Last 10 games
| Defender | Games | Min | eFG% | vs Season | Sample |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Collin Gillespie | 2 | 9 | 56% | +11.0% | low |
| Bub Carrington | 3 | 7 | 75% | +11.0% | medium |
| Bennedict Mathurin | 3 | 6 | 44% | +5.4% | medium |
| Daniss Jenkins | 3 | 6 | 40% |
Jevon Carter’s season line is modest at 6.4 PPG, 1.7 RPG, and 1.5 APG in 15.5 MPG, but his recent workload has climbed to 20.2 MPG with 8.3 PPG over the last 10 and 10.0 PPG over the last 5. The biggest swing factor is role: Anthony Black, Franz Wagner, and Jalen Suggs are all out, which materially raises Carter’s minutes and on-ball responsibility. Cleveland’s profile is not ideal for pace, with a 100 pace and opponent scoring suppression of -0.159, so the matchup caps the explosive upside even with the usage bump. His previous game vs Cleveland was 9 points in 20 minutes, so the historical baseline still leans modest rather than aggressive.
Cleveland’s defense has a 114.69 rating with a 100 pace and a scoring suppression of -0.159, which makes this a slower, less efficient environment. The provided defender data does not give a usable individual matchup edge beyond the fact that there is no specific defender matchup data to lean on.
| Player | Prop | Line | Pick | Confidence | Trend | Evolution | Actual | Result |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Jevon Carter▼ | Points | 6.5 | OVER | 58%MEDIUM | 60% | FLIP | 15 | ✓ |
Jevon Carter▼ | Rebounds | 1.5 | OVER | 60%MEDIUM | 90% | 4 | ✓ | |
Jevon Carter▼ | Assists | 1.5 | OVER | 54%MEDIUM | 70% | 4 | ✓ | |
Jevon Carter▼ | 3PM | 1.5 | OVER | 57%MEDIUM | 60% | 3 | ✓ | |
Jevon Carter▼ | Steals | 0.5 | OVER | 56%MEDIUM | 60% | 1 | ✓ | |
Jevon Carter▼ | Blocks | 0.5 | UNDER | 78%HIGH | 80% | — | 0 | ✓ |
Jevon Carter▼ | STL+BLK | 1.5 | UNDER | 63%MEDIUM | 70% | 1 | ✓ | |
Jevon Carter▼ | Turnovers | 1.5 | UNDER | 67%MEDIUM | 80% | FLIP | 0 | ✓ |
Jevon Carter▼ | P+A | 8 | OVER | 52%MEDIUM | 70% | FLIP | 19 | ✓ |
This is the cleanest edge in the profile because Carter’s season average is only 0.2 blocks and his last 5 is 0.0. The line sits above his normal production, and unlike the scoring props, it is not dependent on usage or minutes to the same degree.
| medium |
| Dennis Schröder | 2 | 6 | 50% | +11.0% | low |
| Defender | Games | Min | PTS | FG% | eFG% |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Dennis Schröder | 2 | 6 | 2 | 50% | 50% |
| Keon Ellis | 2 | 4 | 5 | 100% | 125% |
| Donovan Mitchell | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0% | 0% |
| Sam Merrill | 2 | 2 | 4 | 100% | 100% |
| Thomas Bryant | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0% | 0% |
The absences on Orlando’s roster should keep Carter’s minutes elevated well above his 15.5 season average, and his last 10 scoring average is 8.3. Still, Cleveland’s slower environment and his prior 5.625 PPG vs this opponent make this a modest lean rather than a strong over.
He has averaged 2.3 rebounds over the last 10 and 3.0 over the last 5, both above his 1.7 season mark. With a recent minutes uptick to 20.2 MPG, this is one of his cleaner overs.
The role increase from multiple teammate absences supports more playmaking chances, and his recent mean is 2.0 assists. However, his season mean is still only 1.55 and the matchup pace keeps the projection controlled.
Carter averages 1.55 threes per game on the season and 1.8 over the last 10, with 2.2 over the last 5. The volume is there, but Cleveland’s three suppression context warrants moderate confidence.
He averages 0.7 steals on the season and 0.8 over the last 10, so a half-steal line is reachable. His recent defensive activity also shows 1.4 stocks per game over the last 5.
His season average is only 0.2 blocks and the last 5 is 0.0. A half-block line is too high for his typical profile.
He averages 0.9 stocks on the season and 1.0 over the last 10, which is below a 1.5 line. Recent form has been better, but not enough to justify the over with high confidence.
He averages just 0.9 turnovers on the season and 1.0 over the last 10. Even with a larger role, his turnover profile remains relatively manageable.
His season points plus assists profile is light, but the absence-driven minutes bump helps. This is still a variance-heavy combo and should be treated conservatively.