The Chicago Bulls’ offense received its fair share of praise a season ago, and rightfully so. Billy Donovan oversaw a complete offensive transformation, shifting away from a slower, mid-range–heavy attack to a space-and-pace, three-point–driven approach. The change paid dividends, as the Bulls finished with 39 wins despite a noticeable drop-off in overall talent from the previous season.

Nonetheless, advanced analytics didn’t paint the Bulls’ offense as particularly strong a season ago. Despite averaging the sixth-most points per game and ranking second in pace, Chicago ranked just 20th in offensive rating and 13th in true shooting percentage. The Bulls emphasized analytically favorable shot attempts, but only converted one of them—three-pointers—at an above-average rate. On the other end of the spectrum, they finished 27th in the NBA in restricted-area field goal percentage.

This season, with a largely similar roster in place, Chicago once again ranks second in pace, operating at nearly an identical speed to a year ago. However, the struggles converting at the rim have persisted, only this time, the Bulls rank dead last in the NBA in restricted-area field goal percentage at 60.5 percent.

Three-point woes plague Chicago’s offense

Yet unlike last season, when the Bulls ranked third in the league in three-point makes to make up for their inefficiency around the rim, they sit 16th in the association 25 games into the 2025–26 season. The drop in volume isn’t huge, going from 15.4 to 13.8 makes per game, but amid a brutal 1–5 stretch in December, Chicago’s inability to convert a bevy of threes at even a middling rate has become a glaring problem.

In December, Chicago ranks 22nd in three-point makes and 29th in three-point percentage. As a result, the Bulls sit 28th in offensive rating for the month, dropping their season-long mark to 25th.

Thus, the shiny-new feeling of the Bulls’ revamped offense has worn off. Alongside a continued struggle to convert at the rim, Chicago now also isn’t taking enough shots from beyond the arc, nor making them efficiently. As a result, the Bulls’ core offensive philosophy faces a reality check. If they can’t finish consistently in the restricted area, should they still prioritize those attempts? And if they aren’t converting three-pointers at even a league-average rate, should they still be hoisting them by the boatload?

That’s a loaded question. Sure, Chicago has to at least take layups and threes; it’s not the ’90s anymore, when the mid-range dominated. But it raises a bigger issue: is playing at a frenetic pace and taking as many shots as possible still a worthwhile philosophy?

It’s time to rethink the Bulls’ offensive style

The answer isn’t immediate, but one telling detail comes from the Bulls’ 5–0 start in October: their pace was slightly slower, ranking eighth in the NBA, which coincided with better restricted-area and three-point shooting percentages, 64.7 percent and 40.2 percent, respectively.

Perhaps slowing down and emphasizing better—or more efficient—shot selection is Chicago’s answer. A look at the fastest-paced teams in the NBA demonstrates that speed doesn’t necessarily translate to success: the five fastest teams are combined 48–78. In contrast, the league’s five best teams rank between 13th and 22nd in pace. It’s almost as if top offenses don’t need to prioritize the speed of play.

Chicago has built a reputation for playing fast, and advanced analytics even rank the Bulls as a team with average shot quality (13th in the NBA). Even so, it’s difficult to gauge whether a sped-up layup or a quick, wide-open above-the-break three is as valuable as a dunk generated from a set play or a corner three created off a drive.

With an already porous defense, Chicago’s offense needs to pick up the slack, something it did at times last season to edge out victories. This December alone, the Bulls have lost games while scoring just 103, 105, 91, and 104 points. At those totals, the Bulls, and most teams in the NBA, aren’t winning. It’s time to reconsider whether playing fast is truly the solution.