Portland Trail Blazers vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats
The portland trail blazers vs san antonio spurs match player stats from Game 3 of the 2026 Western Conference First Round tell a much more interesting story than the final score alone. San Antonio defeated Portland 120-108 at Moda Center on April 24, 2026, taking a 2-1 series lead despite playing without Victor Wembanyama. Stephon Castle led all scorers with 33 points, while rookie Dylan Harper delivered 27 points and 10 rebounds. For Portland, Jrue Holiday scored 29 points, but the Trail Blazers could not maintain the momentum they built during a 15-point second-half advantage.
The result is especially notable because Portland entered the second half in control. The Trail Blazers led 65-59 at halftime and eventually stretched the advantage to 15 points. San Antonio then changed the game’s rhythm, with Harper becoming a major scoring threat and Castle repeatedly attacking the basket. The Spurs finished the game with a 120-108 victory and reclaimed home-court advantage in the series.
This breakdown looks beyond the headline numbers. It examines the individual performances, shooting efficiency, rebounding, playmaking, turnovers, quarter-by-quarter scoring, and the tactical reasons San Antonio recovered from its deficit.
Portland Trail Blazers vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats
Game 3 produced a useful contrast between individual production and team execution. Portland had several strong individual performances, but San Antonio’s scoring balance became more important as the game progressed.
| Category | San Antonio Spurs | Portland Trail Blazers |
| Final score | 120 | 108 |
| Field goals | 41/87 | 37/90 |
| Field-goal percentage | 47.1% | 41.1% |
| Three-pointers | 16/33 | 14/38 |
| Three-point percentage | 48.5% | 36.8% |
| Free throws | 22/28 | 20/29 |
| Free-throw percentage | 78.6% | 69.0% |
| Rebounds | 50 | 45 |
| Turnovers | 13 | 10 |
| Largest lead | 15 | 15 |
| Series position | Leads 2-1 | Trails 1-2 |
The shooting gap is one of the clearest explanations for the result. San Antonio made four more field goals despite attempting three fewer shots. The Spurs also converted 48.5% of their three-point attempts compared with 36.8% for Portland. That efficiency allowed San Antonio to absorb Portland’s strong stretches and still finish with a comfortable margin.
The rebounding advantage also belonged to San Antonio, 50-45. Portland did keep its turnover total lower, but the five-rebound difference and significant shooting advantage outweighed that benefit.
Stephon Castle Leads San Antonio With 33 Points
Stephon Castle was the defining scorer of Game 3.
He finished with 33 points on 10-of-18 shooting from the field, 3-of-4 from three-point range, and 10-of-11 from the free-throw line. He also recorded five assists and two rebounds in 34 minutes.
What stands out is not simply the 33-point total. Castle generated those points efficiently while maintaining a strong inside-out scoring profile.
His shooting line included:
- 10 made field goals
- 18 field-goal attempts
- 55.6% field-goal shooting
- 3-of-4 from three-point range
- 10-of-11 free throws
- 5 assists
- 33 total points
That combination made Castle difficult to contain. Portland could not simply concede perimeter attempts because Castle was also capable of getting into the paint and drawing fouls.
His 10 free-throw attempts were particularly important. Even though the game was decided by several factors, those opportunities helped San Antonio convert Castle’s aggressive offensive approach into efficient scoring.
Castle’s performance also came at an important moment in the series. With Wembanyama unavailable, San Antonio needed another player capable of taking offensive responsibility. Castle provided exactly that.
Dylan Harper’s 27 Points Changed the Game
Dylan Harper may have been even more important to the game’s momentum than his final scoring total suggests.
The rookie finished with 27 points and 10 rebounds, shooting 9-of-12 from the field, 4-of-5 from three-point range, and 5-of-6 at the free-throw line. He added three assists, one steal, and one block.
Harper scored 22 of his 27 points in the second half.
That timing matters.
San Antonio entered halftime trailing 65-59. Portland had established its offensive rhythm and appeared positioned to exploit Wembanyama’s absence. Harper’s scoring burst helped change the game from a Portland-controlled contest into a San Antonio comeback.
His 75% field-goal shooting was outstanding, but his three-point accuracy was even more damaging for Portland. Making four of five attempts from deep meant Portland could not comfortably collapse its defense toward the paint.
Harper also contributed on the glass. His 10 rebounds gave San Antonio an additional source of possession control, especially important in a game where Portland had periods of strong offensive pressure.
The NBA’s official recap identified Harper’s second-half scoring as one of the central elements of San Antonio’s comeback.
Jrue Holiday Provides Portland’s Best Scoring Performance
Jrue Holiday led Portland with 29 points.
He shot 12-of-18 from the field and did not attempt a free throw. His 66.7% field-goal shooting was one of the most efficient scoring performances by either team’s primary contributors.
Holiday’s performance deserves context because Portland lost despite getting excellent efficiency from its leading scorer.
That illustrates one of the central lessons from this game: individual scoring efficiency cannot always compensate for a team-wide efficiency gap.
Holiday made 12 field goals, while Portland as a whole made 37. His scoring was therefore a major positive, but Portland needed more consistent production from the rest of the rotation once San Antonio increased its defensive pressure.
The absence of free-throw attempts is also interesting. Castle reached the line 11 times, while Holiday reached it zero times. That difference did not determine the entire game, but it contributed to the Spurs generating more points from their most aggressive offensive possessions.
De’Aaron Fox Controls the Spurs’ Offense
De’Aaron Fox did not lead San Antonio in scoring, but his playmaking was central to the Spurs’ offensive structure.
Fox finished with 18 points, six assists, four rebounds, and two turnovers in 36 minutes. He shot 7-of-16 from the field and 1-of-6 from three-point range.
The six assists are important because San Antonio did not rely on a single scorer.
Castle produced 33.
Harper produced 27.
Fox produced 18.
Luke Kornet added 14.
Devin Vassell scored 11.
That distribution gave San Antonio several ways to attack Portland.
Fox’s two turnovers also stand out. For a primary ball-handler playing more than 36 minutes, maintaining control of possessions while creating six assists helped the Spurs avoid unnecessary offensive waste.
His three-point shooting was not particularly effective, but his overall offensive contribution remained valuable because his role was larger than perimeter scoring.
Deni Avdija’s Playmaking Keeps Portland Competitive
Deni Avdija finished with nine assists and was one of Portland’s most important facilitators.
His nine assists were the highest total for either team. He also recorded just two turnovers, giving him a 4.5-to-1 assist-to-turnover ratio for the game.
That is a strong playmaking performance.
Avdija’s ability to create opportunities helped Portland produce 44 points in the paint and 19 fast-break points. The Trail Blazers were not simply relying on isolation scoring. They were able to generate productive offensive sequences through movement and transition.
The problem was sustaining that efficiency after halftime.
Portland scored 36 points in the second quarter, but only 22 in the third and 21 in the fourth. That decline shows how dramatically the offensive environment changed.
Donovan Clingan Controls the Glass
Donovan Clingan led Portland with 11 rebounds.
He collected eight defensive rebounds and three offensive rebounds, giving Portland an important interior presence.
His rebounding was particularly valuable because San Antonio was already using a different frontcourt configuration without Wembanyama. Clingan’s ability to secure missed shots helped Portland maintain possession and prevented the Spurs from turning every miss into an easy second chance.
Yet San Antonio still finished with the overall rebounding advantage, 50-45.
That five-rebound difference may not look enormous, but in a playoff game decided by 12 points, it is meaningful. Extra possessions become increasingly valuable when both teams are capable of producing scoring runs.
Luke Kornet Makes an Important Contribution
Luke Kornet started for San Antonio in place of Wembanyama and finished with 14 points and 10 rebounds.
He shot 6-of-9 from the field and added two blocks.
Kornet’s contribution was important because the Spurs did not need him to replace Wembanyama’s entire statistical profile.
Instead, San Antonio needed functional interior play.
Kornet supplied scoring efficiency, rebounding, and defensive activity. His 10 rebounds also meant San Antonio received a double-digit rebounding performance from a player filling a difficult role.
That is a useful example of why box-score replacement is not always the right way to evaluate a team playing without a star. The question is not whether one player reproduces every missing statistic. The more practical question is whether the team collectively covers the missing responsibilities.
San Antonio did that effectively enough to win.
The Quarter-by-Quarter Story
The final score hides the most interesting part of the game.
First Quarter
San Antonio scored 27 points while Portland scored 29.
Portland established a narrow early advantage, but the margin remained small. The game was competitive from the opening minutes.
Second Quarter
Portland exploded for 36 points.
San Antonio scored 32, but Portland still took a 65-59 lead into halftime.
This was arguably Portland’s strongest offensive stretch.
The Trail Blazers were finding opportunities in transition and around the paint, while Holiday was producing efficient scoring. At this stage, San Antonio’s decision to play without Wembanyama appeared to create a significant challenge.
Third Quarter
The game changed.
San Antonio scored 29 points while Portland managed only 22.
Harper became a major factor, producing much of his eventual 27-point total during the second half. San Antonio also improved its shooting efficiency and began controlling the overall rhythm.
A 65-59 Portland lead was no longer safe.
Fourth Quarter
San Antonio finished the game with 32 fourth-quarter points.
Portland scored only 21.
That 11-point difference in the final period turned a competitive game into a 12-point Spurs victory.
The fourth quarter demonstrates why the final result cannot be understood simply by looking at halftime. Portland had already proven it could score against San Antonio. The more important issue was whether it could continue generating quality possessions once the Spurs adjusted.
It could not.
Shooting Efficiency Was the Biggest Statistical Difference
The strongest statistical argument for San Antonio is shooting.
The Spurs shot 41-of-87 from the field for 47.1%.
Portland shot 37-of-90 for 41.1%.
That is a six-percentage-point gap.
San Antonio also made 16 of 33 three-point attempts. Portland made 14 of 38.
The Spurs therefore converted 48.5% of their three-point attempts, while Portland converted 36.8%.
That difference is substantial in a playoff environment.
Portland attempted more threes, but San Antonio extracted more value from its attempts.
The Spurs also had the better free-throw percentage, 78.6% to 69.0%.
Taken together, the shooting profile suggests San Antonio won through efficiency rather than simply volume.
Portland Won Some Important Statistical Categories
It would be misleading to describe Portland’s performance as completely poor.
The Trail Blazers actually won several categories.
They scored 44 points in the paint compared with San Antonio’s 42.
They scored 19 fast-break points compared with 15 for the Spurs.
They also committed fewer turnovers in the official team comparison, 10 compared with San Antonio’s 13.
Those numbers help explain why Portland was able to build a 15-point lead.
The problem was that these advantages did not survive the entire game.
San Antonio’s shooting eventually became the deciding factor.
Why San Antonio Won Without Victor Wembanyama
The most notable context surrounding this game was Wembanyama’s absence.
He missed Game 3 while recovering from a concussion suffered in Game 2. San Antonio nevertheless produced 120 points and took a 2-1 series lead.
That result highlights the Spurs’ depth.
Castle assumed a larger scoring role.
Harper delivered an explosive second half.
Kornet provided interior production.
Fox handled playmaking duties.
Vassell contributed seven rebounds and three assists alongside his 11 points.
This was not one player replacing another.
It was a collective redistribution of responsibility.
That distinction is important when evaluating playoff teams. A star’s absence often changes usage, spacing, defensive assignments, and rotation patterns across the entire lineup.
San Antonio adjusted successfully.
Portland’s 15-Point Lead Was Not Enough
Portland’s largest lead was 15 points, and San Antonio also reached a 15-point advantage.
That symmetry captures how dramatically the game swung.
Portland’s lead demonstrated that the Blazers had the offensive tools to challenge San Antonio without needing Wembanyama on the floor.
But San Antonio’s comeback demonstrated something equally important: the Spurs could recover from a substantial deficit.
The decisive question became which team could maintain its offensive quality when the game tightened.
San Antonio did.
The Importance of Three-Point Shooting
Three-point shooting deserves special attention because the difference was not just about makes.
Portland attempted 38 three-pointers.
San Antonio attempted 33.
Yet San Antonio made two more.
That means the Spurs generated 48 points from three-point makes, compared with 42 for Portland.
The six-point difference from three-point makes alone represents half of San Antonio’s final 12-point margin.
This is why percentage efficiency is often more revealing than raw attempts.
Portland had greater volume.
San Antonio had greater accuracy.
In a playoff game, that can be the difference between controlling the final minutes and chasing the score.
The Free-Throw Difference Also Matters
San Antonio attempted 28 free throws and made 22.
Portland attempted 29 and made 20.
So Portland actually reached the line one additional time, but San Antonio made two more free throws.
Castle’s 10-of-11 performance was especially valuable.
The Spurs’ 78.6% team free-throw rate was also comfortably ahead of Portland’s 69.0%.
That did not single-handedly determine the outcome, but it helped San Antonio convert its offensive pressure into points.
What the Player Stats Say About Team Roles
The box score reveals a clear division of responsibilities.
For San Antonio:
- Castle was the primary scoring engine.
- Harper supplied explosive secondary scoring and rebounding.
- Fox directed the offense.
- Kornet handled important interior responsibilities.
- Vassell contributed across several categories.
- The team benefited from strong three-point shooting.
For Portland:
- Holiday was the leading efficient scorer.
- Avdija was the primary playmaker.
- Clingan controlled the rebounding battle individually.
- Portland generated strong paint and transition production.
- The team’s biggest problem was maintaining offensive efficiency after halftime.
This distinction matters because playoff basketball is rarely about identifying one statistical winner. It is about understanding how the numbers connect to roles.
A Closer Look at Stephon Castle’s Efficiency
Castle’s 33 points came from only 18 field-goal attempts.
That is an excellent scoring ratio.
He also made 10 of 11 free throws.
His effective scoring value was therefore significantly higher than a player who needed 25 or 30 shots to reach the same total.
Castle’s three-point shooting also forced Portland’s defense to respect him beyond the arc.
When a player can score efficiently from the perimeter, attack the basket, and convert free throws, defensive options become limited.
That was one of Castle’s biggest advantages in this matchup.
A Closer Look at Dylan Harper’s Efficiency
Harper’s numbers may be even more striking.
He scored 27 points on 12 field-goal attempts.
He made nine of those attempts.
He also made four of five threes and five of six free throws.
His 75% field-goal percentage was the best among San Antonio’s major scoring contributors.
The timing of that efficiency made it even more valuable.
Harper was not simply filling the box score during a comfortable lead. He became more influential while San Antonio was trying to erase Portland’s advantage.
That is the type of production that changes playoff games.
What Portland Can Learn From the Loss
Portland’s biggest lesson is not that it needs more scoring.
The Trail Blazers already scored 108 points.
They also produced 44 points in the paint and 19 fast-break points.
The bigger issue was maintaining efficiency and offensive pressure across all four quarters.
Portland scored:
- 29 points in the first quarter
- 36 points in the second quarter
- 22 points in the third quarter
- 21 points in the fourth quarter
That progression is revealing.
The offense did not collapse immediately.
It gradually lost efficiency after halftime.
For Portland, the next step is finding ways to create reliable half-court offense when transition opportunities decrease and San Antonio’s defense has time to organize.
What San Antonio Can Learn From the Game
San Antonio’s biggest positive is its ability to survive adversity.
The Spurs were without Wembanyama.
They trailed by 15.
They were down six at halftime.
They still won by 12.
But there are also areas to improve.
San Antonio committed 13 turnovers, compared with Portland’s 10 in the official statistical breakdown. The Spurs cannot assume that their shooting will remain this efficient in every playoff game.
They will also need to manage Wembanyama’s return carefully and avoid allowing Portland to build another large early lead.
The comeback was impressive, but repeatedly falling behind by double digits is not an ideal playoff formula.
Most Important Player Matchups
Stephon Castle vs Portland’s perimeter defense
Castle’s ability to combine shooting, driving, and free-throw generation made him Portland’s most difficult offensive problem.
Dylan Harper vs Portland’s second-unit defense
Harper’s 22 second-half points show how damaging his scoring became when he found rhythm.
Jrue Holiday vs San Antonio’s defensive pressure
Holiday scored 29 points on 12-of-18 shooting, proving that Portland could get efficient production from its veteran guard.
Deni Avdija vs San Antonio’s passing lanes
Avdija’s nine assists and two turnovers demonstrate how important he was to Portland’s offensive organization.
Donovan Clingan vs San Antonio’s frontcourt
Clingan’s 11 rebounds gave Portland an important interior advantage individually, although the Spurs still won the overall rebounding battle.
Portland Trail Blazers vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats: Key Takeaways
The most useful way to read these portland trail blazers vs san antonio spurs match player stats is to connect individual numbers with the game’s momentum.
The biggest takeaways are:
- Stephon Castle was the leading scorer with 33 points.
- Dylan Harper added 27 points and 10 rebounds.
- Jrue Holiday led Portland with 29 points on 12-of-18 shooting.
- Deni Avdija recorded nine assists and only two turnovers.
- Donovan Clingan collected 11 rebounds.
- San Antonio shot 47.1% from the field.
- Portland shot 41.1% from the field.
- The Spurs made 48.5% of their three-point attempts.
- Portland made 36.8% from three.
- San Antonio outrebounded Portland 50-45.
- Portland led by as many as 15 points.
- San Antonio also built a 15-point lead.
- The Spurs won despite playing without Victor Wembanyama.
- San Antonio took a 2-1 series lead.
Why the Final Score Does Not Tell the Whole Story
A 120-108 scoreline might suggest San Antonio controlled the game.
It did not.
Portland led for a significant portion of the contest and reached a 15-point advantage. The Trail Blazers also scored 36 points in the second quarter.
The difference was San Antonio’s response.
The Spurs improved their offensive efficiency, received a huge second-half contribution from Harper, and got consistent scoring from Castle. The result was a comeback rather than a wire-to-wire victory.
That distinction is important for anyone studying the game from a statistical perspective.
How to Read These Stats for Future Matchups
When comparing the teams in later games, several statistics deserve special attention.
Three-point percentage
San Antonio’s 48.5% mark was a major reason for the victory. If that number falls significantly in another game, Portland’s defensive strategy may look much more successful.
Second-half scoring
Portland’s second-half decline was significant. Tracking third-quarter and fourth-quarter efficiency will reveal whether the Blazers can sustain their offensive approach.
Rebounding
Clingan’s individual rebounding production was excellent, but San Antonio still won the team rebounding battle. That is an area worth monitoring.
Free-throw efficiency
Castle’s 10-of-11 shooting at the line was a valuable part of his 33-point performance.
Turnover control
Portland protected the ball better, but the advantage was not enough to offset San Antonio’s shooting efficiency.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who led the Spurs in scoring against the Trail Blazers?
Stephon Castle led San Antonio with 33 points. He shot 10-of-18 from the field, made three of four three-point attempts, and converted 10 of 11 free throws.
Who led Portland in scoring?
Jrue Holiday led Portland with 29 points. He made 12 of 18 field-goal attempts and did not attempt a free throw.
How many points did Dylan Harper score?
Dylan Harper scored 27 points and grabbed 10 rebounds. He shot 9-of-12 from the field and 4-of-5 from three-point range.
Who had the most assists in the game?
Deni Avdija led all players with nine assists. De’Aaron Fox led San Antonio with six assists.
Who had the most rebounds?
Donovan Clingan led Portland with 11 rebounds, while Dylan Harper and Luke Kornet each recorded 10 for San Antonio.
Did the Spurs win without Victor Wembanyama?
Yes. San Antonio defeated Portland 120-108 without Wembanyama and took a 2-1 lead in the first-round series.
Conclusion
The portland trail blazers vs san antonio spurs match player stats from Game 3 show why playoff results need to be examined beyond the final score.
San Antonio’s victory was built on efficient shooting, strong second-half execution, and several players stepping into larger roles. Castle’s 33 points provided the headline performance, while Harper’s 27 points and 10 rebounds became especially important during the comeback. Fox organized the offense, Kornet supplied interior production, and the Spurs collectively compensated for Wembanyama’s absence.
Portland had plenty of positives. Holiday was extremely efficient, Avdija created nine assists, and Clingan controlled the glass individually. The Trail Blazers also produced 44 points in the paint and built a 15-point lead.
The decisive difference was sustainability.
Portland’s offense was highly effective in the first half but dropped to 22 points in the third quarter and 21 in the fourth. San Antonio moved in the opposite direction, finishing with 29 points in the third and 32 in the fourth.
That combination of efficiency, depth, and second-half execution explains how the Spurs turned a 15-point deficit into a 120-108 victory and took control of the series.
For the official game box score and complete player statistics, view the NBA’s official Game 3 box score.
