Chicago Bulls vs Miami Heat Match Player Stats
The chicago bulls vs miami heat match player stats from January 30, 2026, reveal how Miami secured a narrow 116-113 victory over Chicago at the United Center. The Heat combined efficient scoring, strong defensive pressure, and timely contributions from their supporting players to overcome a competitive Bulls team that finished with more rebounds and three-pointers.
Although Chicago produced 15 three-pointers and collected 52 rebounds, Miami’s balanced offense, 12 steals, and 20 successful free throws helped determine the outcome. The contest demonstrated how individual performances, possession management, and execution during critical stretches can influence a closely contested NBA game.
This detailed breakdown examines the complete player statistics, shooting percentages, rebounding contributions, assists, turnovers, defensive performances, and individual matchups. It also explains which players delivered the most meaningful contributions, why Miami won despite Chicago’s advantages in several statistical categories, and what the numbers reveal about both teams.
Game: Miami Heat 116, Chicago Bulls 113
Date: January 30, 2026
Venue: United Center, Chicago, Illinois
Competition: NBA, 2025-26 season
Attendance: 20,685
Game status: Final
Chicago Bulls vs Miami Heat Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The Miami Heat entered this matchup looking to maintain their competitive position in the Eastern Conference, while Chicago aimed to protect its home court.
Miami eventually secured the three-point victory after a game featuring several different momentum shifts.
The Heat established an early scoring advantage, Chicago responded with a strong third quarter, and the final period became a close contest.
The most important statistical difference was Miami’s ability to combine efficient free-throw shooting with defensive activity.
Chicago created additional opportunities through offensive rebounds and perimeter shooting, but those advantages were not enough to overcome Miami’s overall execution.
Final Score and Team Performance
| Category | Miami Heat | Chicago Bulls |
| Final score | 116 | 113 |
| Field goals | 42/93 | 37/94 |
| Field goal percentage | 45% | 39% |
| Three-pointers | 12/36 | 15/38 |
| Three-point percentage | 33% | 39% |
| Free throws | 20/24 | 24/29 |
| Free-throw percentage | 83% | 83% |
| Total rebounds | 49 | 52 |
| Offensive rebounds | 10 | 16 |
| Defensive rebounds | 39 | 36 |
| Assists | 29 | 25 |
| Turnovers | 13 | 15 |
| Steals | 12 | 5 |
| Blocks | 2 | 4 |
| Personal fouls | 19 | 20 |
These numbers immediately explain why the matchup was competitive.
Chicago recorded three more total rebounds, three more offensive rebounds than Miami’s total offensive rebounds by a substantial margin, and three additional made three-pointers.
However, Miami made five more field goals overall, recorded four additional assists, and forced a greater number of defensive disruptions.
The Heat also committed two fewer turnovers.
The result was a game in which Miami generated more effective scoring opportunities from its overall offense while Chicago relied heavily on second chances and perimeter shooting.
Quarter-by-Quarter Score
| Quarter | Miami Heat | Chicago Bulls |
| First quarter | 34 | 31 |
| Second quarter | 28 | 20 |
| Third quarter | 29 | 34 |
| Fourth quarter | 25 | 28 |
| Total | 116 | 113 |
Miami’s strongest quarter was the second, when the Heat outscored Chicago 28-20.
That eight-point advantage helped establish a cushion before the Bulls responded.
Chicago won the third quarter 34-29 and the fourth quarter 28-25.
The Bulls therefore outscored Miami by eight points across the final two quarters, but their earlier deficit remained decisive.
This is an important detail when evaluating the final score.
Chicago’s late scoring improvement was meaningful, but the team needed to recover more of the second-quarter deficit to change the outcome.
Miami Heat Player Stats
Miami’s individual statistics show a balanced scoring attack.
Norman Powell led the Heat with 21 points, Bam Adebayo contributed 20, and Jaime Jaquez Jr. finished with 19.
Pelle Larsson added 15 points, while Kel’el Ware and Dru Smith supplied additional scoring from the supporting rotation.
The Heat also received important contributions from players whose value extended beyond their scoring totals.
Jaquez created opportunities for teammates, Adebayo controlled the defensive glass, and Smith contributed assists and steals.
Complete Miami Heat Box Score
| Player | MIN | PTS | FG | 3PT | FT | REB | AST | TO | STL | BLK | +/- |
| Andrew Wiggins | 33 | 10 | 4/9 | 1/3 | 1/2 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | -8 |
| Bam Adebayo | 34 | 20 | 7/19 | 2/8 | 4/4 | 12 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | +6 |
| Norman Powell | 30 | 21 | 7/16 | 2/4 | 5/6 | 0 | 1 | 4 | 2 | 0 | -8 |
| Pelle Larsson | 29 | 15 | 4/8 | 1/2 | 6/7 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 2 | 0 | -5 |
| Kasparas Jakucionis | 13 | 0 | 0/1 | 0/1 | 0/0 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 0 | +1 |
| Simone Fontecchio | 18 | 0 | 0/4 | 0/4 | 0/0 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | +13 |
| Jaime Jaquez Jr. | 32 | 19 | 8/13 | 1/3 | 2/2 | 10 | 6 | 0 | 3 | 0 | +4 |
| Nikola Jovic | 17 | 8 | 4/9 | 0/3 | 0/0 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | +12 |
| Kel’el Ware | 12 | 12 | 4/6 | 3/4 | 1/2 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | -4 |
| Dru Smith | 23 | 11 | 4/8 | 2/4 | 1/1 | 5 | 5 | 1 | 3 | 0 | +4 |
Did not play: Myron Gardner and Keshad Johnson, both listed as DNP due to the coach’s decision.
Statistical note: MIN represents minutes played, PTS represents points, REB represents rebounds, AST represents assists, TO represents turnovers, STL represents steals, BLK represents blocks, and +/- represents the team’s net point difference while the player was on the court.
Norman Powell Leads Miami’s Scoring
Norman Powell finished with 21 points in 30 minutes.
His shooting performance included:
- 7 successful field goals on 16 attempts.
- 2 successful three-pointers on 4 attempts.
- 5 successful free throws on 6 attempts.
- 1 assist.
- 2 steals.
- 4 turnovers.
Powell’s scoring efficiency was particularly important because Miami needed consistent offensive production against a Chicago team capable of creating additional possessions.
He finished with the highest individual scoring total among Miami players.
His 21 points also came without relying exclusively on perimeter shooting.
Powell made five free throws and converted seven field goals, allowing him to contribute across different scoring situations.
However, his four turnovers were a significant part of the statistical picture.
Those turnovers show that his offensive involvement also came with some possession risk.
The Heat benefited from his scoring, but his individual performance was not flawless.
Bam Adebayo Controls the Paint
Bam Adebayo delivered one of the most complete performances in the game.
He finished with:
| Statistic | Performance |
| Minutes | 34 |
| Points | 20 |
| Field goals | 7/19 |
| Three-pointers | 2/8 |
| Free throws | 4/4 |
| Rebounds | 12 |
| Assists | 2 |
| Turnovers | 1 |
| Plus/minus | +6 |
Adebayo recorded a double-double with 20 points and 12 rebounds.
His rebounding total was particularly valuable because Chicago finished with 52 rebounds overall.
Although the Bulls collected more rebounds as a team, Adebayo provided Miami with a dependable presence around the basket.
He also made all four of his free throws.
That perfect free-throw performance helped Miami convert opportunities that Chicago could not completely neutralize.
Adebayo’s shooting percentages were not especially strong from the field.
He attempted 19 field goals and made seven, while his three-point shooting finished at 2-for-8.
Nevertheless, his overall contribution extended beyond scoring efficiency.
His 12 rebounds, limited turnover count, and positive plus/minus made him one of Miami’s most important players.
Jaime Jaquez Jr. Provides Efficient Scoring and Playmaking
Jaime Jaquez Jr. recorded 19 points, 10 rebounds, and six assists.
His statistics included:
- 32 minutes played.
- 8-for-13 field goals.
- 1-for-3 three-pointers.
- 2-for-2 free throws.
- 10 rebounds.
- 6 assists.
- 3 steals.
- 0 turnovers.
Jaquez was one of Miami’s most efficient offensive contributors.
He converted eight of his 13 field-goal attempts, giving him a field-goal percentage of approximately 61.5%.
He also made both free throws.
His 10 rebounds and six assists demonstrated how he contributed beyond scoring.
The most impressive part of his performance was the combination of production and possession security.
Jaquez recorded six assists without a turnover.
That helped Miami maintain offensive continuity while Chicago attempted to recover from its second-quarter deficit.
His three steals also contributed to the Heat’s defensive pressure.
Jaquez finished with a plus/minus of +4.
The combination of efficient shooting, rebounding, playmaking, and defensive activity makes his performance one of the strongest examples of an all-around contribution in this game.
Pelle Larsson Adds Rebounding and Playmaking
Pelle Larsson finished with 15 points, six rebounds, and three assists.
His shooting line was:
| Category | Result |
| Field goals | 4/8 |
| Three-pointers | 1/2 |
| Free throws | 6/7 |
| Points | 15 |
| Rebounds | 6 |
| Assists | 3 |
| Steals | 2 |
Larsson’s scoring came from several different areas.
He made four field goals, converted one three-pointer, and earned six successful free throws.
His six rebounds also helped Miami maintain a competitive presence on the glass.
The most interesting aspect of his performance was his ability to contribute without requiring a large number of field-goal attempts.
He attempted only eight field goals but finished with 15 points.
That scoring pattern reflects the importance of free-throw opportunities in a closely contested game.
Larsson also recorded two steals, adding to Miami’s defensive pressure.
His contribution was valuable because Miami received production from several players rather than depending entirely on Powell and Adebayo.
Kel’el Ware Supplies Efficient Bench Scoring
Kel’el Ware played 12 minutes and finished with 12 points.
He recorded:
- 4-for-6 field goals.
- 3-for-4 three-pointers.
- 1-for-2 free throws.
- 4 rebounds.
- 2 assists.
- 2 blocks.
Ware’s shooting efficiency stands out.
He made approximately 66.7% of his field-goal attempts and 75% of his three-point attempts.
His three successful three-pointers were particularly notable because Miami made only 12 three-pointers as a team.
Ware contributed one-quarter of Miami’s total three-point makes.
His two blocks also provided additional defensive value.
Although his minutes were limited, his scoring output gave Miami an important contribution from its supporting rotation.
His performance demonstrates how a player with relatively few minutes can influence the overall box score through efficient shooting.
Dru Smith Contributes Defensive Pressure
Dru Smith finished with 11 points, five rebounds, and five assists in 23 minutes.
He also recorded three steals.
His shooting included:
| Category | Result |
| Field goals | 4/8 |
| Three-pointers | 2/4 |
| Free throws | 1/1 |
| Points | 11 |
| Rebounds | 5 |
| Assists | 5 |
| Steals | 3 |
| Turnovers | 1 |
Smith’s performance was especially useful because he contributed in several areas without committing many turnovers.
His five assists helped Miami distribute the ball, while his three steals contributed to the team’s 12 total steals.
The defensive activity was important against a Chicago offense that produced 113 points.
Smith’s three steals also illustrate why individual defensive statistics deserve attention when evaluating a close game.
A player’s value cannot always be measured by points alone.
Andrew Wiggins and Nikola Jovic
Andrew Wiggins finished with 10 points, three rebounds, and two assists.
He made four of his nine field-goal attempts and recorded one three-pointer.
However, Wiggins also committed four turnovers.
His plus/minus was -8.
Nikola Jovic played 17 minutes and scored eight points.
He added four rebounds and one assist while recording no turnovers.
Jovic finished with a plus/minus of +12.
These statistics should be interpreted carefully.
Plus/minus measures the team’s scoring difference during a player’s time on the court, not the player’s individual contribution in isolation.
Jovic’s positive figure indicates that Miami performed well during his minutes.
It does not independently establish that he was responsible for the entire scoring advantage.
The same principle applies to Wiggins’ negative figure.
His four turnovers provide additional context, but the plus/minus alone cannot explain the team’s performance.
Chicago Bulls Player Stats
Chicago’s individual statistics reveal a competitive offensive performance.
Ayo Dosunmu led the Bulls with 23 points, while Matas Buzelis contributed 16 points and nine rebounds.
Nikola Vucevic recorded 15 points and 10 rebounds.
Kevin Huerter also scored 15 points and collected 10 rebounds.
Coby White finished with 14 points and eight assists.
The Bulls had several players capable of producing offense, but their overall shooting efficiency remained below Miami’s.
Complete Chicago Bulls Box Score
| Player | MIN | PTS | FG | 3PT | FT | REB | AST | TO | STL | BLK | +/- |
| Jalen Smith | 15 | 11 | 4/7 | 1/1 | 2/2 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -11 |
| Isaac Okoro | 26 | 8 | 3/7 | 2/3 | 0/0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | -7 |
| Matas Buzelis | 34 | 16 | 6/15 | 2/5 | 2/3 | 9 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 1 | +2 |
| Nikola Vucevic | 37 | 15 | 6/18 | 1/5 | 2/2 | 10 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | +9 |
| Coby White | 32 | 14 | 2/11 | 2/8 | 8/10 | 4 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 0 | +5 |
| Patrick Williams | 12 | 0 | 0/4 | 0/1 | 0/0 | 1 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | -10 |
| Julian Phillips | 5 | 3 | 1/1 | 0/0 | 1/2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | +3 |
| Kevin Huerter | 33 | 15 | 5/12 | 4/9 | 1/2 | 10 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2 | +3 |
| Ayo Dosunmu | 31 | 23 | 8/16 | 1/4 | 6/6 | 7 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 0 | -5 |
| Dalen Terry | 15 | 8 | 2/3 | 2/2 | 2/2 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | -4 |
Did not play: Jevon Carter and Yuki Kawamura, both listed as DNP due to the coach’s decision.
Ayo Dosunmu Leads Chicago’s Scoring
Ayo Dosunmu finished with 23 points in 31 minutes.
His performance included:
- 8-for-16 field goals.
- 1-for-4 three-pointers.
- 6-for-6 free throws.
- 7 rebounds.
- 5 assists.
- 4 turnovers.
Dosunmu was Chicago’s leading scorer.
He converted half of his field-goal attempts and made every free throw.
His six successful free throws helped Chicago remain competitive despite its lower overall field-goal percentage.
He also contributed seven rebounds and five assists.
Those numbers demonstrate that his role extended beyond scoring.
However, his four turnovers were important in a game decided by three points.
Chicago needed to maximize its offensive possessions, particularly after establishing a strong second-half scoring rhythm.
Dosunmu’s production was substantial, but his turnovers represented opportunities that Miami could use to protect its advantage.
His plus/minus was -5.
That figure reflects the Bulls’ overall scoring difference during his minutes rather than a complete assessment of his individual performance.
Matas Buzelis Provides Balanced Production
Matas Buzelis finished with 16 points, nine rebounds, and four assists.
His statistical line included:
| Category | Performance |
| Minutes | 34 |
| Points | 16 |
| Field goals | 6/15 |
| Three-pointers | 2/5 |
| Free throws | 2/3 |
| Rebounds | 9 |
| Assists | 4 |
| Steals | 1 |
| Blocks | 1 |
| Plus/minus | +2 |
Buzelis contributed across multiple categories.
His nine rebounds placed him close to a double-double.
He also recorded four assists, one steal, and one block.
The combination of rebounding and playmaking made his performance more complete than his scoring total alone suggests.
His shooting was mixed.
He made six of 15 field-goal attempts and two of five three-pointers.
That gave him a field-goal percentage of 40%.
Buzelis’ contribution was nevertheless important because Chicago needed production from multiple positions.
His four assists also helped create opportunities for teammates.
Nikola Vucevic Controls the Rebounding Battle
Nikola Vucevic played 37 minutes, the highest total among Chicago’s listed players.
He finished with:
- 15 points.
- 10 rebounds.
- 3 assists.
- 6-for-18 field goals.
- 1-for-5 three-pointers.
- 2-for-2 free throws.
- 2 turnovers.
Vucevic recorded a double-double.
His 10 rebounds helped Chicago finish with a three-rebound advantage over Miami.
The Bulls also collected 16 offensive rebounds as a team.
Vucevic’s three offensive rebounds contributed to that effort.
However, his shooting efficiency was a concern.
He made six of 18 field-goal attempts, giving him a field-goal percentage of approximately 33.3%.
His three-point shooting was also limited.
Vucevic made one of five attempts from beyond the arc.
His positive plus/minus of +9 suggests Chicago performed well during his minutes.
That figure should be considered alongside his rebounding and playmaking rather than interpreted as proof that he individually dominated the matchup.
Kevin Huerter Adds Perimeter Shooting
Kevin Huerter finished with 15 points and 10 rebounds.
His shooting included:
- 5-for-12 field goals.
- 4-for-9 three-pointers.
- 1-for-2 free throws.
- 3 assists.
- 1 steal.
- 2 blocks.
Huerter was one of Chicago’s most effective perimeter shooters.
He made four three-pointers, contributing more than one-quarter of the Bulls’ 15 successful three-point attempts.
His shooting percentage from beyond the arc was approximately 44.4%.
That was above Chicago’s overall three-point percentage of 39%.
Huerter also recorded 10 rebounds.
His contribution therefore extended beyond perimeter scoring.
The two blocks added defensive value, although Chicago’s overall defensive activity remained below Miami’s steal total.
Huerter finished with a plus/minus of +3.
His performance was a strong example of how Chicago generated production from a player who contributed both shooting and rebounding.
Coby White’s Playmaking and Free Throws
Coby White finished with 14 points and eight assists.
He also recorded four rebounds and two steals.
His shooting line was:
| Category | Result |
| Field goals | 2/11 |
| Three-pointers | 2/8 |
| Free throws | 8/10 |
| Points | 14 |
| Rebounds | 4 |
| Assists | 8 |
| Turnovers | 3 |
| Steals | 2 |
White’s eight assists were the highest individual assist total among Chicago players.
That made him an important playmaker.
However, his field-goal efficiency was limited.
He made only two of 11 field-goal attempts.
His eight successful free throws accounted for a substantial portion of his scoring.
This distinction matters when assessing his offensive performance.
White generated opportunities for teammates and earned trips to the free-throw line, but his overall field-goal shooting did not match his playmaking production.
His three turnovers also contributed to Chicago’s total of 15.
Jalen Smith and the Supporting Rotation
Jalen Smith finished with 11 points and five rebounds in 15 minutes.
He made four of seven field goals and converted his only three-point attempt.
He also made both free throws.
Smith’s scoring efficiency was strong.
He converted approximately 57.1% of his field-goal attempts.
His three offensive rebounds contributed to Chicago’s second-chance opportunities.
However, his plus/minus was -11.
That statistic should not be interpreted as a direct measure of his personal defensive performance.
It reflects the scoring difference while he was on the court.
Isaac Okoro added eight points, two rebounds, and one block.
Dalen Terry finished with eight points, four rebounds, and two assists.
Terry also made both of his three-point attempts.
Patrick Williams recorded one rebound but did not score.
Julian Phillips played five minutes and scored three points.
The Bulls received contributions from their supporting rotation, but Miami’s overall combination of scoring and defensive pressure remained more effective.
Head-to-Head Statistical Comparison
The most useful way to understand this matchup is to compare the teams across several major categories.
The final score alone does not explain why Miami won.
The individual statistics show how the Heat established their advantage and why Chicago’s strong rebounding effort was not enough.
Shooting Efficiency
Miami made 42 of 93 field-goal attempts.
Chicago made 37 of 94.
The Heat therefore recorded five additional successful field goals.
Their field-goal percentage was 45%, compared with Chicago’s 39%.
That difference was one of the most important factors in the final result.
Chicago made more three-pointers, but the Bulls’ lower overall field-goal percentage limited their ability to convert possessions into points.
Miami’s shooting advantage came from its overall field-goal production rather than superior three-point accuracy.
Three-Point Shooting
Chicago made 15 of 38 three-point attempts.
Miami made 12 of 36.
The Bulls therefore produced three additional successful three-pointers.
Their three-point percentage was also higher.
| Three-point category | Miami | Chicago |
| Attempts | 36 | 38 |
| Makes | 12 | 15 |
| Percentage | 33% | 39% |
Chicago’s perimeter shooting was a significant offensive strength.
However, the Bulls’ advantage from three-point range did not overcome Miami’s overall field-goal advantage.
This demonstrates why three-point totals should be evaluated alongside two-point scoring, free throws, and possession efficiency.
Free-Throw Performance
Both teams recorded an 83% free-throw percentage.
Miami made 20 of 24 attempts.
Chicago made 24 of 29.
Chicago therefore made four additional free throws.
The Bulls earned more opportunities at the line, but the overall conversion percentages were nearly identical.
Miami’s free-throw performance helped preserve its scoring efficiency.
The Heat also made fewer attempts, which meant they converted a larger proportion of their opportunities into successful free throws.
Rebounding Comparison
Chicago finished with 52 rebounds.
Miami finished with 49.
The Bulls recorded:
- 16 offensive rebounds.
- 36 defensive rebounds.
Miami recorded:
- 10 offensive rebounds.
- 39 defensive rebounds.
Chicago’s six-rebound advantage on the offensive glass was important.
Offensive rebounds can extend possessions and create additional scoring opportunities.
However, Miami’s defensive rebounding total was three higher.
The Heat therefore collected more defensive rebounds while allowing Chicago to generate more offensive rebounds.
The overall difference was three rebounds in Chicago’s favor.
Assists and Ball Movement
Miami recorded 29 assists.
Chicago recorded 25.
That four-assist difference indicates that Miami generated more assisted scoring opportunities.
Jaquez contributed six assists.
Dru Smith recorded five.
Larsson added three.
The distribution of playmaking across multiple players helped Miami maintain offensive balance.
Chicago also received meaningful playmaking contributions.
White recorded eight assists, Dosunmu added five, and Buzelis contributed four.
The Bulls’ playmaking was competitive, but Miami finished with the higher team assist total.
Turnovers and Defensive Activity
Miami committed 13 turnovers.
Chicago committed 15.
The two-turnover difference favored the Heat.
Miami also recorded 12 steals compared with Chicago’s five.
The seven-steal advantage was one of the clearest defensive differences in the game.
Steals can interrupt offensive possessions and create opportunities for transition scoring.
However, a steal does not automatically result in points.
The important takeaway is that Miami generated more defensive disruptions while committing fewer turnovers.
That combination helped the Heat maintain their advantage.
Why Miami Heat Won the Game
Miami’s victory resulted from several statistical advantages working together.
The Heat did not dominate every category.
Chicago actually finished with more rebounds, more offensive rebounds, more three-pointers, and more free throws.
The decisive difference was Miami’s overall offensive efficiency and defensive activity.
1. Miami Converted More Field Goals
The Heat made 42 field goals.
Chicago made 37.
That five-field-goal difference was substantial in a game decided by three points.
Miami’s higher field-goal percentage also indicates that the team converted a larger proportion of its attempts.
The Heat therefore gained an advantage through their overall shooting performance.
2. Miami Distributed Scoring Across Multiple Players
Powell scored 21 points.
Adebayo scored 20.
Jaquez recorded 19.
Larsson added 15.
Ware contributed 12.
Smith finished with 11.
This distribution prevented Miami from relying on a single scorer.
Chicago also received several strong individual performances.
However, Miami’s scoring balance allowed multiple players to contribute meaningful points.
3. Miami Generated More Assists
The Heat recorded 29 assists.
Chicago recorded 25.
The difference suggests that Miami created more assisted scoring opportunities.
Jaquez and Smith were particularly important in this area.
Their combined 11 assists helped the Heat distribute offensive responsibility.
4. Miami Recorded More Steals
Miami’s 12 steals compared with Chicago’s five represented a seven-steal difference.
That was a major defensive advantage.
The Heat also committed two fewer turnovers.
This combination helped Miami maintain better possession control.
5. Miami Benefited From Its Second-Quarter Advantage
Miami outscored Chicago 28-20 in the second quarter.
That eight-point difference helped establish the lead.
Chicago’s stronger third and fourth quarters were not enough to recover the entire deficit.
The second quarter therefore played an important role in the final outcome.
Statistical Leaders From the Game
The following table highlights the leading individual performances.
| Category | Miami Heat | Chicago Bulls |
| Points | Norman Powell, 21 | Ayo Dosunmu, 23 |
| Rebounds | Bam Adebayo, 12 | Nikola Vucevic, 10 |
| Assists | Jaime Jaquez Jr., 6 | Coby White, 8 |
| Steals | Jaime Jaquez Jr., 3; Dru Smith, 3 | Ayo Dosunmu, 0 |
| Blocks | Kel’el Ware, 2 | Kevin Huerter, 2 |
| Field goals made | Jaime Jaquez Jr., 8 | Ayo Dosunmu, 8 |
| Three-pointers made | Kel’el Ware, 3 | Kevin Huerter, 4 |
| Free throws made | Norman Powell, 5 | Coby White, 8 |
The leading scorers were different for each team.
Dosunmu led Chicago with 23 points.
Powell led Miami with 21.
Jaquez and Adebayo provided additional scoring support for the Heat.
The assist leaders were also different.
White recorded eight assists for Chicago, while Jaquez led Miami with six.
These performances demonstrate that both teams had players capable of producing significant individual numbers.
The final outcome depended on how those performances combined at the team level.
Player Efficiency and the Meaning of Plus/Minus
The plus/minus statistic deserves special attention because it can easily be misunderstood.
Plus/minus measures the team’s net scoring difference while a player is on the court.
It does not directly measure individual shooting efficiency, defensive quality, or overall player value.
For example, Nikola Jovic finished with a plus/minus of +12.
That means Miami outscored Chicago by 12 points during his minutes.
It does not mean Jovic personally scored 12 points more than his opponent.
Similarly, Vucevic recorded a plus/minus of +9.
Chicago performed well during his minutes, even though Miami ultimately won the game.
Several factors can influence plus/minus:
- The quality of teammates on the court.
- Opposing lineup combinations.
- Shooting performance during a player’s minutes.
- Defensive matchups.
- Substitution timing.
- The number of possessions played.
The statistic is most useful when combined with individual box-score data.
For this game, Jovic’s positive plus/minus can be considered alongside his eight points, four rebounds, one assist, and zero turnovers.
Vucevic’s figure should be considered alongside his 15 points, 10 rebounds, and three assists.
This approach provides a more complete picture than relying on a single number.
Game Pace and Possession Management
The final score of 116-113 suggests that both teams produced substantial offense.
However, the supplied statistics do not include a verified possession total.
A precise pace calculation would require additional information, including the exact number of possessions or sufficient play-by-play data.
It would therefore be inappropriate to assign an exact pace rating based only on the final score.
The available data still provide useful insight into possession management.
Miami committed 13 turnovers.
Chicago committed 15.
The Bulls also collected 16 offensive rebounds.
Those offensive rebounds created additional opportunities to extend possessions.
Miami’s lower turnover count helped offset Chicago’s offensive-rebounding advantage.
The Heat also recorded 29 assists.
This combination suggests that Miami managed its offensive possessions more effectively across several important categories.
For readers interested in a deeper statistical analysis, the official NBA statistical definitions provide a useful reference for understanding possessions, shooting efficiency, and other performance measurements.
The NBA official statistics resource provides additional context for evaluating team and player performance.
Miami Heat vs Chicago Bulls Match Player Stats: Tactical Interpretation
The box score provides several clues about how the game developed.
These observations are based on the supplied statistical record rather than a verified video review of individual possessions.
Miami’s Offensive Balance
Miami’s scoring distribution suggests that multiple players contributed to the offensive result.
Powell, Adebayo, Jaquez, and Larsson all scored at least 15 points.
Ware and Smith also reached double figures.
That balance made Miami’s offense less dependent on one player.
The Heat also recorded 29 assists.
The combination of distributed scoring and playmaking indicates that the team generated production from several parts of its rotation.
Chicago’s Second-Chance Opportunities
Chicago collected 16 offensive rebounds.
Miami collected 10.
That six-rebound difference provided the Bulls with additional opportunities.
The Bulls also finished with 52 total rebounds.
These numbers demonstrate the importance of offensive rebounding in a close game.
However, Chicago’s extra possessions did not translate into enough additional scoring to overcome Miami’s field-goal advantage.
The Importance of Defensive Disruptions
Miami recorded 12 steals.
Chicago recorded five.
The Heat’s seven-steal advantage was substantial.
The difference suggests that Miami generated more defensive disruptions during the contest.
The Bulls also committed 15 turnovers.
Miami’s lower turnover count helped preserve offensive possessions.
This combination of steals and turnover management was one of the strongest statistical explanations for Miami’s victory.
Chicago’s Perimeter Production
Chicago made 15 three-pointers.
Miami made 12.
The Bulls also recorded a higher three-point percentage.
Huerter made four three-pointers.
Okoro, White, Buzelis, Dosunmu, and Terry also contributed from beyond the arc.
Chicago’s perimeter shooting helped keep the game competitive.
However, the team needed more overall field-goal efficiency to turn that advantage into a victory.
What the Game Reveals About Individual Roles
The statistical record highlights several different player roles.
Primary Scorers
Powell and Dosunmu led their respective teams in points.
Their scoring totals were important because both teams needed consistent offensive production.
Powell finished with 21 points.
Dosunmu finished with 23.
Both players also contributed other statistics, although their turnover totals were relatively high.
Rebounding Anchors
Adebayo and Vucevic were important contributors on the glass.
Adebayo recorded 12 rebounds.
Vucevic recorded 10.
Both players reached double figures in rebounding.
Their performances helped establish the interior presence of their respective teams.
Playmakers
Jaquez and White were the leading individual assist contributors for their teams.
Jaquez recorded six assists.
White recorded eight.
Both players helped create scoring opportunities.
However, Jaquez finished without a turnover, while White recorded three.
That difference was important in a game decided by three points.
Defensive Contributors
Jaquez and Dru Smith each recorded three steals.
Their defensive activity contributed to Miami’s team total of 12 steals.
Ware also recorded two blocks.
Chicago received two blocks from Huerter and one each from Okoro and Buzelis.
These individual contributions helped both teams defend the basket.
Miami Heat vs Chicago Bulls Season Matchup Context
The supplied matchup summary lists Miami as having a 2-0 season matchup record against Chicago.
It also includes the following game results:
| Game | Date | Location | Result |
| Game 1 | November 22 | Chicago | Miami 143, Chicago 107 |
| Game 2 | January 30 | Chicago | Miami 116, Chicago 113 |
| Game 3 | February 1 | Miami | Chicago 118, Miami 125 |
| Game 4 | February 2 | Miami | Chicago 134, Miami 91 |
The January 30 game was therefore part of a broader season matchup between the two teams.
The supplied summary contains an inconsistency: it labels Miami’s season matchup record as 2-0 while also listing four games and results that do not support that record.
The individual game statistics analyzed in this article correspond to the January 30 contest.
The broader series record should be independently verified before publication.
This distinction is important for maintaining accuracy.
A game-specific statistical analysis should not automatically assume that every season-level summary is correct.
Important Statistical Limitations
The supplied data provide a detailed box score, but some additional information would be needed for a complete advanced analysis.
No Verified Shot Chart
The data do not include shot locations.
Without a shot chart, it is not possible to establish how many attempts came from the restricted area, midrange, or other specific court locations.
No Complete Play-by-Play Review
The final statistics do not identify every possession.
A full play-by-play review would be necessary to determine exactly when Miami established its lead, how Chicago recovered, and which possessions decided the final minutes.
No Verified Individual Defensive Matchups
The box score does not establish which defender guarded each scorer.
It would therefore be inaccurate to claim that one particular player completely shut down another.
No Complete Advanced Efficiency Calculation
The supplied information does not include a verified possession count or every component required for a full advanced efficiency analysis.
Exact offensive ratings, defensive ratings, and pace figures should not be invented.
Plus/Minus Is Not an Individual Rating
Plus/minus describes the team’s scoring difference during a player’s minutes.
It should not be treated as a direct measurement of individual performance.
These limitations do not reduce the usefulness of the box score.
They simply establish which conclusions can be supported by the available data.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Chicago Bulls vs Miami Heat game on January 30, 2026?
The Miami Heat defeated the Chicago Bulls 116-113 at the United Center in Chicago, Illinois.
2. Who scored the most points in the game?
Ayo Dosunmu led all players with 23 points for Chicago. Norman Powell led Miami with 21 points.
3. How many points did Bam Adebayo score?
Bam Adebayo scored 20 points and recorded 12 rebounds, giving him a double-double.
4. Who recorded the most assists?
Coby White led the game with eight assists. Jaime Jaquez Jr. recorded six assists for Miami.
5. Which team made more three-pointers?
Chicago made 15 three-pointers on 38 attempts. Miami made 12 on 36 attempts.
6. Why did Miami win despite Chicago’s rebounding advantage?
Miami made five more field goals, recorded four additional assists, committed two fewer turnovers, and collected seven more steals. Those advantages helped offset Chicago’s three-rebound lead.
Conclusion
The January 30, 2026, matchup between Miami and Chicago demonstrated how several different statistical advantages can determine a close NBA game.
Miami won 116-113 despite collecting fewer total rebounds and making fewer three-pointers.
The Heat’s five additional field goals, four-assist advantage, seven-steal advantage, and lower turnover total helped explain the result.
Norman Powell led Miami with 21 points, while Bam Adebayo recorded 20 points and 12 rebounds.
Jaime Jaquez Jr. delivered an efficient 19-point performance with 10 rebounds, six assists, and three steals.
For Chicago, Ayo Dosunmu led all players with 23 points.
Matas Buzelis added 16 points and nine rebounds, while Nikola Vucevic recorded 15 points and 10 rebounds.
Kevin Huerter also contributed 15 points and 10 rebounds.
The Bulls’ offensive rebounding and perimeter shooting kept the contest competitive, but Miami’s overall shooting efficiency and defensive activity proved more effective.
Ultimately, the chicago bulls vs miami heat match player stats show that winning a close game requires more than leading in one statistical category. Field-goal efficiency, possession management, playmaking, defensive pressure, and individual contributions all played important roles in Miami’s three-point victory.
