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 closely contested game that Cleveland ultimately controlled with better shooting efficiency and a strong fourth quarter. The Cavaliers defeated the Warriors 118 to 111 at Chase Center in San Francisco, improving to 48 and 29 on the season while Golden State moved to 36 and 41.
Although the Warriors matched Cleveland on total rebounds with 46 apiece and forced seven steals compared with Cleveland’s seven, the Cavaliers made a major difference from three point range. Cleveland converted 16 of 36 three point attempts for 44 percent, while Golden State made only 12 of 44 for 27 percent. That 17 percentage point gap in three point accuracy became one of the defining statistical differences in the contest.
Donovan Mitchell led Cleveland with 25 points, while Max Strus added 24 and James Harden scored 19. Jarrett Allen contributed 16 points and 13 rebounds, giving the Cavaliers a dependable interior presence. On Golden State’s side, Gui Santos and Brandin Podziemski each scored 25 points, while Kristaps Porzingis added 16.
The game was competitive throughout. Golden State won the third quarter 33 to 30, but Cleveland answered with a 34 point fourth quarter. That final period allowed the Cavaliers to protect their lead and secure the seven point road victory.
Cleveland Cavaliers vs Golden State Warriors Match Player Stats
The most useful way to understand this matchup is to look beyond the final score. Cleveland scored 118 points on 82 field goal attempts, while Golden State scored 111 points on 94 attempts. The Cavaliers therefore produced considerably more offense with fewer shots.
That difference becomes even clearer when three point shooting is included.
| Team | FG | 3PT | FT | Rebounds | Assists | Turnovers |
| Cavaliers | 42/82, 51% | 16/36, 44% | 18/26, 69% | 46 | 28 | 15 |
| Warriors | 41/94, 44% | 12/44, 27% | 17/20, 85% | 46 | 25 | 12 |
Cleveland shot 51 percent from the field compared with Golden State’s 44 percent. The Cavaliers also produced 28 assists, three more than the Warriors.
Golden State had some statistical advantages. The Warriors committed only 12 turnovers compared with Cleveland’s 15 and recorded 11 steals compared with seven. They also shot 85 percent at the free throw line.
Those numbers show why the final margin was only seven points. Golden State generated enough positive events to remain within striking distance, but Cleveland was more efficient with its shooting opportunities.
Game Summary and Final Score
The Cavaliers won 118 to 111, but the game did not follow a simple wire to wire pattern.
Cleveland opened with a 30 point first quarter, while Golden State scored 26. The Cavaliers extended their advantage in the second quarter, adding 24 points while the Warriors managed 21.
At halftime, Cleveland had established a seven point advantage.
Golden State responded in the third quarter. The Warriors scored 33 points against Cleveland’s 30, trimming the difference by three points and setting up a competitive final period.
The fourth quarter became decisive.
Cleveland scored 34 points, its highest scoring quarter of the game. Golden State scored 31, which was enough to keep the game competitive but not enough to complete the comeback.
Quarter by Quarter Breakdown
| Quarter | Cavaliers | Warriors |
| 1st | 30 | 26 |
| 2nd | 24 | 21 |
| 3rd | 30 | 33 |
| 4th | 34 | 31 |
| Total | 118 | 111 |
The quarter pattern is important because it shows that Cleveland did not rely on one explosive stretch alone. The Cavaliers built an early advantage, absorbed Golden State’s third quarter push, and then finished strongly.
Cleveland’s Leading Scorers
Donovan Mitchell was Cleveland’s leading scorer with 25 points.
His scoring output was matched by Golden State’s two leading scorers, Gui Santos and Brandin Podziemski, but Mitchell’s contribution came within a more balanced Cleveland scoring structure.
Max Strus was particularly important with 24 points. His performance also produced the best plus/minus figure in the game among the reported leaders, finishing at +17.
James Harden added 19 points, while Jarrett Allen scored 16 and Evan Mobley contributed 12.
Cavaliers Scoring Leaders
| Player | Points |
| Donovan Mitchell | 25 |
| Max Strus | 24 |
| James Harden | 19 |
| Jarrett Allen | 16 |
| Evan Mobley | 12 |
This distribution is one reason Cleveland was able to maintain offensive pressure. The Cavaliers were not dependent on one scorer carrying the entire offense.
Mitchell provided the highest individual scoring total, but Strus was nearly as productive. Harden supplied another reliable scoring option, while Allen and Mobley contributed enough offense to prevent Golden State from focusing exclusively on Cleveland’s perimeter threats.
Donovan Mitchell’s 25 Point Performance
Mitchell’s 25 points led all Cleveland players and tied him with the Warriors’ top individual scorers for the game-high mark.
The significance of Mitchell’s performance is not simply the number of points. His scoring came as part of a team that shot 51 percent overall and 44 percent from three point range.
That context matters when evaluating an individual box score.
A 25 point performance can have a very different impact depending on the team’s overall offensive efficiency. In this game, Cleveland combined Mitchell’s scoring with strong production from Strus, Harden and Allen.
That balance made it more difficult for Golden State to rely on defensive attention toward one player.
Max Strus and His +17 Impact
Max Strus finished with 24 points and the Cavaliers’ best reported plus/minus at +17.
Plus/minus should not be treated as a complete measure of an individual player’s performance because it reflects what happens while the player is on the court. Still, the +17 figure provides useful context alongside his 24 points.
Strus was therefore involved in one of the strongest overall stretches of Cleveland’s game.
His scoring also mattered because the Cavaliers were highly effective from three point range. Cleveland made 16 three pointers overall, and Strus was part of an offense that consistently created perimeter scoring opportunities.
For readers analyzing player stats, Strus is a good example of why the leading scorer is not always the only player worth studying.
James Harden’s All Around Contribution
James Harden scored 19 points and recorded five assists.
That combination highlights a different form of offensive value. Harden was not Cleveland’s highest scorer, but his passing contribution helped the Cavaliers finish with 28 team assists.
Five assists from one player represented a meaningful share of Cleveland’s total playmaking production.
Harden’s presence also gave Cleveland another experienced ball handler capable of creating scoring opportunities for teammates. When analyzing the matchup, this is important because the Cavaliers’ offensive success was not based solely on individual shot making.
The 28 team assists suggest a broader offensive distribution.
Jarrett Allen Controls the Glass
Jarrett Allen led Cleveland with 13 rebounds and added 16 points.
His 13 rebounds were especially important because Golden State finished with the same total number of team rebounds as Cleveland, 46.
That means Cleveland’s overall rebounding advantage did not exist at the team level. Instead, Allen stood out as the primary individual rebounder for the Cavaliers.
A 13 rebound performance also complemented his scoring. With 16 points and 13 rebounds, Allen produced a double double while providing Cleveland with interior production.
His contribution was particularly useful in a game where both teams had enough perimeter scoring to create offensive swings.
Evan Mobley’s Two Way Statistical Contribution
Evan Mobley scored 12 points and recorded five assists.
The five assists are notable because Mobley was not listed among Cleveland’s top scorers, yet he still contributed directly to the team’s passing output.
His production therefore fits into the broader pattern of Cleveland receiving contributions from several positions.
The Cavaliers finished with 28 assists, 46 rebounds and seven steals. Even without a dominant individual defensive block total, the team’s overall statistical profile showed contributions across several categories.
Golden State’s Leading Scorers
Golden State received 25 points each from Gui Santos and Brandin Podziemski.
Their scoring output kept the Warriors competitive, especially during the third quarter when Golden State scored 33 points.
Kristaps Porzingis added 16 points, while LJ Cryer and Pat Spencer each scored 12. Gary Payton II and Draymond Green each contributed eight points.
Warriors Scoring Leaders
| Player | Points |
| Gui Santos | 25 |
| Brandin Podziemski | 25 |
| Kristaps Porzingis | 16 |
| LJ Cryer | 12 |
| Pat Spencer | 12 |
| Gary Payton II | 8 |
| Draymond Green | 8 |
The scoring distribution shows that Golden State had two players reach 25 points, but the team still finished seven points behind Cleveland.
This is another example of why individual scoring totals must be evaluated within the full team box score.
Gui Santos and Brandin Podziemski Reach 25 Points
Santos and Podziemski shared the Warriors’ scoring lead with 25 points apiece.
Their combined 50 points represented nearly half of Golden State’s 111 total points.
That level of scoring production helped Golden State stay close despite its lower overall shooting percentage.
Gui Santos also recorded four assists, while Podziemski finished with four assists. Their contributions were therefore not limited to scoring.
For Golden State, having two players produce 25 points was one of the strongest positive aspects of the offensive performance.
Draymond Green’s Nine Assists
Draymond Green led all players in the supplied assist data with nine assists.
He also finished with the Warriors’ best reported plus/minus at +6.
Green’s nine assists were particularly significant because Golden State finished with 25 team assists. His passing accounted for a substantial portion of the Warriors’ total playmaking.
Although Green scored only eight points, the assist total shows why points alone do not explain his statistical role.
His contribution was primarily connected to creating opportunities for teammates and facilitating Golden State’s offense.
Gary Payton II’s Rebounding Performance
Gary Payton II led the Warriors with 12 rebounds.
That was just one rebound fewer than Jarrett Allen’s team-leading total for Cleveland.
Payton II also scored eight points. His 12 rebounds were therefore an important part of Golden State’s overall effort on the glass.
The Warriors finished with 46 total rebounds, exactly matching Cleveland.
This statistical tie is significant because it removes rebounding as an obvious explanation for Cleveland’s victory. The deciding differences were more closely connected to shooting efficiency, three point production, assists and the timing of scoring runs.
Shooting Efficiency Was the Biggest Difference
The clearest statistical separation between the teams came from shooting.
Cleveland made 42 of 82 field goal attempts, which was listed at 51 percent.
Golden State made 41 of 94 attempts, listed at 44 percent.
The Warriors actually attempted 12 more field goals than Cleveland but made only one fewer field goal overall.
That is a striking statistic.
Cleveland’s 42 made field goals came from 82 attempts, while Golden State needed 94 attempts to make 41 baskets.
Three Point Shooting
The three point gap was even more pronounced.
Cleveland:
- 16 made three pointers
- 36 attempts
- 44 percent
Golden State:
- 12 made three pointers
- 44 attempts
- 27 percent
Cleveland therefore made four more three pointers while attempting eight fewer.
That combination of greater accuracy and fewer attempts was a major factor in the final result.
The Warriors had plenty of opportunities from beyond the arc, but converting only 27 percent of those attempts limited the scoring value of their perimeter volume.
Free Throw Shooting Favored Golden State
One category where Golden State clearly performed better was free throw accuracy.
The Warriors made 17 of 20 free throws for 85 percent.
Cleveland made 18 of 26 for 69 percent.
Golden State’s advantage at the free throw line demonstrates that the Warriors were not inefficient in every shooting category.
In fact, the Warriors were considerably more accurate from the line.
However, the free throw advantage did not offset Cleveland’s superiority in field goal and three point shooting.
This is an important lesson when reading basketball statistics. A team can win one shooting category decisively and still lose the overall efficiency battle.
Turnovers and Ball Security
Golden State committed 12 turnovers compared with Cleveland’s 15.
That gave the Warriors a three turnover advantage.
Turnovers were therefore one area where Golden State had a measurable statistical benefit.
The Warriors also recorded 11 steals compared with Cleveland’s seven.
Those numbers indicate that Golden State generated more defensive disruption in the form of steals while also protecting the ball somewhat better.
Yet the Warriors could not translate that advantage into a victory.
This reinforces the importance of examining multiple categories rather than assuming that the team with fewer turnovers automatically controlled the game.
Assists Show Cleveland’s Offensive Balance
Cleveland recorded 28 assists compared with Golden State’s 25.
The three assist difference was not enormous, but it supported the broader picture of efficient team offense.
The Cavaliers’ leading assist contributors included Dennis Schroder with six, Evan Mobley with five and James Harden with five.
Golden State was led by Draymond Green with nine assists, followed by Gui Santos and Brandin Podziemski with four each.
Assist Leaders
| Team | Player | Assists |
| Cavaliers | Dennis Schroder | 6 |
| Cavaliers | Evan Mobley | 5 |
| Cavaliers | James Harden | 5 |
| Warriors | Draymond Green | 9 |
| Warriors | Gui Santos | 4 |
| Warriors | Brandin Podziemski | 4 |
The distribution is interesting.
Golden State had the single highest assist total from an individual player through Green, but Cleveland had three players among its leading assist contributors.
That suggests two different approaches to offensive creation within the available box score data.
Rebounding Was Even
Both teams finished with 46 rebounds.
This was one of the most balanced statistical categories in the game.
Cleveland’s Jarrett Allen led all Cavaliers rebounders with 13, while Gary Payton II led Golden State with 12.
The near-identical individual totals of the two leading rebounders reflect how closely contested the battle on the glass was.
Because the overall rebound totals were identical, Cleveland’s victory cannot reasonably be explained by a simple rebounding advantage.
Instead, shooting efficiency and offensive execution become more important when interpreting the result.
Defensive Statistics
Golden State recorded more steals and blocks.
The Warriors had 11 steals and five blocks.
Cleveland recorded seven steals and one block.
Those figures indicate that Golden State generated more defensive activity in several traditional box score categories.
However, defensive statistics such as steals and blocks should be interpreted alongside the final score and shooting efficiency.
The Warriors’ five blocks did not prevent Cleveland from shooting 51 percent from the field.
Likewise, 11 steals did not fully compensate for the Warriors’ 27 percent three point shooting.
This is why a complete player stats analysis should never focus on only one defensive category.
Why Cleveland Won the Game
The statistical explanation for Cleveland’s victory can be summarized through efficiency and late-game execution.
First, Cleveland shot 51 percent overall compared with Golden State’s 44 percent.
Second, Cleveland made 16 three pointers at a 44 percent rate, while Golden State made 12 at 27 percent.
Third, Cleveland scored 34 points in the fourth quarter, allowing the Cavaliers to maintain control after Golden State had reduced the deficit during the third.
Fourth, the Cavaliers had five players in double figures from the supplied scoring data.
Golden State also had several productive scorers, but the Warriors needed 94 field goal attempts to produce 111 points.
Cleveland produced 118 points with 82 field goal attempts.
That difference in offensive efficiency is arguably the central statistical theme of the game.
Why the Warriors Stayed Competitive
Despite the loss, Golden State had several statistical strengths.
The Warriors committed only 12 turnovers.
They recorded 11 steals.
They blocked five shots.
They shot 85 percent from the free throw line.
They also received 25 points each from Santos and Podziemski.
The third quarter was another positive sign. Golden State scored 33 points and outscored Cleveland by three.
Those numbers explain why the final score remained competitive rather than becoming a runaway result.
The problem was that Golden State could not sustain the third quarter momentum into the final period.
Cleveland’s 34 points in the fourth quarter proved enough to secure the seven point win.
Previous Matchup and Season Series
The supplied data lists the previous meeting as a 99 to 94 Warriors victory on December 7, 2025.
That result provides useful context for the April matchup.
The season series was tied 1 to 1 after the April 3 game.
The two contests also show a substantial difference in scoring.
The December meeting ended with only 193 combined points, while the April game produced 229 combined points.
That contrast illustrates how two games between the same teams can develop differently.
A matchup history is therefore useful, but it should not replace analysis of the actual game being studied.
For readers researching the series, the April 3 contest is especially relevant because it featured much higher offensive production and a much larger role for three point shooting.
What the Box Score Says About Team Style
The available statistics suggest two contrasting offensive profiles.
Cleveland combined high overall field goal efficiency with strong three point accuracy.
Golden State attempted more field goals and more three pointers but converted them at lower rates.
Cleveland also finished with more assists.
Golden State, on the other hand, showed stronger defensive activity in the steal and block categories and protected the ball more effectively.
The game therefore was not simply a case of one team dominating every category.
Instead, each side displayed strengths.
Cleveland’s strengths were most closely associated with shooting efficiency and offensive balance.
Golden State’s strengths were most visible in defensive activity, free throw accuracy, ball security and the third quarter response.
Key Player Matchups to Study
When reviewing the game from a player perspective, several individual comparisons stand out.
Donovan Mitchell vs Golden State’s Perimeter Defense
Mitchell led Cleveland with 25 points. His scoring was part of an offense that shot 51 percent overall.
The relevant question for future analysis is not simply how many points Mitchell scored, but how efficiently Cleveland was able to create scoring opportunities around him.
Jarrett Allen vs Golden State’s Frontcourt
Allen’s 16 points and 13 rebounds gave Cleveland an interior production source.
Golden State’s five blocks show that the Warriors were active around the rim, but Allen still produced a double double.
Draymond Green as a Playmaker
Green’s nine assists were the highest individual assist total in the supplied data.
His eight points may look modest compared with the scoring leaders, but the nine assists show that his primary statistical influence came through creating offense.
Strus and the Plus/Minus Differential
Strus finished with a +17 plus/minus, the highest reported mark for Cleveland.
Green’s +6 was the highest reported figure for Golden State.
The difference between those numbers provides another statistical angle for readers examining which lineups were productive during the game.
Plus/minus should still be treated as supporting evidence rather than a standalone performance rating.
A Practical Method for Reading Match Player Stats
Readers searching for a complete player statistics breakdown can get more value from a box score by following a consistent process.
First, check the final score and quarter-by-quarter results.
Second, identify the leading scorers on both teams.
Third, examine shooting percentages rather than points alone.
Fourth, compare three point volume and accuracy.
Fifth, review rebounds and assists to understand possession control and offensive creation.
Sixth, examine turnovers, steals and blocks.
Finally, compare the timing of scoring runs.
This approach prevents one eye-catching statistic from dominating the entire interpretation.
For example, Golden State’s 11 steals look impressive on their own. But Cleveland still scored 118 points.
Likewise, Golden State’s 85 percent free throw shooting was excellent, but Cleveland’s 44 percent three point shooting created a much larger offensive advantage.
Full Statistical Snapshot
| Category | Cleveland | Golden State |
| Final Score | 118 | 111 |
| FG | 42/82 | 41/94 |
| FG Percentage | 51% | 44% |
| 3PT | 16/36 | 12/44 |
| 3PT Percentage | 44% | 27% |
| FT | 18/26 | 17/20 |
| FT Percentage | 69% | 85% |
| Rebounds | 46 | 46 |
| Assists | 28 | 25 |
| Turnovers | 15 | 12 |
| Steals | 7 | 11 |
| Blocks | 1 | 5 |
This table captures the central statistical story.
The teams were tied in rebounds, while Golden State had advantages in turnovers, steals, blocks and free throw percentage.
Cleveland’s strongest advantages came from field goal percentage, three point shooting and total assists.
Those advantages were enough to overcome the Warriors’ defensive activity and better ball security.
Attendance, Venue and Game Details
The game was played at Chase Center in San Francisco, California.
Attendance was listed at 18,064.
The referees were Josh Tiven, J.T. Orr and Nate Green.
The supplied game identifier was 401810972.
For viewers, the listed broadcast outlets were NBC Sports BA and FanDuel SN OH +1.
These details can be useful for readers who are building a historical game record or comparing multiple meetings between the Cavaliers and Warriors.
How to Use These Statistics for Historical Analysis
Historical player statistics become more useful when they are placed into context.
For this game, several questions are worth asking.
How did Cleveland score 118 points despite attempting fewer field goals?
Why did Golden State remain close despite shooting only 27 percent from three point range?
Which individual players contributed outside of scoring?
The supplied data provides clear answers.
Cleveland’s efficiency explains its scoring output. The Cavaliers made 42 field goals on 82 attempts and 16 three pointers on 36 attempts.
Golden State remained competitive because of its defensive events, free throw accuracy, lower turnover count and strong individual scoring from Santos and Podziemski.
The game also demonstrates that team statistics can sometimes tell a more complete story than the final score alone.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score between the Cavaliers and Warriors?
The Cleveland Cavaliers defeated the Golden State Warriors 118 to 111 on April 3, 2026, at Chase Center in San Francisco.
Who led the Cavaliers in scoring?
Donovan Mitchell led Cleveland with 25 points. Max Strus followed with 24 points, while James Harden scored 19.
Who led the Warriors in scoring?
Gui Santos and Brandin Podziemski shared the Warriors’ scoring lead with 25 points each.
Who had the most rebounds?
Jarrett Allen led Cleveland with 13 rebounds. Gary Payton II led Golden State with 12 rebounds.
Who led the game in assists?
Draymond Green recorded nine assists for Golden State. Dennis Schroder led Cleveland with six assists.
What was the biggest statistical difference between the teams?
Three point shooting was one of the clearest differences. Cleveland made 16 of 36 three pointers for 44 percent, while Golden State made 12 of 44 for 27 percent.
Conclusion
The cleveland cavaliers vs golden state warriors match player stats from April 3, 2026, show a game decided more by efficiency than by a complete statistical domination in every category.
Cleveland won 118 to 111 after building an early lead, absorbing Golden State’s third quarter response and producing 34 points in the fourth quarter.
Donovan Mitchell led the Cavaliers with 25 points, but the victory was supported by a balanced scoring group that included Max Strus with 24, James Harden with 19, Jarrett Allen with 16 and Evan Mobley with 12.
Allen also led Cleveland with 13 rebounds, while Dennis Schroder led the team with six assists.
Golden State received 25 points each from Gui Santos and Brandin Podziemski. Draymond Green supplied nine assists and the Warriors’ best reported plus/minus at +6. Gary Payton II led Golden State with 12 rebounds.
The most important team-level difference was shooting efficiency. Cleveland shot 51 percent from the field and 44 percent from three point range. Golden State shot 44 percent overall and 27 percent from beyond the arc.
Golden State did have meaningful advantages. The Warriors committed fewer turnovers, recorded more steals and blocks, and shot much better from the free throw line. Those strengths helped keep the game competitive.
Ultimately, the box score presents a balanced picture. Cleveland did not win because it dominated every statistical category. The Cavaliers won because their strongest advantages, particularly overall shooting and three point efficiency, had a major impact on scoring production.
For anyone studying this matchup historically, the most useful takeaway is to examine the complete statistical profile rather than relying only on the final score or leading scorer. The combination of player production, shooting efficiency, playmaking, rebounding and quarter-by-quarter scoring provides a much clearer understanding of how the 118 to 111 result developed.
