2026-10-14 · 7:00 PM CT · Preseason
Chicago Bulls31-51
Milwaukee Bucks32-50ESPN 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 |
Milwaukee Bucks2025–26 regular season
| Measure | Season average | League rank |
|---|---|---|
| STANDARD STATS | ||
| Points / game | 110.6 | 29 / 30 |
| Rebounds / game | 40.7 | 28 / 30 |
| Assists / game | 25.8 | 18 / 30 |
| Turnovers / game | 14.5 | 23 / 30 |
| Steals / game | 7.4 | 26 / 30 |
| Blocks / game | 4.0 | 27 / 30 |
| FG% | 47.7% | 12 / 30 |
| 3PT% | 38.7% | 2 / 30 |
| FT% | 73.0% | 30 / 30 |
| THE LAB MEASURES | ||
| eFG% | 56.5% | 3 / 30 |
| Turnover rate | 13.3% | 28 / 30 |
| Offensive rebound rate | — | — |
| Free-throw pressure | 0.223 | 29 / 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.
This is preseason. Use the team numbers as background and watch how the new lineups play together. No spread or Lab win probability is published for this game.
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 32-50 | 11th in the East | Missed postseason
2025-26 efficiency 112.2 offense | 118.3 defense | -6.1 net per 100 possessions
Milwaukee finished 11th at 32-50 and missed the postseason. Its minus-6.1 net rating showed that the attempted contender was already well short of that description. Giannis Antetokounmpo's departure changes the objective, but it does not explain away the defensive and possession problems that existed before he left.
Jon Horst's return from Miami includes Tyler Herro, Kel'el Ware, Jaime Jaquez Jr., Kasparas Jakucionis and future draft assets, with Nate Ament also part of the incoming group. Brayden Burries joins through the draft and Taylor Jenkins takes over the bench. Ware provides the most interesting immediate two-way development opportunity, while Herro supplies established scoring.
The concern is whether the veterans and prospects serve a coherent new timeline. Milwaukee devoted very few minutes to first- and second-year players last season, so the development structure now needs to catch up with the roster. Herro can keep the offense respectable without producing a reliable defense. Management has collected useful pieces, but the future pick position remains constrained and no replacement star should be assumed. Jenkins needs enough continuity to establish roles rather than constantly reassign them.
Projected finish is 15th in the East. The departure of the team's best player and an already weak baseline justify a low immediate forecast. A productive season would make Ware and the younger players more dependable and clarify which veterans belong. The front office should be judged on building the next competitive team, not making a rebuilding roster imitate the one it could no longer sustain.
A matching published game video is not available in the verified archive yet.
