2026-10-24 · 7:00 PM CT · Regular season
Washington Wizards17-65
Chicago Bulls31-51ESPN standings data retrieved October 6, 2026. NBA comparisons use the completed 2025–26 regular season. Each upcoming fixture labels preseason or regular-season status.
Washington Wizards2025–26 regular season
| Measure | Season average | League rank |
|---|---|---|
| STANDARD STATS | ||
| Points / game | 112.9 | 25 / 30 |
| Rebounds / game | 41.9 | 26 / 30 |
| Assists / game | 25.0 | 25 / 30 |
| Turnovers / game | 15.1 | 29 / 30 |
| Steals / game | 8.0 | 21 / 30 |
| Blocks / game | 5.5 | 5 / 30 |
| FG% | 46.3% | 22 / 30 |
| 3PT% | 35.9% | 16 / 30 |
| FT% | 76.6% | 23 / 30 |
| THE LAB MEASURES | ||
| eFG% | 53.5% | 21 / 30 |
| Turnover rate | 13.2% | 26 / 30 |
| Offensive rebound rate | — | — |
| Free-throw pressure | 0.235 | 26 / 30 |
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 |
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.
Washington Wizards and Chicago Bulls enter with scoring averages of 112.9 and 116.3. 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 53.5% eFG for Washington Wizards and 54.7% for Chicago Bulls. 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. Washington Wizards turn it over on an estimated 13.2% of plays; Chicago Bulls are at 12.7%. 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 17-65 | 15th in the East | Missed postseason
2025-26 efficiency 109.7 offense | 121.5 defense | -11.8 net per 100 possessions
Washington finished last in the East at 17-65 with a minus-11.8 net rating. The team allowed 121.5 points per 100 possessions, so a more entertaining offense will not be enough by itself. Much of the season was developmental, and the veterans acquired during it barely contributed to those final numbers.
Michael Winger and Will Dawkins now have Trae Young and Anthony Davis together after last season's trades. Young played only five games for Washington and Davis none. The Wizards added first pick AJ Dybantsa, Deandre Ayton and Khris Middleton, while Alex Sarr, Kyshawn George and the young perimeter group continue developing. The available roster is materially stronger than the one responsible for most of the 65 losses.
The unresolved concern is whether the lineup balances development with a practical defensive plan. Davis and Sarr can change the interior, but several possible combinations compress the paint and demand disciplined perimeter coverage. Young needs players who can finish the opportunities he creates and protect him on the other end. Management added established names without making the minutes distribution obvious. Veteran health also determines how much the youngsters are being asked to solve.
Projected finish is 12th in the East. We credit the large talent change while refusing to treat a collection of veterans as an automatic playoff team. Washington can escape the bottom tier without immediately becoming coherent. The useful evidence will be a lower defensive rating, a defined role for Dybantsa and lineups that make Young's creation easier to convert.
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.
A matching published game video is not available in the verified archive yet.
