Celtics vs Cleveland Cavaliers Match Player Stats
The celtics vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats from October 9, 2026, provide a detailed look at Boston’s 124-113 preseason victory over Cleveland at Rocket Arena in Cleveland, Ohio. Boston finished with 124 points, while the Cavaliers scored 113. Although Cleveland shot a higher percentage from the field, the Celtics created a decisive advantage through offensive rebounding, three-point shooting volume, and a stronger fourth-quarter performance. Luka Garza led Boston with 22 points, while Devin Carter contributed 17. Baylor Scheierman and Jordan Walsh added 16 points apiece, and Hugo Gonzalez finished with 15 points among Boston’s leading scorers.
This matchup offers more than a final score. The team statistics reveal how Boston generated additional scoring opportunities, why Cleveland’s shooting efficiency did not translate into a win, and which individual performances stood out in the available box-score data. Because this was a preseason game, the figures are most useful for understanding the performance on that night rather than drawing firm conclusions about either team’s regular-season strength.
Data note: The analysis below uses the supplied ESPN box-score information. The reported team totals and named player highlights are presented separately. Since the supplied data does not map every individual statistical row to a player, unprovided player-specific figures are not inferred or invented.
Celtics vs Cleveland Cavaliers Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The Boston Celtics entered the game with a strong offensive showing and closed it out by limiting Cleveland to 17 points in the fourth quarter. The Cavaliers had opportunities to remain competitive, particularly after winning the third quarter 34-28, but Boston restored control in the final period.
Boston Celtics
Away team · Preseason
124
Cleveland Cavaliers
Home team · Preseason
113
Final margin
Boston +11
Venue
Rocket Arena
Cleveland, Ohio
Game date
October 9, 2026
Attendance
15,464
The supplied game record lists Boston at 1-0 overall and 1-0 away, while Cleveland is listed at 0-1 overall and 0-1 at home. These records are the displayed preseason records, not regular-season standings.
The game was scheduled for 4:00 AM on October 9, 2026, according to the supplied information. The listed viewing option was DAZN CLE.
Quarter-by-Quarter Score Breakdown
The scoring pattern explains how Boston established an early advantage, handled Cleveland’s third-quarter response, and secured the win in the final period.
| Quarter | Boston Celtics | Cleveland Cavaliers | Quarter result |
| First quarter | 32 | 29 | Boston +3 |
| Second quarter | 39 | 33 | Boston +6 |
| Third quarter | 28 | 34 | Cleveland +6 |
| Fourth quarter | 25 | 17 | Boston +8 |
| Final score | 124 | 113 | Boston +11 |
Boston outscored Cleveland by six points in the first half, taking a 71-62 lead into halftime. The Celtics then watched their advantage shrink during the third quarter before responding with a disciplined fourth-quarter performance.
First quarter: Boston takes an early lead
Boston scored 32 points in the opening period, compared with Cleveland’s 29. The three-point difference was relatively small, but it gave the Celtics a positive start and allowed them to build on their offense in the second quarter.
A three-point lead after 12 minutes does not determine a basketball game, particularly in preseason competition. However, it provided Boston with an early advantage without requiring an overwhelming first-quarter performance.
Cleveland remained close enough to apply pressure, and its subsequent scoring run demonstrated that the contest was still open.
Second quarter: The Celtics increase their advantage
The second quarter was Boston’s highest-scoring period. The Celtics scored 39 points, while Cleveland managed 33.
Boston’s six-point advantage in this quarter increased its lead from three points to nine. The 71 points scored in the first half were especially important because they gave the Celtics some protection against Cleveland’s third-quarter comeback.
The numbers also establish a useful distinction between offensive production and shooting accuracy. Boston did not lead in overall field-goal percentage, but its scoring output remained higher throughout the first half.
Third quarter: Cleveland responds
Cleveland won the third quarter 34-28. This was the Cavaliers’ strongest period in terms of points scored, and it reduced Boston’s nine-point halftime advantage to three points.
The response showed that Cleveland could generate offense even after falling behind. It also changed the pressure of the game: Boston could no longer rely on its first-half margin and needed a better defensive response in the closing period.
The Cavaliers’ improved scoring did not erase their earlier deficit entirely. That distinction matters when interpreting quarter-by-quarter data because winning a period is not the same as winning the game.
Fourth quarter: Boston closes the game
The Celtics scored 25 points in the fourth quarter and restricted Cleveland to 17. Boston’s eight-point advantage in the final period was enough to turn a three-point lead into an 11-point victory.
This was the decisive stretch of the matchup. Cleveland had already demonstrated its ability to score in bunches, but Boston produced the better final-quarter result.
The Celtics’ fourth-quarter defense, combined with their overall rebounding advantage, helped them finish the game in control. The available figures do not identify every possession or defensive assignment, so the result should not be attributed to a specific tactical adjustment without additional play-by-play evidence.
Boston Celtics Player Stats and Top Performers
The individual scoring figures identify Luka Garza as Boston’s leading scorer, followed by Devin Carter, Baylor Scheierman, Jordan Walsh, and Hugo Gonzalez. These performances form the clearest individual storyline in the supplied Celtics vs Cleveland Cavaliers match player stats.
| Boston Celtics player | Reported points | Additional reported information |
| Luka Garza | 22 | 10 rebounds among starters |
| Devin Carter | 17 | One of Boston’s leading scorers |
| Baylor Scheierman | 16 | Listed among the starters |
| Jordan Walsh | 16 | Listed among the starters |
| Hugo Gonzalez | 15 | 5 assists |
| Dillon Mitchell | Not supplied | 9 rebounds and 4 assists |
| Mike Conley | Not supplied | 4 assists |
The supplied figures do not establish every player’s complete line of points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, and shooting percentages. The table therefore includes only the reported statistics rather than filling missing values with estimates.
Luka Garza: Boston’s leading scorer
Luka Garza led all reported Boston scorers with 22 points. He also recorded 10 rebounds among the starting players, giving him a notable scoring and rebounding contribution in the available data.
Scoring 22 points in a preseason contest demonstrates meaningful offensive production on that particular night. Combining that scoring total with double-digit rebounds also highlights Garza’s involvement beyond putting the ball through the basket.
Rebounding can be important for several reasons. Defensive rebounds help a team end its opponent’s possession, while offensive rebounds create additional chances to score. The supplied information does not divide Garza’s 10 rebounds into offensive and defensive categories, so that split cannot be established here.
His performance is best understood within the context of the game rather than as a prediction of his role during the regular season. Preseason rotations, playing time, and competition for roster positions can differ from those seen in competitive regular-season games.
Devin Carter: A productive scoring contribution
Devin Carter finished with 17 points, making him Boston’s second-highest scorer among the players for whom individual scoring totals were supplied.
His contribution helped Boston spread its offensive production beyond its leading scorer. This distribution can make an offense more difficult to contain because the opposing defense must account for multiple scoring threats instead of concentrating exclusively on one player.
However, the available information does not provide Carter’s field-goal attempts, three-point attempts, free throws, or minutes played. His scoring total therefore establishes his production, but it does not show how efficiently he scored or how much playing time he needed.
Those additional details would be necessary for a more complete evaluation of his performance.
Baylor Scheierman: Consistent support on the scoreboard
Baylor Scheierman recorded 16 points, matching Jordan Walsh’s reported total. His contribution was part of a broader Boston scoring effort in which five players reached at least 15 points.
That balance is an important feature of the game. When several players contribute meaningful scoring totals, the offense has more ways to respond if one player struggles or the defense changes its coverage.
Scheierman’s 16 points should not automatically be interpreted as proof of a particular offensive role. To determine whether he scored primarily through three-pointers, transition opportunities, drives, or set plays, a full individual box score or play-by-play record would be needed.
Jordan Walsh: Another important scoring option
Jordan Walsh also finished with 16 points. His total placed him level with Scheierman and third among the named Celtics scorers, behind Garza and Carter.
Boston’s ability to receive 16-point contributions from two players alongside its leading scorer illustrates the value of a distributed scoring attack. Cleveland had to contend with several players capable of contributing points rather than only one dominant scorer.
The supplied data lists Walsh among Boston’s starters, but it does not provide his complete shooting line or minutes. A careful statistical analysis should distinguish his confirmed scoring total from conclusions that require more detailed data.
Hugo Gonzalez: Scoring and playmaking
Hugo Gonzalez recorded 15 points and five assists, according to the supplied player highlights. Those figures make him notable for both scoring and helping teammates generate offense.
Assists provide useful context because they reflect passes that directly lead to made field goals under the official scoring rules. A player with a meaningful scoring total and several assists may contribute to more than one part of an offense.
Still, five assists alone do not establish the quality of every possession or the total number of potential assists. They are best treated as one part of a larger evaluation.
Dillon Mitchell and Mike Conley: Rebounding and ball movement
Dillon Mitchell recorded nine rebounds and four assists, while Mike Conley was credited with four assists in the supplied highlights.
Mitchell’s rebounding total was the second-highest individual figure identified among Boston players. His four assists also indicate a contribution to ball movement, although the missing scoring and shooting details prevent a complete statistical comparison.
Conley’s four assists provide another example of Boston’s reported playmaking contributions. Team assists measure collective passing outcomes, while individual assist totals help show how those outcomes were distributed among players.
Together, these details add depth to the scoring figures. They also demonstrate why a complete player evaluation should include rebounding and playmaking rather than focusing exclusively on points.
Cleveland Cavaliers Player Stats and Top Performers
Cleveland scored 113 points despite losing the game. Its reported individual highlights include Jaylon Tyson’s 14 points among the starters, Tristan Enaruna’s 13 points among the bench players, and 11 points each for Donovan Mitchell and James Harden.
The Cavaliers also had a notable playmaking contribution from Craig Porter Jr., who recorded 10 assists according to the supplied data.
| Cleveland Cavaliers player | Reported points | Additional reported information |
| Jaylon Tyson | 14 | Top scorer among the reported starters |
| Tristan Enaruna | 13 | Top scorer among the reported bench players |
| Donovan Mitchell | 11 | 3 assists |
| James Harden | 11 | Scoring contribution |
| Evan Mobley | 8 | Scoring contribution |
| Sam Merrill | 8 | Scoring contribution |
| Craig Porter Jr. | 8 | 10 assists |
| Mario Hezonja | Not supplied | 5 rebounds |
| Jarrett Allen | Not supplied | 4 rebounds |
| Peyton Watson | Not supplied | 4 rebounds and 4 assists |
| Thomas Bryant | Not supplied | 4 rebounds |
These are the reported highlights, not a complete ranking of every Cavaliers player. Because not every individual scoring line was supplied, players without a points figure should not be treated as having scored zero.
Jaylon Tyson: Leading the reported starters
Jaylon Tyson scored 14 points, making him Cleveland’s leading scorer among the starters identified in the supplied information.
His total contributed to Cleveland’s overall offensive production, although it was lower than Garza’s 22-point game-high among the reported individual scoring figures.
A scoring comparison is most informative when combined with attempts and efficiency. For example, 14 points on a small number of attempts would indicate something different from 14 points on a high number of attempts. The supplied data does not provide Tyson’s individual attempts, so the efficiency of his scoring cannot be determined here.
The figure nevertheless provides a clear, factual record of his contribution to the Cavaliers’ offense.
Tristan Enaruna: A productive bench contribution
Tristan Enaruna recorded 13 points among Cleveland’s bench players. His scoring contribution helped the Cavaliers draw points from outside their reported starting group.
Bench production is important in preseason basketball because coaches often use these games to evaluate players in different combinations and playing situations. Scoring from reserves can also help maintain offensive output when starters are not on the floor.
The supplied statistics do not establish Enaruna’s minutes, shooting splits, or exact lineup combinations. It would therefore be premature to make claims about his efficiency or role beyond the reported 13 points.
Donovan Mitchell: Scoring and playmaking
Donovan Mitchell recorded 11 points and three assists in the supplied player highlights.
Those figures indicate contributions in two areas: individual scoring and setting up teammates. However, the 11-point total should not be confused with a complete evaluation of his performance, particularly because the available information does not show his minutes, shot attempts, turnovers, or defensive statistics individually.
Cleveland scored 113 points as a team, demonstrating that the Cavaliers were capable of generating substantial offense. Their challenge was converting that production into a better overall result, particularly in the fourth quarter.
James Harden: An additional scoring option
James Harden was credited with 11 points in the supplied data. His scoring total matched Donovan Mitchell’s reported points, giving Cleveland another named player who contributed double-digit scoring.
The presence of multiple scoring options is relevant when assessing offensive balance. Teams generally benefit when several players can contribute, but the effectiveness of that balance depends on shooting efficiency, turnovers, rebounding, and defensive performance as well.
The available information does not provide Harden’s individual shooting splits or minutes. Those figures would be needed before evaluating his efficiency or determining how his scoring related to the Cavaliers’ overall offensive approach.
Evan Mobley and Sam Merrill: Supporting the offense
Evan Mobley and Sam Merrill each recorded eight points in the supplied player highlights.
Although these totals were lower than the leading reported scorers, they contributed to Cleveland’s overall scoring output. Basketball scoring is cumulative, and contributions from several players can help a team remain competitive even when no individual player has an especially large total.
Mobley’s reported eight points should not be interpreted as a measure of his complete impact. A full evaluation would also consider his rebounding, blocks, defensive positioning, screening, and other contributions. The same principle applies to Merrill, whose shooting attempts and individual efficiency are not established by the supplied figures.
Craig Porter Jr.: A notable playmaking performance
Craig Porter Jr. recorded eight points and 10 assists. His assist total was the most prominent individual playmaking figure identified among the Cavaliers in the supplied data.
Ten assists indicate substantial involvement in creating made baskets for teammates. This is particularly relevant when interpreting Cleveland’s 32 team assists, which exceeded Boston’s 29.
The comparison also highlights an important distinction: more assists do not automatically mean a team will win. Assists must be considered alongside shooting efficiency, turnovers, offensive rebounds, and defensive performance.
Cleveland produced more assists overall, but Boston created considerably more offensive rebounds and finished with the higher score. That combination helps explain why one favorable team statistic was not enough to determine the outcome.
Cleveland’s rebounding contributors
Mario Hezonja recorded five rebounds, while Jarrett Allen, Peyton Watson, and Thomas Bryant each recorded four rebounds in the supplied highlights.
These figures provide some individual context for Cleveland’s rebounding performance. However, they do not account for every player who collected a rebound, and they should not be added together as if they represent the team’s complete rebounding total.
The Cavaliers finished with 39 rebounds as a team, compared with Boston’s 56. This 17-rebound gap was one of the most significant statistical differences in the game.
Celtics vs Cleveland Cavaliers Match Player Stats: Team Comparison
The team statistics reveal a clear contrast between Boston’s rebounding advantage and Cleveland’s superior field-goal percentage. The Cavaliers were more accurate from the field overall, but the Celtics recorded more rebounds, more offensive rebounds, and more three-pointers made.
| Statistical category | Boston Celtics | Cleveland Cavaliers |
| Final score | 124 | 113 |
| Field goals made/attempted | 41/99 | 44/92 |
| Field-goal percentage | 41% | 48% |
| Three-pointers made/attempted | 17/47 | 12/37 |
| Three-point percentage | 36% | 32% |
| Free throws made/attempted | 25/35 | 13/16 |
| Free-throw percentage | 71% | 81% |
| Total rebounds | 56 | 39 |
| Offensive rebounds | 21 | 6 |
| Defensive rebounds | 35 | 33 |
| Assists | 29 | 32 |
| Turnovers | 16 | 11 |
| Steals | 6 | 10 |
| Blocks | 8 | 6 |
| Personal fouls | 19 | 25 |
Percentages are reproduced from the supplied game data. Minor differences may occur when percentages are rounded.
Field-goal percentage: Cleveland was more accurate
Cleveland made 44 of 92 field-goal attempts, while Boston made 41 of 99. The Cavaliers’ reported field-goal percentage was 48%, compared with Boston’s 41%.
At first glance, that difference suggests Cleveland had the more efficient overall shooting performance. The team made three more field goals while attempting seven fewer shots.
However, field-goal percentage does not account for the additional value of three-point shots. A made three-pointer scores one more point than a made two-pointer, so the number and accuracy of long-range attempts can change the scoring comparison considerably.
Boston made 17 three-pointers, five more than Cleveland’s 12. Those additional successful shots helped compensate for Boston’s lower overall field-goal percentage.
This is a useful lesson when reading basketball statistics: accuracy and scoring value are related, but they are not identical measures.
Three-point shooting: Boston creates a scoring advantage
Boston made 17 of 47 three-point attempts, compared with Cleveland’s 12 of 37.
The Celtics attempted 10 more three-pointers and made five more. Since each successful three-pointer is worth three points, that difference contributed to Boston’s ability to score 124 points.
Boston’s reported three-point percentage was 36%, while Cleveland’s was 32%. The Celtics therefore had both a higher volume of made three-pointers and a higher reported conversion rate from beyond the arc.
This combination matters because a team can generate a substantial number of points from long-range shooting even when its overall field-goal percentage is lower.
There is a trade-off, however. Three-point attempts can produce high-value scoring opportunities, but missed attempts can also create defensive rebounds for the opponent. In this game, Boston offset that risk with a strong offensive-rebounding performance.
Free throws: Cleveland was more accurate, but Boston attempted more
The Celtics made 25 of 35 free throws, while the Cavaliers made 13 of 16.
Cleveland’s reported free-throw percentage was 81%, compared with Boston’s 71%. The Cavaliers were more accurate at the line, but Boston attempted 19 additional free throws and made 12 more.
The difference in made free throws was therefore a significant part of the final scoring gap.
Free-throw attempts can reflect several factors, including drives to the basket, shooting fouls, bonus situations, and the way a team attacks the defense. The available team totals do not identify which of these factors accounted for Boston’s higher attempt count.
It would be inaccurate to conclude from these figures alone that Boston attacked the basket more aggressively or that Cleveland committed fouls in a particular situation. The numbers establish the difference in free-throw production, not the precise cause.
Rebounding: Boston’s biggest statistical advantage
Boston finished with 56 rebounds, compared with Cleveland’s 39. The Celtics’ 17-rebound advantage was the largest difference in the listed major team statistics.
The offensive-rebounding figures make the contrast even more striking. Boston collected 21 offensive rebounds, while Cleveland recorded six.
An offensive rebound occurs when the attacking team retrieves a missed shot. That recovery gives the offense another opportunity to score without allowing the opponent to establish possession.
Boston’s 15-rebound advantage on the offensive glass is especially important because it created additional chances to attack. A team can shoot a lower percentage and still generate more total scoring opportunities if it repeatedly recovers its own misses.
The defensive-rebounding figures were much closer. Boston recorded 35 defensive rebounds and Cleveland had 33, a difference of just two.
This suggests that the main rebounding separation came on the offensive glass rather than from a large difference in defensive rebounds. The available data does not show how many of Boston’s offensive rebounds resulted in immediate scores, so the exact points generated from second chances cannot be calculated.
Assists: Cleveland moved the ball more frequently into made shots
Cleveland recorded 32 assists, three more than Boston’s 29.
An assist is awarded when a pass directly leads to a made field goal under the official scoring rules. Team assist totals can help explain how much scoring comes from assisted baskets rather than individual plays that do not result in an assist.
Cleveland’s higher total suggests that its players were involved in more assisted scoring outcomes. It does not necessarily mean the Cavaliers generated better-quality shots or executed every possession more effectively.
Boston’s lower assist total was accompanied by more three-pointers, more offensive rebounds, and a higher final score. The game demonstrates why assists should be considered alongside other statistics instead of used as a stand-alone measure of offensive success.
Turnovers: Cleveland protected possession better
Boston committed 16 turnovers, compared with Cleveland’s 11.
Turnovers end an offensive possession without a field-goal attempt and can create transition opportunities for the opponent. On this measure, Cleveland performed better by giving the ball away five fewer times.
That advantage did not translate into a victory. Boston’s greater offensive-rebounding production and additional scoring from three-point shots and free throws helped offset its higher turnover count.
This is an important distinction for readers examining box scores. A team can perform better in ball security but still lose because its opponent gains advantages in other areas.
The supplied data does not identify which turnovers were live-ball turnovers, traveling violations, offensive fouls, or other types. Those details would be required to determine how many turnovers directly created fast-break opportunities.
Steals and blocks: Cleveland recorded more steals, Boston more blocks
Cleveland finished with 10 steals, compared with Boston’s six. Boston recorded eight blocks, while Cleveland had six.
Steals measure defensive plays in which a defender gains possession of the ball from the opponent. Blocks record shots that a defender legally deflects before they reach the basket.
The Cavaliers’ four-steal advantage is consistent with their lower turnover total being one of their stronger statistical results, although the supplied figures do not establish a direct relationship between every steal and a Boston turnover.
Boston’s two-block advantage represents a different form of defensive contribution. Blocks can disrupt shots, but they do not capture every effective defensive possession. Good positioning, contested shots, and forcing misses may not appear in the blocks column.
The overall picture is therefore mixed: Cleveland led in steals, while Boston led in blocks. Neither category alone explains the final result.
Personal fouls: Cleveland committed more
Cleveland was charged with 25 personal fouls, compared with Boston’s 19.
That six-foul difference occurred alongside Boston’s higher free-throw attempt total. The two figures are consistent with Boston receiving more opportunities at the line, but they do not prove that every additional foul resulted in free throws.
Some fouls occur away from shooting attempts, and the number of free throws awarded depends on the circumstances of each play and the applicable team-foul rules.
For a more detailed explanation, the official ESPN box score for Celtics vs Cavaliers is the relevant reference for checking individual player lines and the game’s statistical record.
Why Boston Won Despite Shooting a Lower Percentage
Boston’s 124-113 win illustrates why field-goal percentage alone is not enough to evaluate a basketball performance.
The Cavaliers made more field goals and recorded the higher field-goal percentage. They also had more assists and steals and committed fewer turnovers. Those are meaningful advantages, yet Boston finished 11 points ahead.
The explanation becomes clearer when the Celtics’ three-point shooting, offensive rebounding, and free-throw production are considered together.
1. Boston made more three-pointers
The Celtics made 17 three-pointers, compared with Cleveland’s 12. That was a difference of five successful long-range shots.
A three-pointer is worth 50% more than a two-pointer in terms of points per made shot. As a result, five additional made three-pointers can create a significant scoring advantage, even when the opponent makes more field goals overall.
The difference in shot selection also matters. Boston attempted 47 three-pointers, while Cleveland attempted 37. That higher volume gave the Celtics more opportunities to benefit from the three-point line.
2. Offensive rebounds created additional opportunities
Boston’s 21 offensive rebounds compared with Cleveland’s six represent a substantial difference in second-chance opportunities.
When a team retrieves its own missed shot, it can continue the possession rather than immediately defending a new attack. This creates another chance to score, although an offensive rebound does not guarantee a basket.
The Celtics’ rebounding advantage was particularly important because they missed more field-goal attempts than Cleveland. Boston attempted 99 shots and made 41, while Cleveland attempted 92 and made 44.
Recovering missed shots helped Boston offset the disadvantage in shooting percentage. It is reasonable to identify offensive rebounding as a major statistical feature of the victory, although the exact number of second-chance points is not available in the supplied data.
3. Boston attempted more free throws
Boston attempted 35 free throws and made 25. Cleveland attempted 16 and made 13.
The Celtics’ 19 additional attempts created more opportunities to score while the game clock was stopped. Although Boston’s free-throw accuracy was lower, the higher volume helped increase its total.
This is another reason a percentage should not be interpreted without considering the number of attempts. Cleveland had the better percentage, but Boston made substantially more free throws.
4. Boston finished the fourth quarter more effectively
Boston outscored Cleveland 25-17 in the final period.
The Celtics entered the fourth quarter with a three-point lead after Cleveland won the third quarter. An eight-point advantage in the final period expanded that margin to 11.
The closing period did not feature Boston’s highest scoring total, but it featured the team’s strongest relative result against Cleveland. Restricting the Cavaliers to 17 points was especially important after they had scored 34 in the third quarter.
The quarter-by-quarter figures show when the game was decided, although they do not establish the specific plays or defensive adjustments responsible for the result.
What the Statistics Reveal About Boston’s Offensive Approach
The Celtics’ team numbers suggest an offense that benefited from three complementary factors: perimeter shooting, second-chance opportunities, and free-throw volume.
These factors are more informative when considered as a group.
A high volume of three-point attempts can increase scoring potential, but it also creates more missed shots. Offensive rebounding can reduce the cost of those misses by providing additional possessions. Free throws add another scoring route that does not require a made field goal during live play.
Boston’s figures fit that pattern. The team attempted 47 three-pointers, collected 21 offensive rebounds, and attempted 35 free throws.
However, a box score cannot fully describe the offensive system. It does not reveal the spacing of every possession, the screens used to create open shots, the timing of cuts, or the defensive coverage Boston faced. Those questions require game footage or more detailed possession-level statistics.
The most defensible conclusion is that Boston combined high three-point volume with a substantial offensive-rebounding advantage and more free-throw attempts. That combination supported its 124-point performance despite a lower field-goal percentage.
What the Statistics Reveal About Cleveland’s Performance
Cleveland’s 113 points and 48% reported field-goal percentage show that the team produced a substantial offensive output. The Cavaliers also recorded 32 assists and 10 steals while limiting their turnovers to 11.
These numbers indicate that Cleveland had several positive statistical results. The loss should not be interpreted as proof that every part of its performance was poor.
The main problem in the team comparison was the gap in rebounding and scoring opportunities. Cleveland collected only six offensive rebounds, while Boston recorded 21. The Celtics also made more three-pointers and attempted considerably more free throws.
Cleveland’s third-quarter performance was a positive element. The Cavaliers scored 34 points in that period and reduced Boston’s lead from nine points to three.
The fourth quarter, however, moved the game in the opposite direction. Cleveland scored only 17 points, allowing Boston to restore its advantage and secure the win.
The available statistics do not establish whether fatigue, lineup changes, shot selection, defensive adjustments, or another factor caused the fourth-quarter decline. Those explanations would require more detailed evidence than the team totals provide.
How to Interpret Preseason Player Statistics
Preseason games are useful for evaluating individual contributions, but they require a different approach from regular-season analysis.
The purpose of preseason basketball includes preparing players for competitive games, testing lineups, evaluating developing talent, and building team familiarity. As a result, the minutes and responsibilities assigned to players may not match their eventual regular-season roles.
Several principles can help readers interpret these statistics more accurately.
Separate production from efficiency
A player who scores 20 points has produced a meaningful scoring total. However, that total does not establish how efficiently the player scored.
For a complete evaluation, readers should examine field-goal attempts, three-point attempts, free throws, and minutes played. Advanced measures such as true shooting percentage can add context by accounting for both field goals and free throws.
Without those details, points should be reported as points rather than used to make unsupported claims about efficiency.
Consider playing time
Two players can score the same number of points while playing different amounts of time. The player who scores the same total in fewer minutes may have a different statistical profile.
Points per minute and other rate statistics can help with that comparison, but they should be interpreted carefully in preseason games because playing time and opponent lineups may vary substantially.
The supplied data does not provide individual minutes, so a reliable per-minute comparison cannot be calculated for this game.
Evaluate more than scoring
Rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, and turnovers provide additional context.
For example, Craig Porter Jr.’s reported 10 assists highlight his playmaking contribution, while Luka Garza’s 10 rebounds illustrate his work on the glass. These numbers reveal different aspects of performance that a scoring-only ranking would miss.
Even so, no single box-score category captures a player’s full contribution. Defensive positioning, screens, off-ball movement, and communication are among the factors that may require film analysis.
Avoid making regular-season predictions from one game
A strong preseason performance can be encouraging, but it is not sufficient evidence to predict a player’s regular-season scoring average or long-term role.
One game represents a limited sample. Opponent strength, lineup combinations, shot variation, and playing time can all affect the outcome.
The most useful approach is to treat preseason statistics as an initial observation. Strong conclusions become more reliable when the same patterns appear across multiple games and are supported by additional evidence.
Important Data Limitations and Statistical Accuracy
Accurate reporting is essential when publishing sports statistics. The supplied data contains a useful combination of team totals, quarter scores, and selected individual performances, but it does not provide every player’s complete statistical line.
Three limitations deserve particular attention.
First, individual box-score details are incomplete. The available information does not explicitly connect every player to individual field goals, three-pointers, free throws, steals, blocks, and turnovers. Only the player statistics specifically identified in the supplied highlights should be presented as confirmed individual figures.
Second, preseason statistics require context. The final score and team totals describe this game, but they do not establish how players will perform throughout the regular season. One preseason result is not enough to determine a team’s overall strength.
Third, team totals should be distinguished from player totals. Boston’s 56 rebounds and Cleveland’s 39 rebounds are team figures. They cannot be attributed to one player, and the named individual highlights do not necessarily account for every player who contributed to those totals.
For readers seeking the most complete statistical record, the ESPN box score linked above is the appropriate reference to consult. Confirming individual lines against the original record is particularly important before publishing advanced statistics, efficiency rankings, or detailed player comparisons.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Celtics vs Cleveland Cavaliers game on October 9, 2026?
The Boston Celtics defeated the Cleveland Cavaliers 124-113 in a preseason game at Rocket Arena in Cleveland, Ohio. Boston won by 11 points.
2. Who was the leading scorer in the Celtics vs Cleveland Cavaliers match player stats?
Luka Garza was Boston’s leading reported scorer with 22 points. Devin Carter scored 17, while Baylor Scheierman and Jordan Walsh each recorded 16 points.
3. How many points did the Cleveland Cavaliers score?
Cleveland scored 113 points. Jaylon Tyson led the reported Cavaliers starters with 14 points, while Tristan Enaruna recorded 13 points among the reported bench players.
4. Which team had more rebounds?
Boston led the rebounding comparison with 56 total rebounds, while Cleveland recorded 39. The Celtics also had a substantial advantage in offensive rebounds, collecting 21 compared with Cleveland’s six.
5. Why did Boston win despite Cleveland’s higher field-goal percentage?
Cleveland recorded a 48% field-goal percentage, compared with Boston’s 41%. However, Boston made more three-pointers, attempted more free throws, and collected substantially more offensive rebounds. The Celtics also outscored Cleveland 25-17 in the fourth quarter.
6. Were the Celtics vs Cavaliers statistics from a regular-season game?
No. The supplied record identifies the October 9, 2026 matchup as a preseason game. Its statistics describe that exhibition contest and should not be treated as regular-season results.
Conclusion
The October 9, 2026 preseason matchup between Boston and Cleveland ended with a 124-113 victory for the Celtics. The game demonstrated how multiple statistical advantages can outweigh a higher field-goal percentage.
Boston’s 21 offensive rebounds, 17 made three-pointers, and 25 made free throws helped the team build and maintain its scoring advantage. The Celtics also delivered a strong fourth-quarter performance, outscoring Cleveland 25-17 after the Cavaliers had reduced the deficit in the third period.
Luka Garza led Boston’s reported scorers with 22 points, supported by Devin Carter’s 17, Baylor Scheierman’s 16, Jordan Walsh’s 16, and Hugo Gonzalez’s 15. For Cleveland, Jaylon Tyson led the reported starters with 14 points, while Craig Porter Jr.’s 10 assists stood out among the supplied playmaking figures.
Cleveland had several positive statistical results, including a higher field-goal percentage, more assists, more steals, and fewer turnovers. Nevertheless, Boston’s advantages in offensive rebounding, three-point production, and free-throw volume proved more influential in the final score.
The most balanced interpretation considers the complete team comparison alongside the confirmed individual highlights. Because this was a preseason game and the supplied player-level data is incomplete, conclusions about individual efficiency and future regular-season performance should remain measured.
