San Antonio Spurs vs Portland Trail Blazers Match Player Stats

The san antonio spurs vs portland trail blazers match player stats from Game 5 of the 2026 Western Conference First Round tell a much clearer story than the final score alone. San Antonio defeated Portland 114-95 at Frost Bank Center and closed the series 4-1, advancing to the Western Conference semifinals. The Spurs controlled the game from the opening quarter, built a 20-point halftime advantage, survived a brief Portland push in the fourth, and finished the series with a convincing home victory.

For readers looking for the actual player numbers, the most important performances were spread across several areas. De’Aaron Fox led San Antonio with 21 points and 9 assists, Victor Wembanyama produced 17 points, 14 rebounds and 6 blocks, Julian Champagnie scored 19 points while shooting 5-of-7 from three, and rookie Dylan Harper added 17 points from the bench. Portland’s Deni Avdija led all Trail Blazers scorers with 22 points, while Jrue Holiday finished with 7 assists and Robert Williams III contributed 11 points and 7 rebounds.

The numbers also reveal why Portland struggled to stay competitive. The Trail Blazers shot only 35% from the field and 23% from three-point range, while San Antonio made 55% of its field-goal attempts and 40% of its threes. Those shooting differences created a gap that Portland could not overcome despite a respectable fourth-quarter effort.

San Antonio Spurs vs Portland Trail Blazers Match Player Stats

The game was played as Game 5 of the Western Conference First Round. San Antonio entered the contest with a 3-1 series lead and needed one more win to eliminate Portland. The Spurs did exactly that, winning 114-95 and taking the series 4-1. The official NBA game record lists the contest as an April 28, 2026 game in San Antonio, while its game information also displays April 29 because of the time-zone presentation.

Game overview

Category	San Antonio Spurs	Portland Trail Blazers
Final score	114	95
Q1	36	24
Q2	29	21
Q3	21	20
Q4	28	30
Field goals	41-75	33-94
Field-goal percentage	55%	35%
Three-pointers	12-30	11-47
Three-point percentage	40%	23%
Free throws	20-29	18-23
Rebounds	42	38
Assists	27	24
Turnovers	14	9
Steals	5	8
Blocks	8	2

The first major takeaway is efficiency. Portland attempted 19 more field goals than San Antonio but still scored 19 fewer points. That is a strong indicator that shot quality and finishing were more important than raw shot volume in this matchup.

San Antonio made 41 of 75 shots. Portland made only 33 of 94. That translates to a 20-percentage-point difference in field-goal accuracy.

The three-point gap was also significant. The Spurs went 12-of-30 from outside, while Portland finished 11-of-47. Although both teams made a similar number of threes, San Antonio needed 17 fewer attempts to reach that total.

That is the central statistical story of the game.

How the Game Was Decided

San Antonio established control immediately. The Spurs scored 36 points in the opening quarter while Portland managed 24. That 12-point advantage set the tone for the rest of the night.

The second quarter widened the gap. San Antonio added 29 points while Portland scored 21, giving the Spurs a 65-45 halftime lead.

A 20-point halftime deficit is difficult to overcome in a playoff elimination game, especially against a team capable of protecting the rim with Wembanyama and generating efficient offense through Fox.

Portland did improve defensively after halftime. The third quarter was almost even, with San Antonio scoring 21 and Portland scoring 20. The Trail Blazers then won the fourth quarter 30-28.

However, those improvements came too late.

According to the official NBA recap, Portland cut the deficit to 91-82 with an 11-0 run in the fourth quarter. San Antonio responded and regained control, preventing the game from becoming a genuine late comeback opportunity.

This is an important distinction when evaluating the box score. Portland did not simply collapse for 48 minutes. The Trail Blazers had a meaningful late push. The problem was that their first-half deficit was too large.

De’Aaron Fox Leads San Antonio’s Offense

De’Aaron Fox was the Spurs’ leading scorer with 21 points, but his biggest contribution came from his ability to organize the offense.

He finished with:

• 21 points
• 8-of-14 shooting
• 2-of-5 from three
• 3-of-4 free throws
• 3 rebounds
• 9 assists
• 1 steal
• 2 turnovers
• +26 plus/minus

The 9 assists are especially important because they show that Fox was not simply hunting his own shot.

His 8-of-14 shooting produced a 57.1% field-goal percentage, which was highly efficient for a primary ball handler. He also made two three-pointers and converted three of his four free throws.

His +26 was the best plus/minus on either team.

That figure should not be treated as a standalone measurement of individual quality, but in this game it matches the broader story. San Antonio consistently looked more organized and dangerous when its main offensive creators were controlling the possession.

Fox also became especially important late. The NBA’s official recap noted that he scored 13 points in the fourth quarter as San Antonio closed out the series.

That fourth-quarter scoring burst matters because Portland had reduced the deficit to single digits. Instead of allowing the comeback to develop, Fox helped turn the closing minutes into a controlled finish.

Victor Wembanyama’s Defensive Impact Was Bigger Than His Scoring

Victor Wembanyama did not lead the Spurs in scoring, but his overall statistical impact was arguably the most important part of the game.

His final line was:

• 17 points
• 5-of-7 field goals
• 1-of-2 from three
• 6-of-6 free throws
• 14 rebounds
• 3 assists
• 1 turnover
• 6 blocks
• +20 plus/minus

The 17 points are impressive, but the combination of 14 rebounds and 6 blocks is what separates this performance from an ordinary scoring night.

Wembanyama shot 71.4% from the field based on the supplied box-score figures. He also made every free throw he attempted.

His six blocks directly influenced Portland’s ability to attack the paint.

The official NBA recap highlighted a late Wembanyama block that helped shut down Portland’s attempted comeback. The NBA also reported that he became the youngest player to record at least 15 points, 10 rebounds and 5 blocks in a playoff series-clinching game.

The defensive numbers explain why Portland’s offense became so dependent on perimeter attempts.

When a team has a rim protector capable of contesting shots without abandoning the interior, opposing players have to make difficult decisions. Drives become less attractive, floaters become riskier and passes around the paint become harder.

That effect does not always appear in a traditional box score.

In Wembanyama’s case, however, the six blocks provide a visible measurement of a much larger defensive influence.

Julian Champagnie Provides a Major Shooting Boost

Julian Champagnie scored 19 points in 30 minutes and was one of the most efficient shooters on the floor.

His numbers:

• 19 points
• 6-of-9 field goals
• 5-of-7 three-pointers
• 2-of-3 free throws
• 7 rebounds
• 3 assists
• +10 plus/minus

His five made threes were crucial because they punished Portland whenever the defense concentrated on San Antonio’s interior threats and primary ball handlers.

Champagnie’s 5-of-7 shooting from deep equals 71.4% from three-point range.

This was not simply a high-volume shooting performance. He produced elite efficiency on seven attempts.

San Antonio finished the game at 40% from three overall. Champagnie was a major reason that number remained so strong.

The spacing created by accurate perimeter shooting also helped Fox and Wembanyama operate with more room.

Dylan Harper’s Bench Production Matters

Dylan Harper added 17 points in 26 minutes.

His line included:

• 17 points
• 6-of-9 field goals
• 1-of-1 from three
• 4-of-5 free throws
• 3 rebounds
• 1 assist
• 3 steals
• 1 turnover
• +4 plus/minus

Harper shot 66.7% from the field and 80% from the free-throw line.

His three steals also provided defensive value.

The significance of his performance is not only that he scored 17 points. He gave San Antonio another efficient offensive option without requiring the entire attack to run through Fox.

That kind of secondary scoring becomes particularly valuable in playoff basketball, where opponents spend significant preparation time trying to remove the primary offensive option.

Stephon Castle’s Scoring and Playmaking

Stephon Castle finished with 15 points and 5 assists.

He shot 6-of-11 from the field and 2-of-6 from three.

His complete line included:

• 15 points
• 6 rebounds? No, 3 rebounds
• 5 assists
• 7 turnovers
• 1 block
• +12

The seven turnovers stand out.

Castle was productive as a scorer and facilitator, but the turnovers show that his game was not flawless. Against a stronger defensive opponent, that area would be worth monitoring.

Still, his 6-of-11 shooting helped San Antonio maintain offensive efficiency.

The broader lesson is that the Spurs did not need every starter to have a perfect game. Fox, Wembanyama, Champagnie, Castle and Harper collectively provided enough production to make Portland’s defensive adjustments difficult.

Devin Vassell and Keldon Johnson

Devin Vassell scored 10 points in 34 minutes.

He finished 4-of-11 from the field and 0-of-4 from three, so his shooting was not a major offensive strength in this game. However, he contributed one steal and one block, and the Spurs posted a +22 differential during his minutes.

Keldon Johnson came off the bench for 7 points, 5 rebounds and 1 assist in 18 minutes.

Johnson shot 3-of-8 from the field and made one three-pointer.

His offensive output was modest, but five rebounds from the bench added useful physicality.

Portland’s Best Player: Deni Avdija

Deni Avdija led Portland with 22 points.

His final line was:

• 22 points
• 7-of-15 field goals
• 1-of-6 three-pointers
• 7-of-11 free throws
• 3 rebounds
• 3 assists
• 4 turnovers
• 1 block
• -20 plus/minus

Avdija was the Trail Blazers’ leading scorer, but the efficiency of his outside shooting was a major issue.

He made only one of six three-point attempts.

That meant San Antonio could be more aggressive about defending the interior without paying a heavy price from outside.

Avdija’s 22 points were still valuable. He was one of the few Portland players who consistently generated offense. But the four turnovers and 1-of-6 three-point shooting illustrate the difficulty of carrying an offense against a defense featuring Wembanyama.

Jrue Holiday’s All-Around Contribution

Jrue Holiday played 40 minutes, the most of any Portland player.

He scored only 8 points, but his 7 assists and 6 rebounds added value in other areas.

His shooting line was:

• 3-of-14 field goals
• 1-of-6 three-pointers
• 1-of-1 free throws

Holiday’s seven assists tied him with Portland’s highest assist total in the game.

The problem was offensive efficiency.

A player can influence a game without scoring heavily, but when the team’s overall shooting percentage is only 35%, inefficient scoring from a high-minute ball handler becomes more costly.

Holiday’s -22 plus/minus also reflects how difficult Portland’s minutes were while he was on the court.

Toumani Camara’s Defensive Work Could Not Offset the Shooting

Toumani Camara played 33 minutes and recorded 8 rebounds.

He scored 7 points on 2-of-10 shooting and made only one of seven three-point attempts.

His final plus/minus was -22.

Camara’s three offensive rebounds were useful, but Portland needed more scoring efficiency from its starting group.

When three-point attempts are not falling, offensive rebounds can create second chances. Yet Portland still struggled to convert enough possessions into points.

Donovan Clingan’s Unusual Stat Line

Donovan Clingan scored 10 points and collected 5 rebounds while also recording 6 assists.

The six assists were particularly notable for a frontcourt player.

He shot 4-of-11 from the field.

Clingan’s passing gave Portland an additional way to move the ball, but the Spurs’ defensive presence around the basket still limited the overall effectiveness of Portland’s interior offense.

His -9 plus/minus was actually one of the better figures among Portland’s starters.

Portland’s Bench Provides Some Positive Signs

The Trail Blazers did receive useful contributions from their reserves.

Jerami Grant scored 12 points, made 7-of-8 free throws and finished with a +3 plus/minus.

Robert Williams III added 11 points and 7 rebounds in 17 minutes.

Sidy Cissoko produced one of Portland’s most interesting individual lines from the bench:

• 11 points
• 4-of-6 field goals
• 2-of-3 three-pointers
• 1-of-1 free throws
• 4 rebounds
• 3 steals
• +9 plus/minus

Cissoko’s +9 was the best plus/minus on Portland.

That does not erase the team’s 19-point defeat, but it does provide a useful individual takeaway. His minutes were competitive even though Portland’s overall performance was not.

Shaedon Sharpe scored 5 points in six minutes.

Matisse Thybulle added 2 points, 2 assists, 2 steals and 1 block.

Vit Krejci scored 2 points and finished +1.

Shooting Efficiency Was the Biggest Difference

The clearest statistical explanation for the result is shooting.

Portland:

• 33-of-94 from the field
• 35% field-goal percentage
• 11-of-47 from three
• 23% three-point percentage

San Antonio:

• 41-of-75 from the field
• 55% field-goal percentage
• 12-of-30 from three
• 40% three-point percentage

The Spurs attempted fewer shots but converted far more efficiently.

This is important because raw field-goal attempts can sometimes create the illusion that a team had enough offensive opportunities.

Portland had 19 more field-goal attempts.

Yet San Antonio still scored 19 more points.

That is an enormous efficiency advantage.

Another useful way to view it is that Portland’s 94 field-goal attempts produced 33 makes. San Antonio’s 75 attempts produced 41 makes.

The difference was not simply shot volume.

It was shot conversion.

Three-Point Shooting Changed the Offensive Geometry

The three-point numbers also deserve close attention.

Portland attempted 47 three-pointers.

San Antonio attempted 30.

That means almost half of Portland’s field-goal attempts came from beyond the arc.

Yet the Trail Blazers made only 11.

San Antonio made 12 threes on 17 fewer attempts.

This is one of the strongest indicators of how the game developed tactically.

Portland’s difficulty scoring inside pushed the offense toward perimeter attempts. San Antonio, meanwhile, received enough spacing from players such as Champagnie and Fox to keep its offense balanced.

Champagnie’s 5-of-7 three-point performance was particularly damaging.

Rebounding Was Competitive

The rebounding battle was much closer than the shooting battle.

San Antonio collected 42 rebounds.

Portland collected 38.

That is only a four-rebound difference.

Wembanyama led everyone with 14 rebounds.

Camara led Portland with 8 rebounds, while Robert Williams III had 7.

San Antonio also benefited from Wembanyama’s ability to combine rebounding with rim protection.

Fourteen rebounds and six blocks create a defensive profile that is difficult to replace.

Portland did have 38 total rebounds, so the loss was not caused by a complete failure on the glass.

Again, efficiency was the larger problem.

Assists Show Both Teams Had Ball Movement

San Antonio recorded 27 assists compared with Portland’s 24.

The three-assist difference is relatively small.

Fox led the Spurs with 9 assists.

Holiday led Portland with 7.

Clingan also recorded 6 assists.

These figures suggest that neither team completely abandoned ball movement.

The difference was what happened after the passes.

San Antonio’s passes more often led to efficient scoring opportunities. Portland’s passing produced fewer successful shots.

That is why assists should always be interpreted alongside shooting percentages.

Turnovers Tell a More Complicated Story

Portland actually protected the ball better.

The Trail Blazers committed 9 turnovers.

San Antonio committed 14.

That is a five-turnover advantage for Portland.

Yet Portland still lost by 19.

This is an important lesson for anyone analyzing box scores.

Turnover margin alone did not decide this game.

San Antonio compensated for its additional turnovers through much better shooting.

The Spurs also converted enough possessions efficiently to make Portland’s ball-security advantage relatively unimportant.

This is one reason a complete statistical analysis should never rely on a single category.

Wembanyama’s Blocks Changed Portland’s Shot Selection

The six-block performance deserves another look because it connects multiple areas of the box score.

When a defense has a player capable of blocking shots at the rim, opposing players may start avoiding the paint.

That can lead to:

1. More jump shots.
2. More three-point attempts.
3. More difficult floaters.
4. More kick-out passes.
5. Lower finishing efficiency.

Portland’s 47 three-point attempts are consistent with an offense that had difficulty generating reliable interior scoring.

The official NBA recap also described Wembanyama as controlling the paint late during the series-clinching win.

This does not mean every Portland three-point attempt was forced by Wembanyama.

Basketball is too complex for that conclusion.

But his presence clearly influenced the environment in which Portland had to create shots.

Plus/Minus Reveals the Game’s Most Successful Lineups

De’Aaron Fox posted the highest plus/minus at +26.

Wembanyama was +20.

Vassell was +22.

Champagnie was +10.

Castle was +12.

These numbers broadly support the conclusion that San Antonio’s main rotation players controlled the game.

For Portland, Cissoko was +9 and Grant was +3.

Those two figures stand out because they show that some Portland bench combinations performed competitively even during a 19-point loss.

Plus/minus should not be interpreted as a pure individual rating. It measures the team’s point differential while a player is on the floor.

Still, when it aligns with shooting efficiency, scoring and overall game flow, it can help identify where the strongest stretches occurred.

Why Portland Lost Game 5

The simplest explanation is that Portland could not overcome its shooting disadvantage.

But there were several layers behind that result.

1. Poor three-point efficiency

Portland shot 23% from three.

That made it difficult to punish San Antonio for concentrating defensive attention on the paint.

2. Low overall field-goal percentage

The Trail Blazers shot 35% from the field.

Even with 94 attempts, that level of accuracy produced only 33 made shots.

3. A slow start

Portland fell behind 36-24 in the first quarter and entered halftime down 20.

The game was effectively shaped before Portland’s fourth-quarter improvement.

4. Limited scoring from key starters

Holiday scored 8.

Camara scored 7.

Henderson scored 5.

Portland needed more offensive production from its starting lineup.

5. Wembanyama’s rim protection

Six blocks from Wembanyama made attacking the basket more difficult.

6. San Antonio’s perimeter efficiency

The Spurs shot 40% from three, led by Champagnie’s five makes.

That made it difficult for Portland to focus exclusively on interior defense.

Why San Antonio Won

San Antonio’s victory was not based on one superstar scoring 40 points.

Instead, the Spurs won through balanced efficiency.

Fox provided primary creation.

Wembanyama controlled the interior.

Champagnie supplied elite three-point shooting.

Castle added scoring and playmaking.

Harper delivered efficient bench scoring.

That combination allowed San Antonio to win without requiring Wembanyama to dominate the scoring column.

This is one of the most encouraging aspects of the performance from a team-building perspective.

The Spurs received double-digit scoring from multiple players and maintained enough spacing to punish Portland’s defensive choices.

Player Comparison: Top Performers

Player	Team	PTS	REB	AST	FG	3PT	+/-
De’Aaron Fox	Spurs	21	3	9	8-14	2-5	+26
Victor Wembanyama	Spurs	17	14	3	5-7	1-2	+20
Julian Champagnie	Spurs	19	7	3	6-9	5-7	+10
Dylan Harper	Spurs	17	3	1	6-9	1-1	+4
Stephon Castle	Spurs	15	3	5	6-11	2-6	+12
Deni Avdija	Trail Blazers	22	3	3	7-15	1-6	-20
Robert Williams III	Trail Blazers	11	7	1	5-10	1-3	-4
Jerami Grant	Trail Blazers	12	1	1	2-6	1-2	+3
Sidy Cissoko	Trail Blazers	11	4	0	4-6	2-3	+9
Jrue Holiday	Trail Blazers	8	6	7	3-14	1-6	-22

The table demonstrates why the final score should not be reduced to a simple comparison between Avdija and Fox.

Avdija scored more than any other Portland player, but Fox combined 21 points with 9 assists and a +26 plus/minus.

Wembanyama’s 17 points also came with 14 rebounds and 6 blocks.

Champagnie’s 19 points came with five made threes.

The Spurs therefore received different types of production from different players.

What the Matchup Says About the Two Teams

For San Antonio, this game showed the value of having several reliable offensive outlets around Wembanyama.

A defense cannot easily collapse on Wembanyama when Fox can attack, Champagnie can shoot and Castle can create.

The Spurs also demonstrated that they can win a playoff game through efficiency rather than extreme scoring volume.

For Portland, the series provided valuable playoff experience.

The Trail Blazers were a seventh seed facing a second-seeded San Antonio team, and the series ended 4-1. Portland still found moments of competitiveness and had stretches where its young players showed promise.

The official Portland postgame report described the playoff run as a learning experience for the team and highlighted the challenge of facing a San Antonio roster led by Wembanyama.

Understanding the Most Important Stats

If you are researching player statistics rather than simply looking for the final score, five categories provide the clearest picture of this game.

Points

Points identify scoring production.

Avdija’s 22 led Portland.

Fox’s 21 led San Antonio.

Shooting percentage

Shooting percentage explains how efficiently those points were generated.

San Antonio’s 55% team field-goal percentage was a major advantage over Portland’s 35%.

Three-point percentage

This shows how effectively each team converted perimeter opportunities.

The Spurs shot 40%.

The Trail Blazers shot 23%.

Rebounds

Rebounds indicate possession opportunities and defensive control.

San Antonio won this category 42-38.

Wembanyama’s 14 rebounds led the game.

Plus/minus

Plus/minus provides context about team performance during a player’s minutes.

Fox’s +26 was the highest figure in the game.

Using all five categories together gives a much better picture than looking at points alone.

A Closer Look at Portland’s Shot Volume

One of the most interesting details is Portland’s 94 field-goal attempts.

A casual reading might suggest that Portland simply needed more opportunities.

It did not.

The team already had plenty of attempts.

The problem was that too few became successful shots.

At 35% shooting, Portland made only 33 field goals.

San Antonio made 41 despite attempting only 75.

This is a classic example of why volume does not automatically equal offensive success.

A team can have more possessions and more shots but still lose comfortably if the opponent consistently creates better or more efficient scoring opportunities.

The Fourth Quarter Deserves Special Attention

The final quarter finished 30-28 in Portland’s favor.

That statistic can be misleading if viewed without context.

Portland’s fourth-quarter victory did not mean the Trail Blazers had control of the closing period.

San Antonio entered the quarter with a large lead.

When Portland reduced the margin to 91-82, the Spurs needed to respond.

Fox’s late scoring and Wembanyama’s defensive presence helped prevent the comeback. The official NBA report specifically highlighted Fox’s 13 fourth-quarter points and Wembanyama’s defensive plays during the closing stretch.

Therefore, the fourth quarter should be understood as evidence of Portland’s resilience, but not evidence that the game was evenly contested overall.

What Stands Out From the Complete Box Score

Several individual statistics are especially noteworthy.

Fox’s 9 assists: This was the highest assist total in the game and showed that San Antonio’s offense was not dependent on isolation scoring.

Wembanyama’s 14 rebounds: He controlled the defensive glass while also protecting the rim.

Wembanyama’s 6 blocks: This was the game’s most obvious defensive statistic.

Champagnie’s 5-of-7 three-point shooting: This gave San Antonio efficient perimeter scoring.

Avdija’s 22 points: He remained Portland’s primary offensive contributor.

Holiday’s 7 assists: Despite shooting struggles, he remained a major facilitator.

Cissoko’s +9: His minutes were among Portland’s most competitive.

Fox’s +26: The strongest plus/minus of the game reflected San Antonio’s control during his minutes.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who led the Spurs in scoring against the Trail Blazers?

De’Aaron Fox led San Antonio with 21 points. He also recorded 9 assists, 3 rebounds and a game-best +26 plus/minus.

Who was Portland’s leading scorer?

Deni Avdija led the Trail Blazers with 22 points. He shot 7-of-15 from the field, including 1-of-6 from three-point range.

How many points did Victor Wembanyama score?

Victor Wembanyama scored 17 points. He also recorded 14 rebounds, 3 assists and 6 blocks.

Who had the most rebounds in the game?

Wembanyama led all players with 14 rebounds.

Who had the most assists?

De’Aaron Fox recorded 9 assists for San Antonio. Jrue Holiday led Portland with 7 assists.

What was the final score of Spurs vs Trail Blazers Game 5?

San Antonio defeated Portland 114-95 and won the Western Conference First Round series 4-1. The official NBA game page records the 114-95 result and series-clinching victory.

Conclusion

The san antonio spurs vs portland trail blazers match player stats show a game decided primarily by efficiency, not by shot volume.

San Antonio shot 55% from the field and 40% from three while Portland shot 35% overall and 23% from deep. The Spurs also held a 42-38 rebounding advantage and received strong contributions from multiple players.

Fox was the leading scorer with 21 points and the leading assister with 9 assists. Wembanyama added 17 points, 14 rebounds and 6 blocks. Champagnie supplied 19 points with five three-pointers, while Harper provided 17 efficient points from the bench.

For Portland, Avdija’s 22 points led the team, while Holiday produced 7 assists and Robert Williams III contributed 11 points and 7 rebounds. Cissoko also had a productive stretch, finishing with 11 points, 4 rebounds and a team-best +9 among Portland players.

The broader story is that San Antonio had too many efficient answers. Portland’s late push demonstrated competitiveness, but the 65-45 halftime deficit was too large to overcome.

The result completed a 4-1 series victory for the Spurs and sent San Antonio into the Western Conference semifinals.