Pacers vs Cleveland Cavaliers Match Player Stats

The pacers vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats from the July 10, 2026 NBA Summer League meeting reveal a game that was much closer than Indiana’s third-quarter surge initially suggested. The Indiana Pacers defeated the Cleveland Cavaliers 99-93 at Cox Pavilion in Las Vegas, overcoming a strong Cleveland fourth quarter after taking control in the middle of the game. The final margin was only six points, but the path to that result was shaped by shooting efficiency, rebounding, rim protection, bench production, and one decisive 32-point third quarter by Indiana.

For readers searching for player statistics, the headline numbers are clear. Cleveland received 20 points apiece from Nae’Qwan Tomlin and Meleek Thomas, while Malaki Branham added 15. Indiana was led by Rienk Mast with 16 points and 11 rebounds, Taevion Kinsey with 16 points in just over 16 minutes, and Jalen Slawson with 15 points, six rebounds, five assists, and five blocks.

The deeper story is even more useful. Cleveland actually finished with fewer turnovers and more steals, and the Cavaliers produced 15 offensive rebounds. Yet Indiana made better use of its possessions, shot more efficiently from the field, generated more assists, and built a major advantage before Cleveland’s late comeback attempt.

Game Overview and Final Score

The game took place on July 10, 2026, as part of the NBA Summer League in Las Vegas. The contest was played at Cox Pavilion in Las Vegas, with Cleveland meeting Indiana in its Summer League schedule.

The final score was:

Team	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Final
Cleveland Cavaliers	14	27	15	37	93
Indiana Pacers	11	32	32	24	99

The scoring pattern immediately explains why the game feels different when viewed beyond the final score.

Cleveland actually led 41-43 at halftime after recovering from a slow opening quarter. Indiana then produced a 32-point third quarter while holding Cleveland to only 15 points. That 17-point swing created the foundation for the win.

Cleveland did not simply fade away. The Cavaliers responded with a 37-point fourth quarter, cutting deeply into Indiana’s advantage. The problem was that the damage from the third quarter was too large to completely erase.

This is important when interpreting the pacers vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats. A six-point final margin does not mean the teams played evenly throughout all 48 minutes. Indiana controlled a crucial middle section of the game, while Cleveland produced its best offensive response when the deficit was already significant.

Pacers vs Cleveland Cavaliers Match Player Stats: Cleveland Standouts

Cleveland’s individual numbers show why the Cavaliers were able to make the game competitive again in the fourth quarter.

Nae’Qwan Tomlin

Nae’Qwan Tomlin was one of the most complete Cleveland players on the floor.

He finished with:

• 20 points
• 6 rebounds
• 4 assists
• 3 steals
• 1 block
• 8-of-14 shooting
• 2-of-4 from three-point range
• 1-of-1 from the free-throw line
• 2 turnovers

Tomlin’s 20 points came on efficient shooting. His 57.1 percent field-goal percentage was one of Cleveland’s strongest marks among its high-volume contributors. His two three-pointers also prevented Indiana from simply defending him as a paint-only threat.

What stands out most is the balance of his performance.

Twenty points alone would make for a solid Summer League showing. Adding six rebounds, four assists, three steals, and a block makes his contribution considerably more influential.

Tomlin also produced a positive plus-minus of +6, which is notable because Cleveland lost by six points overall. That does not mean every possession involving him was positive, but it does indicate that Cleveland performed well during his minutes relative to the overall game result.

His performance was particularly important because Cleveland needed players capable of contributing without requiring every possession to become a scoring opportunity.

Meleek Thomas

Meleek Thomas also scored 20 points in his Summer League debut.

His official line included:

• 20 points
• 5 rebounds
• 3 assists
• 1 steal
• 0 turnovers
• 7-of-15 field goals
• 2-of-5 three-pointers
• 2-of-2 free throws

Thomas shot 46.7 percent from the field and 40 percent from three-point range. More importantly, he finished without a turnover despite carrying a meaningful offensive role.

That combination is worth emphasizing.

Young guards and wings often face a difficult Summer League environment because possessions can become fragmented. Players are learning unfamiliar rotations, sharing the ball with teammates they have not played with regularly, and frequently operating against aggressive individual defenders.

Thomas avoided one of the biggest sources of wasted possessions.

His zero turnovers gave Cleveland a clean offensive contribution even when his shot selection was not perfect. His five rebounds and three assists also show that his impact was not limited to scoring.

Thomas was especially important late in the game. He scored 12 of his 20 points in the fourth quarter as Cleveland mounted its comeback.

That fourth-quarter production is one of the clearest reasons his debut deserves attention.

Malaki Branham

Malaki Branham provided Cleveland with another experienced scoring option.

His final numbers were:

• 15 points
• 4 rebounds
• 2 assists
• 2 steals
• 1 block
• 4-of-8 field goals
• 1-of-2 three-pointers
• 5-of-6 free throws

Branham shot 50 percent from the field and 83.3 percent from the free-throw line. He also finished with a neutral plus-minus.

His role was different from Thomas and Tomlin.

Tomlin provided interior activity and two-way versatility. Thomas supplied scoring and ball security. Branham offered a more measured combination of perimeter shooting, free-throw generation, and defensive activity.

The two steals and one block are especially useful when evaluating his contribution because Cleveland’s defense produced 12 steals and three blocks as a team.

Riley Minix

Riley Minix scored 10 points and added five rebounds, but his shooting efficiency was a challenge.

He finished 5-of-15 from the field and 0-of-6 from three-point range. He also committed five fouls.

The five rebounds still helped Cleveland, especially considering the Cavaliers finished with 15 offensive rebounds. However, the missed perimeter attempts limited the overall offensive value of his performance.

This is a good example of why points alone can be misleading when studying Summer League statistics.

Ten points may appear useful at first glance, but 15 field-goal attempts to reach that total indicates a much different offensive profile than Tomlin’s 20 points on 14 attempts.

Jaxson Robinson

Jaxson Robinson finished with nine points, four rebounds, and two assists.

He shot 3-of-9 from the field and 2-of-6 from three-point range. His four rebounds added value, while his perimeter attempts provided spacing even though the efficiency was limited.

Robinson’s performance illustrates the uneven nature of Summer League offense. Cleveland had several players capable of creating or finishing shots, but the team did not consistently convert those opportunities at a high rate.

Indiana Pacers Match Player Stats

Indiana’s player production was more balanced, which became especially important when the Pacers expanded their lead during the third quarter.

Rienk Mast

Rienk Mast delivered Indiana’s most complete statistical performance.

He recorded:

• 16 points
• 11 rebounds
• 3 assists
• 1 steal
• 6-of-12 field goals
• 1-of-6 three-pointers
• 2-of-3 free throws

Mast’s 11 rebounds gave him the game’s most significant rebounding performance. His double-double was a major part of Indiana’s ability to control the interior and finish possessions.

His scoring efficiency was solid at 50 percent from the field.

The more interesting part is that he did not need to dominate as a scorer to influence the game. His rebounding created extra possessions, his three assists helped move the offense, and his size allowed Indiana to maintain a physical presence.

Mast also became particularly valuable late in the fourth quarter.

As Cleveland reduced the deficit, Indiana needed reliable possessions rather than spectacular ones. Mast delivered important baskets to help stop the comeback.

Taevion Kinsey

Taevion Kinsey was one of Indiana’s most efficient offensive weapons.

He scored 16 points in only 16:07 of playing time.

His shooting line was outstanding:

• 4-of-5 from the field
• 4-of-5 from three-point range
• 2-of-2 free throws

That translates to 80 percent shooting from the field and 80 percent from three.

This was arguably the most explosive efficiency performance of the game.

Kinsey did not need a large volume of possessions to affect the scoreboard. Four made three-pointers created a major spacing problem for Cleveland, particularly because Indiana could combine his shooting with Mast’s interior presence.

This is one reason the Pacers were able to produce 32 points in the third quarter.

A player does not have to lead the team in total points to have a major effect on offensive efficiency. Kinsey’s ability to convert open perimeter chances meant Cleveland could not focus exclusively on the Pacers’ primary creators.

Jalen Slawson

Jalen Slawson arguably produced Indiana’s most versatile individual stat line.

He finished with:

• 15 points
• 6 rebounds
• 5 assists
• 1 steal
• 5 blocks

The five blocks are particularly striking.

Slawson’s shooting was not highly efficient at 4-of-15 overall and 2-of-9 from three, but his defensive impact was substantial. His five assists also demonstrate that his offensive contribution went beyond scoring.

Five blocks from one player are not just a box-score curiosity.

They influence how an opposing offense attacks the basket. Once a defender demonstrates the ability to erase attempts around the rim, offensive players may begin settling for jumpers or altering driving angles.

That can create an effect that does not fully appear in traditional statistics.

Slawson’s five blocks therefore help explain Indiana’s defensive success during the period when the Pacers built their lead.

Taelon Peter

Taelon Peter contributed 13 points and three assists.

He shot 4-of-8 from the field and made three of his seven attempts from three-point range.

Peter’s perimeter shooting complemented Kinsey’s performance.

Indiana did not rely on one shooter to create all of its spacing. Instead, multiple players could punish defensive mistakes.

That matters in Summer League basketball because defensive communication is often less polished than it is during the regular NBA season. Teams that can quickly identify and exploit open perimeter opportunities can create scoring runs before the defense adjusts.

Braden Smith

Braden Smith scored only five points, but the scoring total does not accurately describe his overall role.

He added:

• 8 rebounds
• 4 assists
• 3 steals
• 1 made three-pointer

Smith shot just 1-of-8 from the field, but he still contributed across several categories.

This is one of the clearest reminders that Summer League analysis should not be reduced to points per game.

A guard who grabs eight rebounds, creates four assists, and records three steals can influence possessions even when the shot is not falling.

Smith’s four assists also contributed to Indiana’s 21 team assists.

Pacers vs Cleveland Cavaliers Match Player Stats: Team Comparison

The most useful way to understand the game is to put the individual performances beside the team numbers.

Category	Cavaliers	Pacers
Final score	93	99
Field goals	34-88	31-71
FG percentage	38.6%	43.7%
3-pointers	8-32	11-38
3PT percentage	25.0%	28.9%
Free throws	11-13	17-25
Rebounds	39	43
Assists	17	21
Turnovers	10	14
Steals	12	6
Blocks	3	8
Offensive rebounds	15	12
Defensive rebounds	24	31
Fouls	31	18

These numbers provide a useful statistical snapshot of the contest.

Several figures immediately stand out.

Indiana won the efficiency battle

Cleveland made three more field goals than Indiana, 34 compared with 31.

Yet Indiana scored six more points.

Why?

Because the Pacers attempted far fewer shots while shooting a higher percentage. Indiana converted 43.7 percent of its field-goal attempts compared with Cleveland’s 38.6 percent.

Indiana also made 11 threes to Cleveland’s eight.

The difference was not massive from beyond the arc, but it was enough to help offset Cleveland’s extra field-goal attempts.

Cleveland won the turnover battle

Cleveland committed 10 turnovers compared with 14 by Indiana.

That should normally be a meaningful advantage.

Cleveland also recorded 12 steals.

However, turnovers alone do not determine the outcome.

Indiana compensated by shooting more efficiently, making more threes, producing more assists, and controlling the defensive glass.

This is a useful lesson for anyone interpreting basketball statistics: one favorable category does not necessarily outweigh several moderate disadvantages elsewhere.

Cleveland attacked the offensive glass

The Cavaliers recorded 15 offensive rebounds compared with 12 for Indiana.

That gave Cleveland additional opportunities after missed shots.

The problem was conversion.

Extra possessions matter most when they become points. Cleveland’s 38.6 percent shooting meant that the team often had to work harder than Indiana to generate the same amount of offense.

Indiana protected the defensive glass

The Pacers collected 31 defensive rebounds compared with Cleveland’s 24.

That helped them end Cleveland possessions.

The combination of defensive rebounding and rim protection was particularly important.

Indiana recorded eight blocks compared with Cleveland’s three.

That eight-to-three difference is one of the most significant defensive statistics in the game.

Why the Third Quarter Decided the Game

The third quarter is the central tactical story.

Indiana scored 32 points.

Cleveland scored 15.

That produced a 17-point advantage in one quarter.

The Pacers did not necessarily dominate every part of the game. Instead, they found a sustained period in which their offensive efficiency and defensive pressure aligned.

The third quarter also demonstrates why quarter-by-quarter data should always be included in a detailed player-stat analysis.

A final score of 99-93 tells us Indiana won by six.

The quarter scores tell us how.

Cleveland’s 27-point second quarter suggested the Cavaliers could generate enough offense to compete. Indiana then changed the game after halftime.

The Pacers’ ability to produce 32 points while limiting Cleveland to 15 created a cushion large enough to survive the Cavaliers’ fourth-quarter response.

Cleveland’s Fourth-Quarter Comeback

Cleveland’s 37-point fourth quarter deserves attention.

It was the highest-scoring quarter by either team.

The Cavaliers did not simply score meaningless points. They made a serious attempt to reverse the result.

Meleek Thomas was particularly influential, scoring 12 of his 20 points in the fourth quarter.

That production illustrates the value of shot creation late in games.

Cleveland had already fallen behind, but Thomas continued attacking instead of disappearing from the offense.

Tomlin also remained an important two-way contributor.

Still, Indiana had created enough separation in the third quarter that the comeback eventually ran out of time.

This is a recurring basketball principle: a team can win a fourth quarter convincingly and still lose the game because the decisive work was done earlier.

Shooting Efficiency Tells a Different Story Than Raw Scoring

One of the biggest analytical mistakes in player-stat articles is treating points as the only measure of offensive quality.

Consider the difference between Tomlin and Minix.

Tomlin scored 20 points on 14 field-goal attempts.

Minix scored 10 points on 15 attempts.

The difference is not merely that Tomlin scored twice as many points.

Tomlin generated substantially more production from fewer attempts.

Similarly, Kinsey’s 16 points came from only five field-goal attempts because he made four three-pointers and converted both of his free throws.

That is an example of high scoring efficiency without high usage.

On the other side, Braden Smith scored five points on eight attempts, but his eight rebounds, four assists, and three steals made his overall contribution more valuable than the scoring line alone suggests.

This is why readers looking for pacers vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats should examine shooting volume, efficiency, rebounding, assists, turnovers, and defensive events together.

The Role of Ball Movement

Indiana finished with 21 assists.

Cleveland had 17.

The four-assist difference may look modest, but it matters when combined with Indiana’s superior field-goal percentage.

More assists often indicate that a team is generating cleaner opportunities through movement rather than relying heavily on difficult individual shots.

The Pacers’ ball movement was particularly effective during the second and third quarters.

Indiana’s offensive structure created opportunities for several players:

• Mast could operate around the interior and perimeter.
• Kinsey could stretch the defense.
• Peter provided additional perimeter shooting.
• Slawson contributed as a passer.
• Smith helped organize possessions.

That distribution made the Pacers harder to defend.

What the Player Stats Say About Cleveland

Cleveland’s statistics reveal a team with legitimate individual talent but inconsistent offensive efficiency.

The positives were significant.

Tomlin and Thomas each scored 20.

Branham added 15.

The Cavaliers generated 15 offensive rebounds.

• They forced more turnovers than Indiana.
• They recorded 12 steals.
• They also generated substantial production around the basket.

Those are not signs of an ineffective offense.

The bigger issue was that Cleveland did not convert enough of its opportunities.

The Cavaliers shot 38.6 percent overall and 25 percent from three.

That combination made it difficult to sustain scoring when Indiana’s defense tightened.

What the Player Stats Say About Indiana

Indiana’s statistical profile was more balanced.

The Pacers did not have a single 20-point scorer.

Instead, they had multiple players between 13 and 16 points.

Mast and Kinsey each scored 16.

Slawson scored 15.

Peter scored 13.

That distribution matters.

It means Indiana could generate offense from several positions and did not need one player to dominate every possession.

The Pacers also received eight rebounds from Smith, 11 from Mast, six from Slawson, and strong contributions from other rotation players.

Defensively, Slawson’s five blocks gave Indiana a major presence around the rim.

The result was a team performance rather than a one-player takeover.

The Most Important Statistical Takeaways

For readers who want the shortest analytical version of the game, these are the most meaningful points.

1. Indiana won because of the third quarter

The 32-15 third-quarter advantage created the decisive separation.

2. Cleveland’s stars performed well

Tomlin and Thomas each scored 20, while Branham added 15.

3. Mast controlled the glass

His 16 points and 11 rebounds gave Indiana a reliable interior foundation.

4. Kinsey was extremely efficient

He scored 16 points while shooting 4-of-5 from the field and 4-of-5 from three.

5. Slawson affected both ends

His 15 points, six rebounds, five assists, and five blocks made him one of the most complete players on the floor.

6. Cleveland’s turnovers were not enough to win

The Cavaliers committed fewer turnovers, but Indiana compensated with better shooting and rebounding.

7. The fourth quarter changed the appearance of the final score

Cleveland scored 37 points in the fourth, turning what could have been a comfortable Indiana win into a six-point finish.

A Note About the Supplied Statistics

There are a few differences between the supplied statistical table and the official game record, so it is important to distinguish them rather than repeat inaccurate numbers.

The game record lists Indiana with 99 points on 31-of-71 shooting, 43 rebounds, 21 assists, 14 turnovers, six steals, and eight blocks. Cleveland is listed with 93 points on 34-of-88 shooting, 39 rebounds, 17 assists, 10 turnovers, 12 steals, and three blocks.

The player statistics also show:

• Yuki Kawamura: 8 points, not 16
• Keion Brooks Jr.: 11 points, not 16
• Taevion Kinsey: 16 points
• Rienk Mast: 16 points and 11 rebounds
• Jalen Slawson: 15 points, six rebounds, five assists, five blocks
• Taelon Peter: 13 points

The official game record is therefore the appropriate reference for the final box score and player totals.

What This Game Reveals About Summer League Evaluation

Summer League statistics should not be treated exactly like regular-season NBA statistics.

The context is different.

Rotations change rapidly. Players are auditioning for roles. Some established players may receive limited minutes. Others are asked to create more offense than they normally would.

That means a single game should be used as evidence, not as a final judgment.

For example, Kinsey’s four made threes in five attempts demonstrate elite shooting efficiency in this matchup, but they do not automatically establish that he will maintain an 80 percent three-point percentage.

Similarly, Thomas’ 20-point debut is encouraging, but it is more useful to examine how he created those points, how he handled defensive pressure, and whether he maintained efficiency across multiple games.

Tomlin’s combination of scoring, rebounding, passing, steals, and a block provides a different type of evidence.

Slawson’s five blocks are another strong signal of defensive activity.

The best analysis therefore asks what the numbers reveal about a player’s skills rather than simply ranking players by points.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who led the Pacers in scoring against the Cavaliers?

Rienk Mast and Taevion Kinsey each scored 16 points for Indiana. Mast added 11 rebounds, while Kinsey produced his points with exceptional shooting efficiency.

Who led the Cavaliers in scoring?

Nae’Qwan Tomlin and Meleek Thomas tied for Cleveland’s team-high with 20 points each. Tomlin added six rebounds, four assists, three steals, and one block, while Thomas finished with five rebounds and three assists.

What was the final score of the Pacers vs Cavaliers game?

Indiana defeated Cleveland 99-93 in the July 10, 2026 NBA Summer League matchup in Las Vegas.

Who had the most rebounds?

Rienk Mast led all players with 11 rebounds for Indiana. He also scored 16 points and recorded three assists.

Who had the most blocks?

Jalen Slawson recorded five blocks for Indiana, the highest total by any player in the game. He also scored 15 points, grabbed six rebounds, and dished out five assists.

Why did Indiana win?

Indiana’s decisive advantage came from its 32-15 third quarter, better field-goal efficiency, stronger defensive rebounding, more assists, and eight blocks. Cleveland had advantages in turnovers and steals, but those were not enough to offset Indiana’s overall efficiency and third-quarter surge.

Conclusion

The pacers vs cleveland cavaliers match player stats tell the story of a game decided by efficiency and timing rather than by one overwhelming individual performance.

Indiana won 99-93, but Cleveland’s leading players performed well. Nae’Qwan Tomlin and Meleek Thomas both scored 20 points, with Tomlin adding strong defensive and playmaking numbers and Thomas protecting the ball throughout his scoring performance. Malaki Branham provided another efficient 15-point contribution.

Indiana responded with greater balance.

Rienk Mast delivered a double-double with 16 points and 11 rebounds. Taevion Kinsey produced 16 points on outstanding shooting efficiency. Jalen Slawson filled the box score with 15 points, six rebounds, five assists, and five blocks. Taelon Peter supplied 13 points, while Braden Smith contributed across several categories despite an inefficient shooting night.

The decisive moment was Indiana’s third quarter.

The Pacers scored 32 points while limiting Cleveland to 15. That 17-point advantage created enough separation to withstand a 37-point fourth-quarter response from the Cavaliers.

The game also demonstrates why serious player-stat analysis needs more than a list of scoring totals. Shooting percentage, shot volume, three-point efficiency, rebounding, assists, turnovers, steals, blocks, and quarter-by-quarter production all help explain why a game ended the way it did.

For readers studying this matchup, the biggest lesson is simple: Cleveland had enough individual scoring to win, but Indiana produced the more efficient and balanced team performance when the game was decided.