Thunder vs Spurs Player Stats: Full Analysis & Box Score Breakdown
Game: Oklahoma City Thunder 123 – San Antonio Spurs 87
Date: November 14, 2023
Venue: Paycom Center, Oklahoma City
Note: This analysis is based on the November 14, 2023 contest. For the most recent Thunder-Spurs matchup, the same analytical framework applies — stats must be refreshed after each game to maintain accuracy and ranking relevance.
When you look at a raw box score, the Oklahoma City Thunder vs San Antonio Spurs match player stats tell you who scored, rebounded, and assisted. But they don’t tell you how the game was won — which lineups broke it open, where the defensive pressure cracked, or which numbers were outliers against season norms. This breakdown goes beyond the box score to give you exactly that: a complete, citation-ready analysis of every notable performance, the turning-point sequences, and how the numbers stack up against established benchmarks.
Whether you’re a fantasy manager checking efficiency, a bettor tracking trends, or a fan who wants the real story, this is the deep dive the box-score pages don’t provide.
Game Overview: Thunder Dominate From the Opening Tip
The final score — 123-87 — only begins to describe the one-sided nature of this contest. Oklahoma City led by 15 after the first quarter and never let the lead dip below double digits. The Thunder’s defensive activity, led by Shai Gilgeous-Alexander’s career-high-tying 7 steals, forced 19 Spurs turnovers that turned into 26 points. On offense, OKC shot 52.2% from the field and 40.7% from deep, while holding San Antonio to 38.6% overall.
The Spurs’ offensive rating for the game was a dismal 91.7, the worst mark by any team that night and 22.3 points below their season average. Every Thunder starter posted a positive plus-minus of at least +17; no Spurs starter was better than -18.
Key number: OKC’s 22 fastbreak points to San Antonio’s 4. That margin alone — an 18-point gap in transition — accounted for half the final point differential.
Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown: Where the Game Was Lost
Understanding the flow of player stats requires seeing when production happened — not just the final tallies. The Spurs’ numbers cratered in two critical stretches: the final five minutes of the first quarter and the opening three minutes of the third.
| Quarter | OKC Points | SAS Points | Margin Shift | Notable Run |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Q1 | 33 | 18 | +15 | 12-0 OKC run to close quarter, 4 SGA steals |
| Q2 | 31 | 29 | +2 (halftime +17) | Wembanyama 6 points, but Spurs traded baskets |
| Q3 | 34 | 20 | +14 | 11-2 OKC start, Holmgren block leads to fastbreak dunk |
| Q4 | 25 | 20 | +5 (final +36) | Bench emptied with 7:12 left, lead at 39 |
The first-quarter run was entirely defense-to-offense. Gilgeous-Alexander recorded three of his seven steals in a 2-minute span, each leading directly to a transition bucket. By the time the Spurs called timeout with 1:47 left in the frame, they had more turnovers (7) than field goals (6). The game was effectively decided before the second unit even checked in.
Head-to-Head Player Stats Comparison
Below is the full side-by-side statistical comparison for every player who logged at least 10 minutes. Advanced metrics (Game Score, True Shooting %) are included to show efficiency beyond raw totals.
Oklahoma City Thunder
| Player | MIN | PTS | REB | AST | STL | BLK | FG-FGA | 3P-3PA | +/- | GmSc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S. Gilgeous-Alexander | 28 | 28 | 6 | 5 | 7 | 0 | 10-16 | 1-3 | +30 | 32.2 |
| J. Williams | 26 | 11 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 4-8 | 1-2 | +22 | 9.5 |
| C. Holmgren | 24 | 9 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 3 | 3-6 | 1-3 | +17 | 11.1 |
| L. Dort | 23 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 3-7 | 2-5 | +20 | 6.4 |
| J. Giddey | 22 | 7 | 5 | 8 | 1 | 0 | 3-5 | 1-2 | +19 | 11.6 |
| I. Joe | 18 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4-5 | 2-3 | +16 | 8.6 |
| C. Wallace | 20 | 8 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 3-4 | 0-1 | +18 | 8.8 |
| K. Williams | 16 | 6 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 2-4 | 2-3 | +12 | 5.1 |
| O. Dieng | 14 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1 | 2-4 | 1-2 | +10 | 4.3 |
| A. Wiggins | 12 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2-3 | 2-3 | +9 | 6.0 |
San Antonio Spurs
| Player | MIN | PTS | REB | AST | STL | BLK | FG-FGA | 3P-3PA | +/- | GmSc |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| V. Wembanyama | 28 | 8 | 14 | 2 | 0 | 2 | 4-15 | 0-3 | -30 | 3.4 |
| D. Vassell | 26 | 12 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 5-13 | 2-7 | -28 | 5.1 |
| K. Johnson | 24 | 9 | 5 | 2 | 0 | 0 | 3-10 | 1-4 | -25 | 3.3 |
| J. Sochan | 23 | 7 | 4 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 3-7 | 0-1 | -26 | 5.2 |
| Z. Collins | 20 | 6 | 5 | 3 | 0 | 1 | 2-5 | 0-2 | -22 | 4.8 |
| M. Branham | 22 | 10 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4-9 | 2-4 | -19 | 5.4 |
| T. Jones | 18 | 4 | 2 | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2-6 | 0-1 | -14 | 3.8 |
| C. Osman | 16 | 5 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 2-5 | 1-4 | -10 | 3.2 |
| D. McDermott | 14 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1-3 | 1-3 | -8 | 1.9 |
GmSc = Game Score, a measure of overall single-game productivity. League average is roughly 10.0 for a starter.
Key Moments & Turning Point: The Steal Sequence That Broke It Open
Every lopsided box score has a point of no return. This one came with 3:12 left in the first quarter, OKC leading 21-15 — competitive on paper.
3:12, Q1 – Wembanyama receives an entry pass at the right elbow. Holmgren fronts, Giddey digs down from the weak side. Wembanyama tries a baseline spin; Holmgren stays vertical. The shot clangs off the side of the backboard. OKC rebound, outlet to SGA.
2:58, Q1 – SGA pushes in semi-transition. He crosses over Sochan at the three-point line, draws Collins on the switch, and finishes a floater through contact. And-1. Timeout Spurs.
2:11, Q1 – Off the timeout, Spurs run a horns set for Vassell. SGA reads the passing lane, intercepts the wing feed, and goes coast-to-coast for a dunk. 26-15.
1:23, Q1 – Next Spurs possession: SGA strips Johnson on a drive, pokes it ahead to Jalen Williams, who lobs it back to SGA for a layup. 28-15. The building erupts.
0:41, Q1 – After a Spurs miss, SGA pushes again, draws two defenders, and whips a skip pass to Isaiah Joe for a corner three. 31-15. The 12-0 run is complete.
SGA personally produced (scored or assisted on) 10 of the 12 points, recorded three steals, and converted a six-point game into a blowout in less than three minutes. The Spurs’ offensive rating during that stretch: 0.0. They did not score again until the 10:17 mark of the second quarter. No box score summarizes this sequence, but it defines why the raw stats look the way they do.
Context & Benchmarks: Stats Against Season Averages
Raw numbers gain meaning when placed against what’s expected. Here, we compare the two most scrutinized players — Gilgeous-Alexander and Wembanyama — to their season averages entering the game.
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander: Outlier Defensive Impact
- Points: 28 (season avg: 29.3) — in line
- Steals: 7 (season avg: 2.3) — 3x above average, tied career high
- Defensive rating: 89.4 on-court (team season avg: 110.2) — dramatically better
- Points off turnovers created: 14 (directly from his steals) — equivalent to half his scoring total
SGA’s 7-steal night was the second such game of his career. Only two other players in the entire 2023-24 season had a 7-steal game by mid-November. The Thunder’s defensive scheme — overloading the strong side and trusting Holmgren as a backline eraser — funneled ball-handlers into SGA’s passing lanes, and he converted almost every opportunity. This wasn’t just a good defensive night; it was a schematic destruction.
Victor Wembanyama: The Holmgren Factor
- Points: 8 (season avg: 19.7) — 11.7 below
- Field goal %: 26.7% (season avg: 44.7%) — sharply down
- Shots contested by Holmgren: 7 of 15 attempts; Wembanyama shot 1-of-7 when Holmgren was the primary defender
- Post-up efficiency: 0.5 points per possession (season avg: 1.02)
Chet Holmgren didn’t block every shot, but his length forced Wembanyama to adjust his release angle on nearly every attempt. The rookie often settled for fadeaways 14–18 feet from the rim — exactly the shot OKC’s defense wanted him to take. The Spurs’ inability to generate easy looks for their primary weapon was the single biggest structural failure of the game.
Efficiency & Advanced Metrics Table
Below is a composite efficiency table for the top six contributors by minutes, showing True Shooting Percentage (TS%) and Usage Rate (USG%), which together explain who carried offensive load and how efficiently they did it.
| Player | MIN | PTS | TS% | USG% | Offensive Rating | Defensive Rating |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S. Gilgeous-Alexander | 28 | 28 | .722 | 27.1 | 142.3 | 89.4 |
| J. Williams | 26 | 11 | .563 | 18.3 | 128.8 | 101.2 |
| C. Holmgren | 24 | 9 | .644 | 14.7 | 133.5 | 92.0 |
| V. Wembanyama | 28 | 8 | .266 | 30.4 | 68.2 | 132.1 |
| D. Vassell | 26 | 12 | .416 | 25.2 | 74.0 | 135.7 |
| M. Branham | 22 | 10 | .556 | 20.1 | 81.3 | 129.4 |
TS% accounts for twos, threes, and free throws. USG% estimates the percentage of team possessions a player uses while on the floor.
The numbers reveal a stark contrast: SGA produced high volume at elite efficiency with minimal defensive cost, while Wembanyama’s sky-high usage (30.4%) came with catastrophic efficiency — a combination that sank the Spurs’ offense. No team can survive its primary option posting a .266 TS% on that many possessions.
What This Means Moving Forward: Adjustments and Trends
For the Thunder, this game validated a defensive identity. The combination of Dort’s point-of-attack pressure, SGA’s off-ball gambling, and Holmgren’s rim protection created a turnover-generating machine. In the seven games following this matchup, OKC ranked first in the league in opponent turnover percentage (17.8%), directly building on the template this game established.
For the Spurs, the film exposed a critical flaw: Wembanyama struggled against physical, length-mirroring bigs who could deny deep post position without fouling. In subsequent games against similar defensive profiles (Minnesota, Cleveland), his efficiency dipped again. The adjustment — using him more as a roller in pick-and-roll rather than an iso post threat — took weeks to implement but eventually paid dividends later in the season.
One stat that suggested sustainability: The Thunder’s 22 fastbreak points were not an anomaly. They averaged 18.4 fastbreak points over the full season, third-best in the NBA. When their defense forces live-ball turnovers, their offense becomes nearly unguardable in transition — a trend that held true across the entire 2023-24 campaign and into the 2024-25 season.
FAQ: Quick Answers to Common Queries
What were the final Oklahoma City Thunder vs San Antonio Spurs match player stats?
The Thunder beat the Spurs 123-87 on November 14, 2023. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander led all scorers with 28 points and 7 steals. Victor Wembanyama recorded 8 points and 14 rebounds on 4-of-15 shooting for San Antonio.
Who was the highest scorer in the Thunder vs Spurs game?
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander scored a game-high 28 points on efficient 10-of-16 shooting. He also added 6 rebounds, 5 assists, and 7 steals in only 28 minutes.
How did Victor Wembanyama perform against the Thunder?
Wembanyama struggled, scoring 8 points on 26.7% shooting. He grabbed 14 rebounds but posted a Game Score of just 3.4 — well below his rookie-season average. Chet Holmgren’s defense was the primary factor.
Which Thunder player had the best plus-minus?
The Thunder outscored the Spurs by 30 points while Shai Gilgeous-Alexander was on the court, recording a game-high +30 plus-minus. The team’s net rating with him on court was an extraordinary +42.9.
What was the turning point of the Thunder-Spurs matchup?
A 12-0 Thunder run over the final 3:12 of the first quarter, sparked by three SGA steals leading directly to 10 points, turned a 6-point game into a 15-point lead. The Spurs never recovered.
Where can I find the full box score for this game?
The official NBA box score is available on NBA.com and stats pages like Basketball-Reference. This analysis provides interpretation and context that raw box scores lack, highlighting the efficiency metrics and game-defining sequences.
If You Want Any Match Stats Contact Us we Shall Provide you Best Match Stats
