Cleveland Cavaliers vs Golden State Warriors Match Player Stats
The Cleveland Cavaliers vs Golden State Warriors match player stats from April 3, 2026, tell the story of a competitive NBA game in which Cleveland defeated Golden State 118-111 at Chase Center in San Francisco. The Cavaliers built their victory on efficient shooting, strong interior play, and timely scoring from Donovan Mitchell and Max Strus. Mitchell finished with 25 points, while Strus added 24 points and made six three-pointers. For Golden State, Gui Santos and Brandin Podziemski each scored 25 points, but the Warriors could not overcome Cleveland’s shooting efficiency in the closing stages.
The matchup offered an interesting contrast between two offensive approaches. Cleveland converted 51% of its field-goal attempts and 44% of its three-point attempts, while Golden State shot 44% from the field and 27% from beyond the arc. Both teams collected 46 rebounds, so the difference came less from controlling the glass and more from converting possessions into points.
This game also highlighted the importance of balanced contributions. Jarrett Allen recorded a double-double with 16 points and 13 rebounds, Evan Mobley added 12 points, 10 rebounds, and five assists, and James Harden contributed 19 points. Golden State received strong individual performances from its younger scorers and an all-around effort from Draymond Green, who finished just one rebound and one assist short of a triple-double. The final box score provides a useful look at how shooting accuracy, individual production, and team execution shaped the result.
Cleveland Cavaliers vs Golden State Warriors Match Player Stats: Final Score
The Cavaliers secured a seven-point road victory, winning three of the four quarters and maintaining their advantage despite a stronger third-quarter stretch from Golden State.
| Game detail | Cleveland Cavaliers | Golden State Warriors |
| Final score | 118 | 111 |
| First quarter | 30 | 26 |
| Second quarter | 24 | 21 |
| Third quarter | 30 | 33 |
| Fourth quarter | 34 | 31 |
| Field goals | 42/82 | 41/94 |
| Field-goal percentage | 51% | 44% |
| Three-pointers | 16/36 | 12/44 |
| Three-point percentage | 44% | 27% |
| Free throws | 18/26 | 17/20 |
| Total rebounds | 46 | 46 |
| Assists | 28 | 25 |
| Turnovers | 15 | 12 |
| Steals | 7 | 11 |
| Blocks | 1 | 5 |
| Offensive rebounds | 10 | 12 |
| Personal fouls | 14 | 20 |
Source: ESPN box-score data supplied for the April 3, 2026, game. Percentages are rounded as displayed in the extracted data.
How Cleveland built its seven-point win
Cleveland’s strongest advantage was its ability to make shots. The Cavaliers attempted 82 field goals and converted 42, compared with Golden State’s 41 makes on 94 attempts. That difference in accuracy was significant because the Warriors took 12 more shots but still scored seven fewer points.
The three-point numbers were even more revealing. Cleveland made 16 of 36 attempts from beyond the arc, while Golden State connected on 12 of 44. The Cavaliers therefore made four additional three-pointers despite taking eight fewer attempts.
Because each successful three-pointer is worth three points, that difference accounted for 12 points of scoring output. It helped Cleveland compensate for the Warriors’ advantages in steals, blocks, and offensive rebounds.
Free-throw shooting offered another contrast. Golden State converted 85% of its attempts, compared with Cleveland’s 69%. However, the Warriors attempted only 20 free throws, while the Cavaliers attempted 26. Cleveland’s greater number of attempts helped offset its lower conversion rate.
Quarter-by-quarter breakdown
First quarter: Cavaliers 30, Warriors 26
Cleveland opened with a four-point advantage. The early lead provided a useful cushion and allowed the visitors to establish control without needing to dominate every subsequent period.
Second quarter: Cavaliers 24, Warriors 21
The Cavaliers added three points to their advantage in the second quarter. At halftime, Cleveland led 54-47, giving the team a seven-point margin.
Third quarter: Cavaliers 30, Warriors 33
Golden State responded after the break and won the quarter by three points. The Warriors showed that their offense could generate a scoring run, but they did not erase the halftime deficit.
Fourth quarter: Cavaliers 34, Warriors 31
Both teams produced their highest-scoring quarter of the game in the fourth. Cleveland scored 34 points and preserved its lead, while Golden State’s 31 points were not enough to complete the comeback.
The sequence matters because Cleveland did not rely on one explosive quarter. The Cavaliers built a lead across the first half, absorbed Golden State’s third-quarter response, and then scored efficiently enough in the fourth to finish the game.
Cleveland Cavaliers Player Stats and Individual Performances
Cleveland’s box score showed contributions from its leading scorers, frontcourt players, and reserves. Mitchell and Strus led the scoring, while Allen and Mobley supplied rebounding and interior support.
| Cavaliers player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Steals | Blocks | Field goals |
| Donovan Mitchell | 25 | 6 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 7/14 |
| Max Strus | 24 | 5 | 2 | Not listed | Not listed | 9/14 |
| James Harden | 19 | 2 | 5 | Not listed | Not listed | 7/11 |
| Jarrett Allen | 16 | 13 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 5/10 |
| Evan Mobley | 12 | 10 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 6/11 |
| Dennis Schroder | 12 | 2 | 6 | Not listed | Not listed | 4/7 |
| Keon Ellis | 4 | 3 | 2 | Not listed | Not listed | 2/7 |
| Sam Merrill | 3 | 2 | 5 | Not listed | Not listed | 1/6 |
| Thomas Bryant | 3 | 3 | Not listed | Not listed | Not listed | 1/2 |
Unlisted individual statistics were not included in the supplied data and should not be interpreted as zero.
Donovan Mitchell: 25 points and two steals
Donovan Mitchell led Cleveland with 25 points, shooting 7-for-14 from the field. His 50% field-goal conversion rate was consistent with the team’s overall efficiency and gave Cleveland a dependable scoring option.
Mitchell also recorded six rebounds, three assists, two steals, and one block. Those contributions show that his value extended beyond scoring. The steals added defensive pressure, while his rebounding helped Cleveland finish possessions.
One important detail is that Mitchell reached 25 points on only 14 field-goal attempts. Although his complete shooting breakdown would be needed to assess every aspect of his scoring efficiency, his listed field-goal percentage was strong.
His performance was especially important in a game where Golden State had several players capable of producing points. Cleveland needed a reliable primary scorer who could contribute without forcing an excessive number of shots.
Max Strus: 24 points and six three-pointers
Max Strus delivered one of Cleveland’s most influential performances. He scored 24 points, made nine of 14 field-goal attempts, and connected on six of 10 three-point attempts.
His three-point shooting percentage was 60%, a major contribution in a game where the Cavaliers made 16 threes as a team. Strus accounted for six of those makes, or more than one-third of Cleveland’s total three-pointers.
The value of his performance becomes clearer when viewed alongside the Warriors’ defensive priorities. Golden State had to account for Mitchell and Harden as scoring threats, but Strus punished the defense when he found open perimeter opportunities.
Strus also recorded five rebounds and two assists. His reported plus/minus was +17, the highest listed among Cleveland players. Plus/minus measures the team’s point differential while a player is on the court, so it reflects lineup results rather than an individual’s isolated contribution. Nevertheless, the figure supports the conclusion that Cleveland’s lineups performed well during his minutes.
James Harden: 19 points and five assists
James Harden finished with 19 points, two rebounds, and five assists while shooting seven of 11 from the field.
His field-goal percentage was approximately 63.6%, making him another efficient scorer in Cleveland’s starting lineup. Harden’s five assists also helped the Cavaliers produce 28 assists overall, three more than Golden State.
Harden’s role in this matchup was valuable because Cleveland did not have to depend entirely on Mitchell to create offense. His scoring and passing offered another way to keep possessions productive, particularly when the Warriors focused defensive attention on the Cavaliers’ leading scorer.
The supplied data lists four turnovers for Harden. That is an important qualification when assessing his performance. His shooting efficiency and playmaking were positive, but turnovers also gave Golden State opportunities to regain possession. The overall result suggests Cleveland was able to offset those mistakes through its superior shooting.
Jarrett Allen: 16 points and 13 rebounds
Jarrett Allen controlled the glass for Cleveland, recording 13 rebounds and 16 points. His double-double was one of the clearest examples of the Cavaliers’ frontcourt impact.
Allen made five of 10 field-goal attempts and added one steal. His 13 rebounds represented a substantial contribution in a game where both teams finished with 46 total rebounds.
Rebounding is not only about collecting the ball after a missed shot. Defensive rebounds end opposing possessions, while offensive rebounds can create additional scoring chances. Allen’s performance helped Cleveland maintain a strong presence around the basket even though Golden State recorded more offensive rebounds as a team.
His listed plus/minus of +12 was also among Cleveland’s best. As with every plus/minus figure, the number should be considered alongside the team’s overall performance rather than treated as a standalone measure of individual quality.
Evan Mobley: A double-double with five assists
Evan Mobley contributed 12 points, 10 rebounds, five assists, and one steal. He made six of 11 field-goal attempts and recorded a double-double.
Mobley’s five assists were particularly useful because they demonstrated his contribution as more than a finisher near the basket. His passing helped Cleveland maintain offensive flow and reduced the burden on its guards to create every scoring opportunity.
His combination of size, rebounding, and playmaking also complemented Allen’s role. The two big men gave Cleveland multiple ways to contribute inside, whether through finishing, securing rebounds, or moving the ball to open teammates.
Mobley’s 12 points did not lead the team, but his overall line was balanced. In a game where Cleveland’s guards supplied much of the scoring, his work across several statistical categories helped support the victory.
Dennis Schroder strengthens the bench
Dennis Schroder provided 12 points and six assists off the bench, shooting four of seven from the field. His six assists were the highest listed for any Cleveland player.
That production mattered because bench scoring can protect a lead when starters rest or help a team respond to an opponent’s scoring run. Schroder gave Cleveland another ball-handler and created opportunities for teammates rather than relying solely on individual scoring.
Sam Merrill added three points and five assists, while Keon Ellis recorded four points, three rebounds, and two assists. Thomas Bryant contributed three points and three rebounds.
The reserves’ roles differed, but their combined contributions gave Cleveland options beyond its starting five. Schroder’s playmaking was the most notable bench contribution in the supplied statistics.
Golden State Warriors Player Stats and Standout Performances
Golden State had several productive individual performances, particularly from Gui Santos and Brandin Podziemski. However, the team’s lower shooting percentage made it difficult to turn that production into a win.
| Warriors player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Steals | Blocks | Field goals |
| Gui Santos | 25 | 4 | 4 | 2 | Not listed | 9/14 |
| Brandin Podziemski | 25 | 4 | 4 | 2 | Not listed | 9/15 |
| Kristaps Porzingis | 16 | 7 | 1 | Not listed | 1 | 6/13 |
| Draymond Green | 8 | 9 | 9 | 1 | 3 | 3/11 |
| De’Anthony Melton | 5 | 6 | 3 | 3 | Not listed | 2/12 |
| Gary Payton II | 8 | 12 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 4/9 |
| LJ Cryer | 12 | 1 | Not listed | Not listed | Not listed | 3/9 |
| Pat Spencer | 12 | 1 | 2 | Not listed | Not listed | 5/8 |
| Will Richard | 0 | 2 | Not listed | 1 | Not listed | 0/3 |
As with the Cavaliers table, unlisted statistics were not provided in the supplied data.
Gui Santos: 25 points on efficient shooting
Gui Santos scored 25 points and made nine of 14 field-goal attempts. He also collected four rebounds, distributed four assists, and recorded two steals.
His shooting percentage was approximately 64.3%, giving Golden State an efficient scoring option. Santos matched Mitchell’s game-high 25 points and did so with a strong conversion rate.
Santos also contributed defensively through his two steals. Those plays helped Golden State generate turnovers and reflected the Warriors’ ability to create pressure despite losing the game.
His performance illustrates why a team’s result should not be used as the sole measure of individual success. Santos was productive in multiple categories, but basketball is a five-player game in which overall shooting, possession quality, and lineup execution determine the final score.
Brandin Podziemski: 25 points and four assists
Brandin Podziemski matched Santos with 25 points, shooting nine of 15 from the field. He added four rebounds, four assists, and two steals.
Podziemski’s field-goal percentage was 60%, making him one of Golden State’s most efficient scorers in the matchup. His passing also contributed to a team total of 25 assists.
Together, Santos and Podziemski scored 50 points, accounting for nearly half of Golden State’s 111-point total. Their production kept the Warriors competitive, but it was not enough to compensate for the team’s lower three-point conversion rate.
The key distinction is that Golden State received strong scoring from two players but had less overall shooting efficiency. A team can have high individual point totals and still lose if its remaining possessions do not produce enough value.
Kristaps Porzingis: 16 points and seven rebounds
Kristaps Porzingis recorded 16 points, seven rebounds, one assist, and one block. He shot six of 13 from the field.
Porzingis offered Golden State an interior scoring presence while also contributing some defensive protection. His seven rebounds helped the Warriors match Cleveland’s total of 46, and his block added to a team total of five.
Golden State’s advantage in blocks did not translate into a victory, but it demonstrated that the Warriors could disrupt attempts near the basket. The challenge was converting that defensive activity into a sufficient scoring advantage at the other end.
Draymond Green: Nine assists and three blocks
Draymond Green finished with eight points, nine rebounds, nine assists, one steal, and three blocks. He narrowly missed a triple-double, falling one rebound and one assist short of recording double digits in all three categories.
His nine assists led Golden State, showing his importance as a facilitator. Green’s passing helped create scoring opportunities for Santos, Podziemski, Porzingis, and other teammates.
His three blocks were also the highest listed individual total in the game. That defensive contribution helped Golden State finish with five team blocks, compared with Cleveland’s one.
Green shot three of 11 from the field, however, which limited his scoring efficiency. His performance was therefore defined by playmaking, rebounding, and defense rather than high-volume scoring. It was an example of how a player can influence a game in several ways even when his shooting is inconsistent.
Gary Payton II: 12 rebounds off the bench
Gary Payton II recorded eight points, 12 rebounds, two assists, two steals, and one block. His 12 rebounds were the highest individual total listed for Golden State.
Payton’s work on the boards was especially valuable because the Warriors finished with the same number of total rebounds as Cleveland. His contribution helped offset Allen’s 13-rebound performance and gave Golden State a strong reserve presence.
He also recorded a team-high listed plus/minus of +8 among Warriors players. This suggests that the Warriors performed positively during his minutes, although plus/minus alone cannot explain the reasons behind that result.
Golden State’s bench contributions
The Warriors received 12 points each from LJ Cryer and Pat Spencer. Cryer made three three-pointers on seven attempts from beyond the arc, while Spencer shot five of eight from the field.
These performances helped Golden State maintain scoring depth. However, the overall team three-point percentage remained low because the Warriors attempted 44 shots from long range and made only 12.
De’Anthony Melton finished with five points, six rebounds, three assists, and three steals, but he made only two of 12 field-goal attempts. Will Richard did not score and finished with two rebounds and one steal.
The bench results were mixed, with some efficient scoring and other difficult shooting lines. Golden State’s challenge was not a complete lack of offensive production, but rather the inability to convert enough of its overall shot volume into points.
Team Shooting Comparison: Why the Cavaliers Won
The most revealing part of the box score is the difference between shooting volume and shooting efficiency. Golden State attempted more field goals, more three-pointers, and fewer free throws than Cleveland, yet the Cavaliers finished ahead.
Field-goal efficiency
Cleveland made 42 of 82 shots, giving the team a field-goal percentage of approximately 51.2%. Golden State made 41 of 94 attempts, or approximately 43.6%.
That is a gap of roughly 7.6 percentage points.
The Warriors’ 12 additional field-goal attempts did not produce enough extra makes to overcome the Cavaliers’ advantage in accuracy. This suggests that Cleveland generally made better use of its shooting opportunities during the game.
Three-point shooting
Three-point shooting was an even more important factor.
| Three-point statistic | Cavaliers | Warriors |
| Attempts | 36 | 44 |
| Makes | 16 | 12 |
| Accuracy | 44.4% | 27.3% |
| Points from made threes | 48 | 36 |
Cleveland scored 12 more points from three-pointers. That margin was greater than the final seven-point difference.
The Warriors’ 44 attempts from long range were not inherently a problem. High three-point volume can be a sound strategy when the shots are reasonably open and the expected return justifies the risk. In this game, however, a 27% conversion rate limited the value of that approach.
Cleveland combined a lower number of attempts with more makes. The result was better scoring efficiency without needing to dominate the total number of possessions.
Free throws and points in the paint
Golden State made 17 of 20 free throws, while Cleveland made 18 of 26. The Warriors were more accurate at the line, but Cleveland converted one additional free throw overall.
The supplied box-score extract does not include a complete points-in-the-paint breakdown. It would therefore be inaccurate to assign an exact interior-scoring advantage to either team based on the available information alone.
Allen’s 16 points and Mobley’s 12 points indicate that Cleveland received useful production from its frontcourt, but their individual totals do not reveal precisely how many points came in the paint.
Rebounding and second-chance opportunities
Both teams finished with 46 rebounds. Golden State collected 12 offensive rebounds, compared with Cleveland’s 10.
Offensive rebounds can create second-chance scoring opportunities, so this was a useful area for the Warriors. Yet those extra opportunities did not overcome their lower shooting efficiency.
Cleveland collected 36 defensive rebounds, while Golden State recorded 34. The Cavaliers’ defensive rebounding helped limit the impact of Golden State’s offensive work on the glass.
The broader lesson is that rebounds matter most when they lead to useful outcomes. Golden State created additional chances, but Cleveland converted a greater share of its shooting opportunities.
Turnovers, steals, and defensive pressure
Golden State committed 12 turnovers, three fewer than Cleveland’s 15. The Warriors also recorded 11 steals, compared with seven for the Cavaliers.
These figures favor Golden State in terms of ball pressure and possession security. The Warriors generated more steals while committing fewer turnovers.
However, turnovers do not tell the entire story of possession value. The Warriors still needed to convert their offensive opportunities efficiently, and their shooting numbers show why their defensive activity did not produce a win.
Golden State also recorded five blocks, four more than Cleveland. That advantage reflects a strong presence around the basket, but Cleveland’s shooting from the perimeter reduced the extent to which blocks could determine the outcome.
Starting Lineups and Rotation Context
The supplied box-score data lists the following starting players.
| Position | Cleveland Cavaliers | Golden State Warriors |
| Center | Jarrett Allen | Kristaps Porzingis |
| Forward | Evan Mobley | Draymond Green |
| Forward | Max Strus | Gui Santos |
| Guard | James Harden | De’Anthony Melton |
| Guard | Donovan Mitchell | Brandin Podziemski |
The listed lineups highlight the different strengths each team brought into the game.
Cleveland paired Allen’s rebounding and interior finishing with Mobley’s versatility. Harden and Mitchell supplied ball-handling and scoring, while Strus provided perimeter shooting. That combination gave the Cavaliers several ways to create offense.
Golden State’s listed lineup included Porzingis as its center, Green as a playmaking forward, and Podziemski and Melton in the backcourt. Santos provided another scoring threat, as his 25-point performance demonstrated.
The available information does not include complete minutes played or substitution timestamps. It is therefore not possible to determine precisely which lineup combinations produced the largest scoring runs. The reported plus/minus figures offer some context, but they should not be treated as a substitute for full rotation data.
What the Advanced Numbers Tell Us
The supplied figures allow several useful calculations beyond the basic box score. These calculations help explain the result, although they do not replace a full advanced-statistics report.
Effective field-goal percentage
Effective field-goal percentage adjusts ordinary field-goal percentage to account for the extra point earned by a made three-pointer.
The formula is:
Effective FG% = (Field goals made + 0.5 × three-pointers made) ÷ field-goal attempts
Using the supplied totals:
- Cleveland: (42 + 0.5 × 16) ÷ 82 = approximately 61.0%
- Golden State: (41 + 0.5 × 12) ÷ 94 = approximately 50.0%
This calculation highlights the importance of Cleveland’s perimeter accuracy. The Cavaliers were not simply making a higher percentage of shots. They also generated more scoring value from each made field goal because they converted more three-pointers.
Approximate true shooting percentage
True shooting percentage estimates scoring efficiency while accounting for field goals, three-pointers, and free throws. A commonly used approximation is:
TS% = Points ÷ [2 × (Field-goal attempts + 0.44 × free-throw attempts)]
Using the final team totals gives approximately:
- Cleveland: 61.4%
- Golden State: 54.6%
These are calculations from the supplied team totals, not official figures quoted from ESPN. The formula uses a standard estimate for free-throw possession value, so results may differ slightly from calculations using more detailed play-by-play data.
The gap reinforces the same conclusion as the field-goal comparison: Cleveland was more efficient at turning its offensive opportunities into points.
What these metrics cannot tell us
No single percentage fully explains a basketball game. Effective field-goal percentage does not account for turnovers or free throws, while true shooting percentage does not directly measure defense, passing, or rebounding.
A complete evaluation would also consider pace, offensive rating, defensive rating, lineup combinations, and the quality of the shots taken. Those details are not all present in the supplied box-score data.
The most reliable interpretation comes from combining the available figures: Cleveland shot more accurately, made more three-pointers, and maintained its lead across the final quarter despite Golden State’s defensive pressure and rebounding work.
Game Context and Season-Series Implications
The supplied data identifies April 3, 2026, as the game date and Chase Center in San Francisco as the venue. Attendance was listed as 18,064.
It also lists the previous matchup as a 99-94 Golden State victory on December 7, with the season series tied at 1-1 following Cleveland’s 118-111 win.
That split indicates that the two teams had each won one of the reported meetings. It also shows that the April game produced a higher combined score, with 229 points compared with 193 in the earlier matchup.
The extracted information includes records of 48-29 for Cleveland and 36-41 for Golden State. However, the source text also contains later schedule and standings content, so these records should be understood as values displayed in the supplied extract rather than independently verified standings for the precise game date.
The same caution applies to season-wide conclusions. One game can reveal useful tactical patterns, but it cannot establish a team’s overall quality or predict future results by itself.
Key Takeaways From the Cavaliers vs Warriors Box Score
Several clear lessons emerge from the player and team statistics.
- Cleveland’s perimeter shooting was decisive. The Cavaliers made 16 three-pointers, compared with 12 for Golden State, and finished with a much higher three-point percentage.
- Mitchell and Strus led the scoring effort. Mitchell scored 25 points, while Strus added 24 and made six three-pointers.
- Cleveland received strong frontcourt production. Allen recorded 16 points and 13 rebounds, while Mobley contributed a double-double with five assists.
- Golden State had two 25-point scorers. Santos and Podziemski each scored 25 points, but their combined production was not enough to offset the team’s shooting disadvantage.
- Green influenced several areas of the game. His eight points, nine rebounds, nine assists, and three blocks demonstrated his all-around role.
- The Warriors had defensive and possession advantages. Golden State recorded more steals and blocks while committing fewer turnovers, yet Cleveland’s better shooting proved more important to the final score.
- Rebounding was evenly matched overall. Both teams finished with 46 rebounds, showing that the decisive difference came from other areas rather than total rebounding volume.
- The final quarter confirmed Cleveland’s composure. The Cavaliers scored 34 points in the fourth quarter to keep Golden State from completing its comeback.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Cleveland Cavaliers vs Golden State Warriors game on April 3, 2026?
The Cleveland Cavaliers defeated the Golden State Warriors 118-111 at Chase Center in San Francisco, California.
2. Who scored the most points in the Cavaliers vs Warriors matchup?
Donovan Mitchell and Golden State’s Gui Santos and Brandin Podziemski each scored 25 points. Max Strus was close behind with 24 points for Cleveland.
3. How many points did Max Strus score against the Warriors?
Max Strus scored 24 points, shooting nine of 14 from the field and six of 10 from three-point range.
4. Did any player record a double-double?
Yes. Jarrett Allen recorded 16 points and 13 rebounds, while Evan Mobley finished with 12 points and 10 rebounds. Gary Payton II also recorded a double-double with eight points and 12 rebounds.
5. Why did Cleveland beat Golden State?
Cleveland won primarily through more efficient shooting. The Cavaliers made 51% of their field goals and 44% of their three-pointers, while the Warriors shot 44% overall and 27% from three-point range.
6. Where can readers find the official box score?
The game statistics are available on ESPN’s official box score, which provides the game result and individual player statistics.
Conclusion
The April 3, 2026, matchup between Cleveland and Golden State demonstrated how shooting efficiency can outweigh advantages in other statistical categories. The Cavaliers won 118-111 by converting 51% of their field goals and 44% of their three-point attempts. Golden State remained competitive through its scoring, rebounding, steals, and blocks, but its 27% three-point percentage limited its ability to keep pace.
Donovan Mitchell and Gui Santos led all scorers with 25 points, while Brandin Podziemski also reached 25. Max Strus added 24 points for Cleveland, and Jarrett Allen’s 16 points and 13 rebounds strengthened the Cavaliers’ frontcourt performance. Draymond Green’s near triple-double highlighted Golden State’s all-around contributions, even in defeat.
The most important statistical distinction was the quality of Cleveland’s shooting. The Cavaliers made four more three-pointers despite attempting eight fewer, finished with a higher field-goal percentage, and protected their lead in the fourth quarter. The final box score therefore offers a clear example of how balanced scoring and efficient shot-making can determine the outcome of a closely contested NBA game.
