Oklahoma city thunder vs San antonio spurs match player stats
The oklahoma city thunder vs san antonio spurs match player stats from Game 4 tell a much clearer story than the 103-82 final score alone. San Antonio did not simply win because Victor Wembanyama scored 33 points. The Spurs controlled the game through efficient offense, physical defense, rebounding, ball movement, transition scoring, and pressure on Oklahoma City’s primary creators. Oklahoma City, meanwhile, struggled to convert open looks, turned the ball over repeatedly, and never found enough offensive rhythm to make the game competitive after the opening period.
Game 4 was played at the Frost Bank Center on May 24, 2026, with San Antonio winning 103-82 to even the Western Conference Finals at 2-2. The Spurs led 28-19 after the first quarter, 50-38 at halftime, 78-60 after three quarters, and never surrendered control.
For anyone searching for the oklahoma city thunder vs san antonio spurs match player stats, the most important takeaway is that this was not an ordinary poor-shooting night. It was a game in which San Antonio’s defensive approach directly affected the quality of Oklahoma City’s offense. The numbers show that connection.
Game 4 at a Glance
| Category | Oklahoma City Thunder | San Antonio Spurs |
| Final score | 82 | 103 |
| Field goals | 30-91 | 35-90 |
| Field-goal percentage | 33.0% | 38.9% |
| 3-pointers | 6-33 | 9-33 |
| 3-point percentage | 18.2% | 27.3% |
| Free throws | 16-18 | 24-32 |
| Rebounds | 47 | 52 |
| Assists | 22 | 25 |
| Turnovers | 17 official team total | 12 official team total |
| Steals | 9 | 11 |
| Blocks | 5 | 10 |
| Points in the paint | 36 | 50 |
| Fast-break points | 7 | 18 |
| Biggest lead | 1 | 25 |
The official box score also records 20 Thunder turnovers when team turnovers are counted in the detailed team total, compared with 13 for San Antonio. This distinction matters when comparing different statistical summaries, because some scoreboard summaries list player turnovers while the official team total includes team possessions that do not belong to an individual player.
oklahoma city thunder vs san antonio spurs match player stats
The headline individual matchup was Shai Gilgeous-Alexander against Victor Wembanyama, but reducing the game to those two players would miss why San Antonio won so comfortably.
Wembanyama produced 33 points, 8 rebounds, 5 assists, 2 steals and 3 blocks. He shot 11-for-22 from the field, 3-for-7 from three-point range and 8-for-9 from the free-throw line. His 33 points were the highest total by either team.
Gilgeous-Alexander finished with 19 points, 4 rebounds, 7 assists and 2 steals. He shot 6-for-15 from the field and made all seven of his free throws, but he missed his only three-point attempt and committed four turnovers.
That contrast is important. Wembanyama was able to influence scoring, rebounding, passing and rim protection simultaneously. Gilgeous-Alexander still created offense, but the Spurs made the cost of every offensive possession much higher.
Victor Wembanyama’s 33-point performance
Wembanyama’s box score is impressive, but his value was broader than the scoring column.
He recorded:
- 33 points
- 8 rebounds
- 5 assists
- 2 steals
- 3 blocks
- 11-for-22 shooting
- 3-for-7 from three
- 8-for-9 from the free-throw line
- 31:02 of playing time
The three blocks are particularly important because they show how San Antonio could pressure Oklahoma City without sacrificing protection around the basket. Wembanyama could challenge shots near the rim while also stretching the floor offensively.
His three-point shooting also mattered strategically. Oklahoma City could not simply treat him as a traditional interior center. A 7-foot-4 player who can make threes, pass from the frontcourt and protect the rim forces a defense to solve several problems at once.
His 5 assists also demonstrate that San Antonio’s offense did not require him to finish every possession. When Oklahoma City’s defense collapsed toward him, he could move the ball and allow other Spurs players to attack the next advantage.
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander’s 19 points
Gilgeous-Alexander’s 19 points were enough to lead Oklahoma City, but they represented an unusually difficult scoring night for the Thunder’s primary offensive engine.
His line was:
- 19 points
- 4 rebounds
- 7 assists
- 2 steals
- 6-for-15 shooting
- 0-for-1 from three
- 7-for-7 free throws
- 4 turnovers
- 31:15 of playing time
The free-throw shooting was perfect, and his seven assists show that he remained an important playmaker. The problem was efficiency and possession quality.
A 6-for-15 shooting night gives him a 40% field-goal percentage. More importantly, San Antonio prevented him from creating the kind of efficient scoring pressure that can force an entire defense into rotation.
The Spurs did not need to eliminate Gilgeous-Alexander from the game. They needed to make his scoring harder while preventing the other Thunder players from benefiting from his creation.
That distinction is central to understanding the game.
Thunder Player Stats: Who Performed Well?
Oklahoma City had five players in double figures, according to the team’s official game notes. That sounds balanced, but the scoring distribution did not translate into efficient offense.
Isaiah Hartenstein
Hartenstein was one of Oklahoma City’s most efficient offensive players.
He finished with:
- 12 points
- 7 rebounds
- 3 assists
- 6-for-11 shooting
- 54.5% from the field
- 1 turnover
His 12 points on 11 field-goal attempts were valuable because he provided efficient interior scoring while the Thunder’s perimeter offense struggled.
However, Hartenstein could not compensate for the overall shooting problems. San Antonio’s defense made it difficult for Oklahoma City to generate enough efficient possessions around him.
Isaiah Joe
Isaiah Joe provided one of the better offensive performances from the Thunder’s supporting cast.
He recorded:
- 11 points
- 5 rebounds
- 2 assists
- 2 steals
- 1 block
- 4-for-9 shooting
- 2-for-7 from three
His +6 plus-minus was also the best among Oklahoma City players who received meaningful minutes.
The problem was volume and accuracy from long range. Joe made two threes, but the Thunder collectively made only six. San Antonio’s defensive rotations limited the number of clean perimeter opportunities Oklahoma City could convert.
Chet Holmgren
Holmgren posted 10 points and 9 rebounds, along with 2 assists, 1 block and 3 turnovers.
His shooting line was 3-for-8 from the field and 4-for-6 at the free-throw line.
The nine rebounds were important, but his offensive involvement was not enough to shift the game. San Antonio’s size and defensive structure made it difficult for Oklahoma City to establish consistent interior pressure.
Holmgren also had a +2 plus-minus, one of only two positive plus-minus marks for Oklahoma City. That statistic should not be interpreted as proof that he individually outplayed the Spurs. Plus-minus is strongly affected by lineups and game context, but it does indicate that the minutes he shared with certain combinations were more competitive than much of the rest of the game.
Kenrich Williams
Kenrich Williams finished with:
- 10 points
- 5 rebounds
- 3 assists
- 1 steal
- 3-for-7 shooting
- 2-for-4 from three
His 50% three-point shooting was one of the few bright spots for Oklahoma City.
He also posted a relatively strong individual efficiency profile, but the Thunder needed several more players to produce at that level.
Cason Wallace
Wallace scored 5 points on 2-for-8 shooting.
He added 4 rebounds and 2 steals, but the offensive efficiency was poor. San Antonio’s ability to make Oklahoma City’s secondary perimeter players uncomfortable was a major part of the game.
Jared McCain
McCain had one of the toughest offensive games of the night.
He scored 4 points on 1-for-10 shooting and went 0-for-5 from three.
For a team that finished 6-for-33 from behind the arc, five missed attempts from one perimeter player become significant. The issue was not simply that McCain missed shots. Those misses represented possessions that failed to produce pressure on the San Antonio defense.
Aaron Wiggins
Wiggins scored 4 points on 2-for-11 shooting and missed all four of his three-point attempts.
That shooting performance further explains why San Antonio could focus defensive attention on Oklahoma City’s primary creators without paying a large enough price from the supporting cast.
Jaylin Williams and Alex Caruso
Jaylin Williams scored 3 points on 1-for-7 shooting, including 1-for-7 from three.
Caruso did not score, going 0-for-1 from the field, but he recorded 2 blocks and 4 personal fouls in only 14 minutes.
Caruso’s defensive activity was useful, yet the lack of offensive production placed additional pressure on the rest of Oklahoma City’s lineup.
Spurs Player Stats: The Supporting Cast Matters
The Spurs were led by Wembanyama, but their victory was a genuine team performance.
Devin Vassell and Stephon Castle each scored 13 points. De’Aaron Fox recorded 12 points, 10 rebounds and 5 assists. Dylan Harper added 7 points, while Keldon Johnson and Luke Kornet scored 6 apiece.
That distribution helped San Antonio avoid becoming overly dependent on Wembanyama.
De’Aaron Fox
Fox’s 12-point scoring total does not immediately jump off the page.
His rebounding and playmaking do.
Fox finished with:
- 12 points
- 10 rebounds
- 5 assists
- 5-for-13 shooting
- 1-for-2 from three
- 3 steals
A guard collecting 10 rebounds in a conference finals game can change possession volume. San Antonio finished with a 52-47 rebounding advantage, and Fox contributed directly to that edge.
His 5 assists also helped San Antonio maintain offensive flow rather than relying exclusively on individual shot creation.
Stephon Castle
Castle scored 13 points and added 6 assists, 3 rebounds and 5 steals.
The five steals were particularly important because San Antonio’s defensive pressure was not limited to Wembanyama near the basket.
Castle helped create disruption farther from the rim, which made Oklahoma City’s ball-handling problems worse.
Devin Vassell
Vassell finished with:
- 13 points
- 6 rebounds
- 3 assists
- 1 steal
- 3-for-7 shooting
- 2-for-4 from three
His defensive contribution was also part of the story.
Vassell was involved in the early defensive pressure that helped San Antonio establish control. He also helped create a memorable sequence in which he blocked a Jared McCain attempt and then assisted Wembanyama on an alley-oop during San Antonio’s 16-0 run.
Julian Champagnie
Champagnie scored 2 points on 1-for-7 shooting.
His scoring output was modest, but his presence in San Antonio’s spacing structure still mattered. The Spurs did not need every player to score heavily because Wembanyama, Fox, Castle and Vassell provided enough production.
Keldon Johnson and Luke Kornet
Johnson scored 6 points, while Kornet scored 6 points on 3-for-4 shooting.
Kornet also recorded 7 rebounds and 2 blocks.
That efficient interior contribution reinforced San Antonio’s advantage around the basket. The Spurs finished with 50 points in the paint compared with Oklahoma City’s 36.
Why the 21-point margin happened
The final margin of 21 points can be explained by several connected statistical advantages.
1. San Antonio won the shooting battle
The Spurs shot 38.9% from the field.
That is not an elite percentage in isolation, but it was more than enough against an Oklahoma City team shooting only 33.0%.
The difference becomes even more meaningful when considering volume:
San Antonio made 35 field goals.
Oklahoma City made 30.
The Spurs also made nine threes compared with six for the Thunder.
2. Oklahoma City’s three-point offense collapsed
The Thunder went 6-for-33 from three.
That is 18.2%.
This was arguably the clearest offensive weakness of the game.
Modern NBA offenses often depend on three-point shooting not only for direct scoring but also for creating driving lanes. When perimeter shots do not fall, defenses can stay closer to the paint.
That makes every drive more difficult.
San Antonio’s defensive strategy therefore had a multiplier effect. By reducing clean perimeter opportunities and limiting conversion, the Spurs could make the floor smaller for Oklahoma City’s creators.
3. San Antonio dominated inside
The Spurs scored 50 points in the paint.
Oklahoma City scored 36.
That 14-point advantage is substantial.
San Antonio also held an 18-7 advantage in fast-break points. The Spurs were not simply scoring more in half-court situations. They were turning defensive possessions into easier offensive opportunities.
4. Rebounding favored San Antonio
The Spurs collected 52 rebounds to Oklahoma City’s 47.
The five-rebound difference does not look enormous, but playoff possessions are valuable.
San Antonio also had 14 offensive rebounds compared with 11 for Oklahoma City.
Extra possessions can be especially damaging when one team is already struggling with shooting efficiency.
5. Turnovers created another advantage
San Antonio finished with fewer turnovers.
The detailed official box score records 13 Spurs turnovers compared with 20 for Oklahoma City when team turnovers are included. The NBA summary also records 17 player turnovers for Oklahoma City and 12 for San Antonio.
The important point is not the small difference between statistical accounting methods.
The important point is that Oklahoma City gave San Antonio too many opportunities to convert defensive pressure into offense.
The Spurs finished with 25 points off turnovers in the NBA game summary, compared with 13 for Oklahoma City.
That is a 12-point swing.
In a game decided by 21 points, it becomes one of the most important explanatory numbers.
The first quarter changed the game
San Antonio opened with a 28-19 advantage.
That nine-point lead became 12 points at halftime.
The Spurs then extended it to 18 after three quarters.
The most damaging sequence came early.
San Antonio used a 16-0 run to build a 23-8 advantage with 4:19 remaining in the first quarter. The sequence included Vassell’s block of McCain followed by his alley-oop connection with Wembanyama.
This is where the box score needs context.
A team can recover from a nine-point first-quarter deficit. Recovering from an early stretch in which the opponent establishes defensive control, forces difficult possessions and creates transition opportunities is much harder.
Oklahoma City did not completely collapse after the run. It continued to score.
But it never recovered the game’s momentum.
San Antonio’s ball movement was a hidden advantage
One of the most revealing statistics came in the first quarter.
The Spurs assisted on all 10 of their field goals in the opening period.
That is a remarkable indicator of offensive connectivity.
San Antonio was not relying on one player to repeatedly create difficult shots. The ball moved from advantage to advantage until an efficient opportunity appeared.
That is particularly important against a defense as aggressive as Oklahoma City’s.
When a defense commits extra help, the best response is often not to attack the same defender repeatedly. It is to move the ball quickly enough that the defensive rotation becomes the weakness.
San Antonio did exactly that.
The bench battle was closer than the previous game
The series context makes this game even more interesting.
In Game 3, Oklahoma City’s bench scored 76 points while San Antonio’s reserves scored only 23.
Game 4 was almost the opposite stylistically. San Antonio’s reserves scored 30 points, while Oklahoma City’s bench produced 34.
The Thunder did not lose because their bench was completely outscored.
They lost because the starters and overall offense could not create enough efficient scoring.
That is an important distinction when evaluating playoff performance. A team does not always need to win every statistical category. It needs to win enough of the categories that matter most to its style.
San Antonio’s defense prevented the Thunder from turning its depth into the kind of offensive avalanche seen in Game 3.
What the advanced numbers tell us
The basic box score is enough to understand the result, but a deeper statistical reading reveals additional details.
Oklahoma City’s team true-shooting percentage was much lower than San Antonio’s because the Thunder combined poor field-goal shooting with weak three-point conversion.
The Thunder’s effective field-goal percentage was only 36.3%, while San Antonio’s was substantially better because of its superior three-point conversion and overall shooting profile.
Another interesting number is Isaiah Hartenstein’s offensive efficiency. He shot 6-for-11 and posted a 54.5% effective field-goal percentage from his field goals because he did not rely on three-point shooting.
Kenrich Williams also delivered efficient offense, shooting 3-for-7 overall and 2-for-4 from three.
The problem was that those efficient performances were surrounded by too many low-efficiency possessions.
Jared McCain’s 1-for-10 shooting and Aaron Wiggins’ 2-for-11 shooting are particularly important examples.
Why Wembanyama’s performance was more than a scoring explosion
It is tempting to describe Wembanyama’s 33 points as the decisive factor.
They were certainly important.
But his influence went beyond scoring.
When Wembanyama was on the floor, Oklahoma City had to account for:
- His ability to score around the rim.
- His ability to shoot from outside.
- His rebounding.
- His passing.
- His ability to alter shots.
- His defensive positioning.
- His ability to create matchup problems.
That combination explains why a player can influence a playoff game without taking an enormous number of shots.
Wembanyama attempted 22 field goals, which was a substantial workload, but he also converted 8 of 9 free throws and added five assists.
The result was an offensive performance that could not be addressed simply by putting one defender on him.
Why Shai’s seven assists still matter
Gilgeous-Alexander’s 19 points might appear disappointing when compared with his usual scoring standards, but the seven assists show that he was still trying to solve San Antonio’s defense as a playmaker.
This matters because defensive success against a superstar does not always mean forcing zero scoring opportunities.
Sometimes the goal is to make the star choose between a difficult shot and a pass to a teammate who has not been able to punish the defense.
San Antonio effectively created that decision.
The Thunder’s supporting players did not shoot well enough to make the Spurs pay consistently.
A useful way to read playoff player statistics
When analyzing oklahoma city thunder vs san antonio spurs match player stats, readers should avoid looking at points alone.
A better method is to ask five questions.
Who scored efficiently?
Wembanyama was the obvious winner.
Hartenstein and Isaiah Joe were among Oklahoma City’s more efficient offensive contributors.
Who created for teammates?
Gilgeous-Alexander had 7 assists.
Castle and Fox combined for 11 assists.
Wembanyama added 5.
That gave San Antonio multiple playmaking sources.
Who controlled possessions?
San Antonio’s rebounding edge, turnover advantage and transition scoring point in the same direction.
The Spurs controlled more possessions and made more of those possessions productive.
Who affected the game defensively?
Wembanyama’s 3 blocks, Castle’s 5 steals, and San Antonio’s 10 blocks as a team demonstrate how disruptive the Spurs were.
Who created pressure without scoring?
Fox’s 10 rebounds and 5 assists are a strong example.
Caruso’s 2 blocks are another.
Statistics become more meaningful when they are connected to how the game was actually played.
Series context: why Game 4 mattered
The Spurs entered Game 4 after losing Game 3 by 123-108.
That loss placed San Antonio in danger of falling behind 3-1.
Instead, the Spurs responded with a 21-point victory and tied the series 2-2.
The result was not an isolated event.
The complete seven-game series ultimately followed this sequence:
- Game 1: Spurs 122, Thunder 115
- Game 2: Thunder 122, Spurs 113
- Game 3: Thunder 123, Spurs 108
- Game 4: Spurs 103, Thunder 82
- Game 5: Thunder 127, Spurs 114
- Game 6: Spurs 118, Thunder 91
- Game 7: Spurs 111, Thunder 103
San Antonio ultimately won the series 4-3.
That later context makes Game 4 even more interesting. It was not the deciding game, but it was an important momentum swing in a series that went the full seven games.
What Oklahoma City needed to change
The Thunder’s solution was not simply “make more shots.”
That is too basic.
A better response would involve creating higher-quality shots and reducing the number of possessions that ended before the offense could generate an advantage.
Three areas stand out.
Improve secondary creation
Gilgeous-Alexander had seven assists, but the offense needed more consistent creation from the supporting cast.
When San Antonio applied pressure to the primary ball-handler, Oklahoma City needed other players to attack closeouts and create rotations.
Generate better three-point opportunities
The Thunder went 6-for-33 from three.
Even if that percentage improved naturally in the next game, Oklahoma City needed to examine why so many attempts failed.
There is a difference between missing open threes and taking contested threes late in possessions.
The box score alone cannot answer that question, but the 18.2% conversion rate makes the shot-quality review essential.
Reduce live-ball turnovers
San Antonio’s 25 points off turnovers in the game summary demonstrate how damaging possession mistakes were.
Against a team that can turn steals into transition opportunities, a careless pass can effectively become a four-point swing: the Thunder loses a potential scoring possession while the Spurs gain a high-value transition chance.
What San Antonio did especially well
San Antonio’s most impressive quality was consistency.
The Spurs won every quarter:
- First quarter: 28-19
- Second quarter: 22-19
- Third quarter: 28-22
- Fourth quarter: 25-22
There was no single quarter in which Oklahoma City mounted a sustained comeback.
That is a sign of control.
The Spurs also finished with:
- 50 points in the paint
- 18 fast-break points
- 52 rebounds
- 25 assists
- 11 steals
- 10 blocks
Those categories reinforce one another.
Defense produced turnovers.
Turnovers produced transition opportunities.
Rebounding created extra possessions.
Ball movement produced efficient shots.
Wembanyama’s interior presence made those advantages harder for Oklahoma City to neutralize.
The most important individual statistical takeaway
If one player has to be identified as the statistical standout, it is clearly Wembanyama.
But the more useful conclusion is that his 33-point performance was supported by a system that produced advantages in multiple areas.
Fox contributed rebounding and playmaking.
Castle contributed steals and assists.
Vassell contributed perimeter shooting and defense.
Kornet provided efficient interior production.
The Spurs did not need every player to post a large scoring total.
That is why the final score reached 103 despite only two Spurs players scoring more than 13 points.
The biggest warning sign for the Thunder
The most concerning number for Oklahoma City was not its 82 points by itself.
It was the combination of:
- 33.0% field-goal shooting
- 18.2% three-point shooting
- 17 player turnovers
- 20 official team turnovers
- 36 points in the paint
- 7 fast-break points
- 47 rebounds
Those numbers show problems at both ends of the possession.
The Thunder were not merely cold from outside. They also struggled to create efficient interior offense, gave San Antonio transition opportunities and failed to generate enough second-chance advantages.
That makes the defeat easier to understand.
The most encouraging sign for Oklahoma City
Despite the loss, Oklahoma City did have several positives.
Gilgeous-Alexander still produced seven assists and seven free throws.
Hartenstein shot 54.5% from the field.
Joe made four field goals and contributed five rebounds, two assists, two steals and a block.
Kenrich Williams shot 50% from three.
Holmgren grabbed nine rebounds and added a block.
The Thunder were not devoid of individual production.
The challenge was combining those pieces into a functioning team offense against San Antonio’s pressure.
Final statistical assessment
The oklahoma city thunder vs san antonio spurs match player stats from Game 4 point to a straightforward conclusion: San Antonio won because its defense changed the quality of Oklahoma City’s possessions, while its own offense remained efficient enough to exploit the resulting advantages.
Wembanyama’s 33 points were the headline.
But the deeper story was the Spurs’ 50 points in the paint, 18 fast-break points, 52 rebounds, 25 assists and 11 steals. The Thunder’s 18.2% three-point shooting and turnover problems then magnified those advantages.
Gilgeous-Alexander still produced 19 points and 7 assists, but the Spurs successfully prevented his scoring efficiency from becoming the foundation of a high-scoring Thunder offense.
The game also demonstrated why playoff basketball is best understood through combinations of statistics rather than one headline number.
A 21-point victory can look simple in a final score.
The player data shows the process behind it.
San Antonio defended the perimeter, protected the rim, won the rebounding battle, created transition opportunities and received enough scoring from multiple players around Wembanyama.
Oklahoma City had efficient performances from Hartenstein, Joe and Kenrich Williams, but too many other offensive possessions ended in missed shots or turnovers.
That is the central lesson from this matchup.
The decisive advantage was not simply that the Spurs had the game’s highest scorer. It was that San Antonio made its star’s performance more valuable by surrounding him with defense, movement, rebounding and secondary playmaking.
For readers studying playoff basketball through player statistics, Game 4 is a useful example of why points, rebounds and assists should be read alongside shooting efficiency, turnovers, transition scoring, paint production and team possession quality.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who was the top scorer in the Thunder vs Spurs Game 4?
Victor Wembanyama was the top scorer with 33 points. He also had 8 rebounds, 5 assists, 2 steals and 3 blocks.
How many points did Shai Gilgeous-Alexander score?
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander scored 19 points, along with 4 rebounds, 7 assists and 2 steals. He shot 6-for-15 from the field and made all seven of his free throws.
What was the final score of Game 4?
The San Antonio Spurs defeated the Oklahoma City Thunder 103-82 in Game 4 of the Western Conference Finals. The victory tied the series at 2-2.
How did Wembanyama perform in Game 4?
Wembanyama recorded 33 points, 8 rebounds, 5 assists, 2 steals and 3 blocks while shooting 11-for-22 from the field, 3-for-7 from three and 8-for-9 from the free-throw line.
Why did Oklahoma City lose despite having five players in double figures?
The Thunder’s main problems were poor shooting and turnovers. Oklahoma City shot 33.0% overall and 18.2% from three, while San Antonio produced 50 points in the paint and 18 fast-break points.
How important was the three-point shooting?
It was extremely important. Oklahoma City made only 6 of 33 three-point attempts, while San Antonio made 9 of 33. The Thunder’s 18.2% conversion rate significantly reduced its ability to create efficient offense.
Conclusion
The oklahoma city thunder vs san antonio spurs match player stats from Game 4 reveal a game decided by much more than Victor Wembanyama’s 33 points.
San Antonio won 103-82 because its individual performances fit together. Wembanyama dominated as a scorer and defender, Fox controlled the glass and created for teammates, Castle generated defensive pressure, and Vassell provided two-way impact. The Spurs also moved the ball exceptionally well and maintained their defensive intensity across all four quarters.
For Oklahoma City, Gilgeous-Alexander remained the central creator with 19 points and 7 assists, while Hartenstein, Joe, Kenrich Williams and Holmgren provided useful contributions. The problem was that too many possessions ended without efficient scoring.
The most revealing numbers were the Thunder’s 33.0% field-goal shooting, 18.2% three-point shooting, 47 rebounds and turnover problems against a Spurs team that produced 50 points in the paint, 18 fast-break points and 52 rebounds.
Game 4 therefore stands as a strong example of how player statistics become more meaningful when they are connected to team strategy. Wembanyama’s 33 points mattered, but the Spurs’ ability to make every defensive possession uncomfortable for Oklahoma City was what allowed those points to become part of a 21-point victory.
