Milwaukee Bucks vs Oklahoma City Thunder Match Player Stats
The milwaukee bucks vs oklahoma city thunder match player stats from the February 2026 meeting tell a much more interesting story than the 110-93 final score alone. Milwaukee defeated Oklahoma City by 17 points at Paycom Center, producing a balanced offensive performance while limiting the Thunder to 37% shooting from the field. Ousmane Dieng delivered the most complete individual performance of the game with 19 points, 11 rebounds, 6 assists, and 4 blocks, while AJ Green added 17 points through efficient three-point shooting. For Oklahoma City, Isaiah Joe led all Thunder scorers with 17 points, while Chet Holmgren controlled the glass with 13 rebounds.
The result was particularly notable because both teams were missing major stars. The Thunder were without Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, while Milwaukee was without Giannis Antetokounmpo. That created an unusual matchup in which supporting players had to carry much of the offensive and defensive workload. The NBA’s official game record confirms the 110-93 result at Paycom Center, while ESPN lists Milwaukee at 23-30 and Oklahoma City at 42-14 at the time of the game.
Milwaukee Bucks vs Oklahoma City Thunder Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The game was played at Paycom Center in Oklahoma City and attracted 18,203 fans. Milwaukee controlled the contest from the opening quarter and never gave the Thunder a meaningful opportunity to reverse the momentum.
The quarter-by-quarter scoring was:
| Quarter | Milwaukee Bucks | Oklahoma City Thunder |
| 1st | 30 | 25 |
| 2nd | 37 | 30 |
| 3rd | 22 | 18 |
| 4th | 21 | 20 |
| Final | 110 | 93 |
Milwaukee’s 37-point second quarter was especially important. The Bucks entered halftime with a 67-55 advantage, then extended the lead again during the third quarter.
According to the official NBA game data, Milwaukee’s biggest lead reached 24 points. The game had three ties and only one lead change, which shows how strongly the Bucks controlled the overall flow.
The final score also represented a significant turnaround from the teams’ previous meeting. Oklahoma City had won that earlier matchup 122-102 on January 22, 2026. With Milwaukee winning the rematch 110-93, the season series stood at 1-1 based on the supplied game data.
Team Statistics That Explain the 17-Point Win
The easiest way to understand the result is to move beyond points and examine how the two teams generated those points.
| Team Statistic | Milwaukee Bucks | Oklahoma City Thunder |
| Points | 110 | 93 |
| Field Goals | 44-95 | 31-83 |
| Field Goal % | 46% | 37% |
| Three-Pointers | 17-42 | 15-45 |
| Three-Point % | 40% | 33% |
| Free Throws | 5-7 | 16-20 |
| Free Throw % | 71% | 80% |
| Rebounds | 49 | 47 |
| Assists | 25 | 22 |
| Turnovers | 10 | 16 |
| Steals | 9 | 3 |
| Blocks | 6 | 6 |
The most important statistical difference was shooting efficiency.
Milwaukee made 44 of 95 field-goal attempts, while Oklahoma City made only 31 of 83. That produced a nine-percentage-point gap in field-goal accuracy.
The Bucks also made 17 three-pointers compared with 15 for Oklahoma City. The difference was not huge in three-point makes, but Milwaukee took better advantage of its opportunities, shooting 40% from beyond the arc compared with 33% for the Thunder.
Another major factor was ball security. Milwaukee committed only 10 turnovers, while Oklahoma City turned the ball over 16 times. Those six additional turnovers gave Milwaukee more opportunities to attack before the Thunder’s defense could get organized.
This is one of the most useful lessons when analyzing a box score. A team does not need to dominate every category to win comfortably. Milwaukee did not shoot more free throws, and Oklahoma City actually had the better free-throw percentage. Instead, the Bucks combined better field-goal efficiency, better three-point accuracy, fewer turnovers, more assists, and more steals.
Ousmane Dieng Delivered the Game’s Most Complete Performance
Ousmane Dieng was the standout performer in the matchup.
His final line was:
| Statistic | Ousmane Dieng |
| Minutes | 36:28 |
| Points | 19 |
| Rebounds | 11 |
| Assists | 6 |
| Steals | 1 |
| Blocks | 4 |
| Field Goals | 7-12 |
| Field Goal % | 58.3% |
| Three-Pointers | 3-6 |
| Three-Point % | 50% |
| Free Throws | 2-4 |
| Plus/Minus | +16 |
The most impressive part of Dieng’s performance was its balance.
He was not simply a scorer. He contributed in almost every major statistical category. His 19 points led Milwaukee, his 11 rebounds were a team high, his 6 assists were tied to the highest individual total on the Bucks, and his 4 blocks led the entire game.
He also shot 7-for-12 from the field and 3-for-6 from three-point range.
That efficiency mattered because the Bucks needed production from multiple players rather than relying on one superstar. Dieng gave them scoring without forcing excessive shots.
His +16 plus/minus also reflects how effectively Milwaukee performed during his minutes.
There was an additional storyline surrounding Dieng. He had previously been a member of Oklahoma City’s organization before being traded shortly before the game. ESPN’s recap identified him as a former Thunder forward and noted his role with the Oklahoma City Blue during their 2024 G League championship run.
That made his performance especially significant from a narrative perspective, but the statistics stand on their own. His contribution was one of the central reasons Milwaukee won.
Kyle Kuzma’s Contribution for Milwaukee
Kyle Kuzma finished with 14 points, 4 rebounds, and 2 assists.
His shooting line was less efficient than Dieng’s:
| Statistic | Kyle Kuzma |
| Points | 14 |
| Rebounds | 4 |
| Assists | 2 |
| Field Goals | 5-15 |
| Three-Pointers | 2-6 |
| Free Throws | 2-2 |
| Plus/Minus | +8 |
Kuzma shot 33.3% from the field, so his value in this particular game was not based on shooting efficiency alone.
The bigger point is that Milwaukee did not need every starter to shoot efficiently. The Bucks had enough complementary production to absorb a relatively inefficient scoring night from one starter.
Kuzma still reached double figures, made two three-pointers, converted both free throws, and finished with a positive plus/minus.
Kevin Porter Jr. Controlled the Bucks’ Playmaking
Kevin Porter Jr. provided one of Milwaukee’s most important statistical contributions with 7 assists.
He finished with:
| Statistic | Kevin Porter Jr. |
| Points | 12 |
| Rebounds | 3 |
| Assists | 7 |
| Steals | 3 |
| Field Goals | 6-15 |
| Plus/Minus | +12 |
His seven assists were particularly important because Milwaukee finished with 25 assists as a team.
Porter Jr. also recorded 3 steals, giving him an impact on both sides of the ball.
His scoring was not spectacular, but that is not necessarily what Milwaukee needed most from him. With Dieng, AJ Green, Bobby Portis, Pete Nance, and Cam Thomas all providing scoring support, Porter Jr. could focus more heavily on creating opportunities and keeping the offense moving.
AJ Green Was a Major Three-Point Weapon
AJ Green scored 17 points and made 5 of 11 attempts from three-point range.
That means all of his listed field goals came from beyond the arc.
| Statistic | AJ Green |
| Points | 17 |
| Rebounds | 2 |
| Assists | 3 |
| Three-Pointers | 5-11 |
| Three-Point % | 45.5% |
| Plus/Minus | +17 |
His +17 plus/minus was the best among Milwaukee’s starters and tied closely to the team’s overall control of the game.
Green’s shooting stretched the Thunder defense. When a team is already trying to defend interior scoring, rebounding threats, and playmaking, accurate perimeter shooting creates additional pressure.
His five made threes were therefore more important than his raw point total might suggest.
Bobby Portis Provided a Powerful Bench Contribution
Bobby Portis gave Milwaukee another double-double.
He finished with:
| Statistic | Bobby Portis |
| Points | 15 |
| Rebounds | 12 |
| Assists | 3 |
| Steals | 4 |
| Plus/Minus | +19 |
Portis’ 12 rebounds were second only to Dieng’s 11 if considering the supplied team leaders differently, but his overall production was substantial. More importantly, he added 4 steals.
His +19 plus/minus was the strongest figure among the Bucks players listed.
This is an excellent example of why bench statistics matter when evaluating a basketball game. Milwaukee did not simply receive production from its starting lineup. Portis helped maintain the team’s advantage after substitutions.
Pete Nance and Cam Thomas Added Valuable Bench Scoring
Pete Nance scored 11 points and made 3 of 5 three-point attempts.
Cam Thomas also scored 12 points, shooting 5-for-13 from the field.
Their contributions meant Milwaukee had several players capable of producing points outside its primary lineup.
Nance’s three-point shooting was particularly efficient. Three made threes from five attempts provided Milwaukee with an additional perimeter threat.
Thomas, meanwhile, gave the Bucks another player who could create his own offense.
The result was a balanced scoring distribution instead of a one-player scoring profile.
Complete Milwaukee Player Statistics
Here is the supplied player-by-player breakdown for Milwaukee.
| Player | PTS | REB | AST | STL | BLK | FG | 3PT | +/- |
| Ousmane Dieng | 19 | 11 | 6 | 1 | 4 | 7-12 | 3-6 | +16 |
| AJ Green | 17 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 5-11 | 5-11 | +17 |
| Bobby Portis | 15 | 12 | 3 | 4 | 0 | Not supplied | Not supplied | +19 |
| Kyle Kuzma | 14 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5-15 | 2-6 | +8 |
| Kevin Porter Jr. | 12 | 3 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 6-15 | Not supplied | +12 |
| Cam Thomas | 12 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5-13 | Not supplied | +15 |
| Pete Nance | 11 | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3-5 3PT | 3-5 | +4 |
| Jericho Sims | 8 | 5 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4-5 | Not supplied | +6 |
| Andre Jackson Jr. | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Not supplied | Not supplied | -2 |
| Thanasis Antetokounmpo | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Not supplied | Not supplied | -5 |
| Gary Trent Jr. | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | Not supplied | Not supplied | -5 |
The official NBA box score confirms Dieng’s 19-point, 11-rebound, 6-assist, 4-block performance and Kuzma’s 14-point outing.
Chet Holmgren Led Oklahoma City on the Glass
Chet Holmgren was Oklahoma City’s most productive all-around player despite the loss.
His final numbers were:
| Statistic | Chet Holmgren |
| Points | 16 |
| Rebounds | 13 |
| Assists | 4 |
| Blocks | 2 |
| Field Goals | 5-12 |
| Free Throws | 6-6 |
| Plus/Minus | -8 |
Holmgren’s 13 rebounds were the highest total for either team.
He also made all six of his free throws, which helped him finish with 16 points despite shooting 5-for-12 from the field.
The biggest issue was that his individual production did not translate into enough team offense. Oklahoma City needed more efficient scoring from its perimeter group and more overall shot-making.
The official Thunder game page lists Isaiah Joe as the scoring leader and Holmgren as the rebound and assist leader.
Isaiah Joe Led the Thunder in Scoring
Isaiah Joe finished with 17 points, making him Oklahoma City’s leading scorer.
His shooting line was:
| Statistic | Isaiah Joe |
| Points | 17 |
| Rebounds | 4 |
| Assists | 2 |
| Field Goals | 5-11 |
| Three-Pointers | 4-9 |
| Free Throws | 3-3 |
| Plus/Minus | -14 |
Joe’s 4-for-9 performance from three-point range was one of the brighter parts of Oklahoma City’s offensive night.
However, his -14 plus/minus indicates that his scoring did not offset Milwaukee’s broader control.
This is an important distinction when reading player statistics. A player can lead a team in points and still have a limited overall impact on the final outcome if the opposing team is generating more efficient offense across the lineup.
Kenrich Williams and Luguentz Dort
Kenrich Williams scored 9 points, grabbed 8 rebounds, and made 2 of 4 three-point attempts.
Luguentz Dort also scored 9 points but shot 4-for-12 from the field.
Their numbers were:
| Player | PTS | REB | AST | FG | 3PT | STL | +/- |
| Kenrich Williams | 9 | 8 | 1 | 3-8 | 2-4 | 0 | -8 |
| Luguentz Dort | 9 | 2 | 1 | 4-12 | 1-6 | 1 | -14 |
Williams gave Oklahoma City useful rebounding and perimeter shooting.
Dort’s defensive reputation is important in broader player evaluation, but offensively he struggled to convert enough attempts in this particular matchup.
Cason Wallace Had a Defensive Impact
Cason Wallace scored only 3 points, shooting 1-for-7.
However, his box score also included 3 assists and 2 blocks.
| Statistic | Cason Wallace |
| Points | 3 |
| Rebounds | 2 |
| Assists | 3 |
| Blocks | 2 |
| Field Goals | 1-7 |
| Plus/Minus | -3 |
His offensive output was limited, but the two blocks demonstrated his defensive contribution.
Still, Oklahoma City needed more scoring from the starting group. Wallace, Dort, and Williams combined for only 21 points.
That placed additional pressure on Joe and Holmgren.
Thunder Bench Production
Oklahoma City’s bench had several useful contributions, but the overall production was not enough to match Milwaukee.
| Player | PTS | REB | AST | STL | BLK | +/- |
| Jared McCain | 13 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -3 |
| Alex Caruso | 9 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | -8 |
| Jaylin Williams | 7 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | -19 |
| Aaron Wiggins | 5 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -8 |
| Buddy Boeheim | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | +3 |
| Nikola Topic | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -5 |
| Brooks Barnhizer | 0 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | +2 |
McCain was the strongest bench scorer with 13 points.
Caruso added 9 points and made 3 of 4 three-point attempts.
Jaylin Williams produced 7 points and 3 assists, but his -19 plus/minus was the lowest listed figure in the game.
That does not mean the entire loss can be assigned to one player. Plus/minus is a lineup-context statistic, and it should always be interpreted alongside shooting, turnovers, opponent quality, and game situation.
Why Milwaukee Won the Game
The most useful way to interpret the box score is to identify the statistical chain that produced the victory.
1. Milwaukee Shot Much Better From the Field
The Bucks made 46% of their field-goal attempts.
The Thunder made only 37%.
That nine-point difference in shooting percentage is substantial over 83 to 95 attempts.
Milwaukee’s 44 made field goals compared with Oklahoma City’s 31 created a 13-field-goal advantage.
2. The Bucks Won the Three-Point Efficiency Battle
Milwaukee made 17 of 42 three-point attempts.
Oklahoma City made 15 of 45.
The difference was not simply two additional made threes. Milwaukee also converted at 40%, compared with 33% for the Thunder.
That combination gave Milwaukee better value from its perimeter attempts.
3. Milwaukee Protected the Ball Better
The Bucks committed 10 turnovers.
Oklahoma City committed 16.
Six fewer turnovers can have a major effect because turnovers frequently lead to transition opportunities and remove potential possessions from the offense.
The NBA’s official game summary also shows Milwaukee scoring 7 fast-break points compared with 10 for Oklahoma City, meaning the Bucks did not win simply by running in transition. Their advantage was more strongly connected to half-court execution and efficiency.
4. Milwaukee Created More Defensive Disruption
The Bucks recorded 9 steals compared with 3 for Oklahoma City.
They also matched the Thunder with 6 blocks.
That combination indicates Milwaukee was active defensively without relying exclusively on rim protection.
5. The Bucks Had a More Balanced Scoring Profile
Milwaukee had multiple players in double figures.
Dieng scored 19, Green 17, Portis 15, Kuzma 14, Porter Jr. 12, Cam Thomas 12, and Nance 11.
That is a difficult scoring distribution for an opponent to contain.
Oklahoma City had Joe at 17 and Holmgren at 16, followed by McCain at 13. The Thunder had less consistent scoring across the lineup.
The Rebounding Battle Was Surprisingly Close
Despite Milwaukee’s 17-point victory, the rebounding numbers were almost even.
Milwaukee collected 49 rebounds.
Oklahoma City collected 47.
That tells us the Bucks did not win because they completely dominated the boards.
Instead, their advantage came from a combination of shooting and possession management.
Dieng and Portis were particularly important here. Dieng grabbed 11 rebounds, while Portis recorded 12.
Holmgren’s 13 rebounds led everyone, but his rebounding advantage did not produce enough second-chance or overall offensive value to overcome the Thunder’s shooting problems.
Free Throws Were Not the Reason for Milwaukee’s Victory
This is another useful statistical detail.
Oklahoma City shot 16-for-20 from the free-throw line.
Milwaukee shot only 5-for-7.
The Thunder therefore had a clear advantage in free-throw attempts and made free throws.
Yet Oklahoma City still lost by 17 points.
That demonstrates how strongly the Bucks performed in other areas.
If you look only at free throws, Oklahoma City appears to have had an advantage. But the complete box score shows that field-goal efficiency, three-point shooting, turnovers, steals, and overall scoring balance were much more influential.
What the Plus/Minus Numbers Tell Us
Plus/minus can be especially useful when a game is controlled by lineup combinations.
Milwaukee’s listed leaders included:
- Bobby Portis: +19
- AJ Green: +17
- Ousmane Dieng: +16
- Cam Thomas: +15
- Kevin Porter Jr.: +12
Oklahoma City’s best listed plus/minus figures were:
- Buddy Boeheim: +3
- Brooks Barnhizer: +2
- Cason Wallace: -3
- Jared McCain: -3
- Nikola Topic: -5
Milwaukee had several players with strongly positive figures, while Oklahoma City had no listed player above +3.
That pattern supports the broader conclusion that Milwaukee’s advantage was collective rather than dependent on one individual.
However, plus/minus should never be treated as a standalone ranking system. It describes what happened while a player was on the court, not necessarily everything that player caused.
How the Game Changed the Season Series
The supplied matchup history shows the teams entering this contest after Oklahoma City’s 122-102 victory over Milwaukee on January 22, 2026.
That earlier result was a 20-point Thunder win.
The rematch produced the opposite outcome, with Milwaukee winning by 17.
| Meeting | Winner | Score | Margin |
| January 22, 2026 | Oklahoma City | 122-102 | Thunder +20 |
| February 13, 2026 | Milwaukee | 110-93 | Bucks +17 |
The season series therefore finished 1-1 based on these two meetings.
The contrast is useful because it shows how dramatically a matchup can change when key players are unavailable.
The NBA preview noted that both Giannis Antetokounmpo and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander were unavailable for this meeting.
As a result, the game should not be interpreted as a simple measure of which full-strength roster was better. It was a snapshot of how each team performed under very different personnel circumstances.
What This Matchup Reveals About Player Evaluation
One of the biggest mistakes in sports analysis is focusing only on the highest scorer.
This game provides a good example of why a complete evaluation needs several layers.
For Milwaukee, Dieng was the clear standout because he combined scoring, rebounding, passing, and rim protection.
Green’s value came heavily from shooting.
Porter Jr.’s value was tied to playmaking and defensive activity.
Portis brought rebounding, scoring, and steals from the bench.
For Oklahoma City, Holmgren was productive despite the loss. Joe provided perimeter scoring. McCain helped the second unit.
Yet those contributions did not combine into enough team efficiency.
The key takeaway is that player value is contextual. A 17-point scorer on a losing team may have less overall impact on the result than a 12-point player who controls possessions, creates assists, protects the ball, and defends effectively.
Practical Way to Read a Box Score Like This
If you are comparing player statistics from a basketball game, use this sequence.
Start With the Final Score
First establish who won and by how much.
A 17-point margin tells you the game was not decided by a single possession.
Check Shooting Efficiency
Compare field-goal and three-point percentages.
This often explains why one team created a large scoring advantage.
Look at Turnovers
A turnover gap can reveal hidden possession differences.
In this matchup, Milwaukee’s 10 turnovers compared with Oklahoma City’s 16 were significant.
Check Rebounding
Rebounding tells you whether the winning team controlled extra possessions.
Here, the rebounding battle was close, which makes the Bucks’ shooting efficiency even more important.
Identify Complete Performances
Look beyond points.
Dieng’s 19 points were impressive, but the 11 rebounds, 6 assists, and 4 blocks explain why his performance was so influential.
Use Plus/Minus Carefully
Plus/minus helps identify which lineups controlled the game, but it should not replace the rest of the box score.
Where to Verify the Official Box Score
For readers who want to cross-check the numbers, the official NBA game page provides the matchup summary, game flow, and player box score. NBA official game box score
This is particularly useful when researching individual shooting percentages, minutes, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, and plus/minus.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who was the best player in the Milwaukee Bucks vs Oklahoma City Thunder game?
Ousmane Dieng was the standout performer for Milwaukee. He recorded 19 points, 11 rebounds, 6 assists, 1 steal, and 4 blocks while shooting 7-for-12 from the field. His +16 plus/minus also reflected Milwaukee’s strong performance during his minutes.
Who led the Thunder in scoring?
Isaiah Joe led Oklahoma City with 17 points. He shot 5-for-11 from the field and made 4 of 9 three-point attempts.
Who had the most rebounds in the game?
Chet Holmgren recorded the most rebounds with 13. Ousmane Dieng had 11 for Milwaukee, while Bobby Portis collected 12.
What was the final score?
The Milwaukee Bucks defeated the Oklahoma City Thunder 110-93. Milwaukee led 30-25 after the first quarter and extended the advantage to 67-55 at halftime.
Which team shot better?
Milwaukee shot better from both the field and from three-point range. The Bucks shot 46% overall and 40% from three, while Oklahoma City shot 37% overall and 33% from three.
How did the teams compare in turnovers?
Milwaukee committed 10 turnovers, while Oklahoma City committed 16. The six-turnover advantage helped the Bucks maintain control of possessions and contributed to their 17-point victory.
Conclusion
The milwaukee bucks vs oklahoma city thunder match player stats show that Milwaukee’s victory was built on collective execution rather than one-dimensional scoring.
Ousmane Dieng was the central figure, producing 19 points, 11 rebounds, 6 assists, and 4 blocks. AJ Green supplied important perimeter shooting, Kevin Porter Jr. created opportunities with 7 assists, and Bobby Portis delivered a productive bench performance with 15 points, 12 rebounds, and 4 steals.
Oklahoma City had strong individual performances of its own. Isaiah Joe led the team with 17 points, while Chet Holmgren posted 16 points and 13 rebounds. Jared McCain also added 13 points from the bench.
The decisive difference was the overall efficiency of the Bucks. Milwaukee shot 46% from the field compared with 37% for Oklahoma City, made 17 three-pointers compared with 15, committed six fewer turnovers, and recorded three times as many steals.
The result was a 110-93 Milwaukee victory and a split season series after Oklahoma City’s earlier 122-102 win.
For anyone studying milwaukee bucks vs oklahoma city thunder match player stats, the most valuable lesson from this matchup is that the box score needs to be read as a connected system. Points matter, but shooting efficiency, possession control, passing, defensive activity, rebounding, and lineup performance together provide a much clearer explanation of why a game was won.
