The timberwolves vs golden state warriors match player stats from the 2025 Western Conference Semifinals reveal how Minnesota defeated Golden State 121-110 in Game 5 and secured a 4-1 series victory. Played at Target Center in Minneapolis, the contest featured Julius Randle’s game-high 29 points, Brandin Podziemski’s 28 points for the Warriors, and Anthony Edwards’ impressive 12 assists. Minnesota’s efficient shooting and superior ball movement helped it control the first three quarters, while Golden State mounted a late scoring push that ultimately fell short.

This matchup offers more than a final score. It shows how shooting efficiency, playmaking, defensive pressure, and individual scoring performances can determine a playoff game. Minnesota made 49 of 78 field-goal attempts, converting approximately 63% of its shots, while Golden State made 39 of 90 attempts, or about 43%. Although the Warriors collected more rebounds and steals, the Timberwolves created better offensive flow and converted their opportunities at a higher rate.

For readers looking for a complete statistical breakdown, this article examines the final score, leading scorers, team comparisons, individual contributions, quarter-by-quarter performance, and the factors that shaped the outcome. All game-specific figures below are based on the supplied ESPN box-score data for the May 2025 playoff matchup.

Date note: The supplied ESPN information labels the game May 14, 2025, in its page title and also references May 15 in local game information. The game ID and final result identify the same Western Conference Semifinals Game 5.

Table of Contents

Timberwolves vs Golden State Warriors Match Player Stats: Game Overview

The fifth game of the Western Conference Semifinals was a decisive opportunity for Minnesota to close out the series. The Timberwolves entered the contest with a chance to advance, while Golden State needed a victory to extend its postseason run.

Minnesota delivered a strong offensive performance across the opening three quarters. The team scored at least 30 points in each of those periods, creating a substantial advantage before the Warriors increased their scoring in the fourth quarter.

WESTERN CONFERENCE SEMIFINALS · GAME 5

Minnesota Timberwolves

121

Series winner

Golden State Warriors

110

Eliminated in Game 5

Venue

Target Center

Attendance

19,395

Final series result

Minnesota wins 4-1

Winning margin

11 points

Game summary at a glance

Statistic	Timberwolves	Warriors
Final score	121	110
Field goals	49/78	39/90
Field-goal percentage	63%	43%
Three-pointers	13/31	11/39
Three-point percentage	42%	28%
Free throws	10/15	21/30
Total rebounds	39	40
Assists	36	21
Turnovers	20	17
Steals	11	14
Blocks	4	1
Personal fouls	19	21

Percentages are rounded. The supplied game data lists Minnesota at 63% from the field and Golden State at 43%.

The most revealing numbers are shooting efficiency and assists. Minnesota recorded 15 more assists and made 10 more field goals despite attempting 12 fewer shots. Golden State had advantages in rebounds, steals, and free throws, but those strengths did not compensate for the difference in overall shooting accuracy.

Quarter-by-Quarter Score Breakdown

The scoring pattern explains why Minnesota remained in control for most of the night. Golden State improved offensively in the final period, but the Timberwolves had already established a lead that proved difficult to overcome.

Quarter	Timberwolves	Warriors	Quarter winner
First quarter	30	23	Minnesota
Second quarter	32	24	Minnesota
Third quarter	31	25	Minnesota
Fourth quarter	28	38	Golden State
Final	121	110	Minnesota

First quarter: Minnesota establishes control

Minnesota opened the game with 30 points, compared with Golden State’s 23. That seven-point advantage gave the home team an early platform and allowed it to attack subsequent possessions with greater flexibility.

A strong opening quarter matters in playoff basketball because it influences substitutions, defensive adjustments, and the level of urgency required from the trailing team. Golden State could not afford to let Minnesota continue scoring comfortably, yet the Timberwolves maintained their momentum into the second period.

Second quarter: The lead grows

The Timberwolves scored another 32 points in the second quarter, while the Warriors managed 24. Minnesota added eight points to its lead during the period, extending the advantage from seven points to 15.

The difference was not simply the number of possessions. Minnesota’s overall field-goal accuracy suggests that it consistently converted offensive opportunities into points. The Warriors, meanwhile, needed to work through less efficient shooting stretches.

By halftime, Minnesota had scored 62 points and Golden State had scored 47. The 15-point margin placed the visitors in a difficult position, particularly against a team that continued to execute effectively after the break.

Third quarter: Minnesota protects its advantage

Minnesota won the third quarter 31-25. Rather than allowing Golden State to make an immediate comeback, the Timberwolves added six more points to their lead.

This period was particularly important because teams trailing in a playoff game often attempt to increase defensive pressure, accelerate their offense, or rely more heavily on their leading scorers. Minnesota’s ability to maintain its scoring rate limited the impact of any adjustments Golden State attempted.

At the end of three quarters, the Timberwolves led 93-72, a 21-point advantage.

Fourth quarter: Golden State fights back

The Warriors produced their strongest scoring period in the fourth quarter, recording 38 points against Minnesota’s 28. Their 10-point advantage in the period reduced the final margin, but it did not erase the damage done earlier.

Golden State’s fourth-quarter production shows why the final score should not be interpreted as a game in which the Warriors lacked all offensive momentum. They found ways to score late, but the comeback began from too deep a deficit.

Minnesota’s challenge in the closing period was to protect its lead rather than continue winning every quarter. Its earlier shooting efficiency and consistent scoring had created enough separation to withstand the Warriors’ late push.

Top Player Performances in the Game

Individual scoring provides the most direct starting point for understanding the contest. However, points alone do not explain a player’s total contribution. Assists, rebounds, defensive plays, shot selection, and the ability to support teammates also influence the result.

Julius Randle leads Minnesota with 29 points

Julius Randle

Minnesota Timberwolves · Forward

29 points

Randle was Minnesota’s leading scorer, finishing with a game-high 29 points. His scoring gave the Timberwolves a dependable offensive option while the team built its advantage over the first three quarters.

Randle’s performance stands out because he scored more than any other player identified in the supplied game data. His eight rebounds also tied him with Rudy Gobert for Minnesota’s team lead in that category.

A productive forward can create several types of offensive pressure. He can score near the basket, attack defensive mismatches, draw help defenders, and create space for teammates. The supplied totals do not establish precisely how many points Randle generated from each type of play, but his scoring and rebounding figures demonstrate that he contributed in more than one area.

His 29-point performance was particularly valuable in a game where Minnesota needed to keep scoring while Golden State attempted to close the gap.

Brandin Podziemski scores 28 points for Golden State

Brandin Podziemski

Golden State Warriors · Guard

28 points

Podziemski led Golden State in scoring with 28 points, finishing just one point behind Randle. He was one of the Warriors’ most productive offensive players in a game his team ultimately lost.

Podziemski’s total is important when assessing Golden State’s individual performance. The Warriors were not without a high-scoring contributor. Their leading scorer nearly matched Minnesota’s top scorer, and the team’s offense also received a substantial contribution from Jonathan Kuminga.

The larger issue was the distribution of scoring across the entire team and the efficiency with which those points were produced. Golden State made 39 field goals from 90 attempts, while Minnesota made 49 from 78 attempts.

This difference indicates that the Warriors needed more shooting attempts to produce their overall scoring total. Podziemski’s individual production was strong, but one player’s output could not eliminate the team’s broader efficiency disadvantage.

Jonathan Kuminga provides 26 points off the bench

Jonathan Kuminga

Golden State Warriors · Forward

26 points

Kuminga delivered 26 points as a bench scorer, giving Golden State a second major individual scoring performance alongside Podziemski.

Kuminga’s scoring output demonstrates the value of bench production during the postseason. Reserves often need to maintain offensive momentum when starters rest, and a player who can contribute consistently helps prevent a team’s offense from depending on one lineup.

His 26 points were only two fewer than Podziemski’s total. Together, their 54 points represented a substantial share of Golden State’s 110 points.

Even so, the team’s overall field-goal percentage remained well below Minnesota’s. This illustrates an important analytical distinction: a player can have an impressive scoring total even when the team’s collective offensive execution is not enough to win.

Anthony Edwards combines 22 points with 12 assists

Anthony Edwards

Minnesota Timberwolves · Guard

22 points · 12 assists

Edwards combined scoring with high-level playmaking, finishing with a reported 12 assists. He was Minnesota’s leading assist provider and helped connect the team’s individual scoring efforts.

Edwards’ performance may be one of the most informative contributions in the box score. His 22 points were not Minnesota’s highest total, but his 12 assists highlight the importance of creating opportunities for other players.

An assist records a pass that directly leads to a made basket under the official statistical rules. It does not capture every helpful pass or every action that creates space, but it provides a useful measure of direct playmaking.

Minnesota recorded 36 assists as a team. Edwards accounted for one-third of that total, giving him a major role in an offense that produced 49 field goals.

His contribution also helps explain why the Timberwolves scored efficiently without relying entirely on Randle. Edwards could threaten the defense as a scorer while also distributing the ball to teammates.

Rudy Gobert contributes 17 points and eight rebounds

Rudy Gobert

Minnesota Timberwolves · Center

17 points · 8 rebounds

Gobert contributed inside the offense and tied Randle for Minnesota’s leading rebound total. His performance added frontcourt production to a team effort led by several different scorers.

Gobert’s eight rebounds are especially relevant when examining Minnesota’s defensive rebounding advantage. The team collected 33 defensive rebounds, compared with Golden State’s 22.

A defensive rebound ends an opponent’s possession after a missed shot, preventing another immediate scoring opportunity. Strong defensive rebounding can therefore help a team control the tempo and reduce the number of second chances available to its opponent.

Gobert’s individual total should not be treated as the sole reason for Minnesota’s rebounding performance. The team statistic reflects contributions from the entire lineup, including players who box out or contest rebounds without recording the final collection.

Mike Conley adds 16 points

Mike Conley

Minnesota Timberwolves · Guard

16 points

Conley added another scoring option for Minnesota. His 16 points helped spread the offensive workload across the starting lineup rather than leaving the team dependent on one player.

Conley’s total was lower than those of Randle and Edwards, but his contribution remains relevant to the overall scoring picture. Minnesota also received 17 points from Gobert and 13 from Naz Reid and Donte DiVincenzo individually, according to the supplied figures.

That range of contributors made the offense more difficult to contain. A defense can concentrate more resources on a leading scorer when few other players pose a consistent threat. Multiple scoring options make that approach harder to sustain.

Donte DiVincenzo and Naz Reid support the scoring effort

Donte DiVincenzo scored 13 points off the bench, providing Minnesota with another useful contribution from its reserves. Naz Reid also scored 13 points, adding frontcourt production beyond Randle and Gobert.

These performances matter because playoff games are rarely decided by the starting five alone. Rotations change according to matchups, foul trouble, fatigue, and the need for specific offensive or defensive skills.

Minnesota’s bench production helped complement its starting lineup. Golden State, however, also received significant bench scoring from Kuminga, which means the outcome cannot be explained simply by saying that one team’s reserves performed well and the other’s did not.

The stronger distinction lies in the complete statistical profile: Minnesota combined several scoring contributions with much higher shooting efficiency and more assists.

Complete Key Player Statistics

The following table summarizes the main individual scoring and playmaking figures available in the supplied data. It does not attempt to fill in unprovided individual shooting percentages, minutes, or other box-score fields.

Team	Player	Points	Additional confirmed statistic
Timberwolves	Julius Randle	29	8 rebounds
Timberwolves	Anthony Edwards	22	12 assists, 3 blocks
Timberwolves	Rudy Gobert	17	8 rebounds
Timberwolves	Mike Conley	16	Scoring contribution
Timberwolves	Naz Reid	13	Scoring contribution
Timberwolves	Donte DiVincenzo	13	4 steals
Warriors	Brandin Podziemski	28	6 rebounds
Warriors	Jonathan Kuminga	26	Bench scorer
Warriors	Jimmy Butler III	17	6 rebounds, 6 assists
Warriors	Moses Moody	12	Scoring contribution
Warriors	Draymond Green	Not specified	6 rebounds, 6 assists

The supplied information confirms these headline figures, but it does not provide the complete numerical line for every player. For verified minutes, field-goal attempts, three-pointers, free throws, turnovers, personal fouls, and plus/minus values, consult the official ESPN box score.

This distinction matters for accurate reporting. A player should not be assigned a shooting percentage, plus/minus figure, or rebound total unless the underlying box score supports it. The same principle applies when comparing individual performances across different games.

Team Shooting Comparison: Why Minnesota Was More Efficient

The biggest statistical difference in this game was shooting efficiency. Minnesota scored 121 points while attempting 78 field goals. Golden State scored 110 points despite attempting 90 field goals.

That contrast deserves more attention than the final score alone.

Field-goal percentage

Minnesota made 49 of 78 field-goal attempts, while Golden State made 39 of 90. The difference was approximately 20 percentage points in field-goal accuracy.

Using the supplied shooting totals:

Minnesota’s field-goal percentage was approximately 62.8%.
Golden State’s field-goal percentage was approximately 43.3%.
Minnesota made 10 more field goals despite attempting 12 fewer shots.

This is a substantial efficiency gap. Every missed shot represents an opportunity that did not directly produce a field goal, although offensive rebounds can create another chance.

Golden State’s 18 offensive rebounds helped it recover some of those missed attempts. Minnesota recorded only six offensive rebounds, yet its accuracy allowed it to generate more points without relying as heavily on second chances.

The lesson is not that offensive rebounding is unimportant. Instead, this game shows that teams can win through different combinations of strengths. Golden State created extra opportunities through rebounding, while Minnesota converted its initial opportunities more effectively.

Three-point shooting

The Timberwolves made 13 of 31 three-point attempts, compared with 11 of 39 for the Warriors.

Three-point statistic	Timberwolves	Warriors
Made	13	11
Attempted	31	39
Percentage	41.9%	28.2%
Points from three-pointers	39	33

Minnesota scored six more points from beyond the arc while taking eight fewer attempts. That difference helped the team create an advantage without needing to dominate every statistical category.

Three-point shooting can change the geometry of an offense. When outside shots fall consistently, defenders must close out more aggressively, which can create driving lanes and passing opportunities.

However, three-point percentage is only one part of offensive evaluation. Shot quality, defensive pressure, player movement, and the balance between inside and outside scoring all matter. The available totals show that Minnesota shot better from three, but they do not establish the precise quality of every attempt.

Free-throw performance

Golden State had a clear advantage at the free-throw line.

The Warriors made 21 of 30 attempts, producing a 70% conversion rate. Minnesota made 10 of 15, converting approximately 66.7%.

Golden State therefore scored 11 more points from free throws. This helped keep the final score competitive despite the shooting difference elsewhere.

The contrast illustrates why a complete statistical analysis must consider multiple scoring methods. Minnesota’s victory was not based on winning every category. The Warriors generated more points at the line and collected more rebounds, but the Timberwolves created a larger advantage through field goals and three-point accuracy.

A useful analytical approach is to compare where points came from rather than treating all offensive totals as interchangeable. Field goals, three-pointers, and free throws reflect different types of opportunities and can reveal different strengths or weaknesses.

Ball Movement and Assists: Minnesota’s Major Advantage

Minnesota recorded 36 assists, while Golden State recorded 21. The 15-assist difference is one of the clearest indicators of how differently the teams generated offense.

An assist does not tell the whole story of a possession, but it records a direct connection between a pass and a successful field goal. A high team assist total can indicate effective passing, movement, and coordination, although it should not automatically be interpreted as proof that every shot was well defended or every possession was efficient.

In this matchup, the assist total is particularly meaningful because Minnesota also shot 63% from the field.

How the Timberwolves created better offensive flow

Minnesota’s 36 assists accompanied 49 made field goals. That works out to approximately 73.5% of its made field goals being assisted.

Golden State’s 21 assists accompanied 39 made field goals, equivalent to approximately 53.8%.

These calculations suggest that Minnesota’s scoring was more heavily connected to assisted baskets. Golden State’s lower ratio may reflect a greater share of unassisted makes, but the figures alone cannot establish the exact offensive actions used.

The difference supports several practical observations:

Passing created scoring opportunities. Minnesota’s high assist total indicates that teammates were frequently involved in the final action before a made basket.
Edwards played an important creative role. His 12 assists represented one-third of the team’s recorded assists.
Several players could finish possessions. Randle, Edwards, Gobert, Conley, Reid, and DiVincenzo all reached double figures in scoring.
Golden State needed more individual production. Podziemski and Kuminga scored heavily, but the team’s overall shooting efficiency remained lower.

For analysts, assists become most useful when interpreted alongside field-goal percentage, turnovers, and points. Minnesota committed 20 turnovers, three more than Golden State. Its passing advantage therefore did not mean the team was mistake-free.

Instead, Minnesota’s combination of high assist production and excellent shooting was strong enough to offset its turnover disadvantage.

Rebounding, Turnovers, and Defensive Statistics

The Timberwolves did not win every possession-related category. Golden State collected 40 rebounds against Minnesota’s 39, recorded 14 steals against 11, and committed 17 turnovers against Minnesota’s 20.

These numbers are important because they prevent an overly simplistic explanation of the result.

Rebounding: Golden State wins the total

Rebounding category	Timberwolves	Warriors
Total rebounds	39	40
Offensive rebounds	6	18
Defensive rebounds	33	22

Golden State’s 18 offensive rebounds were three times Minnesota’s six. This gave the Warriors additional chances after missed shots and helped them maintain offensive pressure.

Minnesota, however, collected 11 more defensive rebounds. Those rebounds limited the Warriors’ ability to continue attacking after their initial attempts when the ball came off the rim and Minnesota secured possession.

The nearly equal total rebound counts conceal this important difference in distribution. A total-rebound comparison alone would suggest that the teams were almost even. Breaking the category into offensive and defensive rebounds reveals a more detailed picture of how possessions were managed.

Turnovers: Golden State protects the ball better

Golden State committed 17 turnovers, compared with Minnesota’s 20.

A turnover ends a team’s possession without a field goal or free-throw scoring opportunity from that possession. Turnovers can result from bad passes, offensive fouls, lost handles, or other violations.

Minnesota’s turnover total was therefore a weakness in an otherwise productive offensive performance. The Timberwolves could have created additional scoring opportunities by reducing those mistakes.

The Warriors’ lower turnover count suggests that they protected the ball somewhat better in aggregate. However, turnover totals do not reveal when each mistake occurred or how many points followed from it. A turnover late in a close game may have a different practical impact from one during a comfortable lead.

Steals and blocks

Golden State recorded 14 steals, three more than Minnesota’s 11. The Warriors also collected 18 offensive rebounds, suggesting that they generated defensive disruption and second-chance opportunities during the contest.

Minnesota, meanwhile, recorded four blocks compared with Golden State’s one. Anthony Edwards was credited with three blocks in the supplied player data, an unusual contribution for a guard that adds another dimension to his overall performance.

Blocks can interrupt shots at the rim, but they do not measure all defensive value. Positioning, forcing difficult attempts, contesting shots without fouling, and preventing passes can all influence a possession without appearing as a block in the box score.

The available numbers show that both teams made meaningful defensive plays. Minnesota’s advantage came from combining its defensive activity with stronger overall shooting and a much higher assist total.

Starting Lineups and Bench Contributions

The starting lineups provide context for the individual results. According to the supplied data, Minnesota started Julius Randle, Jaden McDaniels, Rudy Gobert, Mike Conley, and Anthony Edwards.

Golden State started Jimmy Butler III, Draymond Green, Trayce Jackson-Davis, Buddy Hield, and Brandin Podziemski.

Both lineups included players with different offensive and defensive responsibilities. Guards could initiate plays or create shots, forwards could attack mismatches, and big men could defend the paint or compete for rebounds.

Minnesota’s starting lineup

Minnesota’s starting group included its three leading statistical contributors in scoring and playmaking: Randle, Edwards, and Gobert. Conley added 16 points, while the supplied data identifies McDaniels as a starter and a contributor to the team’s defensive activity.

This group offered multiple ways to create offense. Randle led the team in points, Edwards led in assists, and Gobert contributed scoring and rebounding. That distribution made Minnesota’s attack less dependent on one player delivering every important possession.

Golden State’s starting lineup

Podziemski led the Warriors with 28 points. Butler contributed 17 points, six rebounds, and six assists, while Green recorded six rebounds and six assists according to the supplied figures.

These numbers show that Golden State had contributions beyond its leading scorer. Butler’s combination of scoring and passing, along with Green’s playmaking and rebounding, provided support in several areas.

The problem was not the complete absence of individual production. It was the difference between the teams’ overall shooting outcomes and the inability to erase Minnesota’s early lead.

Why bench scoring matters

Kuminga’s 26 points and Moody’s 12 points were important contributions for Golden State. Minnesota also received 13 points from Reid and 13 from DiVincenzo.

Bench scoring is especially valuable when starters need rest or the opposition changes its defensive approach. However, bench totals should not be interpreted without considering minutes played, shooting attempts, and the circumstances in which points were scored.

The supplied data does not establish complete individual minutes or shooting lines for every reserve, so it would be inaccurate to rank every bench player by efficiency. The confirmed scoring figures still show that both teams received useful production outside their leading starters.

What the Player Statistics Reveal About Minnesota’s Victory

The numbers support several broader conclusions about the game and the way playoff basketball is evaluated.

1. Efficient shooting can outweigh extra attempts

Golden State attempted 12 more field goals than Minnesota but made 10 fewer. The Warriors’ offensive rebounding helped them recover missed shots, yet their lower accuracy remained a major disadvantage.

This is a reminder that possession volume and possession quality are different concepts. More attempts can create more opportunities, but those opportunities must still be converted into points.

2. A balanced offense creates more options

Minnesota had six listed players with at least 13 points. Its offense was not limited to Randle’s game-high total.

When several players can score, a defense has fewer opportunities to concentrate entirely on one threat. The assist numbers reinforce that point: Minnesota recorded 36 assists, with Edwards leading the way.

3. Late scoring does not erase an early deficit automatically

Golden State won the fourth quarter by 10 points, but Minnesota had built a 21-point lead through three periods.

A strong finish can narrow a margin, yet a team must first avoid falling too far behind. The quarter-by-quarter results show that Minnesota’s early and middle-game performance was central to the final outcome.

4. Individual statistics need team context

Podziemski’s 28 points and Kuminga’s 26 points were impressive scoring totals. Neither figure, considered alone, explains why Golden State lost.

The same principle applies to Randle’s 29 points or Edwards’ 12 assists. Their value becomes clearer when those numbers are considered alongside the final score, team shooting, turnovers, and the contributions of teammates.

5. A single box score has limits

The box score provides a reliable foundation for describing what happened statistically. It cannot fully explain every tactical decision, defensive assignment, or coaching adjustment.

For deeper analysis, individual shooting splits, lineup combinations, possession-by-possession records, and video evidence can add context. Those details should be consulted rather than guessed when a precise tactical explanation is required.

Series Context: How Minnesota Closed Out Golden State

The supplied series results show that Golden State won Game 1 by a score of 99-88. Minnesota then responded by winning Game 2, 117-93, followed by a 102-97 victory in Game 3 and a 117-110 victory in Game 4.

Minnesota completed the series with its 121-110 win in Game 5.

Game	Golden State	Minnesota	Winner
Game 1	99	88	Golden State
Game 2	93	117	Minnesota
Game 3	97	102	Minnesota
Game 4	110	117	Minnesota
Game 5	110	121	Minnesota

The series pattern shows that Minnesota recovered from its Game 1 loss and won four consecutive games. The final game was consistent with the broader result: the Timberwolves scored at least 102 points in each of their four victories and produced 121 points in the clincher.

The Game 5 result should therefore be understood in two ways. It was an individual contest decided by an 11-point margin, and it was also the final game of a series in which Minnesota had established the more successful overall run after the opener.

The supplied regular-season records provide further context. Minnesota entered the postseason after a 49-33 regular season, while Golden State finished 48-34. Those records were similar, but the playoff series ultimately went Minnesota’s way.

The 4-1 series result confirms that Minnesota advanced from the Western Conference Semifinals. The individual numbers explain important aspects of Game 5, while the series results show how the teams’ performances developed across multiple games.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. What was the final score of Timberwolves vs Golden State Warriors Game 5?

The Minnesota Timberwolves defeated the Golden State Warriors 121-110 in Game 5 of the 2025 Western Conference Semifinals. The victory allowed Minnesota to win the series 4-1 and advance to the next playoff round.

2. Who scored the most points in the game?

Julius Randle led all players with 29 points for Minnesota. Brandin Podziemski led Golden State with 28 points, while Jonathan Kuminga contributed 26 points off the bench.

3. How many assists did Anthony Edwards record?

Anthony Edwards recorded 12 assists, leading Minnesota in that category. He also scored 22 points and was credited with three blocks in the supplied game data.

4. Which team shot more efficiently?

Minnesota shot approximately 63% from the field and 42% from three-point range. Golden State shot approximately 43% from the field and 28% from beyond the arc. Minnesota’s superior shooting efficiency was a major statistical advantage.

5. Who led the game in rebounds?

The supplied player statistics identify Julius Randle and Rudy Gobert as Minnesota’s leading rebounders, with eight rebounds each. For Golden State, Jimmy Butler III, Draymond Green, and Brandin Podziemski recorded six rebounds apiece.

6. Did Minnesota win the playoff series?

Yes. Minnesota won the Western Conference Semifinals four games to one. After losing Game 1, the Timberwolves won the next four games, including the decisive 121-110 victory in Game 5.

Conclusion

The timberwolves vs golden state warriors match player stats show how Minnesota combined individual scoring, efficient shooting, and coordinated ball movement to secure a 121-110 victory in Game 5 of the 2025 Western Conference Semifinals.

Julius Randle led the Timberwolves with 29 points, Anthony Edwards added 22 points and 12 assists, and Rudy Gobert contributed 17 points and eight rebounds. For Golden State, Brandin Podziemski scored 28 points, while Jonathan Kuminga added 26 points off the bench.

Minnesota’s biggest statistical advantages came from its 63% field-goal percentage, 42% three-point shooting, and 36 assists. Golden State performed better in offensive rebounding, steals, and free-throw scoring, but those advantages were not enough to overcome the shooting gap and Minnesota’s early lead.

The fourth-quarter scoring surge from Golden State demonstrated its ability to respond late, yet Minnesota’s 21-point advantage entering the final period proved decisive. The victory completed a four-game winning streak after the Timberwolves lost the series opener, giving them a 4-1 series victory.

Ultimately, this game illustrates why player statistics are most useful when viewed together. Scoring totals identify the leading contributors, shooting percentages reveal offensive efficiency, assists highlight direct playmaking, and rebounding and turnover numbers explain how teams manage possessions. Taken together, these figures provide a clearer understanding of how Minnesota won and why Golden State’s strong individual performances were not enough to extend the series.