Oklahoma City Thunder vs Celtics Match Player Stats
The oklahoma city thunder vs celtics match player stats from March 13, 2026, tell the story of a closely contested NBA game decided by just two points. The Oklahoma City Thunder defeated the Boston Celtics 104-102 at Paycom Center in Oklahoma City, with Shai Gilgeous-Alexander scoring 35 points and Jaylen Brown recording 34 points for Boston. Both stars delivered outstanding individual performances, but Oklahoma City finished with the better overall field-goal percentage and secured the victory in front of 18,203 fans.
The game offered an interesting contrast between scoring efficiency and three-point shooting. Boston made 13 three-pointers compared with Oklahoma City’s 11, and the Celtics converted 95% of their free throws. However, the Thunder shot 48% from the field, compared with Boston’s 40%. That difference in overall shooting efficiency helped Oklahoma City overcome its lower three-point and free-throw percentages.
For readers looking for the complete player statistics, team comparisons, scoring leaders, starting lineups, and tactical explanation, this breakdown examines the available ESPN box-score data and explains what the numbers reveal about the matchup.
Game Overview: Thunder vs Celtics
Oklahoma City Thunder
Home team · 52-15 overall record
104
Celtics Logo PNG Vectors Free Download
Boston Celtics
Away team · 43-23 overall record
102
Date
March 13, 2026
Venue
Paycom Center
Attendance
18,203
Winning margin
2 points
Source: ESPN, official box score. Game details and player figures below are based on the supplied box-score data.
Oklahoma City Thunder vs Celtics Match Player Stats: Complete Team Comparison
The overall numbers reveal why the final result was so close. Oklahoma City made more field goals, while Boston collected more rebounds and converted more three-pointers. Both teams recorded 12 turnovers and four blocks, so neither side gained a clear advantage in those categories.
| Team statistic | Oklahoma City Thunder | Boston Celtics |
| Final score | 104 | 102 |
| Field goals | 40/84 | 35/87 |
| Field-goal percentage | 48% | 40% |
| Three-pointers | 11/44 | 13/42 |
| Three-point percentage | 25% | 31% |
| Free throws | 13/17 | 19/20 |
| Free-throw percentage | 76% | 95% |
| Total rebounds | 39 | 44 |
| Offensive rebounds | 11 | 12 |
| Defensive rebounds | 28 | 32 |
| Assists | 22 | 20 |
| Turnovers | 12 | 12 |
| Steals | 7 | 8 |
| Blocks | 4 | 4 |
| Personal fouls | 18 | 18 |
The most important difference was two-point and overall shot conversion. Oklahoma City made five more field goals despite attempting three fewer shots. Boston compensated for that disadvantage with five additional free throws made and two more three-pointers, but those advantages were not enough to produce a higher final score.
The statistical lesson is that shooting percentages must be read together rather than in isolation. Boston’s strong free-throw performance kept the game competitive, while the Thunder’s better overall field-goal efficiency helped them finish ahead.
Quarter-by-Quarter Score Breakdown
The scoring pattern shows how Boston built an advantage early and how Oklahoma City responded in the final period.
| Quarter | Boston Celtics | Oklahoma City Thunder | Quarter winner |
| First quarter | 28 | 27 | Boston |
| Second quarter | 31 | 29 | Boston |
| Third quarter | 24 | 24 | Tie |
| Fourth quarter | 19 | 24 | Oklahoma City |
| Final score | 102 | 104 | Oklahoma City |
Boston outscored Oklahoma City by three points in the first half, taking a 59-56 lead into halftime. The third quarter ended level at 24 points apiece, leaving the Celtics with a three-point advantage entering the fourth.
The final period changed the outcome. Oklahoma City scored 24 points while holding Boston to 19, producing a five-point quarter advantage and a two-point victory overall.
This is an important detail when examining the Oklahoma City Thunder vs Celtics match player stats. The Thunder did not dominate every quarter. Instead, they gradually reduced Boston’s lead and finished the game with a stronger scoring period.
Why the fourth quarter mattered
A five-point difference in a single quarter is significant in a game decided by two points. Oklahoma City’s late scoring advantage was large enough to erase the three-point deficit it carried into the final 12 minutes.
Boston’s 19 fourth-quarter points also represented its lowest scoring total of the game across the four periods. The available team statistics establish that Oklahoma City scored more in the final quarter, although the quarter totals alone do not identify every possession or individual shot responsible for the comeback.
Oklahoma City Thunder Player Stats
The Thunder’s leading performers combined scoring, playmaking, and rebounding to help secure the win. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander led the team with 35 points, while Ajay Mitchell provided a valuable supporting performance.
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander: 35 points, 6 rebounds, 9 assists
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
Point guard · Oklahoma City Thunder
35
Points
6
Rebounds
9
Assists
Gilgeous-Alexander was Oklahoma City’s top scorer and one of the game’s defining performers. His 35 points represented more than one-third of the Thunder’s total scoring, making his offensive production central to the result.
His nine assists are equally important. They indicate that his contribution extended beyond finishing possessions himself. A player who scores efficiently while also creating opportunities for teammates can place pressure on a defense in multiple ways.
The combination of 35 points, six rebounds, and nine assists demonstrates his all-around influence. His rebounding helped complete defensive possessions, while his passing gave Oklahoma City another route to generate offense.
There is also an important distinction between individual production and team success. Gilgeous-Alexander’s numbers were outstanding, but the Thunder needed contributions from other players to reach 104 points and overcome Boston’s first-half lead.
For anyone reviewing this matchup, his performance provides the clearest individual statistical headline. However, the team’s better overall field-goal percentage and stronger fourth quarter explain why his scoring translated into a victory.
Ajay Mitchell: 15 points, 4 rebounds, 6 assists
Ajay Mitchell’s Importance for OKC Thunder on Full Display Amid Absence | Yardbarker
Ajay Mitchell
Guard · Oklahoma City Thunder
15
Points
4
Rebounds
6
Assists
Mitchell’s 15 points made him Oklahoma City’s second-highest scorer among the players highlighted in the supplied statistics. His six assists also gave the Thunder another important source of playmaking.
That secondary creation matters in a game against a team capable of applying defensive pressure to the primary ball handler. When another guard can score and distribute, the offense has more options and becomes less dependent on one player to create every opportunity.
Mitchell’s combination of 15 points and six assists also helps explain Oklahoma City’s 22 team assists. The Thunder shared the playmaking responsibility, with Gilgeous-Alexander and Mitchell providing the principal individual contributions identified in the available data.
Chet Holmgren: 9 rebounds
Boston Celtics v Oklahoma City Thunder
Chet Holmgren
Center · Oklahoma City Thunder
9
Rebounds
4
Team blocks
Shared team total, not an individual figure
Holmgren led Oklahoma City in rebounding with nine boards. Although Boston won the overall rebounding battle 44-39, Holmgren’s individual contribution helped the Thunder compete around the basket.
Rebounds have different practical value depending on when and where they occur. A defensive rebound ends an opponent’s possession, while an offensive rebound creates another opportunity to score. The supplied player summary does not divide Holmgren’s nine rebounds into those two categories, so a more detailed claim about his individual rebounding split would require the full player box score.
His role as the team’s rebounding leader is nevertheless clear. In a narrow game, the ability to secure rebounds and prevent second chances can be as relevant as scoring totals.
Jaylin Williams: 9 points, 2 rebounds, 1 assist
Jaylin Williams contributed nine points, two rebounds, and one assist according to the supplied statistics. His scoring provided additional support beyond the leading starters.
Bench production can be particularly important when a contest remains close late in the game. Reserve players can help maintain offensive output while starters rest, and their ability to convert available opportunities reduces the pressure on the team’s leading scorers.
The available figures establish Williams’ scoring contribution, but they do not provide enough information to attribute a specific swing in the fourth quarter to him. His performance is best understood as part of the broader supporting effort.
Oklahoma City player-stat summary
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists |
| Shai Gilgeous-Alexander | 35 | 6 | 9 |
| Ajay Mitchell | 15 | 4 | 6 |
| Chet Holmgren | Not supplied | 9 | Not supplied |
| Jaylin Williams | 9 | 2 | 1 |
The table includes only individual figures established by the supplied data. Missing values are intentionally not estimated.
Together, the available statistics identify Gilgeous-Alexander as the leading scorer, Mitchell as the primary supporting scorer among the listed players, and Holmgren as the rebounding leader.
Boston Celtics Player Stats
Boston had an equally compelling individual scoring performance. Jaylen Brown scored 34 points, one fewer than Gilgeous-Alexander, and added six rebounds and seven assists. Payton Pritchard and Hugo Gonzalez also reached double figures in the supplied player summary.
Jaylen Brown: 34 points, 6 rebounds, 7 assists
New Orleans Pelicans v Boston Celtics
Jaylen Brown
Wing · Boston Celtics
34
Points
6
Rebounds
7
Assists
Brown’s 34 points made him Boston’s leading scorer and kept the Celtics competitive throughout the contest. He finished just one point behind Gilgeous-Alexander, making the head-to-head scoring comparison one of the game’s most notable features.
His seven assists also show that his role went beyond scoring. Combined with six rebounds, his stat line reflects contributions in three major areas: offense, ball distribution, and rebounding.
Brown’s production was especially meaningful because Boston finished with 102 points despite shooting only 40% from the field. His scoring helped offset the team’s broader shooting limitations.
The result also illustrates why a strong individual performance does not always guarantee a win. Brown produced 34 points and seven assists, yet Oklahoma City’s more efficient overall shooting and superior fourth-quarter output ultimately determined the final score.
Payton Pritchard: 14 points, 4 rebounds, 4 assists
New York Knicks v Boston Celtics
Payton Pritchard
Guard · Boston Celtics
14
Points
4
Rebounds
4
Assists
Pritchard supplied 14 points and four assists, giving Boston another productive guard alongside Brown. His scoring represented a useful secondary contribution in a game where the Celtics needed more consistent conversion from the field.
The four assists also indicate that Pritchard contributed to team offense through passing rather than relying exclusively on his own shot attempts.
Boston recorded 20 assists overall, two fewer than Oklahoma City. Pritchard’s distribution, combined with Brown’s seven assists, formed an important part of the Celtics’ offensive creation.
Hugo Gonzalez: 11 points, 5 rebounds, 1 assist
Gonzalez contributed 11 points, five rebounds, and one assist in the supplied figures. Reaching double figures gave Boston another scoring option beyond Brown and Pritchard.
His five rebounds also added value in a contest where Boston finished with a five-rebound advantage overall. The available data does not establish how many of his rebounds were offensive or defensive, but his contribution supported the team’s broader work on the glass.
Bench scoring is useful when the leading scorer faces concentrated defensive attention. Gonzalez’s 11 points helped spread Boston’s scoring across more than two players, although the team still finished two points short.
Neemias Queta: 10 rebounds
Queta was Boston’s rebounding leader with 10 boards. That individual total was the highest among the highlighted Boston players and one more than Holmgren’s nine rebounds for Oklahoma City.
Boston finished with 44 total rebounds, five more than the Thunder. This advantage suggests that rebounding was one of the Celtics’ stronger statistical areas, even though it did not produce a win.
Rebounding numbers alone do not show the full quality of a team’s interior play. The location of rebounds, second-chance points, and the ability to prevent opponents from scoring near the basket also matter. Still, Queta’s 10 rebounds establish him as a key contributor in this category.
Boston player-stat summary
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists |
| Jaylen Brown | 34 | 6 | 7 |
| Payton Pritchard | 14 | 4 | 4 |
| Hugo Gonzalez | 11 | 5 | 1 |
| Neemias Queta | Not supplied | 10 | Not supplied |
These figures highlight Boston’s leading scorer, an important supporting guard, a double-digit bench contributor, and the team’s rebounding leader.
The player data also shows that the Celtics had multiple avenues for producing offense. Their challenge was not a complete lack of scoring support, but rather converting enough of their total shot attempts to overcome Oklahoma City’s greater field-goal efficiency.
Starting Lineups for Both Teams
The starting lineups provide useful context for understanding how each team approached the matchup. The supplied game data lists the following starters.
| Position group | Oklahoma City Thunder | Boston Celtics |
| Frontcourt | Chet Holmgren | Sam Hauser |
| Frontcourt | Not individually specified | Neemias Queta |
| Wing | Luguentz Dort | Jaylen Brown |
| Guard | Cason Wallace | Payton Pritchard |
| Guard | Shai Gilgeous-Alexander | Baylor Scheierman |
| Additional listed starter | Ajay Mitchell | Not individually specified |
The supplied starting-player list contains five players for each team, but it does not provide official positional assignments. The table therefore groups players broadly rather than assigning positions that cannot be confirmed from the supplied information.
Oklahoma City’s lineup included Gilgeous-Alexander as its leading offensive creator, Holmgren as its rebounding leader, and Mitchell as a secondary scorer and playmaker. Boston’s listed starters included Brown and Pritchard, who combined for 48 points in the supplied player figures.
The lineup information should be read alongside the player statistics rather than as a complete explanation of the result. Starting status identifies who began the game, but minutes played, substitutions, defensive assignments, and individual shooting efficiency are needed to evaluate each player’s full impact.
Bench Contributions and Inactive Players
Bench scoring can be an important factor in a close NBA game because it allows teams to maintain offensive production when starters are resting.
For Boston, Hugo Gonzalez scored 11 points in the supplied figures. For Oklahoma City, Jaylin Williams added nine points. Those contributions gave both teams scoring beyond their leading players.
The supplied inactive-player information also lists several absences and non-participation decisions.
| Team | Player | Status in supplied data |
| Boston Celtics | Amari Williams | Coach’s decision |
| Boston Celtics | Derrick White | Right knee contusion |
| Boston Celtics | Max Shulga | Coach’s decision |
| Oklahoma City Thunder | Payton Sandfort | Coach’s decision |
| Oklahoma City Thunder | Kenrich Williams | Coach’s decision |
These statuses refer to the listed March 2026 game, not the players’ current availability.
Derrick White’s listed absence is particularly relevant when considering Boston’s available rotation, but the information alone does not establish how many points or possessions his absence cost the Celtics. Such a conclusion would require evidence about expected minutes, replacement performance, and the team’s tactical adjustments.
Similarly, the listed inactive players should not be assumed to have had equal effects on their respective teams. Availability matters, but the significance of an absence depends on the player’s expected role and the alternatives available to the coach.
Three-Point Shooting vs Overall Field-Goal Efficiency
One of the most interesting aspects of the game is that Boston made more three-pointers while Oklahoma City made more shots overall.
The Celtics converted 13 of 42 three-point attempts, while the Thunder made 11 of 44. Boston therefore recorded two more successful three-pointers despite taking two fewer attempts from beyond the arc.
However, Oklahoma City made 40 of 84 total field-goal attempts, compared with Boston’s 35 of 87. The five-field-goal advantage helped compensate for the Celtics’ stronger outside shooting and free-throw conversion.
Shooting efficiency comparison
Oklahoma City field goals
48%
Boston field goals
40%
Boston three-point percentage
31%
Thunder three-point percentage
25%
Percentages are rounded as reported in the supplied team statistics.
Why total field-goal percentage matters
Field-goal percentage measures the proportion of successful shots from both two-point and three-point range. It does not include free throws.
This distinction matters because three-pointers are worth more than two-point shots. A team can shoot a lower percentage from the field yet remain competitive by making more three-pointers and drawing fouls.
Boston benefited from both of those factors. The Celtics made 13 three-pointers and 19 free throws. Oklahoma City made only 11 three-pointers and 13 free throws, but its five additional field goals helped produce the higher final score.
A useful way to assess shooting performance is to consider effective field-goal percentage, which gives additional weight to successful three-pointers.
Using the supplied shooting totals:
- Oklahoma City effective field-goal percentage: approximately 54.8%.
- Boston effective field-goal percentage: approximately 47.1%.
The calculation is:
\[ \text{eFG\%}=\frac{\text{FGM}+0.5(\text{3PM})}{\text{FGA}}\times100 \]
For Oklahoma City, the calculation is (40+0.511)/84, multiplied by 100. For Boston, it is (35+0.513)/87, multiplied by 100.
These calculations reinforce the difference between raw three-point production and overall shooting efficiency. Boston made more shots from long range, but the Thunder’s combined two-point and three-point conversion remained stronger.
Effective field-goal percentage is not the only measure of offense. It does not account for turnovers, offensive rebounds, or free throws. Nevertheless, it offers a useful way to compare the value of field goals made by teams with different shooting profiles.
Rebounding, Assists, Turnovers, and Defense
Shooting efficiency explains a large part of the result, but the remaining team statistics reveal how closely matched the contest was in several other areas.
Rebounding: Boston’s advantage
Boston recorded 44 rebounds to Oklahoma City’s 39. The Celtics also collected 12 offensive rebounds, one more than the Thunder, and 32 defensive rebounds compared with Oklahoma City’s 28.
This advantage indicates that Boston secured more rebounds overall. Offensive rebounds can extend possessions, while defensive rebounds prevent opponents from receiving additional chances after missed shots.
Despite the Celtics’ advantage, the Thunder won. That is a useful reminder that controlling the boards does not automatically determine the outcome. Rebounding must be considered alongside shot conversion, turnovers, and scoring distribution.
Assists: Oklahoma City’s ball movement
Oklahoma City recorded 22 assists, compared with Boston’s 20. The two-assist difference was modest, but it aligned with the Thunder’s higher field-goal total.
Assists do not measure every aspect of ball movement. A pass that leads to a missed shot may still create a good opportunity without adding to the assist count. Even so, the totals offer a basic indication of how often successful field goals involved a credited pass.
Gilgeous-Alexander’s nine assists and Mitchell’s six were major contributions to the Thunder’s team total.
Turnovers: A small but important discrepancy
The supplied statistical summary lists 12 turnovers for each team. However, ESPN’s searchable game matchup page reports 13 turnovers for Boston and 12 for Oklahoma City. The official figures should be checked directly before republishing this particular statistic as definitive.
Regardless of the one-turnover discrepancy, the available figures indicate that neither team had a major advantage in this category.
Turnovers matter because they end possessions without a field-goal attempt and can create transition opportunities for the opponent. In a two-point game, even one additional possession may matter. However, the final margin alone does not prove that a particular turnover decided the game.
Steals and blocks: Similar defensive totals
Boston recorded eight steals, while Oklahoma City recorded seven. Both teams had four blocks.
The Celtics’ additional steal suggests they disrupted one more possession according to the team totals. The identical block count indicates that both sides recorded the same number of officially credited blocked shots.
These numbers do not capture every defensive contribution. A well-positioned defender may force a difficult shot without recording a steal or block, while a strong contest may cause a miss that appears only in the shooting statistics.
The most balanced interpretation is that the defensive counting statistics were relatively close, leaving shooting efficiency and late scoring as clearer statistical differences.
Points in the Paint and Offensive Strategy
ESPN’s game matchup statistics provide another useful detail: Oklahoma City scored 44 points in the paint, while Boston scored 34. That 10-point difference helps explain why the Thunder’s offense was productive despite making fewer three-pointers.
Points in the paint generally come from shots taken near the basket, including layups, dunks, and other close-range attempts. They can result from driving penetration, cuts, offensive rebounds, or passes that create opportunities near the rim.
Oklahoma City’s advantage in this category is consistent with its higher field-goal percentage. The Thunder converted more shots overall and generated more scoring inside the paint, while Boston relied more heavily on its three-point shooting and free throws.
This does not mean every Thunder basket came from a drive or every Boston possession ended in a jump shot. The team totals show where the scoring advantage occurred, but a full play-by-play review would be needed to establish the exact sequence of offensive actions.
What the scoring distribution tells us
Three observations stand out:
- Oklahoma City scored more efficiently overall. The Thunder converted 40 field goals on 84 attempts, giving them a clear advantage over Boston’s 35 makes on 87 attempts.
- Boston remained competitive from the perimeter. The Celtics made 13 three-pointers, compared with 11 for Oklahoma City.
- The Thunder had a larger advantage inside the arc. Their 44 points in the paint exceeded Boston’s 34.
Taken together, these numbers suggest that Oklahoma City’s scoring was supported by effective interior production, while Boston’s outside shooting and free-throw accuracy helped keep the contest close.
What the Player Statistics Reveal About the Matchup
The most useful statistical analysis looks beyond the final score and identifies how individual production connected to team performance.
Star scoring was nearly even
Gilgeous-Alexander scored 35 points and Brown scored 34. The one-point difference shows how closely the two leading scorers matched each other in total production.
Their supporting statistics add further context. Gilgeous-Alexander recorded nine assists, while Brown recorded seven. Both collected six rebounds.
Neither player was simply a scorer in this matchup. Each contributed to ball distribution and rebounding as well, making the individual comparison broader than points alone.
Supporting players made a difference
Mitchell recorded 15 points and six assists, while Pritchard scored 14 points and four assists. These performances gave both teams useful secondary production.
The difference was not that one side lacked any support. Rather, the overall team results show that Oklahoma City’s scoring efficiency and fourth-quarter output were sufficient to overcome Boston’s advantages in rebounding, three-point makes, and free throws.
The final quarter separated the teams
The Thunder’s 24-19 fourth-quarter advantage was the decisive scoring difference. After trailing by three points at halftime and remaining three points behind entering the fourth, Oklahoma City outscored Boston by five in the final period.
This is the clearest team-level explanation for the final result. The available statistics establish the scoring pattern, although they do not provide enough detail to attribute the entire comeback to a single player or possession.
What should readers avoid assuming?
A box score is valuable, but it has limits. It cannot independently establish every player’s defensive impact, the quality of every shot, the exact reason a coach selected a particular lineup, or the influence of an injury on the final result.
Plus/minus, when available, measures the team’s net scoring margin while a player is on the court. It should not be treated as a standalone measure of individual quality because it is influenced by teammates, opponents, lineups, and game circumstances.
For a deeper evaluation, the box score should be considered alongside shot charts, play-by-play records, minutes played, and video of key possessions. Those sources can help explain how the statistical differences developed.
Season Context and the Subsequent Meeting
The supplied game data lists Oklahoma City at 52-15 overall and 28-7 at home, while Boston entered the matchup at 43-23 overall and 22-13 away.
Those records provide context for the game, but they do not by themselves explain the outcome. The immediate statistical evidence is more specific: Oklahoma City shot better overall, scored more in the paint, and outscored Boston in the fourth quarter.
The supplied information also records a subsequent matchup on March 26, 2026, in which Oklahoma City defeated Boston 119-109. That result is separate from the March 13 game and should not be combined with its player statistics.
For readers comparing both meetings, the two games should be evaluated independently before drawing conclusions about broader team trends. Differences in lineups, availability, shooting, and game circumstances can affect each result.
The March 13 contest remains a useful example of how two teams can produce similar star-level scoring while reaching different outcomes through their overall shot conversion and late-game performance.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Oklahoma City Thunder vs Celtics game on March 13, 2026?
The Oklahoma City Thunder defeated the Boston Celtics 104-102 at Paycom Center in Oklahoma City. The Thunder outscored Boston 24-19 in the fourth quarter to secure the two-point victory.
2. Who scored the most points in the game?
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander led all highlighted players with 35 points for Oklahoma City. Jaylen Brown led Boston with 34 points, finishing just one point behind Gilgeous-Alexander.
3. What were Shai Gilgeous-Alexander’s stats against Boston?
Gilgeous-Alexander recorded 35 points, six rebounds, and nine assists. He was Oklahoma City’s leading scorer and contributed significantly to the team’s playmaking.
4. What were Jaylen Brown’s stats against Oklahoma City?
Jaylen Brown recorded 34 points, six rebounds, and seven assists. He led Boston in scoring and was one of the game’s most productive all-around performers.
5. Which team shot better from the field?
Oklahoma City shot 48% from the field, making 40 of 84 attempts. Boston shot 40%, making 35 of 87 attempts. The Thunder’s better overall field-goal percentage was an important statistical difference in the two-point win.
6. Which team had more rebounds and three-pointers?
Boston recorded more total rebounds, 44 to 39, and made more three-pointers, 13 to 11. Oklahoma City nevertheless won because it converted more field goals overall and outscored Boston in the fourth quarter.
Conclusion
The Oklahoma City Thunder defeated the Boston Celtics 104-102 on March 13, 2026, in a closely contested game defined by outstanding individual scoring and contrasting team strengths.
Gilgeous-Alexander finished with 35 points, six rebounds, and nine assists, while Brown delivered 34 points, six rebounds, and seven assists. Mitchell added 15 points and six assists for Oklahoma City, while Pritchard contributed 14 points and four assists for Boston.
The team statistics reveal the main differences. Boston collected more rebounds, made more three-pointers, and converted free throws at a higher percentage. Oklahoma City, however, shot 48% from the field compared with Boston’s 40%, scored 44 points in the paint, and produced a stronger fourth quarter.
Ultimately, the game demonstrates why individual scoring totals tell only part of an NBA story. Star performances, shooting efficiency, supporting contributions, and scoring distribution all help explain the final result. The Thunder’s two-point victory reflected their ability to turn those collective advantages into a better overall scoring outcome.
