Chicago Bulls vs Celtics Match Player Stats
The chicago bulls vs celtics match player stats from February 12, 2026 tell a much clearer story than the final score alone. Boston defeated Chicago 124-105 at TD Garden, using a dominant first half, superior rebounding, efficient three-point shooting, and balanced playmaking to create a lead that became almost impossible for the Bulls to erase.
Chicago eventually improved offensively and scored 35 points in the fourth quarter, but Boston had already built too much separation. The Celtics led 36-27 after one quarter and extended the advantage to 72-44 by halftime. Boston finished the night shooting 52% from the field and 40% from three-point range, while Chicago shot 46% overall and 33% from beyond the arc.
For anyone studying the chicago bulls vs celtics match player stats, the most important takeaway is that this was not simply a game decided by one high-scoring player. Boston won through several connected advantages. Payton Pritchard led all scorers with 26 points, Jaylen Brown added 24, Nikola Vucevic recorded 19 points and 11 rebounds against his former team, and Derrick White contributed nine assists.
Chicago had its own bright spots. Rob Dillingham led the Bulls with 16 points and seven assists, while Matas Buzelis and Collin Sexton each scored 15. However, Boston’s combination of shooting, size, ball movement, and defensive activity created a gap that Chicago could not close.
According to the official NBA game summary, Boston finished with a 124-105 victory, with the Celtics also producing a 33-point maximum lead during the contest. (NBA.com)
Chicago Bulls vs Celtics Match Player Stats
The following table provides the core numbers from the game and gives readers a quick reference before moving into the deeper player and team analysis.
| Category | Chicago Bulls | Boston Celtics |
| Final Score | 105 | 124 |
| Field Goals | 41-89 | 49-95 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 46% | 52% |
| Three-Pointers | 12-36 | 18-45 |
| Three-Point Percentage | 33% | 40% |
| Free Throws | 11-13 | 8-13 |
| Free Throw Percentage | 85% | 62% |
| Rebounds | 34 | 48 |
| Assists | 25 | 29 |
| Turnovers | 13 | 14 |
| Steals | 9 | 9 |
| Blocks | 5 | 8 |
The statistical difference becomes obvious when the categories are viewed together.
Boston made eight more field goals than Chicago, six more three-pointers, and collected 14 more rebounds. Chicago actually shot free throws more efficiently, but the Bulls did not get enough attempts from the line to offset Boston’s advantages elsewhere.
The Celtics also generated 29 assists compared with Chicago’s 25. That four-assist advantage may look modest, but it matters when combined with Boston’s superior shooting efficiency.
How Boston Took Control Early
The game was effectively shaped during the first half.
Boston scored 36 points in each of the opening two quarters. Chicago scored 27 in the first and only 17 in the second.
That produced a 72-44 halftime advantage for the Celtics.
A 28-point halftime deficit changes the nature of a basketball game. The trailing team is forced to take more risks, while the leading team can control pace, protect possessions, and make the opponent work for every basket.
Boston’s first-half scoring also reflected its shooting advantage. The Celtics finished the game at 52% from the field, while their 18 made three-pointers represented a major source of separation.
Chicago did make a strong fourth-quarter push, scoring 35 points. Boston scored 26 in the final period, which allowed the Bulls to reduce some of the deficit.
But the fourth quarter was about damage control rather than a realistic comeback.
The Second Quarter Was the Turning Point
The first quarter gave Boston momentum, but the second quarter created the real separation.
Chicago managed only 17 points in the period while Boston added another 36. That 19-point difference in one quarter was enough to transform a competitive opening into a one-sided game.
From a statistical perspective, this is one of the most important lessons from the contest.
A team does not necessarily lose because of a poor fourth quarter. Sometimes the game is already decided because of what happened earlier.
Chicago’s final 35-point fourth quarter looks encouraging in isolation. But the Bulls needed that type of offensive production much earlier.
Payton Pritchard Leads Boston With 26 Points
Payton Pritchard was Boston’s leading scorer with 26 points.
His scoring output gave the Celtics the individual offensive leader of the game, but his importance becomes clearer when viewed alongside Boston’s other contributors.
Jaylen Brown scored 24 points, while Nikola Vucevic added 19. That means Boston had three players reaching at least 19 points.
This distribution made Chicago’s defensive challenge much more difficult.
If one player scores 30 or more points while teammates struggle, a defense can sometimes build its entire strategy around slowing that player. Boston did not provide Chicago with that luxury.
Pritchard’s 26 points were therefore important not only because of the number itself, but because Boston had multiple reliable scoring options around him.
Jaylen Brown Provides 24 Points
Jaylen Brown finished with 24 points, giving Boston another high-level scoring option.
His production helped maintain offensive pressure while Pritchard carried the scoring lead.
The broader team statistic is more revealing. Boston made 49 of 95 field-goal attempts, while Chicago made 41 of 89.
That means Boston attempted six more shots and made eight more.
The difference was not simply volume. The Celtics also converted those attempts at a better rate.
Boston’s 52% shooting compared with Chicago’s 46% created a six-percentage-point efficiency gap.
Against a strong opponent, that kind of difference can quickly become a double-digit margin.
Nikola Vucevic’s 19 Points and 11 Rebounds
Nikola Vucevic delivered one of the most notable performances of the game because he was facing his former team.
He finished with 19 points and 11 rebounds, producing a double-double.
The rebounding number is especially important when studying the team statistics. Boston finished with 48 rebounds compared with Chicago’s 34.
That 14-rebound advantage gave the Celtics additional control of the game.
Vucevic’s contribution also demonstrated why box scores should not be reduced to scoring alone. His 11 rebounds helped Boston control possessions, while his 19 points added another scoring threat to an already productive lineup.
For Chicago, allowing Boston’s frontcourt to contribute while also dealing with Pritchard and Brown made the defensive assignment increasingly difficult.
Derrick White’s Nine Assists
Derrick White led the Celtics with nine assists.
Nine assists from one player indicates that Boston’s offense was not dependent only on individual shot creation.
This is particularly significant when paired with the Celtics’ 29 total assists.
Boston consistently created scoring opportunities for teammates, and that movement contributed to its 52% shooting performance.
Assists do not automatically prove that an offense was better, but in this matchup the connection between passing and efficiency is difficult to ignore.
Boston had 29 assists, shot 52% from the field, and made 18 three-pointers.
Those numbers fit together.
The Celtics were not simply making difficult shots. They were generating enough quality offensive opportunities to keep pressure on Chicago throughout the game.
Rob Dillingham Leads the Bulls With 16 Points
Rob Dillingham was Chicago’s leading scorer with 16 points.
He also recorded seven assists, giving him an important role as both scorer and creator.
For the Bulls, Dillingham’s seven assists were one of the most encouraging individual numbers in the box score.
Chicago finished with 25 assists overall, meaning Dillingham was responsible for a meaningful share of the team’s playmaking production.
His performance showed that the Bulls did have individual players capable of creating offense, even though the team could not maintain enough consistency to stay within striking distance.
The challenge was that 16 points was not enough to match the combined production Boston received from Pritchard, Brown, and Vucevic.
Matas Buzelis and Collin Sexton Add 15 Each
Matas Buzelis and Collin Sexton both finished with 15 points for Chicago.
Buzelis also contributed eight rebounds, which made his overall statistical impact more significant than his scoring total alone.
Chicago needed more efficient contributions across the roster because Boston was able to spread its production across multiple players.
The Bulls had six players reach double figures, according to the Chicago Bulls’ official game report. (NBA.com)
That is an important detail because it shows that the problem was not simply a lack of scoring from the supporting cast.
Instead, Chicago struggled to match Boston’s efficiency and early-game execution.
Chicago’s Shooting Was Not Bad, But Boston Was Better
One of the easiest mistakes when reading a box score is to look at a 46% shooting percentage and conclude that the offense performed well enough.
Chicago’s 46% field-goal shooting was respectable.
The problem was that Boston shot 52%.
A six-percentage-point difference might not sound enormous, but across nearly 90 attempts, it creates a substantial number of additional made shots.
Chicago went 41-for-89 from the field.
Boston went 49-for-95.
That produced an eight-made-field-goal advantage for Boston.
The Celtics also made 18 three-pointers compared with Chicago’s 12.
Those six additional three-point makes alone represent 18 extra points from beyond the arc.
This is one of the clearest explanations for the final score.
Three-Point Shooting Created a Major Gap
Boston’s three-point performance deserves special attention.
The Celtics attempted 45 three-pointers and made 18.
That produced a 40% success rate.
Chicago attempted 36 and made 12, producing a 33% rate.
The Celtics therefore had both more volume and better accuracy.
That combination is difficult to overcome.
Chicago’s 12 made threes were not disastrous, but Boston’s 18 made threes created a six-shot advantage from long range.
Because every made three is worth three points, those six additional makes represented an 18-point scoring difference from that category.
The final margin was 19 points.
That does not mean three-point shooting alone explains the entire game, but it illustrates just how important Boston’s perimeter efficiency was.
Rebounding Was Another Major Difference
The rebounding numbers were even more dramatic.
Chicago collected 34 rebounds.
Boston collected 48.
That is a 14-rebound advantage for the Celtics.
When a team controls the glass by that margin, it can influence both ends of the floor.
Offensive rebounds can create second-chance opportunities. Defensive rebounds end possessions and allow the team to transition into its offense.
Vucevic’s 11 rebounds were a major part of Boston’s success in this area.
Buzelis’ eight rebounds were useful for Chicago, but the Bulls did not receive enough collective rebounding support to match Boston.
This is an area where the raw box score provides a very strong explanation for the result.
Boston Won Without Needing a Turnover Advantage
Interestingly, turnovers did not decide the game.
Chicago committed 13 turnovers.
Boston committed 14.
That means the Bulls actually finished with one fewer turnover.
If turnovers had been the primary deciding factor, Chicago would have had a clear advantage in this category.
Instead, the Celtics won despite committing slightly more turnovers.
That makes the shooting and rebounding gaps even more meaningful.
Boston did not need to force a huge turnover differential because its offensive efficiency and control of the glass created enough advantages elsewhere.
Steals Were Even at Nine Each
Both teams recorded nine steals.
This is another category where the box score shows a relatively even contest.
Chicago was active defensively and created nine steals.
Boston matched that number.
The difference came from what each team did with its opportunities and how effectively it controlled other areas.
This is why looking at one defensive statistic in isolation can be misleading.
A team can generate steals and still lose decisively if it gives up efficient shooting, loses the rebounding battle, or allows too many quality scoring opportunities.
Boston’s Rim Protection Also Stood Out
Boston recorded eight blocks.
Chicago recorded five.
The three-block difference was not as dramatic as the rebounding gap, but it added another layer to Boston’s defensive performance.
Eight blocks indicate that the Celtics were able to challenge shots around the basket and discourage some interior attempts.
Chicago’s five blocks show that the Bulls were also active defensively.
However, Boston’s overall defensive profile was stronger because it combined shot blocking with rebounding and better offensive efficiency.
Free Throws Tell a Different Story
Chicago actually had the better free-throw percentage.
The Bulls made 11 of 13 free throws, an excellent 85% rate.
Boston made eight of 13, shooting 62%.
This is one of the few clear efficiency categories where Chicago had the advantage.
But the Bulls did not get enough free-throw attempts to make that advantage decisive.
Chicago had 13 attempts.
Boston also had 13.
Therefore, the difference in free-throw percentage helped Chicago’s efficiency but did not create enough additional points to compensate for Boston’s advantages in field goals and three-pointers.
Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown
The quarter scores provide a useful timeline of how the game developed.
| Quarter | Chicago Bulls | Boston Celtics | Boston Advantage |
| 1st | 27 | 36 | 9 |
| 2nd | 17 | 36 | 19 |
| 3rd | 26 | 26 | 0 |
| 4th | 35 | 26 | Chicago by 9 |
| Total | 105 | 124 | 19 |
This table reveals an important pattern.
Boston won the first half by 28 points.
The teams played the third quarter evenly.
Chicago won the fourth quarter by nine points.
So, from halftime onward, the Bulls actually performed much better.
The problem was that Boston had already built such a large cushion that Chicago’s improvement could not change the result.
First Quarter
Boston opened with a nine-point advantage.
The Celtics scored 36 while Chicago scored 27.
A nine-point deficit after one quarter is recoverable, but it puts pressure on the trailing team.
Chicago needed a strong second quarter to stabilize the game.
Instead, the opposite happened.
Second Quarter
The second quarter was the biggest statistical swing of the night.
Boston scored another 36 points.
Chicago managed only 17.
That gave Boston a 19-point quarter advantage and created the 72-44 halftime score.
The Celtics effectively turned a manageable nine-point lead into a 28-point halftime advantage in only 12 minutes.
Third Quarter
The third quarter was the most balanced period.
Both teams scored 26 points.
For Chicago, that was a positive sign because the Bulls stopped Boston from extending the lead.
However, holding Boston even was not enough.
Chicago needed to win the quarter by a significant margin to make the game competitive again.
Fourth Quarter
Chicago finally found its offensive rhythm.
The Bulls scored 35 points, their highest total of the game.
Boston scored 26.
Chicago therefore won the fourth quarter by nine.
That late improvement provides a useful lesson for evaluating the game. The Bulls were capable of generating offense, but they did not produce that level of offensive consistency when the game was still close.
The Biggest Statistical Mismatches
When analyzing the chicago bulls vs celtics match player stats, several differences stand out immediately.
1. Rebounding
Boston led 48-34.
This was the largest raw statistical gap between the teams.
2. Three-Point Makes
Boston made 18 threes.
Chicago made 12.
That gave Boston six additional three-point baskets.
3. Field-Goal Percentage
Boston shot 52%.
Chicago shot 46%.
The Celtics converted their overall opportunities more efficiently.
4. Assists
Boston had 29 assists.
Chicago had 25.
The four-assist difference supported Boston’s more efficient offensive performance.
5. Blocks
Boston had eight blocks.
Chicago had five.
Boston therefore had advantages in both rebounding and rim protection.
Why the Final Score Can Be Misleading
A 19-point final margin might suggest that Boston dominated every minute.
That was not the case.
Chicago won the fourth quarter by nine points.
The third quarter was tied.
The decisive stretch was the first half, especially the second quarter.
This distinction matters for anyone using game statistics to evaluate team performance.
If someone only looks at the final score, they might conclude that Boston controlled the entire game from start to finish.
The quarter data provides a more precise interpretation.
Boston controlled the game early, created a huge halftime advantage, and then managed that lead while Chicago improved late.
That is a much more accurate description of the contest.
What the Game Says About Chicago
The Bulls’ statistics show both weaknesses and positives.
The negative side is obvious.
Chicago struggled to keep pace with Boston’s scoring efficiency and lost the rebounding battle badly.
The Bulls also produced only 17 points in the second quarter.
But there were encouraging elements.
Chicago shot 85% from the free-throw line.
The team recorded 25 assists.
The Bulls had nine steals.
They also scored 35 points in the fourth quarter.
Individually, Dillingham produced 16 points and seven assists, while Buzelis added 15 points and eight rebounds.
Those numbers suggest that the Bulls had enough individual production to compete in stretches.
The larger issue was consistency.
What the Game Says About Boston
Boston’s statistical profile was much more complete.
The Celtics shot better.
They made more three-pointers.
They grabbed more rebounds.
They recorded more assists.
They blocked more shots.
They also had three major scoring contributors in Pritchard, Brown, and Vucevic.
That balance made Boston difficult to defend.
The Celtics did not have to rely on one player to carry the offense.
Their 124 points came from a team structure that consistently generated efficient scoring opportunities.
The Vucevic Factor
One of the most interesting storylines was Vucevic facing Chicago after moving to Boston.
His 19-point, 11-rebound performance was particularly noticeable because it came against his former team.
For statistical analysis, the emotional storyline is secondary to the numbers.
The numbers show that Vucevic directly influenced two areas where Boston dominated: scoring and rebounding.
His 11 rebounds represented almost one quarter of Boston’s total rebounds.
His 19 points also made him one of three Celtics with at least 19 points.
That combination gave Boston production from the interior while Pritchard and Brown supplied major scoring from the perimeter.
A Closer Look at Chicago’s Offensive Efficiency
Chicago’s 105 points came from 41 field goals, 12 three-pointers, and 11 free throws.
The team was not completely ineffective offensively.
The problem was the difference between Chicago’s efficiency and Boston’s.
A 46% shooting night can produce a competitive offensive result if the opponent is also shooting around the same level.
Here, Boston shot 52%.
The six-percentage-point difference became particularly important because both teams attempted a similar number of field goals.
Chicago attempted 89 field goals.
Boston attempted 95.
The Celtics therefore had more opportunities and converted them at a higher rate.
That is an unfavorable combination for any defense.
A Closer Look at Boston’s Offensive Efficiency
Boston’s 124 points came with 49 made field goals and 18 made three-pointers.
The Celtics’ 40% three-point shooting was especially valuable.
Long-range shooting changes the scoring equation quickly.
An 18-for-45 performance means Boston received 54 points from three-point makes alone.
Chicago’s 12 made threes produced 36 points.
That is an 18-point difference before considering two-point field goals and free throws.
Again, that does not mean every point of the 19-point final margin came directly from three-point shooting, but it demonstrates why Boston’s perimeter efficiency was so influential.
The Most Important Player Matchups
Several individual battles shaped the statistical outcome.
Payton Pritchard vs. Chicago’s Perimeter Defense
Pritchard scored 26 points, the highest total in the game.
Chicago needed to limit his scoring while also respecting Boston’s other offensive threats.
That was difficult because Brown and Vucevic were also productive.
Nikola Vucevic vs. Chicago’s Frontcourt
Vucevic finished with 19 points and 11 rebounds.
Chicago needed to keep him away from the glass while preventing him from becoming an efficient scoring option.
Boston benefited from his ability to contribute in both areas.
Rob Dillingham as Chicago’s Creator
Dillingham’s 16 points and seven assists showed that he was an important offensive initiator.
His challenge was finding enough support and consistency around him to match Boston’s overall offensive output.
Matas Buzelis’ All-Around Contribution
Buzelis scored 15 points and added eight rebounds.
While he was not Chicago’s leading scorer, his rebounding contribution helped address one of the team’s biggest weaknesses.
What Basketball Analysts Should Take From the Box Score
When I break down a game like this, I prefer to separate the result from the reasons behind the result.
The final score tells us Boston won.
The individual stats tell us Pritchard led all scorers.
But the team statistics explain why Boston won comfortably.
The most meaningful chain is:
Better shooting + more three-pointers + major rebounding advantage + balanced scoring = sustained control.
That is more useful than simply saying Boston played better.
It explains how the Celtics created the margin and why Chicago’s late improvement was not enough.
A Practical Method for Reading Similar Match Stats
Readers who frequently search for NBA player statistics can use a simple process to analyze future games.
Step 1: Start With the Final Score
This establishes the basic result.
Step 2: Check Quarter Scoring
This shows when the game changed.
Step 3: Compare Shooting
Look at field-goal percentage and three-point percentage.
Step 4: Check Rebounding
A large rebounding difference often reveals control of possessions.
Step 5: Review Assists and Turnovers
These numbers provide context for offensive execution and ball security.
Step 6: Identify the Top Individual Contributors
Do not focus only on the highest scorer. Look for players who influenced several categories.
Step 7: Look for Contradictions
In this game, Chicago had fewer turnovers and a better free-throw percentage, yet still lost by 19.
Those contradictions often reveal the most interesting analytical points.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who was the top scorer in the game?
Payton Pritchard led all players with 26 points for Boston.
How many points did Rob Dillingham score?
Rob Dillingham scored 16 points for Chicago and also recorded seven assists.
How many rebounds did Nikola Vucevic have?
Nikola Vucevic recorded 11 rebounds along with 19 points for Boston.
Which team shot better from three-point range?
Boston shot 40% from three-point range, making 18 of 45 attempts. Chicago shot 33%, making 12 of 36.
Which team won the rebounding battle?
Boston won the rebounding battle 48-34, giving the Celtics a 14-rebound advantage.
What was the final score?
Boston defeated Chicago 124-105 at TD Garden.
Conclusion
The chicago bulls vs celtics match player stats reveal a game decided primarily by Boston’s first-half execution and overall efficiency.
The Celtics finished with 124 points and shot 52% from the field. They also made 18 three-pointers, collected 48 rebounds, recorded 29 assists, and blocked eight shots.
Payton Pritchard led Boston with 26 points, while Jaylen Brown scored 24 and Nikola Vucevic delivered 19 points and 11 rebounds. Derrick White’s nine assists highlighted Boston’s balanced offensive approach.
Chicago received useful performances from Rob Dillingham, who scored 16 points and added seven assists, along with Matas Buzelis and Collin Sexton, who each scored 15. Buzelis also collected eight rebounds.
The Bulls’ 35-point fourth quarter showed that they could respond offensively, but the comeback opportunity had already been lost during the first half. Boston’s 72-44 halftime lead created the decisive separation.
The most important numbers are therefore not limited to the leading scorers. Boston’s 48-34 rebounding advantage, 18-12 edge in made three-pointers, and 52%-46% field-goal advantage provide the clearest statistical explanation for the 19-point victory.
For readers evaluating NBA games beyond the final score, this matchup is a strong example of why player production, shooting efficiency, rebounding, and quarter-by-quarter performance should all be considered together.
