knicks vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats
The knicks vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats from Game 3 tell a much deeper story than the 121-108 final score. New York did not simply win because Jalen Brunson scored 30 points. The Knicks controlled the game through efficient shooting, balanced scoring, strong ball movement, timely defense, and better execution across all four quarters. Cleveland had four players reach at least 17 points, yet the Cavaliers still fell behind 3-0 in the Eastern Conference Finals. Looking closely at the numbers explains why.
The May 24, 2026 meeting at Rocket Arena in Cleveland produced one of the most interesting statistical profiles of the series. New York shot 56% from the field, made 39% of its three-point attempts, and converted 89% of its free throws. Cleveland shot 50% overall but managed only 29% from three and 63% at the line. Those differences may look modest in isolation, but across a playoff game they create a meaningful gap.
This article breaks down the supplied Game 3 data player by player and team by team. The goal is not just to repeat the box score. It is to explain what the numbers reveal about shot quality, offensive efficiency, defensive pressure, possession control, and the individual performances that shaped the result.
Knicks vs Cleveland Cavaliers Match Player Stats
The supplied game data records a 121-108 Knicks victory in Game 3 of the Eastern Conference Finals on May 24, 2026. New York entered the game with a 53-29 regular-season record, while Cleveland entered at 52-30.
The Knicks led 3-0 in the series after the result.
| Game Detail | Knicks | Cavaliers |
| Final Score | 121 | 108 |
| Field Goals | 43-77 | 42-84 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 56% | 50% |
| Three-Pointers | 11-28 | 12-41 |
| Three-Point Percentage | 39% | 29% |
| Free Throws | 24-27 | 12-19 |
| Free Throw Percentage | 89% | 63% |
| Rebounds | 37 | 34 |
| Assists | 27 | 22 |
| Turnovers | 14 | 17 |
| Steals | 11 | 7 |
| Blocks | 4 | 1 |
At first glance, Cleveland actually made one more three-pointer than New York. That fact makes the shooting comparison particularly useful. The Cavaliers attempted 41 threes compared with 28 for the Knicks, but their lower accuracy meant they did not turn that volume into an advantage.
New York’s 43 made field goals came on 77 attempts. Cleveland made 42 on 84 attempts. In other words, the Knicks scored one more field goal while taking seven fewer shots.
That is an important efficiency signal.
The Knicks also made 24 free throws compared with only 12 for Cleveland. Their 89% conversion rate meant New York left very little value at the line.
The Scoreboard Shows How New York Built Its Lead
The quarter-by-quarter numbers reveal that the Knicks did not rely on one explosive stretch alone.
New York scored:
- 37 points in the first quarter
- 23 points in the second quarter
- 31 points in the third quarter
- 30 points in the fourth quarter
Cleveland scored:
- 27 points in the first quarter
- 27 points in the second quarter
- 28 points in the third quarter
- 26 points in the fourth quarter
The opening period was especially important.
New York scored 37 points while Cleveland managed 27. That 10-point first-quarter margin immediately placed the Cavaliers under pressure.
Cleveland responded with a 27-point second quarter, but New York still entered halftime with an advantage because the Knicks had already established control.
The third quarter again favored New York, 31-28. Then the Knicks finished with another 30-point period in the fourth.
This pattern matters because it shows sustained offensive performance. New York did not win by scoring 45 points in one quarter and then surviving. The Knicks consistently found ways to produce offense.
Cleveland, meanwhile, never matched New York’s scoring output in any quarter.
That consistency is one of the strongest indicators in the supplied statistics.
Jalen Brunson’s 30 Points Set the Offensive Tone
Jalen Brunson was the Knicks’ leading scorer with 30 points.
That headline number is important, but his value cannot be reduced to scoring alone. Brunson was listed among New York’s starting five alongside OG Anunoby, Karl-Anthony Towns, Josh Hart, and Mikal Bridges.
When a lead guard produces 30 points in a playoff game while the team shoots 56% overall and records 27 assists, the larger question is how that scoring fits within the offense.
New York’s numbers suggest that Brunson’s scoring did not come at the expense of team efficiency.
The Knicks made 43 of 77 field-goal attempts. They also generated 27 assists. That combination points toward an offense that was not completely dependent on isolated one-on-one possessions.
Brunson’s 30 points therefore functioned as the centerpiece of a broader offensive performance.
His scoring also mattered in context. New York had several other contributors, allowing the offense to maintain pressure even when Brunson was not the player finishing a possession.
For Cleveland, that created a difficult defensive problem. Limiting the primary scorer is much harder when other starters and rotation players are producing efficiently.
Mikal Bridges Added 22 Points
Mikal Bridges finished with 22 points for New York.
His scoring gave the Knicks a second major perimeter option behind Brunson. More importantly, his 22-point contribution helped prevent Cleveland from concentrating its defensive attention exclusively on Brunson.
A 30-point lead scorer paired with a 22-point secondary scorer creates a different defensive challenge from a team that depends heavily on one player.
Bridges was also part of the Knicks’ starting lineup with Anunoby, Towns, Hart, and Brunson.
The statistical relationship between Bridges’ production and New York’s overall shooting efficiency is worth noting. The Knicks converted 56% of their field-goal attempts, which indicates that the offense was consistently converting opportunities rather than simply generating high shot volume.
OG Anunoby Produced 21 Points
OG Anunoby scored 21 points.
That gave New York three players with at least 21 points:
- Jalen Brunson: 30
- Mikal Bridges: 22
- OG Anunoby: 21
That balance is one of the clearest explanations for the 121-point total.
Cleveland’s defense was forced to account for several reliable scoring threats. When three players can reach 20 or more points, defensive game planning becomes more complicated because stopping one scorer does not necessarily stop the offense.
Anunoby’s 21 points also helped New York maintain its scoring pressure throughout the game.
The broader takeaway is simple: the Knicks did not need an extraordinary scoring night from every player. They needed several players to perform efficiently at the same time.
That is exactly what the supplied box-score data shows.
Jordan Clarkson Supplied 14 Points
Jordan Clarkson scored 14 points for New York.
Although his total was lower than the three leading Knicks scorers, his contribution added depth to the scoring distribution.
A 14-point performance can become especially valuable in a playoff game when the top players are already drawing substantial defensive attention.
The Knicks’ scoring profile therefore looked like a hierarchy rather than a single-player attack:
- Brunson led with 30.
- Bridges followed with 22.
- Anunoby added 21.
- Clarkson contributed 14.
- Other Knicks players supplied the remaining points.
That distribution helps explain why New York reached 121 points while taking only 77 field-goal attempts.
Evan Mobley Led Cleveland With 24 Points
Evan Mobley was Cleveland’s top scorer with 24 points.
His performance was one of the strongest individual scoring efforts for the Cavaliers. Mobley finished ahead of Donovan Mitchell, James Harden, and Jarrett Allen.
Cleveland’s scoring leaders were:
- Evan Mobley: 24 points
- Donovan Mitchell: 23 points
- James Harden: 19 points
- Jarrett Allen: 17 points
This is a significant detail because it shows that Cleveland did not lose because its leading players failed to score.
Four Cavaliers scored at least 17 points.
The problem was what happened around those scoring totals.
Cleveland shot 50% from the field, which is respectable on its own. However, the Cavaliers attempted 41 three-pointers and made only 12. That produced a 29% three-point percentage.
They also made only 12 of 19 free throws.
So the individual scoring numbers were competitive, but the team’s overall efficiency was not strong enough to match New York.
Donovan Mitchell Scored 23 Points
Donovan Mitchell finished with 23 points.
His production was just one point below Mobley’s team-leading total. That means Cleveland had two players above 20 points, while New York had three.
Mitchell’s 23 points were also part of a four-player scoring core that produced 83 points.
That is a substantial portion of Cleveland’s 108 total.
Yet the Cavaliers still lost by 13 points.
This is a useful reminder when interpreting player statistics: high individual scoring totals do not automatically indicate an effective team offense.
The better question is how those points were produced and what happened on the possessions that did not end in scores.
Cleveland’s 17 turnovers and 29% three-point shooting provide important context.
James Harden Added 19 Points
James Harden scored 19 points for Cleveland.
Although he fell just short of the 20-point mark, his scoring was still significant. Cleveland had four players between 17 and 24 points, which demonstrates that the Cavaliers were able to spread scoring responsibilities.
The problem was that the team did not convert enough of its possessions efficiently.
Cleveland attempted 84 field goals, seven more than New York, yet made 42 compared with New York’s 43.
That is one of the most revealing numbers in the entire game.
The Cavaliers had more field-goal attempts but fewer made field goals.
That means additional volume did not compensate for the lower shooting efficiency.
Jarrett Allen Finished With 17 Points
Jarrett Allen recorded 17 points.
His contribution gave Cleveland a fourth player with a significant scoring total.
Allen also started alongside Dean Wade, Mobley, Harden, and Mitchell.
The presence of Allen and Mobley gave Cleveland a strong interior scoring foundation on paper. However, the Knicks still finished with a three-rebound advantage, 37-34.
That narrow rebounding difference suggests that Cleveland was not completely overwhelmed on the glass.
Instead, the larger problems came from efficiency, turnovers, three-point shooting, free throws, and the Knicks’ ability to generate additional possessions through defensive activity.
Why the Shooting Numbers Matter More Than the Raw Score
The 121-108 final score tells us who won.
The shooting statistics help explain why.
New York:
- 43 made field goals on 77 attempts
- 56% field-goal shooting
- 11 made threes on 28 attempts
- 39% three-point shooting
- 24 made free throws on 27 attempts
- 89% free-throw shooting
Cleveland:
- 42 made field goals on 84 attempts
- 50% field-goal shooting
- 12 made threes on 41 attempts
- 29% three-point shooting
- 12 made free throws on 19 attempts
- 63% free-throw shooting
The Knicks had a particularly strong advantage at the free-throw line.
They made 12 more free throws than Cleveland.
That alone represents 12 additional points.
New York also shot six percentage points better from the field and 10 percentage points better from three.
Cleveland did make one more three-pointer, but it required 13 additional attempts to do so.
That is the difference between shooting volume and shooting efficiency.
New York Won the Efficiency Battle
A useful way to interpret this game is to ask how much the Knicks got from each shot category.
New York’s 56% field-goal percentage means more than half of its attempts became made baskets.
Cleveland’s 50% shooting was not poor, but it was clearly behind.
The six-point percentage gap becomes meaningful when both teams take dozens of shots.
New York also converted 89% of its free throws.
In a playoff setting, missed free throws are often more damaging because every possession carries greater weight. Cleveland left seven free throws unconverted, while New York missed only three.
That creates a 12-point difference in made free throws.
The combined effect of field-goal accuracy, three-point efficiency, and free-throw conversion explains a large part of New York’s offensive advantage.
Cleveland’s Three-Point Volume Did Not Produce Enough Value
The Cavaliers attempted 41 three-pointers.
The Knicks attempted 28.
That is a difference of 13 attempts.
Normally, a team that attempts significantly more threes can create a major scoring advantage. But the Cavaliers converted only 12 of those 41 attempts.
That equals 29%.
New York made 11 of 28, or 39%.
The Knicks therefore made only one fewer three-pointer despite taking 13 fewer attempts.
This is one of the clearest statistical lessons from the game.
More three-point attempts are not automatically better.
Shot selection, spacing, defensive pressure, and shooting accuracy determine whether that volume becomes an advantage.
Cleveland’s strategy generated opportunities, but the conversion rate was not high enough to punish New York consistently.
Free Throws Created a Major Separation
The free-throw statistics deserve special attention.
New York:
24 of 27, 89%
Cleveland:
12 of 19, 63%
The Knicks attempted eight more free throws and made twice as many.
That is a major advantage.
New York’s ability to capitalize on its opportunities at the line meant that its offense was not dependent entirely on jump shooting.
This matters because three-point shooting can fluctuate heavily from game to game. Free throws provide a different form of scoring stability.
The Knicks also converted their free throws at an excellent rate.
Cleveland’s 63% conversion rate, by contrast, left points available that never reached the scoreboard.
Turnovers Changed the Possession Battle
The Cavaliers committed 17 turnovers.
The Knicks committed 14.
The three-turnover difference may appear small, but it becomes more important when combined with New York’s 11 steals.
Cleveland recorded only seven steals.
New York therefore generated four more steals while committing three fewer turnovers.
That combination suggests a meaningful advantage in possession pressure.
Turnovers do more than remove a scoring opportunity. They can also prevent a team from setting its half-court defense properly and create transition opportunities for the opponent.
New York’s defensive activity appears particularly important in this game because the Knicks did not need to dominate the rebounding battle to control possessions.
They were active defensively, forced mistakes, and protected the ball slightly better.
New York’s 11 Steals Were a Major Defensive Indicator
The Knicks recorded 11 steals.
Cleveland recorded seven.
That four-steal advantage is one of the clearest defensive statistics in the game.
Steals are not a complete measure of defense, but they can reveal pressure and disruption.
When a team produces 11 steals while also shooting 56% from the field, the performance becomes difficult to overcome.
The Knicks were not merely waiting for Cleveland to miss shots. They were actively generating defensive events.
The four-block difference was also notable.
New York recorded four blocks compared with one for Cleveland.
Although blocks do not tell the entire story of interior defense, the combined advantage in steals and blocks points toward more disruptive defensive activity from the Knicks.
Assists Reveal Better Offensive Connectivity
New York recorded 27 assists.
Cleveland recorded 22.
That five-assist difference fits the overall offensive picture.
The Knicks made 43 field goals and recorded 27 assists. Cleveland made 42 field goals but recorded only 22 assists.
The exact distribution of individual assists is not included in the supplied data, so it would be inappropriate to assign assist totals to individual players without verification.
However, the team numbers clearly indicate that New York had more assisted baskets relative to its made field goals.
That suggests stronger offensive connectivity.
It also supports the idea that New York’s 121-point performance was a team achievement rather than simply a Brunson scoring explosion.
Rebounding Was Close
New York won the rebounding battle 37-34.
That is only a three-rebound difference.
This is important because it prevents an inaccurate interpretation of the game.
The Knicks did not win because they completely dominated the boards.
Cleveland stayed relatively close in total rebounds.
The decisive statistical gaps were elsewhere.
New York’s stronger shooting efficiency, free-throw production, assists, steals, and lower turnover total were more significant than the relatively small rebounding difference.
This is a good example of why box-score analysis should look at multiple categories instead of choosing one statistic as the explanation for the result.
The Knicks’ Starting Lineup Worked as a Group
New York’s listed starters were:
- OG Anunoby
- Karl-Anthony Towns
- Josh Hart
- Mikal Bridges
- Jalen Brunson
The lineup combines perimeter creation, shooting, size, rebounding, and defensive versatility.
The scoring data shows that three members of this group reached at least 21 points.
Brunson scored 30.
Bridges scored 22.
Anunoby scored 21.
That balance is especially significant because it means the Cavaliers could not focus entirely on Brunson.
The supplied data does not provide individual defensive assignments, shot charts, or possession-by-possession tracking, so deeper claims about specific matchup responsibilities should be treated cautiously.
Still, the scoring distribution clearly demonstrates that New York received meaningful production from several starters.
Cleveland’s Starting Group Faced a Difficult Efficiency Problem
Cleveland started:
- Dean Wade
- Jarrett Allen
- Evan Mobley
- James Harden
- Donovan Mitchell
The Cavaliers received strong scoring contributions from four of those players.
Mobley scored 24.
Mitchell scored 23.
Harden scored 19.
Allen scored 17.
That is a combined 83 points.
Despite that production, Cleveland scored only 108 points.
This suggests that the supporting offense and efficiency did not rise enough to match New York.
It also shows why the final score should not be interpreted as evidence that Cleveland’s stars simply disappeared.
They did not.
The bigger issue was that the Cavaliers’ overall possession efficiency was weaker.
A Closer Look at the 13-Point Margin
A 13-point playoff victory is large enough to be meaningful but not so large that one statistic explains everything.
The supplied numbers point to several interconnected causes.
1. Field-goal efficiency
New York shot 56%.
Cleveland shot 50%.
2. Three-point efficiency
New York shot 39%.
Cleveland shot 29%.
3. Free throws
New York made 24.
Cleveland made 12.
4. Ball security
New York committed 14 turnovers.
Cleveland committed 17.
5. Defensive disruption
New York recorded 11 steals and four blocks.
Cleveland recorded seven steals and one block.
6. Playmaking
New York recorded 27 assists.
Cleveland recorded 22.
No single category completely explains the victory.
Together, they form a consistent statistical profile of a more efficient and controlled Knicks performance.
What the Game Says About Jalen Brunson’s Impact
Brunson’s 30 points naturally make him the headline performer for New York.
But the more interesting conclusion is that his scoring came within an offense that also produced 27 assists and 43 made field goals.
That matters when evaluating playoff stars.
A high-scoring guard can dominate a game through difficult isolation possessions. Another high-scoring guard can score while keeping the offense connected.
The supplied team numbers lean toward the second interpretation.
Without individual possession data, it would be excessive to claim that every Brunson possession created an efficient team outcome. But the overall numbers show that his 30-point performance existed within a highly productive team offense.
That distinction is important for anyone studying player performance rather than simply reading the leading scorer column.
What the Game Says About Cleveland’s Stars
Cleveland’s four leading scorers combined for 83 points.
That is a strong total.
Mobley and Mitchell both passed 20.
Harden nearly did.
Allen added 17.
Yet Cleveland lost by 13.
This illustrates a recurring principle in basketball analysis: star scoring must be evaluated alongside efficiency and possession outcomes.
The Cavaliers attempted 84 field goals, 41 three-pointers, and 19 free throws.
Despite that volume, they scored 108.
The Knicks reached 121 on 77 field-goal attempts, 28 three-point attempts, and 27 free throws.
New York converted its opportunities at a better rate.
That is the key distinction.
The Most Important Numbers From Game 3
For readers who want the fastest statistical summary, these are the figures that deserve the most attention:
121-108: New York’s final margin.
30: Brunson’s team-leading points.
24: Mobley’s team-leading Cleveland points.
56%: New York’s field-goal percentage.
50%: Cleveland’s field-goal percentage.
39%: New York’s three-point percentage.
29%: Cleveland’s three-point percentage.
24: Knicks free throws made.
12: Cavaliers free throws made.
27: Knicks assists.
22: Cavaliers assists.
14: Knicks turnovers.
17: Cavaliers turnovers.
11: Knicks steals.
7: Cavaliers steals.
37: Knicks rebounds.
34: Cavaliers rebounds.
The most revealing comparison may be the combination of 56% shooting and 24 made free throws for New York.
Those numbers show that the Knicks were efficient in multiple scoring areas.
Why the Box Score Should Be Read as a Story
A box score is more useful when its numbers are connected.
For example, consider this sequence:
New York shot 56%.
That efficiency helped the Knicks make 43 field goals.
Those 43 made baskets came with 27 assists.
New York also made 24 free throws.
Meanwhile, the Knicks forced 17 turnovers from Cleveland and recorded 11 steals.
The result was 121 points.
Cleveland’s profile moved in a different direction.
The Cavaliers attempted more field goals but shot worse.
They attempted far more three-pointers but converted them at a lower rate.
They made half as many free throws.
They committed more turnovers.
They recorded fewer steals.
That statistical chain gives the final score context.
The game was not decided by one isolated advantage.
It was decided by a collection of small and medium advantages that consistently pointed toward New York.
What Fans Should Watch in the Next Game
If this statistical profile is used to evaluate the next matchup, several areas deserve attention.
Cleveland’s three-point efficiency
The Cavaliers attempted 41 threes but made only 12.
If Cleveland continues to rely on high-volume perimeter shooting, the conversion rate becomes critical.
Free-throw execution
A 63% team rate left too many points behind.
Improvement at the line could make a meaningful difference in a close playoff game.
Turnovers
Cleveland’s 17 turnovers were three more than New York’s.
Reducing wasted possessions would help Cleveland create more scoring opportunities without requiring additional shot attempts.
Knicks offensive balance
New York received 30 points from Brunson, 22 from Bridges, and 21 from Anunoby.
Cleveland will have to manage that balance rather than focusing solely on one scorer.
Defensive pressure
New York’s 11 steals were significant.
If the Knicks continue generating that level of disruption, Cleveland may struggle to maintain consistent offensive rhythm.
How to Interpret Player Stats Without Overrating Them
Individual points are easy to understand, which is why they often dominate basketball coverage.
But points alone can be misleading.
A player scoring 30 points can do so on very different levels of efficiency.
Similarly, a player scoring 17 points can have a major impact through defense, rebounding, passing, screening, and possession control.
The supplied Game 3 data does not include every advanced metric, such as usage rate, true shooting percentage, player efficiency rating, plus-minus, shot location, or individual defensive matchup data.
Therefore, those statistics should not be invented or estimated from incomplete information.
What can be said confidently is that the available numbers show New York was more efficient as a team.
That is enough to explain a substantial part of the result without forcing unsupported conclusions.
The Biggest Statistical Takeaway
The biggest lesson from the supplied Game 3 numbers is the difference between production and efficiency.
Cleveland produced plenty of individual scoring.
Mobley had 24.
Mitchell had 23.
Harden had 19.
Allen had 17.
Yet New York still scored 13 more points.
Why?
Because the Knicks converted their opportunities more effectively.
They shot 56% from the field.
They shot 39% from three.
They made 24 of 27 free throws.
They recorded 27 assists.
They committed 14 turnovers.
They generated 11 steals.
Cleveland’s numbers were less efficient across several of those categories.
This is why a serious player-stat analysis should never stop at the top scorer.
The interaction between shooting, possessions, playmaking, turnovers, and defensive events provides a much clearer picture.
Game 3 Statistical Summary
Based on the supplied data, New York’s 121-108 victory can be summarized through five central themes.
First, New York shot better. The six-point field-goal percentage advantage was substantial.
Second, New York converted free throws at a much higher rate. The Knicks made 24 compared with Cleveland’s 12.
Third, New York protected the ball slightly better. The Knicks had 14 turnovers compared with 17 for Cleveland.
Fourth, New York created more defensive disruption. The Knicks recorded 11 steals and four blocks.
Fifth, the Knicks had broader high-level scoring. Brunson, Bridges, and Anunoby all reached at least 21 points.
Cleveland’s individual scorers were productive, but the team’s efficiency was not strong enough to overcome those combined disadvantages.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score of Knicks vs Cavaliers Game 3?
The New York Knicks defeated the Cleveland Cavaliers 121-108 in the supplied Game 3 data from May 24, 2026.
Who was the Knicks’ top scorer?
Jalen Brunson led New York with 30 points. Mikal Bridges scored 22 and OG Anunoby scored 21.
Who led the Cavaliers in scoring?
Evan Mobley led Cleveland with 24 points. Donovan Mitchell scored 23, James Harden scored 19, and Jarrett Allen scored 17.
Which team shot better?
The Knicks shot 56% from the field and 39% from three. Cleveland shot 50% from the field and 29% from three.
How many turnovers did each team have?
The Knicks committed 14 turnovers, while the Cavaliers committed 17.
How did the teams compare in free throws?
New York made 24 of 27 free throws for 89%. Cleveland made 12 of 19 for 63%.
Conclusion
The knicks vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats from Game 3 provide a clear picture of why New York won 121-108.
Jalen Brunson’s 30 points were the headline performance, but the victory was much broader than one player. Mikal Bridges added 22, OG Anunoby scored 21, and Jordan Clarkson contributed 14. That scoring depth helped the Knicks maintain offensive pressure throughout the game.
Cleveland also received strong individual performances. Evan Mobley scored 24, Donovan Mitchell had 23, James Harden added 19, and Jarrett Allen scored 17. The Cavaliers therefore had enough individual production to remain competitive, but their overall efficiency was weaker.
The decisive statistical differences were New York’s 56% field-goal shooting, 39% three-point shooting, 89% free-throw shooting, 27 assists, 14 turnovers, and 11 steals. Cleveland’s 50% field-goal shooting, 29% three-point shooting, 63% free-throw shooting, 17 turnovers, and seven steals created too large a combined disadvantage.
The rebounding battle was relatively close at 37-34, so the result cannot simply be explained by control of the glass. Instead, Game 3 was shaped by efficient scoring, ball security, defensive disruption, and better conversion of valuable possessions.
For anyone studying player performance, the most useful lesson is to read the box score as a connected system. Points tell you who scored. Shooting percentages explain how efficiently those points were produced. Assists reveal offensive connectivity. Turnovers and steals help explain possession control. Free throws reveal another source of scoring efficiency.
Taken together, those numbers show why New York was able to turn strong individual performances into a convincing team victory.
