Denver Nuggets vs Chicago Bulls Match Player Stats
The denver nuggets vs chicago bulls match player stats from the October 11, 2026, NBA preseason game reveal an exciting offensive contest in which the Denver Nuggets defeated the Chicago Bulls 133-128 at Ball Arena in Denver, Colorado. Denver secured the five-point victory through a strong third quarter, balanced scoring, and Nikola Jokic’s triple-double. Aaron Gordon led the Nuggets with 25 points, while Leonard Miller delivered a standout 26-point performance for Chicago. Despite the Bulls shooting 51% from the field and making 21 three-pointers, Denver found enough scoring opportunities at the free-throw line and on the offensive glass to finish ahead.
The matchup offers more than a final score. It provides a useful look at how two teams approached a high-scoring preseason game, which players made the biggest contributions, and how rebounds, assists, turnovers, and free throws shaped the result. The statistics also highlight an important distinction: individual scoring success does not always translate into a team victory.
The figures in this article are based on the supplied ESPN box-score data for the October 11, 2026, game. Because this was a preseason contest, the numbers should be interpreted as a snapshot of that game’s performances rather than a complete measure of either team’s regular-season strength.
Denver Nuggets vs Chicago Bulls Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The game finished with Denver ahead by five points after the Nuggets produced their strongest scoring quarter in the third period. Chicago remained competitive throughout the contest and scored 128 points, but Denver’s 40-point third quarter helped create the separation needed to secure the win.
NBA schedule release: List of games for all 30 teams | NBA.com
Denver Nuggets
Home team
133
Final
5-point margin
Preseason
Chicago Bulls Scores, Stats and Highlights – ESPN
Chicago Bulls
Away team
128
Date
October 11, 2026
Venue
Ball Arena
Location
Denver, Colorado
Broadcast
ESPN
Source: supplied ESPN box-score information. The listed game time is 6:00 AM on October 12 in the displayed schedule information.
Final score by quarter
| Quarter | Chicago Bulls | Denver Nuggets |
| First quarter | 27 | 29 |
| Second quarter | 41 | 30 |
| Third quarter | 26 | 40 |
| Fourth quarter | 34 | 34 |
| Final score | 128 | 133 |
The quarter-by-quarter numbers explain the game’s momentum. Chicago won the second quarter by 11 points, scoring 41 and briefly shifting the contest in its favor. Denver responded with a 14-point advantage in the third quarter, scoring 40 while limiting Chicago to 26.
Both teams scored 34 points in the fourth quarter, meaning Chicago could not reduce the five-point final deficit. Denver’s third-quarter response was therefore the defining stretch of the game.
Full Denver Nuggets Player Stats
Denver’s performance was led by Gordon’s efficient scoring and Jokic’s all-around contribution. Cameron Johnson also made an important impact from beyond the arc, while Jamal Murray helped organize the offense with five assists.
The following table summarizes the principal Denver contributors, including their scoring, rebounding, and playmaking numbers.
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Field Goals | 3-Pointers | Free Throws |
| Aaron Gordon | 25 | 6 | 0 | 9/12 | 3/4 | 4/5 |
| Nikola Jokic | 22 | 11 | 10 | 8/12 | 1/2 | 5/7 |
| Cameron Johnson | 15 | 3 | 1 | 5/7 | 4/5 | 1/2 |
| Jamal Murray | 13 | 3 | 5 | 4/11 | 1/5 | 4/4 |
| Julian Strawther | 13 | 2 | 0 | 5/12 | 3/6 | 0/0 |
| DaRon Holmes II | 11 | 5 | 1 | 3/5 | 1/2 | 4/8 |
| Bryce Hopkins | 10 | 1 | 1 | 2/3 | 0/0 | 6/8 |
| Tyus Jones | 4 | 0 | 2 | 2/3 | 0/1 | 0/0 |
| Zeke Nnaji | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1/3 | 0/1 | 2/4 |
| Cam Whitmore | 4 | 0 | 1 | 1/2 | 0/0 | 2/2 |
| Ryan Nembhard | 3 | 0 | 2 | 1/1 | 0/0 | 1/2 |
| Trevon Brazile | 3 | 5 | 0 | 1/1 | 0/0 | 1/2 |
| DeMar DeRozan | 2 | 2 | 2 | 0/4 | 0/1 | 2/2 |
| Christian Braun | 2 | 5 | 1 | 1/6 | 0/3 | 0/0 |
| Alpha Diallo | 2 | 4 | 0 | 1/5 | 0/2 | 0/0 |
Player statistics are taken from the available game box-score information. The table focuses on the players with recorded appearances and individual statistics.
Aaron Gordon leads Denver with 25 points
Gordon was Denver’s leading scorer, finishing with 25 points on 9-of-12 shooting from the field. He also made three of his four three-point attempts and converted four of five free throws.
His field-goal percentage was 75%, a highly efficient return for a player who scored more than any other Nugget. Gordon did not need a large number of attempts to produce his points, which helped Denver maintain offensive efficiency.
Three aspects of his performance stand out:
- Finishing efficiency: Gordon made nine of 12 field-goal attempts.
- Perimeter contribution: He converted three three-pointers, giving the defense another scoring threat to respect.
- Rebounding support: His six rebounds helped Denver compete on the glass.
Gordon recorded no assists in the supplied player line. That does not diminish his scoring contribution, but it shows that his main impact in this contest came from finishing possessions rather than serving as a primary playmaker.
For readers comparing individual box scores, his combination of 25 points and 75% field-goal shooting is more informative than the points total alone. It shows how effectively he converted his opportunities.
Nikola Jokic records a triple-double
Jokic produced one of the most complete performances of the game, finishing with 22 points, 11 rebounds, and 10 assists. Reaching double figures in all three categories gave him a triple-double.
His scoring efficiency was also strong. He made eight of 12 field-goal attempts, including one three-pointer, and converted five of seven free throws.
Nikola Jokic’s stat line
22
Points
11
Rebounds
10
Assists
Field goals: 8/12 | Three-pointers: 1/2 | Free throws: 5/7
Jokic’s performance matters because the three major statistical categories describe different parts of the game. His 22 points supplied direct scoring, his 11 rebounds helped Denver finish defensive possessions and create second chances, and his 10 assists showed how effectively he involved teammates.
The assists are especially important in understanding Denver’s offense. A player who can score efficiently while creating opportunities for teammates forces opposing defenses to make difficult choices. If defenders focus too heavily on Jokic, other Nuggets can find open looks. If they spread out to guard the perimeter, Jokic can exploit space closer to the basket.
His four turnovers are also worth noting. They represent lost possessions, even though his overall contribution was outstanding. A complete analysis considers both playmaking production and the cost of turnovers rather than treating every assist as an isolated positive.
Because this was a preseason game, the triple-double should be viewed as an impressive performance in one contest, not proof of a particular regular-season outcome.
Cameron Johnson provides perimeter shooting
Johnson scored 15 points on five-of-seven shooting and made four of his five three-point attempts. His 80% accuracy from long range was one of Denver’s most efficient perimeter performances.
The value of Johnson’s shooting extends beyond his own points. A player who can reliably convert open three-pointers can stretch a defense and create more room for teammates to attack the basket. Defenders must decide whether to help against a drive or remain close enough to contest a shot.
Johnson also recorded two steals, adding a defensive contribution to his offensive output. Although his line included only three rebounds and one assist, his combination of efficient shooting and defensive activity made him an important supporting player.
The sample size matters. Five three-point attempts are enough to describe his performance in this game, but they are not enough to establish a reliable long-term shooting percentage.
Jamal Murray supports the offense
Murray finished with 13 points, five assists, and three rebounds. He shot four of 11 from the field and made one of five three-point attempts, while converting all four free throws.
His shooting was less efficient than Gordon’s or Johnson’s. Nevertheless, his five assists indicate a meaningful role in creating opportunities for Denver’s other scorers.
Murray’s performance illustrates why a box score should be read as a collection of responsibilities rather than a simple ranking of players. His value in this contest included distributing the ball, supporting the primary offensive structure, and contributing enough scoring to prevent the defense from ignoring him.
For a more complete assessment, readers would also need information about defensive assignments, shot quality, and the circumstances surrounding his attempts. A missed shot does not automatically mean a poor decision, just as a made shot does not necessarily mean a possession was well executed.
Denver’s bench provides useful scoring support
Denver received several valuable contributions beyond its main scorers.
Julian Strawther added 13 points, DaRon Holmes II scored 11, and Bryce Hopkins contributed 10. That gave Denver three bench players with at least 10 points in the supplied box score.
Holmes combined his 11 points with five rebounds. Hopkins added 10 points, although he made only two field goals, because he converted six of eight free throws. Strawther made three of six three-point attempts, giving Denver another perimeter option.
This distribution helped Denver avoid depending entirely on Gordon and Jokic for scoring. When bench players contribute, a team has more ways to maintain its offensive output as the lineup changes.
There are limits to what the scoring totals reveal, however. A bench player’s points do not establish that the player consistently outperformed the opposing bench. Minutes, defensive responsibilities, turnovers, and the quality of the opposition also matter.
The supplied figures suggest that Denver’s secondary scorers made meaningful contributions, particularly during a game in which the team needed a substantial third-quarter response.
Full Chicago Bulls Player Stats
Chicago’s offense was productive throughout the contest. The Bulls made 47 of 93 field-goal attempts and converted 21 three-pointers, while Leonard Miller led the team in scoring and Josh Giddey directed much of the playmaking.
The table below presents the principal Bulls player lines available in the game statistics.
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Field Goals | 3-Pointers | Free Throws |
| Leonard Miller | 26 | 7 | 2 | 11/14 | 4/6 | 0/0 |
| Caleb Wilson | 17 | 4 | 5 | 6/10 | 1/4 | 4/7 |
| Buddy Hield | 15 | 3 | 1 | 4/7 | 4/6 | 3/3 |
| Matas Buzelis | 13 | 6 | 3 | 5/10 | 2/5 | 1/2 |
| Jalen Smith | 11 | 3 | 0 | 4/6 | 3/5 | 0/0 |
| Noa Essengue | 8 | 6 | 2 | 4/9 | 0/3 | 0/0 |
| Orlando Robinson | 8 | 6 | 2 | 3/5 | 1/1 | 1/2 |
| Josh Giddey | 7 | 1 | 8 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 4/4 |
| Patrick Williams | 6 | 4 | 3 | 3/8 | 0/4 | 0/0 |
| Jordan Hawkins | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2/5 | 2/3 | 0/0 |
| Isaac Okoro | 5 | 1 | 0 | 2/2 | 1/1 | 0/0 |
| Jalen Bridges | 3 | 2 | 0 | 1/5 | 1/4 | 0/0 |
| Drew Peterson | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1/2 | 1/2 | 0/0 |
| Tre Jones | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0/3 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| Dailyn Swain | 0 | 1 | 2 | 0/4 | 0/4 | 0/0 |
This table summarizes the available player lines rather than every name listed on the preseason roster. Players who did not record a listed appearance are not assigned invented statistics.
Leonard Miller leads all scorers with 26 points
Miller was Chicago’s leading scorer and the highest-scoring player in the game. He finished with 26 points, seven rebounds, and two assists while making 11 of 14 field-goal attempts.
He also made four three-pointers from six attempts. His field-goal percentage was approximately 78.6%, making his scoring performance highly efficient.
Three details explain why his line stands out:
- Scoring volume: His 26 points led both teams.
- Shot conversion: He made 11 of 14 attempts from the field.
- Two-way contribution: Seven rebounds complemented his offensive production.
Miller’s performance demonstrates that the losing team can still produce the game’s most prolific scorer. Denver won despite allowing him to score 26 points because basketball results depend on the combined effect of every possession, not only the highest individual total.
His zero free-throw attempts are another useful detail. Miller generated his points through field goals rather than trips to the line. That makes his scoring profile different from a player who reaches a similar total through a combination of field goals and frequent free throws.
A single preseason performance does not establish future consistency, but this was a strong individual showing based on the supplied numbers.
Caleb Wilson delivers a balanced offensive performance
Wilson scored 17 points, collected four rebounds, and recorded five assists. He made six of 10 field-goal attempts and four of seven free throws.
His five assists are important because they indicate that his contribution extended beyond scoring. He helped create opportunities for teammates while remaining an effective individual option.
Wilson also recorded five turnovers in the available box score. That is a meaningful counterpoint to his production. Turnovers can erase the value of successful possessions and give the opposition additional opportunities to score.
His performance was therefore mixed in a useful analytical sense: efficient field-goal shooting and solid playmaking on one side, costly possession losses on the other.
The distinction matters when evaluating developing players. Points and assists can show offensive involvement, while turnovers help reveal how securely that involvement was managed.
Buddy Hield supplies outside shooting
Hield finished with 15 points, three rebounds, and one assist. He made four of seven field-goal attempts, including four of six from three-point range, and converted all three free throws.
His 66.7% accuracy from beyond the arc gave Chicago another efficient perimeter scorer. Hield’s four made three-pointers also contributed to the Bulls’ team total of 21.
The broader lesson is that outside shooting can keep a team competitive even when it loses the rebounding or free-throw comparison. Chicago’s perimeter production helped it reach 128 points and remain within five points at the end.
However, a team can shoot well from three-point range and still lose. The number of possessions, the balance between two-point and three-point attempts, free-throw opportunities, and defensive execution all influence the final outcome.
Hield’s performance was one of Chicago’s most effective offensive contributions, even though it was not enough to secure the win.
Josh Giddey organizes Chicago’s offense
Giddey recorded eight assists, the highest total for Chicago. He also scored seven points, collected one rebound, and made one of his three field-goal attempts.
His main statistical contribution was playmaking. Eight assists indicate that he was involved in creating several successful scoring possessions for teammates.
The Bulls recorded 34 assists as a team, compared with Denver’s 26. This difference suggests that Chicago generated substantial assisted scoring, even though the Nuggets won the game.
Assists alone do not tell the whole story. They do not measure every pass that creates an advantage, and they do not distinguish between an easy assist and a difficult pass that creates a high-quality shot. Still, Giddey’s eight assists provide a useful indicator of his role in the offense.
Chicago’s challenge was not simply to create scoring opportunities. The team also needed to preserve possessions and limit Denver’s ability to exploit the paint and the free-throw line. Giddey’s playmaking was a strength, but the overall team result depended on many more factors.
Matas Buzelis and Jalen Smith add secondary scoring
Buzelis finished with 13 points, six rebounds, and three assists. He made five of 10 field-goal attempts and two of five three-pointers.
Smith contributed 11 points and three rebounds, shooting four of six from the field and making three of five attempts from beyond the arc.
Their combined production gave Chicago additional scoring options alongside Miller, Wilson, and Hield. Smith’s perimeter shooting was particularly notable for a frontcourt player, while Buzelis contributed across multiple statistical categories.
Chicago’s offensive output was not restricted to one scorer. The Bulls had several players capable of making shots, creating opportunities, or contributing on the glass. Their loss therefore cannot be explained simply by an inability to score.
The more useful question is how the two teams converted their offensive possessions into points and how each handled the opposing team’s strengths. Denver’s advantage in free throws, offensive rebounds, and turnovers provides a more complete explanation than scoring totals alone.
Team Statistics Comparison: Denver vs Chicago
Individual performances explain who produced the points, but the team statistics help explain why Denver won. The Nuggets and Bulls both shot approximately 51% from the field, yet they reached their final totals in different ways.
The following comparison uses the team figures supplied for the game.
| Statistical Category | Denver Nuggets | Chicago Bulls |
| Final points | 133 | 128 |
| Field goals | 44/87 | 47/93 |
| Field-goal percentage | 51% | 51% |
| Three-pointers | 13/32 | 21/50 |
| Three-point percentage | 41% | 42% |
| Free throws | 32/46 | 13/18 |
| Free-throw percentage | 70% | 72% |
| Total rebounds, supplied figures | 48 | 45 |
| Offensive rebounds | 16 | 13 |
| Defensive rebounds | 32 | 32 |
| Assists | 26 | 34 |
| Turnovers | 15 | 18 |
| Steals | 9 | 8 |
| Blocks | 4 | 5 |
| Personal fouls | 16 | 31 |
Statistical note: The supplied team rebound totals do not reconcile with the offensive and defensive rebound subtotals. Those subtotals equal 48 for Chicago and 48 for Denver, while the supplied total-rebound figures are 45 and 48, respectively. The team rebound figures are therefore reproduced as provided rather than silently corrected.
Field-goal efficiency was almost identical
Both teams were listed at 51% from the field. Denver made 44 of 87 attempts, while Chicago made 47 of 93.
Chicago made three more field goals, but it also attempted six more shots. Denver’s lower attempt total did not prevent it from scoring more points because the Nuggets generated substantially more free-throw opportunities.
This is an important distinction for anyone comparing basketball box scores. Field-goal percentage measures the proportion of field-goal attempts that become successful shots. It does not include free throws, and it does not directly measure the number of points generated per possession.
Denver’s offense was therefore effective in a different way from Chicago’s. The Bulls converted a larger volume of shots from the field, while the Nuggets benefited from a greater number of trips to the free-throw line.
Chicago wins the three-point comparison
The Bulls made 21 three-pointers on 50 attempts, compared with Denver’s 13 on 32 attempts.
| Three-point measure | Chicago | Denver |
| Made | 21 | 13 |
| Attempted | 50 | 32 |
| Accuracy | 42% | 41% |
| Points from made threes | 63 | 39 |
Chicago scored 24 more points from three-pointers than Denver. This was a substantial advantage and helped the Bulls stay competitive.
The number of attempts matters as much as the percentage. Chicago attempted 18 more three-pointers, creating many more opportunities to earn three points from a single successful shot.
Yet the three-point advantage did not determine the final outcome. Denver made up the difference through other scoring methods, particularly free throws.
The result illustrates why a team can win the perimeter shooting battle and still lose the game. Three-point production is only one component of offensive performance.
Denver’s free-throw advantage proves decisive
Denver attempted 46 free throws and made 32. Chicago attempted 18 and made 13.
That gave Denver 19 more made free throws than Chicago, producing a difference of 19 points in this category.
The difference between the teams’ free-throw totals was larger than the final five-point margin. This does not mean that free throws alone explain every aspect of the game, but it highlights the importance of getting to the line.
Denver’s 46 attempts also stand out because the team converted only about 70% of them. The Nuggets left points at the line, yet their large number of attempts still created a major scoring advantage.
Chicago shot a slightly better percentage from the stripe at approximately 72%, but its lower number of attempts limited its overall production.
A useful lesson for readers analyzing future games is to examine both free-throw accuracy and free-throw volume. A team can have a higher percentage and still score fewer points from the line because it attempts far fewer shots.
Offensive rebounds give Denver extra opportunities
The supplied figures show Denver with 16 offensive rebounds and Chicago with 13. An offensive rebound allows a team to retain possession after a missed field goal or free throw when the rebound is available to the offense.
Those extra possessions can be valuable in close games. They offer another chance to score without requiring the team to win the ball back through a steal or wait for the opponent to miss a shot.
Denver’s three-rebound advantage on the offensive glass fits the broader pattern of its win. The Nuggets created additional scoring opportunities and generated substantially more free throws, which helped offset Chicago’s outside shooting.
The numbers do not establish exactly how many points came from second-chance possessions. That would require a more detailed play-by-play analysis. Nevertheless, the offensive-rebound difference is a meaningful part of the statistical comparison.
Turnovers give Denver another edge
Chicago recorded 18 turnovers, while Denver had 15. The Bulls therefore lost possession three more times.
Turnovers can be especially costly because they end an offensive possession without guaranteeing a shot. Some also lead to transition opportunities for the opposing team, although the box score alone does not show how many turnovers produced fast-break points.
The difference was not enormous, but it favored Denver in a game decided by five points.
Chicago’s 34 assists also show that the team moved the ball effectively. Its challenge was balancing that creation with possession security. A high assist total is valuable, but it becomes less effective when too many possessions end in turnovers.
Denver recorded fewer assists but also committed fewer turnovers. That combination reflects a different statistical profile: Chicago created more assisted scoring, while Denver preserved more possessions and generated more free throws.
Why Denver Won the Game
The final score of 133-128 can be understood through several connected factors rather than one isolated statistic.
1. A decisive third-quarter response
Denver entered halftime after Chicago scored 41 points in the second quarter. The Nuggets then produced 40 points in the third period while limiting the Bulls to 26.
That 14-point quarter advantage changed the game’s momentum. Denver’s response was large enough to offset Chicago’s second-quarter success and establish a lead that the Bulls could not erase in the final period.
The lesson is straightforward: scoring consistently across all four quarters matters, but a single dominant stretch can have an outsized effect on a close game.
2. Jokic influenced multiple parts of the game
Jokic’s 22 points, 11 rebounds, and 10 assists provided scoring, rebounding, and playmaking in one performance.
The value of this combination is that Denver did not need to choose between using Jokic as a scorer and using him to create opportunities for others. He contributed in both roles.
His four turnovers show that the performance was not flawless, but his overall production gave Denver a versatile offensive focal point.
3. Gordon converted opportunities efficiently
Gordon’s 25 points on 12 field-goal attempts helped Denver maintain a strong scoring rate from the field. He also made three three-pointers.
When a leading scorer converts attempts efficiently, the team can generate points without relying exclusively on a high volume of shots. That can be particularly useful when the opposing team is making a large number of three-pointers.
4. Denver reached the free-throw line more often
The Nuggets attempted 46 free throws to Chicago’s 18. Even though Denver’s free-throw percentage was lower, the volume difference gave the home team a significant scoring advantage.
This is one of the clearest numerical explanations for the result. Chicago’s three-point shooting was excellent, but Denver’s free-throw production helped counter it.
5. Chicago could not turn its shooting advantage into a win
The Bulls made 21 three-pointers, recorded 34 assists, and shot approximately 51% from the field. Those are strong offensive figures for a single game.
However, the Bulls also committed 18 turnovers and recorded 31 personal fouls, compared with Denver’s 15 turnovers and 16 personal fouls.
The foul difference is notable, although personal fouls do not automatically translate into free-throw attempts in a simple one-to-one relationship. The type of foul, the situation, and the applicable rules affect whether free throws are awarded.
Taken together, the statistics suggest that Denver found more ways to accumulate points beyond its field-goal production, while Chicago relied more heavily on perimeter scoring.
What the Match Player Stats Reveal About Team Performance
The box score offers several lessons for fans, analysts, fantasy basketball players, and anyone tracking player development. These lessons are useful because they connect individual numbers to the way a basketball game unfolds.
Scoring totals need context
Miller scored 26 points, more than any other player. Gordon followed with 25, and Jokic finished with 22.
A simple ranking would put Miller first, Gordon second, and Jokic third. But this ranking does not tell the whole story.
Miller’s line included seven rebounds and two assists. Gordon contributed six rebounds, while Jokic recorded a triple-double. Each player fulfilled a different role, and their statistics should be interpreted accordingly.
Points answer the question of how much a player scored. Rebounds and assists help explain how that player contributed to other parts of the game.
Shooting percentages should be read alongside attempts
Miller made 11 of 14 field-goal attempts, while Gordon made nine of 12. Both produced high scoring totals with relatively few misses.
Johnson made four of five three-pointers, while Hield also made four, but on six attempts. These are useful comparisons because they distinguish shooting volume from shooting accuracy.
Still, a percentage based on a small number of attempts can change quickly. A player who makes four of five three-pointers has a strong result for that game, but that sample is too small to predict his long-term shooting rate confidently.
Assists and turnovers describe different aspects of ball handling
Chicago recorded more assists than Denver, but it also committed more turnovers.
Assists indicate that a pass directly led to a made basket under the statistical definition. Turnovers indicate lost possessions. Together, these numbers provide a more complete picture of ball handling than either figure alone.
For example, a team with many assists but excessive turnovers may be creating scoring chances while also giving away opportunities. A team with fewer assists may still be effective if it scores efficiently and protects the ball.
That is why the Bulls’ 34 assists should not be interpreted in isolation from their 18 turnovers.
Rebounds help explain possession control
Offensive rebounds can extend possessions, while defensive rebounds help end the opponent’s attack. A team that controls the defensive glass can reduce second-chance scoring, and a team that collects offensive rebounds can create additional attempts.
Denver’s 16 offensive rebounds compared with Chicago’s 13 favored the Nuggets. However, the supplied total-rebound figures contain an inconsistency, so readers should distinguish between the offensive and defensive subtotals and the separately listed totals.
This is an example of why checking the arithmetic in a box score matters. Good statistical analysis should identify discrepancies rather than repeat every number without scrutiny.
Preseason numbers require careful interpretation
This matchup took place during the preseason, when teams may be evaluating rotations, testing combinations, and giving players different opportunities than they would receive in regular-season games.
The results can still be informative. Gordon’s efficient scoring, Jokic’s all-around production, Miller’s scoring output, and Chicago’s three-point volume are all valid observations about this contest.
However, one game cannot establish a full-season trend. Preseason minutes, lineups, player availability, and tactical priorities can differ from those of competitive regular-season games.
Readers should therefore treat this box score as evidence of what happened on October 11, not as a guarantee of how either team will perform in later matchups.
How to Read a Basketball Box Score Correctly
For readers who want to understand future matchups, knowing what each statistical category means can make the numbers more useful.
- PTS (Points): The total points a player scores.
- REB (Rebounds): The number of rebounds collected after missed shots, including offensive and defensive rebounds.
- AST (Assists): Passes that directly lead to made baskets under official statistical rules.
- FG (Field Goals): Successful two-point and three-point shots compared with attempts.
- 3PT (Three-Pointers): Successful shots from beyond the three-point line compared with attempts.
- FT (Free Throws): Successful free throws compared with attempts.
- STL (Steals): Defensive plays in which a player legally takes possession of the ball from the opponent.
- BLK (Blocks): Defensive deflections of opponents’ shot attempts that qualify as blocked shots.
- TO (Turnovers): Lost possessions attributed to a player or team.
- PF (Personal Fouls): Personal fouls committed during the game.
These statistics are most useful when considered together. For instance, a player with 20 points and 10 assists has contributed through both scoring and playmaking. A player with 20 points but many turnovers may have produced a similar scoring total while losing more possessions.
For the complete official game record, consult the NBA.com box score for Bulls vs. Nuggets.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Denver Nuggets vs Chicago Bulls game on October 11, 2026?
The Denver Nuggets defeated the Chicago Bulls 133-128 in an NBA preseason game at Ball Arena in Denver, Colorado.
2. Who scored the most points in the game?
Leonard Miller led all scorers with 26 points for Chicago. Aaron Gordon was Denver’s leading scorer with 25 points.
3. What were Nikola Jokic’s stats against the Chicago Bulls?
Jokic recorded 22 points, 11 rebounds, and 10 assists. His performance earned him a triple-double.
4. Which team made more three-pointers?
Chicago made 21 three-pointers on 50 attempts, while Denver made 13 on 32 attempts. The Bulls therefore made eight more three-pointers.
5. Why did Denver win despite Chicago’s strong shooting?
Denver benefited from a dominant third quarter, a 32-of-46 performance at the free-throw line, 16 offensive rebounds, and three fewer turnovers. These advantages helped offset Chicago’s superior three-point production.
6. Was this a regular-season or preseason game?
It was a preseason game. The player statistics describe this particular contest and should not be treated as regular-season averages or definitive predictions of future performance.
Conclusion
The denver nuggets vs chicago bulls match player stats show how Denver secured a 133-128 victory despite Chicago’s impressive perimeter shooting. Aaron Gordon led the Nuggets with 25 points, while Nikola Jokic delivered 22 points, 11 rebounds, and 10 assists. Leonard Miller was Chicago’s leading scorer with 26 points, and Josh Giddey contributed eight assists.
The most significant team-level differences were Denver’s 32 made free throws, its 16 offensive rebounds, and its three fewer turnovers. Chicago made 21 three-pointers and recorded eight more assists, but those advantages were not enough to overcome Denver’s production at the free-throw line and its strong third quarter.
The quarter-by-quarter breakdown identifies the turning point: Denver outscored Chicago 40-26 in the third period. With both teams scoring 34 points in the fourth, that third-quarter advantage proved decisive.
Because the contest was a preseason matchup, the results are best understood as a record of individual performances and team execution on that particular night. The box score provides useful evidence about scoring efficiency, playmaking, rebounding, and possession management, while longer-term conclusions require additional games and context.
