MIL

2025-26 Season

OUSMANE DIENG

Milwaukee Bucks | Forward | 6-9
Ousmane Dieng
7.6 PPG
3.2 RPG
2.4 APG
19.3 MPG
-4.3 Impact

Dieng produces at an below average rate for a 19-minute workload.

Embed this player card

Copy & paste this HTML into any page:

The widget updates automatically whenever our data does.

NET IMPACT BREAKDOWN
Every stat, every credit, every cost — per game average
-4.3
Scoring +6.4
Points 7.6 PPG = +4.5
Shot Making above expected FG% = +1.9
Creation +0.6
Creation 2.4 AST/g = +0.6
Turnovers -3.1
Turnovers 1.3/g = -3.1
Defense -0.4
Defense 0.4 STL, 0.3 BLK = -0.4
Hustle & Effort +2.2
Rebounds 3.2 RPG = +2.2
Raw Impact +5.7
Baseline (game-average expected) −10.0
Net Impact
-4.3
23th pctl vs Forwards

PBP Credit: Every play is analyzed from play-by-play data. Scorers get difficulty-adjusted credit, assisters get creation value based on the shot opportunity they created, and turnovers are classified by type. Shot difficulty is derived from 1M+ shots across 4 seasons. Full methodology

SKILL DNA

Percentile rank vs 234 Forwards with 10+ games

Scoring 46th
8.6 PPG
Efficiency 15th
50.2% TS
Playmaking 75th
2.6 APG
Rebounding 37th
3.6 RPG
Defense 75th
+8.9/g
Hustle 48th
+11.7/g
Creation 71th
+3.12/g
Shot Making 70th
+7.12/g
TO Discipline 19th
0.07/min

THE SEASON SO FAR

Ousmane Dieng spent the opening stretch of the 2025-26 season battling a severe offensive slump defined by extreme passivity and hesitant decision-making. His struggles were painfully obvious during a brutal -8.0 impact performance vs IND on 10/23, where he tanked his rating by missing every perimeter look he took and offering zero scoring threat. Even when he managed to generate points, hidden costs frequently ruined his night. He scored 10 points vs LAL on 11/12 by finding a comfortable rhythm attacking closeouts, but still posted a poor -3.4 impact because a dismal -2.2 defensive score dragged down his overall value. He finally snapped out of his funk vs UTA on 12/07, logging 26 minutes and posting a stellar +4.1 impact score. That rare bright spot was driven entirely by blistering perimeter efficiency, as he buried four three-pointers to heavily inflate his offensive metrics. Unfortunately, those aggressive flashes were entirely too scarce. For a fringe rotation player desperately needing to carve out a permanent role, floating around the arc and shrinking from physical contact simply will not cut it.

This stretch of the season was a chaotic rollercoaster defined by maddening inconsistency. Dieng reached his absolute ceiling during the 02/12 vs OKC matchup, posting 19 points, 11 rebounds, and six assists. He earned a massive +10.8 impact score that night because his highly efficient perimeter scoring was perfectly paired with elite defensive metrics. However, those flashes of two-way dominance vanished once he stepped into a starting role in March. Look at the 03/04 vs ATL game. He scored 14 points, yet still posted a disastrous -9.4 impact score. That brutal rating was driven entirely by hidden costs, specifically poor shot selection and defensive lapses that conceded easy baskets. He had already exposed his terrifying floor on 02/22 vs TOR, logging zero points and a -14.4 impact mark due to a complete offensive blackout.

IMPACT TIMELINE

Game-by-game performance vs average. Green = above average, red = below.

PATTERNS

Struggling. Dieng has posted negative impact in 75% of games this season. The production rarely outweighs the cost.

Middle-of-the-road efficiency — shoots 45%+ from the field in 47% of games. Not automatic, but not a problem either.

Good defender on his best nights, but it comes and goes. Some games Dieng locks in defensively, others he gets picked apart.

Getting better as the season goes on. First-half impact: -5.9, second-half: -2.7. That's a significant jump — could be a role change, confidence, or development clicking.

Tends to go on runs. Longest hot streak: 2 games. Longest cold streak: 15 games.

MATCHUP HISTORY

Based on 67 games with tracking data. Shows who guarded this player on offense and who he guarded on defense, with their shooting stats in those matchups.

ON OFFENSE: WHO GUARDED HIM

His shooting stats against each primary defender this season

D. Booker 54.1 poss
FG% 57.1%
3P% 66.7%
PPP 0.18
PTS 10
T. da Silva 37.0 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 25.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 5
J. Green 32.4 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.06
PTS 2
C. Williams 30.8 poss
FG% 66.7%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 5
D. Vassell 28.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.18
PTS 5
D. White 24.9 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.2
PTS 5
J. Grant 24.9 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.16
PTS 4
J. Johnson 24.7 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
K. Leonard 24.6 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.12
PTS 3
K. Filipowski 24.5 poss
FG% 62.5%
3P% 80.0%
PPP 0.57
PTS 14

ON DEFENSE: WHO HE GUARDED

How opponents shot when he was the primary defender. Lower FG% = better defense.

D. Booker 48.1 poss
FG% 23.1%
3P% 50.0%
PPP 0.15
PTS 7
J. Green 46.1 poss
FG% 27.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.17
PTS 8
A. Bailey 34.1 poss
FG% 50.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.15
PTS 5
C. Williams 29.9 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.13
PTS 4
K. Filipowski 29.0 poss
FG% 71.4%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.34
PTS 10
D. Avdija 27.9 poss
FG% 16.7%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 4
D. Bane 26.3 poss
FG% 83.3%
3P% 100.0%
PPP 0.53
PTS 14
T. da Silva 25.9 poss
FG% 25.0%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.08
PTS 2
K. Leonard 25.1 poss
FG% 40.0%
3P% 33.3%
PPP 0.24
PTS 6
K. Jakučionis 20.9 poss
FG% 33.3%
3P% 0.0%
PPP 0.14
PTS 3

SEASON STATS

57
Games
7.6
PPG
3.2
RPG
2.4
APG
0.4
SPG
0.3
BPG
42.2
FG%
34.1
3P%
71.1
FT%
19.3
MPG

GAME LOG

57 games played