Detroit pistons vs Cleveland cavaliers match player stats

The detroit pistons vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats from Game 2 tell a much more detailed story than the final 107-97 score suggests. Detroit defeated Cleveland in Game 2 of the 2026 Eastern Conference semifinals, taking a 2-0 series lead behind Cade Cunningham’s 25 points and 10 assists, Tobias Harris’ 21 points, and a major three-point shooting advantage. Cleveland received 31 points from Donovan Mitchell and 22 points from Jarrett Allen, but inefficient perimeter shooting and a difficult fourth quarter kept the Cavaliers from completing their comeback.

This was a game where individual numbers need context. Mitchell was Cleveland’s leading scorer, Allen was highly efficient inside, and Harden contributed six rebounds and three assists despite a difficult shooting night. For Detroit, Cunningham controlled the game as a scorer and playmaker, while Harris and Duncan Robinson supplied important secondary scoring. Jalen Duren also gave the Pistons a double-digit rebounding performance.

The official box score lists the game as Thursday, May 7, 2026, at Little Caesars Arena in Detroit. For viewers in some international time zones, including Pakistan, the game appeared in the early hours of May 8. Detroit won 107-97 in front of 20,062 fans.

detroit pistons vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats at a glance

The quickest way to understand the matchup is to start with the main individual numbers.

Cleveland Cavaliers

Player	MIN	FG	3PT	FT	REB	AST	STL	BLK	TO	PTS	+/-
Donovan Mitchell	37:14	11-24	2-9	7-9	6	3	2	0	2	31	-2
Jarrett Allen	30:58	7-9	0-0	8-10	7	3	1	1	1	22	-6
James Harden	36:52	3-13	0-4	4-4	6	3	1	0	4	10	-15
Dean Wade	23:13	3-6	2-4	0-0	5	0	0	0	0	8	-4
Evan Mobley	35:47	4-10	1-4	0-0	1	4	3	3	2	9	-6
Jaylon Tyson	22:06	3-7	0-2	1-2	5	1	0	0	0	7	-3
Dennis Schröder	20:18	1-5	0-2	2-2	3	5	0	0	2	4	-4
Max Strus	27:41	1-6	1-6	0-0	3	1	0	2	0	3	-9
Keon Ellis	5:51	1-1	1-1	0-0	0	0	0	0	0	3	-1

Detroit Pistons

Player	MIN	FG	3PT	FT	REB	AST	STL	BLK	TO	PTS	+/-
Cade Cunningham	41:54	7-14	3-6	8-8	3	10	1	2	5	25	+13
Tobias Harris	36:51	9-16	2-3	1-2	7	0	2	2	1	21	+8
Duncan Robinson	36:54	6-12	5-9	0-0	3	3	3	0	1	17	+5
Ausar Thompson	23:38	5-8	0-0	0-2	7	2	2	0	0	10	+4
Jalen Duren	33:28	2-7	0-0	4-6	10	1	0	0	2	8	+6
Daniss Jenkins	26:18	6-14	2-5	0-0	6	4	0	0	1	14	+9
Caris LeVert	12:53	3-5	2-3	0-0	2	1	0	0	0	8	-1
Isaiah Stewart	14:33	1-1	0-0	0-0	2	0	0	0	0	2	+4
Ronald Holland II	9:10	0-3	0-2	2-2	2	0	1	1	0	2	+2
Javonte Green	4:21	0-0	0-0	0-0	0	0	0	0	0	0	0

The numbers show the central difference immediately. Cleveland had the higher individual scoring output from its leading player, but Detroit had more efficient scoring across the rotation.

The final score and game flow

Detroit won 107-97 after leading 25-18 at the end of the first quarter and 54-43 at halftime. Cleveland made its strongest push in the third quarter, outscoring Detroit 32-25.

That third-quarter surge mattered because it changed the feel of the game. Cleveland entered the fourth quarter with momentum and eventually moved in front. The Cavaliers briefly led 81-79 early in the final period after Evan Mobley finished at the rim.

The problem for Cleveland was that the lead did not last.

Detroit responded with defensive pressure, timely shooting, and Cunningham’s late-game scoring. The Pistons eventually established control again and closed the game with a 28-point fourth quarter.

The quarter-by-quarter scoring was:

Quarter	Cleveland	Detroit
1st	18	25
2nd	25	29
3rd	32	25
4th	22	28
Final	97	107

Detroit therefore won three of the four quarters. Cleveland’s 32-point third quarter was not enough to overcome the early deficit and the Pistons’ closing performance.

Cade Cunningham’s 25 points and 10 assists

Cade Cunningham was the most influential Detroit player, even though he was not the game’s highest scorer.

He finished with:

• 25 points
• 10 assists
• 3 rebounds
• 1 steal
• 2 blocks
• 5 turnovers
• 7-of-14 shooting
• 3-of-6 from three
• 8-of-8 from the free-throw line
• +13 plus/minus

The combination of 25 points and 10 assists is particularly important in a playoff game because it shows how much of Detroit’s offense ran through him.

Cunningham did not need to score 35 or 40 points to dominate the game. Instead, he created scoring opportunities for teammates while still producing enough offense himself.

His 10 assists were the highest total by either team. Cleveland’s entire starting group had to account for his ability to attack, draw help, and find shooters.

His shooting was also efficient. Cunningham made 50 percent of his field-goal attempts and 50 percent of his three-point attempts. He was perfect from the free-throw line.

There was one obvious weakness: five turnovers. That is a meaningful number for a primary ball-handler. However, the turnovers did not prevent Detroit from winning, and his +13 was the best plus-minus figure in the game.

The fourth quarter was where his influence became most obvious. Cunningham scored 12 points in the final six minutes, helping Detroit answer Cleveland’s comeback attempt.

That is an important distinction when evaluating player statistics. A 25-point performance is one thing. A 25-point performance that includes 10 assists and a late scoring burst against a team attempting to take control is more significant.

Donovan Mitchell led all scorers with 31 points

Donovan Mitchell was Cleveland’s offensive centerpiece.

He finished with:

• 31 points
• 6 rebounds
• 3 assists
• 2 steals
• 2 turnovers
• 11-of-24 field goals
• 2-of-9 three-pointers
• 7-of-9 free throws
• -2 plus/minus

Mitchell’s 31 points were the highest scoring total of the game.

He also produced several strong offensive stretches, particularly when Cleveland needed someone to create a shot against Detroit’s defense.

The problem was efficiency.

Mitchell shot 45.8 percent overall, which is not disastrous for a high-volume playoff scorer, but his three-point shooting was only 2-for-9. Cleveland needed more efficient perimeter production because Detroit was shooting the ball extremely well from deep.

Mitchell’s plus-minus of -2 is also interesting. It was much better than Harden’s -15 and several other Cleveland players, showing that his individual scoring kept him relatively competitive in his minutes.

This is a good example of why a box score should not be reduced to the question of who scored the most. Mitchell was Cleveland’s top scorer and one of its better performers, but his team still lost by 10.

Jarrett Allen was Cleveland’s most efficient scorer

Jarrett Allen had one of the strongest individual performances on the Cavaliers.

He recorded:

• 22 points
• 7 rebounds
• 3 assists
• 1 steal
• 1 block
• 7-of-9 field goals
• 8-of-10 free throws
• 1 turnover

Allen shot 77.8 percent from the field.

That efficiency is significant. He scored 22 points on only nine field-goal attempts because he consistently converted his opportunities around the basket and added eight made free throws.

His seven rebounds were also important, although they were not enough to give Cleveland control of the glass.

Allen’s Game 2 performance was especially notable compared with Game 1. After being limited to two points in the opening game, he responded with 22 points in Game 2.

That kind of adjustment is exactly what makes playoff player analysis more useful than simply looking at season averages.

The Cavaliers clearly benefited when Allen was involved offensively. His challenge was that Cleveland needed similar efficiency from more players.

James Harden struggled to find his rhythm

James Harden’s numbers were among the most difficult for Cleveland.

He finished with:

• 10 points
• 6 rebounds
• 3 assists
• 1 steal
• 4 turnovers
• 3-of-13 field goals
• 0-of-4 three-pointers
• 4-of-4 free throws
• -15 plus/minus

Harden’s 23.1 percent field-goal percentage was a major issue.

The fact that he was perfect from the free-throw line prevented the shooting line from being even worse, but Cleveland needed more shot creation from one of its primary ball-handlers.

The four turnovers were also costly.

His -15 plus-minus was the lowest figure among Cleveland players who played significant minutes. Plus-minus should never be treated as a standalone measurement of individual quality, but in this particular game it supports what the rest of the box score already shows: Cleveland struggled to generate efficient offense during Harden’s minutes.

Harden did contribute six rebounds and three assists, so this was not an empty performance. But the overall offensive efficiency was not enough.

Evan Mobley’s defensive contribution was easy to overlook

Evan Mobley scored only nine points, but his box score included:

• 9 points
• 1 rebound
• 4 assists
• 3 steals
• 3 blocks
• 4-of-10 shooting
• 1-of-4 from three
• -6 plus/minus

The scoring number looks modest, but the defensive numbers are significant.

Three blocks and three steals show that Mobley was active around the floor. He also contributed four assists, which helped Cleveland move the ball.

The biggest surprise is his rebounding total. A player of Mobley’s size finishing with only one rebound is unusual and mattered because Detroit won the overall rebounding battle 42-36.

Mobley’s defense was not the reason Cleveland lost. The bigger problem was that the Cavaliers could not pair that defensive activity with enough efficient offense.

Tobias Harris continued his strong playoff scoring run

Tobias Harris scored 21 points and grabbed seven rebounds for Detroit.

His line was:

• 21 points
• 7 rebounds
• 2 steals
• 2 blocks
• 9-of-16 field goals
• 2-of-3 three-pointers
• 1-of-2 free throws
• +8 plus/minus

Harris shot 56.3 percent from the field and 66.7 percent from three.

That made him an ideal secondary scorer next to Cunningham.

Detroit did not need Harris to dominate the ball. He simply punished Cleveland when opportunities appeared.

His seven rebounds also helped Detroit maintain its advantage on the glass.

The broader playoff context matters here. Harris had reached 20 or more points in seven consecutive playoff games at this stage. That consistency gave Detroit another dependable offensive option when opposing defenses focused heavily on Cunningham.

Duncan Robinson’s five three-pointers mattered

Duncan Robinson finished with 17 points, three rebounds, three assists, and three steals.

His shooting line was particularly important:

• 6-of-12 from the field
• 5-of-9 from three
• 50 percent overall
• 55.6 percent from three

Five made threes from one player can dramatically change the defensive geometry of a playoff game.

Cleveland could not simply pack the paint against Detroit because Robinson was a serious perimeter threat.

His three steals also show that his contribution was not limited to shooting.

Detroit finished 14-of-28 from three as a team. That is exactly 50 percent.

Cleveland, by comparison, made only 7-of-32 from three, or 21.9 percent.

That 28.1 percentage-point difference in three-point accuracy was one of the defining statistical differences in the game.

Jalen Duren controlled the rebounding battle

Jalen Duren scored only eight points, but he grabbed 10 rebounds.

His full line included:

• 8 points
• 10 rebounds
• 1 assist
• 2 turnovers
• 2-of-7 shooting
• 4-of-6 free throws
• +6 plus/minus

Duren’s value was therefore much greater than his scoring total.

Detroit finished with 42 rebounds compared with Cleveland’s 36. Duren’s 10-rebound performance was a major part of that advantage.

For a team with perimeter scoring from Cunningham and Robinson, having a center capable of creating extra possessions is extremely valuable.

Duren did not need to take 15 shots. His job was to occupy space, rebound, defend, and convert opportunities.

Daniss Jenkins gave Detroit important bench scoring

Daniss Jenkins produced 14 points, six rebounds, and four assists in 26 minutes.

He shot 6-of-14 from the field and 2-of-5 from three.

His +9 was the second-best plus-minus on Detroit.

Jenkins’ contribution illustrates another major difference between the teams. Detroit received meaningful scoring from its second unit while Cleveland’s bench production was limited.

When a playoff game is decided by 10 points, 14 bench points can have an outsized impact.

Jenkins also supplied six rebounds and four assists, giving Detroit additional ball movement and possession value.

Detroit’s three-point advantage decided the statistical battle

The biggest team-level difference was outside shooting.

Detroit:

• 39-of-80 from the field
• 48.8 percent overall
• 14-of-28 from three
• 50 percent from three
• 15-of-20 from the line
• 75 percent free throws

Cleveland:

• 34-of-81 from the field
• 42 percent overall
• 7-of-32 from three
• 21.9 percent from three
• 22-of-27 from the line
• 81.5 percent free throws

Detroit made seven more three-pointers than Cleveland.

That means Detroit scored 21 more points from three-point field goals alone.

Cleveland actually had a slight advantage at the free-throw line, both in percentage and attempts. The Cavaliers also scored 52 points in the paint compared with Detroit’s 42.

Yet Detroit still won comfortably because the Pistons created far more value from outside.

This is one of the clearest lessons from the game. A team can win the paint battle and shoot free throws efficiently, but if the opponent is making half of its three-point attempts while you are making only about one in five, the overall math becomes difficult to overcome.

Cleveland’s fourth-quarter three-point shooting collapsed

Cleveland’s fourth quarter deserves special attention.

The Cavaliers went 0-for-11 from three in the final period.

That means every three-point attempt in the fourth quarter missed.

For comparison, Detroit was 4-of-8 from three in the fourth quarter.

The difference was enormous.

Cleveland was trying to come back while playing without the benefit of made perimeter shots. Detroit was able to space the floor and convert important attempts.

When the game was tied at 79, Cleveland had created a realistic opportunity to steal control.

But a playoff comeback requires efficient execution. Cleveland’s fourth-quarter perimeter shooting disappeared at exactly the wrong time.

The rebound numbers tell another part of the story

Detroit won the rebounding battle 42-36.

The Pistons collected 12 offensive rebounds compared with nine for Cleveland.

That gave Detroit additional possessions.

Cleveland had 27 defensive rebounds, while Detroit had 30. The difference was not overwhelming, but combined with Detroit’s offensive rebounding advantage, it helped the Pistons maintain control.

Duren’s 10 rebounds and Harris’ seven were particularly valuable.

Cleveland’s Allen had seven rebounds, and Mitchell had six. Tyson and Harden each had five or six depending on category, but the Cavaliers did not generate enough team rebounding advantage to compensate for their shooting disadvantage.

Turnovers were close, but not identical in impact

The team totals show another interesting contrast.

Cleveland committed 11 turnovers.

Detroit committed 10.

On the surface, that difference is too small to explain a 10-point win.

However, not every turnover has the same impact.

Cleveland’s turnovers came from several primary ball-handlers, including four by Harden and two each from Mitchell, Mobley, and Schröder.

Detroit’s five turnovers from Cunningham were notable, but the Pistons kept overall mistakes relatively contained.

Detroit also scored 13 fast-break points compared with only four for Cleveland.

That suggests Detroit was better at turning defensive events into immediate offense.

The bench battle favored Detroit

Detroit’s supporting cast made the difference.

Cunningham scored 25, but the Pistons also received:

• 21 from Harris
• 17 from Robinson
• 14 from Jenkins
• 10 from Thompson
• 8 from Duren
• 8 from LeVert

That is six players scoring at least eight points.

Cleveland had only three players reach double figures:

• Mitchell: 31
• Allen: 22
• Harden: 10

Detroit’s scoring was therefore more evenly distributed.

This does not mean balanced scoring is automatically better. A team can win with one superstar scoring 40 or 50 points. But against a playoff defense that is constantly adjusting to the primary scorer, having several reliable options makes it harder to create a single defensive solution.

Why plus-minus should be read carefully

Cunningham led the game with a +13.

Harden finished at -15.

At first glance, that seems to suggest Cunningham was dramatically better than Harden. In this particular game, the broader statistics support that conclusion, but plus-minus alone does not prove it.

Plus-minus measures the team’s scoring margin while a player is on the court. It includes teammates, opponents, lineups, shot variance, and game situation.

That is why Cunningham’s +13 becomes more meaningful when combined with his 25 points, 10 assists, 50 percent shooting, and fourth-quarter production.

Likewise, Harden’s -15 becomes more informative when combined with his 3-of-13 shooting and four turnovers.

The strongest player analysis uses multiple statistics together rather than relying on one number.

What the shooting percentages really reveal

Field-goal percentage alone might make the game look relatively straightforward.

Detroit shot 48.8 percent.

Cleveland shot 42 percent.

But the three-point gap made the difference much larger.

Detroit’s effective field-goal percentage was approximately 57.5 percent, while Cleveland’s was approximately 46.3 percent.

Effective field-goal percentage gives extra value to three-pointers because a made three is worth more than a made two.

That metric captures the basic reality of this game better than traditional field-goal percentage.

Detroit was not simply making more shots. It was making more valuable shots.

Cleveland’s free-throw shooting was a bright spot

One positive for Cleveland was its free-throw shooting.

The Cavaliers went 22-of-27, or 81.5 percent.

Detroit went 15-of-20, or 75 percent.

Mitchell made 7-of-9.

Allen made 8-of-10.

Harden made all four of his free throws.

This kept Cleveland within striking distance despite the poor three-point shooting.

In fact, Cleveland’s ability to get to the line helped offset some of its perimeter problems.

The problem was that free throws could not fully compensate for going 7-of-32 from three.

The injury context mattered

Cleveland entered the game without Sam Merrill, who was unavailable because of a left hamstring strain.

Detroit listed Kevin Huerter as inactive.

These absences are relevant because playoff rotations become shorter and every available shooting option can matter.

Merrill’s absence was particularly notable for Cleveland because the Cavaliers already had a difficult night from three.

It would be wrong to say that his absence alone caused the loss. The game involved many factors, including Detroit’s defense, Cleveland’s shot selection, and Cunningham’s fourth-quarter performance.

Still, injuries and rotation availability are important pieces of the player-stat picture.

What the statistics say about each team’s strategy

The numbers suggest two different offensive approaches.

Detroit relied heavily on Cunningham’s creation but surrounded him with shooting and secondary scoring.

Cunningham’s 10 assists demonstrate that the offense was not simply isolation basketball. He created opportunities for teammates while remaining an aggressive scorer.

Robinson’s five threes stretched the floor.

Harris’ 9-of-16 shooting gave Detroit a reliable midrange and interior scoring option.

Jenkins provided another ball-handler and scorer.

Cleveland leaned heavily on Mitchell and Allen for scoring efficiency.

Mitchell created difficult perimeter shots and Allen converted efficiently inside.

But Harden’s inefficient shooting made it harder for Cleveland to sustain offensive pressure.

Mobley’s low scoring output also reduced the number of reliable scoring options available to the Cavaliers.

A closer look at the fourth quarter

The fourth quarter is the clearest explanation for why the Pistons won.

Cleveland entered the period after outscoring Detroit 32-25 in the third.

The Cavaliers then moved ahead 81-79.

At that point, the game could have gone either way.

Detroit responded.

The Pistons used their defensive activity to disrupt Cleveland’s rhythm, and their offense became more efficient.

Cunningham scored 12 points in the final six minutes.

Duncan Robinson’s shooting continued to provide spacing.

Detroit also avoided the kind of offensive collapse that Cleveland experienced from three-point range.

The Pistons scored 28 fourth-quarter points.

Cleveland scored 22.

That six-point fourth-quarter margin turned a tied game into a 10-point Detroit victory.

Why the 107-97 score can be misleading

A 10-point playoff win might appear comfortable, but this game was much more competitive than the final margin suggests.

Cleveland led 81-79 in the fourth quarter.

That means Detroit had to respond under pressure rather than simply protect a large lead.

The final margin was created late.

This is important when evaluating player performance. Cunningham’s 25 points may not look overwhelming compared with Mitchell’s 31, but the timing of those points was more influential.

The same applies to Detroit’s 14 three-pointers. Some were important because they prevented Cleveland from building a larger lead during its comeback.

What Cleveland needs to improve

The player statistics point to several obvious areas.

1. Improve three-point efficiency

Going 7-of-32 from three is difficult to overcome.

The Cavaliers do not need to become a 50 percent three-point team. They simply need enough reliable perimeter shooting to prevent Detroit from collapsing into the paint.

2. Get more from secondary scorers

Mitchell and Allen combined for 53 points.

The rest of the Cleveland roster combined for 44.

That is not necessarily a bad distribution, but Cleveland needed another efficient scorer when Detroit began focusing on Mitchell.

3. Reduce primary-handler turnovers

Harden’s four turnovers were costly, especially because his shooting was already inefficient.

Cleveland needs clean possessions against Detroit’s pressure.

4. Find a better fourth-quarter offensive solution

The 0-for-11 fourth-quarter three-point shooting is the clearest red flag.

Even if the Cavaliers continue to miss threes, they need an alternative way to create efficient late-game offense.

What Detroit needs to maintain

The Pistons should focus on the formula that worked.

1. Keep Cunningham as the primary creator

His 25-point, 10-assist performance gave Detroit control without requiring excessive scoring volume.

2. Continue getting efficient scoring from Harris

Harris’ 9-of-16 shooting and 21 points gave Detroit a reliable secondary option.

3. Keep the floor spaced

Robinson’s five made threes were crucial.

Detroit’s 50 percent three-point shooting made it difficult for Cleveland to overload the defense.

4. Continue winning the possession battle

Detroit had more rebounds and fewer turnovers.

Those small advantages add up over 48 minutes.

Player of the game: Cade Cunningham

Donovan Mitchell led all scorers, but Cade Cunningham was the most influential player in the game.

The argument is straightforward.

Cunningham produced 25 points and 10 assists while shooting 50 percent from the field and three-point range. He was perfect at the free-throw line, recorded two blocks, and finished +13.

Most importantly, he took control late.

Mitchell had the bigger scoring total, but Cunningham affected more parts of the game.

He scored.

He created.

He defended.

He closed.

That combination makes his Game 2 performance stand out.

Best supporting performance: Tobias Harris

Tobias Harris deserves special recognition because his performance reduced the pressure on Cunningham.

Twenty-one points on 9-of-16 shooting is efficient.

Adding seven rebounds, two steals, and two blocks made the contribution even more valuable.

Harris also shot 2-of-3 from three, meaning Cleveland could not ignore him on the perimeter.

His performance is a reminder that playoff success often depends on the second and third scoring options performing efficiently rather than simply producing large individual totals.

Best Cleveland performance: Donovan Mitchell

Mitchell was the obvious choice for Cleveland.

He scored 31 points, grabbed six rebounds, recorded three assists and two steals, and made 11 field goals.

His shooting was not perfect, but Cleveland needed his shot creation.

Jarrett Allen was arguably the more efficient player, but Mitchell carried the largest offensive burden.

The challenge for Cleveland is that one player cannot consistently carry that burden against a playoff opponent with multiple scoring options.

Most important statistical mismatch

The biggest mismatch was not Mitchell versus Cunningham.

It was Cleveland’s three-point shooting versus Detroit’s.

Detroit made 14 of 28 threes.

Cleveland made seven of 32.

That resulted in a 21-point advantage in three-point scoring.

Detroit’s 48.8 percent overall shooting was also higher than Cleveland’s 42 percent.

Combine those differences with Detroit’s rebounding advantage and the Pistons had enough statistical support to withstand Cleveland’s third-quarter surge.

What fans should look for in the next matchup

The most important statistics to monitor are not simply points.

Watch these areas:

1. Cleveland’s three-point percentage.
2. Cunningham’s assist total.
3. Harden’s shooting efficiency.
4. Allen’s involvement in the offense.
5. Detroit’s offensive rebounding.
6. Turnovers by the primary ball-handlers.
7. Fourth-quarter scoring.
8. Robinson’s three-point attempts.
9. Harris’ efficiency.
10. The number of players reaching double figures.

If Cleveland improves its perimeter shooting and receives a stronger offensive contribution from Harden and Mobley, the matchup can change quickly.

If Detroit continues to shoot around 50 percent from three while Cunningham controls the game, the Pistons have a strong statistical formula.

The deeper lesson from the box score

The most useful way to read this game is to separate volume from impact.

Mitchell scored 31.

Cunningham scored 25.

But Cunningham added 10 assists.

Allen scored 22 on highly efficient shooting.

Harris scored 21 on 56.3 percent shooting.

Robinson scored 17 while making five threes.

Duren scored eight but grabbed 10 rebounds.

Each player contributed differently.

That is why a detailed box-score analysis is more useful than a simple list of scoring leaders.

Detroit won because several players performed their specific roles at a high level.

Cleveland had strong individual performances, particularly from Mitchell and Allen, but too many supporting pieces were inefficient.

detroit pistons vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats: complete takeaway

The detroit pistons vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats show that Detroit’s 107-97 victory was built on efficiency, spacing, rebounding, and late-game execution.

Cade Cunningham led Detroit with 25 points and 10 assists and finished with the game’s best plus-minus at +13. Tobias Harris added 21 points and seven rebounds, while Duncan Robinson hit five three-pointers. Jalen Duren supplied 10 rebounds, and Daniss Jenkins added 14 points from the supporting rotation.

Cleveland’s Donovan Mitchell led everyone with 31 points. Jarrett Allen bounced back strongly with 22 points and seven rebounds while shooting 7-of-9 from the field. Evan Mobley contributed three steals and three blocks, but scored only nine points. James Harden finished with 10 points while shooting 3-of-13 and committing four turnovers.

The team statistics explain the final result even more clearly.

Detroit shot 48.8 percent from the field and 50 percent from three. Cleveland shot 42 percent overall and only 21.9 percent from three. Detroit also won the rebounding battle 42-36 and finished with one fewer turnover.

The fourth quarter was decisive. Cleveland briefly took a 79-81 lead after entering the period with momentum, but Detroit answered. Cunningham scored 12 points in the final six minutes, Detroit scored 28 points in the quarter, and Cleveland went 0-for-11 from three.

For Cleveland, the biggest priority is perimeter efficiency and greater offensive support around Mitchell and Allen. For Detroit, the winning formula is clear: let Cunningham create, maintain shooting around him, keep Harris involved, and continue winning the possession battle.

The final score says Detroit won by 10. The player statistics explain why.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who was the top scorer in the Pistons vs Cavaliers Game 2?

Donovan Mitchell was the game’s top scorer with 31 points for Cleveland. He shot 11-of-24 from the field and added six rebounds, three assists, and two steals.

How many points did Cade Cunningham score against the Cavaliers?

Cade Cunningham scored 25 points. He also recorded 10 assists, three rebounds, one steal, and two blocks while shooting 7-of-14 from the field.

Who had the most rebounds in the game?

Jalen Duren led all players with 10 rebounds for Detroit. Cleveland’s top rebounder was Jarrett Allen with seven.

What was the three-point shooting difference?

Detroit shot 14-of-28 from three, or 50 percent. Cleveland shot 7-of-32, or 21.9 percent. Detroit therefore made seven more three-pointers.

Did Detroit lead the series after Game 2?

Yes. Detroit won Game 2 by a score of 107-97 and took a 2-0 lead in the Eastern Conference semifinals.

Who had the best plus-minus?

Cade Cunningham had the best plus-minus in the game at +13. Tobias Harris was second among Detroit players at +8, while James Harden had Cleveland’s lowest significant-minute figure at -15.

Conclusion

The detroit pistons vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats provide a clear picture of a playoff game decided by more than the scoring leaders.

Donovan Mitchell produced the highest individual scoring total with 31 points, and Jarrett Allen was highly efficient with 22 points. Yet Cleveland could not overcome its 7-of-32 three-point shooting and 0-for-11 fourth-quarter performance from beyond the arc.

Detroit received the more balanced performance. Cunningham combined scoring and playmaking, Harris delivered efficient secondary offense, Robinson provided five three-pointers, Duren controlled the boards, and Jenkins supplied valuable bench production.

The most important number may ultimately be Detroit’s 50 percent three-point shooting. Combined with a 42-36 rebounding advantage and strong fourth-quarter execution, it explains how the Pistons survived Cleveland’s third-quarter comeback and secured a 2-0 series advantage.

For anyone studying the game through player statistics, the central takeaway is simple: Cleveland had the highest scorer, but Detroit had the more complete statistical performance.