Knicks vs Chicago Bulls Match Player Stats
Knicks vs chicago bulls match player stats from the February 22, 2026 meeting show how New York turned a closely contested game into a 105-99 road victory at the United Center. Karl-Anthony Towns led the Knicks with 28 points and 11 rebounds, while Jalen Brunson added 19 points and nine assists. For Chicago, Matas Buzelis scored 15 points and Guerschon Yabusele produced 11 points and 13 rebounds. The Knicks entered the game with a 37-21 record, while the Bulls were 24-34.
The final score does not fully explain how competitive the game was. Chicago led 53-52 at halftime and later moved ahead 95-94 with less than four minutes remaining. New York then responded with an 11-4 closing run, including six straight points from Towns, to secure the win. The Knicks also produced a decisive third quarter, outscoring Chicago 31-25 after trailing at halftime.
This game is particularly useful for understanding player impact because neither team dominated every statistical category. Both teams finished with 50 rebounds, while Chicago actually made more three pointers, 16 to New York’s 15. The Knicks separated themselves through better overall shooting, fewer turnovers, and stronger late game execution.
Knicks vs chicago bulls match player stats
The most important individual numbers from the game are summarized below.
| Player | Team | Minutes | Points | Rebounds | Assists | FG | 3PT | +/- |
| Karl-Anthony Towns | Knicks | 32:13 | 28 | 11 | 2 | 10-17 | 5-9 | +13 |
| Jalen Brunson | Knicks | 36:26 | 19 | 5 | 9 | 7-19 | 1-6 | +14 |
| Landry Shamet | Knicks | 23:17 | 16 | 2 | 0 | 5-9 | 4-8 | -10 |
| Josh Hart | Knicks | 32:42 | 11 | 9 | 5 | 4-5 | 1-1 | +16 |
| Mikal Bridges | Knicks | 30:13 | 11 | 2 | 5 | 4-10 | 3-8 | +5 |
| OG Anunoby | Knicks | 33:33 | 9 | 9 | 2 | 4-11 | 0-4 | +17 |
| Matas Buzelis | Bulls | 25:58 | 15 | 4 | 0 | 4-12 | 3-9 | -6 |
| Guerschon Yabusele | Bulls | 29:44 | 11 | 13 | 1 | 4-8 | 3-6 | -3 |
| Isaac Okoro | Bulls | 33:01 | 12 | 6 | 1 | 4-10 | 3-7 | -15 |
| Jalen Smith | Bulls | 18:13 | 12 | 5 | 1 | 5-11 | 2-6 | -9 |
| Patrick Williams | Bulls | 27:36 | 10 | 1 | 8 | 3-8 | 2-7 | +6 |
| Josh Giddey | Bulls | 22:58 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 2-10 | 0-3 | -14 |
The official NBA box score confirms Towns’ 28 point, 11 rebound performance, Brunson’s nine assists, and the complete shooting and plus-minus figures for the major contributors.
Final score and game summary
The Knicks defeated the Bulls 105-99 in Chicago.
The scoring by quarter was:
| Quarter | Knicks | Bulls |
| 1st | 25 | 27 |
| 2nd | 27 | 26 |
| 3rd | 31 | 25 |
| 4th | 22 | 21 |
| Final | 105 | 99 |
Chicago started better, winning the first quarter 27-25. The Bulls then held a narrow 53-52 advantage at halftime.
The game changed in the third quarter. New York scored 31 points while holding Chicago to 25. That six point swing gave the Knicks an 83-78 advantage heading into the fourth.
Chicago refused to fold. The Bulls eventually regained the lead at 95-94 after an 8-0 run. At that point, the game could have gone either way.
Instead, Towns took control.
He scored six consecutive points after Chicago moved ahead, combining a three pointer, a layup and a free throw. Mikal Bridges then hit a three pointer with 27 seconds remaining, and Brunson finished the game with two free throws.
That sequence explains why the final margin of six points is somewhat misleading. The Knicks did not cruise to victory. They had to recover from several momentum swings and execute correctly when the game became most important.
Karl-Anthony Towns was the difference maker
Karl-Anthony Towns was clearly the leading individual performer.
He finished with:
- 28 points
- 11 rebounds
- 10 made field goals on 17 attempts
- 5 made three pointers on 9 attempts
- 3 steals
- 2 assists
- 3 turnovers
- +13 plus-minus
His 28 points came on 58.8 percent shooting from the field. He also shot 55.6 percent from three point range.
That combination was particularly important because Towns was not simply scoring inside. He stretched the Bulls’ defense beyond the paint and forced Chicago to account for his shooting range.
His 11 rebounds also gave New York an important interior presence. Four of those rebounds came on the offensive glass and seven were defensive rebounds.
The performance produced Towns’ 39th double-double of the season, which was an NBA leading total at the time.
What stands out most is his fourth quarter response. Chicago had taken a 95-94 lead and appeared to have the momentum. Towns immediately produced six straight points.
That is more valuable than simply looking at his final scoring total.
A 28 point performance can happen in many ways. In this game, Towns’ scoring arrived at exactly the moments when New York needed an answer.
Jalen Brunson controlled the offense
Jalen Brunson did not have his most efficient shooting night, but his overall offensive contribution remained significant.
He finished with 19 points, five rebounds and nine assists in more than 36 minutes.
His shooting line was:
- 7 of 19 from the field
- 1 of 6 from three
- 4 of 6 from the free throw line
At first glance, a 7 of 19 shooting performance does not look particularly impressive. However, reducing Brunson’s performance to field goal percentage would miss his main responsibility in this matchup.
He was the Knicks’ primary organizer.
His nine assists helped create opportunities for Towns, Bridges and the rest of the rotation. He also helped New York maintain structure when Chicago applied pressure during the fourth quarter.
His final two free throws effectively closed the game.
Brunson’s +14 plus-minus was also one of the strongest figures among the Knicks’ starters.
This is an important lesson when reading player stats. The highest scorer is not automatically the player who had the greatest offensive influence. Brunson’s value came from combining scoring with playmaking and late game decision making.
Landry Shamet provided important bench scoring
Landry Shamet supplied 16 points in 23:17.
He shot:
- 5 of 9 from the field
- 4 of 8 from three
- 2 of 3 from the free throw line
His four three pointers gave New York valuable spacing.
However, his -10 plus-minus shows why individual statistics should be interpreted carefully.
Shamet scored efficiently, but the Knicks did not have their strongest overall stretches while he was on the court. That does not mean his performance was poor. It simply shows that scoring efficiency and overall lineup impact are different measurements.
His role was especially important because New York’s starting wing group was not dominant offensively.
Josh Hart, Mikal Bridges and OG Anunoby combined for 31 points. Shamet’s 16 points therefore provided a meaningful contribution from the second unit.
Josh Hart delivered impact beyond scoring
Josh Hart scored only 11 points, but his complete stat line was one of the most useful on the Knicks.
He recorded:
- 11 points
- 9 rebounds
- 5 assists
- 4 of 5 shooting
- 1 of 1 from three
- +16 plus-minus
Hart’s 80 percent field goal percentage was the best among the Knicks’ primary rotation players who attempted multiple shots.
More importantly, he filled several categories.
Nine rebounds from a wing player helped New York stay even with Chicago on the glass. Five assists also reduced the pressure on Brunson to create every possession.
His +16 was the second best mark among the Knicks players who received significant minutes, behind only OG Anunoby’s +17.
This is a good example of why a box score should be read as a complete profile rather than a points leaderboard.
OG Anunoby made a major defensive impact
OG Anunoby scored nine points, but his +17 was the highest plus-minus on either team among the players listed in the main rotation.
His offensive numbers were modest:
- 9 points
- 4 of 11 shooting
- 0 of 4 from three
- 9 rebounds
- 2 assists
- 2 steals
- 1 block
The shooting was not efficient, particularly from long range.
Yet the Knicks were significantly better in the minutes reflected by his plus-minus.
That tells us something important about the matchup. New York did not need every starter to score 20 points.
The Knicks could win while Towns and Brunson handled most of the scoring because players such as Anunoby and Hart supplied defense, rebounding and connective play.
Mikal Bridges provided timely shooting
Mikal Bridges finished with 11 points, five assists and two steals.
He shot 4 of 10 from the field and 3 of 8 from three.
His most important contribution came late.
After Towns had restored New York’s advantage, Bridges hit a three pointer with 27 seconds remaining. That basket created additional separation and reduced Chicago’s opportunity to force another possession.
His five assists also matched Hart’s total and helped spread playmaking responsibility.
Bridges did not dominate the box score, but his contribution was visible in the game’s decisive sequence.
Bulls player stats and leading performers
Chicago’s offense was much more balanced than its final result might suggest.
The Bulls had several players reach double figures, but nobody scored more than 15.
| Bulls Player | Minutes | Points | Rebounds | Assists | FG | 3PT | +/- |
| Matas Buzelis | 25:58 | 15 | 4 | 0 | 4-12 | 3-9 | -6 |
| Isaac Okoro | 33:01 | 12 | 6 | 1 | 4-10 | 3-7 | -15 |
| Jalen Smith | 18:13 | 12 | 5 | 1 | 5-11 | 2-6 | -9 |
| Guerschon Yabusele | 29:44 | 11 | 13 | 1 | 4-8 | 3-6 | -3 |
| Patrick Williams | 27:36 | 10 | 1 | 8 | 3-8 | 2-7 | +6 |
| Nick Richards | 23:01 | 9 | 13 | 0 | 3-6 | 0-1 | 0 |
| Rob Dillingham | 24:09 | 8 | 4 | 4 | 3-7 | 1-2 | +9 |
| Tre Jones | 22:57 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 4-9 | 0-1 | +1 |
| Collin Sexton | 12:23 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 2-5 | 2-4 | +1 |
| Josh Giddey | 22:58 | 6 | 2 | 6 | 2-10 | 0-3 | -14 |
The Bulls finished with 34 made field goals on 86 attempts, compared with 38 made field goals on 84 attempts for New York.
Matas Buzelis led Chicago in scoring
Matas Buzelis finished as Chicago’s top scorer with 15 points.
His shooting line was 4 of 12 from the field, 3 of 9 from three and 4 of 5 at the free throw line.
The scoring total was useful, but the efficiency was mixed.
Buzelis made three three pointers, which helped Chicago maintain its offensive spacing. He also generated four free throws and converted all of them.
However, he did not record an assist and finished with a -6 plus-minus.
His biggest contribution came during the late fourth quarter when he hit a three pointer that helped Chicago take a 95-94 lead.
That basket briefly shifted the game’s momentum.
The problem for Chicago was that New York answered immediately.
Guerschon Yabusele controlled the glass
Guerschon Yabusele was one of Chicago’s most effective all around performers.
He recorded 11 points and 13 rebounds, including 12 defensive rebounds.
He shot 4 of 8 from the field and 3 of 6 from three.
His 13 rebounds tied Nick Richards for the Bulls’ team high.
Yabusele’s performance was especially notable because Chicago did not lose the rebounding battle. Both teams finished with 50 rebounds.
That means the Bulls’ defeat cannot simply be explained by second chance opportunities or poor work on the glass.
Yabusele also provided spacing by making three three pointers.
His -3 plus-minus was relatively strong compared with several Chicago starters.
Patrick Williams was Chicago’s leading playmaker
Patrick Williams produced one of the more interesting stat lines in the game.
He finished with:
- 10 points
- 1 rebound
- 8 assists
- 3 of 8 shooting
- 2 of 7 from three
- 1 steal
- 1 block
- +6 plus-minus
His eight assists led Chicago.
That figure is important because it shows the Bulls were not completely dependent on one creator. Williams helped move the ball and generated opportunities for teammates.
His +6 plus-minus was also the best among Chicago’s primary rotation players.
Yet the Bulls still lost.
This demonstrates why individual plus-minus should not be treated as a complete measure of player quality. A player can have a positive plus-minus while his team loses because different lineup combinations and game situations affect the number.
Josh Giddey’s inefficient shooting hurt Chicago
Josh Giddey finished with six points, six assists and two rebounds.
His shooting was the biggest issue.
He made only 2 of 10 field goal attempts and missed all three of his three point attempts.
For a player handling the ball and carrying a significant playmaking responsibility, that shooting efficiency placed extra pressure on other Bulls players.
His six assists were useful, but the Bulls needed more scoring efficiency from their backcourt.
His -14 plus-minus was also one of the lowest numbers in the game.
The contrast with Brunson was significant.
Brunson also struggled with his shot, but he scored 19 points and produced nine assists. Giddey scored six and produced six assists.
Neither player was highly efficient as a scorer, but Brunson’s offensive volume and late game influence were greater.
Knicks shooting efficiency was the deciding statistical edge
The Knicks shot approximately 45 percent from the field, while Chicago shot approximately 40 percent.
Using the exact totals:
- Knicks: 38 of 84, 45.2 percent
- Bulls: 34 of 86, 39.5 percent
That represents a difference of roughly 5.7 percentage points.
The Knicks also made 38 field goals compared with 34 for Chicago.
That four basket difference was meaningful in a six point game.
Interestingly, Chicago actually made more three pointers.
The Bulls made 16 three pointers on 46 attempts, while New York made 15 on 42 attempts.
So three point volume did not explain the result.
Instead, New York gained an advantage through overall shot making.
The Knicks also made 14 of 21 free throws, while Chicago made 15 of 21.
The Bulls therefore had a slight free throw advantage, but it was not enough to overcome the Knicks’ stronger field goal efficiency.
Turnovers gave New York another advantage
Turnovers were another major difference.
The Knicks committed 13 turnovers.
The Bulls committed 17.
That four turnover difference matters in a game decided by six points.
Chicago also had more points off turnovers, according to the official game summary, with 21 compared with 12 for New York.
That makes the Knicks’ victory even more interesting.
New York gave Chicago some opportunities through turnovers, yet still won because its half court efficiency and late execution were strong enough to compensate.
From a tactical perspective, this suggests that Chicago had opportunities to win the game but did not convert enough of them into sustained scoring advantages.
Rebounding was completely even
Both teams finished with 50 rebounds.
That is one of the clearest signs that the matchup was competitive.
New York had:
- 8 offensive rebounds
- 42 defensive rebounds
- 50 total rebounds
Chicago had:
- 13 offensive rebounds
- 37 defensive rebounds
- 50 total rebounds
The Bulls actually collected five more offensive rebounds.
That should have created extra possessions.
However, New York’s ability to shoot more efficiently helped neutralize Chicago’s advantage on the offensive glass.
Towns alone collected 11 rebounds, while Yabusele and Richards each recorded 13 for Chicago.
The third quarter changed the game
The third quarter was arguably the most important period.
At halftime, Chicago led 53-52.
New York then scored 31 points in the third and allowed only 25.
That created a five point Knicks advantage heading into the fourth.
The official NBA game summary notes that New York produced a 21-10 run during the third quarter and opened a 13 point lead before Chicago responded.
The run demonstrated New York’s ability to create separation quickly.
But it also exposed Chicago’s ability to recover.
Rather than allowing the game to become a blowout, the Bulls continued competing and eventually moved back in front.
The fact that the Bulls could erase most of a 13 point deficit shows that the game was not decided until the final possessions.
Fourth quarter execution separated the teams
The fourth quarter ended 22-21 in favor of New York.
That single point difference is not dramatic.
What mattered was how the Knicks handled the final few minutes.
Chicago took a 95-94 lead.
Then Towns scored six straight points.
Bridges followed with a three.
Brunson then made two free throws.
New York closed the game with an 11-4 run.
This is the clearest explanation for the result.
The Knicks did not dominate the entire fourth quarter. They executed better during the most important stretch.
That distinction matters when evaluating close NBA games.
A team can have superior shooting, rebounding or possession numbers across 48 minutes and still lose if it fails to execute in the final possessions.
Team comparison
| Category | Knicks | Bulls |
| Final Score | 105 | 99 |
| Field Goals | 38-84 | 34-86 |
| FG Percentage | 45.2% | 39.5% |
| Three Pointers | 15-42 | 16-46 |
| 3PT Percentage | 35.7% | 34.8% |
| Free Throws | 14-21 | 15-21 |
| FT Percentage | 66.7% | 71.4% |
| Rebounds | 50 | 50 |
| Offensive Rebounds | 8 | 13 |
| Assists | 31 | 24 |
| Turnovers | 13 | 17 |
| Steals | 12 | 8 |
| Blocks | 8 | 2 |
| Points in Paint | 32 | 32 |
| Fast Break Points | 14 | 16 |
| Biggest Lead | 13 | 8 |
The biggest statistical differences were assists, turnovers, steals, blocks and field goal efficiency.
New York had seven more assists, four fewer turnovers, four more steals and six more blocks.
Chicago had more offensive rebounds and slightly better free throw shooting, but those advantages did not outweigh New York’s broader statistical control.
What the player stats reveal about the Knicks
The most important takeaway from the Knicks’ numbers is balance.
Towns was the primary scorer.
Brunson was the primary creator.
Hart contributed across several categories.
Bridges provided shooting and secondary playmaking.
Anunoby supplied defensive value and rebounding.
Shamet supplied bench scoring.
This distribution prevented Chicago from relying on a single defensive assignment.
- If the Bulls concentrated on Brunson, Towns could punish them.
- If they collapsed toward Towns, Brunson could create.</span>
- If the primary stars attracted attention, Bridges and Shamet could make perimeter shots.
That is one reason the Knicks were able to win despite Brunson shooting 7 of 19 and Anunoby going 4 of 11.
What the player stats reveal about the Bulls
Chicago’s numbers tell a different story.
The Bulls had several useful individual contributions, but they lacked a high volume scorer who could consistently take over the game.
Buzelis led the team with only 15 points.
Yabusele had 13 rebounds and 11 points.
Williams had eight assists.
Giddey had six assists.
Several players contributed, but the Bulls did not have a player who matched Towns’ combination of scoring efficiency and late game shot making.
That became especially important when the game tightened.
Chicago had enough offense to compete.
It did not have enough consistent shot creation to close the game.
Why the six point margin matters
A six point final margin can sometimes hide a comfortable victory.
This was not one of those games.
The teams were separated by one point at halftime.
Chicago later led by one point in the fourth quarter.
The Bulls had an eight point largest lead.
The Knicks had a 13 point largest lead.
There were eight lead changes and three ties.
Those figures show that the game repeatedly moved between the teams.
The final result came down to execution rather than a sustained blowout.
Season series context
The matchup was part of a four game regular season series.
Based on the supplied season results, New York won the first three meetings:
- November 1: Knicks 135, Bulls 125
- November 3: Knicks 128, Bulls 116
- February 22: Knicks 105, Bulls 99
- April 4: Bulls 136, Knicks 96
The February meeting therefore gave New York a 3-0 advantage in the series at that point.
The fourth meeting later changed the overall season series.
That final result is important when looking at season long head to head records because one game should not be treated as the complete story.
Why the date can appear as February 22 or February 23
There is a small date issue worth clarifying for readers searching for this game.
The official NBA game page identifies the contest as Sunday, February 22, 2026. The game information also displays Monday, February 23, 2026 at 1:00 AM, which reflects the displayed game information and time conversion.
For that reason, different databases can show February 22 or February 23.
The game itself was played at the United Center in Chicago on Sunday night in the local schedule.
Using February 22, 2026 as the primary game date is consistent with the official NBA game record.
Important absences and context
The player statistics also need to be considered in the context of availability.
The Bulls were without Jaden Ivey and Anfernee Simons.
The Knicks were without Mitchell Robinson, who was listed out for left ankle injury management.
These absences matter because player statistics are influenced by rotation structure.
Chicago’s missing guards affected its available perimeter scoring options.
New York’s absence of Robinson affected its center rotation and increased the importance of Towns and reserve bigs.
The official game report lists these absences alongside the result.
What advanced readers should notice
One of the most useful lessons from this game is that traditional box score categories can tell different stories.
- Chicago won the offensive rebounding battle.
- Chicago made more three pointers.
- Chicago shot free throws slightly better.
Yet New York won.
Why?
Because the Knicks combined several smaller advantages.
- They shot better overall.
- They turned the ball over less.
- They generated more assists.
- They recorded more steals.
- They blocked more shots.
Most importantly, they converted the final possessions.
This is why a single category should rarely be used as the explanation for an NBA result.
Player impact versus raw scoring
A common mistake when analyzing match player stats is to rank players only by points.
That approach would produce:
- Karl-Anthony Towns, 28
- Jalen Brunson, 19
- Landry Shamet, 16
- Matas Buzelis, 15
- Josh Hart and Mikal Bridges, 11
But that ranking does not fully describe the game.
Hart had 11 points, nine rebounds and five assists with a +16 rating.
Anunoby scored nine points but had a +17 rating.
Patrick Williams scored 10 points but produced eight assists and finished +6.
Yabusele scored 11 points but grabbed 13 rebounds.
The broader lesson is simple: scoring explains only one part of basketball impact.
The most efficient Knicks scorers
Among the main Knicks rotation players, Towns and Hart were especially efficient.
Towns made 10 of 17 shots.
Hart made 4 of 5.
Shamet made 5 of 9.
Bridges made 4 of 10.
Brunson made 7 of 19.
Anunoby made 4 of 11.
This tells us that New York’s most efficient scoring came from Towns, Hart and Shamet.
Brunson’s importance came from volume and playmaking rather than pure efficiency.
That is a useful distinction when evaluating his performance.
The most efficient Bulls scorers
Chicago had several players with respectable shooting numbers.
Yabusele made 4 of 8 shots.
Nick Richards made 3 of 6.
Jalen Smith made 5 of 11.
Patrick Williams made 3 of 8.
However, the Bulls’ primary scoring leader, Buzelis, made only 4 of 12.
Giddey was even less efficient at 2 of 10.
This created an uneven offensive profile.
The Bulls could produce efficient possessions from several players, but their major perimeter options did not consistently convert enough shots.
Attendance and venue
The game was played at the United Center in Chicago.
Attendance was 19,628.
The officials were Ed Malloy, Tre Maddox and Ashley Moyer-Gleich.
The game lasted approximately 2 hours and 13 minutes according to the detailed box score record.
Where the game was won
The game can be reduced to five major factors.
1. Towns’ scoring efficiency
Towns scored 28 points on 17 field goal attempts and connected on five three pointers.
2. Brunson’s playmaking
Brunson produced nine assists and helped New York organize its offense.
3. New York’s overall shooting
The Knicks made 38 of 84 field goal attempts, compared with Chicago’s 34 of 86.
4. Turnover control
New York committed 13 turnovers compared with 17 for Chicago.
5. Late game execution
Chicago led 95-94, but New York finished with an 11-4 run.
Those five factors provide a better explanation of the result than simply saying the Knicks had more points.
What happened in the final minutes
The closing sequence deserves special attention.
Chicago had managed to recover from New York’s third quarter surge.
Buzelis hit a three pointer to help Chicago move ahead 95-94 with 3:52 remaining.
Towns responded.
He scored six consecutive points, restoring control to New York.
Bridges then knocked down a three pointer with 27 seconds remaining.
Brunson converted two free throws to complete the closing sequence.
The Knicks therefore scored the most important points after the Bulls had taken their final lead.
That is the clearest example of clutch execution in the game.
How to interpret the game for future matchups
This matchup also provides a useful framework for evaluating future Knicks and Bulls games.
When analyzing a future meeting, do not simply compare the previous final score.
Instead, examine:
- Which team controls turnovers?
- Which team’s primary scorer is getting efficient attempts?
- Is the opponent forcing difficult perimeter shots?
- Who is winning the offensive glass?
- Are secondary players converting open shots?
- Which team has the stronger late game creator?
- Are key rotation players available?
These questions provide more useful information than simply looking at the win-loss result.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who scored the most points in Knicks vs Chicago Bulls?
Karl-Anthony Towns led all players with 28 points for New York. Matas Buzelis was Chicago’s leading scorer with 15 points.
How many points did Jalen Brunson score against the Bulls?
Jalen Brunson scored 19 points and added nine assists and five rebounds.
Who had the most rebounds in the game?
Guerschon Yabusele and Nick Richards each recorded 13 rebounds for Chicago. Karl-Anthony Towns led New York with 11 rebounds.
Who had the most assists?
Jalen Brunson led the Knicks with nine assists. Patrick Williams led Chicago with eight assists.
What was the final score of the Knicks vs Bulls game?
The Knicks defeated the Bulls 105-99 at the United Center.
Did the Knicks win the season series?
After the February 22 meeting, New York had won the first three meetings of the four game season series. Chicago later won the April 4 meeting.
Conclusion
The Knicks vs chicago bulls match player stats tell the story of a competitive game decided by efficiency and execution rather than overwhelming statistical dominance.
Karl-Anthony Towns was the central figure. His 28 points and 11 rebounds gave New York a reliable interior and perimeter scoring threat, while his six point response after Chicago took a 95-94 lead became the defining sequence of the contest.
Jalen Brunson complemented Towns with 19 points and nine assists. His shooting was inconsistent, but his playmaking and late free throws were crucial. Josh Hart added 11 points, nine rebounds and five assists, while Mikal Bridges provided timely three point shooting. OG Anunoby’s nine points did not capture his overall influence, reflected in his team best +17 rating.
Chicago had meaningful contributions of its own. Matas Buzelis led the team with 15 points, Guerschon Yabusele produced 13 rebounds, Patrick Williams supplied eight assists, and Nick Richards also grabbed 13 rebounds.
The Bulls even won several individual statistical battles. They collected more offensive rebounds and made more three pointers. Their free throw percentage was also slightly better.
But New York was more efficient overall, committed fewer turnovers, produced more assists and defended more effectively in key moments. The Knicks also responded when the game was at its most difficult stage.
The 105-99 result therefore represents more than a six point road win. It was a game in which New York survived Chicago’s early advantage, controlled the third quarter, answered a fourth quarter comeback and finished with the better execution when the result was still uncertain.
For readers studying player performance, this game is a strong reminder that the most useful analysis comes from combining points, efficiency, rebounding, playmaking, turnovers, defense and game situation rather than relying on one box score category.
