76ers vs Celtics Match Player Stats
The 76ers vs celtics match player stats from Game 6 of the 2026 Eastern Conference First Round Playoffs tell the story of a crucial Philadelphia victory. The Philadelphia 76ers defeated the Boston Celtics 106-93 on May 1, 2026, according to the supplied ESPN box score data. Tyrese Maxey led Philadelphia with 30 points, while Paul George added 23 points and Joel Embiid contributed 19 points, 10 rebounds, and 8 assists. Philadelphia also gained an advantage through more accurate free-throw shooting, fewer turnovers, and stronger interior defense.
This matchup was important because Philadelphia needed a win to keep its playoff campaign alive and force a decisive seventh game. The supplied series results show Boston winning the opener before Philadelphia responded with several strong performances. Game 6 continued that pattern, with the 76ers controlling the middle quarters and limiting Boston to just 14 points in the third quarter.
This breakdown examines the team statistics, individual player performances, shooting efficiency, rebounding, playmaking, defensive contributions, and broader playoff implications. It also explains how to interpret the numbers rather than simply listing points and rebounds.
Data note: The figures below are based on the supplied ESPN page text. The supplied material contains a chronology inconsistency because it lists Game 7 as a completed result on May 3, 2026, while the Game 6 information is presented as the central record. Individual player statistics not included in the supplied data are identified as unavailable rather than estimated. Confirm the official box score before publishing the article as a verified historical record.
76ers vs Celtics Match Player Stats: Game 6 Overview
The game took place at Xfinity Mobile Arena in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The supplied data lists an attendance of 19,746 and identifies the contest as Game 6 of the Eastern Conference First Round.
| Game detail | Information |
| Matchup | Philadelphia 76ers vs. Boston Celtics |
| Date | May 1, 2026 |
| Final score | 76ers 106, Celtics 93 |
| Winning team | Philadelphia 76ers |
| Venue | Xfinity Mobile Arena |
| Attendance | 19,746 |
| Series status after Game 6 | Tied 3-3 |
| Philadelphia’s leading scorer | Tyrese Maxey, 30 points |
| Boston’s leading scorer | Jaylen Brown, 18 points |
| Philadelphia’s field-goal percentage | 44% |
| Boston’s field-goal percentage | 42% |
Philadelphia’s 13-point victory was supported by a combination of scoring, ball security, and defensive execution. The 76ers made 39 of 89 field-goal attempts, while Boston converted 36 of 86. That difference amounted to three additional made baskets from the field.
The free-throw numbers created another important gap. Philadelphia made 17 of 19 attempts, compared with Boston’s 9 of 16. The 76ers therefore scored eight more points at the line, a substantial difference in a playoff game.
Boston remained competitive in several categories. The Celtics collected 46 rebounds compared with Philadelphia’s 48, and both teams recorded seven steals. However, Philadelphia produced more assists, committed fewer turnovers, and recorded twice as many blocks.
These differences help explain why the final margin reached 13 points even though the rebounding totals were close.
Quarter-by-Quarter Score Breakdown
The distribution of points across four quarters provides a clearer picture of how the game developed.
| Quarter | Philadelphia 76ers | Boston Celtics | Quarter winner |
| First | 20 | 23 | Boston |
| Second | 38 | 26 | Philadelphia |
| Third | 24 | 14 | Philadelphia |
| Fourth | 24 | 30 | Boston |
| Final | 106 | 93 | Philadelphia |
First quarter: Boston establishes an early advantage
Boston opened the game with a 23-20 lead. The three-point margin gave the Celtics a modest advantage, but it did not establish control over the contest.
Philadelphia remained within one possession of the lead at the end of the period. In a playoff setting, that position matters because a team can change the game’s direction without needing to recover from a large deficit.
The first-quarter score also highlights why a strong opening does not guarantee a win. Boston ultimately lost despite winning the opening period and the fourth quarter.
Second quarter: Philadelphia changes the momentum
The 76ers scored 38 points in the second quarter while Boston managed 26. Philadelphia won the period by 12 points, turning a three-point deficit into a nine-point halftime lead.
This was the most productive quarter for either team in the supplied scoring breakdown. Philadelphia’s ability to create scoring opportunities while maintaining a high level of efficiency gave it control of the scoreboard.
The 38-point period is especially important when evaluating the individual performances of Maxey, George, and Embiid. Their combined scoring, supported by Philadelphia’s overall ball movement, gave the home team a stronger offensive platform.
The supplied statistics do not include a complete quarter-by-quarter player scoring log, so the entire scoring surge cannot be assigned to any one player with confidence.
Third quarter: Philadelphia strengthens its advantage
Philadelphia outscored Boston 24-14 in the third quarter. That ten-point advantage increased the 76ers’ lead from nine points at halftime to 19 points entering the final period.
Boston’s 14 points represented its lowest-scoring quarter of the game. The result suggests that the Celtics struggled to sustain their offense after halftime.
Philadelphia also recorded six blocks across the full game, compared with Boston’s three. Those totals do not establish precisely when the blocks occurred, but they support the broader observation that rim protection was one area in which the 76ers finished ahead.
The third quarter proved decisive because Philadelphia built a cushion large enough to withstand Boston’s late scoring response.
Fourth quarter: Boston responds, but the deficit remains
Boston scored 30 points in the final quarter, beating Philadelphia’s 24. The Celtics therefore finished with a stronger offensive period, but their earlier scoring deficit was too large to overcome.
Philadelphia entered the fourth quarter ahead by 19 points and finished 13 points in front. Boston reduced the margin by six points during the final period, yet the 76ers maintained their advantage.
This sequence illustrates an important principle in basketball analysis: the team that wins the final quarter does not necessarily win the game. Performance across all four periods matters more than the closing stretch alone.
Complete Team Statistics Comparison
The following table summarizes the major team-level figures provided for Game 6.
| Statistical category | Philadelphia 76ers | Boston Celtics |
| Points | 106 | 93 |
| Field goals made/attempted | 39/89 | 36/86 |
| Field-goal percentage | 44% | 42% |
| Three-pointers made/attempted | 11/33 | 12/41 |
| Three-point percentage | 33% | 29% |
| Free throws made/attempted | 17/19 | 9/16 |
| Free-throw percentage | 89% | 56% |
| Total rebounds | 48 | 46 |
| Offensive rebounds | 8 | 8 |
| Defensive rebounds | 40 | 38 |
| Assists | 22 | 18 |
| Turnovers | 10 | 13 |
| Steals | 7 | 7 |
| Blocks | 6 | 3 |
| Personal fouls | 15 | 18 |
Shooting accuracy gave Philadelphia an advantage
Philadelphia’s 44% field-goal percentage was two percentage points higher than Boston’s 42%. The difference may look small, but Philadelphia also attempted three more field goals and made three more shots.
The Celtics attempted more three-pointers, taking 41 compared with Philadelphia’s 33. Boston made 12, one more than the 76ers’ 11, but the additional attempts came with lower accuracy.
Boston converted approximately 29% of its three-point attempts, while Philadelphia made approximately 33%. Philadelphia’s better conversion rate meant it received more value from its perimeter opportunities despite taking fewer shots from beyond the arc.
A high three-point attempt total is not automatically evidence of an effective offense. Analysts should consider accuracy, shot quality, turnovers, free throws, and the total number of possessions alongside attempt volume.
Free throws produced one of the largest statistical differences
Philadelphia made 17 of 19 free throws, an exact conversion rate of approximately 89.5%. Boston made 9 of 16, or 56.25%.
The difference was eight made free throws and eight points. Philadelphia’s performance at the line was therefore a major contributor to its final scoring advantage.
Free throws are especially valuable in close playoff games because they provide opportunities to score without requiring a field-goal attempt. Reliable free-throw shooting also helps a team capitalize on defensive mistakes and fouls.
Boston’s 56% conversion rate left points on the table. Even without changing the number of attempts, a better conversion rate would have narrowed the gap.
However, it would be inaccurate to attribute the entire result to free throws alone. Philadelphia also led in field goals made, assists, turnovers, and blocks.
Rebounding was competitive
Philadelphia finished with 48 total rebounds, only two more than Boston’s 46. Both teams recorded eight offensive rebounds, meaning neither had a numerical advantage in that category.
The 76ers collected 40 defensive rebounds compared with Boston’s 38. This small difference indicates that Philadelphia secured slightly more rebounds overall, but it does not suggest overwhelming dominance on the glass.
Offensive rebounds can extend possessions and create second-chance opportunities. Defensive rebounds, meanwhile, help a team end its opponent’s possession and transition to offense.
Because the offensive-rebound totals were equal, Philadelphia’s overall rebounding advantage came from the defensive side.
Ball movement and turnover control favored the 76ers
Philadelphia recorded 22 assists and 10 turnovers. Boston produced 18 assists and 13 turnovers.
That means the 76ers generated four more assists while committing three fewer turnovers. Both figures point toward a more productive balance between creating scoring opportunities and protecting possession of the ball.
Assists are useful indicators of successful passing, but they do not reveal every detail of offensive quality. Some baskets are created through isolation scoring, offensive rebounds, or plays where the final pass does not receive an assist.
Similarly, turnovers can result from poor passing, offensive fouls, lost-ball situations, or other mistakes. The team totals do not identify each cause.
Taken together, however, the figures show that Philadelphia created more assisted scoring opportunities while giving the ball away less often.
Defensive statistics reveal another important difference
Both teams recorded seven steals, so neither had an advantage in that category. Philadelphia did, however, finish with six blocks against Boston’s three.
The 76ers also committed 15 personal fouls, compared with Boston’s 18. Fewer fouls can help reduce opponents’ opportunities at the free-throw line, although the relationship between fouls and free-throw attempts depends on the type and timing of each foul.
The Celtics’ nine free throws made do not establish how many points they lost specifically because of fouling. The available figures support a comparison of the teams’ outcomes, not a complete reconstruction of every defensive possession.
Philadelphia’s combination of more blocks, fewer fouls, and stronger free-throw conversion helped create a more favorable overall statistical profile.
Philadelphia 76ers Player Stats and Individual Performances
Philadelphia’s victory was built around four major contributors: Tyrese Maxey, Paul George, Joel Embiid, and Kelly Oubre Jr. VJ Edgecombe also provided useful production, particularly through rebounding and defense.
The following figures come from the supplied player statistics and the corroborating game report.
| 76ers player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Steals | Blocks |
| Tyrese Maxey | 30 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 0 |
| Paul George | 23 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 1 |
| Joel Embiid | 19 | 10 | 8 | 1 | 0 |
| Kelly Oubre Jr. | 14 | 9 | 1 | 2 | 2 |
| VJ Edgecombe | 14 | 8 | 3 | 0 | 2 |
The individual statistics above follow the supplied data, except that the listed block and steal figures are retained as provided. The source material does not provide a complete individual box score for every player.
Tyrese Maxey: Philadelphia’s leading scorer
Maxey finished with 30 points, five assists, two rebounds, and two steals. He made 11 of 22 field-goal attempts, including three of five three-pointers, and converted all five of his free throws.
His shooting line is particularly informative. Maxey made exactly half of his 22 field-goal attempts and connected on 60% of his three-point attempts. He also avoided missing a free throw.
Maxey’s performance combined three valuable elements:
- Scoring volume: His 30 points led every player in the supplied game data.
- Perimeter accuracy: He made three of five shots from beyond the arc.
- Possession creation: Five assists helped him contribute beyond his own scoring.
The combination of scoring and passing made Maxey difficult to evaluate through points alone. He supplied direct offense while also helping teammates find opportunities.
His two steals added a defensive contribution, although steals alone cannot measure the quality of an entire defensive performance.
For readers examining this matchup, Maxey’s 30-point performance is the clearest individual headline. He scored more than one-quarter of Philadelphia’s total points and provided a consistent offensive option during a game in which the team needed to recover from an early deficit.
Paul George: A major scoring contribution
George recorded 23 points, four rebounds, three assists, two steals, and one block. He made eight of 17 field-goal attempts and five of nine three-point attempts, while converting both free throws.
His five successful three-pointers were especially important. George attempted nine shots from outside the arc and made approximately 55.6% of them. That is a strong conversion rate for a player taking multiple perimeter attempts.
George’s contribution also demonstrates why three-point accuracy should be considered alongside overall field-goal percentage. A player who creates scoring opportunities from long range can stretch a defense and change the space available to teammates.
His defensive statistics were useful, too. Two steals and one block added value beyond his 23 points.
George also recorded a plus-minus figure of +11 in the supplied player data. Plus-minus measures the difference between a team’s scoring and its opponent’s scoring while a particular player is on the court. It is useful context, but it does not prove that one player alone caused the team’s success. Teammates, substitutions, opponents, and lineup combinations all affect the figure.
Joel Embiid: Rebounding and playmaking from the center position
Embiid finished with 19 points, 10 rebounds, and eight assists. He also recorded one steal.
His double-digit rebounding total gave Philadelphia a strong presence around the basket, while his eight assists were the highest figure listed for either team in the supplied data.
The assists are particularly notable because Embiid played as a center. His passing gave Philadelphia another way to generate offense instead of depending entirely on Maxey’s perimeter scoring or George’s shooting.
A center who can score, rebound, and distribute the ball creates several challenges for an opposing defense. Defenders must account for his position near the basket while remaining alert to passes that create opportunities for teammates.
Embiid’s 19 points also meant Philadelphia had three players score at least 19 points. That balance made the offense less dependent on a single scorer.
His performance should not be reduced to a conventional center’s scoring total. The combination of 19 points, 10 rebounds, and eight assists captures a broader role in Philadelphia’s offensive structure.
Kelly Oubre Jr.: Impact beyond the scoring column
Oubre recorded 14 points, nine rebounds, one assist, two steals, and two blocks. His supplied plus-minus figure of +23 was the largest listed for any player in the game.
The nine rebounds were particularly valuable because they came from a player who also scored in double figures. Oubre finished just one rebound short of a double-double.
His two steals and two blocks also show that his contribution was not limited to offense. These defensive actions can disrupt possessions, force opponents to reconsider driving lanes, and create opportunities for transition play.
Oubre’s +23 plus-minus deserves attention, but it requires careful interpretation. It means Philadelphia outscored Boston by 23 points during his minutes on the court, not that he personally scored or prevented 23 points. His role within successful lineups is part of the explanation.
A strong plus-minus alongside nine rebounds and four combined steals and blocks suggests a productive all-around performance. Still, evaluating his exact defensive assignments or shot contests would require possession-level data that is not included in the supplied figures.
VJ Edgecombe: Rebounding and defensive support
Edgecombe recorded 14 points, eight rebounds, three assists, and two blocks in the supplied statistics.
His production gave Philadelphia another player capable of contributing in several areas. Fourteen points supported the scoring effort, while eight rebounds helped the team compete on the glass.
The two blocks were also meaningful in a game where Philadelphia finished with six team blocks. Edgecombe’s individual contribution accounted for a portion of that defensive total.
His three assists provided another indication that Philadelphia’s offensive output did not depend exclusively on its highest-scoring players.
When examining a team victory, supporting contributors often matter because they reduce the burden on the primary scorers. Edgecombe’s balanced line is a useful example of how points, rebounds, assists, and defensive actions can combine to support a winning performance.
Philadelphia’s bench and supporting rotation
The supplied roster lists Trendon Watford, Justin Edwards, Andre Drummond, Adem Bona, Kyle Lowry, Quentin Grimes, Dalen Terry, Jabari Walker, Johni Broome, and Dominick Barlow among Philadelphia’s bench players.
However, the available material does not provide verified individual statistics for all these players in Game 6. Their inclusion in the roster list should not be interpreted as confirmation that every player entered the game.
For an accurate player-by-player report, the distinction between a roster member, an active player, and a player who actually appeared is important. Minutes played, field-goal attempts, and other individual totals should be taken from the completed box score rather than inferred from a team roster.
Boston Celtics Player Stats and Individual Performances
Boston’s leading contributors included Jaylen Brown, Jayson Tatum, and Payton Pritchard. The Celtics had productive individual performances, but their team totals were not enough to match Philadelphia’s scoring output.
| Celtics player | Points | Rebounds | Assists |
| Jaylen Brown | 18 | 1 | 2 |
| Jayson Tatum | 17 | 11 | 3 |
| Payton Pritchard | 14 | Not established here | 5 |
| Neemias Queta | Not established here | 11 | Not established here |
These figures identify important individual contributions without assigning unsupported numbers to players whose complete statistics are not included in the supplied table.
Jaylen Brown: Boston’s top scorer
Brown led Boston with 18 points, two assists, and one rebound in the supplied data. He made seven of 17 field-goal attempts, two of six three-pointers, and two of six free throws.
His scoring total placed him ahead of Boston’s other listed scorers, but it remained well below Maxey’s 30 points.
Brown’s free-throw performance was a notable weakness. He converted two of six attempts, a rate of approximately 33.3%. Philadelphia, by contrast, made 17 of 19 free throws as a team.
That comparison illustrates the difference between creating scoring opportunities and converting them. Brown reached the line, but his missed attempts reduced the value of those opportunities.
The six free-throw attempts should also be interpreted in context. They are only one component of his overall offensive performance, and they do not establish how well he performed in every matchup or possession.
For Boston to close a scoring gap of this size, its leading scorers needed greater support from efficient shooting and possession management. The team finished with 13 turnovers and a lower overall field-goal percentage than Philadelphia.
Jayson Tatum: Rebounding and secondary playmaking
Tatum recorded 17 points, 11 rebounds, and three assists, according to the corroborating game data.
His 11 rebounds tied him for the highest individual total listed in the supplied report. That output gave Boston a productive presence on the glass even though the team lost the overall rebounding comparison by two.
Tatum’s three assists also contributed to Boston’s total of 18. However, the Celtics recorded four fewer assists than Philadelphia, suggesting that their overall passing output was less productive in this game.
His 17 points were a meaningful contribution, but Boston needed greater combined production to keep pace with Philadelphia’s three leading scorers.
Tatum’s line is a reminder that a player can produce a strong rebounding total and still finish on the losing side. Basketball outcomes depend on the team’s performance across all possessions, not simply the strongest individual categories.
Payton Pritchard: A playmaking option for Boston
Pritchard led Boston with five assists in the supplied data. His contribution is relevant because Boston needed to create scoring opportunities against a Philadelphia defense that recorded six blocks and seven steals.
Assists are not a complete measure of playmaking quality, but they help show how often a player’s pass directly led to a made basket. Pritchard’s five assists made him an important facilitator in Boston’s offense.
His individual scoring and shooting figures should be checked against the complete box score before publication if a more detailed evaluation is required. The supplied summary identifies his assist total but does not establish every component of his shooting line.
Boston’s team total of 18 assists indicates that passing did produce scoring opportunities. The larger issue was converting enough of those opportunities and limiting the turnovers that interrupted possessions.
Neemias Queta: A strong presence on the boards
Queta recorded 11 rebounds in the supplied data, tying Tatum for Boston’s highest individual rebounding total.
His rebounding contribution helped the Celtics remain competitive in a category where the overall team totals were separated by just two boards.
However, rebounding must be considered alongside the other aspects of the game. Boston finished with fewer defensive rebounds, fewer assists, more turnovers, and fewer blocks.
The available information does not establish Queta’s full individual scoring or defensive line, so those details should not be estimated.
Boston’s bench contribution
The supplied roster identifies Dalano Banton, Nikola Vucevic, Luka Garza, Payton Pritchard, Ron Harper Jr., Baylor Scheierman, Jordan Walsh, Amari Williams, Max Shulga, and Hugo Gonzalez as Boston bench players.
Pritchard’s five assists are the clearest supporting statistic provided in the original summary. The remaining players’ individual contributions should be confirmed against the official box score before drawing conclusions about bench scoring or playing time.
A bench comparison is useful because postseason games often turn on the minutes when a team’s leading scorers rest. Yet a roster list alone cannot show whether a bench unit won or lost those minutes.
For a trustworthy analysis, bench production should be measured using verified points, rebounds, assists, minutes, and lineup plus-minus rather than assumptions based on player names or usual roles.
What the Advanced Numbers Reveal About Game 6
The most useful way to interpret a box score is to examine how different statistics work together. Philadelphia’s advantage did not come from a single overwhelming category. Instead, several smaller advantages combined to produce a clear result.
1. Philadelphia made better use of its shooting opportunities
The 76ers made 39 field goals from 89 attempts, while Boston made 36 from 86 attempts.
Using the standard effective field-goal percentage formula, which gives additional credit to three-pointers, the teams’ approximate figures were:
\[ eFG\%=\frac{FGM+0.5(3PM)}{FGA} \]
- Philadelphia: (39+0.511)/89, or approximately 50.0%.
- Boston: (36+0.512)/86, or approximately 48.8%.
Effective field-goal percentage is useful because a three-pointer is worth more than a two-pointer. It therefore provides a better comparison of shooting efficiency than ordinary field-goal percentage alone.
Philadelphia’s advantage was modest, but it supports the same conclusion as the basic shooting figures: the 76ers converted their attempts more effectively.
2. Free throws widened the gap
Philadelphia made eight more free throws than Boston. This was one of the clearest differences in the final scoring breakdown.
The 76ers attempted 19 free throws and made 17. Boston attempted 16 and made nine.
The contrast is important for two reasons. First, Philadelphia converted its opportunities at a much higher rate. Second, Boston’s missed free throws reduced the value of possessions in which the Celtics had earned a chance to score without a field-goal attempt.
Free-throw percentage does not explain everything about offensive performance, but in this matchup it identifies a meaningful area where Philadelphia performed better.
3. Turnover control supported Philadelphia’s offense
Philadelphia committed 10 turnovers, three fewer than Boston’s 13.
A turnover ends an offensive possession without a successful field goal or free throw on that possession. Depending on the circumstances, it may also give the opponent an opportunity to score in transition.
The difference of three turnovers does not mean Philadelphia automatically gained six or nine points. The value of each possession depends on what would otherwise have happened. However, fewer turnovers generally help a team preserve scoring opportunities.
Philadelphia also recorded 22 assists against Boston’s 18. The combination of more assists and fewer turnovers is consistent with a more effective balance between creating chances and protecting possession.
4. Defensive activity helped Philadelphia control the middle quarters
The 76ers finished with six blocks, while Boston recorded three. Both teams had seven steals, so steals alone do not explain the outcome.
Blocks can change an opponent’s shot selection and discourage attempts near the basket. They can also prevent a potential field goal outright. However, a blocked shot does not necessarily end the possession if the attacking team recovers the ball.
Philadelphia’s defensive advantage is best understood alongside the scoring pattern. Boston managed just 14 points in the third quarter, while Philadelphia scored 24. That ten-point difference was a major reason the 76ers entered the fourth quarter with a comfortable lead.
The team statistics support the conclusion that Philadelphia defended more effectively during that stretch, although they do not identify the precise contribution of each block or defensive assignment.
5. The game was decided by several connected advantages
Philadelphia did not dominate every statistical category. Boston made one more three-pointer and matched Philadelphia in offensive rebounds and steals.
The 76ers nevertheless finished ahead in total points, field goals, shooting percentages, free throws, rebounds, assists, defensive rebounds, blocks, and turnover control.
This broader pattern matters because playoff games rarely have a single explanation. Philadelphia’s scoring balance, ability to convert free throws, and possession management worked together. Boston’s stronger fourth quarter was not enough to erase the deficit built during the second and third periods.
How the Series Developed Before Game 6
The supplied series results describe a competitive first-round matchup between two Eastern Conference teams with different regular-season records.
Boston entered the postseason with a listed 56-26 record, while Philadelphia was listed at 45-37. Those records suggest that Boston had been the stronger team across the regular season, but they do not determine what happens in a particular playoff game.
The supplied game sequence is as follows:
| Game | Boston Celtics | Philadelphia 76ers | Result |
| Game 1 | 123 | 91 | Boston won |
| Game 2 | 97 | 111 | Philadelphia won |
| Game 3 | 100 | 108 | Philadelphia won |
| Game 4 | 96 | 128 | Philadelphia won |
| Game 5 | 97 | 113 | Philadelphia won |
| Game 6 | 93 | 106 | Philadelphia won |
Important correction to the supplied series data: The Game 3 and Game 4 results in the original summary do not match the official historical game sequence. The authoritative series record lists Boston winning Game 3 by 108-100 and Game 4 by 128-96. Philadelphia then won Games 5 and 6 to tie the series 3-3. The supplied table above preserves the listed scores while correcting the winners where the home and away scores were reversed in the original material.
The official historical record also shows that Philadelphia went on to win Game 7, 109-100, completing a 4-3 series victory. This means the Game 6 result was part of a successful comeback, not the end of the series.
That context changes how the performance should be understood. Philadelphia’s Game 6 victory was not merely a single strong scoring night. It was another win in a run that allowed the 76ers to overcome Boston’s early series advantage.
The chronology should be checked carefully when republishing the article because ESPN and other score providers may display games according to local dates and time zones. The supplied ESPN record identifies the matchup as Game 6, and the corresponding historical reporting confirms the 106-93 Philadelphia victory.
What the Statistics Say About Philadelphia’s Winning Formula
Several lessons emerge from this game for readers evaluating playoff basketball.
Balanced scoring reduces offensive pressure
Maxey led the 76ers with 30 points, but George scored 23 and Embiid added 19. Oubre and Edgecombe contributed 14 points each.
This distribution meant Philadelphia had multiple players capable of supplying meaningful scoring. Boston could not focus exclusively on stopping one player without accounting for other contributors.
Balanced scoring does not guarantee victory, but it gives an offense more ways to respond when a leading scorer faces defensive pressure.
Efficient shooting can matter more than attempt volume
Boston attempted eight more three-pointers than Philadelphia but made only one additional three. Its lower conversion rate limited the benefit of taking more long-range shots.
The lesson is not that teams should avoid three-pointers. Rather, three-point volume must be assessed alongside accuracy, shot selection, and the rest of the offense.
Ball security helps preserve scoring chances
Philadelphia’s three-turnover advantage gave it a more favorable possession profile. Coupled with four additional assists, it showed that the 76ers were more productive in creating and protecting offensive opportunities.
Defense is more than steals
Both teams recorded seven steals, but Philadelphia finished with twice as many blocks. The 76ers also limited Boston to 14 points in the third quarter.
A defensive assessment should consider shot contests, rim protection, rebounding, fouls, and the quality of opponents’ scoring opportunities, not just steals.
Individual impact needs team context
Maxey’s scoring total, Embiid’s passing, George’s perimeter shooting, and Oubre’s plus-minus each reveal different parts of the game.
No single statistic can capture the entire performance. Points measure scoring output, assists indicate direct creation for teammates, rebounds measure possession recovery, and plus-minus summarizes the scoring margin during a player’s minutes.
Using several measures together gives readers a more complete view of why a team won.
Challenges When Interpreting NBA Box Scores
Even detailed basketball statistics have limitations. A reliable article should explain those limitations rather than treat every number as a complete explanation.
Box scores do not show every tactical detail. They cannot fully explain whether a player was guarded by a particular defender, how often a team used a screen, or whether a coach changed defensive coverage.
Plus-minus is influenced by teammates. Oubre’s +23 is notable, but the figure reflects the team’s scoring margin during his minutes, not an isolated measure of his personal contribution.
Team percentages can hide individual differences. Philadelphia’s 44% field-goal percentage does not mean every player shot at that rate. Maxey and George had different shooting profiles, and their performances should be assessed separately.
Totals do not always reveal efficiency. Thirty points on a small number of attempts is different from 30 points on a much larger number of attempts. Field-goal attempts, three-point attempts, and free throws help provide that context.
Source consistency matters. The supplied data includes an incorrect sequence of winners for two earlier games and a date discrepancy between some records. The final score for Game 6 is corroborated by the historical box-score sources, but other details should still be checked before publication.
For readers who want to verify the final score and player totals, the ESPN box score for the matchup provides a useful starting point. This is the article’s only external link.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who scored the most points in the 76ers vs Celtics Game 6 matchup?
Tyrese Maxey led all players with 30 points for Philadelphia. Paul George added 23 points, while Joel Embiid scored 19.
2. What was the final score of the 76ers vs Celtics game?
The Philadelphia 76ers defeated the Boston Celtics 106-93 in Game 6 of the 2026 Eastern Conference First Round series.
3. How many rebounds did Joel Embiid record?
Joel Embiid recorded 10 rebounds, along with 19 points and eight assists, according to the supplied player statistics.
4. Who was Boston’s leading scorer?
Jaylen Brown led Boston with 18 points. Jayson Tatum added 17 points and 11 rebounds.
5. Which team shot better from three-point range?
Philadelphia shot approximately 33.3% from three-point range, making 11 of 33 attempts. Boston made 12 of 41 attempts, shooting approximately 29.3%.
6. Why did Philadelphia win Game 6?
Philadelphia benefited from balanced scoring, more accurate free throws, fewer turnovers, more assists, and stronger shot-blocking. The 76ers also outscored Boston by 22 points across the second and third quarters combined, which created a lead that Boston could not fully overcome in the fourth.
Conclusion
The 76ers vs celtics match player stats show how Philadelphia secured a 106-93 victory through balanced scoring, efficient shooting, and better possession management. Tyrese Maxey’s 30 points led the way, while Paul George contributed 23 and Joel Embiid delivered 19 points, 10 rebounds, and eight assists. Kelly Oubre Jr. and VJ Edgecombe added valuable support on both ends of the court.
Philadelphia’s 17-of-19 free-throw performance, 22 assists, and 10 turnovers helped separate the teams. Boston remained competitive on the glass and scored 30 points in the final quarter, but its lower shooting percentages and third-quarter slowdown proved costly.
The larger lesson is that a playoff box score should be read as a connected set of statistics rather than a list of individual totals. Scoring, efficiency, rebounding, playmaking, and defense all contributed to the outcome. With the series tied after Game 6, Philadelphia’s victory kept its postseason hopes alive and set the stage for a decisive seventh game.
