Timberwolves vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats

The timberwolves vs san antonio spurs match player stats from Game 6 of the 2026 Western Conference Semifinals tell the story of a decisive 139-109 San Antonio victory at Target Center on May 15, 2026. The Spurs did not simply win the elimination game. They controlled the game from the opening minutes, shot 55.7% from the field, made 18 three-pointers, dominated the glass 60-29, and finished the series with a 4-2 victory. Stephon Castle delivered the biggest individual performance with 32 points and 11 rebounds, while De’Aaron Fox added 21 points and 9 assists and Victor Wembanyama contributed 19 points, 6 rebounds, and 3 blocks.

For Minnesota, Anthony Edwards led the team with 24 points, but he needed 26 field-goal attempts to reach that total. Terrence Shannon Jr. supplied 21 points off the bench, while Naz Reid scored 18 points and collected 7 rebounds. The problem for the Timberwolves was not a complete lack of individual production. It was the gap between their production and San Antonio’s overall efficiency, size, ball movement, shooting, and defensive pressure.

This breakdown examines the complete player statistics, team numbers, shooting efficiency, individual performances, bench contributions, and tactical lessons from the final game of the series. Rather than looking only at the scoring column, the goal is to explain why the numbers produced such a large 30-point margin.

Game Overview

Game 6 was played at Target Center in Minneapolis with an announced attendance of 18,978. San Antonio entered the game with a 3-2 series lead and closed out the Western Conference Semifinals with a 139-109 victory.

The Spurs won all four quarters:

• First quarter: San Antonio 36, Minnesota 27
• Second quarter: San Antonio 38, Minnesota 34
• Third quarter: San Antonio 36, Minnesota 23
• Fourth quarter: San Antonio 29, Minnesota 25

The most important stretch came before halftime. San Antonio entered the break with a 13-point advantage and then extended the lead dramatically in the third quarter.

The game ultimately featured a 37-point maximum San Antonio lead. There were no ties and no lead changes, which shows how thoroughly the Spurs controlled the contest.

The final score also completed a six-game series in which the teams produced very different performances from game to game:

1. Game 1: Spurs 102, Timberwolves 104
2. Game 2: Spurs 133, Timberwolves 95
3. Game 3: Timberwolves 115, Spurs 108
4. Game 4: Timberwolves 109, Spurs 114
5. Game 5: Spurs 126, Timberwolves 97
6. Game 6: Timberwolves 109, Spurs 139

San Antonio therefore finished the series 4-2.

Timberwolves vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats

The clearest way to understand the game is to begin with the individual numbers.

San Antonio Spurs Player Statistics

Player	MIN	PTS	REB	AST	FG	3PT	FT	STL	BLK	TO	+/-
Stephon Castle	30	32	11	6	11-16	5-7	5-6	0	0	2	+28
De’Aaron Fox	24	21	4	9	8-10	3-3	2-2	0	2	1	+26
Victor Wembanyama	27	19	6	2	6-11	0-2	7-9	0	3	4	+25
Julian Champagnie	26	18	5	2	5-10	4-9	4-4	2	0	0	+35
Devin Vassell	27	11	5	4	4-10	3-7	0-0	0	1	1	+14
Dylan Harper	26	15	5	2	6-8	1-3	2-2	0	0	3	+16
Harrison Barnes	7	3	4	2	1-3	1-3	0-0	0	0	0	+7
Kelly Olynyk	8	3	4	1	1-4	1-2	0-0	0	0	1	-3
Carter Bryant	13	3	6	1	1-3	0-0	1-2	0	0	0	+16
Luke Kornet	14	6	6	0	2-3	0-0	2-2	0	4	0	+8
Lindy Waters III	8	2	1	1	1-3	0-1	0-0	0	0	0	-3
Keldon Johnson	10	0	0	2	0-2	0-0	0-0	0	0	0	-8
Bismack Biyombo	7	2	0	0	1-2	0-0	0-0	0	2	1	-5
Mason Plumlee	5	2	2	0	1-2	0-0	0-0	0	0	1	-3
Jordan McLaughlin	8	2	1	1	1-1	0-0	0-0	0	0	0	-3

San Antonio’s statistical profile was remarkably balanced. Castle was the scoring star, but he was not carrying an inefficient offense. His 11-for-16 shooting and 5-for-7 three-point performance made his 32 points extremely efficient.

Fox was equally important as a creator. He scored 21 points on 8-for-10 shooting and went 3-for-3 from three-point range. His 9 assists also gave San Antonio a second major playmaking option.

Wembanyama did not need to score 30 points because the Spurs had so many other sources of offense. His 19 points came on 6-for-11 shooting, and his three blocks helped protect the interior.

Minnesota Timberwolves Player Statistics

Player	MIN	PTS	REB	AST	FG	3PT	FT	STL	BLK	TO	+/-
Anthony Edwards	36	24	2	2	9-26	2-7	4-7	3	0	3	-31
Terrence Shannon Jr.	22	21	2	1	8-15	1-3	4-4	0	0	1	-21
Naz Reid	32	18	7	1	7-13	3-7	1-1	0	0	0	-15
Jaden McDaniels	23	13	1	3	4-13	2-4	3-3	0	1	0	-21
Ayo Dosunmu	23	10	1	9	4-8	0-0	2-2	0	0	0	-28
Mike Conley	19	6	0	4	2-3	2-3	0-0	3	0	0	-5
Julius Randle	24	3	7	1	1-8	0-2	1-2	0	0	0	-34
Rudy Gobert	22	0	3	0	0-4	0-0	0-0	0	0	0	-10
Kyle Anderson	8	2	0	3	1-3	0-0	0-0	0	0	0	+3
Julian Phillips	8	3	0	1	1-2	1-2	0-0	1	0	1	+3
Joan Beringer	8	4	2	0	2-3	0-0	0-0	1	1	0	+3
Jaylen Clark	8	2	3	0	0-2	0-1	2-2	0	0	0	+3
Bones Hyland	8	3	1	0	1-6	1-4	0-0	0	0	0	+3

Minnesota’s box score illustrates a difficult combination: several players contributed points, but the primary players were not efficient enough to keep pace with San Antonio.

Edwards scored 24, Shannon scored 21, and Reid scored 18. Those three players combined for 63 points. However, Edwards needed 26 attempts, while the Timberwolves as a team made only 40 of 106 shots.

That difference is crucial.

Stephon Castle Was the Defining Player

Stephon Castle produced the most complete individual performance of the game.

He finished with:

• 32 points
• 11 rebounds
• 6 assists
• 11-for-16 shooting
• 5-for-7 from three
• 5-for-6 at the free-throw line
• 3 offensive rebounds
• 8 defensive rebounds
• 2 turnovers
• +28 plus/minus

The 32 points were a game high. The 11 rebounds were also a game high.

What stands out most is the combination of volume and efficiency. Castle did not need 25 or 30 attempts to reach 32 points. He converted 68.8% of his field-goal attempts and 71.4% of his three-point attempts.

His outside shooting also changed the geometry of the floor.

A player making five three-pointers on seven attempts forces defenders to respect the perimeter. That creates additional space for drives, cuts, rolls, and interior opportunities.

Castle’s performance was therefore bigger than the scoring total suggests.

De’Aaron Fox Controlled the Game as a Creator

Fox finished with 21 points and 9 assists in only 24 minutes.

His shooting line was particularly strong:

• 8-for-10 overall
• 3-for-3 from three
• 2-for-2 from the free-throw line

He also committed only one turnover.

This is an excellent example of why assist totals should not be viewed separately from efficiency. Fox was simultaneously scoring at a high rate and creating opportunities for teammates.

The Spurs did not have to rely on one ball-dominant scorer. Fox could attack, Castle could create, and Wembanyama could finish inside.

That variety made Minnesota’s defensive assignments increasingly difficult.

Victor Wembanyama’s Impact Went Beyond Scoring

Wembanyama finished with 19 points, 6 rebounds, 2 assists, and 3 blocks.

His shooting numbers were:

• 6-for-11 from the field
• 0-for-2 from three
• 7-for-9 from the free-throw line

The three blocks were especially important in a game where San Antonio controlled the paint.

Wembanyama did not have to dominate the scoring column because his defensive presence affected how Minnesota attacked the basket.

A center who can contest shots at the rim while also stretching the floor changes offensive decision-making. Even possessions that do not end in a block can be influenced by the possibility of one.

His +25 plus/minus further reflects how effectively the Spurs played during his minutes.

Anthony Edwards Led Minnesota, But Efficiency Was the Issue

Anthony Edwards finished as Minnesota’s leading scorer with 24 points.

He also contributed:

• 2 rebounds
• 2 assists
• 3 steals
• 3 turnovers
• 9-for-26 shooting
• 2-for-7 from three
• 4-for-7 at the free-throw line

The 24 points look respectable in isolation. The shooting volume tells a different story.

Edwards attempted 26 field goals, the most of any Timberwolves player, but made only nine. That produced a field-goal percentage of 34.6%.

For a team facing a 30-point deficit, high-volume inefficient scoring creates a major problem. The Timberwolves needed Edwards to generate offense, but San Antonio’s defensive structure made those attempts difficult.

Edwards still showed individual defensive activity with three steals, but his overall plus/minus was -31.

Terrence Shannon Jr. Provided an Important Offensive Spark

One of Minnesota’s most interesting performances came from Terrence Shannon Jr.

He scored 21 points in 22 minutes on 8-for-15 shooting. He also went 4-for-4 at the free-throw line.

His scoring efficiency was much better than Edwards’ on the night.

Shannon’s performance demonstrates that the Timberwolves did receive useful offensive production outside their primary star. The issue was that the production was not enough to overcome San Antonio’s team-wide efficiency.

His +21 margin in the negative column also shows the larger context. Individual scoring can be productive while the overall team environment remains unfavorable.

Naz Reid Was Another Bright Spot

Naz Reid scored 18 points and grabbed 7 rebounds in 32 minutes.

He shot:

• 7-for-13 overall
• 3-for-7 from three
• 1-for-1 at the line

Reid’s perimeter shooting was valuable because it offered Minnesota another way to create space.

His 18 points were the third-highest total on the Timberwolves, behind Edwards and Shannon.

However, even Reid’s efficient performance could not compensate for the struggles of several starters.

Julius Randle Had a Difficult Offensive Night

Randle’s numbers were among the most damaging for Minnesota.

He finished with:

• 3 points
• 7 rebounds
• 1 assist
• 1-for-8 shooting
• 0-for-2 from three
• 1-for-2 from the free-throw line
• -34 plus/minus

The -34 was the worst plus/minus recorded by either team.

Randle’s seven rebounds provided some value, but his three-point scoring output left Minnesota without the offensive contribution it needed from a major frontcourt player.

His performance is particularly important because San Antonio was already creating difficult offensive conditions for Edwards. When another major scoring option struggles to convert, the defensive burden becomes even easier for the opponent.

Rudy Gobert Was Shut Out

Gobert finished with zero points on four field-goal attempts.

His line included:

• 0 points
• 3 rebounds
• 0 assists
• 0-for-4 shooting
• -10 plus/minus

The lack of offensive production from the starting center made Minnesota’s half-court offense easier to defend.

Gobert’s value has never been based only on scoring, so the zero-point performance should not be interpreted as the sole reason for the defeat. Still, against a Spurs team that was producing efficiently across multiple positions, Minnesota needed more offensive balance.

The Biggest Team Statistical Difference Was Shooting

San Antonio shot 49-for-88 from the field.

Minnesota shot 40-for-106.

That means San Antonio made nine more field goals despite taking 18 fewer attempts.

The percentages were:

• Spurs: 55.7% FG
• Timberwolves: 37.7% FG

That is an enormous difference.

San Antonio also made:

• 18 of 38 three-pointers
• 23 of 27 free throws

Minnesota made:

• 12 of 34 three-pointers
• 17 of 21 free throws

The Spurs therefore shot better from the field, from three-point range, and at the free-throw line.

This is why the 30-point final margin cannot be explained simply by one hot shooting quarter.

Three-Point Shooting Created Separation

Three-point production was one of the defining differences.

San Antonio converted 18 threes at a 47.4% rate.

Minnesota made 12 threes at 35.3%.

That represents a six-three difference.

In raw point value, those six additional made threes account for 18 points.

The difference becomes even more meaningful when considering who made the shots. Castle went 5-for-7, Fox went 3-for-3, and Champagnie went 4-for-9.

Three different Spurs players therefore provided significant perimeter production.

Minnesota had useful three-point shooting from Reid and Conley, but the team did not get enough volume and accuracy from its primary scoring options.

Rebounding Was a Major Advantage for San Antonio

The Spurs grabbed 60 rebounds.

The Timberwolves grabbed 29.

That is a 31-rebound advantage.

This may have been the most striking team statistic of the entire game.

San Antonio collected 12 offensive rebounds and 48 defensive rebounds. Minnesota had 9 offensive rebounds and 20 defensive rebounds.

The 48 defensive rebounds limited Minnesota’s second-chance opportunities.

At the other end, 12 offensive rebounds created extra possessions for San Antonio.

When a team combines 55.7% shooting with a 60-29 rebounding advantage, it becomes extremely difficult for the opponent to stay competitive.

Ball Movement Favored the Spurs

San Antonio recorded 34 assists.

Minnesota recorded 25.

The Spurs also committed 15 turnovers compared with only five by the Timberwolves.

At first glance, Minnesota’s turnover number appears like a major positive. Five turnovers is excellent.

But the Spurs compensated for their additional turnovers with better shooting, superior rebounding, and more assists.

This is an important lesson when reading box scores.

Turnovers cannot be evaluated in isolation. A team can win the turnover battle and still lose badly if it is significantly worse in shooting and rebounding.

Interior Defense Changed the Game

San Antonio recorded 13 blocks.

Minnesota recorded only two.

Wembanyama contributed three blocks, while Luke Kornet added four.

That combination demonstrates the depth of San Antonio’s rim protection.

The Spurs also scored 58 points in the paint compared with Minnesota’s 52.

So the Spurs were not simply winning by standing outside and shooting threes. They were effective both inside and outside.

That offensive balance is one of the most important tactical conclusions from the game.

Luke Kornet Quietly Made an Impact

Kornet played only 14 minutes but finished with:

• 6 points
• 6 rebounds
• 4 blocks
• 2-for-3 shooting
• 2-for-2 free throws
• +8 plus/minus

His four blocks were the highest individual block total in the game.

This is exactly why a complete player-stat analysis should not focus only on the leading scorer.

Castle received the headlines, but Kornet’s defensive activity helped San Antonio maintain control when the game was already moving toward a blowout.

Dylan Harper Added Efficient Bench Scoring

Harper scored 15 points in 26 minutes.

He shot:

• 6-for-8 overall
• 1-for-3 from three
• 2-for-2 from the line

He also collected 5 rebounds and 2 assists.

His 75% field-goal shooting added another efficient scoring source to a Spurs team that already had Castle, Fox, Wembanyama, and Champagnie playing well.

That depth made it difficult for Minnesota to find a matchup it could consistently exploit.

What the Plus/Minus Numbers Tell Us

Plus/minus should never be treated as a perfect measure of individual performance, but the distribution in this game is revealing.

San Antonio’s leading starters posted:

• Champagnie: +35
• Castle: +28
• Fox: +26
• Wembanyama: +25
• Vassell: +14

Minnesota’s primary players posted:

• Edwards: -31
• Randle: -34
• McDaniels: -21
• Dosunmu: -28
• Gobert: -10
• Reid: -15

The pattern is consistent.

San Antonio’s main rotation performed extremely well while Minnesota’s key players spent significant stretches being outplayed.

The +35 for Champagnie was the highest mark in the game.

Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown

First Quarter

San Antonio started aggressively and scored 36 points.

Minnesota managed 27.

The Spurs established their shooting rhythm early, and Castle immediately became an important offensive threat.

The first quarter mattered because it forced Minnesota to chase the game rather than control its preferred pace.

Second Quarter

San Antonio scored another 38 points.

Minnesota answered with 34.

Even though the Timberwolves improved offensively, they could not reduce the deficit.

By halftime, San Antonio had established a significant advantage.

Third Quarter

The third quarter effectively ended Minnesota’s hopes of a comeback.

San Antonio scored 36 points while holding Minnesota to 23.

That 13-point quarter advantage expanded the game from competitive territory into a blowout.

The Spurs’ efficiency continued while Minnesota struggled to generate enough reliable offense.

Fourth Quarter

The final quarter was played with San Antonio already comfortably ahead.

The Spurs still won the quarter 29-25.

That prevented Minnesota from making any meaningful reduction in the margin.

Why San Antonio Won

Several factors combined to produce the 30-point victory.

1. San Antonio Shot Much Better

The Spurs made 55.7% of their field goals.

Minnesota made 37.7%.

That difference alone created a huge offensive advantage.

2. The Spurs Won the Three-Point Battle

San Antonio made 18 threes.

Minnesota made 12.

The Spurs also converted at a significantly higher percentage.

3. San Antonio Dominated the Rebounding Battle

The 60-29 rebounding advantage was enormous.

Extra possessions and defensive rebounds helped San Antonio control the game’s rhythm.

4. The Spurs Had Multiple Efficient Scorers

Castle, Fox, Wembanyama, Champagnie, and Harper all contributed efficiently.

Minnesota had fewer reliable sources of efficient offense.

5. Rim Protection Was Elite

Thirteen blocks compared with two gave San Antonio a major defensive advantage.

6. Minnesota’s Star Scoring Was Inefficient

Edwards scored 24 points but shot 9-for-26.

Randle scored only three points on eight attempts.

Gobert did not score.

That combination made it very difficult for Minnesota to match San Antonio’s offensive output.

What Minnesota Could Have Done Differently

The statistics suggest several areas where Minnesota needed improvement.

First, the Timberwolves needed better shot quality. Shooting 40-for-106 meant they were relying on too many attempts to generate points.

Second, they needed more efficient production from their major starters. Edwards could not reasonably be expected to overcome the Spurs by himself, especially against a defense capable of protecting the rim and switching across positions.

Third, Minnesota needed to limit San Antonio’s offensive rebounding opportunities. Giving the Spurs 12 offensive rebounds created extra possessions for an already efficient offense.

Fourth, Minnesota needed to make San Antonio work harder on the perimeter. Allowing Castle to make five threes and Fox to make all three of his attempts gave the Spurs too much confidence early.

What San Antonio’s Performance Reveals About Its Team

The most impressive aspect of this performance was not simply the 139 points.

It was the variety of ways San Antonio could win possessions.

The Spurs could:

• Attack the paint
• Shoot threes
• Create through Fox
• Generate offense through Castle
• Use Wembanyama as an interior threat
• Crash the offensive glass
• Protect the rim
• Move the ball
• Get scoring from the bench

That is a much more sustainable playoff formula than relying on one player to produce an extraordinary scoring night.

Castle’s 32 points were spectacular, but the Spurs also had Fox at 21, Wembanyama at 19, Champagnie at 18, and Harper at 15.

That is five players scoring at least 15 points.

Series Context

The six-game series showed how difficult it was for either team to maintain consistent control.

Minnesota won Game 1 by two points.

San Antonio responded with a 38-point victory in Game 2.

Minnesota answered with a seven-point win in Game 3.

San Antonio won Game 4 by five.

The Spurs then won Game 5 by 29 and Game 6 by 30.

That ending is particularly significant.

San Antonio did not merely survive the series. It finished with back-to-back dominant victories.

Across the final two games, the Spurs demonstrated a level of control that Minnesota could not match.

The Most Important Numbers to Remember

For readers who want a quick statistical summary, these are the numbers that define the game:

San Antonio Spurs

• 139 points
• 55.7% field-goal shooting
• 47.4% three-point shooting
• 85.2% free-throw shooting
• 60 rebounds
• 34 assists
• 13 blocks
• Stephon Castle: 32 points and 11 rebounds
• De’Aaron Fox: 21 points and 9 assists
• Victor Wembanyama: 19 points and 3 blocks

Minnesota Timberwolves

• 109 points
• 37.7% field-goal shooting
• 35.3% three-point shooting
• 81.0% free-throw shooting
• 29 rebounds
• 25 assists
• 2 blocks
• Anthony Edwards: 24 points
• Terrence Shannon Jr.: 21 points
• Naz Reid: 18 points
• Ayo Dosunmu: 9 assists

How to Read Player Stats Beyond the Scoring Column

A common mistake when looking at an NBA box score is to sort players by points and stop there.

A better approach is to examine five layers.

Scoring Efficiency

Compare points with field-goal attempts.

Castle scored 32 on 16 attempts.

Edwards scored 24 on 26 attempts.

That contrast is much more informative than the raw point totals.

Rebounding

Rebounding tells you how many possessions a team can extend or end.

The 60-29 San Antonio advantage explains a significant part of the final margin.

Playmaking

Fox’s nine assists and Dosunmu’s nine assists show that both teams had a primary facilitator.

However, Fox combined his assists with 21 points on 8-for-10 shooting, making his overall offensive impact much larger.

Defensive Production

Blocks and steals reveal defensive activity, but they should be combined with the team’s overall defensive results.

San Antonio’s 13 blocks compared with Minnesota’s two are especially significant.

Plus/Minus

Plus/minus provides context about what happened while a player was on the floor.

It is not a standalone player-quality rating, but when multiple starters from one team post strong positive numbers while the opposing starters are heavily negative, it can reinforce what the rest of the box score already shows.

Who Was the Best Player in the Game?

Stephon Castle was the clear statistical choice.

His 32 points led everyone.

His 11 rebounds also led everyone.

He added six assists and shot 11-for-16 overall, including five three-pointers.

The combination of scoring, rebounding, playmaking, and shooting efficiency made his performance the most complete individual game.

Who Was Minnesota’s Best Player?

Anthony Edwards led Minnesota in scoring with 24 points and added three steals.

However, from an efficiency perspective, Naz Reid and Terrence Shannon Jr. had stronger shooting nights.

Edwards remained Minnesota’s primary offensive engine, but the numbers show that his workload was extremely high.

Shannon’s 21 points on 8-for-15 shooting and Reid’s 18 points on 7-for-13 shooting were more efficient offensive performances.

Was Victor Wembanyama the Main Reason San Antonio Won?

Wembanyama was an important factor, particularly defensively, but the game was won through collective performance.

His 19 points and three blocks were valuable.

However, Castle’s 32 points, Fox’s 21 points and nine assists, Champagnie’s 18 points, and Harper’s 15 points show that San Antonio’s advantage came from multiple players contributing at a high level.

That balance prevented Minnesota from concentrating all of its defensive attention on Wembanyama.

What the Match Means for Future Matchups

The game provides a useful blueprint for evaluating future Timberwolves-Spurs contests.

If San Antonio can continue combining perimeter shooting with interior defense and rebounding, it becomes difficult to defend over a full playoff series.

For Minnesota, the key will be finding ways to generate efficient offense without forcing Edwards to take a huge number of difficult attempts.

The Timberwolves also need greater consistency from their frontcourt scorers.

When Edwards, Randle, and Gobert are unable to provide efficient scoring at the same time, Minnesota becomes overly dependent on secondary contributors.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who led the Spurs in scoring against the Timberwolves?

Stephon Castle led San Antonio with 32 points. He also recorded 11 rebounds and six assists while shooting 11-for-16 from the field.

Who led the Timberwolves in scoring?

Anthony Edwards led Minnesota with 24 points. He shot 9-for-26 from the field and added three steals.

What was the final score between the Spurs and Timberwolves?

The San Antonio Spurs defeated the Minnesota Timberwolves 139-109 in Game 6 of the Western Conference Semifinals.

How many rebounds did the Spurs have?

San Antonio finished with 60 rebounds, compared with 29 for Minnesota.

How many three-pointers did each team make?

San Antonio made 18 three-pointers on 38 attempts. Minnesota made 12 three-pointers on 34 attempts.

Who had the most assists?

De’Aaron Fox and Ayo Dosunmu both recorded nine assists, giving them the highest assist totals in the game.

Conclusion

The timberwolves vs san antonio spurs match player stats from Game 6 show a matchup decided by much more than the final 30-point margin.

San Antonio’s advantage was visible throughout the box score. The Spurs shot 55.7% from the field, made 18 three-pointers, collected 60 rebounds, recorded 34 assists, and blocked 13 shots. Stephon Castle delivered the headline performance with 32 points and 11 rebounds, while De’Aaron Fox combined 21 points with nine assists. Victor Wembanyama added 19 points and three blocks, and several other Spurs players contributed efficiently.

Minnesota had productive individual performances from Anthony Edwards, Terrence Shannon Jr., and Naz Reid, but the team’s overall shooting efficiency was not strong enough. Edwards’ 24 points came on 26 field-goal attempts, Julius Randle scored three points, and Rudy Gobert was held scoreless.

The most revealing comparison is therefore not simply Castle versus Edwards. It is San Antonio’s collective efficiency versus Minnesota’s reliance on difficult individual scoring.

The Spurs won the series 4-2, and the final two games provided the strongest evidence of their superiority in Game 6. The 139-109 result was built through shooting, rebounding, ball movement, rim protection, and balanced scoring.

For anyone studying NBA player statistics, this game is a useful reminder that the most meaningful box-score analysis looks beyond points. Efficiency, possessions, rebounding, assists, defensive activity, and plus/minus all help explain why one team wins and another falls short.