in an offense that relies on movement, player connections, and creating opportunities for its primary scorers.
He also recorded four rebounds and one block. His six assists were the highest total among the Warriors’ listed notable players, tying him with an important role in creating scoring chances rather than simply finishing them.
Green’s performance demonstrates why points alone are not enough to assess a player’s value. A player may contribute through passing, defense, and helping teammates find better shots. At the same time, those contributions must be considered alongside the team’s final result and possession efficiency.
Other Warriors Players and Supporting Contributions
The supplied box-score information also identifies Brandin Podziemski, Quinten Post, and Moses Moody among the players who appeared in the game.
Podziemski scored nine points, while Post and Moody did not score in their recorded appearances. These figures should be interpreted in the context of their minutes and responsibilities rather than treated as complete measures of their overall ability.
The most important team-level observation is that Golden State’s main scorers produced substantial totals, but Milwaukee still made 10 more field goals. Better supporting production, fewer turnovers, and a more consistent defensive response could have made the difference in a game decided by 10 points.
Milwaukee Bucks Player Stats
Milwaukee’s scoring was led by Rollins, whose 32-point performance was the standout individual display. Turner and Anthony also made important contributions, while the team’s broader scoring depth helped it maintain an advantage.
Ryan Rollins Player Stats
Milwaukee Bucks | Guard
| Statistic | Performance |
| Points | 32 |
| Rebounds | 3 |
| Assists | 8 |
| Field goals | 13 of 21 |
| Three-pointers | 5 of 7 |
| Free throws | 1 of 3 |
Rollins was the game’s leading scorer with 32 points and also delivered eight assists. His 13 made field goals were five more than Curry’s eight, and he converted five of seven three-point attempts.
His field-goal percentage was approximately 61.9%, while his three-point percentage reached 71.4%. Those figures made his performance particularly influential because he combined volume with efficiency.
Rollins’ eight assists also demonstrate his role as a creator. Rather than relying only on individual scoring, he helped generate opportunities for teammates and contributed to an offense that recorded 25 assists overall.
The three free throws he attempted resulted in one make, so free throws were not the main source of his scoring. Instead, his production came primarily from successful field goals, including shots from beyond the arc.
Why Rollins was so important: Milwaukee needed a strong offensive performance, and Rollins supplied both points and playmaking. The game recap describes his 32 points as a career scoring high at that point, following another strong scoring performance against the New York Knicks.
ESPN
+1
His output was also important in the closing period. After Golden State reduced the deficit to two points, Rollins answered with a three-pointer. Milwaukee then built a decisive run, helping secure the victory.
Myles Turner Player Stats
Milwaukee Bucks | Center
| Statistic | Performance |
| Points | 17 |
| Rebounds | 7 |
| Assists | 3 |
| Blocks | 1 |
| Field goals | 7 of 12 |
| Three-pointers | 3 of 6 |
Turner finished with 17 points and seven rebounds. He made seven of his 12 field-goal attempts, including three of six from three-point range.
His perimeter shooting is an important feature of this performance. A center who can score from outside creates additional offensive possibilities because opposing defenders must account for his shooting range rather than focusing exclusively on protecting the area near the basket.
Turner also recorded three assists and one block. Those contributions supported Milwaukee’s offense and defense, giving the team useful production from the center position.
His 17 points were fewer than Rollins’ total, but the value of Turner’s performance should not be judged solely by that comparison. His shooting range and rebounding offered a different kind of support, complementing Rollins’ perimeter creation.
Cole Anthony Player Stats
Milwaukee Bucks | Guard
| Statistic | Performance |
| Points | 16 |
| Rebounds | 3 |
| Assists | 2 |
| Steals | 1 |
| Blocks | 1 |
| Field goals | 7 of 15 |
| Three-pointers | 2 of 7 |
Anthony contributed 16 points, three rebounds, and two assists. He made seven of 15 field-goal attempts, including two three-pointers.
His scoring was important because it reduced the pressure on Rollins to provide every major offensive contribution. When multiple players can produce double-digit scoring totals, an opponent has more threats to account for and fewer opportunities to focus its defensive attention on one individual.
Anthony also contributed a steal and a block. These numbers do not fully describe his defensive impact, but they provide additional context for his overall performance.
Milwaukee’s ability to distribute scoring among multiple players was a meaningful difference in this matchup. The Bucks received substantial contributions from their leading scorer, their frontcourt, and their supporting guards.
Gary Trent Jr. Player Stats
Milwaukee Bucks | Guard
| Statistic | Performance |
| Points | 13 |
| Rebounds | 2 |
| Assists | 3 |
| Steals | 4 |
| Field goals | 4 of 14 |
| Three-pointers | 2 of 7 |
Trent recorded 13 points, three assists, and four steals. His four steals were a notable defensive contribution, even though his shooting was less efficient than Rollins’ or Turner’s.
He made four of 14 field-goal attempts, including two of seven from three-point range. That equates to approximately 28.6% shooting from the field.
The four steals stand out because they show another way a player can affect a game. Defensive plays can disrupt offensive possessions, create transition chances, and force opponents to adjust how they handle the ball.
However, a steal total alone does not establish how many points resulted directly from those plays. It is more accurate to say that Trent provided disruptive defense than to attribute a specific scoring advantage to his steals without a full possession-by-possession analysis.
Bobby Portis and Taurean Prince
Portis scored 12 points and made five of 10 field-goal attempts, including two three-pointers. His shooting gave Milwaukee another reliable source of scoring away from its starting lineup.
Prince added 10 points, making three of six field goals and three of three free throws. His scoring helped extend the Bucks’ offensive production beyond the leading contributors.
These performances matter because basketball games are rarely decided by the starters alone. Bench scoring can keep an offense productive when primary players rest and can provide a cushion when the opponent begins to gain momentum.
The official NBA box score records these individual contributions alongside the rest of the game statistics. Readers who want to verify the full player-by-player figures can consult the official NBA box score.
Golden State Warriors vs Milwaukee Bucks Match Player Stats: Team Comparison
Individual performances explain who scored the points, but team statistics help explain why the Bucks won. The following comparison brings together the main offensive and defensive figures supplied for the game.
| Team statistic | Warriors | Bucks |
| Points | 110 | 120 |
| Field goals made | 36 | 46 |
| Field-goal attempts | 85 | 96 |
| Field-goal percentage | 42% | 48% |
| Three-pointers made | 13 | 19 |
| Three-point attempts | 38 | 46 |
| Three-point percentage | 34% | 41% |
| Free throws made | 25 | 9 |
| Free-throw attempts | 26 | 13 |
| Total rebounds | 44 | 34 |
| Offensive rebounds | 9 | 7 |
| Defensive rebounds | 35 | 27 |
| Assists | 23 | 25 |
| Turnovers | 19 | 12 |
| Steals | 8 | 7 |
| Blocks | 6 | 2 |
| Personal fouls | 17 | 22 |
The central pattern is clear. Golden State had the advantage in rebounds, steals, blocks, and free-throw production. Milwaukee led in points, field goals, three-pointers, assists, and ball security.
This was not a case in which the Warriors failed in every area. Instead, they performed well in several categories but gave up too much ground in the statistics most directly connected to scoring efficiency and possession management.
Field-Goal Efficiency: Milwaukee’s Biggest Advantage
The Bucks made 46 field goals from 96 attempts, while the Warriors made 36 from 85 attempts.
That means Milwaukee made 10 more shots from the field despite attempting only 11 additional shots. The difference in shooting percentages was also substantial: approximately 47.9% for Milwaukee against 42.4% for Golden State, using the listed makes and attempts.
This gap had a direct effect on the final score.
Milwaukee’s 46 made field goals produced 92 points before accounting for three-point bonuses. Golden State’s 36 field goals produced 72 points before those bonuses. The Bucks’ additional successful shots created a major scoring advantage that Golden State had to offset through other means.
The Warriors did make more free throws, but those points could not fully compensate for the difference in field goals.
Practical interpretation: When reviewing a close or moderately separated NBA result, look at both the number of attempts and the percentage of successful shots. A team can generate plenty of attempts but still struggle to keep pace if its opponent converts a larger share.
Three-Point Shooting: Six Extra Makes for Milwaukee
The three-point numbers provide an even more specific explanation for the result.
Milwaukee made 19 three-pointers on 46 attempts, compared with 13 on 38 attempts for Golden State. That is a six-shot advantage from beyond the arc.
Because every made three-pointer is worth three points, Milwaukee’s six additional makes from long range represented an 18-point advantage in three-point makes before accounting for any other scoring differences.
The Bucks also shot approximately 41.3% from three-point range, while the Warriors shot about 34.2%.
Rollins was particularly effective, connecting on five of seven attempts. Turner made three of six, while Curry led Golden State with four made three-pointers.
Golden State’s 13 successful three-pointers were not a poor total in isolation. The problem was that Milwaukee produced six more, while also converting more field goals overall.
The result illustrates why three-point volume should never be analyzed without accuracy. Taking more shots from long range can increase scoring potential, but those attempts become especially valuable when players convert them at a high rate.
Free Throws: Golden State’s Strongest Shooting Category
Free throws were the clearest statistical advantage for Golden State.
The Warriors made 25 of 26 attempts, an outstanding conversion rate of approximately 96.2%. Milwaukee made nine of 13, or about 69.2%.
Golden State therefore scored 16 more points at the free-throw line than the Bucks.
This advantage helped keep the Warriors within reach, particularly because their overall field-goal percentage was lower. Curry, Kuminga, and Butler each made seven or eight free throws, giving Golden State dependable scoring from the line.
Yet the result demonstrates the limits of excelling in one category. Milwaukee’s 10-point final advantage remained despite Golden State’s 16-point edge in free throws.
A simple way to understand the balance is to consider the scoring sources together:
- Milwaukee scored more points through made field goals and three-pointers.
- Golden State generated substantially more points at the free-throw line.
- The Bucks’ advantage in successful field goals and their lower turnover count helped them preserve the lead.
The Warriors’ free-throw accuracy was excellent, but it could not erase their disadvantages elsewhere.
Rebounding: Golden State Won the Battle on the Glass
Golden State collected 44 rebounds, compared with 34 for Milwaukee. The Warriors therefore finished with a 10-rebound advantage.
Their nine offensive rebounds also exceeded Milwaukee’s seven, while their 35 defensive rebounds were greater than the Bucks’ 27.
Rebounding can affect both ends of the court. Defensive rebounds end opponents’ missed-shot opportunities, while offensive rebounds can create second chances for the team that retrieves the ball.
However, the total rebound count does not automatically establish which team created more valuable second chances. That requires examining what happened after each offensive rebound and how many additional points those possessions produced.
In this game, the Warriors’ rebounding advantage did not overcome their lower field-goal percentage and higher turnover total.
This is an important lesson for anyone assessing NBA statistics: a team can win one major category without winning the game. Rebounds are valuable, but their impact depends on how effectively a team converts possessions into points.
Assists: Milwaukee’s Small but Meaningful Edge
Milwaukee recorded 25 assists, while Golden State finished with 23.
The difference was only two assists, but it fits the broader picture of a Bucks offense that generated more made field goals and committed fewer turnovers.
Assists help indicate how often a made basket was directly created by a teammate’s pass. They do not capture every form of good passing or offensive movement, but they provide useful evidence about team playmaking.
Rollins contributed eight assists, while Green led Golden State’s listed notable players with six. Both players helped teammates find scoring opportunities.
The key distinction is that Milwaukee combined its passing output with higher shooting efficiency. An offense can generate assists and still struggle if its shots do not fall, while a team that both creates and converts opportunities can build a larger scoring advantage.
Turnovers: The Hidden Cost of Golden State’s Offense
Turnovers were among the most important differences in the game.
Golden State committed 19, while Milwaukee committed 12. The Warriors therefore gave the ball away seven more times.
Every turnover represents a possession that ends without a field-goal attempt or a successful free-throw trip resulting from that possession. Some turnovers also create transition opportunities for the opponent, although not every giveaway leads directly to points.
The difference becomes more significant when combined with Milwaukee’s shooting advantage. The Bucks were already converting a higher percentage of their shots, and the Warriors’ extra turnovers limited their opportunities to keep up.
Curry and Kuminga each recorded five turnovers in their individual box-score lines. Those numbers are worth noting because both were major offensive contributors. They also show why high scoring totals should be evaluated alongside mistakes.
The main lesson: Efficient scoring is only part of offensive performance. Teams also need to preserve possession of the ball and create enough good opportunities to use their shooting ability effectively.
Defense: More Blocks Did Not Mean a Better Overall Result
Golden State recorded six blocks and eight steals, compared with two blocks and seven steals for Milwaukee.
These numbers indicate that the Warriors produced more blocks and slightly more steals. Both categories can disrupt an offense, prevent scoring attempts, and change possession.
However, defensive performance is broader than these two statistics. It also includes positioning, contesting shots, limiting efficient attempts, defending without fouling, and securing rebounds after missed shots.
Milwaukee’s 120-point total suggests that Golden State did not sufficiently limit the Bucks’ scoring, even with its advantage in blocks and steals.
The Bucks also committed more personal fouls, 22 to Golden State’s 17. Yet the Warriors’ high free-throw conversion rate and larger number of attempts did not produce a victory.
Without a full film review, it would be too strong to attribute Milwaukee’s scoring success to one specific defensive mistake or scheme. The box score supports a narrower conclusion: the Bucks shot more efficiently and scored more points despite Golden State’s stronger totals in several defensive categories.
The Turning Point: How Milwaukee Protected Its Lead
The fourth quarter provides one of the clearest explanations of the final result.
According to the game recap, Golden State cut Milwaukee’s lead to 106-104 after Curry made a three-pointer with 4:03 remaining. At that moment, the Warriors had reduced the margin to only two points.
Rollins answered with a three-pointer approximately 10 seconds later. Milwaukee then produced an 11-2 scoring run that restored control and helped the Bucks secure the win.
ESPN
+1
This sequence highlights three important features of late-game basketball.
1. Responding Immediately to Pressure
Golden State’s three-pointer threatened to change the game’s direction. Rollins’ response stopped the Warriors from building on that momentum.
A timely basket can matter beyond its three points because it can also prevent an opponent from gaining confidence or forcing a change in defensive strategy.
2. Converting Opportunities During the Closing Minutes
The Bucks did more than answer one shot. Their subsequent scoring run helped widen the margin and reduced the time available for Golden State to recover.
The supplied statistics show why this type of stretch can be decisive. Milwaukee’s lower turnover total and better shooting efficiency were consistent with an offense that found more ways to finish possessions successfully.
3. Understanding the Difference Between a Close Score and a Controlled Finish
Golden State’s late rally brought the deficit down to two, but the final score was still 120-110.
A game can be competitive for most of its duration and then be decided by a short run. Final scores summarize the outcome, while play-by-play sequences reveal when control shifted.
In this case, Rollins’ response to Curry’s three-pointer was a pivotal moment because it helped Milwaukee regain separation at a time when Golden State had a realistic chance to make the finish much closer.
Why Ryan Rollins’ Performance Stands Out
Rollins’ 32 points were the highest individual total in the game. His performance deserves special attention because it combined several valuable skills rather than relying on one scoring method.
First, he converted 13 of 21 field-goal attempts. That is strong efficiency for a player taking more than 20 shots.
Second, he made five of seven three-point attempts. His perimeter shooting increased the value of his made shots and gave Golden State another scoring threat to defend.
Third, he recorded eight assists. That number indicates meaningful playmaking alongside his scoring output.
Finally, he made a key three-pointer after Curry had reduced Milwaukee’s lead to two points. His production therefore included both a strong overall statistical performance and a significant contribution during the decisive stretch.
A complete evaluation should still consider turnovers, defensive assignments, and other factors that are not fully captured by points alone. But based on the recorded statistics, Rollins was the leading offensive performer in this matchup.
What Golden State Could Learn From the Defeat
The Warriors’ loss was not caused by an absence of individual scoring. Curry, Kuminga, and Butler combined for 74 points, and the team made 25 free throws.
The more useful question is how Golden State could turn similar production into a better team result.
Reduce Unforced Turnovers
Golden State recorded 19 turnovers, seven more than Milwaukee. Reducing that number would give the offense additional chances to score and could prevent opponents from gaining easy transition opportunities.
Ball security does not mean avoiding every risky pass. It means choosing when to attack, recognizing defensive pressure, and limiting preventable mistakes.
Improve Overall Shot Efficiency
The Warriors made 42.4% of their field goals and 34.2% of their three-pointers. Those figures were below Milwaukee’s corresponding percentages.
Better shot selection and more consistent conversion could narrow the scoring gap. The box score alone cannot establish whether the difference came from defensive pressure, shot difficulty, or missed open attempts, so those questions would require a detailed film review.
Preserve the Strength of the Free-Throw Performance
Golden State’s 25-of-26 free-throw result was an obvious positive. The goal should be to maintain that accuracy while improving other parts of the offense.
A team that shoots well from the line and also makes more field goals can become difficult to defend, particularly late in games.
Turn Rebounds Into Additional Scoring
Golden State won the rebounding battle 44-34. The next step is to assess how many of those rebounds led to productive offensive possessions and whether defensive rebounds created effective transition opportunities.
Rebounds are most useful when they help a team secure possession, create better shots, and reduce the opponent’s second chances.
Defend the Closing Minutes More Effectively
The Bucks outscored the Warriors by seven in the fourth quarter. Once Golden State had reduced the deficit to two, limiting Milwaukee’s next scoring opportunity was especially important.
A stronger late-game defensive sequence might have changed the pressure on Milwaukee, although it cannot be known from the box score alone whether that would have changed the final result.
What Milwaukee Did Well
Milwaukee’s victory reflected a combination of individual production and team-level efficiency.
- High field-goal output: The Bucks made 46 shots from the field.
- Effective perimeter shooting: They converted 19 three-pointers.
- Strong lead scoring: Rollins scored 32 points and recorded eight assists.
- Multiple scoring contributors: Turner, Anthony, Portis, and Prince provided additional offense.
- Better possession management: Milwaukee committed seven fewer turnovers than Golden State.
- A strong finish: The Bucks outscored the Warriors by seven in the fourth quarter.
These factors reinforced one another. Better shooting helped Milwaukee score more efficiently, while fewer turnovers limited wasted opportunities. The team’s scoring depth also made it harder for Golden State to focus exclusively on one player.
The most important conclusion is not that one statistic alone won the game. Rather, Milwaukee’s advantages in several connected areas produced a stronger overall offensive result.
How to Read Basketball Player Statistics Correctly
For readers comparing NBA performances, the value of a box score comes from understanding how its categories relate to one another.
Points and Shooting Percentages
Points measure scoring output, while shooting percentages indicate how often a player converts attempts. A player who scores 24 points on 11 field-goal attempts has a different efficiency profile from someone who scores 27 points on 19 attempts.
However, field-goal percentage does not fully account for three-pointers and free throws. A more complete comparison considers all three scoring methods and the number of attempts required to produce the points.
Rebounds and Possession Control
Total rebounds show how often a player or team secures the ball after a missed shot. Offensive rebounds can create second chances, while defensive rebounds can end an opponent’s possession.
Rebounding totals should be considered alongside turnovers and shooting efficiency. A team can collect more rebounds but still lose if it wastes possessions or struggles to convert shots.
Assists and Playmaking
Assists provide evidence of a player’s contribution to teammates’ scoring. They are especially useful when evaluating guards and forwards who help organize the offense.
However, an assist total does not measure every good pass. Passes that create an open shot can be valuable even if the shooter misses, so assists should be viewed as one part of the playmaking picture.
Plus/Minus and Context
Plus/minus measures the team’s net scoring margin while a player is on the court. A positive figure means the team outscored its opponent during those minutes, while a negative figure means the opponent scored more.
It is not a direct measure of individual quality. Plus/minus is affected by teammates, opponents, lineup combinations, and the timing of a player’s minutes.
The same caution applies to single-game statistics generally. A box score is a reliable starting point for evaluating a performance, but it does not independently explain every tactical decision or defensive responsibility.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Golden State Warriors vs Milwaukee Bucks game on October 31, 2025?
The Milwaukee Bucks won 120-110 against the Golden State Warriors at Fiserv Forum. Milwaukee established an early lead and finished the fourth quarter with a stronger scoring performance.
2. Who scored the most points in the game?
Ryan Rollins led all players with 32 points for Milwaukee. He also recorded eight assists and made five three-pointers.
3. How many points did Stephen Curry score against Milwaukee?
Stephen Curry scored 27 points for Golden State. He added six rebounds, four assists, one steal, and four made three-pointers.
4. Which Warriors players were the leading scorers?
Curry scored 27 points, Jonathan Kuminga added 24, and Jimmy Butler III scored 23. Together, the three players contributed 74 points.
5. Why did Milwaukee beat Golden State?
Milwaukee made 46 field goals compared with Golden State’s 36 and committed 12 turnovers compared with the Warriors’ 19. The Bucks also made six more three-pointers, helping offset Golden State’s substantial advantage at the free-throw line.
6. Which team had more rebounds?
Golden State recorded 44 rebounds, while Milwaukee had 34. Despite the Warriors’ 10-rebound advantage, Milwaukee won because it produced more efficient scoring and committed fewer turnovers.
Conclusion
The Golden State Warriors vs Milwaukee Bucks match player stats show how Milwaukee secured a 120-110 victory through efficient shooting, strong perimeter scoring, and better ball security. Ryan Rollins led the Bucks with 32 points and eight assists, while Myles Turner and Cole Anthony provided important scoring support.
Golden State received 27 points from Stephen Curry, 24 from Jonathan Kuminga, and 23 from Jimmy Butler III. The Warriors also won the rebounding battle and converted 25 of 26 free throws, but their 19 turnovers and lower field-goal percentage proved costly.
The decisive difference was the Bucks’ ability to convert more field-goal attempts and respond when Golden State threatened to take control late in the game. The statistics demonstrate why individual scoring totals must be considered alongside shooting efficiency, possession management, and performance during crucial stretches.
Overall, Milwaukee’s balanced scoring and stronger offensive execution made the difference, while Golden State’s performance showed that success in individual statistical categories does not always translate into a team victory.
