celtics vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats
The celtics vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats from October 9, 2026, tell the story of a preseason game in which the Boston Celtics defeated the Cleveland Cavaliers 124-113 at Rocket Arena in Cleveland, Ohio. Boston built its winning performance around offensive rebounding, second-chance scoring opportunities, and contributions from several players. Cleveland shot more accurately from the field and recorded more assists and steals, but those advantages were not enough to overcome Boston’s work on the glass.
The result offers an interesting look at how two teams can produce different statistical profiles in the same game. Cleveland made 44 of 92 field-goal attempts, compared with Boston’s 41 of 99. However, Boston collected 56 rebounds, including 21 offensive boards, while Cleveland finished with 39 total rebounds and only six offensive rebounds. That difference created additional opportunities for Boston to score despite its lower field-goal percentage.
Because this was a preseason contest, the numbers are most useful for understanding individual performances, team execution, and statistical trends in this particular matchup. They should not automatically be treated as evidence of regular-season strength or a prediction of future results. The following breakdown uses the supplied ESPN box-score data for the October 9 game and distinguishes recorded statistics from interpretations of what those numbers mean.
Celtics vs Cleveland Cavaliers Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The final score favored Boston, but the box score reveals a more complicated contest than the 11-point margin might suggest. Cleveland shot efficiently and moved the ball well, while Boston generated more possessions through offensive rebounds and converted enough scoring opportunities to pull away in the fourth quarter.
| Game detail | Information |
| Matchup | Boston Celtics vs Cleveland Cavaliers |
| Date | October 9, 2026 |
| Competition | NBA preseason |
| Final score | Boston Celtics 124, Cleveland Cavaliers 113 |
| Venue | Rocket Arena |
| Location | Cleveland, Ohio |
| Attendance | 15,464 |
| Winning team | Boston Celtics |
| Winning margin | 11 points |
| Boston’s field-goal percentage | 41% |
| Cleveland’s field-goal percentage | 48% |
| Boston’s total rebounds | 56 |
| Cleveland’s total rebounds | 39 |
Boston won by 11 points, scoring 124 points against Cleveland’s 113. The game was played at Rocket Arena, where the Cavaliers were the designated home team.
The most important statistical distinction is that shooting efficiency and possession volume did not point in the same direction. Cleveland converted a greater share of its field-goal attempts, but Boston secured substantially more rebounds. That difference is central to understanding the result.
For readers examining the celtics vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats, it is also important to recognize that preseason rotations can differ from regular-season rotations. The listed starters and available bench players provide context for the game, but a player’s presence on the roster list does not necessarily mean that player recorded playing time.
Quarter-by-Quarter Score Breakdown
The quarter scores show when Boston established its advantage and how the game changed as it progressed. Cleveland finished strongly in the third quarter, but Boston responded with a more productive fourth quarter.
| Quarter | Boston Celtics | Cleveland Cavaliers | Quarter result |
| First | 32 | 29 | Boston +3 |
| Second | 39 | 33 | Boston +6 |
| Third | 28 | 34 | Cleveland +6 |
| Fourth | 25 | 17 | Boston +8 |
| Final | 124 | 113 | Boston +11 |
Boston scored 71 points across the first two quarters, giving the Celtics a 71-62 halftime advantage. That nine-point lead provided a cushion when Cleveland produced its best scoring quarter after halftime.
The Cavaliers scored 34 points in the third quarter, compared with Boston’s 28. They reduced the margin by six points, demonstrating that their offense could generate a productive stretch even while trailing.
The fourth quarter proved decisive. Boston scored 25 points, while Cleveland managed 17. The eight-point difference in the final period more than offset Cleveland’s third-quarter advantage.
First quarter: Boston establishes an early lead
Boston opened with 32 points, three more than Cleveland’s 29. The Celtics began the game with an advantage, although the relatively close score indicated that neither team had established a commanding separation.
A three-point first-quarter lead is not enough to establish that one team controlled every aspect of play. It simply shows that Boston produced the better scoring total during the opening period.
Second quarter: The Celtics extend their advantage
Boston’s 39-point second quarter was the highest-scoring period by either team. Cleveland scored 33, meaning the Celtics added six points to their lead during the period.
The halftime score of 71-62 placed Boston in a favorable position. The Celtics had already created a nine-point advantage, but the game remained competitive enough for Cleveland to make a meaningful run after the break.
Third quarter: Cleveland responds
Cleveland scored 34 points in the third quarter, its highest total of the game. Boston scored 28, cutting the Celtics’ halftime advantage from nine points to three.
This was an important change in momentum. The Cavaliers produced their strongest quarter at a point when they needed to reduce the deficit. However, their improvement did not carry over into the final period.
Fourth quarter: Boston closes the game
Boston outscored Cleveland 25-17 in the fourth quarter. The Celtics’ eight-point advantage in the final period transformed a narrow three-point lead into an 11-point victory.
The quarter-by-quarter numbers support a clear conclusion: Cleveland’s third-quarter response made the game competitive, but Boston delivered the stronger finish.
Boston Celtics Player Stats and Individual Performances
The available player data identifies Luka Garza as Boston’s leading scorer and rebounder. Payton Pritchard, Baylor Scheierman, Jordan Walsh, and Hugo Gonzalez also reached double figures.
These performances suggest that Boston received scoring contributions from several players rather than relying entirely on one leading scorer. Still, individual point totals alone cannot establish how efficiently each player scored, how much defensive pressure they faced, or how consistently they performed throughout the game.
The distinction matters when interpreting preseason statistics. A player who scores efficiently in a limited role may have a different responsibility from someone who creates shots, handles defensive assignments, or organizes the offense.
Boston’s leading scorers
| Player | Points | Additional recorded information |
| Luka Garza | 22 | 10 rebounds |
| Payton Pritchard | 17 | No additional individual totals supplied |
| Baylor Scheierman | 16 | Listed among Boston’s starters |
| Jordan Walsh | 16 | Listed among Boston’s starters |
| Hugo Gonzalez | 15 | 5 assists |
The table includes the individual statistics explicitly provided in the supplied data. Missing individual figures should not be interpreted as zero.
Luka Garza: Boston’s leading scorer and rebounder
Luka Garza led Boston with 22 points and 10 rebounds. His scoring total placed him eight points ahead of the next-highest Boston scorer, while his rebound total gave him a double-double.
A double-double means a player reaches double figures in two statistical categories. Garza achieved that mark in points and rebounds, making his performance notable in both scoring and possession recovery.
His 10 rebounds are particularly relevant when considered alongside Boston’s 21 offensive rebounds as a team. However, the available data does not specify how many of Garza’s individual rebounds were offensive or defensive. It would therefore be inaccurate to attribute a particular share of the team’s offensive rebounding advantage to him.
Garza’s 22 points also made him Boston’s most productive scorer in the supplied box-score summary. His performance provided a clear individual highlight in a game where the Celtics finished with 124 points.
Payton Pritchard: A strong supporting scoring contribution
Payton Pritchard scored 17 points, the second-highest individual total listed for Boston.
His contribution matters because the Celtics did not depend solely on Garza’s scoring output. Pritchard’s total helped create a second major scoring option within the reported results.
A complete assessment would also examine Pritchard’s field-goal attempts, three-point attempts, assists, turnovers, and minutes played. Those details are not included in the supplied individual summary, so his shooting efficiency and overall possession management cannot be calculated reliably here.
The confirmed takeaway is straightforward: Pritchard supplied 17 points in Boston’s 124-point performance.
Baylor Scheierman and Jordan Walsh: Matching scoring totals
Baylor Scheierman and Jordan Walsh each scored 16 points. Their matching totals placed both players among Boston’s leading contributors.
Having multiple players reach 16 points can help distribute offensive responsibility. It also makes the final score less dependent on the performance of a single scorer.
Both players were listed among Boston’s starters. Nevertheless, the supplied information does not include their complete shooting lines or minutes, so their relative efficiency cannot be compared with Pritchard’s or Garza’s.
Hugo Gonzalez: Scoring and playmaking
Hugo Gonzalez finished with 15 points and recorded five assists in the supplied data.
Those two categories provide a broader view of his contribution than scoring alone. Points measure direct scoring output, while assists identify passes credited with setting up a teammate’s made basket under the official statistical rules.
Five assists are a meaningful recorded playmaking contribution. However, the number does not reveal how many potential assists went unconverted or how much of Boston’s overall offense ran through Gonzalez.
His 15 points and five assists make him one of the more notable players in the available Boston summary.
Mike Conley and Dillon Mitchell: Additional playmaking figures
Mike Conley recorded four assists, while Dillon Mitchell also recorded four. These figures add to the available picture of Boston’s ball movement.
Conley was listed among Boston’s starters, while Dillon Mitchell appeared in the supplied bench-player list. The four-assist totals confirm contributions from both players, although their complete scoring, turnover, and minutes data is not provided.
Boston finished with 29 assists as a team. Gonzalez’s five assists and the four each credited to Conley and Dillon Mitchell account for 13 of that total, leaving the rest distributed among other players.
This distribution reinforces the value of examining the team totals alongside the individual leaders.
Boston’s collective offensive contribution
Boston’s scoring leaders combined for the following total:
- Luka Garza: 22 points
- Payton Pritchard: 17 points
- Baylor Scheierman: 16 points
- Jordan Walsh: 16 points
- Hugo Gonzalez: 15 points
Together, these five players scored 86 points. That is approximately 69.4% of Boston’s 124-point total.
The calculation shows that the five leading scorers accounted for most of Boston’s production, while the remaining players collectively contributed 38 points. This is a useful way to understand the distribution of scoring without assuming that the team relied on a single player.
The percentage is based on the supplied scoring totals and the final team score. It does not measure offensive efficiency, because the individual field-goal attempts and minutes for all five players are not included.
Cleveland Cavaliers Player Stats and Individual Performances
Cleveland’s leading scorer in the supplied data was Jaylon Tyson, with 14 points. Tristan Enaruna followed with 13, while Donovan Mitchell and Nae’Qwan Tomlin each scored 11.
The Cavaliers’ leading individual totals were lower than Boston’s, but that does not mean Cleveland lacked offensive efficiency. The team shot 48% from the field, seven percentage points higher than Boston’s reported 41%.
This contrast is one of the most informative elements of the matchup. Cleveland converted a greater percentage of its attempts, but Boston recorded substantially more total rebounds and offensive rebounds.
Cleveland’s leading scorers
| Player | Points | Additional recorded information |
| Jaylon Tyson | 14 | Cleveland’s leading scorer |
| Tristan Enaruna | 13 | Second-highest listed scorer |
| Donovan Mitchell | 11 | Listed among Cleveland’s starters |
| Nae’Qwan Tomlin | 11 | Also recorded double figures |
These four players combined for 49 points. Cleveland scored 113 points in total, meaning the rest of the team’s scoring output amounted to 64 points.
That distribution is not evidence that the Cavaliers played poorly. Instead, it illustrates that their scoring was spread beyond the four players identified in the supplied summary.
Jaylon Tyson: Cleveland’s leading scorer
Jaylon Tyson led Cleveland with 14 points. His total placed him at the top of the Cavaliers’ supplied individual scoring list.
Leading a team in scoring does not necessarily mean that a player had the most efficient performance, the greatest defensive impact, or the largest role in creating offense. Those judgments require additional statistics, such as shot attempts, shooting percentages, turnovers, rebounds, assists, and playing time.
The available numbers establish Tyson’s scoring contribution but do not provide enough information to rank his overall performance against every other Cleveland player.
Tristan Enaruna: A close second in scoring
Tristan Enaruna recorded 13 points, only one fewer than Tyson.
The narrow gap between their totals indicates that Cleveland’s leading scorer did not separate himself dramatically from the next player in the supplied summary. Tyson and Enaruna together scored 27 points, approximately 23.9% of Cleveland’s total.
This is a useful distinction for readers comparing individual production. Cleveland’s scoring was not concentrated exclusively in its leading player, and several additional players contributed to the final score.
Donovan Mitchell: Eleven points in the supplied summary
Donovan Mitchell scored 11 points, according to the supplied data. His total placed him among Cleveland’s four identified leading scorers.
That figure should be interpreted carefully. It is not sufficient to assess Mitchell’s complete offensive performance or determine whether he played his usual role throughout the preseason contest. The provided information does not include his individual shooting line, minutes, or full defensive statistics.
The result is best understood as a confirmed scoring figure within the available box-score summary, rather than a complete evaluation of his game.
Nae’Qwan Tomlin: Another double-digit scorer
Nae’Qwan Tomlin also recorded 11 points. His scoring total matched Mitchell’s and helped give Cleveland another contributor in double figures.
When evaluating a team’s offensive distribution, these secondary scoring totals can be important. Multiple contributors can keep an offense productive even when the leading scorer has a relatively modest total.
However, the box-score information provided here does not establish which players scored during the decisive fourth quarter. It would be speculative to credit any one of Cleveland’s leading scorers with the late-game decline without period-specific player statistics.
Tyrese Proctor: Cleveland’s leading playmaker
Tyrese Proctor recorded 10 assists, the highest individual assist total identified for either team in the supplied data.
That is an important statistical highlight. Proctor’s 10 assists represent a substantial share of Cleveland’s 32 team assists and indicate that he was credited with creating numerous scoring opportunities for teammates.
The Cavaliers recorded three more assists than Boston, yet they lost by 11 points. This demonstrates why assists should not be viewed in isolation. An assist records a qualifying pass leading directly to a made basket, but it does not reveal the value of every possession or account for missed shots, offensive rebounds, turnovers, or defensive stops.
Proctor’s assist total is a standout individual figure, even though Cleveland did not secure the victory.
Mario Hezonja: Cleveland’s leading rebounder in the supplied data
Mario Hezonja recorded five rebounds, the highest individual rebound total listed for Cleveland.
That figure is notable because Cleveland finished with 39 total rebounds. The team recorded 33 defensive rebounds and six offensive rebounds.
The supplied individual information does not break Hezonja’s five rebounds into offensive and defensive categories. It also does not identify which other players collected the remaining rebounds. Therefore, his contribution can be described accurately as Cleveland’s highest listed individual rebound total, but not as a complete explanation of the team’s rebounding performance.
Cleveland’s offensive distribution
The four identified leading scorers combined for 49 points, while the team’s total was 113. The remaining 64 points came from other scoring contributions.
This distribution helps explain why a team can have a relatively modest individual scoring leader while still reaching a high overall total. Cleveland also recorded 32 assists, suggesting that its scoring output included substantial contributions beyond the players listed at the top of the scoring table.
Without complete individual box-score lines, however, it is not possible to determine precisely how many Cleveland players scored, which lineups were most effective, or how scoring changed when particular players entered or left the court.
Celtics vs Cavaliers Team Stats Comparison
The team statistics explain the outcome more clearly than the final score alone. Boston had fewer made field goals and a lower shooting percentage, but the Celtics created a substantial rebounding advantage. Cleveland’s superior shooting percentage, assist total, and steal total did not compensate for the difference in second-chance opportunities.
| Statistical category | Boston Celtics | Cleveland Cavaliers |
| Points | 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 |
Source: supplied ESPN box-score data. Percentages are reported as provided and rounded to whole numbers.
Field-goal percentage: Cleveland had the advantage
Cleveland made 44 of 92 field-goal attempts, while Boston converted 41 of 99.
Using the listed attempts and makes, Cleveland’s field-goal percentage was approximately 47.8%, while Boston’s was approximately 41.4%. Those figures align with the rounded percentages in the supplied data.
The Cavaliers’ advantage was meaningful because they made more shots despite taking seven fewer attempts. However, field-goal percentage does not include free throws, and it does not measure the additional possessions created by offensive rebounds.
Boston’s ability to produce more scoring opportunities helped offset its lower conversion rate.
Three-point shooting: Boston made more from long range
Boston made 17 three-pointers from 47 attempts, compared with Cleveland’s 12 from 37 attempts.
The Celtics therefore made five more three-pointers. Using the supplied totals, Boston’s three-point percentage was approximately 36.2%, while Cleveland’s was approximately 32.4%.
The extra five made three-pointers accounted for 15 points of Boston’s scoring total. That difference was important in a game decided by 11 points.
Still, three-point totals alone do not establish how the entire game was won. Boston’s advantage in offensive rebounds, free-throw attempts, and total scoring opportunities also deserves attention.
Free throws: Cleveland was more accurate, but Boston attempted more
Cleveland made 13 of 16 free throws, an approximately 81.3% success rate. Boston made 25 of 35, or approximately 71.4%.
The Cavaliers were more accurate at the line. However, Boston attempted 19 more free throws and made 12 more.
Those additional made free throws equaled more than the final 11-point margin. This does not mean that free throws alone decided the game, because the teams’ scoring and possession patterns interacted throughout the contest. It does show that Boston’s greater volume at the line was an important part of the final statistical picture.
The figures also illustrate why free-throw percentage and free-throw production are different measures. A team can be more accurate but score fewer points from the line because it attempts fewer shots.
Rebounding: Boston’s clearest statistical advantage
Boston collected 56 rebounds, while Cleveland recorded 39. The difference was 17 rebounds.
The gap becomes even more revealing when offensive rebounds are isolated. Boston collected 21 offensive rebounds, compared with Cleveland’s six. That created a 15-rebound advantage on the offensive glass alone.
Offensive rebounds can extend a possession after a missed shot. They give an offense another chance to score without requiring the team to regain possession through a defensive stop or an opponent’s turnover.
Boston’s 21 offensive rebounds were therefore a major feature of the game. They help explain how the Celtics could attempt 99 field goals compared with Cleveland’s 92, despite making fewer shots.
The figures do not tell us exactly how many points Boston scored following offensive rebounds. That would require play-by-play or possession-level data. Nevertheless, the 15-rebound difference is large enough to stand out as one of the strongest statistical distinctions in the matchup.
Assists: Cleveland moved the ball more frequently
Cleveland recorded 32 assists, three more than Boston’s 29.
This indicates that the Cavaliers had the higher recorded assist total, but it does not necessarily mean they created better shots overall. Assists depend on teammates making the shots that follow qualifying passes. They do not count every useful pass or measure every form of offensive creation.
Boston’s 29 assists also show that the Celtics generated considerable assisted scoring despite winning through a combination of shooting, free throws, and rebounding.
The individual totals offer additional context: Tyrese Proctor recorded 10 assists for Cleveland, while Hugo Gonzalez led Boston’s supplied individual assist figures with five.
Turnovers: Cleveland protected possession more effectively
Boston committed 16 turnovers, compared with Cleveland’s 11.
That five-turnover difference favored Cleveland. Turnovers can end an offensive possession without a shot, making them an important part of possession management.
However, a lower turnover total does not guarantee a win. A team can protect the ball more effectively but still lose if it gives up offensive rebounds, makes fewer three-pointers, or attempts substantially fewer free throws.
That pattern is consistent with this box score. Cleveland committed fewer turnovers but gave Boston a large advantage in total and offensive rebounds.
The available statistics do not establish how many points either team scored directly after turnovers. Any claim about the exact scoring cost of Boston’s turnovers would require additional data.
Steals and blocks: Cleveland led in steals, Boston in blocks
Cleveland recorded 10 steals, four more than Boston’s six. Boston recorded eight blocks, two more than Cleveland’s six.
These categories describe different defensive actions. A steal occurs when a defender gains possession from the opponent, while a block records a defender stopping or deflecting a shot under the official scoring rules.
Cleveland’s higher steal total suggests that the Cavaliers recorded more defensive takeaways. Boston’s higher block total indicates that the Celtics had more recorded shot blocks.
Neither statistic captures every aspect of defense. Defensive positioning, communication, contested shots, and forced misses can all matter without appearing directly in the steals or blocks columns.
Personal fouls: Cleveland was called for more
Cleveland recorded 25 personal fouls, compared with Boston’s 19.
The six-foul difference is worth noting alongside the free-throw totals. Boston attempted 35 free throws, while Cleveland attempted 16.
However, personal fouls and free-throw attempts do not correspond one-to-one. The type of foul, whether a shot was attempted, the team’s foul situation, and the applicable rules all influence whether free throws are awarded.
The box score supports the conclusion that Boston attempted considerably more free throws. It does not, by itself, establish how many attempts resulted from a specific type of foul or which individual player caused the difference.
Five Key Takeaways From the Matchup
1. Boston won the possession battle
The Celtics’ 56 rebounds compared with Cleveland’s 39 were a defining difference. Boston’s 21 offensive rebounds created repeated opportunities to recover the ball after missed shots.
This is the strongest statistical explanation for how Boston overcame its lower field-goal percentage. Shooting efficiency matters, but so does the number of opportunities a team generates.
2. Cleveland’s shooting advantage did not translate into victory
The Cavaliers shot approximately 48% from the field, while Boston shot approximately 41%. Cleveland also made three more field goals.
Yet Boston scored 11 more points. The Celtics made five additional three-pointers and 12 additional free throws, illustrating how different scoring methods can offset an opponent’s advantage in field-goal accuracy.
3. Boston had more scoring depth among its listed leaders
Five Boston players scored between 15 and 22 points. Cleveland’s four identified leading scorers recorded between 11 and 14 points.
This comparison applies only to the individual totals supplied here. It does not establish that Boston’s entire rotation was more productive, but it does highlight the higher scoring totals of the Celtics’ leading contributors.
4. Cleveland’s playmaking was a positive sign in the box score
The Cavaliers recorded 32 assists, three more than Boston. Tyrese Proctor’s 10 assists were particularly notable.
Despite that playmaking output, Cleveland lost. This reinforces the point that successful passing is only one component of offense. Shot conversion, offensive rebounds, turnovers, and free throws also affect the final result.
5. The fourth quarter determined the final margin
Boston led by nine at halftime, saw that advantage shrink to three after the third quarter, and then outscored Cleveland by eight in the fourth.
The final period was therefore the decisive scoring stretch. Boston’s 25-17 advantage in that quarter established the final 11-point margin.
The supplied data does not identify the exact lineup combinations or individual plays responsible for the late-game difference, so a more detailed tactical explanation would require the play-by-play record.
What the Preseason Result Means for Evaluating Players
Preseason games provide a different kind of evidence from regular-season contests. They can reveal individual production, team-level statistical patterns, and how a particular game unfolded. They are less suitable for making firm predictions about a full season.
Several factors should guide any evaluation of the numbers from this matchup.
Separate scoring volume from efficiency
A player who scores 20 points may have a strong performance, but the scoring total alone does not show how many attempts were needed.
To evaluate efficiency, readers should look for field goals made and attempted, three-point shooting, free throws, turnovers, and minutes played. Where available, advanced measures can provide further context.
For this game, Garza’s 22 points are confirmed, but his individual shooting attempts are not included in the supplied summary. His personal field-goal percentage therefore cannot be calculated from the information presented here.
Examine rebounding in context
Boston’s offensive rebounding advantage was unusually prominent in the team comparison. It is reasonable to identify this as a key factor in the result.
However, evaluating individual rebounders requires more detailed information. Rebound totals should ideally be considered alongside minutes, available rebounding opportunities, defensive assignments, and the split between offensive and defensive boards.
A player with five rebounds in limited minutes may have played a different role from a player with five rebounds over a full game. Without minutes, those performances cannot be compared fairly.
Avoid treating a single game as a season-long trend
A preseason box score captures one contest under particular conditions. It does not establish whether a player will sustain the same scoring average or whether a team will repeat the same rebounding advantage.
For a broader assessment, compare several games and consider the quality of opposition, rotation patterns, player availability, and role changes. Regular-season evidence will generally be more useful for evaluating performance under competitive conditions.
Distinguish confirmed statistics from interpretation
The final score, team totals, quarter scores, and listed individual leaders are factual inputs in this analysis. Statements about what those numbers suggest are interpretations.
For example, Boston’s offensive rebounding advantage supports the interpretation that the Celtics created more second-chance opportunities. It does not establish the exact number of points scored from those opportunities.
Keeping that distinction clear helps readers understand what the box score proves and what would require further evidence.
Source and Data Limitations
The supplied ESPN data identifies the game as a preseason contest played on October 9, 2026, with Boston winning 124-113. The reported team statistics and named individual leaders form the basis of this article.
Readers who want to examine the original record can consult the ESPN box score for Celtics vs Cavaliers.
A few limitations are important:
- The individual player information provided is incomplete. Not every listed player has a scoring, rebounding, or assist total available in the supplied summary.
- The bench list includes players who may have been marked as did not play, or DNP. Being listed on the roster does not establish that a player appeared in the game.
- Individual shooting attempts, minutes played, plus/minus values, and full player-by-player defensive statistics are not supplied for every player.
- The team totals should not be used to infer individual performance figures that are missing from the record.
- Preseason results should be interpreted within their context rather than treated as definitive evidence of regular-season performance.
These qualifications do not prevent a useful analysis. They establish the limits of what can be responsibly concluded from the available figures.
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 Boston’s leading scorer against Cleveland?
Luka Garza led Boston with 22 points. He also recorded 10 rebounds, giving him a double-double in the supplied statistics.
3. Who led the Cavaliers in scoring?
Jaylon Tyson was Cleveland’s leading scorer with 14 points. Tristan Enaruna scored 13, while Donovan Mitchell and Nae’Qwan Tomlin each recorded 11 points.
4. Which team had more rebounds?
Boston collected 56 rebounds, compared with Cleveland’s 39. The Celtics also had a substantial advantage in offensive rebounds, collecting 21 compared with Cleveland’s six.
5. Which player recorded the most assists?
Tyrese Proctor recorded 10 assists for Cleveland, the highest individual assist total identified in the supplied data. Boston recorded 29 assists as a team, while Cleveland finished with 32.
6. Why did Boston win despite shooting a lower field-goal percentage?
Boston shot 41% from the field, compared with Cleveland’s 48%, but the Celtics made more three-pointers, attempted more free throws, and collected 17 additional rebounds. Boston’s 21 offensive rebounds were particularly important to the statistical comparison. The available figures do not establish the exact points generated by each factor.
Conclusion
The October 9, 2026, preseason matchup between Boston and Cleveland demonstrated how different statistical strengths can shape a basketball result. Boston won 124-113, supported by 56 total rebounds, 21 offensive rebounds, 17 made three-pointers, and 25 made free throws.
Luka Garza led the Celtics with 22 points and 10 rebounds, while Payton Pritchard, Baylor Scheierman, Jordan Walsh, and Hugo Gonzalez also delivered double-digit scoring totals. For Cleveland, Jaylon Tyson led with 14 points, and Tyrese Proctor’s 10 assists stood out as the leading individual playmaking figure in the supplied data.
The Cavaliers performed better in field-goal percentage, total assists, and steals. However, Boston’s rebounding advantage and higher scoring totals from the three-point line and free-throw line helped overcome those differences. The quarter scores also show that Cleveland made a strong third-quarter response before Boston took control of the final period.
Ultimately, the celtics vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats provide a useful example of why basketball analysis requires more than a glance at shooting percentage or the leading scorer. Rebounding, shot volume, free throws, turnovers, and the timing of scoring runs all contribute to the final outcome. Since this was a preseason game, the figures are best used to understand this specific contest rather than to make definitive claims about either team’s regular-season prospects.
