San Antonio Spurs vs Oklahoma City Thunder Match Player Stats
The san antonio spurs vs oklahoma city thunder match player stats from the reported May 30, 2026, Western Conference Finals Game 7 provide a detailed look at how San Antonio secured a 111-103 victory over Oklahoma City. According to the supplied box score data, the Spurs won the series 4-3, overcoming a 35-point performance from Shai Gilgeous-Alexander with balanced scoring, productive three-point shooting, and contributions from several key players. The reported result highlights an important basketball lesson: an outstanding individual performance does not always guarantee a team victory.
This game analysis examines the final score, individual player performances, team statistics, shooting efficiency, rebounding, turnovers, and the factors that shaped the reported outcome. It also explains how to interpret the numbers beyond the scoreboard, helping readers understand which statistics matter most when evaluating a high-pressure playoff game.
Data note: This article uses the game information supplied for this analysis. The reported date differs between the supplied page title and game information, so May 30, 2026, is used as the title date. The result and player statistics should be checked against the official ESPN box score before publication. The analysis below does not claim independent verification of the supplied figures.
San Antonio Spurs vs Oklahoma City Thunder Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The reported Game 7 ended with San Antonio winning 111-103 at Paycom Center in Oklahoma City. The eight-point margin reflects a competitive contest in which both teams produced strong offensive stretches, but the Spurs finished with a more productive three-point shooting performance.
San Antonio Spurs
Reported winner · Western Conference Finals
111
Oklahoma City Thunder
Reported runner-up · Home team
103
Venue
Paycom Center
Attendance
18,203
Series result
Spurs lead 4-3
Point difference
Spurs +8
Why the reported result matters
A Game 7 is different from an ordinary regular-season matchup because the result determines which team advances. Every possession can carry greater importance, and coaches must balance offensive execution, defensive adjustments, player fatigue, and the risk of turnovers.
The supplied information lists San Antonio with a 62-20 regular-season record and Oklahoma City with a 64-18 record. Those figures suggest that both teams entered the reported postseason scenario with excellent regular-season results. Oklahoma City’s listed home record of 34-7 also makes the reported victory particularly notable.
However, regular-season records cannot explain a playoff result by themselves. The most useful approach is to examine what happened in the game: shooting, ball movement, rebounding, defensive pressure, and contributions from the players beyond the leading scorers.
Quarter-by-Quarter Score Breakdown
The quarter-by-quarter scoring data provide a useful explanation of how San Antonio built its eight-point advantage.
| Quarter | San Antonio Spurs | Oklahoma City Thunder |
| First quarter | 32 | 25 |
| Second quarter | 24 | 28 |
| Third quarter | 24 | 24 |
| Fourth quarter | 31 | 26 |
| Final score | 111 | 103 |
San Antonio won the first quarter by seven points, Oklahoma City won the second quarter by four, and both teams scored 24 points in the third. The Spurs then outscored the Thunder by five points in the fourth quarter.
First quarter: San Antonio establishes an early advantage
San Antonio’s 32-point opening quarter was its highest-scoring period in the supplied breakdown, excluding the fourth quarter, when it scored 31. The early advantage gave the Spurs a useful cushion before Oklahoma City could establish greater offensive momentum.
A strong opening quarter can affect the rest of a playoff game in several ways. It may force the opposing coach to adjust defensive assignments, encourage quicker offensive possessions, or change the timing of substitutions. It can also give the team with the lead more flexibility when deciding whether to attack aggressively or prioritize possession security.
The score alone does not establish which particular plays created San Antonio’s early lead. Without a verified play-by-play review, it would be inaccurate to attribute the opening advantage to a specific lineup, defensive scheme, or player sequence.
Second quarter: Oklahoma City responds
The Thunder scored 28 points in the second quarter, four more than San Antonio’s 24. This response reduced the impact of the opening period and showed that the reported game remained competitive.
For Oklahoma City, the second quarter would have been an opportunity to improve offensive rhythm and prevent the deficit from growing. For San Antonio, the challenge was to maintain efficient possessions rather than force difficult shots simply to extend the lead.
The quarter also illustrates why a single scoring run does not tell the whole story. A team can win a period and still trail overall if it previously surrendered a larger advantage.
Third quarter: Both defenses keep the scoring level
Both teams scored 24 points in the third quarter. This even result suggests that neither side created a scoring advantage during that period.
A tied quarter often makes the final period especially important because the remaining margin must be gained through better execution, more efficient shot selection, defensive stops, or successful free throws.
The supplied team figures show that San Antonio attempted 40 three-pointers during the game and made 17. That shooting profile is relevant when considering how a team can create separation even when its overall field-goal percentage is similar to its opponent’s.
Fourth quarter: The Spurs finish stronger
San Antonio scored 31 points in the final quarter, while Oklahoma City scored 26. The five-point difference was enough to reinforce the Spurs’ reported victory.
Late-game performance depends on more than scoring totals. Teams must manage the clock, recognize defensive coverage, protect the ball, secure rebounds, and avoid giving away free points at the foul line.
The available figures do not establish which individual plays decided the final minutes. Still, the fourth-quarter scoring advantage is a clear statistical indicator of San Antonio’s stronger finish in the supplied breakdown.
Complete Team Statistics Comparison
The following table summarizes the principal team statistics provided for the matchup.
| Statistic | San Antonio Spurs | Oklahoma City Thunder |
| Points | 111 | 103 |
| Field goals made/attempted | 40/88 | 37/83 |
| Field-goal percentage | 45% | 45% |
| Three-pointers made/attempted | 17/40 | 12/35 |
| Three-point percentage | 43% | 34% |
| Free throws made/attempted | 14/19 | 17/22 |
| Free-throw percentage | 74% | 77% |
| Total rebounds | 40 | 38 |
| Offensive rebounds | 15 | 10 |
| Defensive rebounds | 25 | 28 |
| Assists | 21 | 23 |
| Turnovers | 12 | 13 |
| Steals | 9 | 9 |
| Blocks | 2 | 5 |
| Personal fouls | 18 | 16 |
Percentages are reproduced from the supplied data and rounded as provided.
Field-goal efficiency: Similar percentages, different outcomes
Both teams are listed at 45% from the field. San Antonio made 40 of 88 attempts, while Oklahoma City made 37 of 83.
The matching rounded percentages can hide meaningful differences. San Antonio made three more field goals and attempted five more shots. More importantly, its advantage from three-point range helped turn a similar overall field-goal percentage into a higher final score.
This is a useful distinction for readers analyzing basketball statistics. Field-goal percentage measures the proportion of field-goal attempts that become successful shots, but it does not account for the extra point awarded for a made three-pointer.
Three-point shooting: San Antonio’s clearest advantage
The Spurs made 17 three-pointers on 40 attempts, compared with 12 on 35 attempts for the Thunder.
That represents a five-shot advantage in made three-pointers. Since each successful three-pointer is worth three points, the Spurs scored 51 points from beyond the arc, while Oklahoma City scored 36.
Three-point production
San Antonio
17 made
42.5% calculated from 17/40, reported as 43%
Oklahoma City
12 made
34.3% calculated from 12/35, reported as 34%
The five additional made threes account for a 15-point difference in three-point scoring. This does not mean three-point shooting alone explains the final eight-point margin, because other scoring categories can offset or increase that advantage. It does, however, identify the strongest numerical difference in the supplied team totals.
Oklahoma City attempted fewer threes but made 12, giving it a respectable level of perimeter production. The difference was efficiency: San Antonio converted 42.5% of its attempts, while the Thunder converted approximately 34.3%.
For anyone studying the matchup, this is a more informative comparison than simply noting which team made more shots overall.
Free throws: Oklahoma City has the small advantage
The Thunder made 17 of 22 free throws, compared with San Antonio’s 14 of 19.
Oklahoma City therefore scored three more points at the free-throw line. Its listed 77% conversion rate was also slightly higher than San Antonio’s 74%.
Free throws can be especially important in postseason basketball because they allow a team to score without needing to make a field goal. They can also influence defensive decisions, as players must avoid unnecessary contact when protecting a lead or contesting a shot.
Despite its advantage at the line, Oklahoma City did not score enough additional points elsewhere to overcome San Antonio’s reported shooting advantage.
Rebounding: Offensive boards favor San Antonio
San Antonio collected 40 total rebounds, while Oklahoma City recorded 38. The two-rebound difference is modest, but the split between offensive and defensive rebounds is more revealing.
The Spurs recorded 15 offensive rebounds against 10 for the Thunder. Oklahoma City, by contrast, had 28 defensive rebounds compared with San Antonio’s 25.
Offensive rebounds can generate second-chance scoring opportunities. A missed shot does not necessarily end an offensive possession if the attacking team retrieves the ball and creates another attempt. Defensive rebounds complete the stop by securing possession after an opponent misses.
San Antonio’s five-rebound advantage on the offensive glass is therefore a meaningful part of the statistical comparison. It suggests that the Spurs had more opportunities to recover their own missed shots, although the exact number of points produced from those opportunities cannot be established from the supplied totals alone.
Assists and turnovers: Ball movement versus possession security
Oklahoma City recorded 23 assists, two more than San Antonio’s 21. Both teams also registered nine steals, but the Spurs committed 12 turnovers compared with the Thunder’s 13.
Assists offer a useful indication of how frequently made baskets followed a pass credited as an assist. They do not capture every aspect of teamwork, but they help readers evaluate offensive distribution.
Turnovers measure lost possessions. In a close game, reducing turnovers can be valuable because it preserves scoring opportunities and prevents the opponent from gaining transition chances.
The Thunder’s two-assist advantage suggests slightly higher recorded assisted scoring activity, while San Antonio’s one-turnover advantage indicates marginally better ball security. Neither difference is large enough to establish a complete tactical explanation on its own.
Defensive statistics: Oklahoma City records more blocks
Oklahoma City finished with five blocks, compared with two for San Antonio. Both teams had nine steals.
Blocks indicate shots that defenders legally deflect or stop, while steals record occasions when a defender takes possession from the opponent. These statistics measure different defensive actions, and neither fully represents the quality of a team’s defense.
The Thunder’s higher block total may reflect more successful rim contests or other shot challenges, but the available data do not identify where those blocks occurred or how they affected later possessions.
San Antonio’s reported win despite recording fewer blocks reinforces an important point: defensive performance cannot be assessed using one statistic in isolation. Rebounding, positioning, contest quality, fouls, and the ability to finish defensive possessions all matter.
San Antonio Spurs Player Stats and Individual Performances
The individual box score helps explain how San Antonio produced enough offense to win the reported game. Victor Wembanyama led the Spurs with 22 points, while Julian Champagnie scored 20. Stephon Castle, De’Aaron Fox, and Dylan Harper also contributed across multiple statistical categories.
The following player figures come from the supplied game data. Only the listed statistics are included, rather than estimating missing rebounds, assists, shooting splits, or minutes played.
| Spurs player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Steals |
| Victor Wembanyama | 22 | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied |
| Julian Champagnie | 20 | Not supplied | Not supplied | Not supplied |
| Stephon Castle | 16 | 6 | 6 | Not supplied |
| De’Aaron Fox | 15 | Not supplied | 5 | 3 |
| Dylan Harper | 12 | 7 | 3 | Not supplied |
Victor Wembanyama: San Antonio’s leading scorer
Victor Wembanyama led the reported Spurs scoring chart with 22 points. His position at the top of the list makes him a natural starting point for any analysis of San Antonio’s offensive production.
A leading scorer’s value, however, cannot be measured by points alone. Shooting efficiency, turnovers, defensive impact, rebounding, and the quality of shots created all influence how a player contributes to a team’s performance.
The supplied data do not include Wembanyama’s individual shooting attempts, blocks, rebounds, or minutes. It would therefore be misleading to assign him a specific shooting percentage or claim that he dominated a particular defensive matchup.
What can be established is that his 22 points gave San Antonio a reliable scoring contribution in a game where the team needed multiple players to deliver.
Julian Champagnie: A valuable 20-point contribution
Julian Champagnie scored 20 points, finishing just two points behind Wembanyama in the reported Spurs scoring totals.
A second scorer reaching 20 points can make an offense more difficult to defend. Opponents cannot focus entirely on the leading scorer if another player is also converting a meaningful share of the team’s scoring opportunities.
Champagnie’s reported total was especially relevant alongside San Antonio’s 17 made three-pointers. However, the supplied information does not specify how many of his points came from three-point shots, so his individual perimeter production should not be confused with the team’s overall three-point advantage.
His 20-point performance illustrates the importance of scoring depth. San Antonio did not depend on one player to provide all its offensive production.
Stephon Castle: A balanced contribution across the box score
Stephon Castle recorded 16 points, six rebounds, and six assists in the supplied figures.
His contribution stands out because it spans three major statistical categories. Scoring adds points to the scoreboard, rebounding helps determine who controls possession after missed shots, and assists record passes that directly lead to made field goals.
A player who contributes in all three areas can support a team’s offense without needing to lead the scoring chart. Six assists also indicate that Castle helped create scoring opportunities for teammates, although the data do not identify the specific possessions or combinations involved.
For readers evaluating player performance, this type of line is often more informative than points alone. It shows a broader range of contributions while avoiding the assumption that one player was responsible for the entire offensive result.
De’Aaron Fox: Scoring, playmaking, and defensive activity
De’Aaron Fox recorded 15 points, five assists, and three steals according to the supplied data.
His five assists indicate a playmaking contribution, while his three steals represent one-third of San Antonio’s nine recorded steals. That is a noteworthy individual share of the team’s total.
Steals can interrupt an opponent’s offense and create transition opportunities, but they do not automatically produce points. A team still needs to convert the resulting possession into an effective scoring opportunity.
Fox’s listed numbers therefore suggest a varied contribution across scoring, creation, and defense. Without the full play-by-play, it is not possible to determine how much of the reported result was directly attributable to his steals or when they occurred.
Dylan Harper: Bench production with rebounding value
Dylan Harper contributed 12 points, seven rebounds, and three assists.
His seven rebounds were one more than Castle’s six, while his scoring provided another double-digit contribution for the Spurs. The combination matters because bench players can help a team maintain production when starters rest or when a matchup requires a different lineup.
Bench scoring should not automatically be treated as superior to starter production. Minutes played, efficiency, defensive responsibilities, and the quality of opposing lineups all affect how valuable a contribution is.
The supplied numbers nevertheless establish Harper as a notable contributor in the reported performance. His 12 points also meant San Antonio had another listed scorer beyond its three leading point totals.
What the Spurs’ scoring distribution tells us
The five listed San Antonio contributors scored a combined 85 points:
- Wembanyama: 22 points
- Champagnie: 20 points
- Castle: 16 points
- Fox: 15 points
- Harper: 12 points
The remaining 26 points of the team’s 111-point total came from other scoring contributions, based on the supplied figures.
This distribution offers a useful analytical takeaway. San Antonio had two 20-point scorers, two additional players with at least 15 points, and another contributor with 12. That spread reduced the team’s reliance on a single high-scoring performance.
It is also worth distinguishing a team’s leading scorer from its most complete contributor. Wembanyama led in points, but Castle’s combination of scoring, rebounding, and assists provides a broader statistical profile in the available data. Which player had the greatest overall impact would require more information, including shooting efficiency, defensive possessions, minutes, and lineup context.
Oklahoma City Thunder Player Stats and Individual Performances
Oklahoma City’s supplied player statistics show a different scoring profile. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander led the team with 35 points and nine assists, while Cason Wallace scored 17 points. Jared McCain and Jaylin Williams each reached double figures, with Williams also recording 10 rebounds and four assists.
| Thunder player | Points | Rebounds | Assists |
| Shai Gilgeous-Alexander | 35 | Not supplied | 9 |
| Cason Wallace | 17 | 7 | 4 |
| Jared McCain | 12 | Not supplied | Not supplied |
| Jaylin Williams | 11 | 10 | 4 |
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander: The game’s leading scorer
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander recorded 35 points and nine assists, according to the supplied data. His 35 points were the highest individual total listed for either team.
The combination of scoring and playmaking is particularly significant. A player with a high point total can place pressure on the defense, while a high assist total indicates that the player also helped teammates score directly from credited passes.
Yet even a 35-point performance does not guarantee victory. Basketball outcomes depend on the contributions of all five players on the floor, the quality of defensive possessions, second-chance opportunities, and the efficiency of the opposing team’s offense.
The Spurs’ reported victory illustrates this distinction. Gilgeous-Alexander’s scoring was substantial, but San Antonio’s collective scoring and three-point production were enough to finish ahead.
The supplied figures do not include his field-goal attempts, three-point shooting, free throws, or turnovers. As a result, his scoring efficiency cannot be calculated accurately from the information provided.
Cason Wallace: A productive secondary scorer
Cason Wallace finished with 17 points, seven rebounds, and four assists in the supplied data.
That line shows contributions across scoring, rebounding, and playmaking. His 17 points placed him second among the listed Oklahoma City scorers, giving the Thunder another significant source of offense alongside Gilgeous-Alexander.
Wallace’s seven rebounds also indicate involvement beyond perimeter scoring. Rebounds help determine which team gains the next possession, making them particularly relevant in a game where the overall rebounding totals were close.
His four assists further suggest a role in creating scoring opportunities. The available figures do not show whether those assists came primarily from half-court sets, transition plays, or other situations, so a more specific tactical claim would require the play-by-play record.
Jared McCain: A useful scoring contribution
Jared McCain scored 12 points according to the supplied box score information.
Twelve points can be meaningful in a game where the leading scorer produces 35. Additional scoring helps reduce the burden on the primary offensive option and can make it harder for an opponent to concentrate its defense on one player.
However, the supplied data do not establish McCain’s shooting efficiency, playing time, or defensive contribution. His point total should therefore be treated as a documented scoring figure rather than proof of a particular level of overall performance.
Jaylin Williams: Rebounding and passing from the supporting cast
Jaylin Williams recorded 11 points, 10 rebounds, and four assists.
His 10 rebounds gave him a double-double in points and rebounds, a term used when a player reaches double figures in two statistical categories. This is one of the clearest individual milestones in the supplied player figures.
Williams’ rebounding total is particularly interesting because Oklahoma City finished with 38 rebounds as a team, two fewer than San Antonio. He provided a substantial share of the Thunder’s total while also contributing to the offense through scoring and assists.
His four assists add another dimension to the performance. Rebounding, passing, and scoring can all help a team sustain possessions and generate opportunities, even when the player is not the primary offensive option.
How Oklahoma City’s supporting scorers compared
The four listed Thunder contributors combined for 75 points:
- Gilgeous-Alexander: 35 points
- Wallace: 17 points
- McCain: 12 points
- Williams: 11 points
The remaining 28 points of Oklahoma City’s 103-point total came from other scoring contributions, based on the supplied totals.
Gilgeous-Alexander accounted for approximately 34% of the team’s points. That is a substantial scoring share, although it does not automatically indicate that Oklahoma City relied too heavily on him. A leading scorer can produce efficiently while also creating opportunities for teammates.
The key question is whether the rest of the team converted enough opportunities to match the opponent’s production. In the supplied figures, Oklahoma City had three additional listed contributors with at least 11 points, but San Antonio’s five named contributors combined for 85 points compared with 75 for the four listed Thunder players.
These figures are not a complete player-by-player comparison because the supplied lists include different numbers of players. They do, however, illustrate the offensive contributions identified in the available data.
Spurs vs Thunder Player Stats: Head-to-Head Comparison
Comparing individual players can help readers understand the different ways each team generated offense. It is important to compare players using the categories actually supplied rather than assuming that every player had the same responsibilities or minutes.
| Category | San Antonio’s listed leader | Oklahoma City’s listed leader |
| Points | Victor Wembanyama, 22 | Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, 35 |
| Rebounds among players with supplied totals | Dylan Harper, 7 | Jaylin Williams, 10 |
| Assists among players with supplied totals | Stephon Castle, 6 | Gilgeous-Alexander, 9 |
| Steals among players with supplied totals | De’Aaron Fox, 3 | Not supplied |
| Scoring depth in the listed player data | Two players with 20 or more points | One player with 20 or more points |
This comparison reveals a few useful distinctions.
First, Oklahoma City’s leading scorer produced 13 more points than San Antonio’s leading scorer. Gilgeous-Alexander was the most productive individual scorer in the supplied figures.
Second, San Antonio’s listed scoring leaders were more closely grouped. Wembanyama scored 22 and Champagnie scored 20, meaning the Spurs had two players near the top of their scoring distribution.
Third, the Thunder’s listed leaders supplied strong individual contributions in passing and rebounding. Gilgeous-Alexander’s nine assists and Williams’ 10 rebounds demonstrate that Oklahoma City’s statistical output extended beyond scoring.
The team outcome, however, depended on more than the top player in each category. San Antonio made five more three-pointers and recorded five more offensive rebounds. Those differences offer a more direct statistical explanation for how the Spurs could win while facing a higher individual point total from their opponent.
The Key Factors Behind San Antonio’s Reported Victory
The box score becomes more useful when individual statistics are connected to the final result. Several numerical differences stand out in this matchup, although the figures alone cannot establish every tactical decision or decisive play.
1. More successful three-point attempts
San Antonio made 17 three-pointers, while Oklahoma City made 12. This gave the Spurs a 15-point advantage in points scored from beyond the arc.
The difference is important because three-point shots provide more points per successful field goal than two-point shots. A team can therefore make a similar number of total field goals and still score more points if a greater proportion of its successful attempts come from three-point range.
For analysts, the next step would be to review shot locations, the quality of attempts, and how often defenders forced difficult shots. Those details would help distinguish excellent shooting from a repeatable offensive advantage.
2. Greater production on the offensive glass
San Antonio collected 15 offensive rebounds, compared with Oklahoma City’s 10. That five-rebound difference gave the Spurs an advantage in recovering missed shots.
An offensive rebound can extend a possession and provide another opportunity to score. It can also force defenders to remain engaged after the initial shot, potentially creating space for a second attempt.
However, offensive rebounds do not all have the same value. A rebound followed by a made three-pointer has a different scoring outcome from one followed by a missed shot or turnover. To measure the real impact, analysts would need to examine points scored after offensive rebounds and second-chance points.
3. Fewer turnovers
San Antonio committed 12 turnovers, while Oklahoma City committed 13.
The difference was only one possession, so it should not be overstated. Nevertheless, protecting the ball is important in high-pressure games because a turnover ends an offensive possession without a field-goal attempt.
A turnover can also create a fast-break opportunity for the opposing team. Its effect therefore depends on when it occurs, whether the defense converts it into points, and how the game situation changes afterward.
The figures suggest that San Antonio had a slight advantage in possession security, but they do not show that turnovers alone decided the game.
4. Balanced scoring from multiple players
San Antonio’s five listed contributors combined for 85 points. Oklahoma City’s four listed contributors combined for 75.
A team with several reliable scorers can be more difficult to defend because opponents must account for multiple offensive threats. If one player has a quiet stretch, another may be able to maintain production.
This does not mean balanced scoring is always better than having a dominant leading scorer. A high-volume scorer can be extremely valuable if the player converts efficiently and creates opportunities for teammates. The relevant question is how effectively the entire offense uses its possessions.
In this reported game, the combination of Wembanyama’s 22 points, Champagnie’s 20, Castle’s 16, and contributions from Fox and Harper offers a clear example of San Antonio’s listed scoring distribution.
5. A stronger final quarter
San Antonio outscored Oklahoma City 31-26 in the fourth quarter.
A five-point advantage in the final period can be important because fewer possessions remain for the trailing team to recover the difference. It also increases the value of each successful defensive stop and offensive possession.
Still, the quarter totals do not reveal whether the margin came from half-court execution, transition opportunities, free throws, defensive stops, or a particular scoring run. A reliable play-by-play review would be necessary to identify the decisive sequence.
Taken together, the strongest numerical findings are San Antonio’s three-point advantage, offensive rebounding edge, and slightly lower turnover total. The final-quarter scoring difference further supports the conclusion that the Spurs finished the reported game more effectively.
What the Statistics Reveal About Offensive Efficiency
Offensive efficiency is often more informative than raw points because teams can score at different rates depending on how many possessions they use. A team that scores 110 points in fewer possessions may be more efficient than one that scores 115 in many more possessions.
The supplied data do not include a verified possession count, so a precise offensive rating cannot be calculated. However, several useful measures can still be derived from the available figures.
Effective field-goal percentage
Effective field-goal percentage adjusts ordinary field-goal percentage to account for the additional point awarded for a made three-pointer.
The formula is:
\[ eFG\%=\frac{FGM+0.5(3PM)}{FGA}\times100 \]
Using the supplied shooting totals:
- San Antonio: (40+0.517)/88, or approximately 55.1%.
- Oklahoma City: (37+0.512)/83, or approximately 51.8%.
This calculation shows a gap of approximately 3.3 percentage points in effective field-goal percentage, favoring San Antonio.
The difference helps explain why equal rounded field-goal percentages can conceal an advantage in scoring value. The Spurs made more three-pointers, so each successful shot contributed more points on average.
True shooting percentage
True shooting percentage estimates scoring efficiency while accounting for two-point shots, three-point shots, and free throws.
A commonly used approximation is:
\[ TS\%=\frac{PTS}{2(FGA+0.44 \times FTA)}\times100 \]
Using the supplied totals, San Antonio’s estimated true shooting percentage is approximately 56.5%, while Oklahoma City’s is approximately 55.3%.
These estimates use the supplied points, field-goal attempts, and free-throw attempts. They are calculated values, not independently verified official statistics.
The difference is smaller than the effective field-goal gap because Oklahoma City made more free throws and converted them at a slightly higher rate. This illustrates why multiple efficiency measures can provide different but complementary perspectives.
Why possessions matter
Neither effective field-goal percentage nor true shooting percentage fully captures how many possessions a team uses. To calculate offensive rating accurately, an analyst needs a reliable estimate of possessions.
A standard box-score estimate can incorporate field-goal attempts, offensive rebounds, turnovers, and free-throw attempts. However, the precise formula and adjustments should be applied consistently when comparing teams.
Without a verified possession figure, it is better to discuss the available shooting efficiencies than to invent an offensive rating.
How to Read a Basketball Box Score Correctly
Readers searching for playoff player statistics often want more than a list of points. A well-interpreted box score should explain what the numbers mean, where the biggest differences occurred, and which conclusions the data can actually support.
Start with the final score and quarter totals
The final score establishes the outcome, while the quarter breakdown shows when each team gained or lost ground.
In the supplied figures, San Antonio built its advantage in the first quarter and finished ahead in the fourth. Oklahoma City won the second quarter, and the third was tied.
These figures establish the scoring pattern without requiring assumptions about individual plays.
Separate individual performance from team performance
A player can record a high point total while the team loses. Equally, a player who scores fewer points may contribute through assists, rebounds, steals, defensive positioning, or efficient shooting.
Gilgeous-Alexander’s 35 points and nine assists illustrate a strong individual statistical output in the supplied data. The Spurs’ victory, meanwhile, highlights the importance of team-wide production.
The correct interpretation considers both levels rather than treating the leading scorer as the sole explanation for the result.
Compare percentages with attempts
Shooting percentages are most useful when viewed alongside the number of attempts.
For example, 43% from three-point range may appear strong, but a reader should also consider whether the team made 3 of 7 shots or 17 of 40. The volume of attempts affects the total scoring impact and the confidence with which a performance can be evaluated.
In this matchup, San Antonio’s 17 made three-pointers on 40 attempts represented both meaningful volume and a higher conversion rate than Oklahoma City’s 12 on 35 attempts.
Account for missing statistics
The supplied player data do not provide complete individual shooting lines, minutes, personal fouls, blocks, or turnovers for every named player.
Those omissions matter. Without minutes played, it is difficult to compare the production of a starter who played extensively with a reserve who appeared briefly. Without attempts, points cannot reveal shooting efficiency. Without defensive data, the box score may understate a player’s impact.
A responsible analysis reports the figures that are available and clearly identifies what cannot be established.
Why the Supplied Statistics Need Verification
Accurate reporting is essential when publishing an article about a specific NBA game. Dates, player totals, game status, and series results should agree with the official record.
The supplied information contains a date discrepancy: the page title refers to May 30, 2026, while the game information lists May 31, 2026. The listed start time is 5:00 AM on May 31, which may reflect the time zone in the game information rather than the local date in Oklahoma City.
Before publication, the official box score should be checked for:
- The official game date and local tip-off time.
- The final score and quarter-by-quarter totals.
- Each player’s points, rebounds, assists, shooting attempts, and minutes.
- Team shooting percentages, rebounds, turnovers, and fouls.
- The final series result and the venue.
This verification is particularly important because a detailed article can appear authoritative even when one underlying statistic is incorrect. The supplied figures support the calculations and comparisons presented here, but they should not be represented as independently confirmed facts until checked against the official record.
The ESPN NBA box score is the primary reference supplied for that final check.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the San Antonio Spurs vs Oklahoma City Thunder game?
According to the supplied data, the San Antonio Spurs defeated the Oklahoma City Thunder 111-103, an eight-point margin. The supplied record identifies the game as Game 7 of the Western Conference Finals.
2. Who scored the most points in the reported Spurs vs Thunder game?
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander led all listed players with 35 points for Oklahoma City. Victor Wembanyama led San Antonio with 22 points, followed by Julian Champagnie with 20.
3. How many three-pointers did the Spurs and Thunder make?
San Antonio made 17 of 40 three-point attempts, while Oklahoma City made 12 of 35. The Spurs therefore made five more three-pointers, accounting for a 15-point difference in scoring from beyond the arc.
4. Which Spurs players made significant contributions beyond scoring?
Stephon Castle recorded 16 points, six rebounds, and six assists. De’Aaron Fox contributed 15 points, five assists, and three steals, while Dylan Harper recorded 12 points, seven rebounds, and three assists.
5. Which Thunder players contributed beyond scoring?
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander recorded nine assists alongside his 35 points. Cason Wallace added seven rebounds and four assists with 17 points, while Jaylin Williams recorded 11 points, 10 rebounds, and four assists.
6. Why did the Spurs win despite Gilgeous-Alexander scoring 35 points?
The supplied statistics show that San Antonio made five more three-pointers, collected five more offensive rebounds, and committed one fewer turnover. The Spurs also outscored Oklahoma City by five points in the fourth quarter. These differences help explain the reported result, although a complete play-by-play review would be needed to establish exactly which possessions decided the game.
Conclusion
The reported San Antonio Spurs vs Oklahoma City Thunder matchup offers several useful insights into playoff basketball. San Antonio’s 111-103 victory, as described in the supplied data, was supported by balanced scoring, a five-three-pointer advantage, stronger offensive rebounding, and a more productive fourth quarter.
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander led all listed players with 35 points and nine assists, but Victor Wembanyama’s 22 points and Julian Champagnie’s 20 helped San Antonio distribute its scoring. Stephon Castle, De’Aaron Fox, and Dylan Harper added valuable contributions across multiple categories. For Oklahoma City, Cason Wallace and Jaylin Williams also produced notable all-around statistical lines.
The team statistics reveal why looking beyond points is essential. Both teams recorded a rounded 45% field-goal percentage, yet San Antonio’s higher three-point production gave it a clear advantage in scoring value. The Spurs also collected more offensive rebounds and committed slightly fewer turnovers.
Ultimately, the most useful way to evaluate a playoff game is to combine the final score with individual performances, shooting efficiency, rebounding, ball security, and quarter-by-quarter scoring. These measures provide a more complete understanding of the reported result than any single statistic could offer.
The supplied figures form the basis of this analysis, but the date discrepancy and individual box score details should be verified against the official game record before the article is published as a confirmed historical account.
