Oklahoma City Thunder vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats
The oklahoma city thunder vs san antonio spurs match player stats from Game 4 of the 2026 NBA Western Conference Finals tell a much bigger story than the final score alone. San Antonio defeated Oklahoma City 103-82 on May 25, 2026, at Frost Bank Center, leveling the series at 2-2. Victor Wembanyama delivered the game’s standout individual performance with 33 points and 3 blocks, while the Spurs also controlled the rebounding battle, defensive activity, and overall shooting efficiency.
Oklahoma City entered the contest with a 64-18 regular-season record and a 30-10 road mark. San Antonio finished the regular season at 62-20 and owned an impressive 32-8 home record. Those numbers made Game 4 especially important because both teams had already demonstrated that they could win consistently throughout the season.
The 21-point margin, however, came from several statistical differences. The Spurs shot 39 percent from the field compared with 33 percent for the Thunder. San Antonio also committed only 12 turnovers while Oklahoma City had 17. The Spurs grabbed 52 rebounds, produced 11 steals, and blocked 10 shots. Oklahoma City finished with 47 rebounds, 9 steals, and 5 blocks.
This breakdown examines the key player performances, team statistics, quarter-by-quarter scoring, shooting efficiency, rebounding, playmaking, turnovers, defense, and the broader meaning of the numbers.
Oklahoma City Thunder vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats
The oklahoma city thunder vs san antonio spurs match player stats show a game in which San Antonio consistently created more pressure on both ends of the floor.
The final score was:
San Antonio Spurs 103, Oklahoma City Thunder 82
The Spurs scored at least 22 points in every quarter and produced their strongest offensive periods in the first and third quarters. Oklahoma City, meanwhile, scored 19 points in each of the first two quarters before improving slightly to 22 points in both the third and fourth quarters.
Game Summary
| Category | Oklahoma City Thunder | San Antonio Spurs |
| Final Score | 82 | 103 |
| Q1 | 19 | 28 |
| Q2 | 19 | 22 |
| Q3 | 22 | 28 |
| Q4 | 22 | 25 |
| Field Goals | 30-91 | 35-90 |
| Field Goal % | 33% | 39% |
| Three-Pointers | 6-33 | 9-33 |
| Three-Point % | 18% | 27% |
| Free Throws | 16-18 | 24-32 |
| Rebounds | 47 | 52 |
| Assists | 22 | 25 |
| Turnovers | 17 | 12 |
| Steals | 9 | 11 |
| Blocks | 5 | 10 |
The table immediately highlights one of the biggest reasons for San Antonio’s victory. The Spurs attempted one fewer field goal than Oklahoma City but made five more shots.
That difference became significant because Oklahoma City struggled from outside. The Thunder converted only 6 of 33 three-point attempts, an 18 percent rate. San Antonio made 9 of 33, or 27 percent.
Neither team was particularly efficient from three-point range, but the Spurs still gained an advantage.
Victor Wembanyama Leads San Antonio
Victor Wembanyama was the most productive scorer in the game, finishing with 33 points. He also recorded 3 blocks, giving San Antonio a major two-way presence.
His 33-point performance was particularly important because Oklahoma City had difficulty generating efficient offense throughout the game. When a team scores only 82 points, a dominant opposing interior defender can have an impact that goes beyond the official block total.
Wembanyama’s three blocks were part of San Antonio’s 10 total blocks. That number was exactly double Oklahoma City’s five.
The defensive impact was also reflected in the Thunder’s shooting percentage. Oklahoma City made only 30 of 91 field-goal attempts.
Why Wembanyama’s Performance Mattered
A 33-point scoring night naturally attracts attention, but the broader statistical context makes the performance even more meaningful.
San Antonio needed a reliable offensive centerpiece against a Thunder team that had won 64 games during the regular season. Wembanyama provided that production while also contributing as a rim protector.
The Spurs did not rely exclusively on three-point shooting. Their 9-for-33 performance from deep was only 27 percent. Instead, their advantage came from combining interior production, better overall field-goal efficiency, free throws, rebounding, and defense.
That balance helped San Antonio build a comfortable lead.
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander’s Production
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander led Oklahoma City with 19 points and also recorded 7 assists.
His seven assists were the highest total for either team in the supplied game data, showing that he remained an important creator even while the Thunder struggled to score efficiently.
However, 19 points from Oklahoma City’s leading scorer was not enough to match San Antonio’s offensive output.
The Thunder scored 82 points as a team, meaning their leading scorer accounted for a significant portion of the total. Yet the larger issue was that Oklahoma City did not receive enough efficient scoring production around him.
Gilgeous-Alexander as a Playmaker
The seven assists are particularly important when analyzing the game beyond the basic scoring numbers.
Oklahoma City finished with 22 assists overall. Gilgeous-Alexander therefore accounted for a substantial share of the team’s playmaking production.
The challenge was that passing opportunities did not consistently turn into made shots. A team can generate assists and still struggle offensively if its conversion rate is low.
That is essentially what happened here.
The Thunder shot 33 percent from the field and only 18 percent from three-point range. As a result, even solid playmaking could not completely compensate for the shooting problems.
Chet Holmgren Controls the Boards for OKC
Chet Holmgren was Oklahoma City’s top rebounder with 9 rebounds.
His rebounding performance helped the Thunder remain competitive on the glass, but San Antonio still won the overall rebounding battle 52-47.
That five-rebound difference was not enormous, but it was meaningful in a game decided by 21 points.
Rebounding becomes particularly important when shooting percentages are low. Both teams missed a large number of shots, creating opportunities for second possessions.
San Antonio collected more of those opportunities.
The Rebounding Difference
The Thunder grabbed 47 rebounds compared with 52 for the Spurs.
That difference can be viewed through several factors:
- San Antonio produced five more total rebounds.
- Oklahoma City struggled to convert its field-goal attempts.
- The Spurs generated more defensive activity.
- San Antonio’s stronger interior presence helped limit Oklahoma City’s efficiency.
- Additional possessions mattered in a low-scoring game.
Holmgren’s nine rebounds were useful, but the overall team result favored San Antonio.
De’Aaron Fox Provides All-Around Value
De’Aaron Fox led the Spurs with 10 rebounds, the highest rebounding total for either team.
That is a notable part of the game because the Spurs did not rely on their frontcourt players alone to win the rebounding battle.
Fox’s 10 rebounds helped San Antonio finish with 52 total boards.
His contribution illustrates why individual player statistics should always be examined within the team context. A player’s value in a particular game is not limited to scoring.
In this contest, rebounding was one of the areas where San Antonio consistently created additional opportunities.
Stephon Castle’s Six Assists
Stephon Castle led San Antonio with 6 assists.
The Spurs finished with 25 assists as a team, three more than Oklahoma City’s 22.
That difference was not massive, but it fits the overall pattern of the game. San Antonio combined better shooting efficiency with slightly better ball movement and fewer turnovers.
Castle’s six assists were especially useful in an offense that produced 35 made field goals.
The Spurs did not dominate the assist category, but they did enough to maintain efficient offensive possessions.
The Biggest Statistical Difference: Shooting
One of the clearest reasons for the final result was shooting efficiency.
Oklahoma City made:
30 of 91 field goals
San Antonio made:
35 of 90 field goals
The Thunder shot 33 percent, while the Spurs shot 39 percent.
That seven percentage-point difference may appear modest, but over 90 or more attempts it becomes substantial.
San Antonio made five additional field goals despite taking one fewer shot.
Oklahoma City’s Three-Point Struggles
The Thunder went 6-for-33 from three-point range.
That equals an 18 percent shooting rate.
This was one of the most damaging numbers in the game.
Thirty-three three-point attempts represent a major part of an NBA team’s offensive profile. When only six are converted, the missed opportunities can significantly reduce scoring efficiency.
The Thunder’s three-point percentage also meant that they could not use perimeter shooting to compensate for their overall field-goal struggles.
San Antonio’s Three-Point Shooting
The Spurs were better from deep, but they were not highly efficient either.
San Antonio went 9-for-33, which translated to 27 percent.
The Spurs therefore won without needing an exceptional three-point shooting night.
That is an important distinction.
San Antonio’s victory was based on a broader statistical advantage rather than simply hitting a high percentage of threes.
Free Throws Gave San Antonio Another Advantage
Oklahoma City made 16 of 18 free throws, an excellent 89 percent.
San Antonio made 24 of 32, or 75 percent.
The Thunder actually had the better free-throw percentage.
However, San Antonio attempted 14 more free throws.
That resulted in eight more made free throws for the Spurs.
This is a good example of why percentage alone does not always tell the full story.
Oklahoma City was more accurate at the line, but San Antonio generated more opportunities and therefore scored more total points from free throws.
The difference was:
Thunder: 16 made free throws
Spurs: 24 made free throws
That eight-point advantage was meaningful in a game where Oklahoma City scored only 82 points.
Turnovers Helped San Antonio Control Possessions
The Thunder committed 17 turnovers.
The Spurs committed only 12.
That gave San Antonio a five-turnover advantage.
Turnovers are especially damaging when they prevent a team from completing an offensive possession.
Oklahoma City already struggled with shooting efficiency. Losing five additional possessions made the offensive challenge even harder.
San Antonio’s 12 turnovers were not perfect ball security, but they were better than Oklahoma City’s total.
Why the Turnover Margin Matters
The Thunder finished with 22 assists and 17 turnovers.
San Antonio recorded 25 assists and 12 turnovers.
The difference suggests a cleaner offensive performance from the Spurs.
Their assist-to-turnover balance was also stronger, allowing San Antonio to maintain more completed possessions.
In a playoff environment, possession quality can become more important than raw volume.
San Antonio’s Defensive Pressure Was Significant
The Spurs recorded:
- 11 steals
- 10 blocks
Oklahoma City recorded:
- 9 steals
- 5 blocks
San Antonio therefore led in both defensive categories.
The most striking difference was blocks.
The Spurs recorded twice as many blocks as the Thunder.
That defensive activity fits with the Thunder’s 33 percent field-goal shooting.
A low field-goal percentage does not automatically prove that blocks caused every missed shot, but the numbers show that San Antonio created considerable defensive resistance.
Kelly Olynyk Leads San Antonio in Steals
Kelly Olynyk recorded 3 steals, the highest total for either team according to the supplied data.
The Spurs finished with 11 steals overall.
Those steals contributed to San Antonio’s defensive activity and helped create additional possessions.
In a game where both teams struggled from the field, defensive plays that generate possessions can become especially valuable.
Olynyk’s three steals were therefore an important part of the Spurs’ defensive contribution.
Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown
The quarter scores reveal that San Antonio never allowed Oklahoma City to establish sustained offensive momentum.
First Quarter
Spurs 28, Thunder 19
San Antonio immediately created a nine-point advantage.
The 28 points were the Spurs’ second-highest single-quarter total of the game, while Oklahoma City scored only 19.
That early difference gave San Antonio control.
Second Quarter
Spurs 22, Thunder 19
Oklahoma City reduced the deficit by only three points during the second quarter.
San Antonio entered halftime with a significant advantage.
The Thunder needed a major offensive improvement after the break, but the third quarter moved in the opposite direction.
Third Quarter
Spurs 28, Thunder 22
San Antonio again scored 28 points.
Oklahoma City improved to 22 points, but the Spurs still won the quarter by six.
This was a critical period because the Thunder could not produce the type of offensive run necessary to dramatically change the game.
Fourth Quarter
Spurs 25, Thunder 22
The Spurs finished the game with another quarter victory.
Oklahoma City scored 22, but San Antonio produced 25.
Rather than allowing the Thunder to make a late comeback, the Spurs maintained their advantage.
How the Game Was Won
The final 103-82 score can be explained through several connected statistical factors.
1. Better Overall Shooting
San Antonio shot 39 percent from the field.
Oklahoma City shot 33 percent.
That six percentage-point difference was one of the clearest indicators of the game.
2. More Made Field Goals
San Antonio made 35 field goals.
Oklahoma City made 30.
Five additional made shots provided a meaningful scoring advantage.
3. More Free Throws Made
The Spurs made 24 free throws.
The Thunder made 16.
Even though Oklahoma City had a higher free-throw percentage, San Antonio created more opportunities.
4. Fewer Turnovers
San Antonio had 12 turnovers.
Oklahoma City had 17.
Five additional possessions lost by the Thunder made it harder to sustain offense.
5. Rebounding Advantage
San Antonio collected 52 rebounds.
Oklahoma City collected 47.
The Spurs gained five more rebounds overall.
6. Defensive Activity
San Antonio had 11 steals and 10 blocks.
Oklahoma City had 9 steals and 5 blocks.
The Spurs were more disruptive defensively.
What the Player Statistics Reveal
The most useful way to analyze the oklahoma city thunder vs san antonio spurs match player stats is to connect individual production to team outcomes.
Wembanyama’s 33 points gave San Antonio the scoring centerpiece it needed.
Fox’s 10 rebounds helped the Spurs control the glass.
Castle’s six assists supported San Antonio’s ball movement.
Olynyk’s three steals reflected the team’s defensive pressure.
For Oklahoma City, Gilgeous-Alexander produced 19 points and seven assists, while Holmgren grabbed nine rebounds.
Those were meaningful individual contributions, but the supporting statistical profile favored San Antonio.
This is why player statistics should not be interpreted independently.
A player can have a strong individual performance while the team still loses because other areas of the game move in the opposite direction.
Comparing the Team Leaders
| Statistical Category | Thunder Leader | Spurs Leader |
| Points | Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, 19 | Victor Wembanyama, 33 |
| Rebounds | Chet Holmgren, 9 | De’Aaron Fox, 10 |
| Assists | Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, 7 | Stephon Castle, 6 |
| Steals | Team data: 9 total | Kelly Olynyk, 3 |
| Blocks | Team data: 5 total | Victor Wembanyama, 3 |
The contrast is interesting.
Oklahoma City’s top scorer finished with 19 points, while San Antonio’s top scorer reached 33.
That 14-point difference between the leading scorers alone was substantial.
At the same time, Oklahoma City had the individual assist leader with seven compared with Castle’s six.
This demonstrates that San Antonio did not win because it dominated every individual category. Instead, it won because several important categories collectively favored the Spurs.
The Importance of Home-Court Performance
San Antonio entered the game with a 32-8 home record.
Oklahoma City entered with a 30-10 road record.
Both teams had excellent records away from and at home, respectively.
That made the 103-82 result especially notable.
The Spurs used their home environment to establish control early and maintain it for all four quarters.
The attendance was 19,405, showing the scale of the playoff setting at Frost Bank Center.
For a Western Conference Finals game, maintaining offensive execution under that level of pressure is a major part of the overall game context.
Series Implications
After Game 4, the Western Conference Finals series was tied 2-2.
That means neither team had established a series advantage after four games.
The importance of the result therefore extends beyond one night.
San Antonio protected home court and produced a convincing 21-point victory. Oklahoma City, meanwhile, faced the task of responding after its lowest-scoring performance in this particular game.
The series status makes the individual statistics useful for understanding what each team could take from the contest.
San Antonio could point to its shooting efficiency, defensive activity, rebounding, and turnover margin.
Oklahoma City could focus on improving its shooting, protecting possessions, and generating more consistent scoring around its primary creators.
What Oklahoma City Needed to Improve
The statistical profile identifies several areas that would require attention.
Improve Three-Point Efficiency
Six made threes on 33 attempts produced an 18 percent rate.
That level of perimeter efficiency puts considerable pressure on every other part of the offense.
Reduce Turnovers
Seventeen turnovers compared with 12 from San Antonio created a five-possession disadvantage.
Cleaner offensive execution would give Oklahoma City more opportunities to score.
Increase Shot Conversion
The Thunder attempted 91 field goals but made only 30.
Creating shots was not enough.
The key problem was converting those opportunities.
Match Defensive Physicality
The Spurs recorded 10 blocks and 11 steals.
Oklahoma City had five blocks and nine steals.
The Thunder needed more consistent defensive disruption while also limiting San Antonio’s efficient scoring.
What San Antonio Did Well
The Spurs’ strongest feature was balance.
They did not rely on one statistical category.
Instead, they combined:
- 39 percent field-goal shooting
- 27 percent three-point shooting
- 24 made free throws
- 52 rebounds
- 25 assists
- 12 turnovers
- 11 steals
- 10 blocks
That combination produced a complete team performance.
Wembanyama’s 33 points naturally stood out, but the overall victory came from a much broader statistical foundation.
Understanding Efficiency Beyond the Box Score
Traditional box scores tell us who scored, rebounded, assisted, stole the ball, or blocked a shot.
They do not always tell us why a team won.
In this game, the deeper explanation comes from connecting the categories.
Oklahoma City had 91 field-goal attempts, four more than San Antonio’s 90.
Yet the Thunder scored 21 fewer points.
That means the problem was not a lack of shot attempts.
It was efficiency.
The Thunder also made 16 free throws on 18 attempts, so free-throw accuracy was not the primary problem either.
The major issues were field-goal conversion, three-point shooting, turnovers, and the inability to match San Antonio’s overall production.
A Closer Look at the 21-Point Margin
A 21-point final margin can sometimes be misleading if it is built during a single late-game stretch.
That does not appear to be the case here.
San Antonio won every quarter:
- First quarter by 9
- Second quarter by 3
- Third quarter by 6
- Fourth quarter by 3
The Spurs therefore maintained control throughout the entire game.
There was no quarter in which Oklahoma City outscored San Antonio.
That consistency is one of the strongest indicators of the nature of the performance.
Why the 103-82 Score Matters
The Spurs scored 103 points.
The Thunder scored 82.
The difference was 21 points.
Oklahoma City’s 82-point total reflects the offensive struggles seen across the box score.
A 33 percent field-goal rate combined with an 18 percent three-point rate created a difficult path to a high-scoring performance.
San Antonio did not need an explosive three-point night because the Spurs generated enough scoring through overall field-goal efficiency and free throws.
That is an important lesson from this matchup.
The Broader Meaning of the Player Stats
The oklahoma city thunder vs san antonio spurs match player stats demonstrate why playoff basketball analysis should not focus only on the highest scorer.
Wembanyama’s 33 points were the headline statistic.
However, the Spurs also received 10 rebounds from Fox, six assists from Castle, and three steals from Olynyk.
Oklahoma City had 19 points and seven assists from Gilgeous-Alexander and nine rebounds from Holmgren.
The difference was the collective performance.
San Antonio’s leading scorer produced 14 more points than Oklahoma City’s leading scorer, while the team also won the rebounding, assist, turnover, steal, block, and field-goal percentage comparisons.
That combination explains the result more effectively than any single statistic.
Frequently Asked Questions
What was the final score between Oklahoma City and San Antonio?
The San Antonio Spurs defeated the Oklahoma City Thunder 103-82 in Game 4 of the 2026 Western Conference Finals on May 25, 2026.
Who scored the most points in the game?
Victor Wembanyama was the game’s leading scorer with 33 points for San Antonio.
Who led the Thunder in scoring?
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander led Oklahoma City with 19 points. He also recorded seven assists.
How many rebounds did Chet Holmgren have?
Chet Holmgren recorded nine rebounds, making him Oklahoma City’s top rebounder in the game.
How did the teams compare in three-point shooting?
Oklahoma City made 6 of 33 three-point attempts for 18 percent. San Antonio made 9 of 33 for 27 percent.
What was the series score after Game 4?
The series was tied 2-2 after San Antonio’s 103-82 victory.
Conclusion
The oklahoma city thunder vs san antonio spurs match player stats from Game 4 show a complete San Antonio performance rather than a victory based solely on one superstar.
Victor Wembanyama led all scorers with 33 points and added three blocks. De’Aaron Fox collected 10 rebounds, Stephon Castle supplied six assists, and Kelly Olynyk recorded three steals. San Antonio also finished with 52 rebounds, 25 assists, 11 steals, and 10 blocks.
Oklahoma City received 19 points and seven assists from Shai Gilgeous-Alexander and nine rebounds from Chet Holmgren. The Thunder also shot 89 percent from the free-throw line, showing that not every part of the offensive performance was inefficient.
The decisive differences came elsewhere. Oklahoma City shot 33 percent from the field and 18 percent from three-point range, while San Antonio shot 39 percent overall and 27 percent from deep. The Spurs also made eight more free throws, committed five fewer turnovers, grabbed five more rebounds, and recorded five more blocks.
The result was a 103-82 San Antonio victory that tied the Western Conference Finals at 2-2.
For anyone studying this matchup, the central lesson is straightforward: the final score was the product of several connected statistical advantages. Individual production mattered, but shooting efficiency, possession control, rebounding, and defensive disruption collectively shaped the outcome.
The official NBA website can be used as an authoritative reference for NBA competition information and league-level statistics.
