Milwaukee bucks vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats

The Milwaukee bucks vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats from February 26, 2026, tell the story of one of the closest games of the season. Milwaukee defeated Cleveland 118 to 116 at Fiserv Forum, but the two point margin does not fully explain how competitive the game was. The matchup featured 12 ties and 13 lead changes, with neither side able to create lasting separation. Milwaukee ultimately survived because its offense produced a more efficient shooting night and Kevin Porter Jr. delivered the decisive basket late in the fourth quarter.

For readers looking beyond the final score, this game offers a useful example of why individual statistics need context. Cleveland received outstanding production from Jarrett Allen and Dennis Schroder, while Milwaukee got balanced contributions from Kevin Porter Jr., Ryan Rollins, Kyle Kuzma, and Jericho Sims. The Cavaliers also controlled the glass better overall, yet Milwaukee’s superior shooting efficiency helped compensate for that disadvantage.

The official NBA records list the contest as February 25 in Milwaukee, while some international and ESPN listings show February 26 because of time-zone presentation. This article follows the February 26 date supplied for the matchup while using the official game data for the statistics.

Game Overview

The Cavaliers entered the game with a 37 and 23 record and a 17 and 12 road record. Milwaukee entered at 26 and 31 overall and 14 and 13 at home.

On paper, the standings suggested that Cleveland had the stronger season. The game itself, however, was much less one-sided.

The Cavaliers scored 33 points in the first quarter, 30 in the second, 31 in the third, and 22 in the fourth. Milwaukee answered with 33, 29, 31, and 25.

That quarter-by-quarter pattern explains the result better than the final score alone.

Quarter	Cleveland	Milwaukee
1st	33	33
2nd	30	29
3rd	31	31
4th	22	25
Final	116	118

After three quarters, the teams were tied at 94. That meant the entire game effectively came down to the final 12 minutes.

Milwaukee won that period 25 to 22.

That three point fourth quarter advantage was the difference between a loss and a win.

The official NBA game record confirms the final score, venue, attendance of 14,702, quarter scoring, and team comparison. Official NBA game box score

milwaukee bucks vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats

The individual numbers show that this was not a conventional star driven performance from either side.

Cleveland was without several major contributors, including Donovan Mitchell and Evan Mobley, while Milwaukee was without Giannis Antetokounmpo. Cleveland was also without James Harden following his thumb injury in the previous game.

That context matters when evaluating the box score.

Instead of looking only at who scored the most, it is more useful to ask which players created the most value through scoring efficiency, rebounding, playmaking, defensive activity, and late game execution.

Cleveland’s statistical leaders

Jarrett Allen was Cleveland’s most productive player.

He finished with:

• 27 points
• 11 rebounds
• 10 made field goals on 15 attempts
• 2 steals
• 1 block

Allen’s 10 for 15 shooting translated to 66.7 percent from the field. His 27 points also led all Cleveland players.

Dennis Schroder was the second major offensive contributor with 26 points and 5 assists. He shot 8 for 14, giving him a 57.1 percent field goal rate.

Jaylon Tyson added 14 points and 10 rebounds, giving Cleveland another double digit rebound performance.

Keon Ellis contributed 14 points from the bench, while Thomas Bryant added 11.

Larry Nance Jr. led Cleveland with 9 assists according to the supplied game data, although he did not score.

The distribution is important. Cleveland did not rely on one player alone. Allen provided interior scoring, Schroder handled a significant share of the perimeter creation, Tyson contributed on the glass, and the bench supplied useful scoring.

Milwaukee’s statistical leaders

Milwaukee’s scoring was more spread out.

Kevin Porter Jr. led the Bucks with 20 points, 8 rebounds, 5 assists, and 5 steals.

Ryan Rollins followed with 18 points and 9 assists.

Kyle Kuzma scored 17 points and added 5 assists.

Bobby Portis contributed 10 points, while Jericho Sims scored 11 points and led Milwaukee with 11 rebounds.

AJ Green did not lead the team in scoring, but he posted Milwaukee’s best plus minus at plus 15.

That combination is significant because Milwaukee’s advantage was not based on one dominant offensive player. Instead, several players produced enough offense to keep the Cavaliers from exploiting the absence of Giannis Antetokounmpo.

Full Cleveland Cavaliers Player Statistics

The Cavaliers’ team totals were 42 made field goals on 87 attempts, 12 made three pointers on 40 attempts, and 20 made free throws on 27 attempts.

That produced shooting percentages of 48 percent from the field, 30 percent from three point range, and 74 percent from the free throw line.

Player	Points	Rebounds	Assists	Key note
Jarrett Allen	27	11	1	10 of 15 FG
Dennis Schroder	26	5	5	8 of 14 FG
Jaylon Tyson	14	10	3	Double double
Keon Ellis	14	Not provided	Not provided	Bench scoring
Thomas Bryant	11	Not provided	Not provided	Bench scoring
Craig Porter Jr.	8	Not provided	Not provided	Playmaking role
Dean Wade	0	4	4	Plus 9
Nae’Qwan Tomlin	2	Not provided	Not provided	Reserve minutes
Larry Nance Jr.	0	Not provided	9	Team assist leader
Sam Merrill	Not provided	Not provided	Not provided	Starter

One important point is that the supplied data does not provide every individual category for every player. A trustworthy statistical article should not manufacture missing values simply to create a more complete looking table.

Jarrett Allen’s dominant interior performance

Allen was the clearest individual standout for Cleveland.

His 27 points came on 10 made shots from 15 attempts. That level of efficiency was particularly valuable because Milwaukee was shooting the ball extremely well from outside.

Allen also collected 11 rebounds.

His performance produced a double double and represented one of the strongest individual games in the matchup.

The timing of his final play made his performance even more notable.

With the Cavaliers trailing 118 to 116, Dennis Schroder’s late attempt did not fall. Allen collected the offensive rebound and put the ball back toward the basket as the final horn sounded.

The basket initially appeared to tie the game, but officials reviewed the play and determined that the shot came after the buzzer.

That decision ended Cleveland’s comeback attempt.

Dennis Schroder’s scoring impact

Schroder scored 26 points, only one point behind Allen.

He shot 8 for 14, which was an efficient 57.1 percent from the field. He also contributed 5 assists.

His role became especially important because Cleveland was missing multiple primary offensive options.

Rather than simply being a secondary scorer, Schroder had to create shots and help organize the offense.

His late fourth quarter basket tied the game at 116 with 35.6 seconds remaining.

That sequence shows why raw scoring totals do not tell the whole story. Schroder’s 26 points were important throughout the game, but his ability to produce in the final minute was especially valuable.

Jaylon Tyson’s all around contribution

Tyson scored 14 points and collected 10 rebounds.

His shooting was less efficient than Allen’s or Schroder’s, but his rebounding helped Cleveland maintain an advantage on the glass.

He also made three free throws on three attempts.

Tyson’s contribution demonstrates the value of secondary production. Cleveland needed players beyond its primary scorers to win possessions, particularly against a Milwaukee team that was converting perimeter opportunities at a high rate.

Full Milwaukee Bucks Player Statistics

Milwaukee finished with 48 made field goals on 88 attempts.

The Bucks also made 19 of 45 three point attempts, producing a 42 percent three point percentage.

Their free throw shooting was much less impressive, with only 3 makes on 5 attempts.

Player	Points	Rebounds	Assists	Key note
Kevin Porter Jr.	20	8	5	5 steals
Ryan Rollins	18	Not provided	9	Team assist leader
Kyle Kuzma	17	5	5	Important scoring
Jericho Sims	11	11	Not provided	Team rebounding leader
Bobby Portis	10	Not provided	Not provided	Bench scoring
Cam Thomas	7	Not provided	Not provided	Reserve scoring
Ousmane Dieng	5	Not provided	Not provided	Reserve scoring
AJ Green	Not provided	Not provided	Not provided	Plus 15
Myles Turner	Not provided	Not provided	Not provided	Starter
Pat Connaughton	Not provided	Not provided	Not provided	Reserve

Kevin Porter Jr. delivered when it mattered

Porter Jr. finished with 20 points, 8 rebounds, 5 assists, and 5 steals.

Those numbers show an unusually broad contribution.

He was not simply Milwaukee’s leading scorer. He also affected the game through rebounding, passing, and defensive activity.

His biggest moment came with 20.2 seconds remaining.

After Schroder tied the game at 116, Porter Jr. created enough space to hit a 16 foot jumper that gave Milwaukee a 118 to 116 advantage.

That basket ultimately became the game winner.

In a two point game, one successful shot can become the defining statistic. Porter Jr.’s final jumper was exactly that type of play.

Ryan Rollins controlled Milwaukee’s playmaking

Rollins finished with 18 points and 9 assists.

His nine assists were tied with Cleveland’s Larry Nance Jr. for the highest individual assist total supplied for the game.

Rollins’ importance becomes clearer when considering Milwaukee’s 28 total assists.

He was responsible for a substantial portion of the team’s passing production.

That allowed the Bucks to maintain offensive movement despite not having Antetokounmpo available.

Kyle Kuzma provided secondary scoring

Kuzma finished with 17 points and 5 assists.

His 17 points gave Milwaukee another dependable scoring option alongside Porter Jr. and Rollins.

His contribution mattered because Cleveland could not simply focus defensive attention on one Milwaukee scorer.

The Bucks had multiple players capable of initiating or finishing possessions.

Jericho Sims controlled the Milwaukee glass

Sims collected 11 rebounds, the most on the Bucks.

That was especially important because Cleveland finished with more total rebounds, 44 to 36.

Milwaukee therefore did not win the rebounding battle overall, but Sims still provided a strong individual effort on the boards.

His 11 rebounds also matched Allen’s team leading total for Cleveland.

Why Milwaukee Won Despite Fewer Rebounds

One of the most interesting lessons from the game is that Milwaukee did not need to win every statistical category.

Cleveland had 44 rebounds compared with Milwaukee’s 36.

The Cavaliers also scored 54 points in the paint, compared with 44 for the Bucks.

Those numbers might suggest that Cleveland controlled the interior.

Yet Milwaukee won.

The primary reason was shooting efficiency.

Cleveland shot:

• 48 percent overall
• 30 percent from three
• 74 percent from the free throw line

Milwaukee shot:

• 55 percent overall
• 42 percent from three
• 60 percent from the free throw line

The Bucks were therefore considerably more efficient from the field.

The difference from three point range was especially important.

Milwaukee made 19 threes.

Cleveland made 12.

That seven made three advantage represents 21 additional points from three point makes alone.

Cleveland partly compensated through free throws and interior scoring, but Milwaukee’s perimeter efficiency created enough value to overcome the rebounding deficit.

This is one of the strongest statistical explanations for the final result.

The Three Point Battle Decided the Margin

Three point shooting deserves special attention because the teams attempted a similar number of shots from deep.

Cleveland attempted 40 three pointers and made 12.

Milwaukee attempted 45 and made 19.

That means Milwaukee attempted only five more threes but made seven more.

The difference in conversion rate was substantial.

Cleveland converted 30 percent.

Milwaukee converted approximately 42 percent.

In a two point game, that difference is enormous.

It also illustrates why shot quality and efficiency can matter more than possession totals.

Cleveland generated plenty of offensive opportunities, but Milwaukee converted a larger share of its perimeter chances.

Turnovers and Possession Quality

Cleveland committed 11 turnovers.

Milwaukee committed 13.

The Cavaliers therefore had a two turnover advantage.

That advantage did not translate into a win.

This is another useful reminder that turnovers should be evaluated alongside shooting and scoring efficiency.

Cleveland also produced 7 steals.

Milwaukee produced 7 steals as well.

Both teams recorded 2 blocks.

The defensive statistical profile was therefore fairly balanced.

The difference came more from how effectively each offense converted possessions.

Assists Showed a Balanced Offensive Structure

Both teams recorded 28 assists.

That is significant because the Bucks did not win by simply relying on individual isolation scoring.

Their 28 assists showed meaningful ball movement.

Rollins led Milwaukee with 9 assists, while Porter Jr. and Kuzma each added 5.

Cleveland also recorded 28 assists.

Nance Jr. led the team with 9, while Schroder added 5.

The equal assist totals suggest that neither team completely dominated the playmaking battle.

Instead, the difference came from the quality of the resulting shots.

Milwaukee’s 48 field goals on 88 attempts were considerably more efficient than Cleveland’s 42 on 87 attempts.

Fourth Quarter Analysis

The fourth quarter was the most important period of the game.

Cleveland entered the final period tied with Milwaukee at 94.

The Cavaliers scored 22 points.

The Bucks scored 25.

A three point difference separated the teams.

There was no major run that completely changed the game.

Instead, the contest was decided through individual execution during the closing possessions.

Tyson made two free throws to bring Cleveland within two at 116 to 114.

Kuzma then missed a three point attempt.

Schroder followed by scoring from the right side of the lane, tying the game at 116 with 35.6 seconds remaining.

That set up the decisive possession.

Porter Jr. converted his 16 foot shot with 20.2 seconds left.

Cleveland had one final chance.

Schroder attacked the basket, but his attempt came off the rim. Allen grabbed the offensive rebound and put the ball back toward the basket.

The review determined that the shot came after the buzzer.

Milwaukee escaped with the victory.

Plus Minus: An Important Secondary Metric

Plus minus measures the team’s point differential while a player is on the court.

It should not be treated as a complete measure of individual quality, but it can provide useful context when paired with box score statistics.

Milwaukee’s best plus minus belonged to AJ Green at plus 15.

Cleveland’s best was Dean Wade at plus 9.

Those numbers are interesting because neither player was the team’s leading scorer.

That reinforces an important statistical principle: a player’s value within a particular game can extend beyond scoring.

A player can influence spacing, defense, ball movement, lineup balance, and possession quality without appearing near the top of the scoring column.

What the Player Stats Say About Cleveland

Cleveland’s numbers reveal a team that competed effectively despite missing important offensive and defensive pieces.

Allen was highly efficient around the basket.

Schroder produced 26 points while shooting better than 57 percent from the field.

Tyson added a double double.

The Cavaliers also won the rebounding battle 44 to 36 and scored 54 points in the paint.

Those are strong foundations.

The problem was perimeter efficiency.

A 30 percent three point shooting night is difficult to overcome when the opponent makes 42 percent from deep.

The Cavaliers also missed the additional shot creation normally provided by their unavailable stars.

That did not prevent them from taking Milwaukee to the final possession, but it reduced their margin for error.

What the Player Stats Say About Milwaukee

Milwaukee’s victory was built around efficiency and balance.

The Bucks shot 55 percent from the field and 42 percent from three.

They received at least 17 points from three different players.

Porter Jr. scored 20.

Rollins scored 18.

Kuzma scored 17.

That distribution matters.

The Bucks did not need one player to produce 35 or 40 points.

Instead, several players contributed enough to keep the offense functioning.

Rollins’ 9 assists and Porter Jr.’s 5 assists helped maintain offensive structure.

Sims’ 11 rebounds supplied interior support.

Green’s plus 15 showed that Milwaukee received positive lineup impact beyond its primary scorers.

Season Series Context

The matchup was the third meeting between the teams in the season series.

Cleveland won the first two games.

Game 1 ended with Cleveland defeating Milwaukee 118 to 113.

Game 2 ended with Cleveland winning 118 to 106.

Milwaukee then won Game 3 by a score of 118 to 116.

That left Cleveland leading the season series 2 to 1 after the third meeting.

The progression is interesting because Milwaukee’s scoring output was identical in the first and third meetings, but the defensive result changed.

In the third game, Milwaukee held Cleveland to 116 while producing 118 of its own.

The Bucks therefore did not need a huge scoring explosion.

They simply needed enough defensive resistance and offensive efficiency to win the final possessions.

The Importance of Availability

Player statistics should always be interpreted in the context of who actually played.

Cleveland entered this game without several high level contributors.

Donovan Mitchell did not play because of a strained right groin.

Evan Mobley also sat out.

James Harden was unavailable after suffering a right thumb injury in Cleveland’s previous game.

Milwaukee was also missing Giannis Antetokounmpo, who had missed his 13th consecutive game because of a strained right calf.

That means the game was not a straightforward comparison of each team’s full strength roster.

Instead, it became a test of depth.

Milwaukee’s secondary players responded well.

Cleveland’s replacements also competed strongly enough to push the game to the final possession.

This is why the bench and supporting statistics are particularly useful when analyzing this matchup.

Bench Production Made a Difference

Cleveland received useful scoring from its bench.

Thomas Bryant scored 11 points.

Keon Ellis scored 14.

Craig Porter Jr. scored 8.

Nae’Qwan Tomlin scored 2.

Larry Nance Jr. did not score but supplied 9 assists.

Milwaukee also received production from its reserves.

Bobby Portis scored 10.

Jericho Sims scored 11.

Ousmane Dieng scored 5.

Cam Thomas scored 7.

The reserve scoring was competitive, but Milwaukee’s overall shooting efficiency remained the major difference.

The Bucks made more shots overall and more threes.

That allowed their supporting cast to contribute without requiring an extraordinary individual scoring performance.

What Fans Should Take From the Box Score

A useful way to read this game is to separate the numbers into four categories.

1. Scoring efficiency

Milwaukee had the clear advantage.

The Bucks shot 55 percent overall and 42 percent from three.

2. Interior production

Cleveland had the advantage.

The Cavaliers scored 54 points in the paint and collected 44 rebounds.

3. Ball movement

The teams were equal.

Both recorded 28 assists.

4. Late game execution

Milwaukee had the decisive edge.

Porter Jr. hit the go ahead jumper with 20.2 seconds left, and Cleveland’s final attempt was ruled late.

That four part framework explains the game more effectively than simply saying Milwaukee won by two.

A Practical Method for Reading Similar NBA Matchups

When analyzing future player statistics, start with the final score but do not stop there.

First, compare field goal percentage.

Then examine three point volume and efficiency.

Next, look at rebounds, turnovers, assists, and points in the paint.

After that, identify the players responsible for the most efficient scoring.

Finally, examine the final five minutes.

This approach helps separate statistical noise from the numbers that actually influenced the result.

For example, Cleveland won the rebounding battle in this game.

If you only looked at rebounds, you might expect the Cavaliers to have won.

But Milwaukee’s shooting efficiency was significantly better.

The final result makes more sense when those categories are considered together.

Key Statistical Takeaways

The most important numbers from the game can be summarized as follows:

• Milwaukee won 118 to 116.
• The Bucks improved to 26 and 31.
• Cleveland entered at 37 and 23.
• The teams were tied after three quarters at 94.
• Milwaukee won the fourth quarter 25 to 22.
• Cleveland shot 48 percent from the field.
• Milwaukee shot 55 percent.
• Cleveland made 12 three pointers.
• Milwaukee made 19 three pointers.
• Cleveland won the rebounding battle 44 to 36.
• Both teams recorded 28 assists.
• Cleveland committed 11 turnovers.
• Milwaukee committed 13 turnovers.
• Jarrett Allen led all Cleveland scorers with 27 points.
• Dennis Schroder scored 26.
• Kevin Porter Jr. led Milwaukee with 20.
• Ryan Rollins scored 18 and recorded 9 assists.
• Kyle Kuzma scored 17.
• Jericho Sims collected 11 rebounds.
• AJ Green recorded Milwaukee’s best plus minus at plus 15.
• Dean Wade recorded Cleveland’s best plus minus at plus 9.

Taken together, these statistics show a game where Cleveland won several traditional hustle categories, while Milwaukee won the efficiency battle.

FAQs

Who was the leading scorer in the Milwaukee Bucks vs Cleveland Cavaliers game?

Jarrett Allen led Cleveland with 27 points. Kevin Porter Jr. led Milwaukee with 20 points.

What was the final score between the Bucks and Cavaliers?

Milwaukee defeated Cleveland 118 to 116 at Fiserv Forum.

Who had the most rebounds in the game?

Jarrett Allen and Jericho Sims each recorded 11 rebounds for their respective teams.

Who led the game in assists?

Ryan Rollins and Larry Nance Jr. each recorded 9 assists according to the supplied statistics.

Why did Milwaukee win the game?

Milwaukee’s superior shooting efficiency was the biggest statistical difference. The Bucks shot 55 percent overall and 42 percent from three, compared with Cleveland’s 48 percent overall and 30 percent from three.

Did Cleveland lead the season series?

Yes. Cleveland won the first two meetings, while Milwaukee won the third meeting 118 to 116. Cleveland therefore led the season series 2 to 1 after Game 3.

Conclusion

The milwaukee bucks vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats show how a two point NBA game can be decided by efficiency rather than by one dominant statistical category.

Cleveland had several advantages. The Cavaliers collected 44 rebounds, scored 54 points in the paint, and received excellent individual performances from Jarrett Allen and Dennis Schroder. Allen’s 27 points and 11 rebounds were particularly impressive, while Schroder’s 26 points helped Cleveland remain competitive despite the absence of several major contributors.

Milwaukee responded with a more efficient offensive performance.

The Bucks shot 55 percent from the field and 42 percent from three. Kevin Porter Jr. led the team with 20 points while adding 8 rebounds, 5 assists, and 5 steals. Ryan Rollins contributed 18 points and 9 assists, while Kyle Kuzma added 17 points and 5 assists.

The decisive moment came late.

After Schroder tied the game at 116, Porter Jr. converted a 16 foot jumper with 20.2 seconds remaining. Cleveland created one final opportunity, but Allen’s apparent tying basket was ruled to have come after the final horn.

That sequence captured the entire game.

Cleveland had enough production to win. Milwaukee simply executed one possession better.

For anyone studying milwaukee bucks vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats, the most useful lesson is that box score analysis works best when several categories are connected. Shooting efficiency, three point conversion, rebounding, assists, turnovers, player availability, and late game execution all contributed to the final result.

The final score was 118 to 116, but the deeper story was Milwaukee’s ability to turn superior shooting efficiency into just enough separation to survive Cleveland’s strong interior performance.