2026-10-26 · 6:30 PM CT · Regular season
Chicago Bulls31-51
Boston Celtics56-26ESPN standings data retrieved October 6, 2026. NBA comparisons use the completed 2025–26 regular season. Each upcoming fixture labels preseason or regular-season status.
Chicago Bulls2025–26 regular season
| Measure | Season average | League rank |
|---|---|---|
| STANDARD STATS | ||
| Points / game | 116.3 | 12 / 30 |
| Rebounds / game | 45.0 | 9 / 30 |
| Assists / game | 28.5 | 7 / 30 |
| Turnovers / game | 14.6 | 24 / 30 |
| Steals / game | 7.6 | 23 / 30 |
| Blocks / game | 5.0 | 11 / 30 |
| FG% | 46.9% | 14 / 30 |
| 3PT% | 35.6% | 19 / 30 |
| FT% | 77.6% | 18 / 30 |
| THE LAB MEASURES | ||
| eFG% | 54.7% | 14 / 30 |
| Turnover rate | 12.7% | 23 / 30 |
| Offensive rebound rate | — | — |
| Free-throw pressure | 0.246 | 22 / 30 |
Boston Celtics2025–26 regular season
| Measure | Season average | League rank |
|---|---|---|
| STANDARD STATS | ||
| Points / game | 114.9 | 19 / 30 |
| Rebounds / game | 46.4 | 3 / 30 |
| Assists / game | 24.6 | 27 / 30 |
| Turnovers / game | 11.5 | 1 / 30 |
| Steals / game | 7.1 | 28 / 30 |
| Blocks / game | 5.0 | 11 / 30 |
| FG% | 46.7% | 16 / 30 |
| 3PT% | 36.7% | 8 / 30 |
| FT% | 80.7% | 7 / 30 |
| THE LAB MEASURES | ||
| eFG% | 55.3% | 11 / 30 |
| Turnover rate | 10.5% | 1 / 30 |
| Offensive rebound rate | — | — |
| Free-throw pressure | 0.207 | 30 / 30 |
ESPN team totals and game box scores checked October 6. NBA season averages and ranks use 2025–26; preseason game results are shown separately. Ranks are within the league, with ties sharing a rank; a lower turnover rate is better. Season offensive rebound rate needs opponent defensive-rebound totals, which this feed does not supply. A dash means unavailable. This game’s offensive rebound rate uses the opponent’s actual rebounds.
eFG% gives a made three its extra value. Turnover rate estimates the share of plays lost before a shot. Offensive rebound rate is the share of available offensive rebounds collected. Free-throw pressure is FTA/FGA. The calculations are (FGM + 0.5 × 3PM)/FGA; TOV/(FGA + 0.44 × FTA + TOV); OREB/(OREB + opponent DREB); and FTA/FGA.
Chicago Bulls and Boston Celtics enter with scoring averages of 116.3 and 114.9. Start with the kinds of shots they get, not just how many points they score. A clean shot at the rim or an open three can matter more than another difficult jumper.
The shooting comparison is 54.7% eFG for Chicago Bulls and 55.3% for Boston Celtics. That measure counts the extra value of a made three. If the defense takes away the first good look, watch whether the offense can create another without rushing.
Ball security is the next pressure point. Chicago Bulls turn it over on an estimated 12.7% of plays; Boston Celtics are at 10.5%. Fewer wasted trips mean more chances to score and fewer easy chances going the other way.
After the shot, watch the rebound. Then watch which team earns free throws. Extra shots and trips to the line can keep an offense moving when the shooting cools. The season columns give the baseline; the game columns in our final breakdown will show which advantages actually held up.
Spreads and win probabilities are reserved for confirmed games within the next seven days. This game stays on the schedule; its forecast opens inside that window.
Last season 31-51 | 12th in the East | Missed postseason
2025-26 efficiency 112.1 offense | 117.4 defense | -5.3 net per 100 possessions
Chicago finished 12th at 31-51 and missed the playoffs for a fourth consecutive season. Its minus-5.3 net rating reflected a roster short of both efficiency and extra possessions. The Bulls averaged 3.6 fewer shot opportunities than opponents, with weak offensive rebounding and limited ability to force turnovers making the scoring assignment harder.
Bryson Graham took over the front office and hired Tiago Splitter. Caleb Wilson, the fourth pick, joins Matas Buzelis and Josh Giddey as the young foundation. Nic Claxton gives Chicago a more credible interior defender, and Norman Powell supplies experienced scoring. The late acquisition of Buddy Hield adds shooting after Rob Dillingham moved out.
The unfinished issue is producing enough advantages around those players. Claxton can improve the defense without fixing loose possessions or creating perimeter pressure on his own. Powell can score without guaranteeing the young players get better attempts. Graham has made the rebuild more legible, but the roster still needs a sustainable shot-creation structure and a better way to win the possession count. Wilson's development should be supported by that structure rather than treated as its substitute.
Projected finish is 13th in the East. The added size and a clearer development plan should make Chicago more functional, but we do not see enough two-way improvement for a Play-In forecast. The important progress would be better chances for Wilson and Buzelis, fewer wasted possessions and evidence that the defense can hold together with the main offensive players on the court.
Last season 56-26 | 2nd in the East | Lost in First Round
2025-26 efficiency 120.0 offense | 111.7 defense | +8.3 net per 100 possessions
Boston finished second at 56-26 and lost to Philadelphia in the first round. A 120.0 offensive rating and plus-8.3 net rating confirmed that Joe Mazzulla still had a strong regular-season team while Jayson Tatum missed most of the schedule. The playoff failure exposed a familiar limitation when the outside shots stopped falling.
Brad Stevens traded Jaylen Brown to Philadelphia for Paul George and draft compensation, added Mitchell Robinson and brought in Mike Conley. A full season of Tatum is the largest potential improvement. Robinson supplies offensive rebounds, interior defense and a finishing target. Derrick White and Payton Pritchard give the offense continuity around a substantially altered wing rotation.
The front office repaired some interior depth without fully changing the shot profile. Boston took only 41 percent of its attempts in the paint and again ranked last in free-throw rate. George is another comfortable jump shooter, so replacing Brown with him does not automatically produce more rim pressure. George and Robinson also introduce availability questions. Stevens has built a plausible regular-season contender, but the alternative when the threes fail still needs to become more convincing.
Projected finish is second in the East. Tatum's return, established ball security and Mazzulla's regular-season structure support another strong finish. We place New York slightly ahead because its core requires less integration. Boston can finish first without proving that its new roster has solved the playoff weakness. Those are separate tests.
A matching published game video is not available in the verified archive yet.
