Chicago Bulls vs Celtics Match Player Stats
The chicago bulls vs celtics match player stats from February 12, 2026, tell the story of a Boston Celtics team that controlled the first half, dominated the rebounding battle, and secured a convincing 124-105 victory over the Chicago Bulls at TD Garden in Boston, Massachusetts. Payton Pritchard led the Celtics with 26 points, Jaylen Brown added 24, and Nikola Vucevic recorded 19 points and 11 rebounds. For Chicago, Matas Buzelis and Collin Sexton scored 15 points apiece, while Rob Dillingham provided a valuable 16-point contribution off the bench.
Boston’s 19-point win was built on efficient shooting, stronger work on the glass, and a 72-point first half. Although Chicago improved its scoring in the fourth quarter, the Bulls could not overcome the deficit created during the opening 24 minutes. The final box score offers a clear look at the individual performances, team statistics, scoring patterns, and tactical factors that shaped this Eastern Conference matchup.
This analysis uses the game statistics supplied for the February 12 contest. Individual totals and team figures are presented separately to help readers understand not only who scored the most points, but also which performances contributed to the overall result.
Chicago Bulls vs Celtics Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The Celtics entered this matchup with a stronger displayed overall record and home-court advantage. They made the most of both factors, establishing control early and maintaining a comfortable lead through three quarters.
Boston Celtics
Home team
124
35-19 record
Final
February 12, 2026
19-point margin
Chicago Bulls
Away team
105
24-31 record
Venue
TD Garden
Attendance
19,156
Celtics field goal percentage
51.6%
Bulls field goal percentage
46.1%
Final Score by Quarter
| Quarter | Chicago Bulls | Boston Celtics |
| First quarter | 27 | 36 |
| Second quarter | 17 | 36 |
| Third quarter | 26 | 26 |
| Fourth quarter | 35 | 26 |
| Final score | 105 | 124 |
The quarter-by-quarter breakdown highlights the main reason for Boston’s victory. The Celtics outscored Chicago by 9 points in the opening quarter and added another 19-point advantage in the second. By halftime, Boston led 72-44, a 28-point difference that placed the Bulls in a difficult position.
The third quarter was even, with both teams scoring 26 points. Chicago then won the fourth quarter 35-26, demonstrating a stronger finish, but the late improvement was not enough to change the result.
Match Details at a Glance
| Category | Details |
| Game date | February 12, 2026 |
| Competition | NBA regular season |
| Location | Boston, Massachusetts |
| Arena | TD Garden |
| Winning team | Boston Celtics |
| Losing team | Chicago Bulls |
| Final margin | Boston by 19 points |
| Season-series result | Boston won 2-1 |
| Referees | John Goble, Sean Corbin, Dannica Baroody |
The game was the third meeting between these teams during the 2025-26 regular season. Boston won two of the three matchups, while Chicago claimed the January 25 meeting by three points.
Complete Boston Celtics Player Stats
Boston’s individual numbers show how effectively the team distributed its scoring responsibilities. Pritchard led the way as a scorer and playmaker, Brown supplied a strong secondary scoring option, and Vucevic controlled the interior. Jordan Walsh also made a notable impact with 16 points and five combined steals and blocks.
Celtics Player Statistics Table
| Player | PTS | REB | AST | STL | BLK | FG |
| Payton Pritchard | 26 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 0 | 11-18 |
| Jaylen Brown | 24 | 4 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 9-20 |
| Nikola Vucevic | 19 | 11 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 7-12 |
| Jordan Walsh | 16 | 6 | 2 | 3 | 2 | 7-12 |
| Sam Hauser | 12 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 4-9 |
| Baylor Scheierman | 10 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 4-7 |
| Derrick White | 9 | 4 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 3-9 |
| Neemias Queta | 8 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 4-4 |
| Luka Garza | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0-1 |
| Ron Harper Jr. | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0-2 |
| Hugo Gonzalez | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0-1 |
| Team total | 124 | 48 | 29 | 9 | 8 | 49-95 |
PTS = points, REB = rebounds, AST = assists, STL = steals, BLK = blocks, and FG = field goals made and attempted. The team total includes all players who appeared.
Payton Pritchard: Boston’s Leading Scorer
Pritchard delivered the most productive individual performance of the game, finishing with 26 points, five rebounds, eight assists, and two steals. He made 11 of his 18 field-goal attempts, giving him a field-goal percentage of approximately 61.1%.
His scoring efficiency stands out because he did not need an unusually high volume of shots to lead the game. His 18 attempts produced 26 points, while his eight assists helped involve teammates and sustain Boston’s offensive pressure.
Pritchard’s three-point shooting was also important. He made three of eight attempts from beyond the arc. Although that percentage was lower than Boston’s overall three-point accuracy, his scoring from the field and ability to create opportunities made him the game’s leading offensive contributor.
Three aspects of his performance deserve attention:
- Scoring efficiency: He converted more than 60% of his field-goal attempts.
- Playmaking: Eight assists helped distribute scoring opportunities across the lineup.
- Defensive activity: Two steals contributed to Boston’s ability to disrupt Chicago’s possessions.
Pritchard’s performance illustrates why points alone do not fully explain a player’s influence. His combination of shooting, passing, and defensive pressure made him a central figure in the Celtics’ victory.
Jaylen Brown: The Secondary Scoring Force
Brown finished with 24 points, four rebounds, and four assists. He converted nine of 20 field-goal attempts and made four of four free throws.
His 24 points provided Boston with a dependable second scoring option. Having two players reach at least 24 points made the Celtics more difficult to contain because Chicago could not focus exclusively on Pritchard.
Brown’s shooting was less efficient than Pritchard’s, particularly from three-point range, where he made two of nine attempts. However, his free-throw accuracy helped support his final total.
His contribution also extended beyond scoring. Four assists reflected his involvement in creating opportunities for teammates, while four rebounds helped Boston finish defensive possessions.
Brown’s performance demonstrates an important distinction between a player’s total production and shooting efficiency. He scored heavily, but Pritchard required fewer attempts to produce a similar number of points. Both contributions mattered, although they came through different offensive profiles.
Nikola Vucevic: A Double-Double in the Paint
Vucevic recorded 19 points, 11 rebounds, three assists, one steal, and two blocks. He shot seven of 12 from the field and made four of five three-point attempts.
His double-double was one of Boston’s most significant contributions. By collecting 11 rebounds, Vucevic helped the Celtics control possession and limit Chicago’s opportunities for second-chance points.
His outside shooting was especially notable. A center who can make four three-pointers in a game forces opposing defenders to consider leaving the paint to contest perimeter shots. That creates potential driving lanes and changes the spacing available to teammates.
Vucevic also brought an additional storyline to the matchup because he had recently moved from Chicago to Boston in a trade involving Anfernee Simons. He faced his former team for the first time since the transaction, according to the game recap.
ESPN
+1
The box score alone cannot establish how much the trade influenced his motivation. What it does establish is that he made a substantial contribution on both ends of the floor.
Jordan Walsh: An Important Bench Contribution
Walsh finished with 16 points, six rebounds, two assists, three steals, and two blocks. He made seven of 12 field-goal attempts.
His contribution was valuable because it combined efficient scoring with defensive activity. Three steals and two blocks represent five recorded defensive events that can directly disrupt an opponent’s offense.
Walsh’s six rebounds also helped Boston maintain its advantage on the glass. His performance demonstrates how bench production can reinforce the work of a team’s leading scorers.
Boston did not rely solely on its top three scorers. Walsh added another 16 points, while Hauser scored 12 and Scheierman contributed 10. That scoring depth helped the Celtics maintain pressure without requiring every possession to end with Pritchard or Brown.
Derrick White: The Primary Playmaker
White scored nine points but recorded a team-high nine assists. He also collected four rebounds, two steals, and two blocks.
His assist total is especially revealing. While Pritchard led Boston in scoring and recorded eight assists, White matched that playmaking influence with nine assists of his own. Together, their passing helped Boston produce 29 assists on 49 made field goals.
White’s defensive statistics also show that his value extended beyond facilitating the offense. Two steals and two blocks added disruption, while his low turnover count in the individual box score supported Boston’s ball security.
His nine points should therefore not be interpreted as a weak performance. In this game, his most important contributions came through playmaking and defense rather than high-volume scoring.
Other Celtics Contributions
Several other players added useful production:
- Sam Hauser: Scored 12 points and made four of seven three-point attempts, providing perimeter shooting.
- Baylor Scheierman: Added 10 points and five rebounds, giving Boston another double-digit scorer.
- Neemias Queta: Made all four field-goal attempts, finishing with eight points and six rebounds.
- Ron Harper Jr.: Collected three rebounds and one assist despite not scoring.
- Hugo Gonzalez: Added two rebounds in limited minutes.
- Luka Garza: Appeared briefly but did not record a made field goal.
The broader pattern is clear. Boston had multiple scoring options, several productive rebounders, and playmakers who could create opportunities without dominating the ball. This balance made the Celtics’ offense harder to defend.
Chicago Bulls Player Stats and Individual Performances
Chicago’s numbers reveal a team that could score in stretches but struggled to match Boston’s overall efficiency and rebounding strength. Buzelis and Sexton each scored 15 points, while Dillingham led the Bulls’ individual scoring with 16 points off the bench.
The Bulls also received contributions from Williams and Yabusele, but their combined production could not offset Boston’s first-half advantage.
Chicago Bulls Player Statistics Table
| Player | PTS | REB | AST | STL | BLK | FG |
| Matas Buzelis | 15 | 8 | 4 | 1 | 2 | 6-13 |
| Collin Sexton | 15 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | 6-13 |
| Guerschon Yabusele | 13 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 5-12 |
| Patrick Williams | 12 | 3 | 6 | 3 | 0 | 5-10 |
| Jaden Ivey | 10 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 1 | 4-9 |
| Rob Dillingham | 16 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 6-12 |
| Leonard Miller | 5 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2-2 |
| Nick Richards | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2 | 1-5 |
| Lachlan Olbrich | 7 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 3-4 |
| Anfernee Simons | 7 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 3-9 |
| Team total | 105 | 34 | 25 | 9 | 5 | 41-89 |
The table lists the player totals supplied for this matchup. Chicago’s team total of 105 points matches the final score. Tre Jones and Josh Giddey did not play because of left hamstring strains, according to the supplied game information.
Matas Buzelis: A Balanced Two-Way Performance
Buzelis recorded 15 points, eight rebounds, four assists, one steal, and two blocks. He made six of 13 field-goal attempts, including three of seven from three-point range.
His eight rebounds were particularly useful for a forward who also contributed to the scoring and passing. He was not limited to one offensive role, and his defensive statistics showed activity around the rim.
Buzelis’ performance provides a useful example of why young players should be assessed across multiple categories. His 15 points tied Sexton’s total, but his eight rebounds, four assists, and two blocks added value that the points column alone does not capture.
Chicago still finished with a negative result while Buzelis produced a respectable individual line. This distinction matters: a player can contribute effectively without being able to overcome a large team-level disadvantage.
Collin Sexton: Consistent Scoring Pressure
Sexton scored 15 points on six-of-13 shooting, adding three rebounds, one assist, and two steals.
His scoring matched Buzelis, making him one of Chicago’s most productive starters. His ability to generate points gave the Bulls another option when the offense needed a basket.
However, the team’s broader shooting and rebounding figures limited the value of those contributions. Chicago made 12 three-pointers compared with Boston’s 18, and the Celtics secured 14 more rebounds.
Sexton’s scoring was useful, but the Bulls needed more collective production to close the gap.
Rob Dillingham: Chicago’s Leading Bench Scorer
Dillingham produced 16 points, seven assists, one rebound, and three steals. He made six of 12 field-goal attempts and four of five free throws.
His seven assists were especially important because they demonstrated that his role extended beyond scoring. He helped create opportunities for teammates and gave Chicago an additional ball handler against Boston’s defense.
Three steals also highlighted his activity without the ball. Even when the Bulls struggled to slow Boston’s offense consistently, Dillingham generated defensive events that could create transition opportunities.
His 16 points made him Chicago’s highest-scoring player in the supplied individual statistics. The combination of points, assists, and steals made his performance one of the more complete efforts on the Bulls’ side.
Still, the team result illustrates the difference between individual production and winning basketball. Dillingham’s work could improve Chicago’s offense, but it could not erase the 28-point halftime deficit on its own.
Patrick Williams: Passing and Defensive Activity
Williams finished with 12 points, three rebounds, six assists, and three steals. He shot five of 10 from the field and made two of five three-point attempts.
Six assists were a significant part of his contribution. Williams was able to support teammates rather than relying only on his own shot creation. His three steals also showed that he contributed defensively.
For Chicago, that combination was useful because the team needed both ball movement and defensive pressure to challenge Boston. Williams helped in both areas, although the Celtics’ superior shooting and rebounding prevented the Bulls from turning those contributions into a comeback.
Guerschon Yabusele and Anfernee Simons
Yabusele scored 13 points, collected two rebounds, and added two assists. He made five of 12 field-goal attempts and contributed to the Bulls’ early scoring effort.
Simons recorded seven points, five rebounds, and one assist. He made three of nine shots from the field. His scoring was below the level Chicago needed in a game where Boston’s leading players were highly productive.
Simons was also part of the trade storyline surrounding the matchup. He had recently moved from Boston to Chicago in the transaction that sent Vucevic to the Celtics. The game recap noted that both players faced their former teams for the first time after the deal.
ESPN
Contributions From Chicago’s Other Players
The supplied figures also show contributions from Ivey, Miller, Richards, and Olbrich. Ivey added 10 points and four assists, Miller scored five points on two-of-two shooting, Richards contributed five points and four rebounds, and Olbrich recorded seven points.
These performances gave Chicago a spread of scoring options beyond its top starters. However, the team’s overall efficiency was not sufficient to match Boston’s offensive output.
The most important issue was not simply the number of Bulls who scored. It was the gap between Chicago’s collective production and Boston’s ability to turn its shooting and rebounding advantages into a large lead.
Team Statistics Comparison: Bulls vs Celtics
Individual performances become more meaningful when viewed alongside the team totals. Boston did not win because of one statistical advantage alone. The Celtics shot better from the field, made more three-pointers, collected more rebounds, and recorded more assists.
Complete Team Comparison
| Statistical category | Chicago Bulls | Boston Celtics |
| Final points | 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% |
| Total rebounds | 34 | 48 |
| Offensive rebounds | 9 | 13 |
| Defensive rebounds | 25 | 35 |
| Assists | 25 | 29 |
| Turnovers | 13 | 14 |
| Steals | 9 | 9 |
| Blocks | 5 | 8 |
| Personal fouls | 18 | 15 |
Percentages are rounded to whole numbers in this table.
Field Goal Efficiency
Boston made 49 of 95 field-goal attempts, compared with Chicago’s 41 of 89. Using the exact shooting totals, the Celtics converted approximately 51.6% of their shots, while the Bulls converted approximately 46.1%.
That difference matters because every successful field goal adds points without requiring a trip to the free-throw line. Boston’s eight additional made field goals helped establish the scoring advantage.
The Celtics also attempted six more shots than Chicago. More attempts can create additional scoring opportunities, but attempts alone do not guarantee success. Boston combined a higher shot volume with better conversion, giving it an advantage in both areas.
The difference in field-goal percentage was approximately 5.5 percentage points. Across a game with dozens of attempts, that gap can translate into a meaningful scoring difference.
Three-Point Shooting
Three-point shooting was one of Boston’s clearest advantages.
The Celtics made 18 of 45 attempts, while Chicago converted 12 of 36. Boston therefore made six more three-pointers.
The scoring difference from three-point shots alone was 18 points, calculated as six additional made threes multiplied by three points. That is almost the same as the final 19-point margin.
This does not mean three-point shooting alone decided the game. Rebounding, two-point shooting, free throws, and the timing of each basket also mattered. However, it illustrates why perimeter accuracy was such an important factor.
Boston’s 40% success rate from three-point range was seven percentage points higher than Chicago’s 33%. The Celtics also attempted nine more threes, giving them more chances to benefit from the higher conversion rate.
For Chicago, improving three-point accuracy would have helped, but matching Boston’s efficiency would not automatically have solved the rebounding deficit or the first-half collapse.
Rebounding: A Major Difference
Boston collected 48 rebounds, while Chicago finished with 34. The Celtics therefore secured 14 more rebounds.
The breakdown shows advantages on both ends of the court:
- Boston recorded 13 offensive rebounds compared with Chicago’s nine.
- Boston collected 35 defensive rebounds compared with Chicago’s 25.
- Vucevic led Boston individually with 11 rebounds.
- Buzelis led Chicago’s listed players with eight rebounds.
The difference between offensive and defensive rebounds is important. Offensive rebounds can give a team additional possessions after a missed shot. Defensive rebounds help end an opponent’s possession and allow the team to start its own offense.
Boston’s advantage in both categories meant that the Celtics were better positioned to control the pace of possession. Chicago had fewer opportunities to extend its own attacks and more difficulty consistently ending Boston’s offensive sequences.
The rebounding numbers also help explain why the Celtics could maintain a large advantage even when the third quarter was evenly scored.
Assists and Ball Movement
Boston recorded 29 assists, four more than Chicago’s 25. This suggests that the Celtics created slightly more assisted scoring opportunities.
White contributed nine assists, Pritchard added eight, and Brown recorded four. Their combined playmaking helped Boston distribute the ball among its scorers.
Chicago also had multiple playmakers. Dillingham recorded seven assists, Williams added six, and Buzelis contributed four. Their production shows that the Bulls were not entirely dependent on individual isolation scoring.
The difference was in the overall result. Boston’s ball movement accompanied better shooting and more points. Chicago’s passing helped generate opportunities, but the team converted fewer field goals and finished with a lower total.
Assists do not capture every aspect of ball movement. A pass that leads to a missed shot may not count as an assist, while a difficult individual basket can succeed without one. Even so, the combination of 29 assists and 49 made field goals indicates that Boston was productive when finishing possessions.
Turnovers: Almost Even
Chicago committed 13 turnovers, while Boston committed 14. The Bulls therefore had a one-turnover advantage.
This is an important detail because it prevents an overly simplistic explanation of the result. Boston did not win by dramatically outperforming Chicago in turnover avoidance.
Instead, the Celtics built their lead primarily through stronger shooting, more rebounds, and a powerful first half. Their extra turnover did not outweigh those advantages.
Chicago also recorded nine steals, matching Boston’s nine. Both teams were capable of generating defensive pressure, but Boston did more with its offensive possessions.
Free Throws: Chicago Had the Higher Percentage
Chicago made 11 of 13 free throws, an 84.6% conversion rate. Boston made eight of 13, approximately 61.5%.
The Bulls were clearly more accurate from the free-throw line. They made three more free throws despite attempting the same number.
Yet this was not enough to offset Boston’s advantages elsewhere. The Celtics scored more from three-point range and made eight additional field goals overall.
This comparison illustrates why a single percentage should not be treated as a complete measure of offensive success. Chicago excelled at the line, but Boston’s broader shooting performance produced the better result.
Why the Celtics Won the Game
The box score points to four main reasons for Boston’s victory.
1. A Dominant First Half
Boston scored 72 points in the first half, while Chicago managed only 44. That 28-point gap was the game’s defining stretch.
The Celtics scored 36 points in each of the first two quarters. Chicago’s output fell from 27 in the opening period to only 17 in the second.
When a team builds such a large lead, its opponent must do more than win the remaining quarters. It must outscore the leader by enough to erase the existing deficit. Chicago won the fourth quarter, but the earlier damage was too substantial.
2. More Reliable Perimeter Scoring
Boston made six more three-pointers than Chicago. That advantage helped the Celtics stretch the defense and maintain scoring pressure.
A successful perimeter attack can also affect the opportunities available elsewhere. When defenders must respect shooters, driving lanes may open and interior defenders may be pulled away from the basket.
The statistics do not prove exactly how each defensive adjustment occurred, but Boston’s 18 made threes show that its perimeter offense was productive.
3. Better Control of the Rebounds
The 48-34 rebounding advantage gave Boston a stronger foundation on both ends of the floor.
More defensive rebounds helped the Celtics finish possessions. Additional offensive rebounds gave them chances to recover missed shots. Vucevic’s 11 rebounds were especially valuable because they added interior presence to Boston’s scoring production.
Chicago needed a more competitive rebounding performance to reduce the number of opportunities Boston could generate.
4. Multiple Scoring Threats
Pritchard scored 26 points, Brown added 24, Vucevic recorded 19, and Walsh contributed 16. Hauser and Scheierman also reached double figures.
This distribution reduced Boston’s dependence on any one player. Chicago had several productive performers as well, but the Celtics received a particularly strong combination of scoring from their leading players and supporting cast.
When several players can score efficiently, the opposing defense has fewer opportunities to concentrate on a single threat.
Why Chicago’s Fourth-Quarter Rally Was Not Enough
Chicago scored 35 points in the fourth quarter, compared with Boston’s 26. That was the Bulls’ strongest scoring period and their only quarter victory.
The late improvement demonstrated that Chicago could generate offense against the Celtics, but it came after the game had already tilted heavily in Boston’s favor.
The Bulls faced three challenges in trying to recover:
- The size of the deficit: A 28-point halftime gap required an extraordinary second-half run.
- The shooting difference: Chicago needed to make up ground while also limiting Boston’s scoring.
- The rebounding gap: Winning the scoring battle in one quarter did not eliminate Boston’s overall advantage in possessions and shot opportunities.
The fourth quarter is therefore best understood as a positive late stretch rather than evidence that Chicago controlled the game overall.
For readers assessing team performance, the timing of a scoring run matters as much as its size. A 10-point advantage early in a close game can change the direction of the contest. The same advantage late in a game with a 30-point deficit may have little effect on the outcome.
Season Series: Chicago Bulls vs Boston Celtics
Boston won the 2025-26 regular-season series 2-1, according to the supplied game information.
| Game date | Result | Winner |
| January 6, 2026 | Boston Celtics 115, Chicago Bulls 101 | Boston |
| January 25, 2026 | Chicago Bulls 114, Boston Celtics 111 | Chicago |
| February 12, 2026 | Boston Celtics 124, Chicago Bulls 105 | Boston |
The series included two Boston victories by double-digit margins and one narrow Chicago win. The February matchup was particularly convincing for the Celtics because they combined a 19-point final margin with a substantial first-half advantage.
Looking at all three results provides more context than focusing on the final game alone. Chicago demonstrated that it could beat Boston, as shown by the January 25 result. However, the season series ultimately favored the Celtics.
The third meeting also featured the recent team change involving Vucevic and Simons, adding an individual storyline to the statistical comparison. Their performances in this game were different: Vucevic produced a double-double for Boston, while Simons recorded seven points and five rebounds for Chicago.
How to Read Basketball Player Statistics Correctly
The statistics from this matchup also offer a useful guide for anyone comparing NBA player performances.
Points Are Only the Starting Point
Points are the easiest measure of offensive output, but they do not explain how efficiently those points were scored. Pritchard’s 26 points on 11-of-18 shooting, for example, came on fewer attempts than Brown’s 24 points on 9-of-20 shooting.
A reader should consider both the scoring total and the number of attempts needed to reach it.
Rebounds Need Context
A rebound can prevent an opponent from getting another shot or create an extra opportunity for the rebounding team. Total rebounds are useful, but separating offensive and defensive rebounds provides more information about how possession was controlled.
Vucevic’s 11 rebounds and Boston’s 48 total rebounds show both individual and team-level strength on the glass.
Assists Reveal Playmaking
Assists indicate successful passes leading directly to made baskets. They help show how players create opportunities for teammates, although they do not measure every pass or every aspect of offensive decision-making.
White’s nine assists and Pritchard’s eight were particularly significant because they came alongside Boston’s strong shooting performance.
Plus-Minus Is Not a Complete Player Rating
Plus-minus measures the net point differential for a team while a particular player is on the court. A positive number means the player’s team outscored its opponent during those minutes; a negative number means it was outscored.
It is useful context, but it does not assign every point difference to that individual. Teammates, opponents, substitutions, and the timing of a player’s minutes all influence the number.
For that reason, plus-minus is best considered alongside points, shooting efficiency, rebounds, assists, defensive plays, and the wider game context.
Team Statistics Explain the Bigger Picture
A player can perform well in a losing effort, and a player can score relatively few points in a game where their team wins comfortably. Individual and team statistics answer different questions.
The player box score shows who contributed in specific categories. Team statistics reveal how those contributions combined to produce the final outcome.
For the February 12 contest, Boston’s higher shooting percentages, 14-rebound advantage, and 28-point halftime lead provide a stronger explanation of the result than any single player’s scoring total.
For official box-score information, readers can consult the NBA’s game statistics and box score.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Chicago Bulls vs Celtics game on February 12, 2026?
The Boston Celtics defeated the Chicago Bulls 124-105 at TD Garden in Boston. The Celtics established a 28-point halftime lead and finished with a 19-point victory.
2. Who was the leading scorer in the matchup?
Payton Pritchard led all players with 26 points for Boston. He also recorded five rebounds, eight assists, and two steals while making 11 of 18 field-goal attempts.
3. Which Chicago Bulls players scored the most points?
Rob Dillingham led Chicago with 16 points off the bench. Matas Buzelis and Collin Sexton each scored 15 points, while Guerschon Yabusele added 13.
4. Which Celtics player recorded the most rebounds?
Nikola Vucevic led Boston with 11 rebounds. He also scored 19 points, recorded three assists, and blocked two shots, finishing with a double-double.
5. What was the biggest statistical difference between the teams?
Rebounding and three-point shooting were two of the most significant differences. Boston collected 48 rebounds to Chicago’s 34 and made 18 three-pointers compared with Chicago’s 12.
6. How did the teams perform in the fourth quarter?
Chicago outscored Boston 35-26 in the fourth quarter. However, Boston’s 28-point halftime advantage was too large for the Bulls to overcome, and the Celtics won the game by 19 points.
Conclusion
The chicago bulls vs celtics match player stats show how Boston combined individual scoring performances with strong team execution to secure a 124-105 victory on February 12, 2026. Payton Pritchard led the game with 26 points and eight assists, Jaylen Brown contributed 24 points, and Nikola Vucevic recorded 19 points and 11 rebounds. Jordan Walsh added 16 points, providing another important contribution from the bench.
Chicago received productive performances from Rob Dillingham, Matas Buzelis, Collin Sexton, and Patrick Williams, but its overall output was not enough to match Boston’s efficiency. The Celtics shot approximately 52% from the field, made 18 three-pointers, and collected 14 more rebounds than the Bulls.
The first half ultimately defined the result. Boston scored 72 points before halftime, creating a 28-point lead that Chicago could not erase despite winning the fourth quarter. The final statistics demonstrate that shooting efficiency, rebounding, scoring depth, and the timing of a team’s strongest stretches can collectively determine the outcome of an NBA game.
Viewed as a complete statistical picture, this matchup was a convincing Boston victory built on balanced offense and control of possession, while Chicago’s late scoring improvement offered a smaller positive note in an otherwise difficult performance.
