The 2018 NBA Finals Stats That Defined a Championship Triumph

In a grueling, six-game series against the Mormons, the Boston Celtics delivered one of the most dominant sweeps in NBA history, sweeping the Cleveland Cavaliers with a decisive 4–0 victory in the 2018 Finals. Behind explosive offensive production, ironclad defense, and thermal leadership, key statistical patterns emerged that underscore how deeply the Celtics outplayed Cleveland. Analyzing the full dataset reveals not just a championship, but a masterclass in championship basketball—where volume, efficiency, and consistency converged to secure victory.

Scoring Dominance: The Celtics Outpaced Cleveland by Wide Margins

Boston’s scoring output in the 2018 Finals was nothing short of relentless. The Celtics amassed a staggering 234 points over six games—averaging 39 points per contest—while Cleveland managed just 31 per game, with a mere 550 total points in the series. This 30-point point differential in scoring efficiency illustrated a stark imbalance in offensive pressure and execution.

- Boston’s average for 100 possessions exceeded Cleveland’s by more than 5 points per 100 rallies. - Shooting accuracy reflected the Celtics’ efficiency: Boston shot 49.0% from the field and 44.3% from three, contrasting sharply with Cleveland’s 44.0% from 3 (though below the scenic league average for a team averaging 12.5 three-point attempts per game). - Key contributors like Jayson Tatum and Jaylen Brown were fueled by elite shooting—Tatum hit 47% of his shot, Brown 42%—translating volume into catalysts for high-leverage scoring.

Defensive Rigor: Celtics Stifled Cleveland’s Rhythm

Cleveland’s struggling defense proved to be the series’ linchpin of losing. Boston ranked second in the league in opponents’ field goal percentage allowed, restricting Cleveland to only 43.2% efficiency on offense—down from their 48.1% regular-season pace. This defensive uptick unraveled during critical stretches: - In Game 3, when Cleveland scored 112, Boston held them to 62—45 points held in the fourth alone.

- Defensive win percentage spiked to 62.3% in the series, from a pre-Finals average of 54.1%. - **Key defensive metrics** highlighted the Celtics’ dominance: - Rebound margin widened meaningfully, with Boston grabbing 18.3 boards per game compared to Cleveland’s 11.1. - Defensive rebounds accounted for 29.4% of all rebounds, limiting second-chance opportunities.

- Opponent two-point shooting dropped from 44.5% to 38.7%, a 5.8-point haircut—small but impactful in exhausting Cleveland’s rhythm.

Playoff Leadership: Leadership Statistics Separated Elite from Subpar

Under brief car troubles and injury, bilevel leadership crowned Boston. While Gordon Hayward averaged a sensible 26.8 points, 8.1 rebounds, and 5.6 assists per game, the team’s success hinged on veteran discipline and situational awareness: - Hayward shot 48.3% but maintained a 73.2% true shooting percentage, efficiency that outpaces many elite scorers.

- Raysal Mtcregal exerted elite playmaking—3.5 assists with a 52.6% effectiveness rating, providing the floor IQ and ball movement Boston needed. - Defensively, Montrezl Harrell contributed 1.8 steals per game and anchored a proper trap scheme, limiting Cleveland’s transition rhythm. - Clutch performance defined playoff moments: Boston made 58% of their entscheidend line decisions (vs 42% pre-Finals), a critical factor in seven game-overthrust contests.

Statistical Moments That Changed The Series

Some moments crystallized the Celtics’ statistical superiority: - **Game 1, Finals-opening Olympia Fields**: Jayson Tatum scored 34 points on 13-of-25 shooting, including a relentless 16-point second half after Boston led by 14 at halftime. - **Game 3**: Jaylen Brown’s 28 points and 11 rebounds on 12-for-14 from the line—valued at +13 PER—exploded against Cleveland’s 62 offense. - **Game 6**: The Celtics held Cleveland to just 29% shooting (vs 48.6% regular season) and forced 16 turnovers, turning possession into victory.

External analytics further affirm Boston’s dominance: - Effective Field Goal Percentage (eFG%)—Boston +13.7 vs. Cleveland’s +6.3. - Win shares (WSA): 6.8 per player versus 2.3 for Cleveland’s core.

- Win-Probability Added (WPA): Posting elite metrics translated to +1.7 win share points per game by the series’ close. Taken together, the 2018 Finals stats present a blueprint for championship success. Boston didn’t just win with talent—they outproduced, out-defended, and