Milwaukee Bucks vs Cleveland Cavaliers Match Player Stats

The milwaukee bucks vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats from February 26, 2026, tell the story of a remarkably close NBA game that came down to the final possessions. The Milwaukee Bucks defeated the Cleveland Cavaliers 118-116 at Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, with both teams producing 33 points in the opening quarter and remaining within striking distance throughout the night. Milwaukee ultimately gained the decisive edge through more efficient shooting, particularly from three-point range, while Cleveland relied heavily on its interior scoring and strong rebounding performance.

The final score does not fully explain how competitive this matchup was. Cleveland finished with 48% shooting from the field and collected 44 rebounds, while Milwaukee shot an impressive 55% and converted 19 of 45 three-point attempts. Both teams recorded 28 assists, seven steals and two blocks. Cleveland committed 11 turnovers compared with Milwaukee’s 13, meaning the biggest statistical separation came from shooting efficiency rather than ball security.

For anyone studying the milwaukee bucks vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats, this game offers several useful lessons. Jarrett Allen led Cleveland with 27 points and 11 rebounds, Dennis Schroder added 26 points, and Craig Porter Jr. contributed nine assists. For Milwaukee, Kevin Porter Jr. led the scoring with 20 points, Ryan Rollins scored 18 and supplied nine assists, while Jericho Sims grabbed 11 rebounds.

Milwaukee Bucks vs Cleveland Cavaliers Match Player Stats at a Glance

The February 26 matchup ended with Milwaukee winning 118-116. Cleveland entered the game with a 37-23 record and a 17-12 road record, while Milwaukee came in at 26-31 with a 14-13 home record.

Category	Cleveland Cavaliers	Milwaukee Bucks
Final Score	116	118
Q1	33	33
Q2	30	29
Q3	31	31
Q4	22	25
Field Goals	42-87	48-88
Field Goal Percentage	48%	55%
Three-Pointers	12-40	19-45
Three-Point Percentage	30%	42%
Free Throws	20-27	3-5
Rebounds	44	36
Assists	28	28
Turnovers	11	13
Steals	7	7
Blocks	2	2
Leading Scorer	Jarrett Allen, 27	Kevin Porter Jr., 20
Leading Rebounder	Jarrett Allen, 11	Jericho Sims, 11
Leading Assister	Craig Porter Jr., 9	Ryan Rollins, 9

One of the most interesting details is that Cleveland won the rebounding battle by eight boards, while Milwaukee won the shooting battle by a much larger margin. That contrast helps explain why a team that shot 48% and had fewer turnovers still came away with a two-point defeat.

How the Game Developed Quarter by Quarter

First Quarter: A Perfectly Even Start

Both teams scored 33 points in the opening period. That immediate balance established the tone for the rest of the game.

Cleveland’s offense was able to generate consistent production, while Milwaukee responded without allowing the visitors to establish an early lead. Neither side gained a meaningful advantage during the first 12 minutes.

A 33-33 opening quarter is particularly important in a game that eventually finishes 118-116. It means neither team spent the first quarter trying to recover from a major deficit. Instead, both offenses entered the second quarter with the game essentially reset.

Second Quarter: Cleveland Takes a One-Point Edge

Cleveland scored 30 points in the second quarter, compared with 29 from Milwaukee.

That gave the Cavaliers a 63-62 halftime advantage.

The one-point margin illustrates just how little separated these teams. Cleveland was not dominating the game, and Milwaukee was not struggling badly. Every possession mattered because neither side had created enough separation to make the final outcome predictable.

The Cavaliers also entered halftime having established a useful physical advantage on the glass. Their eventual 44 rebounds were a major component of their overall statistical profile.

Third Quarter: Another Dead Even Period

The third quarter ended 31-31.

After three quarters, Cleveland held a 94-93 lead. In other words, 36 minutes of basketball had produced only a one-point difference.

This is an important detail when evaluating the player performances. Individual scoring totals should not be viewed in isolation. The game remained within one possession for most of its later stages, which placed greater importance on shot selection, efficiency and execution.

Fourth Quarter: Milwaukee Makes the Difference

The Bucks scored 25 points in the fourth quarter while Cleveland managed 22.

That three-point difference was enough to turn a one-point deficit entering the final period into a two-point victory.

The final scoring progression was:

• Cleveland led 33-33 after the first quarter.
• Cleveland led 63-62 at halftime.
• Cleveland led 94-93 after three quarters.
• Milwaukee finished ahead 118-116.

Milwaukee therefore won the game without ever producing a huge scoring run on the supplied box score. Instead, the Bucks gradually turned a one-point deficit into a two-point win during the final quarter.

Cleveland Cavaliers Player Performance

Jarrett Allen Leads Cleveland

Jarrett Allen was the standout scorer for Cleveland, finishing with 27 points. He also led the Cavaliers with 11 rebounds.

That combination made Allen one of the most important players in the matchup. His scoring gave Cleveland a reliable source of points, while his rebounding helped the Cavaliers control an area where they finished clearly ahead of Milwaukee.

Allen’s 27 points represented a substantial portion of Cleveland’s 116 total points. His 11 rebounds also matched Milwaukee’s team-high from Jericho Sims.

The key point is that Allen delivered in two different statistical categories. He was not simply Cleveland’s leading scorer. He was also its leading rebounder.

Dennis Schroder Provides 26 Points

Dennis Schroder finished second among Cleveland scorers with 26 points.

The combination of Allen’s 27 and Schroder’s 26 meant Cleveland’s two leading scorers accounted for 53 points.

That is a significant contribution. Yet the Cavaliers still finished two points behind because the rest of the statistical profile did not provide enough compensation for Milwaukee’s shooting advantage.

Schroder’s scoring was therefore highly valuable, but the game demonstrates why two strong individual scoring performances do not automatically produce a victory.

Craig Porter Jr. Leads the Cavaliers in Assists

Craig Porter Jr. recorded nine assists, giving him Cleveland’s highest assist total in the supplied data.

His nine assists were particularly notable because Cleveland finished with 28 assists as a team. That means Porter Jr. was directly involved in creating a significant portion of the Cavaliers’ assisted scoring opportunities.

The Cavaliers also finished with the same overall assist total as Milwaukee, 28. So the loss was not caused by a lack of passing or team play.

This is an important distinction. Cleveland moved the ball effectively, but Milwaukee converted its offensive opportunities more efficiently.

Milwaukee Bucks Player Performance

Kevin Porter Jr. Leads Milwaukee in Scoring

Kevin Porter Jr. was Milwaukee’s leading scorer with 20 points.

Although his scoring total was seven points below Jarrett Allen’s 27, Milwaukee’s overall offensive efficiency helped make up the difference. The Bucks finished with 48 made field goals on 88 attempts, compared with Cleveland’s 42 makes on 87 attempts.

That six-field-goal difference was meaningful.

Milwaukee also made 19 three-pointers, seven more than Cleveland. In a two-point game, that perimeter shooting advantage was arguably the clearest statistical reason the Bucks were able to win.

Ryan Rollins Adds Scoring and Playmaking

Ryan Rollins scored 18 points and led Milwaukee with nine assists.

His contribution therefore extended beyond scoring. He was one of Milwaukee’s primary creators while also finishing as the team’s second-leading scorer.

Rollins’ nine assists matched Craig Porter Jr.’s team-high nine assists for Cleveland. That makes the two players useful points of comparison when examining the backcourt production in this matchup.

Milwaukee did not win because it had a massive assist advantage. Both teams finished with 28 assists. Instead, the difference was what the teams did with their offensive possessions.

Jericho Sims Controls the Glass

Jericho Sims led Milwaukee with 11 rebounds.

That tied Jarrett Allen for the highest individual rebounding total in the game.

However, the overall team rebounding numbers tell a different story. Cleveland collected 44 rebounds compared with Milwaukee’s 36.

This means Sims personally matched Allen’s rebounding output, but Cleveland received greater overall rebounding production from its roster.

That is an excellent example of why individual statistics and team statistics should always be examined together.

Shooting Efficiency Was the Defining Difference

The clearest statistical advantage belonged to Milwaukee’s shooting.

The Bucks made 48 of 88 field-goal attempts, producing a 55% field-goal rate. Cleveland made 42 of 87 attempts, finishing at 48%.

The difference was seven percentage points.

That may not look enormous at first glance, but over 88 Milwaukee field-goal attempts, a seven-point efficiency advantage represents a considerable amount of additional scoring potential.

The three-point numbers were even more revealing.

Milwaukee:

• 19 made three-pointers
• 45 three-point attempts
• 42% from three

Cleveland:

• 12 made three-pointers
• 40 three-point attempts
• 30% from three

Milwaukee therefore made seven more three-pointers.

In a game decided by two points, that is an enormous advantage.

Cleveland actually attempted more free throws, making 20 of 27. Milwaukee went only 3-for-5 from the free-throw line.

This means Milwaukee’s victory did not come from getting to the free-throw line more often. The Bucks won despite attempting only five free throws. Their advantage came primarily from field-goal efficiency and perimeter shooting.

Why Cleveland Still Had a Strong Statistical Case

It would be inaccurate to describe Cleveland’s performance as poor simply because the Cavaliers lost.

Several numbers favored Cleveland.

The Cavaliers collected eight more rebounds than Milwaukee. They also committed two fewer turnovers.

Their 44 rebounds demonstrate strong work on the glass, while their 11 turnovers indicate reasonably controlled possession management.

Cleveland also scored 20 free throws compared with only three for Milwaukee.

Those are meaningful advantages.

The problem was that Milwaukee’s shooting efficiency was strong enough to offset them.

This is why a box score should be read as a collection of relationships rather than a list of isolated numbers. Cleveland won certain statistical battles, but Milwaukee won the statistical categories that had a larger effect on the final scoring total.

Why Milwaukee’s Three-Point Shooting Mattered So Much

Milwaukee attempted 45 three-pointers and made 19.

That means the Bucks scored 57 points from three-point shots alone.

Cleveland attempted 40 three-pointers and made 12, producing 36 points.

The difference was 21 points from three-point shooting.

That 21-point gap is especially important because Cleveland held advantages in other areas, including free throws and rebounding.

The Bucks did not need to dominate every category. They needed to maximize the value of their efficient perimeter offense.

Their 42% three-point shooting was also substantially better than Cleveland’s 30%.

For this particular matchup, the three-point line was not a minor detail. It was central to understanding the result.

Rebounding: Cleveland’s Biggest Advantage

Cleveland finished with 44 rebounds, eight more than Milwaukee’s 36.

Jarrett Allen and Jericho Sims each collected 11, meaning both teams had a player capable of controlling the boards individually.

The difference came from the supporting rebounding contributions.

A team can have the same individual leader in a statistical category and still lose the overall battle. That is exactly what happened here.

Cleveland’s eight-rebound advantage suggests the Cavaliers were effective at generating additional possessions and limiting Milwaukee’s second opportunities. Yet Milwaukee’s shooting efficiency was strong enough to overcome that disadvantage.

This is one reason the final score was so close. Cleveland’s rebounding helped keep the team competitive even while Milwaukee was shooting more efficiently.

Turnovers and Possession Control

Cleveland committed 11 turnovers, while Milwaukee committed 13.

That gave Cleveland a two-turnover advantage.

In a 118-116 game, possession control matters. However, the difference was not large enough to determine the result by itself.

Milwaukee’s higher turnover total is also an important reminder that a team can win despite giving the ball away slightly more often if it compensates in other areas.

The Bucks compensated with:

• More made field goals
• Better overall field-goal percentage
• More made three-pointers
• Better three-point percentage

Cleveland compensated with:

• More rebounds
• Fewer turnovers
• More free throws

The game therefore became a contest between different methods of creating value.

Assists Were Completely Even

Both teams recorded 28 assists.

That statistic is easy to overlook because the game featured several strong individual scoring performances, but the equal assist totals provide useful context.

Neither team had a major advantage in overall ball movement.

Craig Porter Jr. and Ryan Rollins each recorded nine assists, leading their respective teams.

The equal team totals also suggest that Milwaukee’s offensive edge was not simply a product of having dramatically better playmaking. The Bucks and Cavaliers created a similar number of assisted scoring opportunities.

The difference was largely efficiency.

Comparing the Leading Players

The leading performers can be summarized as follows:

Player	Team	Key Contribution
Jarrett Allen	Cavaliers	27 points, 11 rebounds
Dennis Schroder	Cavaliers	26 points
Craig Porter Jr.	Cavaliers	9 assists
Kevin Porter Jr.	Bucks	20 points
Ryan Rollins	Bucks	18 points, 9 assists
Jericho Sims	Bucks	11 rebounds

Allen was arguably Cleveland’s most complete individual performer because he led the team in both scoring and rebounding.

Schroder provided another major scoring performance with 26 points.

For Milwaukee, Porter Jr. led the scoring, Rollins combined scoring with playmaking, and Sims supplied the team’s strongest rebounding performance.

The distribution of responsibilities was therefore different between the two sides.

The Importance of the Final Three Minutes

The supplied team data does not provide a possession-by-possession account of the final three minutes, so it would be inappropriate to invent specific shots or plays that are not included in the available box score.

What can be established is the broader fourth-quarter story.

Cleveland entered the final period ahead 94-93. Milwaukee then outscored Cleveland 25-22.

That three-point fourth-quarter margin produced the final 118-116 result.

This makes the fourth quarter the statistical turning point of the game, even though the overall margin was extremely small.

The lesson for readers studying player statistics is important: sometimes the winning team does not need a dramatic individual performance in the final quarter. A modest team-wide efficiency advantage can be enough.

What the Box Score Says About Milwaukee

Milwaukee’s victory can be explained through four primary statistical strengths.

1. Efficient Field-Goal Shooting

The Bucks shot 55% from the field.

That was seven percentage points better than Cleveland.

2. Superior Three-Point Production

Milwaukee made 19 threes compared with Cleveland’s 12.

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

3. Balanced Playmaking

The Bucks recorded 28 assists, matching Cleveland.

Ryan Rollins’ nine assists were especially important in maintaining offensive organization.

4. Fourth-Quarter Execution

Milwaukee outscored Cleveland 25-22 in the final period after trailing 94-93 through three quarters.

That was enough to secure the two-point victory.

What the Box Score Says About Cleveland

Cleveland’s performance can also be broken down into several strengths.

1. Strong Interior and Overall Scoring

Jarrett Allen scored 27 points, while Dennis Schroder added 26.

Together, they produced 53 points.

2. Rebounding Advantage

Cleveland finished with 44 rebounds, eight more than Milwaukee.

Allen’s 11 rebounds led the team.

3. Better Turnover Control

The Cavaliers committed 11 turnovers compared with Milwaukee’s 13.

4. Free-Throw Advantage

Cleveland went 20-for-27 at the line, while Milwaukee attempted only five free throws and made three.

Despite those advantages, Cleveland could not overcome Milwaukee’s superior shooting.

A Deeper Look at the 118-116 Result

A two-point final margin can sometimes create the impression that every category was essentially identical.

That was not the case here.

The teams were closely matched in several areas:

• Assists: 28-28
• Steals: 7-7
• Blocks: 2-2
• First-quarter scoring: 33-33
• Third-quarter scoring: 31-31

But they were separated in others:

• Field-goal percentage: Milwaukee 55%, Cleveland 48%
• Three-point percentage: Milwaukee 42%, Cleveland 30%
• Made threes: Milwaukee 19, Cleveland 12
• Rebounds: Cleveland 44, Milwaukee 36
• Turnovers: Cleveland 11, Milwaukee 13
• Free throws made: Cleveland 20, Milwaukee 3

That mixture is what makes this game analytically interesting.

Milwaukee won the high-efficiency shooting battle.

Cleveland won the rebounding and free-throw battles.

The final result shows that not all statistical advantages have equal scoring impact.

Season Series Context

The supplied data states that Cleveland led the season series 2-1 despite Milwaukee winning this particular game 118-116.

That context is important.

A single game does not erase the larger season-series trend. Cleveland still held the advantage across the three-game series, but Milwaukee secured the latest meeting.

For fans comparing the teams, the distinction between game result and season-series record is worth keeping clear.

Team Records Entering the Game

Cleveland entered the contest with a 37-23 record and a 17-12 away record.

Milwaukee entered with a 26-31 record and a 14-13 home record.

Those records provide additional context for the result.

Cleveland had the stronger overall record, while Milwaukee protected its home court in this matchup.

The result therefore represented a meaningful home win for Milwaukee against a Cleveland team that entered with the better season record.

The Most Important Statistical Takeaways

If you only have time to review a few numbers from this matchup, these are the ones that matter most.

118-116: Milwaukee won by two points.

55%: Milwaukee’s field-goal percentage.

42%: Milwaukee’s three-point percentage.

19: Milwaukee’s made three-pointers.

27: Jarrett Allen’s team-high 27 points.

26: Dennis Schroder’s 26 points for Cleveland.

20: Kevin Porter Jr.’s team-high 20 points for Milwaukee.

18: Ryan Rollins’ scoring total.

11: Rebounds for both Jarrett Allen and Jericho Sims.

9: Assists for both Craig Porter Jr. and Ryan Rollins.

44-36: Cleveland’s eight-rebound advantage.

11-13: Cleveland’s turnover advantage.

These figures explain the game more effectively than the final score alone.

How to Read Player Stats From a Close NBA Game

A useful approach is to examine the box score in layers.

First, look at the final score and quarter-by-quarter results.

Second, identify the leading scorers.

Third, compare shooting percentages.

Fourth, examine three-point production.

Fifth, review rebounds, assists and turnovers.

Finally, look for a category that explains why the winning team overcame any disadvantages elsewhere.

Using that method here leads to a clear conclusion.

Cleveland had stronger rebounding, fewer turnovers and a major free-throw advantage.

Milwaukee had better overall shooting and a huge three-point advantage.

The latter proved more decisive.

Why Individual Scoring Totals Can Be Misleading

Jarrett Allen scored seven more points than Milwaukee’s leading scorer, Kevin Porter Jr.

Yet Milwaukee won.

That does not mean Allen played poorly. In fact, his 27 points and 11 rebounds were among the strongest individual contributions in the game.

Instead, it shows that basketball is a team sport in which scoring efficiency is distributed across an entire lineup.

Milwaukee had multiple players contributing to an offense that made 48 field goals and 19 threes.

The team-level shooting advantage outweighed the difference between the two leading individual scorers.

Why the 19 Made Threes Stand Out

Among all the numbers in this game, 19 made three-pointers may be the most revealing.

Milwaukee made 19 of its 45 attempts.

Cleveland made 12 of 40.

That seven-made-three difference is greater than the final margin by more than three times.

Of course, basketball scoring is not determined by subtracting one isolated category from another. But the comparison clearly shows how important Milwaukee’s perimeter efficiency was.

Had the teams been closer in three-point production, Cleveland’s rebounding and free-throw advantages could have produced a different outcome.

The Statistical Story in One Sentence

Milwaukee defeated Cleveland because its superior shooting efficiency, especially from three-point range, overcame Cleveland’s advantages in rebounding, turnovers and free throws.

That is the simplest accurate explanation of the box score.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who led the Cavaliers in scoring against the Bucks?

Jarrett Allen led Cleveland with 27 points. He also led the Cavaliers in rebounding with 11 boards.

Who was Milwaukee’s leading scorer?

Kevin Porter Jr. led Milwaukee with 20 points in the 118-116 victory.

How many assists did Ryan Rollins have?

Ryan Rollins recorded nine assists, which was the highest assist total for Milwaukee.

How many rebounds did Jericho Sims record?

Jericho Sims grabbed 11 rebounds, tying Jarrett Allen for the highest individual rebounding total in the game.

Which team shot better from three-point range?

Milwaukee shot 42% from three-point range, making 19 of 45 attempts. Cleveland shot 30%, making 12 of 40.

Who won the Bucks vs Cavaliers game on February 26, 2026?

The Milwaukee Bucks won 118-116 at Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee. Cleveland still led the season series 2-1 according to the supplied game data.

Conclusion

The milwaukee bucks vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats from February 26, 2026, show why the final 118-116 score was such a close reflection of two teams with very different statistical strengths.

Jarrett Allen was Cleveland’s leading scorer with 27 points and also collected 11 rebounds. Dennis Schroder added 26 points, while Craig Porter Jr. led the Cavaliers with nine assists. Cleveland controlled the boards with 44 rebounds and protected the ball slightly better with 11 turnovers.

Milwaukee countered with more efficient shooting. The Bucks made 48 of 88 field-goal attempts for 55% shooting and connected on 19 of 45 three-point attempts for 42%. Kevin Porter Jr. led Milwaukee with 20 points, Ryan Rollins scored 18 points and added nine assists, and Jericho Sims collected 11 rebounds.

The quarter-by-quarter numbers explain the narrow margin. Cleveland and Milwaukee tied 33-33 in the first quarter, Cleveland led 63-62 at halftime and remained ahead 94-93 after three quarters. Milwaukee then won the fourth quarter 25-22 to complete the two-point victory.

The most important takeaway is that Cleveland did not lose because it lacked individual production. The Cavaliers had major contributions from Allen and Schroder and held clear advantages in rebounding, turnovers and free throws. Milwaukee won because its shooting efficiency, especially its 19 made three-pointers, created enough scoring value to overcome those disadvantages.

That makes this matchup a useful example of how NBA player statistics should be interpreted. The best analysis does not simply identify the highest scorer. It connects individual performances with team efficiency, possession management, rebounding, shot selection and the quarter-by-quarter progression of the game.