Timberwolves vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats
The timberwolves vs san antonio spurs match player stats from Game 6 of the 2026 NBA Western Conference Semifinals reveal how the San Antonio Spurs delivered a commanding 139-109 victory over the Minnesota Timberwolves on May 15, 2026. Stephon Castle led the Spurs with an outstanding 32 points and 11 rebounds, while De’Aaron Fox contributed 21 points and nine assists. Victor Wembanyama added 19 points and three blocks, helping San Antonio secure a place in the Western Conference Finals. On the Minnesota side, Anthony Edwards finished with 24 points, while Naz Reid scored 18. Despite their efforts, the Timberwolves struggled to contain San Antonio’s offense and were eliminated from the playoffs after losing the series 4-2.
The final game was a significant moment in the 2026 NBA postseason. San Antonio demonstrated its offensive depth, defensive discipline, and ability to capitalize on scoring opportunities. Minnesota, meanwhile, struggled with its shooting efficiency and rebounding, making it difficult to recover after falling behind early.
This detailed breakdown covers the final score, individual player performances, team statistics, quarter-by-quarter results, important game moments, and the factors that shaped the outcome. It also examines how the performances of Castle, Fox, Wembanyama, Edwards, and other key players influenced the series.
Timberwolves vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats: Game 6 Overview
The sixth game of the Western Conference Semifinals took place at Target Center in Minneapolis. The Spurs entered the contest with a 3-2 series lead, knowing that a victory would send them to the conference finals. Minnesota needed a win to extend the series to a seventh game.
San Antonio took control early and maintained its advantage throughout the contest. The Spurs scored 36 points in the first quarter and added another 38 in the second. Their offensive production gave them a substantial halftime lead.
Minnesota had some productive stretches, particularly in the second quarter, when it scored 34 points. However, the Timberwolves could not match San Antonio’s overall shooting efficiency or maintain consistent defensive pressure.
Game Information
| Category | Details |
| Matchup | San Antonio Spurs vs. Minnesota Timberwolves |
| Competition | NBA Western Conference Semifinals |
| Game | Game 6 |
| Date | May 15, 2026 |
| Venue | Target Center |
| Location | Minneapolis, Minnesota |
| Final Score | Spurs 139, Timberwolves 109 |
| Series Result | Spurs won 4-2 |
| Attendance | 18,978 |
| Spurs Regular-Season Record | 62-20 |
| Timberwolves Regular-Season Record | 49-33 |
| Spurs Leading Scorer | Stephon Castle |
| Castle’s Points | 32 |
| Timberwolves Leading Scorer | Anthony Edwards |
| Edwards’ Points | 24 |
| Broadcast | Prime Video |
The Spurs’ victory completed the six-game series and ended Minnesota’s 2026 postseason run. San Antonio advanced to the Western Conference Finals after producing a strong offensive performance in the decisive game.
Final Score: Spurs 139, Timberwolves 109
The San Antonio Spurs defeated the Minnesota Timberwolves by 30 points in Game 6. Their 139-point performance reflected an offense that consistently created quality scoring opportunities.
The Timberwolves finished with 109 points, which was not enough to keep pace with San Antonio. Although Minnesota scored 61 points in the first half, the Spurs had already established a 13-point advantage.
The third quarter further increased the difference. San Antonio scored 36 points, while Minnesota managed only 23. That 13-point difference made the Timberwolves’ comeback attempt considerably more difficult.
Quarter-by-Quarter Score
| Quarter | San Antonio Spurs | Minnesota Timberwolves |
| First Quarter | 36 | 27 |
| Second Quarter | 38 | 34 |
| Third Quarter | 36 | 23 |
| Fourth Quarter | 29 | 25 |
| Total | 139 | 109 |
San Antonio outscored Minnesota in all four quarters. The biggest difference came in the third quarter, when the Spurs extended their lead by another 13 points.
The first half was particularly important. San Antonio scored 74 points before halftime, compared with Minnesota’s 61. The Spurs then continued their offensive production after the break.
Minnesota’s fourth-quarter performance reduced the rate at which the lead increased, but the deficit was already too large to overcome.
Complete Spurs Player Statistics
Stephon Castle was the leading performer for San Antonio, finishing with 32 points and 11 rebounds. His scoring and rebounding helped establish the tone for the Spurs.
De’Aaron Fox also played an important role by combining efficient scoring with playmaking. Victor Wembanyama contributed on both ends of the court, while Julian Champagnie and Devin Vassell provided additional scoring.
The Spurs received contributions from several players rather than relying on one offensive option.
San Antonio Spurs Key Player Performances
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists |
| Stephon Castle | 32 | 11 | 6 |
| De’Aaron Fox | 21 | 4 | 9 |
| Victor Wembanyama | 19 | 6 | 2 |
| Julian Champagnie | 18 | 5 | 2 |
| Dylan Harper | 15 | 3 | 3 |
| Devin Vassell | 11 | 5 | 4 |
These figures highlight the contributions of San Antonio’s principal performers. Castle led the team in scoring and rebounding, while Fox recorded the most assists among the Spurs.
The scoring distribution also illustrates the team’s offensive depth. Four San Antonio players reached at least 18 points, giving Minnesota several different scoring threats to defend.
Stephon Castle: 32 Points and 11 Rebounds
Stephon Castle delivered the standout performance of the game. The young guard scored 32 points and collected 11 rebounds, recording a double-double in the series-clinching victory.
He also contributed six assists and made five three-pointers. His ability to score from different areas of the court made him a difficult matchup for Minnesota’s defense.
Castle’s shooting was particularly impressive. He made 11 of his 16 field-goal attempts, demonstrating excellent efficiency while carrying a substantial scoring responsibility.
His first-quarter performance helped San Antonio establish an early advantage. He continued to score during the second quarter, when the Spurs created a significant separation.
Castle’s rebounding was another important part of his performance. Although guards are not usually expected to lead their teams in rebounds, his 11 boards helped San Antonio control possession.
His performance combined three important elements:
- Efficient scoring from the field.
- Strong rebounding from the guard position.
- Playmaking that helped create opportunities for teammates.
Castle’s contribution was not limited to the scoreboard. His all-around performance helped San Antonio maintain its offensive rhythm and control the pace of the contest.
De’Aaron Fox: 21 Points and 9 Assists
De’Aaron Fox provided the Spurs with another productive backcourt performance. He scored 21 points and recorded nine assists, helping San Antonio maintain offensive pressure throughout the game.
Fox was particularly effective as a playmaker. His nine assists reflected his ability to create opportunities for teammates and move the ball into favorable positions.
He also made all three of his three-point attempts. His perimeter shooting added another challenge for a Minnesota defense already occupied with Castle and Wembanyama.
Fox’s contribution was important because San Antonio did not need Castle to create every scoring opportunity. With Fox handling the ball and finding teammates, the Spurs could attack through multiple offensive options.
His combination of scoring and passing helped keep the Timberwolves’ defense under pressure.
Victor Wembanyama: 19 Points and 3 Blocks
Victor Wembanyama finished Game 6 with 19 points, six rebounds, two assists, and three blocks.
Although his scoring total was lower than Castle’s, Wembanyama remained an important part of San Antonio’s performance.
His defensive presence affected the Timberwolves’ ability to attack near the basket. A player with his height and reach can change opponents’ shot selection even when he does not record a block.
Wembanyama also contributed offensively by finishing opportunities around the basket and converting seven of his nine free throws.
His three blocks provided a measurable indication of his defensive contribution. However, his influence was not limited to blocked shots. His positioning also helped discourage Minnesota from attempting certain shots near the rim.
Wembanyama’s performance demonstrated how a player can contribute to a team’s success without leading it in scoring.
Julian Champagnie: 18 Points
Julian Champagnie delivered an important perimeter scoring performance for San Antonio.
He scored 18 points while making five of his 10 field-goal attempts. He also connected on four of his nine three-point attempts and converted all four of his free throws.
Champagnie’s outside shooting gave the Spurs another reliable scoring option.
His ability to make three-pointers was especially valuable because Minnesota had to pay close attention to Castle and Fox. When defenders concentrated on the ball, Champagnie could benefit from open perimeter opportunities.
He also contributed five rebounds and two assists.
Devin Vassell: 11 Points
Devin Vassell scored 11 points and recorded five rebounds and four assists.
His contribution was valuable within San Antonio’s balanced offensive system. Rather than needing to dominate possession, Vassell helped the team through scoring, passing, and defensive activity.
He made three three-pointers and provided additional perimeter spacing.
His four assists also helped San Antonio distribute the ball effectively. With several players capable of scoring, the Spurs could maintain offensive pressure even when one player was not directly involved in a possession.
Complete Timberwolves Player Statistics
Minnesota had several productive individual performances, but the team’s overall shooting efficiency was a major obstacle.
Anthony Edwards led the Timberwolves with 24 points. Naz Reid scored 18 points, while Jaden McDaniels contributed 13.
Ayo Dosunmu recorded 10 points and led Minnesota with nine assists.
The Timberwolves also received 21 points from Terrence Shannon Jr., who provided an important scoring contribution off the bench.
Minnesota Timberwolves Key Player Performances
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists |
| Anthony Edwards | 24 | 2 | 2 |
| Terrence Shannon Jr. | 21 | Not specified | Not specified |
| Naz Reid | 18 | 7 | Not specified |
| Jaden McDaniels | 13 | Not specified | Not specified |
| Ayo Dosunmu | 10 | Not specified | 9 |
| Julius Randle | 3 | 7 | Not specified |
The available player statistics show that Minnesota received scoring contributions from several players. However, the Timberwolves struggled to convert enough of their attempts to challenge San Antonio.
Anthony Edwards: 24 Points
Anthony Edwards led Minnesota with 24 points in the elimination game.
He made nine of his 26 field-goal attempts, finishing with a shooting percentage of approximately 34.6%.
His scoring total was respectable, but his shooting efficiency was limited. He had to attempt a large number of shots to reach 24 points.
Edwards also recorded three steals, providing some defensive production for Minnesota.
His performance illustrates an important difference between scoring volume and scoring efficiency. A player can finish as the leading scorer while still struggling to convert a high percentage of attempts.
Against San Antonio, Edwards faced a defense that made it difficult for Minnesota to establish a consistent offensive rhythm.
His 24 points helped keep the Timberwolves competitive during portions of the game, but the team needed more efficient scoring to overcome the Spurs’ offensive production.
Naz Reid: 18 Points and 7 Rebounds
Naz Reid was one of Minnesota’s most productive players.
He finished with 18 points and seven rebounds, providing a valuable scoring contribution away from the starting lineup.
Reid’s ability to score from different areas of the court gave Minnesota another offensive option. His presence also helped the team maintain some scoring production when its primary players were struggling.
His seven rebounds tied him for Minnesota’s highest individual total in the game.
However, Reid’s contribution was not enough to offset San Antonio’s considerable advantage in overall shooting efficiency and rebounding.
Terrence Shannon Jr.: 21 Points
Terrence Shannon Jr. provided an important scoring contribution from the bench.
He scored 21 points, making him one of Minnesota’s leading scorers in the game.
His production was particularly useful because Minnesota needed additional offensive support beyond Edwards.
Shannon’s performance demonstrated the importance of bench scoring in a playoff game. However, even a strong individual contribution from a reserve player cannot always overcome a large team-wide scoring deficit.
Minnesota needed more consistent production across its lineup to keep pace with San Antonio.
Ayo Dosunmu: 10 Points and 9 Assists
Ayo Dosunmu scored 10 points and recorded nine assists.
His assist total led Minnesota and demonstrated his importance as a playmaker.
Dosunmu helped create scoring opportunities for teammates, including Edwards and Reid. His passing was especially valuable when Minnesota needed to generate offense against San Antonio’s defensive pressure.
However, the Timberwolves struggled to turn enough of their offensive possessions into successful field goals.
Dosunmu’s nine assists were a positive individual statistic, but they could not fully compensate for Minnesota’s poor overall shooting percentage.
Julius Randle: 3 Points
Julius Randle had a difficult night offensively.
He finished with just three points, making one of his eight field-goal attempts.
Randle also collected seven rebounds, tying him with Reid for the team’s highest individual rebounding total.
His limited scoring was a significant difference from what Minnesota needed in an elimination game.
With Edwards facing defensive pressure and other players struggling to shoot efficiently, Minnesota needed additional scoring from its established offensive options.
Randle’s rebounding provided some value, but his offensive production remained limited.
Spurs vs Timberwolves Team Statistics
The team statistics reveal the main differences between the two sides.
San Antonio shot 55.7% from the field, compared with Minnesota’s 37.7%. The Spurs also made 18 three-pointers, while the Timberwolves converted 12.
San Antonio’s advantage in shooting efficiency was particularly significant because both teams attempted a substantial number of shots.
Complete Team Comparison
| Statistic | Spurs | Timberwolves |
| Final Score | 139 | 109 |
| Field Goals Made | 49 | 40 |
| Field Goals Attempted | 88 | 106 |
| Field-Goal Percentage | 55.7% | 37.7% |
| Three-Pointers Made | 18 | 12 |
| Three-Pointers Attempted | 38 | 34 |
| Three-Point Percentage | 47.4% | 35.3% |
| Free Throws Made | 23 | 17 |
| Free Throws Attempted | 27 | 21 |
| Free-Throw Percentage | 85.2% | 81.0% |
| Total Rebounds | 68 | 46 |
| Assists | 34 | 25 |
| Turnovers | 15 | 5 |
| Steals | 2 | 9 |
| Blocks | 13 | 2 |
San Antonio held significant advantages in field-goal percentage, three-point shooting, rebounding, assists, and blocks.
Minnesota recorded fewer turnovers and more steals. However, those advantages were not enough to overcome the Spurs’ scoring efficiency.
Field-Goal Percentage
The biggest statistical difference was field-goal percentage.
San Antonio made 49 of its 88 attempts, while Minnesota converted 40 of its 106 attempts.
The Spurs’ 55.7% shooting percentage was substantially higher than Minnesota’s 37.7%.
This difference helps explain why San Antonio scored 30 more points despite attempting 18 fewer field goals.
Minnesota generated more attempts but struggled to convert them.
The difference was particularly important in a playoff game because missed shots can limit offensive momentum and create opportunities for opponents to control the pace.
Three-Point Shooting
San Antonio made 18 three-pointers on 38 attempts, finishing at 47.4%.
Minnesota made 12 three-pointers on 34 attempts, shooting 35.3%.
The Spurs therefore made six more three-pointers than the Timberwolves.
Because each successful three-pointer is worth three points, that difference accounted for 18 points of the scoring margin.
San Antonio’s perimeter shooting also made it more difficult for Minnesota to concentrate its defense on the paint.
The Spurs had several players capable of making outside shots, which helped create a more balanced offensive attack.
Free-Throw Shooting
Both teams shot reasonably well from the free-throw line.
San Antonio made 23 of 27 attempts, recording an 85.2% success rate.
Minnesota converted 17 of 21 attempts, finishing at 81%.
The Spurs made six more free throws than the Timberwolves.
Although free-throw shooting was not the largest statistical difference, San Antonio’s advantage added to its overall scoring margin.
Rebounding
Rebounding was another important part of the game.
San Antonio collected 68 total rebounds, compared with Minnesota’s 46.
The 22-rebound difference gave the Spurs a substantial advantage in controlling missed shots and securing possessions.
Castle led San Antonio with 11 rebounds, an impressive contribution from a guard.
For Minnesota, Reid and Randle each recorded seven rebounds.
The Timberwolves’ lower rebounding total limited their ability to create additional scoring opportunities through offensive rebounds.
It also allowed San Antonio to finish more defensive possessions successfully.
Assists
San Antonio recorded 34 assists, while Minnesota finished with 25.
The Spurs’ higher assist total reflected their ability to distribute the ball and create scoring opportunities through team play.
Fox led San Antonio with nine assists, while Castle contributed six.
For Minnesota, Dosunmu recorded nine assists.
The assist difference suggests that San Antonio generated more successful team-scoring opportunities during the game.
However, assists alone do not explain offensive success. Shooting efficiency and the quality of scoring opportunities also matter.
Turnovers and Steals
Minnesota recorded five turnovers, while San Antonio committed 15.
The Timberwolves also finished with nine steals, compared with only two for the Spurs.
These numbers show that Minnesota was more successful at forcing turnovers and disrupting San Antonio’s ball possession.
However, the Timberwolves could not turn that defensive advantage into enough points.
Their shooting percentage remained low, and they struggled to match San Antonio’s offensive production.
This is an important example of why a single team statistic cannot explain the outcome of a basketball game.
Minnesota won the turnover comparison but lost by 30 points.
Blocks and Defensive Impact
San Antonio recorded 13 blocks, while Minnesota managed just two.
Wembanyama contributed three blocks, providing an important defensive presence near the basket.
The Spurs’ overall total also reflects contributions from other players.
Blocks do not capture every aspect of defense, but the difference highlights San Antonio’s ability to challenge shots around the rim.
Combined with the team’s rebounding advantage, its shot-blocking performance made scoring difficult for Minnesota.
How the Spurs Took Control of Game 6
San Antonio’s victory was not the result of one isolated scoring run. The Spurs maintained their advantage throughout the contest and continued to score efficiently in every quarter.
Their early offense created the foundation for the win.
First Quarter: San Antonio Establishes an Early Lead
The Spurs opened the game with 36 points, while Minnesota scored 27.
Castle played an important role in the early scoring, helping San Antonio establish offensive momentum.
The Timberwolves were still within reach after the opening quarter, trailing by nine points.
However, the Spurs had already demonstrated that they could create scoring opportunities against Minnesota’s defense.
Second Quarter: A Major Scoring Separation
The second quarter proved particularly important.
San Antonio scored 38 points, while Minnesota added 34.
The Spurs produced a significant scoring run during the period, including a 20-0 stretch that helped them build a commanding advantage.
That sequence changed the nature of the game.
Minnesota had to spend the remainder of the contest trying to reduce a substantial deficit rather than playing from an even position.
The Spurs entered halftime with a 74-61 lead.
Third Quarter: San Antonio Extends Its Advantage
San Antonio continued its offensive production after halftime.
The Spurs scored 36 points in the third quarter, while Minnesota managed only 23.
The 13-point difference increased the margin to 26 points entering the final period.
Minnesota’s offensive struggles became more difficult to overcome as the game progressed.
San Antonio continued to create quality scoring opportunities, while the Timberwolves could not maintain the same level of efficiency.
Fourth Quarter: The Spurs Complete the Victory
The Spurs scored 29 points in the fourth quarter, compared with Minnesota’s 25.
Although the Timberwolves continued competing, they could not reduce the deficit enough to threaten San Antonio’s lead.
The final score of 139-109 confirmed the Spurs’ victory and ended the series.
San Antonio advanced after winning four of the six games against Minnesota.
Timberwolves vs Spurs Playoff Series Results
The 2026 Western Conference Semifinals featured six games between San Antonio and Minnesota.
The Timberwolves won Game 2 and Game 4, while the Spurs won Games 1, 3, 5, and 6.
Minnesota’s two victories demonstrated its ability to compete with San Antonio during the series. However, the Spurs won the final game and secured advancement.
Complete Series Results
| Game | Result | Winner |
| Game 1 | Spurs 104, Timberwolves 102 | Spurs |
| Game 2 | Timberwolves 133, Spurs 95 | Timberwolves |
| Game 3 | Spurs 115, Timberwolves 108 | Spurs |
| Game 4 | Timberwolves 114, Spurs 109 | Timberwolves |
| Game 5 | Timberwolves 97, Spurs 126 | Spurs |
| Game 6 | Spurs 139, Timberwolves 109 | Spurs |
The series included several substantial scoring differences.
Minnesota’s 38-point victory in Game 2 was its largest win of the matchup. The Timberwolves also won Game 4 by five points.
San Antonio responded by winning Game 5 by 29 points and Game 6 by 30 points.
The final two games were particularly important because they allowed the Spurs to close out the series after Minnesota had won two of the first four games.
What the Player Statistics Reveal About the Game
The individual and team statistics provide several useful insights into the way the contest unfolded.
San Antonio Had More Scoring Options
Castle led the Spurs with 32 points, but the team’s offense did not depend exclusively on him.
Fox scored 21 points, Wembanyama added 19, and Champagnie finished with 18.
This distribution gave San Antonio several players capable of producing points.
Minnesota had its own scoring contributors, including Edwards, Shannon, and Reid. However, the Spurs’ combination of scoring depth and shooting efficiency created a substantial advantage.
Efficient Shooting Reduced the Need for More Attempts
San Antonio attempted 88 field goals, compared with Minnesota’s 106.
Despite taking fewer shots, the Spurs made nine more field goals.
This difference demonstrates how shooting efficiency can influence the final score.
Minnesota generated more attempts, but many of those opportunities did not result in points.
San Antonio converted a much higher percentage of its attempts, allowing it to build a substantial lead without needing as many shots.
The Rebounding Difference Limited Minnesota’s Opportunities
The Spurs collected 68 rebounds, while Minnesota recorded 46.
That difference was especially important because it limited the Timberwolves’ ability to recover missed shots and create additional possessions.
Castle’s 11 rebounds were a significant contribution, particularly given his position as a guard.
For Minnesota, Reid and Randle each recorded seven rebounds, but the team did not collect enough boards to match San Antonio.
Defensive Pressure Changed Minnesota’s Offensive Options
San Antonio recorded 13 blocks and limited Minnesota to 37.7% shooting from the field.
The Spurs’ defensive presence around the basket made it difficult for the Timberwolves to finish efficiently.
Minnesota also had to deal with San Antonio’s ability to defend different positions.
The result was an offense that struggled to maintain consistent production, particularly during the third quarter.
Turnover Statistics Tell Only Part of the Story
Minnesota committed just five turnovers, compared with San Antonio’s 15.
At first glance, this statistic suggests that Minnesota protected the ball more effectively.
However, the Timberwolves could not turn that advantage into a competitive final score.
Their low shooting percentage and rebounding deficit outweighed the benefit of committing fewer turnovers.
This illustrates why a complete statistical analysis should examine several categories together instead of focusing on one number.
Why Stephon Castle’s Performance Was Important
Castle’s 32-point performance was one of the defining features of Game 6.
His scoring efficiency allowed San Antonio to maintain pressure on Minnesota without relying on difficult shots throughout the game.
He also contributed 11 rebounds and six assists, giving him a significant role in multiple areas.
His five made three-pointers added to the Spurs’ perimeter scoring advantage.
Castle’s performance also demonstrated the value of having a guard who can contribute in different ways.
A guard who can score efficiently, rebound, and create opportunities for teammates gives a team additional flexibility.
In this game, Castle’s contribution was particularly important because he combined all three responsibilities.
His performance was not simply about scoring 32 points. It was about producing across several statistical categories during a decisive playoff game.
The Importance of Victor Wembanyama’s Defensive Contribution
Wembanyama’s 19 points were lower than Castle’s total, but his role extended beyond scoring.
His three blocks helped San Antonio protect the basket.
His size and reach also influenced the way Minnesota could approach offensive possessions.
The Timberwolves had to consider his position when attempting shots near the rim.
This type of defensive impact can be difficult to measure through traditional box-score statistics alone.
A blocked shot appears in the official statistics, but a missed shot caused by a defender’s presence does not necessarily produce a defensive statistic.
Wembanyama’s combination of scoring, rebounding, and shot-blocking helped San Antonio maintain control of the game.
His contribution was an important part of the Spurs’ overall defensive performance.
What Went Wrong for Minnesota?
Minnesota’s defeat involved several statistical disadvantages.
The Timberwolves were able to generate a high number of field-goal attempts, but their shooting percentage remained low.
They also struggled to match San Antonio’s rebounding and shot-blocking production.
Poor Field-Goal Efficiency
Minnesota made 40 of its 106 field-goal attempts.
A 37.7% shooting percentage made it difficult to maintain a competitive scoring pace.
The Timberwolves needed more efficient production from their leading scorers to challenge the Spurs.
Limited Production From Julius Randle
Randle finished with three points on one made field goal from eight attempts.
His seven rebounds provided some value, but Minnesota needed more scoring from him.
His limited offensive contribution placed additional pressure on Edwards and the team’s other scorers.
Difficulty Matching San Antonio’s Perimeter Shooting
Minnesota made 12 three-pointers, while San Antonio made 18.
The six-shot difference was significant.
San Antonio’s 47.4% three-point percentage allowed it to create a scoring advantage from beyond the arc.
Minnesota’s 35.3% accuracy was not enough to match that production.
Rebounding Disadvantage
The Timberwolves finished with 46 rebounds, 22 fewer than San Antonio.
That difference limited their ability to control the glass and create additional scoring opportunities.
The Spurs’ rebounding advantage also helped them finish defensive possessions.
A Large Halftime Deficit
Minnesota entered halftime trailing 74-61.
The deficit increased further during the third quarter.
Although the Timberwolves continued scoring in the final period, the size of the lead made a comeback difficult.
The combination of shooting inefficiency, rebounding problems, and San Antonio’s strong offensive performance ultimately determined the result.
Historical Significance of the Game
Game 6 was an important milestone for San Antonio.
The victory sent the Spurs to the Western Conference Finals after they eliminated Minnesota in six games.
Castle’s performance also became a defining moment in his postseason campaign.
San Antonio’s 139 points demonstrated the offensive potential of a team capable of producing scoring contributions from several players.
For Minnesota, the game marked the end of its 2026 playoff run.
The Timberwolves had won two games in the series, including a substantial victory in Game 2. However, San Antonio won four games and secured the series.
The matchup also highlighted the importance of depth in playoff basketball.
San Antonio received strong performances from Castle, Fox, Wembanyama, Champagnie, and other contributors. Minnesota had several productive players, but its collective shooting performance was not sufficient in the deciding game.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Timberwolves vs San Antonio Spurs Game 6?
The San Antonio Spurs defeated the Minnesota Timberwolves 139-109 in Game 6 of the 2026 Western Conference Semifinals on May 15, 2026. The victory allowed San Antonio to win the series 4-2 and advance to the Western Conference Finals.
2. How many points did Stephon Castle score against the Timberwolves?
Stephon Castle scored 32 points against Minnesota in Game 6. He also recorded 11 rebounds and six assists, making him the leading scorer and rebounder for San Antonio.
3. How many points did Anthony Edwards score in Game 6?
Anthony Edwards scored 24 points for the Minnesota Timberwolves. He made nine of his 26 field-goal attempts and also recorded three steals.
4. What were Victor Wembanyama’s stats against the Timberwolves?
Victor Wembanyama finished Game 6 with 19 points, six rebounds, two assists, and three blocks. His defensive presence helped San Antonio limit Minnesota’s scoring opportunities near the basket.
5. What was the final score of the Spurs vs Timberwolves playoff series?
The San Antonio Spurs won the series 4-2. They won Games 1, 3, 5, and 6, while Minnesota won Games 2 and 4.
6. Which team had better shooting statistics in Game 6?
San Antonio had better shooting statistics. The Spurs made 49 of 88 field-goal attempts, shooting 55.7%. Minnesota made 40 of 106 attempts, shooting 37.7%. San Antonio also made more three-pointers, finishing with 18 compared with Minnesota’s 12.
Conclusion
The San Antonio Spurs completed their Western Conference Semifinals series against the Minnesota Timberwolves with a 139-109 victory in Game 6. Stephon Castle led the winning team with 32 points and 11 rebounds, while De’Aaron Fox contributed 21 points and nine assists. Victor Wembanyama added 19 points and three blocks, helping San Antonio maintain its advantage on both ends of the court.
Anthony Edwards led Minnesota with 24 points, while Terrence Shannon Jr. scored 21 and Naz Reid added 18. Ayo Dosunmu also contributed nine assists, but the Timberwolves struggled to convert their field-goal attempts efficiently.
The team statistics explain much of the result. San Antonio shot 55.7% from the field and 47.4% from three-point range. Minnesota finished with a 37.7% field-goal percentage. The Spurs also collected 22 more rebounds and recorded 11 more blocks.
Although Minnesota committed fewer turnovers and recorded more steals, those advantages could not compensate for its shooting and rebounding disadvantages.
The game ultimately demonstrated the importance of efficient shooting, balanced scoring, and defensive contributions in postseason basketball. Castle’s outstanding performance, Fox’s playmaking, and Wembanyama’s defensive presence were central to San Antonio’s series-clinching victory.
For readers examining the timberwolves vs san antonio spurs match player stats, Game 6 provides a detailed example of how individual performances and team statistics can combine to determine the outcome of a playoff series.
