Denver Nuggets vs Timberwolves Match Player Stats
The denver nuggets vs timberwolves match player stats from April 26, 2026, show how Minnesota used efficient shooting, strong rebounding, and a remarkable performance from Ayo Dosunmu to defeat Denver 112-96. The Western Conference first-round playoff game took place at Target Center in Minneapolis, where 18,978 fans watched the Timberwolves take a 3-1 series lead. Jamal Murray scored 30 points for Denver, while Nikola Jokic contributed 24 points, 15 rebounds, and nine assists. However, Minnesota’s balanced production and control of the boards proved decisive.
The result was important because Denver entered the playoffs with a 54-28 regular-season record, compared with Minnesota’s 49-33 record. The Nuggets had enjoyed a strong season, but the Timberwolves made home-court advantage count in Game 4. Minnesota scored 32 points in the third quarter and added another 30 in the fourth. Denver managed only 42 points across the final two quarters.
This breakdown examines the final score, individual player performances, team statistics, shooting efficiency, rebounding, and the wider playoff context. It also explains which numbers best reveal why Minnesota won and what the figures tell us about Denver’s difficulties in this matchup.
Denver Nuggets vs Timberwolves Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The fourth game of the Western Conference first-round series was played on April 26, 2026, at Target Center. Minnesota entered the contest looking to strengthen its position in the series, while Denver needed a victory to prevent the Timberwolves from moving closer to advancing.
Denver Nuggets
Away team
96
Final
112-96
Game 4
Minnesota Timberwolves
Home team
112
Date
April 26, 2026
Venue
Target Center
Attendance
18,978
Series after Game 4
Minnesota leads 3-1
Quarter-by-quarter scoring
| Quarter | Denver Nuggets | Minnesota Timberwolves |
| First quarter | 23 | 22 |
| Second quarter | 31 | 28 |
| Third quarter | 24 | 32 |
| Fourth quarter | 18 | 30 |
| Total | 96 | 112 |
Denver held a four-point advantage at halftime, leading 54-50. Minnesota then outscored the Nuggets by eight points in the third quarter and by another 12 in the fourth.
That change in scoring pace explains much of the final margin. Denver had a competitive first half, but Minnesota produced its strongest basketball after halftime. The Timberwolves scored 62 second-half points, while Denver managed 42.
The final 16-point difference was not simply the result of a slow start by Denver. It reflected a sustained advantage for Minnesota over the final 24 minutes.
Complete Team Statistics Comparison
The team numbers reveal why Minnesota won despite Denver having fewer turnovers and one more block. The Timberwolves shot more accurately, collected substantially more rebounds, and converted their free throws at an excellent rate.
| Statistical category | Denver Nuggets | Minnesota Timberwolves |
| Points | 96 | 112 |
| Field goals | 33/87 | 39/89 |
| Field-goal percentage | 38% | 44% |
| Three-pointers | 6/28 | 9/25 |
| Three-point percentage | 21% | 36% |
| Free throws | 24/28 | 25/26 |
| Free-throw percentage | 86% | 96% |
| Total rebounds | 38 | 50 |
| Offensive rebounds | 12 | 16 |
| Defensive rebounds | 26 | 34 |
| Assists | 21 | 22 |
| Turnovers | 10 | 12 |
| Steals | 7 | 6 |
| Blocks | 7 | 5 |
| Personal fouls | 22 | 22 |
Shooting accuracy created the difference
Minnesota made 39 of 89 field-goal attempts, while Denver made 33 of 87. That difference produced six additional made field goals for the Timberwolves.
The gap was even more noticeable from three-point range. Minnesota connected on nine of 25 attempts, compared with Denver’s six of 28. Those three extra three-pointers represented a nine-point advantage from beyond the arc.
The Timberwolves also scored more efficiently inside the three-point line. Based on the supplied shooting totals, Minnesota made 30 two-point field goals, while Denver made 27. That provided another six-point advantage from two-point shots.
Together, the extra two-point and three-point field goals account for 15 additional points before considering free throws. Minnesota also made one more free throw, completing the explanation for the 16-point final margin.
Rebounding gave Minnesota more opportunities
The Timberwolves collected 50 rebounds, compared with 38 for the Nuggets. This 12-rebound advantage was one of the clearest differences in the box score.
Minnesota recorded 16 offensive rebounds, four more than Denver’s 12. Offensive rebounds can extend possessions by allowing a team to recover a missed shot and attempt another one. Across a playoff game, those additional opportunities can affect both scoring and defensive fatigue.
The Timberwolves also collected eight more defensive rebounds. Their 34 defensive boards helped them finish possessions after Denver missed shots.
Denver’s 38 total rebounds were not necessarily poor in isolation. The problem was the comparison: Minnesota consistently secured more available rebounds and had more opportunities to control the pace of the game.
Turnovers were not Denver’s main problem
Denver committed 10 turnovers, while Minnesota recorded 12. The Nuggets therefore had a two-turnover advantage.
That figure matters because turnovers can give opponents easy transition opportunities. However, Minnesota still won comfortably despite committing more mistakes.
This is an important lesson when interpreting basketball statistics: the team with fewer turnovers does not automatically win. Denver’s advantage in ball security could not overcome its weaker shooting and rebounding numbers.
The Timberwolves also finished with 22 assists, one more than Denver’s 21. Both teams generated assisted baskets, but Minnesota’s greater shooting efficiency helped convert its possessions into more points.
Denver Nuggets Player Stats and Individual Performances
Denver’s leading players delivered productive individual numbers, but the team struggled to turn those contributions into enough points. Jamal Murray led the Nuggets with 30 points, while Nikola Jokic came close to recording a triple-double.
Jamal Murray: 30 points
Murray was Denver’s leading scorer, finishing with 30 points. His scoring represented nearly one-third of the Nuggets’ total output.
That level of production showed his importance to Denver’s offense. When a team scores only 96 points, a 30-point performance becomes even more significant because it accounts for such a large share of the final total.
However, Murray’s scoring alone could not compensate for the team’s 38% field-goal percentage and 21% three-point shooting. Basketball offense depends on how effectively the entire lineup creates and converts opportunities, not simply on one player’s point total.
The available game data confirms Murray’s scoring total but does not provide his individual shooting splits. Therefore, it would be inaccurate to assign him a specific field-goal percentage or claim that particular shot types caused his performance.
Nikola Jokic: 24 points, 15 rebounds, and 9 assists
Jokic produced one of Denver’s most complete statistical performances:
- Points: 24
- Rebounds: 15
- Assists: 9
He led Denver in both rebounds and assists while finishing as its second-highest scorer. His nine assists also placed him one assist short of a double-digit total in that category.
Jokic’s combination of scoring, rebounding, and playmaking highlights why he is central to Denver’s offensive system. He can score near the basket, create opportunities for teammates, and help secure defensive rebounds.
His 15 rebounds were particularly important because Minnesota won the overall rebounding battle by 12. Even with Jokic collecting 15 boards, Denver’s other players could not collectively match the Timberwolves’ total.
This does not mean Jokic was responsible for Denver’s defeat. Individual rebounds cannot explain an entire team’s performance, and the supplied statistics do not establish which specific possessions determined the outcome. They do show that his strong personal contribution was insufficient to overcome Minnesota’s collective advantages.
Aaron Gordon and Christian Braun
Denver’s starting lineup also included Aaron Gordon and Christian Braun. Their plus-minus figures were among the less favorable numbers reported for the Nuggets.
| Player | Reported plus-minus |
| Aaron Gordon | -7 |
| Christian Braun | -9 |
Plus-minus measures the difference between a team’s points scored and points conceded while a particular player is on the court. A negative figure means the opponent outscored that player’s team during his playing time.
Braun’s -9 was the more negative of these two reported figures. Gordon’s -7 was also below zero.
These numbers should be interpreted carefully. Plus-minus does not measure individual defensive ability or overall player quality on its own. It is influenced by teammates, opponents, lineup combinations, and the sequence of possessions.
The figures indicate that Denver was outscored during the reported minutes for both players, but they do not independently explain why.
Denver’s starting lineup
The Nuggets’ listed starters were:
| Player | Jersey number |
| Aaron Gordon | 32 |
| Cameron Johnson | 23 |
| Nikola Jokic | 15 |
| Jamal Murray | 27 |
| Christian Braun | 0 |
Denver also had several listed bench options, including Bruce Brown, Tim Hardaway Jr., Jonas Valanciunas, Tyus Jones, Zeke Nnaji, Julian Strawther, Spencer Jones, Jalen Pickett, and DaRon Holmes II.
The supplied data does not include individual minutes, shooting splits, or point totals for every bench player. It would therefore be misleading to rank the reserves by scoring or claim that a particular substitution caused the defeat.
What the team totals establish is that Denver scored 96 points overall and made only six three-pointers. Any deeper assessment of bench contributions would require the full individual box score.
Minnesota Timberwolves Player Stats and Standout Performances
Minnesota’s individual numbers featured a remarkable scoring performance from Ayo Dosunmu, valuable production from Naz Reid, and strong rebounding from Rudy Gobert. Mike Conley also led the team in assists.
The combination of these contributions helped Minnesota move beyond a close first half and establish a comfortable final margin.
Ayo Dosunmu: 43 points
Dosunmu was Minnesota’s leading scorer, recording 43 points. This was the highest individual scoring total listed for either team in the supplied Game 4 statistics.
His 43 points represented approximately 38.4% of Minnesota’s 112 points. That makes his contribution especially important when examining how the Timberwolves created their scoring advantage.
The difference between Dosunmu’s 43 points and Denver’s leading scorer Murray’s 30 points was 13 points. Dosunmu alone therefore scored 13 more points than Denver’s highest-scoring player.
Still, an individual scoring comparison does not tell the entire story. Minnesota also won the rebounding battle, shot more accurately as a team, and made more three-pointers. Dosunmu’s scoring was a major part of the result, but it was supported by advantages across several statistical categories.
The available data does not include his individual field-goal attempts, three-point attempts, or free-throw totals. Those details would be necessary to determine precisely how efficiently he produced his 43 points.
Naz Reid: 17 points
Reid finished as Minnesota’s second-highest scorer with 17 points. His contribution gave the Timberwolves another meaningful scoring source alongside Dosunmu.
A secondary scorer can be especially valuable in playoff basketball because defenses often devote significant attention to a team’s main offensive threats. When another player contributes consistently, the offense becomes less dependent on one scorer.
Reid’s reported plus-minus was +14, tied with Jaden McDaniels for the highest highlighted figure among the Timberwolves players in the supplied data.
That positive figure means Minnesota outscored Denver by 14 points during Reid’s time on the court. It does not prove that he personally caused the difference, but it provides useful context for his overall contribution to the team’s performance.
Rudy Gobert: 15 rebounds
Gobert led Minnesota with 15 rebounds, matching Jokic’s total for Denver.
His rebounding performance was central to a game in which Minnesota collected 50 boards overall. The Timberwolves secured 16 offensive rebounds and 34 defensive rebounds, giving them a substantial team advantage.
Gobert’s individual total illustrates the value of having a reliable rebounder who can help finish defensive possessions and create opportunities for additional attacks.
However, rebounds should be considered alongside the contributions of the entire frontcourt. The team advantage of 50-38 cannot be attributed to Gobert alone because the available figures do not break down every player’s contribution to the rebounding battle.
Mike Conley: 7 assists
Conley led Minnesota with seven assists. His playmaking helped connect the team’s offensive possessions and create scoring opportunities for teammates.
Assists are useful indicators of ball movement, but they do not capture every contribution a player makes to an offense. A pass that leads to a missed shot may not produce an assist, even if it creates a good scoring opportunity.
Minnesota finished with 22 assists as a team, one more than Denver. This relatively small difference suggests that the Timberwolves’ victory was not based on a huge gap in recorded assists. Instead, their better shooting percentages and stronger rebounding were more pronounced statistical advantages.
Jaden McDaniels and Minnesota’s supporting cast
McDaniels recorded a plus-minus of +14, matching Reid’s reported figure. Both players were on the court during a period in which Minnesota outscored Denver by a substantial margin.
Minnesota’s listed starters were:
| Player | Jersey number |
| Julius Randle | 30 |
| Jaden McDaniels | 3 |
| Rudy Gobert | 27 |
| Donte DiVincenzo | 0 |
| Anthony Edwards | 5 |
The listed bench included Naz Reid, Mike Conley, Ayo Dosunmu, Kyle Anderson, Terrence Shannon Jr., Bones Hyland, Joe Ingles, Julian Phillips, Joan Beringer, and Jaylen Clark.
The available information confirms that Dosunmu led the team in scoring, Reid was the second-highest scorer, Gobert led in rebounds, and Conley led in assists. It does not supply complete individual statistics for every listed starter and reserve.
For that reason, the strongest analysis focuses on confirmed figures rather than assigning unsupported scoring totals to the rest of the lineup.
Shooting Efficiency: Why Minnesota’s Accuracy Mattered
Shooting efficiency provides one of the clearest explanations for the final score. Minnesota made 44% of its field-goal attempts, while Denver made 38%.
Although a six-percentage-point difference may seem modest, it can create a meaningful scoring gap over nearly 90 attempts.
Field-goal production
Minnesota converted 39 of 89 field goals. Denver made 33 of 87.
The Timberwolves therefore made six more shots from the field despite attempting only two additional shots. That combination of similar attempt volume and greater accuracy was a major advantage.
This is a more useful comparison than looking only at total field-goal attempts. The teams had similar opportunities by this measure, but Minnesota converted more of them.
Three-point shooting
The three-point figures were even more revealing.
| Measure | Denver | Minnesota |
| Attempts | 28 | 25 |
| Made | 6 | 9 |
| Percentage | 21% | 36% |
| Points from three-pointers | 18 | 27 |
Denver attempted three more three-pointers but made three fewer. The result was a nine-point advantage for Minnesota from beyond the arc.
The difference also highlights why more attempts do not automatically mean better offense. A team must balance shot volume with shot quality and conversion rate.
Minnesota made 36% of its three-point attempts, compared with Denver’s 21%. That 15-percentage-point gap was substantial enough to influence the overall result.
Free-throw shooting
Both teams reached the free-throw line frequently, but Minnesota was more accurate.
Denver made 24 of 28 free throws, while Minnesota converted 25 of 26. The Timberwolves made one more free throw despite attempting two fewer.
Minnesota’s 96% rate was particularly strong. Denver’s 86% was also respectable, so free throws were not the largest source of the scoring gap. The more significant differences came from field-goal efficiency and rebounding.
When reviewing a playoff box score, it is important to separate the largest statistical differences from the smaller ones. In this game, three-point shooting and total rebounds stand out more clearly than free-throw accuracy alone.
Rebounding and Possession Control
Rebounding is often one of the most important factors in playoff basketball because it determines who gains control after a missed shot. Minnesota’s 50-38 advantage was a major part of its victory.
Offensive rebounds created extra chances
Minnesota recorded 16 offensive rebounds, while Denver collected 12. These additional recoveries gave the Timberwolves more opportunities to continue possessions after missed shots.
Offensive rebounds can have several effects:
- They create second-chance scoring opportunities.
- They can force defenders to remain near the basket instead of preparing for a fast break.
- They can increase pressure on a defense that has already contested one shot.
- They can help a team maintain offensive momentum during a scoring run.
The statistics do not identify the exact points scored from second-chance possessions. Therefore, the four-rebound advantage should be treated as evidence of greater offensive rebounding production, not as proof of a specific number of additional points.
Defensive rebounds helped Minnesota close possessions
Minnesota collected 34 defensive rebounds, compared with Denver’s 26. This eight-rebound difference complemented its advantage on the offensive glass.
Defensive rebounds matter because they help prevent opponents from extending possessions. Once the defense secures the ball, it can begin its next offensive possession.
Denver’s 26 defensive rebounds indicate that the Nuggets still recovered a substantial number of missed shots. However, Minnesota finished with eight more defensive boards and 12 more rebounds overall.
Why rebounding matters beyond the final total
A rebound is not automatically a scoring opportunity, and a high rebound total does not guarantee victory. Its value depends on what happens next.
An offensive rebound followed by a missed second attempt may produce no additional points. A defensive rebound followed by a turnover may also fail to create an effective possession.
Nevertheless, the combination of Minnesota’s rebounding advantage and its better shooting efficiency makes the 50-38 total especially significant. The Timberwolves were both recovering more missed shots and converting a higher percentage of their field-goal attempts.
Quarter-by-Quarter Analysis of Game 4
The scoring progression explains how Minnesota transformed a competitive contest into a comfortable victory.
First quarter: Denver stayed close
Denver scored 23 points, while Minnesota scored 22. The one-point difference indicated that neither team established a meaningful early advantage.
Minnesota’s eventual 16-point victory was not predetermined by the opening period. Both teams remained close, and the scoring gap was minimal.
Second quarter: Denver took a halftime lead
The Nuggets scored 31 points in the second quarter, compared with Minnesota’s 28. This gave Denver a 54-50 halftime advantage.
Denver’s seven-point second-quarter scoring increase from its opening period helped it move ahead. Minnesota also improved its scoring output, but the Nuggets had the stronger quarter.
At halftime, Denver was in a competitive position. The challenge was maintaining that level of production after the break.
Third quarter: Minnesota changed the momentum
Minnesota scored 32 points in the third quarter, while Denver scored 24.
The Timberwolves outscored the Nuggets by eight points during this period. That reversed Denver’s four-point halftime advantage and gave Minnesota a four-point lead entering the fourth quarter.
This was a crucial turning point in the scoring pattern. Minnesota’s offense produced its highest quarter of the game, while Denver’s output declined from 31 points in the second quarter to 24.
Fourth quarter: Minnesota extended its lead
The Timberwolves scored another 30 points in the fourth quarter. Denver managed only 18.
Minnesota’s 12-point advantage in the final period was the largest quarter-by-quarter scoring gap in the game. It turned a four-point lead into a 16-point final margin.
The fourth-quarter figures also show that Minnesota maintained its scoring output after the strong third quarter. Denver, by contrast, recorded its lowest-scoring period of the contest.
The second-half scoring difference
| Period | Denver | Minnesota | Minnesota’s margin |
| First half | 54 | 50 | -4 |
| Second half | 42 | 62 | +20 |
| Full game | 96 | 112 | +16 |
The second-half difference was decisive. Minnesota outscored Denver by 20 points after halftime, more than enough to overcome its four-point deficit.
These figures establish when the game changed. They do not independently identify every tactical adjustment, defensive assignment, or substitution responsible for the turnaround.
How the Team Statistics Explain the Final Result
A useful box-score analysis connects individual categories rather than examining each number in isolation.
Minnesota’s victory becomes easier to understand when three major factors are considered together.
1. Better shooting converted possessions into points
Minnesota made six more field goals and three more three-pointers. Its 44% overall field-goal percentage was higher than Denver’s 38%.
The Timberwolves also made 96% of their free throws. Their ability to convert opportunities helped them finish with 112 points.
Denver’s 38% field-goal percentage and 21% three-point percentage limited its scoring despite a 30-point performance from Murray and 24 points from Jokic.
2. Rebounding helped Minnesota maintain possession
The Timberwolves collected 12 more rebounds overall. Their advantage included four additional offensive rebounds and eight additional defensive rebounds.
These numbers indicate that Minnesota controlled the rebounding battle on both ends of the floor.
The combination of offensive rebounds and improved shooting was especially valuable. Recovering a missed shot can create another opportunity, while accurate shooting helps convert possessions into points.
3. Minnesota produced a stronger second half
The Timberwolves scored 62 points after halftime, while Denver scored 42.
That 20-point second-half difference was the largest explanation of the final scoring margin. It also coincided with Minnesota’s better overall shooting and rebounding totals.
The available figures do not prove that one specific defensive strategy caused Denver’s decline. However, they clearly show that Minnesota’s production improved relative to Denver’s during the final two quarters.
Plus-Minus: What the Numbers Mean
Plus-minus is a useful supporting statistic when examining individual player performances, but it should never be interpreted without context.
The supplied Game 4 data highlights three players:
| Player | Team | Plus-minus |
| Jaden McDaniels | Minnesota | +14 |
| Naz Reid | Minnesota | +14 |
| Christian Braun | Denver | -9 |
| Aaron Gordon | Denver | -7 |
McDaniels and Reid had the strongest highlighted figures for Minnesota. Denver’s two highlighted figures were negative.
A positive plus-minus means the player’s team scored more points than its opponent while that player was on the court. A negative number means the opponent scored more during those minutes.
However, plus-minus does not isolate a player’s individual impact. A player can record a positive figure because of strong team performance, even if his personal scoring total is modest. Similarly, a talented player can finish with a negative figure when his team struggles during his minutes.
The metric becomes more informative when combined with shooting, rebounding, assists, turnovers, and playing time. Since complete individual minutes and box-score figures are not available in the supplied summary, the reported plus-minus values should be treated as context rather than a definitive player ranking.
Playoff Series Context: What Game 4 Meant
The result placed Minnesota ahead 3-1 in the Western Conference first-round series. That gave the Timberwolves a significant advantage because they needed only one more victory to advance.
The series results supplied for the matchup were:
| Game | Date | Result |
| Game 1 | April 19, 2026 | Minnesota 116, Denver 105 |
| Game 2 | April 21, 2026 | Denver 114, Minnesota 119 |
| Game 3 | April 24, 2026 | Minnesota 113, Denver 96 |
| Game 4 | April 26, 2026 | Minnesota 112, Denver 96 |
| Game 5 | April 28, 2026 | Minnesota 125, Denver 113 |
| Game 6 | May 1, 2026 | Minnesota 110, Denver 98 |
According to these supplied results, Minnesota won all six games and completed the series with a 4-2 series record.
There is an important distinction between Game 4’s result and the series outcome. The 112-96 score describes one game, while the 3-1 standing describes the series position immediately after that game. The later results show how the series progressed beyond that point.
For readers analyzing the matchup, this context helps explain why Game 4 mattered. Minnesota was not simply trying to win a regular-season contest. It was attempting to move closer to eliminating a team that had finished the regular season with 54 wins.
The Nuggets’ regular-season record of 54-28 compared with Minnesota’s 49-33 record also shows why the playoff result was notable. Regular-season performance provides useful background, but it does not guarantee postseason success.
Where to Verify the Official Box Score
For exact player statistics, the official game record is the best place to check individual minutes, field-goal attempts, three-point shooting, free throws, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, and turnovers.
The supplied data identifies ESPN as the source for this game. Its official ESPN box score for Game 4 is the relevant reference for checking the recorded numbers.
When comparing player statistics, verify that the game date and game number match. Playoff series often feature multiple games between the same teams within a short period, and mixing statistics from different games can lead to inaccurate conclusions.
For the same reason, a player’s performance should be evaluated using the correct game’s figures rather than regular-season averages or statistics from another playoff matchup.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Denver Nuggets vs Minnesota Timberwolves Game 4 matchup?
The Minnesota Timberwolves defeated the Denver Nuggets 112-96 on April 26, 2026, at Target Center in Minneapolis. The victory gave Minnesota a 3-1 lead in the Western Conference first-round playoff series.
2. Who scored the most points in Game 4?
Ayo Dosunmu led all listed scorers with 43 points for Minnesota. Jamal Murray was Denver’s leading scorer with 30 points, while Nikola Jokic added 24.
3. What were Nikola Jokic’s stats against Minnesota in Game 4?
Nikola Jokic recorded 24 points, 15 rebounds, and nine assists. He led Denver in rebounds and assists and finished as the Nuggets’ second-highest scorer.
4. How many rebounds did Minnesota have compared with Denver?
Minnesota collected 50 total rebounds, while Denver recorded 38. The Timberwolves also held advantages in offensive rebounds, with 16 compared with Denver’s 12, and defensive rebounds, with 34 compared with 26.
5. Why did Minnesota win Game 4?
Minnesota benefited from better shooting accuracy, a 12-rebound advantage, and a stronger second half. The Timberwolves shot 44% from the field and 36% from three-point range, while Denver shot 38% and 21%, respectively.
6. What was the series score after Game 4?
Minnesota led the series 3-1 after its 112-96 victory on April 26, 2026. The additional results provided for the series show Minnesota subsequently won Games 5 and 6 to finish the series 4-2.
Conclusion
The denver nuggets vs timberwolves match player stats reveal a victory built on efficient shooting, rebounding strength, and a decisive second-half performance. Minnesota won 112-96 after trailing by four points at halftime, then outscored Denver by 20 points over the final two quarters.
Ayo Dosunmu’s 43 points led all scorers, while Naz Reid added 17 points. Rudy Gobert secured 15 rebounds, and Mike Conley led Minnesota with seven assists. For Denver, Jamal Murray scored 30 points, and Nikola Jokic contributed 24 points, 15 rebounds, and nine assists.
The most revealing team figures were Minnesota’s 50-38 rebounding advantage, its 44% field-goal accuracy compared with Denver’s 38%, and its 36% three-point shooting compared with Denver’s 21%. Although Denver committed fewer turnovers, it could not overcome those disadvantages.
Taken together, the numbers demonstrate why evaluating a basketball game requires more than checking the final score or identifying the leading scorer. Shooting efficiency, possession control, individual production, and quarter-by-quarter scoring all contribute to a fuller understanding of the result.
