Golden State Warriors vs Chicago Bulls Match Player Stats

The golden state warriors vs chicago bulls match player stats from this dramatic overtime battle tell a much deeper story than the final score alone. Chicago defeated Golden State 130-124 at Chase Center after the game went to overtime, with Matas Buzelis producing a career-high 41 points and Josh Giddey delivering a remarkable triple-double of 21 points, 17 assists, and 13 rebounds. The Warriors had enough offense to force overtime, but Chicago controlled the extra period and finished the game with the stronger overall balance.

The matchup was especially interesting because the teams followed very different paths to their production. Golden State made 20 three-pointers and shot 37% from beyond the arc, while Chicago created a major advantage on the glass and generated 64 points in the paint. The Bulls also received an extraordinary all-around performance from Giddey, while Buzelis supplied the scoring burst that ultimately separated the teams.

For anyone studying this game from a statistical perspective, the most important lesson is that three-point efficiency did not automatically translate into victory. Golden State had the better three-point percentage, but Chicago’s rebounding, interior scoring, playmaking, and overtime execution gave the Bulls the edge.

Game Overview

The Bulls and Warriors met at Chase Center in San Francisco in a game that developed into one of the more entertaining close contests of the matchup. The official NBA record lists the game as March 10, 2026 in San Francisco, while some displays associated with the game show March 11 because of the game time and time-zone presentation. The official record confirms Chicago’s 130-124 overtime victory and Buzelis’ career-high scoring performance. (NBA.com)

The attendance was 18,064, giving the game a full arena environment for a contest that remained competitive through four quarters.

Final Score

Team	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	OT	Final
Chicago Bulls	26	31	32	29	12	130
Golden State Warriors	30	21	32	35	6	124

Golden State opened the game better, taking a 30-26 advantage after the first quarter. Chicago responded with a 31-point second quarter and entered halftime ahead.

The third quarter was even at 32-32, while Golden State produced its best scoring period in the fourth quarter with 35 points. That fourth-quarter surge allowed the Warriors to recover and force overtime.

The decisive difference came in the extra period.

Chicago scored 12 points in overtime while Golden State managed only 6. That six-point difference was exactly the final margin.

The official NBA game record also confirms nine lead changes and four ties, which illustrates how closely contested the game was. (NBA.com)

Golden State Warriors vs Chicago Bulls Match Player Stats: The Numbers That Matter

Looking beyond the final score reveals several statistical trends that explain why Chicago won.

Team Shooting Comparison

Category	Bulls	Warriors
Field Goals	50-112	44-105
Field Goal %	45%	42%
Three-Pointers	15-47	20-54
Three-Point %	32%	37%
Free Throws	15-18	16-18
Free Throw %	83%	89%
Rebounds	64	49
Assists	34	30
Turnovers	12	12
Steals	6	9
Blocks	6	12

The shooting numbers immediately show an important contrast.

Golden State made five more three-pointers than Chicago. The Warriors also shot five percentage points better from three and converted free throws at a slightly higher rate.

Yet Chicago still scored more points.

The explanation begins with field-goal volume and rebounding. The Bulls made 50 field goals compared with 44 for Golden State, while Chicago also collected 15 more rebounds.

That rebounding advantage gave Chicago additional possessions and helped compensate for the Warriors’ superior perimeter shooting.

The Bulls also shot 45% from the field overall compared with 42% for Golden State. That three-percentage-point advantage may appear small, but over more than 100 attempts it becomes meaningful.

Matas Buzelis Leads Chicago With 41 Points

The clearest individual storyline was Matas Buzelis.

Buzelis finished with 41 points on 16-of-28 shooting from the field. He also made 5 three-pointers, collected 6 rebounds, and added 2 assists, 2 steals, and 2 blocks.

The 41-point performance was a career high.

The official NBA recap confirms that Buzelis scored the career-high total and hit an important three-pointer with 2:20 remaining in overtime. (NBA.com)

His shooting profile is particularly interesting.

Buzelis attempted 28 field goals, which means Chicago consistently trusted him to create or finish possessions. He did not need an extremely high three-point percentage to have a major offensive impact because he combined perimeter scoring with production inside the arc.

His 16 made field goals accounted for a substantial portion of Chicago’s offense.

More importantly, his impact continued into overtime.

That matters because high-scoring performances can lose value when they disappear during the most important possessions of a close game. Buzelis instead remained involved when the game was decided.

Why Buzelis’ Performance Was So Important

There are three major reasons his performance stands out.

First, he provided volume scoring. Chicago needed someone capable of taking a large offensive role, and Buzelis answered that need.

Second, he added defensive production. Two steals and two blocks show that his contribution was not limited to scoring.

Third, he delivered during overtime.

A career-high 41 points is impressive by itself. Doing it in a six-point overtime victory makes the performance even more significant.

Josh Giddey’s Triple-Double Was the Complete Performance

If Buzelis was Chicago’s primary scoring weapon, Josh Giddey was the team’s statistical engine.

Giddey finished with:

• 21 points
• 17 assists
• 13 rebounds
• 7-of-16 shooting
• 4-of-9 from three

That is a triple-double with an unusually high assist total.

The 17 assists are particularly important because Chicago finished with 34 team assists. Giddey therefore accounted for half of the team’s assists.

This is one of the clearest indicators of his offensive influence.

Giddey was not simply scoring points. He was controlling how Chicago generated them.

His 13 rebounds also helped Chicago dominate the overall rebounding battle.

That combination of scoring, passing, and rebounding made Giddey one of the most important players on the floor even though Buzelis received more attention for his 41 points.

Giddey’s Playmaking Changed the Game

The Warriors had a strong perimeter shooting night, but Chicago repeatedly created offensive opportunities through ball movement.

The Bulls finished with 34 assists on 50 made field goals.

That is a very strong relationship between made shots and assists, showing how much of the offense came through collective creation.

Giddey’s 17 assists were at the center of that process.

His ability to find teammates also helped Chicago maintain offensive pressure when Golden State started making three-pointers.

Jalen Smith Provides Important Interior Production

Jalen Smith also played an important role for Chicago.

He finished with 12 points, 12 rebounds, and 3 assists.

The double-double was valuable because it strengthened the Bulls’ advantage on the glass.

Chicago collected 64 total rebounds compared with 49 for Golden State. Smith’s 12 boards represented a significant portion of that difference.

Rebounding often receives less attention than scoring in postgame discussions, but this matchup shows why it matters.

Golden State’s three-point advantage created efficient scoring opportunities. Chicago’s rebounding advantage created additional opportunities.

The Bulls ultimately benefited more from their second-chance and interior presence than the Warriors benefited from their perimeter edge.

Tre Jones Adds Scoring From Chicago’s Supporting Cast

Chicago also received valuable scoring from Tre Jones, who finished with 22 points according to the official game recap.

That production gave the Bulls another reliable offensive contributor alongside Buzelis and Giddey. (NBA.com)

This is important when evaluating a game like this because a 41-point performance can sometimes hide an overly concentrated offense.

Chicago did not rely entirely on Buzelis.

Giddey contributed 21 points, Jones added 22, and Smith supplied 12 points.

That distribution helped the Bulls remain competitive even when Golden State made its fourth-quarter push.

Golden State’s Offensive Leaders

Golden State did not lose because it lacked scoring.

The Warriors had several players capable of producing offense.

Kristaps Porzingis scored 17 points and added four blocks. Gui Santos also scored 17 points, while the official game recap credits Pat Spencer and LJ Cryer with 17 points as well. (NBA.com)

This is an important distinction from simply looking at the final score.

Golden State had multiple players producing at a respectable level, but it lacked the same combination of scoring, rebounding, and playmaking that Chicago generated.

Kristaps Porzingis

Porzingis finished with 17 points and four blocks.

His defensive presence was particularly notable.

Golden State recorded 12 total blocks, twice Chicago’s six. That suggests the Warriors were protecting the rim effectively despite ultimately losing.

Porzingis also gave Golden State an additional floor-spacing threat because he could operate away from the basket.

His four blocks demonstrate that his influence extended beyond scoring.

Gui Santos

Gui Santos scored 17 points and shot 7-of-19 from the field, including 3-of-9 from three.

His scoring helped Golden State maintain pressure during a game in which the Warriors needed contributions from multiple players.

Santos also added five rebounds.

Although his shooting efficiency was not spectacular, his scoring volume mattered in a game decided by only six points after overtime.

Pat Spencer

Pat Spencer produced 17 points and six assists according to the official game recap.

His six assists gave Golden State another secondary playmaking option and helped the Warriors generate offense beyond their perimeter shooting.

In a game where Golden State made 20 three-pointers, ball movement was essential.

The Warriors’ Three-Point Shooting Was Excellent, But Not Enough

One of the most interesting aspects of the game is that Golden State won the three-point battle clearly.

The Warriors made:

20 of 54 three-point attempts

Chicago made:

15 of 47 three-point attempts

Golden State therefore made five more three-pointers.

The Warriors also shot 37% from three compared with Chicago’s 32%.

Normally, that type of perimeter advantage can be enough to determine the outcome.

It was not enough here.

Chicago’s response was to attack other areas of the game.

The Bulls shot 45% overall compared with Golden State’s 42%.

They also collected 64 rebounds compared with 49.

Chicago finished with 34 assists compared with 30.

The Bulls therefore won the broader statistical battle despite losing the three-point battle.

This is an excellent example of why evaluating basketball through one category can be misleading.

Three-point shooting is important, but it is only one component of a complete offensive and defensive profile.

The Rebounding Battle Was a Major Difference

The 64-49 rebounding advantage is one of the strongest explanations for Chicago’s victory.

Chicago finished with 15 more rebounds.

That is a substantial margin.

Rebounds influence games in several ways.

Defensive rebounds prevent opponents from receiving second opportunities.

Offensive rebounds create additional possessions.

More possessions can offset lower shooting efficiency.

The Bulls shot only 32% from three, but their superior work on the glass helped them compensate.

This is especially important because Golden State had a clear perimeter advantage.

Chicago essentially won the possession battle while Golden State won the long-range shooting battle.

The Bulls’ possession advantage proved more valuable over the full game.

Paint Scoring Favored Chicago

Another major difference was points in the paint.

The Bulls recorded 64 points in the paint.

Golden State had 44.

That is a 20-point advantage for Chicago.

This helps explain how Chicago could win while making five fewer three-pointers.

The Bulls were more productive closer to the basket, and that gave them another dependable scoring route.

The Warriors were heavily effective from outside, but Chicago had multiple offensive pathways.

This type of balance is often useful in close games because it reduces dependence on one shooting area.

Fourth Quarter: Golden State Forces Overtime

Golden State entered the fourth quarter needing to overcome Chicago’s advantage.

The Warriors responded with 35 points.

Chicago scored 29.

That six-point difference erased the Bulls’ lead and sent the game to overtime.

This was arguably Golden State’s strongest stretch of the contest.

The Warriors found enough scoring to turn a potential loss into an additional five-minute period.

The problem was that they could not carry that momentum into overtime.

Chicago scored 12 points in the extra period.

Golden State scored only 6.

The game therefore became a clear example of how overtime execution can completely reshape the final result.

Overtime Was Decisive

The overtime period was where Chicago’s best individual performances became most valuable.

Buzelis hit a key three-pointer with 2:20 remaining in overtime, helping Chicago establish control when the game was still within reach for Golden State. (NBA.com)

The Bulls eventually scored twice as many points as the Warriors in the extra period.

That six-point overtime margin matched the final difference.

This is an important statistical detail.

The game was effectively tied after regulation.

The final winner was determined by what happened during five additional minutes.

Chicago’s execution was therefore not simply good enough over four quarters. It was better when the game became most important.

Turnovers Were Even

Both teams committed 12 turnovers.

That means neither team gained a major advantage through ball security.

The Warriors had more steals, with 9 compared with Chicago’s 6, but the turnover totals remained identical.

This is another reason the result cannot be explained by one defensive category.

Golden State created more steals and recorded more blocks, but Chicago’s offensive execution and rebounding offset those defensive advantages.

Golden State’s Rim Protection Was Strong

The Warriors finished with 12 blocks.

Chicago had 6.

That is another major statistical advantage for Golden State.

Porzingis alone recorded four blocks, while the team collectively protected the rim at a high level.

Yet Chicago still produced 64 points in the paint.

That combination is interesting.

The Bulls were able to generate interior offense even against a team that was highly active as a shot-blocking unit.

This suggests that Chicago’s interior production was not simply dependent on uncontested attempts.

It also highlights the difference between preventing shots and controlling possessions.

What the Matchup Says About Both Teams

The broader lesson from these golden state warriors vs chicago bulls match player stats is that both teams had a recognizable statistical identity during the game.

Golden State leaned heavily into perimeter scoring, rim protection, and defensive activity.

Chicago relied more on balanced offense, rebounding, interior scoring, and elite playmaking.

Neither approach was inherently better.

The game was decided by which strengths held up under pressure.

Golden State’s three-point shooting kept the team alive.

Chicago’s rebounding and offensive balance eventually won the game.

Why Chicago Won Despite Shooting Worse From Three

At first glance, Chicago’s 32% three-point shooting appears like a weakness.

But the complete offensive profile tells a different story.

The Bulls:

• Made 50 field goals.
• Shot 45% overall.
• Scored 64 points in the paint.
• Collected 64 rebounds.
• Recorded 34 assists.
• Converted 15 of 18 free throws.
• Scored 12 points in overtime.

Golden State:

• Made 44 field goals.
• Shot 42% overall.
• Made 20 three-pointers.
• Collected 49 rebounds.
• Recorded 30 assists.
• Converted 16 of 18 free throws.
• Scored 6 points in overtime.

Chicago simply had more ways to win possessions.

That versatility became especially valuable once the game moved into overtime.

Season Series Was Split 1-1

The result also mattered in the context of the season series.

Golden State had previously defeated Chicago 123-91 in December 2025.

Chicago’s 130-124 overtime victory therefore leveled the season series at 1-1.

The contrast between the two meetings is striking.

The earlier Warriors victory was a 32-point blowout.

The later meeting was an overtime thriller.

That difference demonstrates how quickly player availability, rotations, shooting performance, and game context can change the character of a matchup.

It is not enough to look only at the previous result when evaluating a new meeting between the same teams.

Player Availability Shaped the Matchup

Availability was another important factor.

The official NBA recap noted that Golden State was without Stephen Curry, who had missed his 15th consecutive game because of a lingering right knee injury. The Warriors also had several other players unavailable, including Seth Curry, De’Anthony Melton, Moses Moody, and Quinten Post. (NBA.com)

That context matters when interpreting the Warriors’ offensive distribution.

Without some of their established scoring options, more responsibility fell on players such as Santos, Porzingis, Spencer, and Cryer.

The Warriors still scored 124 points, which shows how much production they were able to generate under difficult circumstances.

Chicago also had notable absences, meaning the game was influenced by roster availability on both sides.

For analysts, this is a useful reminder that player statistics should never be separated completely from lineup context.

What Fantasy Basketball Players Can Learn

For fantasy basketball analysis, this game provides several useful lessons.

Buzelis

Buzelis’ 41-point performance immediately stands out, but his supporting numbers make the line more valuable.

He added six rebounds, two assists, two steals, and two blocks.

That type of production can have a major fantasy impact because it extends beyond scoring.

Giddey

Giddey’s 21 points, 17 assists, and 13 rebounds represent an elite all-around fantasy performance.

The assist total is especially significant.

A player capable of producing double-digit assists while also reaching double figures in points and rebounds can influence multiple fantasy categories simultaneously.

Jalen Smith

Smith’s 12 points and 12 rebounds provided useful frontcourt production.

His rebounding contribution was particularly important in this matchup.

Porzingis

Porzingis produced 17 points and four blocks.

For fantasy formats that reward defensive statistics, the four blocks significantly increase the value of his performance.

What Basketball Analysts Should Take From the Game

There are several broader lessons hidden inside the box score.

Do Not Overvalue Three-Point Percentage

Golden State shot better from three and made more threes.

It still lost.

That does not mean three-point shooting is unimportant. It means it should be evaluated alongside rebounding, turnovers, free throws, field-goal efficiency, and paint scoring.

Evaluate Possession Control

Chicago’s 64 rebounds were a major part of its success.

When one team has 15 more rebounds, it can create a meaningful possession advantage.

Look at Overtime Separately

A 130-124 final score can make the game appear more comfortable for Chicago than it actually was.

The teams were tied after regulation.

Chicago’s overtime performance created the final separation.

Context Matters

Player statistics become more meaningful when viewed alongside availability.

Golden State was missing several important players, including Curry.

That changed the team’s rotation and offensive responsibilities.

A Practical Way to Read Player Stats From This Game

If you are reviewing a box score for betting research, fantasy basketball, historical analysis, or team evaluation, a useful approach is to examine the game in five stages.

Step 1: Start With the Final Score

Determine who won and whether the game was close.

Here, Chicago won 130-124 in overtime.

Step 2: Check Shooting Efficiency

Look at overall field-goal percentage before focusing only on three-point percentage.

Chicago shot 45% overall.

Golden State shot 42%.

Step 3: Examine Possessions

Rebounds and turnovers are useful indicators.

The teams both committed 12 turnovers, but Chicago had 15 more rebounds.

Step 4: Identify Individual Impact

Buzelis supplied 41 points.

Giddey produced 21 points, 17 assists, and 13 rebounds.

Those performances explain much of Chicago’s offensive success.

Step 5: Study the Closing Minutes

The final quarter and overtime often reveal the difference between a good statistical performance and a winning one.

Golden State scored 35 in the fourth quarter.

Chicago scored 12 in overtime.

That overtime response ultimately decided the game.

Where to Find the Official Game Record

For readers who want to compare individual player lines, team totals, game flow, and official scoring information, the NBA game box score provides the primary record for the matchup.

Using the official record is particularly important when comparing player statistics because secondary websites can sometimes display different date formats or incomplete player information.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who scored the most points in the Bulls vs Warriors game?

Matas Buzelis led all scorers with 41 points for Chicago. It was a career-high scoring performance, and he also contributed six rebounds, two assists, two steals, and two blocks.

What were Josh Giddey’s stats against the Warriors?

Josh Giddey recorded 21 points, 17 assists, and 13 rebounds. His 17 assists were especially important because Chicago finished with 34 assists as a team.

Who won the Chicago Bulls vs Golden State Warriors game?

The Chicago Bulls defeated the Golden State Warriors 130-124 in overtime at Chase Center.

How did Golden State lose despite making more three-pointers?

Golden State made 20 three-pointers compared with Chicago’s 15, but the Bulls had advantages in overall field-goal percentage, rebounding, assists, and points in the paint. Chicago also outscored Golden State 12-6 in overtime.

What was the biggest team statistical difference?

Rebounding was one of the biggest differences. Chicago collected 64 rebounds while Golden State had 49, giving the Bulls a 15-rebound advantage.

Was the Bulls vs Warriors game close?

Yes. Golden State erased Chicago’s fourth-quarter advantage and forced overtime. The game was ultimately decided by Chicago’s 12-6 advantage in the extra period.

Conclusion

The golden state warriors vs chicago bulls match player stats show why a complete box-score analysis is more useful than focusing on the final score or one individual category.

Matas Buzelis was the headline performer with 41 points, but Josh Giddey’s 21 points, 17 assists, and 13 rebounds may have been just as important to the structure of Chicago’s victory. Jalen Smith added a double-double, while Tre Jones provided valuable scoring support.

Golden State had several strong individual performances as well. Kristaps Porzingis finished with 17 points and four blocks, while Gui Santos contributed 17 points. The Warriors also made 20 three-pointers and shot 37% from beyond the arc.

Still, Chicago found more ways to control the game.

The Bulls shot better overall, dominated the glass 64-49, scored 64 points in the paint, and finished with 34 assists. Golden State’s 35-point fourth quarter forced overtime, but Chicago responded with twice as many points in the extra period.

The final 130-124 score therefore reflects more than a single hot shooting night. It represents a game in which Chicago combined individual scoring brilliance with rebounding strength, playmaking, interior offense, and better overtime execution.

For anyone studying this matchup, the clearest takeaway is simple: the Warriors won the three-point battle, but the Bulls won enough of the other important statistical battles to control the outcome when the game mattered most.