Timberwolves vs golden state warriors match player stats

When fans search for timberwolves vs golden state warriors match player stats, they usually want more than the final score. They want to know who actually performed, which players controlled the game, how the leading scorers reached their numbers, and why Minnesota defeated Golden State 121-110 in Game 5 of the 2025 Western Conference Semifinals. This matchup was especially important because the Timberwolves closed out the series 4-1 and advanced to the Western Conference Finals. The box score tells a clear story, but the deeper player numbers explain why the result was much more than a simple scoring victory.

Timberwolves vs golden state warriors match player stats

The May 14, 2025 matchup at Target Center in Minneapolis was Game 5 of the Western Conference Semifinals. Minnesota entered the game with a 3-1 series lead and needed only one more victory to eliminate Golden State.

The Timberwolves delivered that victory with a 121-110 win.

The scoring pattern was important. Minnesota built an early advantage, leading 30-23 after the first quarter and 62-47 at halftime. The Timberwolves then extended the margin during the third quarter, taking a 93-72 lead into the final period. Golden State scored 38 points in the fourth quarter and reduced the deficit, but the comeback came too late.

The final score was:

Team	Q1	Q2	Q3	Q4	Total
Golden State Warriors	23	24	25	38	110
Minnesota Timberwolves	30	32	31	28	121

Minnesota’s 11-point victory ended the series 4-1.

The official box score shows that the Timberwolves shot an outstanding 49-for-78 from the field, or 62.8 percent. Golden State went 39-for-90, or 43.3 percent. That shooting gap was one of the biggest statistical reasons Minnesota controlled the game.

Full player statistics

The most useful way to understand this game is to look beyond points. Shooting efficiency, assists, rebounds, turnovers, steals, blocks and plus/minus all provide different pieces of the story.

Golden State Warriors player stats

Player	MIN	PTS	REB	AST	FG	3PT	FT	STL	BLK	TO	+/-
Brandin Podziemski	39	28	6	4	11-19	4-6	2-5	2	0	2	-2
Jimmy Butler III	42	17	6	6	4-11	0-3	9-11	3	0	1	-17
Draymond Green	36	10	6	6	4-11	1-6	1-2	1	0	3	-9
Buddy Hield	30	8	4	1	2-9	0-4	4-4	2	0	4	-13
Trayce Jackson-Davis	7	2	2	0	1-1	0-0	0-0	1	0	0	-6
Jonathan Kuminga	32	26	3	0	11-23	3-9	1-3	2	0	2	-12
Gui Santos	16	2	5	0	1-4	0-3	0-0	0	1	0	-1
Quinten Post	10	3	3	0	1-4	1-4	0-0	0	0	2	+9
Gary Payton II	6	0	0	0	0-0	0-0	0-0	1	0	0	+2
Moses Moody	12	12	1	2	3-6	2-3	4-5	2	0	1	+10
Pat Spencer	6	2	1	1	1-2	0-1	0-0	0	0	2	-5
Kevon Looney	6	0	3	1	0-0	0-0	0-0	0	0	0	-11

Stephen Curry did not play because of the left hamstring injury he suffered earlier in the series.

Minnesota Timberwolves player stats

Player	MIN	PTS	REB	AST	FG	3PT	FT	STL	BLK	TO	+/-
Julius Randle	43	29	8	5	13-18	2-6	1-1	0	0	5	+4
Jaden McDaniels	41	14	4	2	6-14	0-3	2-2	4	0	3	+2
Rudy Gobert	28	17	8	0	8-9	0-0	1-4	0	1	0	+21
Mike Conley	27	16	6	8	5-7	4-6	2-2	1	0	2	+4
Anthony Edwards	41	22	7	12	8-15	5-9	1-2	1	3	7	+20
Naz Reid	21	8	4	1	3-5	0-2	2-2	1	0	1	-3
Donte DiVincenzo	26	13	2	6	5-7	2-4	1-2	4	0	1	+7
Nickeil Alexander-Walker	14	2	0	2	1-3	0-1	0-0	0	0	1	0

These figures show why describing the game simply as a Julius Randle scoring performance would miss much of what happened.

Randle led all scorers with 29 points, but Anthony Edwards produced 12 assists, Rudy Gobert delivered an exceptionally efficient 17 points with eight rebounds, and Mike Conley added 16 points and eight assists.

That combination gave Minnesota several ways to attack.

Julius Randle was Minnesota’s leading scorer

Julius Randle was the game’s leading scorer with 29 points.

His shooting efficiency stands out immediately. Randle made 13 of his 18 field-goal attempts, good for 72.2 percent shooting from the field. He also made two of six three-point attempts.

That means Randle did not need a huge number of possessions to reach 29 points.

His complete line was:

29 points, 8 rebounds, 5 assists, 13-for-18 shooting and 2-for-6 from three-point range.

This was one of the most efficient high-scoring performances of the game.

Randle’s five turnovers are worth noting because the box score was not flawless. However, the offensive efficiency more than compensated for those mistakes.

His role was particularly important because Minnesota did not need to rely entirely on Edwards for shot creation.

That matters in playoff basketball.

When one primary creator is responsible for too much of the offense, opponents can load the defense toward that player. Minnesota had another powerful scoring option in Randle, which made Golden State’s defensive task considerably more difficult.

Anthony Edwards controlled the game in another way

Anthony Edwards scored 22 points, which ranked second among Minnesota players.

At first glance, that may look like a relatively modest scoring night for a team’s primary star.

The assist column tells a different story.

Edwards finished with 12 assists, seven rebounds and three blocks.

His 22-point, 12-assist performance demonstrated that his value was not limited to scoring.

He shot 8-for-15 from the field and 5-for-9 from three-point range. That is 53.3 percent shooting overall and 55.6 percent from beyond the arc.

The more interesting number, however, is his assist total.

Edwards created opportunities for Randle, Gobert, Conley and other Minnesota players throughout the game. The Timberwolves finished with 36 assists as a team, compared with 21 for Golden State.

That 15-assist difference is enormous.

It shows that Minnesota’s offensive advantage was not simply about making more shots. The Timberwolves generated those shots through significantly more effective ball movement.

Edwards also finished with three blocks and seven rebounds.

His seven turnovers are the main negative statistic in his line, but the overall impact remained extremely strong. His plus/minus was +20, the second-best mark on Minnesota.

Rudy Gobert quietly produced one of the game’s biggest performances

Rudy Gobert finished with:

17 points, 8 rebounds, 1 block and 8-for-9 shooting.

His 88.9 percent field-goal percentage was the best among Minnesota’s major contributors.

More importantly, Gobert posted a +21 plus/minus, the best mark of any player in the game.

That number deserves attention.

Plus/minus should never be treated as a complete measure of individual performance because it is affected by teammates, opponents and lineup combinations. However, when it aligns with other evidence, it can help identify which lineups controlled the game.

In this matchup, Gobert’s +21 fits the broader picture.

Minnesota shot efficiently around the paint, created good offensive possessions and limited Golden State’s ability to consistently generate efficient offense.

Gobert also grabbed eight rebounds.

His presence gave Minnesota another reliable interior option while allowing the Timberwolves to maintain their defensive structure.

Mike Conley provided efficient secondary creation

Mike Conley did not take many shots, but his efficiency was excellent.

He scored 16 points on 5-for-7 shooting and made four of six three-point attempts.

He also recorded eight assists.

That means Conley contributed in two of the most valuable offensive categories: efficient scoring and playmaking.

His eight assists tied him with no other Timberwolves player except Edwards, who had 12.

Conley’s ability to organize the offense helped Minnesota avoid becoming overly dependent on Edwards.

This is one of the less obvious insights from the box score.

A team can have a star player who scores 22 points and still dominate offensively because the supporting playmaking is strong enough to keep the offense moving.

Brandin Podziemski led Golden State in scoring

Brandin Podziemski was Golden State’s leading scorer with 28 points.

He shot 11-for-19 from the field, including 4-for-6 from three-point range.

His shooting percentage was 57.9 percent from the field and 66.7 percent from three.

Those are excellent shooting numbers.

Podziemski also contributed six rebounds, four assists and two steals.

His performance was arguably the clearest individual positive for Golden State.

However, one player producing an efficient 28-point performance was not enough to overcome Minnesota’s team-wide efficiency.

Golden State needed more consistent production from its other primary offensive players.

Jonathan Kuminga provided another major scoring threat

Jonathan Kuminga scored 26 points off the bench.

He made 11 of 23 shots and three of nine three-pointers.

His 26 points were second on Golden State.

Kuminga’s scoring was particularly important because Golden State was playing without Stephen Curry.

He provided aggressive offensive pressure and helped Golden State remain competitive late.

However, Kuminga’s 11-for-23 shooting also illustrates an important difference between his scoring night and Podziemski’s.

Kuminga needed 23 field-goal attempts to score 26 points.

Podziemski needed only 19 attempts to score 28.

The difference is not simply about scoring totals. It is about how efficiently those points were generated.

Jimmy Butler’s numbers tell a complicated story

Jimmy Butler finished with 17 points, six rebounds and six assists.

He also made nine of 11 free throws.

His free-throw shooting was excellent, but he struggled from the field, making only four of 11 attempts.

He went 0-for-3 from three-point range.

Butler’s plus/minus was -17.

That was one of the weakest marks among Golden State’s main players.

This does not mean Butler was solely responsible for the loss. Plus/minus is a lineup statistic, not an isolated individual grade.

Still, his shooting inefficiency mattered.

With Curry unavailable, Golden State needed Butler to provide more reliable offensive efficiency. Instead, a large portion of his scoring came from free throws.

That put additional pressure on Podziemski and Kuminga to carry the offense.

Draymond Green contributed as a playmaker

Draymond Green scored 10 points, grabbed six rebounds and recorded six assists.

His offensive scoring was limited, but his passing remained useful.

However, he shot 4-for-11 from the field and 1-for-6 from three.

Those shooting numbers did not provide enough spacing or scoring support for Golden State.

Green’s six assists were valuable, but Minnesota’s 36 total assists compared with Golden State’s 21 show the larger difference in offensive organization.

The biggest statistical difference was shooting efficiency

The final score was 121-110.

The simplest explanation is that Minnesota made significantly more shots.

The Timberwolves shot:

49-for-78 from the field, 62.8 percent.

The Warriors shot:

39-for-90 from the field, 43.3 percent.

That is a difference of approximately 19.5 percentage points.

This was the central statistical story of the game.

Minnesota also shot 13-for-31 from three-point range, while Golden State shot 11-for-39.

That means the Timberwolves made 41.9 percent of their three-point attempts, compared with 28.2 percent for Golden State.

Minnesota therefore held a major advantage in both overall field-goal accuracy and three-point accuracy.

Why Minnesota’s 36 assists matter

One of the strongest indicators of Minnesota’s offensive performance was its 36 assists.

The Warriors recorded 21.

That is a 15-assist advantage.

The Timberwolves were not simply hitting difficult shots individually. They were creating a large number of scoring opportunities through passing.

Edwards led with 12 assists.

Conley had eight.

Randle had five.

Donte DiVincenzo added six.

This distribution shows that Minnesota had multiple players capable of moving the ball and creating opportunities.

That is particularly important in a playoff setting because defensive schemes become more aggressive as a series progresses.

A team with several playmakers is harder to trap and harder to force into isolation possessions.

Minnesota’s ball movement created better shots

The difference in field-goal percentage strongly suggests that Minnesota consistently generated higher-quality opportunities.

The Timberwolves finished 49-for-78.

Golden State finished 39-for-90.

The difference in attempts is also revealing.

Golden State took 12 more field-goal attempts but still scored 11 fewer points.

That means volume did not compensate for efficiency.

Golden State had opportunities but converted them at a much lower rate.

This is an important lesson when interpreting box scores.

More shots do not automatically mean better offense.

Shot quality and conversion rate matter just as much.

The fourth quarter made the final score closer than the game felt

Golden State scored 38 points in the fourth quarter.

Minnesota scored 28.

On the surface, that might suggest a major comeback.

But Minnesota entered the fourth quarter leading 93-72.

The Timberwolves had built a 21-point advantage after three quarters.

Golden State’s fourth-quarter scoring reduced the margin, but the Warriors could not erase the deficit.

This distinction matters when evaluating the final score.

A 121-110 result looks like an 11-point game.

The quarter-by-quarter numbers reveal that Minnesota controlled most of the contest and Golden State’s late scoring primarily reduced the size of the defeat.

The absence of Stephen Curry changed the series

Stephen Curry did not play in Game 5 after suffering a left hamstring strain in Game 1.

NBA.com noted that Curry’s injury significantly altered the series, with the Warriors losing each of the remaining four games after he was injured.

That context is essential when evaluating Golden State’s player statistics.

Without Curry, the Warriors had to redistribute offensive responsibility.

Podziemski became a major scoring option.

Kuminga received significant offensive responsibility.

Butler and Green had to contribute as creators.

The team still produced 110 points in Game 5, but Minnesota’s efficiency and ball movement proved too difficult to overcome.

The injury should not erase Minnesota’s achievement.

The Timberwolves still had to execute against the Warriors and close the series.

But it provides essential context for understanding why Golden State’s offensive structure looked different from what fans might expect from a healthy Warriors lineup.

Comparing the two teams’ top performers

A useful way to compare the leading players is to examine several categories rather than only points.

Scoring

• Julius Randle: 29
• Brandin Podziemski: 28
• Jonathan Kuminga: 26
• Anthony Edwards: 22
• Jimmy Butler: 17
• Rudy Gobert: 17
• Mike Conley: 16

Golden State had two players within three points of Randle, but Minnesota had greater balance across its rotation.

Rebounding

Randle and Gobert led the game with eight rebounds each.

Edwards had seven.

Podziemski, Butler and Green each had six for Golden State.

The overall rebounding totals were close, with Golden State recording 40 rebounds and Minnesota 39.

This is important because it shows that rebounding was not the main reason Minnesota won.

The major differences came elsewhere.

Assists

Edwards led all players with 12 assists.

Conley added eight.

Randle had five.

For Golden State, Butler and Green each had six while Podziemski had four.

Minnesota’s 36 team assists compared with 21 for Golden State was one of the clearest statistical advantages.

Three-point shooting

Minnesota:

13-for-31, 41.9 percent.

Golden State:

11-for-39, 28.2 percent.

The Warriors attempted eight more three-pointers but made only two fewer.

That is a major efficiency gap.

Turnovers

Minnesota committed 20 turnovers.

Golden State committed 17.

This was one category where Golden State had the advantage.

The Warriors turned the ball over three fewer times.

That makes Minnesota’s victory even more interesting because the Timberwolves were not perfect with possession management.

Their shooting and playmaking efficiency were strong enough to overcome the turnover disadvantage.

Plus/minus leaders reveal lineup impact

Rudy Gobert led all players with a +21.

Anthony Edwards followed at +20.

For Golden State, Stephen Curry’s recorded plus/minus was +10 despite not playing, reflecting the unusual nature of the box-score listing associated with his series status rather than an on-court Game 5 performance.

Among players who actually appeared, Moses Moody recorded +10 and Quinten Post finished +9.

The key takeaway is that plus/minus should be read carefully.

A player can have a positive plus/minus without producing a large scoring total.

Gobert is the perfect example.

He scored 17 points, but his +21 indicates that Minnesota’s lineups performed extremely well during his minutes.

What the box score says about Minnesota’s playoff identity

This game provided a useful snapshot of what made Minnesota difficult to defend.

The Timberwolves had:

• A primary scoring option in Randle
• A high-level creator in Edwards
• Interior efficiency from Gobert
• Perimeter shooting from Conley
• Additional playmaking from DiVincenzo
• Defensive activity from McDaniels
• Strong overall ball movement

That combination created a balanced attack.

Minnesota did not need one player to score 40 points.

Instead, the team distributed offensive responsibility.

That is one reason the 36-assist figure is so significant.

What the game says about Golden State

Golden State’s box score showed individual flashes of excellent production.

Podziemski was highly efficient.

Kuminga scored 26.

Butler created six assists and made nine free throws.

Green contributed six assists and six rebounds.

The problem was consistency.

The Warriors shot only 43.3 percent overall and 28.2 percent from three.

When a team takes 90 field-goal attempts and makes only 39, it becomes difficult to keep pace with an opponent shooting nearly 63 percent.

The fourth-quarter surge showed that Golden State still had enough offensive ability to make the final margin respectable.

It did not change the overall statistical reality.

The four-game progression before Game 5

The series had already established Minnesota’s momentum.

The results were:

Game 1: Golden State 99, Minnesota 88

Game 2: Minnesota 117, Golden State 93

Game 3: Minnesota 102, Golden State 97

Game 4: Minnesota 117, Golden State 110

Game 5: Minnesota 121, Golden State 110

Minnesota therefore won four consecutive games after losing the opener.

The official NBA playoff results confirm the Timberwolves won the series 4-1.

That progression is important because Game 5 was not an isolated performance.

It completed a sustained turnaround after Golden State won the opening game.

Why the final result was significant

Minnesota’s 121-110 victory sent the Timberwolves back to the Western Conference Finals for the second consecutive season.

That made the game more than another playoff box score.

It was the closing chapter of a five-game series in which Minnesota adapted after dropping Game 1.

NBA.com described the victory as Minnesota’s return to the Western Conference Finals after defeating Golden State in five games.

For Golden State, the season ended despite strong individual performances from Podziemski, Kuminga and others.

For Minnesota, the win demonstrated the value of balanced scoring, efficient shooting and multiple playmakers.

How to read these player stats correctly

When analyzing an NBA box score, it is tempting to rank players by points.

That is useful, but incomplete.

A stronger approach is to ask five questions:

1. Who scored efficiently?
2. Who created shots for teammates?
3. Who controlled rebounds and defensive possessions?
4. Which players had the strongest lineup impact?
5. What team-level statistic explains the final result?

For this game, the answers are revealing.

Randle led scoring.

Edwards led playmaking.

Gobert produced the best plus/minus.

Minnesota dominated shooting efficiency.

And the Timberwolves produced 36 assists.

Together, those numbers explain the victory much better than the final score alone.

Most important takeaways from the matchup

The biggest lessons from the player statistics are straightforward.

Randle was the leading scorer

His 29 points came on 13-for-18 shooting.

Edwards was the primary facilitator

His 12 assists were the most in the game.

Gobert was extremely efficient

He made eight of nine field-goal attempts and posted a game-best +21.

Podziemski led Golden State’s scoring

His 28 points came on 11-for-19 shooting and 4-for-6 from three.

Kuminga provided 26 points

He was an important source of offense, particularly with Curry unavailable.

Minnesota dominated shooting efficiency

The Timberwolves shot 62.8 percent compared with Golden State’s 43.3 percent.

Minnesota dominated assists

The Timberwolves recorded 36 assists versus 21 for the Warriors.

Golden State finished strongly

The Warriors scored 38 fourth-quarter points, but the early deficit was too large to overcome.

A closer look at the most efficient players

Efficiency is one of the best ways to distinguish between volume scoring and genuinely productive scoring.

Randle’s 13-for-18 shooting was outstanding.

Gobert’s 8-for-9 was even more efficient, although on fewer attempts.

Conley’s 5-for-7 shooting and 4-for-6 three-point performance also stand out.

For Golden State, Podziemski’s 11-for-19 shooting was excellent, while Kuminga’s 11-for-23 line was more volume-dependent.

These differences matter when comparing players who have similar scoring totals.

A 28-point performance on 19 shots is not identical to a 26-point performance on 23 shots.

The final points column hides that distinction.

Why team statistics provide the missing context

The player statistics tell us who performed.

The team statistics tell us why the team won.

Minnesota had:

• 121 points
• 49-for-78 shooting
• 13-for-31 three-point shooting
• 36 assists
• 20 turnovers
• 39 rebounds
• 11 steals
• 4 blocks

Golden State had:

• 110 points
• 39-for-90 shooting
• 11-for-39 three-point shooting
• 21 assists
• 17 turnovers
• 40 rebounds
• 14 steals
• 1 block

Golden State actually had more rebounds and steals.

It also committed fewer turnovers.

Yet Minnesota won by 11.

That tells us something important.

The game was primarily decided by shooting efficiency and offensive execution rather than possession volume alone.

Final assessment of the player performances

If the goal is to identify the most important performances, several players deserve recognition for different reasons.

Julius Randle was the leading scorer and gave Minnesota an efficient interior and perimeter scoring option.

Anthony Edwards was arguably the most influential offensive creator, combining 22 points with 12 assists and seven rebounds.

Rudy Gobert delivered one of the most efficient performances and led the game in plus/minus.

Mike Conley provided efficient shooting and eight assists.

Brandin Podziemski was Golden State’s most efficient high-volume scorer.

Jonathan Kuminga supplied 26 points and helped keep the Warriors competitive.

Jimmy Butler contributed 17 points, six rebounds and six assists, but his shooting efficiency was not enough to match Minnesota’s production.

Taken together, the numbers show why Minnesota advanced.

The Timberwolves did not win because every player outscored his opponent.

They won because the team generated more efficient offense and moved the ball exceptionally well.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who was the top scorer in the Timberwolves vs Warriors Game 5?

Julius Randle was the top scorer with 29 points for Minnesota. Brandin Podziemski led Golden State with 28 points.

What was Anthony Edwards’ stat line?

Anthony Edwards finished with 22 points, 7 rebounds, 12 assists, 1 steal and 3 blocks. He shot 8-for-15 from the field and 5-for-9 from three-point range.

How many points did Brandin Podziemski score?

Brandin Podziemski scored 28 points. He shot 11-for-19 from the field and 4-for-6 from three-point range.

Who had the most assists in the game?

Anthony Edwards had the most assists, finishing with 12. Mike Conley was next for Minnesota with eight assists.

Who had the best plus/minus?

Rudy Gobert had the best on-court plus/minus among the players who appeared, finishing at +21.

Did the Timberwolves eliminate the Warriors?

Yes. Minnesota defeated Golden State 121-110 in Game 5 and won the Western Conference Semifinals series 4-1.

Conclusion

The timberwolves vs golden state warriors match player stats from Game 5 reveal a much more detailed story than the 121-110 final score.

Julius Randle led all scorers with 29 points, but Anthony Edwards’ 12 assists and Rudy Gobert’s +21 impact were equally important. Mike Conley added efficient shooting and eight assists, while Minnesota received meaningful contributions throughout its rotation.

Golden State had impressive individual performances as well. Brandin Podziemski scored 28 points on efficient shooting, Jonathan Kuminga added 26, and Jimmy Butler contributed across several categories. Yet the Warriors could not match Minnesota’s overall offensive efficiency.

The clearest statistical difference was shooting. Minnesota made 49 of 78 field-goal attempts, while Golden State made 39 of 90. The Timberwolves also produced 36 assists compared with 21 from the Warriors.

The final 11-point margin therefore does not fully capture how strongly Minnesota controlled the middle portion of the game. The Timberwolves built a 21-point advantage entering the fourth quarter before Golden State’s late scoring reduced the deficit.

Game 5 ultimately became the decisive performance that sent Minnesota back to the Western Conference Finals. The player statistics show that the victory was built on balanced scoring, efficient shooting, strong playmaking and contributions from multiple positions rather than one individual performance.

For anyone researching timberwolves vs golden state warriors match player stats, the central takeaway is simple: Randle led the scoring, Edwards led the playmaking, Gobert led the plus/minus battle, and Minnesota’s superior team efficiency decided the series.