Washington Wizards vs Cleveland Cavaliers Match Player Stats
The washington wizards vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats from November 8, 2025, reveal how Cleveland produced a dominant 148-115 victory over Washington at Capital One Arena in Washington, DC. The Cavaliers won by 33 points, combining balanced scoring, strong rebounding, aggressive defense, and efficient three-point shooting. Donovan Mitchell led Cleveland with 24 points, while Darius Garland contributed 20 points and nine assists. For Washington, CJ McCollum scored a game-high 25 points, but the Wizards struggled to control turnovers and contain Cleveland’s offense.
The final score tells only part of the story. Cleveland recorded 34 assists, 15 steals, and 57 rebounds, while Washington committed 20 turnovers and collected just five steals. Those differences help explain why the Cavaliers built a substantial advantage despite the Wizards shooting a respectable 45% from the field.
This detailed breakdown covers the final score, individual player performances, team statistics, quarter-by-quarter scoring, bench contributions, and the key factors behind Cleveland’s victory. It also examines which performances stood out most and what the numbers reveal about the matchup.
Washington Wizards vs Cleveland Cavaliers Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The November 8 contest was a regular-season NBA matchup and part of NBA Cup group play. Cleveland established offensive control early and maintained its advantage throughout all four quarters.
Cleveland Cavaliers
Away team
148
Washington Wizards
Home team
115
Date
November 8, 2025
Venue
Capital One Arena
Attendance
14,054
Winning margin
Cleveland by 33
Quick Game Facts
| Category | Result |
| Final score | Cavaliers 148, Wizards 115 |
| Winning team | Cleveland Cavaliers |
| Losing team | Washington Wizards |
| Cavaliers record displayed | 6-3 |
| Wizards record displayed | 1-8 |
| Leading scorer for Cleveland | Donovan Mitchell, 24 points |
| Leading scorer for Washington | CJ McCollum, 25 points |
| Leading rebounder | Jarrett Allen, 14 rebounds |
| Leading playmaker for Cleveland | Darius Garland, 9 assists |
| Leading playmaker for Washington | Bub Carrington, 11 assists |
| Competition | NBA regular season, NBA Cup group play |
The displayed team records refer to the game-page context for this particular matchup. They should not be interpreted as the teams’ current records.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Breakdown
Cleveland’s scoring consistency was one of the clearest reasons for the result. The Cavaliers scored at least 33 points in every quarter and reached 39 points in both the first and fourth periods. Washington had one comparatively strong stretch in the second quarter but could not maintain that offensive pace.
| Quarter | Cleveland Cavaliers | Washington Wizards | Cleveland’s lead |
| First | 39 | 26 | 13 |
| Second | 37 | 34 | 16 at halftime |
| Third | 33 | 27 | 22 |
| Fourth | 39 | 28 | 33 |
| Final | 148 | 115 | 33 |
First Quarter: Cleveland Takes Control
Cleveland opened with 39 points, creating a 13-point advantage before the first break. That early production placed Washington under pressure to score efficiently and protect the ball.
A double-digit deficit can change a team’s offensive decisions. Players may begin taking quicker shots, forcing passes, or attempting difficult three-pointers to recover the lost ground. These choices can make a comeback harder when the opposing team continues to score.
The Cavaliers avoided that problem by establishing a strong offensive rhythm early. Their ability to score from multiple positions also made it difficult for Washington to focus its defense on a single player.
Second Quarter: Washington Shows Offensive Resistance
Washington scored 34 points in the second quarter, its highest-scoring period of the game. The Wizards reduced the immediate damage by matching Cleveland more closely during this stretch.
However, Cleveland also scored 37 points. The Wizards therefore gained no ground and entered halftime trailing by 16.
This distinction matters when evaluating a team’s comeback chances. A productive quarter does not necessarily represent a successful recovery if the opponent continues to score at a similar rate.
Washington needed a sustained defensive improvement after halftime, not simply another high-scoring period.
Third Quarter: Cleveland Rebuilds Its Advantage
The Cavaliers outscored Washington 33-27 in the third quarter. Although this was Cleveland’s lowest-scoring period, its defense limited the Wizards to 27 points.
The six-point quarter advantage increased Cleveland’s lead to 22 points. That gave the visitors greater flexibility with their rotations and reduced the pressure on their starters to carry the offense late in the game.
Washington needed both better defensive stops and a more reliable offensive sequence. Instead, the gap continued to grow.
Fourth Quarter: The Cavaliers Finish Strong
Cleveland scored another 39 points in the final quarter, while Washington managed 28. The Cavaliers added 11 points to their advantage and finished with a 33-point victory.
The final period demonstrated that Cleveland did not simply preserve its lead. It continued to generate offense and prevented Washington from mounting a meaningful late comeback.
For readers studying the box score, the quarter totals show a consistent pattern: Cleveland won all four quarters. That is a stronger indicator of game control than a single explosive scoring run.
Complete Cleveland Cavaliers Player Stats
The individual numbers show how Cleveland distributed its production. Mitchell led the team in scoring, Garland organized the offense, and Allen controlled the glass. The bench also contributed valuable shooting and scoring.
Cavaliers Starting Lineup Statistics
| Player | MIN | PTS | REB | AST | STL | BLK | FG | 3PT | FT | +/- |
| Donovan Mitchell | 26 | 24 | 5 | 5 | 4 | 1 | 8/20 | 4/10 | 4/4 | +22 |
| Darius Garland | 28 | 20 | 2 | 9 | 1 | 0 | 7/16 | 4/9 | 2/2 | +24 |
| Evan Mobley | 28 | 18 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 7/16 | 0/4 | 4/7 | +20 |
| Jarrett Allen | 26 | 16 | 14 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 7/13 | 0/0 | 2/4 | +27 |
| De’Andre Hunter | 21 | 8 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 2/9 | 0/3 | 4/4 | +16 |
MIN = minutes, PTS = points, REB = rebounds, AST = assists, STL = steals, BLK = blocks, FG = field goals, 3PT = three-pointers, FT = free throws, and +/- = plus/minus.
Donovan Mitchell: Cleveland’s Leading Scorer
Mitchell finished with 24 points in 26 minutes, shooting 8-for-20 from the field and 4-for-10 from three-point range. He also made all four free throws, collected five rebounds, recorded five assists, and produced four steals.
His scoring total led Cleveland, but his defensive contribution deserves attention too. Four steals can interrupt offensive possessions, create transition opportunities, and force opponents to reconsider their passing lanes.
Mitchell’s shooting was not especially efficient by field-goal percentage alone. He made 40% of his attempts from the field. However, his four made three-pointers and perfect free-throw shooting increased his overall scoring value.
His four steals also helped Cleveland finish with 15 as a team. The combination of scoring and defensive activity made him one of the game’s most influential players.
Darius Garland: The Primary Playmaker
Garland recorded 20 points and nine assists in 28 minutes. He shot 7-for-16 overall and 4-for-9 from beyond the arc, making all two of his free-throw attempts.
Nine assists show how effectively Garland connected his own scoring with opportunities for teammates. He could attack when a defensive opening appeared and distribute the ball when Washington committed additional defenders to stopping the ball.
Garland’s 20 points also prevented Cleveland’s offense from becoming too dependent on Mitchell. When two perimeter players can create shots, opposing defenses have fewer opportunities to concentrate their attention on one primary scorer.
His plus/minus of +24 means Cleveland outscored Washington by 24 points during his time on the court. It does not mean Garland personally scored 24 more points than his individual matchup.
Evan Mobley: Two-Way Frontcourt Production
Mobley contributed 18 points, 10 rebounds, three assists, one steal, and one block. His 10 rebounds gave him a double-double, combining double-digit production in two major statistical categories.
He made seven of 16 field-goal attempts but did not convert any of his four three-point attempts. Mobley also went 4-for-7 from the free-throw line.
The value of his performance extended beyond scoring. His rebounding helped Cleveland control possession, while his passing added another option when the offense moved through the frontcourt.
Mobley’s defensive presence is also important when considering Cleveland’s overall frontcourt balance. With Allen collecting 14 rebounds, Mobley did not need to carry the entire rebounding workload alone.
Jarrett Allen: The Rebounding Leader
Allen finished with 16 points and 14 rebounds in 26 minutes. He added three assists, two steals, and one block while shooting 7-for-13 from the field.
His 14 rebounds were the highest total among all players in the supplied box score. Allen’s work on the glass gave Cleveland additional control over missed shots and limited Washington’s ability to build consecutive possessions.
Cleveland collected 25 offensive rebounds as a team, a particularly notable figure. Offensive rebounds can create second-chance scoring opportunities even when the first shot does not fall. Allen’s size and positioning helped support that broader team advantage.
His plus/minus of +27 was the highest among Cleveland’s five starters. That number reflects the team’s success during his minutes, although it should be interpreted alongside his rebounds, scoring, and defensive contributions rather than in isolation.
De’Andre Hunter: A Supporting Role
Hunter scored eight points and grabbed five rebounds in 21 minutes. He shot 2-for-9 from the field and missed all three of his three-point attempts, but he converted all four free throws.
His shooting line was less productive than those of Cleveland’s leading scorers. Nevertheless, his five rebounds and one steal contributed to the team’s broader effort.
Hunter’s plus/minus was +16, showing that Cleveland still outscored Washington comfortably during his playing time. Plus/minus cannot establish an individual’s impact by itself, but it provides useful context when combined with the full game statistics.
Cleveland Cavaliers Bench Player Stats
Cleveland’s reserves added scoring, shooting, and defensive activity. That depth helped the Cavaliers sustain their lead without requiring their starting lineup to play extended minutes.
| Player | MIN | PTS | REB | AST | STL | BLK | FG | 3PT | +/- |
| Tyrese Proctor | 19 | 17 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 5/6 | 5/6 | +7 |
| Sam Merrill | 18 | 14 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 5/6 | 4/5 | +10 |
| Jaylon Tyson | 23 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3/7 | 2/3 | +11 |
| Nae’Qwan Tomlin | 6 | 6 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 2/4 | 0/1 | +5 |
| Larry Nance Jr. | 14 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2/3 | 1/2 | +3 |
| Luke Travers | 9 | 4 | 2 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 1/3 | 0/0 | +2 |
| Thomas Bryant | 6 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 2/3 | 0/1 | +5 |
| Craig Porter Jr. | 16 | 2 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1/4 | 0/1 | +13 |
Tyrese Proctor: A Standout Shooting Performance
Proctor scored 17 points in 19 minutes, making five of six field-goal attempts and five of six three-point attempts. He also recorded three assists and two rebounds.
His 83.3% shooting from three-point range was the most striking efficiency figure among Cleveland’s rotation players. Although six attempts are not enough to establish a long-term shooting trend, converting five of them made a substantial contribution in this game.
Proctor’s performance also illustrates why bench scoring matters. A reserve who can turn open perimeter opportunities into points gives the offense another way to punish defensive mistakes.
Sam Merrill: Efficient Perimeter Scoring
Merrill produced 14 points in 18 minutes, shooting 5-for-6 from the field and 4-for-5 from three-point range.
He converted 80% of his three-point attempts. Like Proctor, Merrill benefited from the value of accurate perimeter shooting, which can increase scoring without requiring a large number of possessions.
Merrill also recorded two rebounds, two assists, and one steal. His plus/minus of +10 indicates that Cleveland maintained a positive margin during his minutes.
Jaylon Tyson: Scoring With Useful Support
Tyson finished with 10 points, four rebounds, two assists, and one steal in 23 minutes. He made two of his three three-point attempts and converted both free throws.
Tyson’s four rebounds helped support Cleveland’s work on the glass. His 23 minutes were also the highest among the listed Cleveland bench players, reflecting a meaningful rotation role in this contest.
Other Cleveland Reserves
Nae’Qwan Tomlin scored six points in six minutes and added a steal and a block. Larry Nance Jr. contributed five points and one block, while Luke Travers scored four points and supplied two assists.
Thomas Bryant scored four points and collected two steals in six minutes. Craig Porter Jr. scored two points but contributed five rebounds and two assists, producing a plus/minus of +13.
These performances illustrate that reserve contributions do not have to look identical. Some players provide perimeter scoring, others help on the glass, and others contribute through passing or defensive plays.
Complete Washington Wizards Player Stats
Washington’s players produced several strong individual numbers despite the 33-point defeat. McCollum led the team with 25 points, Alex Sarr added 20, and Tre Johnson finished with 19. Bub Carrington recorded 11 assists, while Justin Champagnie led the Wizards with 11 rebounds.
The central issue was not a complete lack of offensive production. Washington scored 115 points and made 15 three-pointers. The larger problem was its inability to limit Cleveland’s scoring while protecting possession of the ball.
Wizards Starting Lineup Statistics
| Player | MIN | PTS | REB | AST | STL | BLK | FG | 3PT | FT | +/- |
| CJ McCollum | 28 | 25 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 8/16 | 6/13 | 3/4 | -28 |
| Alex Sarr | 30 | 20 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 4 | 10/17 | 0/4 | 0/2 | -23 |
| Tre Johnson | 29 | 19 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 7/11 | 3/4 | 2/3 | -18 |
| Bub Carrington | 28 | 6 | 4 | 11 | 0 | 1 | 2/12 | 2/7 | 0/0 | -22 |
| Khris Middleton | 22 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 2/3 | 0/1 | 0/0 | -16 |
CJ McCollum: Washington’s Leading Scorer
McCollum scored 25 points in 28 minutes, making eight of 16 field-goal attempts and six of 13 three-point attempts. He also converted three of four free throws and recorded three assists.
His six made three-pointers were a major part of Washington’s offensive output. McCollum shot 46.2% from beyond the arc, giving the Wizards a dependable perimeter scoring option during a difficult game.
However, scoring efficiency must be considered alongside team results. Cleveland made 20 three-pointers, four more than Washington, and created additional opportunities through offensive rebounds and turnovers. McCollum’s scoring helped Washington reach 115 points, but it could not compensate for the Cavaliers’ broader advantages.
His plus/minus of -28 was the lowest among Washington’s starters. This means the Wizards were outscored by 28 points during his minutes on the floor. It does not mean McCollum individually caused that margin.
Alex Sarr: Efficient Scoring and Rim Protection
Sarr recorded 20 points, four rebounds, four assists, one steal, and four blocks in 30 minutes. He shot 10-for-17 from the field, making him Washington’s most productive starter by field-goal percentage among players with substantial attempts.
His 58.8% shooting from the field was particularly noteworthy. Sarr demonstrated that Washington could find efficient scoring opportunities even against Cleveland’s defense.
The four blocks were another important element of his performance. Blocks can discourage attempts near the basket and change how opposing players approach the rim. However, a strong individual blocking total does not automatically mean a team has defended well overall.
Cleveland still scored 148 points, and its ability to generate perimeter offense, move the ball, and recover missed shots limited the impact of Sarr’s defensive plays.
Sarr missed all four three-point attempts and both free throws. Those missed opportunities did not erase his productive shooting inside the arc, but they show where his overall scoring line could have been stronger.
Tre Johnson: A Productive Perimeter Option
Johnson finished with 19 points in 29 minutes, shooting seven of 11 from the field and three of four from three-point range. He also made two of three free throws.
His 63.6% field-goal shooting and 75% three-point shooting made him one of Washington’s most efficient scorers in the matchup.
Johnson’s contribution is important because it shows that McCollum was not the only Wizard capable of generating offense. Washington had multiple players who could score efficiently, but the team needed more defensive stops and better ball security to convert that scoring into a closer contest.
Johnson collected three rebounds and one assist. His box score reflects a strong scoring performance, although his overall influence was limited by the large team deficit.
Bub Carrington: The Primary Playmaker
Carrington recorded 11 assists, the highest total for either team in the game. He also scored six points, grabbed four rebounds, and recorded one block.
His assist total indicates that he helped create numerous scoring opportunities for teammates. The Wizards finished with 32 assists, only two fewer than Cleveland, so Washington was not completely ineffective at moving the ball.
Carrington’s shooting was the more difficult part of his line. He made just two of 12 field-goal attempts and two of seven three-point attempts. His 16.7% field-goal percentage reduced the scoring value of his individual performance.
This contrast is a useful reminder that playmaking and scoring are separate responsibilities. Carrington distributed the ball effectively, but his own shot-making did not provide much additional pressure on Cleveland’s defense.
Khris Middleton: Limited Scoring Output
Middleton scored four points in 22 minutes, making two of three field-goal attempts. He also recorded four assists, two rebounds, and two turnovers.
His field-goal percentage was efficient at 66.7%, but the small number of attempts limits what can be concluded from that figure. He was not a high-volume scorer in this particular game.
Middleton’s four assists provided some playmaking support. Still, Washington needed more consistent production across the rotation to keep pace with Cleveland’s offense.
Washington Wizards Bench Player Stats
Washington’s reserves offered several useful contributions, especially in rebounding and scoring. Corey Kispert scored 16 points, while Justin Champagnie collected 11 rebounds.
| Player | MIN | PTS | REB | AST | STL | BLK | FG | 3PT | +/- |
| Corey Kispert | 20 | 16 | 3 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 5/8 | 2/4 | -4 |
| Justin Champagnie | 19 | 6 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1/6 | 0/3 | -15 |
| Jamir Watkins | 20 | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 3/4 | 0/1 | -7 |
| Tristan Vukcevic | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 1/1 | 1/1 | -5 |
| AJ Johnson | 9 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1/4 | 0/2 | -5 |
| Anthony Gill | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1/1 | 1/1 | -5 |
| Marvin Bagley III | 12 | 2 | 7 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0/4 | 0/0 | -5 |
| Cam Whitmore | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0/1 | 0/0 | -4 |
| Will Riley | 10 | 0 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0/3 | 0/0 | -8 |
Malaki Branham did not play, with the box score listing a coach’s decision.
Corey Kispert: An Efficient Bench Scorer
Kispert scored 16 points in 20 minutes, shooting five of eight from the field and two of four from three-point range. He also made all four free throws.
His scoring efficiency gave Washington an important contribution beyond its starting lineup. Kispert added four assists and three rebounds, showing that his involvement extended beyond shooting.
His plus/minus of -4 was one of the less negative figures among Washington’s players who received meaningful minutes. That is useful context, but it should not be treated as definitive proof that he played better than every teammate. Plus/minus depends on team performance during each player’s time on the floor.
Justin Champagnie: Rebounding Strength
Champagnie grabbed 11 rebounds in 19 minutes, the highest total for Washington. He also recorded six points, two assists, and two steals.
His rebounding was valuable because Washington needed extra possessions to challenge Cleveland’s scoring advantage. Nevertheless, the team finished with 44 total rebounds, compared with Cleveland’s 57.
Champagnie’s individual effort could not fully offset the Cavaliers’ collective rebounding advantage. He made one of six field-goal attempts and missed all three of his three-point attempts, limiting his scoring contribution.
Jamir Watkins and the Remaining Reserves
Watkins scored six points and collected six rebounds in 20 minutes, shooting three of four from the field. His one block added a defensive contribution.
Tristan Vukcevic made his only field-goal attempt, including a three-pointer, and finished with four points in six minutes. Anthony Gill also scored three points in two minutes, making his only shot, a three-pointer.
AJ Johnson scored four points and recorded two assists in nine minutes. Marvin Bagley III collected seven rebounds but did not make a field goal, while Cam Whitmore and Will Riley finished without scoring.
These numbers show why bench analysis requires more than looking at points alone. Rebounds, assists, defensive plays, and minutes all help explain how each reserve contributed.
Team Statistics Comparison: Cavaliers vs Wizards
The team statistics offer the clearest explanation of Cleveland’s 33-point victory. Washington made a reasonable percentage of its shots, but Cleveland produced more total baskets, controlled the boards, and forced substantially more turnovers.
| Statistical category | Cavaliers | Wizards |
| Points | 148 | 115 |
| Field goals made/attempted | 52/110 | 41/91 |
| Field-goal percentage | 47% | 45% |
| Three-pointers made/attempted | 20/45 | 15/41 |
| Three-point percentage | 44% | 37% |
| Free throws made/attempted | 24/31 | 18/23 |
| Free-throw percentage | 77% | 78% |
| Total rebounds | 57 | 44 |
| Offensive rebounds | 25 | 16 |
| Defensive rebounds | 32 | 28 |
| Assists | 34 | 32 |
| Turnovers | 10 | 20 |
| Steals | 15 | 5 |
| Blocks | 6 | 7 |
| Personal fouls | 17 | 24 |
Field-Goal Efficiency
Cleveland made 52 of 110 field-goal attempts, while Washington made 41 of 91. Their listed field-goal percentages were 47% and 45%, respectively.
The percentage difference was modest, but Cleveland attempted 19 more shots and made 11 more baskets. This helped create a substantial scoring gap.
More attempts do not always indicate better offense. The source of those attempts matters. In this game, Cleveland’s 25 offensive rebounds and Washington’s 20 turnovers help explain why the Cavaliers had more opportunities to shoot.
Three-Point Shooting
Cleveland made 20 of 45 three-point attempts, compared with Washington’s 15 of 41.
The Cavaliers’ five additional three-pointers represented 15 extra points from that category alone. Cleveland also converted at a higher rate, 44% compared with Washington’s 37%.
Three-point shooting was a major part of the final margin, particularly because Cleveland maintained a high volume of attempts without sacrificing accuracy.
Rebounding and Second-Chance Opportunities
Cleveland won the rebounding battle 57-44. Its 25 offensive rebounds compared with Washington’s 16 were particularly significant.
An offensive rebound extends a possession after a missed shot. It may lead to a putback, a kick-out pass for a three-pointer, or another attempt at the basket. Over a full game, these extra chances can create a meaningful scoring advantage.
Cleveland’s 13-rebound overall advantage suggests that the Cavaliers were more successful at controlling the glass as a team. Allen’s 14 rebounds and Mobley’s 10 supported that effort.
Turnovers and Defensive Pressure
Washington committed 20 turnovers, twice Cleveland’s total of 10. The Cavaliers also recorded 15 steals, while the Wizards had five.
This combination represents one of the clearest statistical differences in the matchup. Turnovers can end possessions without a shot, while steals may create immediate transition scoring opportunities.
The figures do not establish that every Wizards turnover resulted in a Cleveland basket. They do show that Washington gave the Cavaliers many more chances to interrupt offensive possessions.
Cleveland’s defensive pressure, combined with its own ball security, helped the visitors maintain control of the game.
Assists and Ball Movement
Cleveland recorded 34 assists, and Washington finished with 32. The two-point difference is relatively small compared with the final score.
This is an important detail because it shows that the Wizards were not completely disconnected offensively. They generated assisted baskets and had a productive playmaking performance from Carrington.
The larger distinction was what happened around those assists. Cleveland paired ball movement with more rebounds, more steals, fewer turnovers, and better three-point shooting.
Free Throws and Defensive Fouls
Washington shot 78% from the free-throw line, slightly better than Cleveland’s 77%. However, the Cavaliers attempted eight more free throws and made six more.
The Wizards committed 24 personal fouls compared with Cleveland’s 17. That difference may have affected the number of opportunities each team had at the line, although foul totals alone cannot explain every free-throw attempt.
Overall, free-throw percentage was not the major separator. Cleveland’s advantages in three-point shooting, rebounding, and turnovers were much more pronounced.
Five Key Factors Behind Cleveland’s Victory
The box score points to five connected reasons for the result. Each factor helps explain not only the final score but also why Washington struggled to reduce the deficit.
1. Cleveland Generated More Scoring Opportunities
The Cavaliers made 52 field goals, while Washington made 41. Cleveland also collected nine more offensive rebounds and committed 10 fewer turnovers.
Those differences gave the visitors a much stronger foundation for scoring. Even when an initial shot missed, Cleveland had more success recovering the ball and continuing the possession.
2. Perimeter Shooting Created a Clear Advantage
Cleveland converted 20 three-pointers, compared with Washington’s 15. The Cavaliers also shot seven percentage points better from beyond the arc.
This was particularly important because a made three-pointer is worth 50% more than a made two-point field goal. Five additional made threes contributed 15 points to Cleveland’s total advantage in that category.
3. Defensive Pressure Produced Turnovers
Cleveland’s 15 steals were three times Washington’s five. The Cavaliers also limited their own turnovers to 10.
This combination gave Cleveland more control over possession. Washington needed to protect the ball more effectively to prevent the Cavaliers from generating additional offensive chances.
4. The Frontcourt Controlled the Glass
Allen recorded 14 rebounds, Mobley added 10, and Cleveland finished with 57 rebounds overall.
The Cavaliers’ frontcourt supplied a combination of rebounding, interior scoring, and defensive activity. Washington’s Sarr responded with 20 points and four blocks, but the Wizards could not match Cleveland’s overall rebounding output.
5. Cleveland’s Bench Sustained the Scoring
Proctor scored 17 points, Merrill added 14, and Tyson contributed 10. The bench gave Cleveland additional perimeter production while the starters were not on the floor.
Proctor’s five three-pointers on six attempts and Merrill’s four on five attempts were particularly effective. Their performances made Cleveland’s offense less predictable and helped sustain the team’s scoring pace.
What the Plus/Minus Numbers Reveal
Plus/minus measures the difference between the points a player’s team scores and the points the opponent scores while that player is on the court.
For example, Allen finished at +27. Cleveland outscored Washington by 27 points during his minutes. Garland finished at +24, and Mitchell recorded +22.
Washington’s listed starters all finished with negative plus/minus figures. McCollum recorded -28, Sarr -23, Carrington -22, Johnson -18, and Middleton -16.
These figures reflect the overall team margin during each player’s playing time. They do not isolate an individual’s contribution from teammates, opponents, substitutions, or game situations.
A useful way to read plus/minus is to compare it with the player’s other statistics:
- Allen: His +27 came alongside 16 points and 14 rebounds.
- Garland: His +24 accompanied 20 points and nine assists.
- Mitchell: His +22 came with 24 points and four steals.
- McCollum: His -28 came despite leading Washington with 25 points.
- Sarr: His -23 came alongside 20 points and four blocks.
McCollum’s line illustrates why plus/minus should not be used as a stand-alone player rating. He scored efficiently, but Washington was outscored substantially during his minutes.
How to Interpret the Player Statistics Correctly
A box score contains several types of information, and understanding the difference between them makes postgame analysis more useful.
Points Do Not Tell the Whole Story
A player with 25 points may have had an excellent scoring performance without necessarily controlling the game. Rebounding, passing, defense, turnovers, and shot efficiency all influence the final result.
McCollum’s 25 points and Carrington’s 11 assists illustrate two different ways to contribute. Sarr’s four blocks and Champagnie’s 11 rebounds show how players can influence a game without leading in scoring.
Shooting Percentages Need Context
Field-goal percentage measures made field goals divided by attempted field goals. It is useful, but it does not treat a three-pointer and a two-pointer as equally valuable.
For example, a player making four three-pointers has scored 12 points from those shots, while a player making four two-point shots has scored eight. Both players have made four baskets, but the first has generated more points.
For a more complete shooting comparison, analysts often consider effective field-goal percentage, which accounts for the additional value of three-pointers.
The formula is:
\[ \text{eFG\%}=\frac{\text{FGM}+0.5\times\text{3PM}}{\text{FGA}}\times100 \]
Using the supplied team totals, Cleveland’s effective field-goal percentage was approximately 56.4%, while Washington’s was approximately 53.8%. These figures are calculated from the listed makes and attempts and are not the same as the basic field-goal percentages shown in the box score.
Assists and Turnovers Should Be Read Together
Garland’s nine assists and Carrington’s 11 assists were major playmaking contributions. However, team turnovers provide additional context.
Cleveland recorded 34 assists and 10 turnovers. Washington recorded 32 assists and 20 turnovers.
The Cavaliers therefore generated slightly more assists while committing half as many turnovers. This suggests that their ball movement was paired with better possession security.
An assist-to-turnover ratio can help summarize that relationship, although it does not capture every valuable pass or every difficult possession.
Rebounds Have Different Roles
Total rebounds include offensive and defensive rebounds. Defensive rebounds usually end an opponent’s possession, while offensive rebounds create additional opportunities for the team that recovered the ball.
Cleveland’s 25 offensive rebounds were especially important. Looking only at the 57-44 total rebound comparison would miss how frequently the Cavaliers recovered their own misses.
Defensive Statistics Need Team Context
Steals and blocks can identify important defensive plays, but they do not capture every successful defensive possession.
A player can contest a shot without blocking it, force a difficult attempt, or help a teammate recover a loose ball. Likewise, a team may record several steals while still allowing high-percentage shots.
Cleveland’s 15 steals and Washington’s seven blocks are useful figures, but they should be considered alongside the final score, shooting efficiency, rebounding, and turnovers.
Historical Context and the Season Series
The supplied matchup summary lists Cleveland ahead 1-0 after the November 8 meeting. It also provides results for three later scheduled meetings in the 2025-26 regular season.
| Listed game date | Cavaliers | Wizards | Margin |
| November 8, 2025 | 148 | 115 | Cleveland by 33 |
| December 13, 2025 | 130 | 126 | Cleveland by 4 |
| February 12, 2026 | 138 | 113 | Cleveland by 25 |
| April 13, 2026 | 130 | 117 | Cleveland by 13 |
According to the supplied results, Cleveland won all four listed meetings. The November contest was the most decisive of the four by winning margin.
The later scores also offer an important comparison. Cleveland won the December matchup by just four points, showing that the teams’ later meeting was much closer on the scoreboard. The February and April results again featured double-digit Cavaliers victories.
These results should be treated as the supplied season-series record rather than a substitute for checking each game’s individual box score. Player statistics from November should not be assumed to apply to the later meetings, because lineups, minutes, and performances can change from game to game.
Where to Find the Official Game Record
For readers who want to verify the individual numbers, the most useful reference is the ESPN box score for the November 8, 2025 Cavaliers vs. Wizards game.
A box score is the appropriate starting point for checking player minutes, field goals, three-pointers, free throws, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, and plus/minus. The team statistics provide the broader context needed to understand how those individual contributions translated into the final result.
When using historical game data in a published article, it is good practice to distinguish reported statistics from calculations made from those statistics. For example, the team effective field-goal percentages above are calculated values, while the player totals are reported figures from the supplied dataset.
This distinction helps readers understand which numbers come directly from the record and which have been derived for additional analysis.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Washington Wizards vs Cleveland Cavaliers game on November 8, 2025?
The Cleveland Cavaliers defeated the Washington Wizards 148-115 at Capital One Arena in Washington, DC. Cleveland won by 33 points after leading in all four quarters.
2. Who scored the most points in the game?
CJ McCollum led all players with 25 points for Washington. Donovan Mitchell was Cleveland’s leading scorer with 24 points, followed by Darius Garland with 20.
3. Which player recorded the most rebounds?
Jarrett Allen led the game with 14 rebounds for Cleveland. Justin Champagnie was Washington’s leading rebounder with 11, while Evan Mobley added 10 rebounds for the Cavaliers.
4. Who recorded the most assists?
Bub Carrington led all players with 11 assists for Washington. Darius Garland led Cleveland with nine assists, helping the Cavaliers finish with 34 team assists.
5. What were the biggest statistical differences between the teams?
Cleveland recorded 57 rebounds against Washington’s 44, made 20 three-pointers against 15, and committed 10 turnovers against Washington’s 20. The Cavaliers also recorded 15 steals, compared with five for the Wizards.
6. How many points did Cleveland score in each quarter?
Cleveland scored 39 points in the first quarter, 37 in the second, 33 in the third, and 39 in the fourth. Its consistent scoring helped produce the 148-115 final result.
Conclusion
The November 8, 2025, matchup demonstrated how balanced offense and possession control can produce a decisive NBA victory. Cleveland defeated Washington 148-115 by combining 52 made field goals, 20 three-pointers, 57 rebounds, 34 assists, and 15 steals.
Donovan Mitchell led the Cavaliers with 24 points, while Darius Garland supplied nine assists and Jarrett Allen dominated the boards with 14 rebounds. Cleveland’s bench also delivered valuable scoring, particularly through Tyrese Proctor and Sam Merrill, who combined for 31 points.
Washington had its own strong individual performances. McCollum scored 25 points, Sarr added 20 points and four blocks, Johnson contributed 19 points, and Carrington recorded 11 assists. However, the Wizards’ 20 turnovers and 13-rebound deficit made it difficult to challenge Cleveland’s control of the game.
The most important takeaway from the washington wizards vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats is that the final margin reflected more than individual scoring. Cleveland created extra opportunities, protected possession of the ball, shot more effectively from three-point range, and sustained its advantage throughout the game. Together, those factors explain how the Cavaliers secured a convincing 33-point win.
