San Antonio Spurs vs Timberwolves Match Player Stats
San Antonio Spurs vs Timberwolves match player stats from Game 5 of the 2026 Western Conference Semifinals tell a much bigger story than the final score alone. The Spurs defeated the Minnesota Timberwolves 126-97 on May 13, 2026, at Frost Bank Center in San Antonio, taking a 3-2 series lead. Victor Wembanyama led the Spurs with 27 points and 17 rebounds, while Anthony Edwards finished as Minnesota’s leading scorer with 20 points. The numbers show that San Antonio controlled the game through efficient shooting, stronger rebounding, better ball movement, and a much deeper scoring contribution.
The 29-point margin was not created by one isolated statistical advantage. San Antonio steadily built separation across all four quarters. The Spurs scored 34, 25, 32, and 35 points, while Minnesota managed 30, 17, 26, and 24. That pattern matters because it shows the game was not simply decided by one explosive stretch. San Antonio consistently maintained control and finished with its strongest offensive quarter.
For readers studying player performance, this game provides a useful example of why individual points should never be viewed in isolation. Wembanyama’s 27-point, 17-rebound performance was outstanding, but his impact becomes even clearer when it is viewed alongside San Antonio’s 50 rebounds, 25 assists, 53% field-goal shooting, and eight blocks.
San Antonio Spurs vs Timberwolves Match Player Stats
The headline statistics immediately explain the difference between the teams.
| Category | Minnesota Timberwolves | San Antonio Spurs |
| Final Score | 97 | 126 |
| Field Goals | 32-83 | 47-89 |
| Field-Goal Percentage | 39% | 53% |
| 3-Pointers | 9-33 | 11-32 |
| 3-Point Percentage | 27% | 34% |
| Free Throws | 24-30 | 21-27 |
| Free-Throw Percentage | 80% | 78% |
| Rebounds | 42 | 50 |
| Assists | 17 | 25 |
| Turnovers | 13 | 15 |
| Steals | 7 | 9 |
| Blocks | 4 | 8 |
At first glance, the turnover numbers might seem surprising. Minnesota committed 13 turnovers compared with 15 for San Antonio, so the Spurs did not win because they protected the ball dramatically better.
Instead, the decisive difference was what happened when San Antonio had the ball.
The Spurs converted 47 of 89 field-goal attempts, good for 53%. Minnesota made only 32 of 83 attempts, or 39%. That represents a 14-percentage-point difference in field-goal efficiency.
San Antonio also generated eight more assists. The Spurs recorded 25 assists compared with Minnesota’s 17, suggesting a much stronger level of offensive coordination. Their 50-42 rebounding advantage added another layer of control.
The result was an offense that consistently created quality opportunities while limiting Minnesota’s ability to generate efficient possessions.
Victor Wembanyama Sets the Tone for San Antonio
Victor Wembanyama was the most influential individual player in the game.
He finished with 27 points and 17 rebounds, making him both San Antonio’s leading scorer and its leading rebounder. His 17 rebounds were also the highest total recorded by any player in the supplied game data.
That combination is important.
A high-scoring performance can be impressive without necessarily controlling a game. A player can score 27 points while remaining relatively detached from the broader flow of play. Wembanyama’s 17 rebounds indicate a much wider influence.
His rebounding helped San Antonio finish with 50 total boards, eight more than Minnesota. That advantage gave the Spurs additional possessions and reduced Minnesota’s opportunities to extend possessions through offensive rebounds.
His scoring was also part of a balanced Spurs attack. San Antonio did not need Wembanyama to carry the entire offensive burden. De’Aaron Fox scored 18 points, while Keldon Johnson added 21 from the bench.
That balance is one of the most important takeaways from the game.
Wembanyama’s 27 Points Were Only Part of His Impact
The natural focus after a 27-point performance is scoring, but the rebounding number may be just as revealing.
Wembanyama’s 17 rebounds accounted for more than one-third of San Antonio’s 50 total rebounds. That demonstrates how heavily he contributed to the team’s control of the glass.
The Spurs also finished with eight blocks. The supplied team statistics do not provide a complete player-by-player defensive breakdown, so it would be inappropriate to assign a specific number of those blocks to Wembanyama without verified individual data.
Still, the team-level result is clear: San Antonio made it difficult for Minnesota to finish possessions efficiently.
The Spurs allowed Minnesota to shoot only 39% from the field and 27% from three-point range.
That defensive outcome is more meaningful than simply saying San Antonio played “good defense.” The percentages provide measurable evidence of how difficult the Timberwolves found it to convert their attempts.
Anthony Edwards Leads Minnesota in Scoring
Anthony Edwards finished as Minnesota’s top scorer with 20 points.
That number placed him at the top of the Timberwolves’ scoring column, but the larger context is important. Minnesota scored only 97 points as a team, meaning Edwards’ 20 points represented a substantial portion of the team’s offensive output.
The problem for Minnesota was not simply that Edwards scored 20 instead of a larger number. The broader issue was that the Timberwolves could not produce enough efficient scoring around their leading scorer to match San Antonio.
Minnesota shot 32 of 83 from the field.
That works out to roughly 38.6%, which is consistent with the listed 39% team figure. San Antonio, by comparison, made 47 of 89 attempts, approximately 52.8%.
The difference in made field goals was enormous.
San Antonio made 15 more field goals than Minnesota.
That is the clearest statistical explanation for the 29-point final margin.
Why Edwards’ Scoring Needs Context
A box score can sometimes make a 20-point performance look ordinary, especially when another player scores 27.
That would be an incomplete reading of this game.
Edwards was Minnesota’s highest scorer, and the Timberwolves were held below 100 points. His scoring therefore needs to be evaluated within an offense that struggled to convert attempts.
Minnesota did make 24 of 30 free throws, an excellent 80%. The team was not completely inefficient at the foul line.
The major problem was field-goal production.
The Timberwolves attempted four more field goals than San Antonio, 83 compared with 89, but made 15 fewer. That difference overwhelmed the relatively modest advantage Minnesota had in free-throw percentage.
Julius Randle Controls the Rebounding Battle for Minnesota
Julius Randle led the Timberwolves with 10 rebounds.
That was an important individual contribution, but San Antonio still won the overall rebounding battle 50-42.
Randle’s 10 rebounds represented nearly one-quarter of Minnesota’s total rebounds. His contribution helped prevent the gap from becoming even larger.
However, the Spurs’ collective rebounding performance was stronger.
Wembanyama alone collected 17 rebounds, seven more than Randle’s total. That individual matchup is one of the clearest statistical contrasts in the game.
When one team’s leading rebounder records 17 and the opponent’s leading rebounder records 10, it becomes easier to understand why the overall rebounding margin favored San Antonio.
Mike Conley Leads Minnesota in Assists
Mike Conley finished with four assists, the highest assist total among Minnesota players in the supplied data.
The Timberwolves recorded 17 assists as a team.
San Antonio, meanwhile, finished with 25 assists. The eight-assist difference is significant because it points toward a broader issue with offensive creation.
Minnesota was not only shooting less efficiently. It was also generating fewer assisted scoring opportunities.
Assists are not a perfect measure of offensive quality. A team can score efficiently without producing a huge assist total, and some individual scoring plays naturally do not result in assists.
But in this matchup, the assist difference aligns with the shooting difference.
San Antonio moved the ball effectively enough to produce 25 assists while making 47 field goals. Minnesota produced 17 assists while making 32.
That combination suggests the Spurs were more successful at creating connected offensive possessions.
De’Aaron Fox Provides Secondary Scoring
De’Aaron Fox scored 18 points for San Antonio.
His contribution was important because the Spurs did not have to depend exclusively on Wembanyama.
A playoff offense becomes much harder to defend when opponents cannot simply focus on one primary scorer. Wembanyama led the team with 27, Fox added 18, and Keldon Johnson supplied 21 from the bench.
That gives San Antonio three major scoring contributions from different parts of its rotation.
The scoring distribution also helps explain why the Spurs reached 126 points.
The team did not need one player to produce an extraordinary scoring total. Instead, multiple players contributed enough to keep the offense productive throughout the game.
Keldon Johnson Gives the Spurs a Major Bench Boost
Keldon Johnson was San Antonio’s highest-scoring bench player with 21 points.
That is one of the most revealing details in the box score.
A 21-point contribution from the bench means San Antonio received meaningful production outside its primary starting-unit scorers. In a playoff environment, that kind of depth can create major pressure on an opposing defense.
Minnesota’s challenge becomes even clearer when Johnson’s 21 points are compared with Edwards’ team-leading 20.
The Spurs had a bench scorer who exceeded Minnesota’s leading scorer’s total.
That does not automatically determine a playoff game, but it is a strong indicator of the difference in offensive depth on this night.
Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown
The quarter scores provide a useful timeline of how the game developed.
| Quarter | Timberwolves | Spurs | Spurs Margin |
| First | 30 | 34 | +4 |
| Second | 17 | 25 | +8 |
| Third | 26 | 32 | +6 |
| Fourth | 24 | 35 | +11 |
The first quarter was competitive.
Minnesota scored 30 points, while San Antonio scored 34. A four-point difference after one quarter does not normally indicate that a game is headed toward a 29-point blowout.
The second quarter changed the shape of the contest.
Minnesota managed only 17 points while San Antonio scored 25. That gave the Spurs an eight-point advantage in the period and extended their overall lead.
The third quarter continued the trend.
San Antonio outscored Minnesota 32-26.
Then came the fourth quarter, when the Spurs produced their strongest offensive output of the game with 35 points.
Minnesota scored 24.
That final 11-point quarter advantage turned a substantial Spurs lead into the 29-point final margin.
The Second Quarter Was a Turning Point
The second quarter deserves special attention because Minnesota’s offense dropped from 30 points in the first quarter to only 17.
That 13-point decrease is significant.
The Timberwolves did not simply fail to keep pace with San Antonio. Their own scoring output fell sharply.
Meanwhile, San Antonio remained productive.
The Spurs scored 25 points in the second quarter, only nine fewer than their first-quarter total.
This is an important distinction when analyzing playoff games. A team does not always create separation by dramatically increasing its own scoring. Sometimes the decisive factor is that one team’s offense remains stable while the opponent’s production collapses.
That appears to be what happened in the second quarter.
Shooting Efficiency Explains the Final Score
The single most important team statistic may be field-goal percentage.
San Antonio shot 53%.
Minnesota shot 39%.
The difference was 14 percentage points.
San Antonio attempted 89 field goals and made 47. Minnesota attempted 83 and made 32.
That means the Spurs made substantially more of their opportunities despite taking only six more attempts.
This is a classic example of why shot volume alone is not enough.
Minnesota actually attempted a healthy number of shots. The issue was conversion.
The Timberwolves’ 9-of-33 shooting from three-point range produced a 27% rate. San Antonio made 11 of 32 from beyond the arc for 34%.
The three-point difference was meaningful, but it was not large enough by itself to explain a 29-point margin.
The bigger story was two-point and overall field-goal efficiency.
San Antonio’s offense consistently converted attempts that Minnesota missed.
Three-Point Shooting Was a Secondary Difference
San Antonio made 11 three-pointers.
Minnesota made nine.
That is only a two-three-pointer difference.
The percentages were also separated by seven points, with San Antonio shooting 34% and Minnesota 27%.
So while the Spurs were more efficient from long range, the game was not decided solely by three-point shooting.
This distinction matters because it prevents an overly simplistic conclusion.
It would be inaccurate to describe the contest as simply a three-point shooting win for San Antonio.
The Spurs won because they were better across the overall field-goal landscape, rebounded more effectively, generated more assists, defended more successfully, and maintained their offensive output.
Free Throws Favored Minnesota Slightly
Minnesota actually had the better free-throw percentage.
The Timberwolves made 24 of 30 attempts for 80%.
San Antonio made 21 of 27 for 78%.
Minnesota therefore had a two-percentage-point advantage at the line.
This is another useful reminder that one statistical category rarely tells the entire story.
The Timberwolves were better at free-throw conversion, but San Antonio’s advantages elsewhere were much larger.
Minnesota’s 24 made free throws were not enough to compensate for the 15-field-goal deficit.
In fact, the Spurs made 47 field goals compared with Minnesota’s 32.
That is a difference of 15 made baskets before considering the free-throw totals.
Rebounding Gave San Antonio Extra Control
San Antonio collected 50 rebounds compared with Minnesota’s 42.
The eight-rebound advantage may appear modest beside the 29-point final margin, but it is still an important part of the game.
Rebounding determines who controls missed shots.
A team that consistently wins the glass can gain extra offensive possessions and end more possessions on defense.
Wembanyama’s 17 rebounds were especially important because he gave San Antonio a dominant individual presence on the boards.
Randle’s 10 rebounds were valuable for Minnesota, but they did not erase the team-wide difference.
The rebounding battle also complemented San Antonio’s shooting efficiency.
The Spurs were not simply getting more chances. They were also converting those chances at a significantly higher rate.
Assists Reveal a Difference in Offensive Flow
San Antonio recorded 25 assists.
Minnesota recorded 17.
The eight-assist gap is one of the clearest indicators of the difference in offensive flow.
Stephon Castle led San Antonio with six assists.
Mike Conley led Minnesota with four.
Those individual totals show that San Antonio had a slightly stronger top-end playmaking performance, while its team total was also substantially higher.
This matters because playoff defenses are designed to disrupt predictable offense.
A team that can move the ball and create scoring opportunities through multiple players is harder to contain.
San Antonio’s 25 assists paired with 47 made field goals mean more than half of its field goals were associated with an assist if one simply compares the raw totals. That does not prove that every successful possession came from superior ball movement, but it does show how strongly the Spurs’ passing contributed to their offensive production.
Turnovers Did Not Decide the Game
One of the more interesting statistical details is that Minnesota actually had fewer turnovers.
The Timberwolves committed 13.
The Spurs committed 15.
If turnovers had been the primary deciding factor, Minnesota would have had an advantage.
Instead, the Timberwolves still lost by 29 points.
This reinforces a broader lesson for box-score analysis: fewer turnovers do not necessarily equal better overall offense.
Minnesota protected the ball reasonably well, but it did not convert its possessions efficiently enough.
San Antonio’s two additional turnovers were more than offset by its shooting, rebounding, assists, and defensive numbers.
San Antonio’s Defensive Numbers Were Strong
The Spurs recorded nine steals and eight blocks.
Minnesota recorded seven steals and four blocks.
That gives San Antonio a 17-11 advantage in combined steals and blocks.
Combined defensive statistics should not be treated as a perfect measure of defensive quality, because steals and blocks can sometimes happen without representing the full value of a defensive possession.
Still, the gap is meaningful when combined with Minnesota’s 39% field-goal percentage.
The Spurs did not merely score efficiently.
They also made it difficult for Minnesota to finish possessions.
The eight blocks were particularly notable because Minnesota made only 32 field goals overall.
What the Game Says About Team Depth
One of the strongest conclusions from the player statistics is San Antonio’s depth.
Wembanyama led the team with 27 points.
Johnson added 21.
Fox scored 18.
That means the Spurs had three players with at least 18 points.
Minnesota’s supplied data identifies Edwards as the leading scorer with 20, while Randle led the team in rebounds and Conley led in assists.
The difference is not simply about how many points one player scored.
It is about how many reliable offensive sources San Antonio could use.
The Spurs reached 126 points without requiring a single player to score 35 or 40.
That is a sign of distributed offensive production.
Why the 29-Point Margin Matters
A 126-97 score produces a 29-point difference.
But the quarter-by-quarter numbers show that San Antonio built the margin progressively.
The Spurs led by four after the first quarter.
They expanded the advantage during the second.
They continued to win the third.
Then they pulled away even further in the fourth.
This is different from a game where one team leads by 25 after the opening quarter and spends the rest of the night protecting the lead.
San Antonio’s advantage grew throughout the game.
That makes the final score a better reflection of sustained control rather than a single early run.
A Deeper Look at Offensive Production
San Antonio scored 126 points from 89 field-goal attempts, 32 three-point attempts, and 27 free-throw attempts.
Minnesota scored 97 points from 83 field-goal attempts, 33 three-point attempts, and 30 free-throw attempts.
The shot profiles reveal something interesting.
Minnesota actually attempted one more three-pointer than San Antonio.
The Timberwolves also attempted three more free throws.
Yet they still finished 29 points behind.
That means the deciding factor was not simply shot selection volume.
It was shot conversion.
San Antonio’s 47 made field goals compared with Minnesota’s 32 were the clearest statistical foundation for the result.
Player Stats That Matter Most
For someone trying to understand this matchup quickly, several numbers deserve priority.
Victor Wembanyama
- 27 points
- 17 rebounds
- Spurs’ leading scorer
- Spurs’ leading rebounder
His combination of scoring and rebounding made him the most complete statistical contributor listed in the game data.
Anthony Edwards
- 20 points
- Timberwolves’ leading scorer
Edwards remained Minnesota’s top scoring option, but the team’s overall offensive efficiency was not high enough to keep the game competitive.
Julius Randle
- 10 rebounds
- Timberwolves’ leading rebounder
Randle was important on the glass, but San Antonio still won the team rebounding battle.
Mike Conley
- 4 assists
- Timberwolves’ leading assister
His four assists led Minnesota, but the team’s 17 total assists remained below San Antonio’s 25.
Stephon Castle
- 6 assists
- Spurs’ leading assister
Castle’s six assists contributed to a Spurs offense that finished with 25 assists.
De’Aaron Fox
- 18 points
Fox provided another significant scoring option behind Wembanyama.
Keldon Johnson
- 21 points
- Spurs’ highest-scoring bench player
Johnson’s scoring was especially valuable because it demonstrated San Antonio’s depth beyond its primary stars.
What Minnesota Needed to Do Differently
The statistical evidence points toward several areas Minnesota would have needed to improve.
Improve Field-Goal Efficiency
A 39% shooting night is difficult to overcome in a playoff game.
Minnesota needed to convert a significantly higher percentage of its attempts.
Generate More Assisted Offense
The Timberwolves finished with 17 assists.
Finding more efficient ways to create open shots could have improved both the quality and consistency of their offense.
Compete Better on the Glass
Minnesota lost the rebounding battle 50-42.
Against a team featuring Wembanyama, controlling rebounds becomes even more important.
Limit San Antonio’s Offensive Rhythm
The Spurs scored at least 32 points in each of the third and fourth quarters.
Minnesota needed to disrupt that rhythm before the game reached the final period.
What San Antonio Did Right
San Antonio’s performance can be summarized through several connected strengths.
First, the Spurs shot 53% from the field.
Second, they won the rebounding battle.
Third, they produced 25 assists.
Fourth, they recorded eight blocks and nine steals.
Fifth, they received major scoring contributions from Wembanyama, Fox, and Johnson.
Sixth, they continued to improve their scoring output late in the game.
The most impressive part is how these strengths reinforced one another.
Efficient shooting created points.
Rebounding helped control possessions.
Passing helped create efficient opportunities.
Defense limited Minnesota’s conversion rate.
Bench scoring prevented the offense from becoming dependent on one player.
That is why the statistical story is much stronger than simply saying Wembanyama had a big game.
San Antonio Spurs vs Timberwolves Match Player Stats: The Biggest Takeaways
When reviewing the full box score, five conclusions stand out.
- Wembanyama was the game’s most complete statistical performer.
His 27 points and 17 rebounds gave him a major influence on both scoring and possession control.
- San Antonio’s shooting advantage was decisive.
The Spurs shot 53% compared with Minnesota’s 39%.
- Minnesota could not generate enough offensive efficiency around Edwards.
Edwards led the team with 20 points, but Minnesota finished with only 97 points.
- San Antonio’s depth made a major difference.
Johnson scored 21 points off the bench, while Fox added 18 and Wembanyama led the team with 27.
- The game became progressively more one-sided.
San Antonio won every quarter and finished with its highest scoring output in the fourth quarter.
How to Read These Player Stats Correctly
For anyone using playoff box scores to evaluate players, it is useful to follow a consistent process.
Start with scoring, but do not stop there.
Next, examine shooting efficiency.
Then review rebounds and assists.
After that, consider turnovers, steals, and blocks.
Finally, compare individual performances with team-level results.
This approach prevents a common mistake: judging a player only by points.
For example, Wembanyama’s 27 points are impressive, but his 17 rebounds add a different dimension. Similarly, Edwards’ 20 points identify him as Minnesota’s leading scorer, but the team’s 39% shooting explains why those 20 points were not enough.
The best statistical analysis connects individual numbers to team outcomes.
Final Assessment
The May 13, 2026 matchup at Frost Bank Center was a comprehensive San Antonio victory.
The Spurs defeated Minnesota 126-97 and took a 3-2 lead in the Western Conference Semifinals. They did not rely on one statistical category. Instead, they won through a combination of shooting efficiency, rebounding, passing, defense, and scoring depth.
Victor Wembanyama was the standout performer with 27 points and 17 rebounds. De’Aaron Fox contributed 18 points, while Keldon Johnson supplied 21 points as the leading bench scorer. Stephon Castle led San Antonio with six assists.
For Minnesota, Anthony Edwards led all Timberwolves scorers with 20 points. Julius Randle collected 10 rebounds, and Mike Conley recorded four assists.
The team statistics reinforce the individual numbers. San Antonio shot 53% from the field compared with Minnesota’s 39%, won rebounds 50-42, led assists 25-17, and recorded eight blocks compared with Minnesota’s four.
Interestingly, turnovers did not favor the winning team. San Antonio had 15 turnovers compared with Minnesota’s 13. Minnesota also shot slightly better from the free-throw line.
Those details make the result more informative, not less.
They show that San Antonio won because its advantages in high-impact areas were much larger than Minnesota’s advantages in the smaller categories.
The most important lesson from this matchup is that playoff basketball is rarely explained by one number. Wembanyama’s 27 points tell part of the story. His 17 rebounds tell another part. The Spurs’ 53% shooting, 50 rebounds, 25 assists, and 126 points complete the picture.
For Minnesota, the challenge was equally clear. Edwards produced 20 points, Randle contributed 10 rebounds, and Conley provided four assists, but the team could not turn those individual contributions into efficient team offense.
The final 126-97 score therefore reflects more than a hot shooting night. It reflects San Antonio’s ability to win multiple aspects of the game at the same time.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who was the top scorer in the Spurs vs Timberwolves Game 5?
Victor Wembanyama was San Antonio’s leading scorer with 27 points. Anthony Edwards led Minnesota with 20 points.
How many rebounds did Victor Wembanyama have?
Victor Wembanyama recorded 17 rebounds, making him the game’s leading rebounder according to the supplied statistics.
What was the final score of Spurs vs Timberwolves Game 5?
The San Antonio Spurs defeated the Minnesota Timberwolves 126-97 on May 13, 2026.
Who led the Spurs in assists?
Stephon Castle led San Antonio with six assists.
Who was the Timberwolves’ leading rebounder?
Julius Randle led Minnesota with 10 rebounds.
How did the Spurs win by 29 points?
San Antonio combined 53% field-goal shooting, 50 rebounds, 25 assists, nine steals, eight blocks, and balanced scoring to defeat Minnesota 126-97.
Conclusion
The San Antonio Spurs’ 126-97 victory over the Minnesota Timberwolves was defined by efficiency and balance. Victor Wembanyama’s 27 points and 17 rebounds provided the headline performance, but San Antonio’s overall team statistics explain the result more completely.
The Spurs shot 53% from the field, compared with Minnesota’s 39%, while also winning the rebounding battle 50-42 and the assist battle 25-17. Keldon Johnson’s 21 points and De’Aaron Fox’s 18 points gave Wembanyama meaningful scoring support, while Stephon Castle led the team with six assists.
Minnesota received 20 points from Anthony Edwards, 10 rebounds from Julius Randle, and four assists from Mike Conley, but the Timberwolves could not match San Antonio’s efficiency or offensive depth.
The quarter-by-quarter progression is perhaps the clearest summary of the night. San Antonio won every period, moving from a four-point first-quarter advantage to a 29-point victory by the final buzzer.
For anyone analyzing playoff performance, this game demonstrates why individual player numbers are most useful when placed alongside team efficiency, rebounding, assists, and quarter-by-quarter production. The box score does not merely identify who scored the most. It shows how the game was won.
