San Antonio Spurs vs Knicks Match Player Stats
The san antonio spurs vs knicks match player stats from Game 2 of the 2026 NBA Finals tell the story of one of the closest games of the series. The New York Knicks defeated the San Antonio Spurs 105-104 on June 6, 2026, at Frost Bank Center in San Antonio. The one-point margin does not fully explain how competitive the game was. San Antonio shot better from the field, Victor Wembanyama produced a huge two-way performance, and the Spurs had several players contribute across the box score. Yet New York found enough offense, rebounding, playmaking, and late-game execution to escape with the victory.
For anyone studying the san antonio spurs vs knicks match player stats, the most important lesson is that the box score was not simply about who scored the most points. Wembanyama led all scorers with 29 points, while Karl-Anthony Towns posted 21 points and 13 rebounds for New York. Mikal Bridges added 20 points, Jalen Brunson scored 20, and De’Aaron Fox contributed 20 for San Antonio. The supporting numbers reveal an even more interesting contest.
The Knicks finished 37-for-89 from the field, 15-for-38 from three-point range, and 16-for-21 at the free-throw line. The Spurs were more efficient overall, going 37-for-78 from the field and 19-for-27 at the free-throw line. San Antonio also finished with 42 rebounds, 22 assists, and 16 turnovers, while New York recorded 44 rebounds, 29 assists, and only 12 turnovers.
That combination helps explain why the Knicks won despite San Antonio’s superior overall field-goal percentage.
Game 2 Overview
The final score was:
New York Knicks 105, San Antonio Spurs 104
The game was played on June 6, 2026, at Frost Bank Center, with an announced attendance of 19,014.
The quarter-by-quarter scoring shows just how dramatically the game shifted:
| Quarter | Knicks | Spurs |
| Q1 | 25 | 34 |
| Q2 | 31 | 18 |
| Q3 | 28 | 23 |
| Q4 | 21 | 29 |
| Final | 105 | 104 |
San Antonio controlled the opening period, scoring 34 points while limiting New York to 25. The Knicks responded with a 31-point second quarter and allowed only 18 Spurs points.
That second-quarter swing was critical.
After halftime, New York maintained a five-point advantage in the third quarter scoring battle, 28-23. San Antonio then made its final push in the fourth, outscoring New York 29-21. However, the Spurs’ comeback stopped one point short.
This is one of the clearest examples of why individual quarter results need to be viewed alongside the full box score. San Antonio had the stronger first and fourth quarters, but New York’s middle-game response was enough to create the margin it needed.
San Antonio Spurs vs Knicks Match Player Stats
The central san antonio spurs vs knicks match player stats show a matchup dominated by several contrasting performances.
Victor Wembanyama was San Antonio’s leading scorer with 29 points. He shot 11-for-21 from the field, grabbed nine rebounds, recorded two assists, produced two steals, and blocked four shots.
Karl-Anthony Towns gave New York one of its most complete performances. He scored 21 points on 8-for-12 shooting, made 3-of-5 three-pointers, collected 13 rebounds, and added four assists.
Mikal Bridges was equally important from an offensive efficiency standpoint. He scored 20 points on 8-for-13 shooting and connected on four of his six three-point attempts. He also had six rebounds and six assists.
Jalen Brunson scored 20 points but had a more difficult shooting night, making 7-of-25 attempts from the field. His five steals and six assists nevertheless added significant value.
For San Antonio, De’Aaron Fox scored 20 points on an efficient 8-for-12 shooting performance while adding five assists. Devin Vassell contributed 14 points, nine rebounds, and five assists.
Rookie Dylan Harper also delivered an important bench performance for San Antonio. He scored 15 points, grabbed six rebounds, and finished with a team-best plus/minus of +12.
New York Knicks Player Statistics
| Player | MIN | PTS | FG | 3PT | FT | REB | AST | STL | BLK | TO | +/- |
| OG Anunoby | 37 | 17 | 5-10 | 2-5 | 5-5 | 4 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | -9 |
| Karl-Anthony Towns | 34 | 21 | 8-12 | 3-5 | 2-2 | 13 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | +11 |
| Josh Hart | 18 | 0 | 0-4 | 0-2 | 0-0 | 6 | 4 | 1 | 1 | 2 | -3 |
| Mikal Bridges | 41 | 20 | 8-13 | 4-6 | 0-0 | 6 | 6 | 1 | 0 | 1 | +7 |
| Jalen Brunson | 38 | 20 | 7-25 | 2-8 | 4-5 | 5 | 6 | 5 | 0 | 4 | -10 |
| Mitchell Robinson | 14 | 7 | 2-2 | 0-0 | 3-6 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 1 | 1 | -10 |
| Landry Shamet | 30 | 13 | 5-12 | 3-7 | 0-0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1 | 0 | +9 |
| Jose Alvarado | 10 | 2 | 0-4 | 0-2 | 2-3 | 3 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | +11 |
| Miles McBride | 18 | 5 | 2-7 | 1-3 | 0-0 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 2 | -1 |
Jeremy Sochan, Pacome Dadiet, Mohamed Diawara, Ariel Hukporti, Jordan Clarkson, and Tyler Kolek did not play according to the supplied game data.
San Antonio Spurs Player Statistics
| Player | MIN | PTS | FG | 3PT | FT | REB | AST | STL | BLK | TO | +/- |
| Julian Champagnie | 36 | 8 | 2-6 | 2-5 | 2-2 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 0 | -8 |
| Victor Wembanyama | 40 | 29 | 11-21 | 2-6 | 5-8 | 9 | 2 | 2 | 4 | 4 | +6 |
| De’Aaron Fox | 34 | 20 | 8-12 | 2-2 | 2-2 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 4 | +2 |
| Devin Vassell | 38 | 14 | 4-9 | 3-7 | 3-3 | 9 | 5 | 0 | 1 | 0 | +6 |
| Stephon Castle | 28 | 14 | 5-14 | 2-4 | 2-4 | 4 | 4 | 1 | 0 | 4 | -6 |
| Harrison Barnes | 5 | 0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | -5 |
| Keldon Johnson | 16 | 3 | 1-4 | 0-2 | 1-2 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 1 | -5 |
| Carter Bryant | 3 | 0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 0 |
| Luke Kornet | 8 | 1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 1-2 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | -7 |
| Dylan Harper | 32 | 15 | 6-12 | 0-3 | 3-4 | 6 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 2 | +12 |
Kelly Olynyk, Lindy Waters III, Bismack Biyombo, Mason Plumlee, and Jordan McLaughlin did not play according to the supplied data.
Victor Wembanyama’s 29-Point Performance
Wembanyama was clearly the most productive scorer in the game.
His 29 points came on 11-of-21 shooting, giving him a 52.4% field-goal percentage. He also made two three-pointers and five free throws. His offensive production was complemented by nine rebounds, two steals, and four blocks.
The four blocks are particularly important because they demonstrate how much of his impact came away from the scoring column.
A player who scores 29 points can have a major offensive impact, but adding four blocks and two steals creates additional defensive value. Wembanyama’s nine rebounds also placed him close to a double-double.
His four turnovers, however, were one of the areas where San Antonio could have improved. The Spurs finished with 16 turnovers as a team, four more than New York.
The supplied plus/minus of +6 also shows that Wembanyama’s minutes were productive despite San Antonio ultimately losing.
Karl-Anthony Towns Was Critical for New York
Towns delivered one of the most efficient performances of the game.
He finished with 21 points on 8-of-12 shooting, which translates to 66.7% from the field. He also made three of five attempts from beyond the arc.
That combination is difficult to defend because Towns was not relying solely on interior scoring.
His 13 rebounds were equally important. New York finished with 44 total rebounds, two more than San Antonio, and Towns accounted for nearly 30% of the Knicks’ total.
His four assists also show that he contributed beyond scoring and rebounding.
Most importantly, Towns finished with a +11 plus/minus. That was one of the strongest marks among Knicks players who logged substantial minutes.
Mikal Bridges Delivered Efficient Scoring
Bridges quietly produced one of New York’s most efficient offensive games.
He scored 20 points while shooting 8-of-13 from the field and 4-of-6 from three-point range.
His three-point shooting deserves special attention. Bridges made 66.7% of his attempts from outside and accounted for four of New York’s 15 made three-pointers.
He also recorded six rebounds and six assists.
That makes his performance much more valuable than a basic 20-point summary suggests.
The supplied +7 plus/minus further supports the view that his minutes were productive.
Jalen Brunson’s Difficult Shooting Night
Brunson’s 20 points may look straightforward in a traditional scoring summary, but his shooting numbers reveal a much more complicated performance.
He attempted 25 field goals and made seven.
That is a 28.0% field-goal percentage.
He also made only two of eight three-point attempts.
Yet Brunson still contributed six assists and five steals.
The five steals were the highest total on either team and helped compensate for his shooting inefficiency.
His four turnovers were also the highest among Knicks players in the supplied box score. That creates a balanced picture: Brunson struggled as a shooter, but he contributed through playmaking and defensive activity.
His -10 plus/minus was also one of the lowest figures among New York players.
This is an important reminder that a box score should not be reduced to points alone.
De’Aaron Fox Provided Efficient Scoring for San Antonio
Fox was one of the Spurs’ most efficient offensive players.
He scored 20 points on 8-of-12 shooting, giving him a 66.7% field-goal percentage. He also made both of his three-point attempts and both of his free throws.
Fox added five assists, three rebounds, one steal, and one block.
His four turnovers were a drawback, but his +2 plus/minus indicates that his overall minutes were still productive.
The contrast between Fox and Brunson is particularly interesting.
Both players scored 20 points.
Brunson needed 25 field-goal attempts to reach that total, while Fox needed only 12.
That efficiency gap is one of the clearest individual statistical differences in the game.
Dylan Harper’s Bench Impact
Dylan Harper was another player whose contribution deserves more attention.
He played 32 minutes and scored 15 points on 6-of-12 shooting.
He also recorded six rebounds and three assists.
Most notably, Harper finished with a +12 plus/minus, the highest figure listed for either team.
That is an important contextual statistic because San Antonio lost by one point despite Harper’s strong overall impact during his minutes.
His performance also demonstrates that the Spurs were not dependent entirely on Wembanyama and Fox.
The bench and secondary rotation provided meaningful production.
Knicks vs Spurs Team Statistics
The team comparison explains why New York won despite San Antonio’s superior field-goal percentage.
| Statistic | Knicks | Spurs |
| Points | 105 | 104 |
| Field Goals | 37-89 | 37-78 |
| Field-Goal % | 42% | 47% |
| Three-Pointers | 15-38 | 11-29 |
| Three-Point % | 39% | 38% |
| Free Throws | 16-21 | 19-27 |
| Free-Throw % | 76% | 70% |
| Rebounds | 44 | 42 |
| Assists | 29 | 22 |
| Turnovers | 12 | 16 |
| Steals | 11 | 7 |
| Blocks | 6 | 7 |
The most striking difference is efficiency versus volume.
San Antonio made the same number of field goals as New York, 37, but did so on 11 fewer attempts.
That explains the 47% field-goal percentage.
New York’s advantage came from several other areas.
The Knicks made 15 three-pointers compared with 11 for San Antonio. They also had seven more assists, four fewer turnovers, and four more steals.
Those extra possessions and additional perimeter makes helped New York overcome its lower overall field-goal percentage.
Why the Three-Point Battle Mattered
New York attempted 38 three-pointers and made 15.
San Antonio attempted 29 and made 11.
The Knicks therefore made four more three-pointers.
That represents 12 additional points from made threes alone.
The percentages were relatively close, with New York at 39% and San Antonio at 38%, so the key difference was not dramatic shooting superiority. It was the combination of volume and successful conversions.
This is one of the clearest statistical reasons the final score remained so close despite San Antonio shooting better overall from the field.
Towns and Bridges were especially important here.
Towns made three three-pointers, while Bridges made four.
Landry Shamet added another three.
Together, those three players accounted for 10 of New York’s 15 made threes.
Turnovers Created a Hidden Advantage
New York committed 12 turnovers.
San Antonio committed 16.
That four-turnover difference may look modest, but in a one-point game it becomes extremely significant.
The Knicks also recorded 11 steals compared with seven for the Spurs.
That combination suggests New York generated more defensive disruption while protecting possessions better.
Brunson’s five steals were particularly notable.
Even though he struggled with his shot, his defensive activity contributed directly to New York’s ability to create extra opportunities.
On the San Antonio side, Wembanyama, Fox, and Castle each had four turnovers.
Those mistakes mattered because San Antonio’s overall shooting efficiency was actually better.
If the Spurs had reduced their turnovers while maintaining their shooting efficiency, the result could have been different.
Rebounding Was Close
New York won the rebounding battle 44-42.
That is not a massive difference, but it still gave the Knicks a small advantage in controlling missed shots.
Towns led New York with 13 rebounds.
Vassell and Wembanyama each collected nine for San Antonio.
Bridges added six rebounds, while Josh Hart also grabbed six despite scoring zero points.
The rebounding numbers reinforce the importance of looking beyond scoring.
Hart had a difficult offensive game, going 0-for-4 from the field, but he still contributed six rebounds, four assists, one steal, and one block.
The Josh Hart Example
Hart’s box score is a good example of why scoring totals should not be used as the only measure of player performance.
He finished with zero points.
However, he recorded six rebounds and four assists in only 18 minutes.
He also produced a steal and a block.
His offensive contribution was clearly limited, but his activity in other areas helped him remain involved.
This is especially relevant when analyzing role players. Not every player is on the floor primarily to score.
A useful player-stat analysis should ask what each player contributed within the role reflected by his minutes and responsibilities.
The Importance of Plus/Minus
Plus/minus can be useful, but it should never be treated as a complete player evaluation.
The Game 2 data provides several excellent examples.
For New York:
- Karl-Anthony Towns: +11
- Jose Alvarado: +11
- Landry Shamet: +9
- Mikal Bridges: +7
- Jalen Brunson: -10
- OG Anunoby: -9
For San Antonio:
- Dylan Harper: +12
- Victor Wembanyama: +6
- Devin Vassell: +6
- De’Aaron Fox: +2
- Julian Champagnie: -8
- Luke Kornet: -7
Harper’s +12 was the best number in the supplied game data, even though San Antonio lost.
That does not mean Harper was the best player in the game.
Instead, it shows that the Spurs performed well during his minutes relative to the other lineups.
The same principle applies to Brunson. A -10 does not erase his five steals and six assists, just as his 20 points do not erase his 7-for-25 shooting.
What the Box Score Says About the Knicks’ Win
New York’s victory was built on several small advantages rather than one overwhelming statistical category.
The Knicks:
- Made four more three-pointers.
- Had seven more assists.
- Committed four fewer turnovers.
- Recorded four more steals.
- Grabbed two more rebounds.
- Shot 76% from the free-throw line compared with San Antonio’s 70%.
San Antonio, meanwhile, had advantages in overall shooting efficiency and made two more free throws.
That balance explains the one-point final margin.
New York did not dominate the game statistically.
It simply won enough of the smaller battles to finish ahead.
What the Box Score Says About the Spurs
The Spurs can point to several encouraging numbers despite the loss.
Their 47% field-goal percentage was superior to New York’s 42%.
Wembanyama scored 29 points and blocked four shots.
Fox shot 8-for-12.
Vassell recorded 14 points, nine rebounds, and five assists.
Harper added 15 points and finished with the best plus/minus on the team.
The biggest concerns were turnovers and the three-point gap.
San Antonio committed 16 turnovers and made four fewer three-pointers than New York.
In a one-point game, those differences become difficult to overcome.
Comparing the Star Players
A direct comparison of the leading players creates several interesting contrasts.
Wembanyama vs Towns
Wembanyama:
- 29 points
- 11-for-21 shooting
- 9 rebounds
- 2 assists
- 2 steals
- 4 blocks
- 4 turnovers
- +6
Towns:
- 21 points
- 8-for-12 shooting
- 13 rebounds
- 4 assists
- 1 steal
- 1 block
- 2 turnovers
- +11
Wembanyama had the higher scoring total and greater defensive event production.
Towns was more efficient from the field and contributed more rebounds and assists.
Brunson vs Fox
Brunson:
- 20 points
- 7-for-25 shooting
- 5 rebounds
- 6 assists
- 5 steals
- 4 turnovers
- -10
Fox:
- 20 points
- 8-for-12 shooting
- 3 rebounds
- 5 assists
- 1 steal
- 1 block
- 4 turnovers
- +2
Fox had a significant shooting-efficiency advantage.
Brunson, however, produced four additional steals and one more assist.
The numbers show why a simple points comparison does not provide enough context.
Game Flow and Momentum
The scoring pattern provides another way to understand the result.
San Antonio opened with a nine-point advantage in the first quarter.
New York then responded by winning the second quarter by 13 points.
That was the biggest swing of the game.
The Knicks extended their advantage slightly in the third quarter before San Antonio mounted another fourth-quarter comeback.
The Spurs scored 29 points in the final period, but New York’s earlier advantage was just enough.
This creates an important analytical takeaway: the game was effectively decided by New York’s ability to recover from the first-quarter deficit and build enough separation before San Antonio’s final push.
Series Context
According to the supplied matchup information, New York entered Game 2 after winning Game 1 by a 105-95 score on June 4, 2026.
The Game 2 victory therefore gave the Knicks a 2-0 series lead.
The supplied later results show:
| Game | Date | Result |
| Game 1 | June 4, 2026 | Knicks 105, Spurs 95 |
| Game 2 | June 6, 2026 | Knicks 105, Spurs 104 |
| Game 3 | June 9, 2026 | Spurs 115, Knicks 111 |
| Game 4 | June 11, 2026 | Spurs 106, Knicks 107 |
| Game 5 | June 14, 2026 | Knicks 90, Spurs 94 |
This article focuses on Game 2 because that is the game represented by the detailed player statistics supplied above.
The broader sequence also shows that the matchup remained highly competitive after Game 2.
Most Important Statistical Takeaways
The san antonio spurs vs knicks match player stats provide several lessons that are useful for anyone analyzing NBA box scores.
1. Wembanyama was the leading scorer
His 29 points were the highest individual total.
2. Towns was one of the most efficient scorers
He made 8-of-12 field-goal attempts and added 13 rebounds.
3. Bridges combined scoring and playmaking
His 20 points, six rebounds, and six assists came with highly efficient shooting.
4. Fox was highly efficient
He scored 20 points on 8-of-12 shooting and made both of his three-point attempts.
5. Brunson’s impact was complicated
His 20 points came on difficult shooting, but he added six assists and five steals.
6. New York won the possession battle
The Knicks committed four fewer turnovers and recorded four more steals.
7. Three-point volume favored New York
The Knicks made 15 threes compared with 11 for San Antonio.
8. The game was decided by a tiny margin
New York won by one point despite San Antonio’s better overall field-goal percentage.
How to Read These Player Stats Correctly
A strong basketball statistical analysis should combine several categories.
Start with scoring, but do not stop there.
Then examine:
- Shooting efficiency
- Three-point production
- Free throws
- Rebounding
- Assists
- Turnovers
- Steals
- Blocks
- Minutes
- Plus/minus
The value of this approach becomes obvious in this game.
If you looked only at scoring, Wembanyama would stand out immediately.
If you looked only at field-goal percentage, San Antonio would appear to have a major advantage.
If you examined three-point makes, assists, turnovers, and steals, New York’s winning formula becomes clearer.
If you then examine individual efficiency, Towns and Fox become especially interesting.
And if you examine plus/minus, Harper’s +12 and Brunson’s -10 create another layer of context.
No single statistic explains the entire game.
A Practical Framework for Future Matchups
When evaluating similar NBA games, use this five-step process.
Step 1: Check the final score
This establishes the result but tells you very little about how it happened.
Step 2: Compare shooting
Look at both field-goal percentage and three-point production.
A team can have a lower overall field-goal percentage but still win through superior perimeter shooting.
Step 3: Examine possessions
Turnovers and offensive rebounding can create additional opportunities.
Step 4: Examine playmaking
Assists provide useful context about ball movement and offensive creation.
Step 5: Evaluate individual performances in context
Do not judge a player solely by points.
Compare scoring efficiency, rebounds, assists, turnovers, defensive statistics, minutes, and plus/minus.
This approach produces a much more accurate understanding of why a team won or lost.
Final Assessment
The san antonio spurs vs knicks match player stats from June 6, 2026, describe a game where the winning team did not dominate every major statistical category.
San Antonio shot better from the field.
Wembanyama led the game with 29 points and added four blocks.
Fox scored 20 points on excellent efficiency.
Harper delivered a strong bench performance.
Yet New York found several ways to compensate.
The Knicks made more three-pointers, generated more assists, committed fewer turnovers, recorded more steals, and narrowly won the rebounding battle. Towns provided efficient interior and perimeter scoring alongside 13 rebounds. Bridges delivered an efficient 20-point performance with six assists. Brunson struggled as a shooter but created defensive disruption with five steals.
That combination was enough to produce a 105-104 victory.
The biggest lesson from this box score is simple: close NBA games are often decided by the accumulation of small advantages rather than one dominant statistic. San Antonio had the better overall field-goal percentage, but New York’s combination of perimeter shooting, ball movement, possession control, and defensive activity ultimately produced the one-point difference.
For readers comparing player performances, Wembanyama was the standout scorer, Towns was one of the most efficient all-around contributors, Fox was exceptionally efficient offensively, Bridges offered balanced production, and Brunson’s game demonstrated why scoring efficiency must be evaluated alongside playmaking and defense.
The supplied data also makes clear that Game 2 was far more competitive than the final score alone suggests. San Antonio’s fourth-quarter push nearly erased New York’s advantage, but the Knicks had created just enough separation during the middle portions of the game to hold on.
That is what makes this matchup particularly useful for statistical analysis: the winner was not simply the team with the best shooting percentage or the highest-scoring player. New York won because its overall collection of small statistical advantages outweighed San Antonio’s strengths.
