The golden state warriors vs timberwolves match player stats from May 15, 2025, reveal how Minnesota secured a 121-110 victory over Golden State in Game 5 of the Western Conference Semifinals. Julius Randle led the Timberwolves with 29 points, while Brandin Podziemski scored a game-high 28 points for the Warriors. Anthony Edwards contributed 22 points and 12 assists, helping Minnesota control the offense and close out the series 4-1. Although Golden State produced 18 offensive rebounds and received strong scoring performances from its young players, Minnesota’s superior shooting accuracy and ball movement proved decisive.

This matchup was more than a playoff elimination game. It showed how efficient shot selection, coordinated passing, and balanced scoring can outweigh advantages in offensive rebounding and steals. The final box score provides a clear picture of the individual performances, team strengths, and tactical differences that shaped the outcome.

Golden State Warriors vs Timberwolves Match Player Stats: Game Overview

The fifth game of the series took place at Target Center in Minneapolis, Minnesota. With Minnesota leading the series 3-1 before tipoff, the Timberwolves had an opportunity to finish the matchup at home. They delivered a strong offensive performance, scoring at least 30 points in each of the first three quarters and maintaining enough control to withstand Golden State’s fourth-quarter push.

WESTERN CONFERENCE SEMIFINALS · GAME 5

Timberwolves

121

Series winner, 4-1

Warriors

110

Eliminated

Date

May 15, 2025

Venue

Target Center

Attendance

19,395

Final margin

Minnesota by 11

Quarter-by-quarter scoring

Quarter	Golden State	Minnesota
First	23	30
Second	24	32
Third	25	31
Fourth	38	28
Final	110	121

Minnesota built its advantage through three quarters, entering the final period with a 21-point lead, 93-72. Golden State scored 38 points in the fourth quarter and won that period by 10 points, but the late improvement was not enough to erase the deficit.

The quarter-by-quarter breakdown is important because the final score alone does not explain the game’s momentum. Minnesota established its offensive rhythm early, while Golden State’s strongest scoring stretch came when the margin was already substantial.

The result also completed Minnesota’s 4-1 series victory, sending the Timberwolves to the Western Conference Finals.

Complete Golden State Warriors Player Stats

Golden State finished with 110 points despite productive performances from Brandin Podziemski and Jonathan Kuminga. Podziemski led the team with 28 points, while Kuminga added 26 off the bench. Their combined 54 points represented nearly half of the Warriors’ total scoring.

Jimmy Butler and Draymond Green also contributed across several statistical categories, but Golden State struggled to match Minnesota’s shooting efficiency. The following figures summarize the main individual performances in Game 5.

Warriors player	Points	Rebounds	Assists
Brandin Podziemski	28	6	4
Jonathan Kuminga	26	3	0
Jimmy Butler III	17	6	6
Moses Moody	12	1	2
Draymond Green	10	6	6
Buddy Hield	8	4	1
Quinten Post	3	3	0
Trayce Jackson-Davis	2	2	0
Gui Santos	2	5	0
Pat Spencer	2	1	1
Kevon Looney	0	3	0
Gary Payton II	0	0	0

Source: NBA Game 5 box score. Rebounds and assists are shown as recorded for each player.

Brandin Podziemski: Golden State’s Leading Scorer

Podziemski delivered one of his most productive postseason performances, finishing with 28 points, six rebounds, and four assists. He shot 11-of-19 from the field and made four of his six three-point attempts.

His scoring efficiency was especially important because Golden State needed additional offensive production without Stephen Curry, who missed the game because of a left hamstring strain.

Podziemski’s performance demonstrated his ability to contribute as a scorer when more responsibility becomes available. His four made three-pointers helped stretch Minnesota’s defense, while his work on the glass provided extra value beyond scoring.

However, his individual success could not overcome Minnesota’s collective efficiency. Golden State shot 43.3% from the field, considerably below Minnesota’s 62.8%.

The key lesson is that a high-scoring performance does not automatically translate into a team victory. Podziemski produced efficiently, but the Warriors needed more consistent contributions across the entire lineup.

Jonathan Kuminga: A Major Scoring Contribution Off the Bench

Kuminga scored 26 points in 32 minutes and 14 seconds. He made 11 of 23 field-goal attempts, including three three-pointers, and added three rebounds.

His aggressive approach gave Golden State another player capable of attacking the basket and creating shots without relying exclusively on Butler or Podziemski.

Kuminga’s scoring was one of the game’s most encouraging individual developments for the Warriors. He provided a strong secondary option and helped fuel the fourth-quarter comeback attempt.

Still, his contribution also highlights a broader team challenge. Golden State received 54 points from Podziemski and Kuminga, but Minnesota had several players producing at a high level simultaneously. The difference was not simply the quality of the Warriors’ two leading scorers. It was the depth of Minnesota’s offensive involvement.

Jimmy Butler III: Scoring, Rebounding, and Playmaking

Butler finished with 17 points, six rebounds, and six assists. He also recorded three steals and made nine of his 11 free throws.

His ability to reach the free-throw line helped Golden State maintain offensive pressure even when outside shots were not falling consistently. Butler’s six assists also reflected his role in creating opportunities for teammates.

However, he shot 4-of-11 from the field and missed all three of his three-point attempts. Although his free-throw production kept his scoring total respectable, Golden State needed more efficient field-goal production to challenge Minnesota throughout the game.

Butler’s performance illustrates why a box score should be evaluated across several categories. His passing, defensive activity, and free-throw shooting all provided value, even though his overall shooting was less effective than that of Minnesota’s leading scorers.

Draymond Green: All-Around Production Without Enough Offensive Efficiency

Green recorded 10 points, six rebounds, and six assists. He also collected one steal and finished with three turnovers.

His six assists tied Butler for the Warriors’ team lead, demonstrating that he continued to contribute as a facilitator. His rebounding also helped Golden State compete on the glass.

The difficulty was his shooting. Green made four of 11 field-goal attempts and only one of six attempts from three-point range.

Against a team shooting above 60% from the field, Golden State needed more successful possessions to keep the contest close. Green’s passing and defensive work remained useful, but his scoring efficiency did not provide the additional advantage the Warriors needed.

Moses Moody and Buddy Hield: Supporting Contributions

Moody scored 12 points in 12 minutes, making three of six field-goal attempts and two of three three-point attempts. He also made four of five free throws.

His production was notable because he scored efficiently in limited playing time. Moody gave the Warriors a useful offensive contribution when they needed additional scoring from the rotation.

Hield finished with eight points, four rebounds, and one assist. He made two of nine field-goal attempts and missed all four of his three-point attempts.

That difference between Moody’s efficiency and Hield’s shooting illustrates how supporting production can influence a playoff game. Golden State generated some useful bench scoring, but its perimeter shooting remained inconsistent overall.

Warriors Player Performance: The Main Takeaways

Three conclusions emerge from Golden State’s individual statistics:

• Scoring was concentrated: Podziemski and Kuminga combined for 54 points, while the rest of the team contributed 56.
• Playmaking had limitations: Butler and Green recorded six assists each, but the Warriors finished with 21 assists as a team.
• Outside shooting was inconsistent: Golden State converted 11 of 39 three-point attempts, a 28.2% success rate.

These numbers help explain why Golden State’s strong fourth quarter did not produce a comeback. The team found better scoring opportunities late, but Minnesota’s earlier shooting advantage created too large a deficit.

Complete Minnesota Timberwolves Player Stats

Minnesota’s victory was built around a balanced offensive performance. Julius Randle led the scoring, Anthony Edwards controlled much of the playmaking, and Rudy Gobert provided efficient finishing around the basket.

Mike Conley and Donte DiVincenzo added important contributions from the perimeter, while Jaden McDaniels supplied scoring and defensive activity.

Timberwolves player	Points	Rebounds	Assists
Julius Randle	29	8	5
Anthony Edwards	22	7	12
Rudy Gobert	17	8	0
Mike Conley	16	6	8
Jaden McDaniels	14	4	2
Donte DiVincenzo	13	2	6
Naz Reid	8	4	1
Nickeil Alexander-Walker	2	0	2

Source: NBA Game 5 box score. Individual totals are presented as recorded in the supplied game data.

Julius Randle: Minnesota’s Leading Scorer

Randle finished with 29 points, eight rebounds, and five assists. He made 13 of 18 field-goal attempts, an outstanding 72.2% shooting performance.

His scoring efficiency was one of the clearest differences between the teams. Randle generated points without needing a large number of attempts, allowing Minnesota to maintain its offensive rhythm while involving other players.

He also contributed as a rebounder and passer. His five assists helped prevent the offense from becoming too dependent on individual shot creation.

Randle’s performance was particularly valuable in a closeout game. Minnesota needed to avoid allowing Golden State to build confidence early, and efficient scoring from its primary offensive options helped the Timberwolves establish control.

Rather than relying on difficult shots late in possessions, Randle repeatedly converted his opportunities. That efficiency reduced the number of empty possessions Minnesota experienced and made it harder for Golden State to create momentum through defensive stops.

Anthony Edwards: The Offensive Organizer

Edwards recorded 22 points, seven rebounds, and 12 assists. His 12 assists were a playoff career high at the time, and they highlighted a significant part of his contribution beyond scoring.

Edwards made eight of 15 field-goal attempts, including five of nine three-point attempts. He therefore combined efficient scoring with high-level playmaking.

His performance mattered because Minnesota did not need him to lead the team in points to control the offense. Randle supplied the leading scoring total, while Edwards helped create opportunities for teammates.

This balance is difficult for a defense to manage. If defenders focus too heavily on Edwards as a scorer, he can find open teammates. If they prioritize stopping his passing lanes, he remains capable of scoring from the perimeter or attacking the basket.

Edwards also recorded three blocks, an unusually notable defensive contribution for a guard. His impact extended across scoring, rebounding, passing, and rim protection.

The combination of 22 points and 12 assists is one of the strongest examples of why individual statistics should be interpreted together rather than in isolation.

Rudy Gobert: Efficient Interior Scoring

Gobert finished with 17 points and eight rebounds. He made all eight of his field-goal attempts, converting every shot he took from the field.

That perfect shooting performance reflects his role as an interior finisher. Gobert benefited from Minnesota’s ability to create opportunities close to the basket, where he could use his size and positioning.

The team finished with 72 points in the paint, compared with Golden State’s 50. That 22-point difference provides important context for Gobert’s contribution.

His performance was not defined by perimeter shooting or high-volume shot creation. Instead, he converted opportunities generated by the team’s offensive movement and helped Minnesota punish defensive breakdowns near the rim.

Gobert also tied Randle for Minnesota’s rebound lead with eight boards. His scoring efficiency and interior presence helped the Timberwolves maintain an advantage even when Golden State began scoring more frequently in the fourth quarter.

Mike Conley: Reliable Shooting and Secondary Playmaking

Conley contributed 16 points, six rebounds, and eight assists. He made five of seven field-goal attempts and four of six three-point attempts.

His 71.4% field-goal percentage was especially valuable because he combined efficient shooting with responsibility for organizing possessions.

Conley’s eight assists also gave Minnesota another dependable playmaker alongside Edwards. This reduced the pressure on one player to create every scoring opportunity and allowed the Timberwolves to maintain ball movement across different lineups.

His four made three-pointers forced Golden State to respect his shooting. That threat made it more difficult for defenders to concentrate exclusively on Randle and Edwards.

Conley’s performance demonstrates the importance of experienced supporting guards in postseason basketball. They do not always need the largest scoring totals, but efficient shooting and sound decision-making can help an entire offense function more effectively.

Jaden McDaniels: Defensive Activity and Timely Scoring

McDaniels finished with 14 points, four rebounds, and two assists. He made five of eight field-goal attempts and four of six free throws.

He also shared the team lead in steals with DiVincenzo, recording four. Those defensive plays contributed to Minnesota’s ability to disrupt Golden State’s offensive rhythm.

McDaniels’ value extended beyond his scoring total. His defensive activity helped the Timberwolves contest possessions, while his efficient finishing ensured that he remained an offensive contributor.

His performance also reflects the importance of complementary players in a successful playoff lineup. When the leading scorers attract defensive attention, players such as McDaniels can benefit from the resulting opportunities.

Donte DiVincenzo: Efficient Scoring and Defensive Pressure

DiVincenzo recorded 13 points, two rebounds, and six assists. He shot five of seven from the field, including two of four from three-point range.

He also registered four steals, tying McDaniels for the team lead.

DiVincenzo’s six assists provided another layer of playmaking, and his efficient shooting helped Minnesota sustain its scoring production across the lineup.

His four steals are worth considering alongside the team’s turnover total. Minnesota committed 20 turnovers, three more than Golden State, yet still won comfortably. DiVincenzo’s defensive pressure was one way Minnesota generated value without needing to dominate the turnover comparison.

Naz Reid and Nickeil Alexander-Walker

Reid scored eight points and collected four rebounds in a supporting role. He made three of five field-goal attempts and two of two free throws.

Alexander-Walker added two points and two assists. His scoring contribution was limited, but his involvement in the rotation provided another option for Minnesota’s perimeter defense and ball movement.

The larger lesson is that a winning playoff performance does not require every player to post a large scoring total. Minnesota’s supporting players had complementary responsibilities, and the leading performers converted enough opportunities to make those contributions effective.

Team Statistics Comparison: Why Minnesota Won

Individual scoring explains who contributed most, but team statistics show why the Timberwolves advanced. Minnesota won several of the most important efficiency categories, particularly field-goal percentage, three-point accuracy, and assists.

Statistical category	Warriors	Timberwolves
Total points	110	121
Field goals made	39	49
Field goals attempted	90	78
Field-goal percentage	43.3%	62.8%
Three-pointers made	11	13
Three-point attempts	39	31
Three-point percentage	28.2%	41.9%
Free throws made	21	10
Free-throw attempts	30	15
Free-throw percentage	70.0%	66.7%
Total rebounds	40	39
Offensive rebounds	18	6
Defensive rebounds	22	33
Assists	21	36
Turnovers	17	20
Steals	14	11
Blocks	1	4
Personal fouls	21	19

The official NBA Game 5 box score provides the underlying player and team statistics for readers who want to examine the full record.

1. Shooting Efficiency Was Minnesota’s Biggest Advantage

Minnesota made 49 of 78 field-goal attempts, while Golden State made 39 of 90. The difference in accuracy was substantial.

The Timberwolves shot 62.8% from the field, compared with the Warriors’ 43.3%. Minnesota also attempted 12 fewer field goals while making 10 more baskets.

This is the central statistical explanation for the result. Golden State generated plenty of opportunities, but Minnesota converted a much higher proportion of its attempts.

A team can create extra possessions through offensive rebounds and still lose if it repeatedly misses the resulting shots. That is precisely why field-goal efficiency deserves attention alongside possession statistics.

Minnesota’s advantage was not simply a product of taking more shots. It made better use of the shots it attempted.

2. Three-Point Shooting Added to the Gap

Golden State made 11 of 39 three-point attempts, while Minnesota converted 13 of 31.

The Warriors attempted eight more three-pointers but made two fewer. That difference matters because each made three-pointer is worth three points, giving Minnesota a 39-point total from beyond the arc compared with Golden State’s 33.

The gap was six points from three-point shooting alone.

Minnesota’s accuracy also helped create a more balanced offensive attack. Its players could threaten opponents from outside while continuing to score effectively in the paint.

Golden State’s lower conversion rate made its offensive possessions less productive, especially during the first three quarters.

3. Ball Movement Created Better Scoring Opportunities

Minnesota recorded 36 assists, compared with 21 for Golden State.

That is a difference of 15 assists, and it reveals a major contrast in how the teams generated their offense.

An assist does not automatically mean a possession was better than an unassisted basket. However, a large difference in assists combined with superior shooting accuracy suggests that Minnesota consistently created successful scoring opportunities through passing.

The Timberwolves had multiple players capable of handling the ball and finding teammates. Edwards recorded 12 assists, Conley added eight, and DiVincenzo contributed six.

Together, those three players accounted for 26 of Minnesota’s 36 assists.

This distribution reduced the burden on any single player and made the offense more difficult to predict.

4. Offensive Rebounds Could Not Offset Missed Shots

Golden State collected 18 offensive rebounds, while Minnesota recorded six.

At first glance, that looks like a clear Warriors advantage. Offensive rebounds can extend possessions and create additional scoring opportunities without requiring a defensive stop.

Yet the rebound advantage did not translate into a victory.

The explanation is that extra opportunities are valuable only when a team converts enough of them into points. Golden State’s overall field-goal percentage remained below 44%, limiting the benefit of its work on the offensive glass.

Minnesota, meanwhile, collected 33 defensive rebounds. Those rebounds helped end Warriors possessions and reduced the risk of repeated second-chance opportunities.

The difference between offensive and defensive rebounds is particularly important in playoff analysis. Total rebounds can make two teams look evenly matched, even when one team is securing the more strategically valuable boards.

5. Turnovers Did Not Tell the Whole Story

Golden State committed 17 turnovers, while Minnesota committed 20.

The Warriors therefore had a three-turnover advantage. In many games, that difference could prove important, especially if the team protects the ball while creating efficient shots.

Here, however, Minnesota’s shooting and playmaking outweighed its turnover disadvantage.

The Timberwolves also recorded 11 steals and four blocks. Golden State finished with 14 steals and one block.

These numbers show that neither team dominated every defensive category. Golden State generated more steals, but Minnesota produced more blocks and substantially better shooting.

A useful box-score analysis must account for these competing factors rather than selecting one statistic and treating it as the sole explanation for the final result.

How the Game Developed Across Four Quarters

First Quarter: Minnesota Established the Pace

Minnesota scored 30 points in the opening quarter, compared with 23 for Golden State.

The seven-point margin gave the Timberwolves an early advantage and established the pattern that would continue through the first three periods.

Starting a closeout game with efficient offense can be especially valuable. It forces the opposing team to respond rather than allowing it to establish its preferred rhythm.

Golden State was not eliminated by the first quarter alone, but the opening period began the process of creating the deficit it would later attempt to erase.

Second Quarter: The Timberwolves Extended Their Lead

Minnesota won the second quarter 32-24, adding another eight points to its advantage.

At halftime, the Timberwolves led 62-47.

This was a critical stage of the game because the Warriors needed to keep the margin manageable. Instead, Minnesota continued to score efficiently and entered the break with a 15-point lead.

The half-time score also illustrates the difference between making shots and creating enough shots. Golden State had opportunities, but its lower accuracy meant it could not keep pace with Minnesota’s scoring.

Third Quarter: Minnesota Built a Decisive Cushion

The Timberwolves won the third quarter 31-25, taking their lead to 93-72.

Minnesota’s advantage reached as many as 25 points during the third quarter, according to the game recap.

At that stage, the Warriors faced a difficult situation. They needed to produce a strong offensive run while preventing Minnesota from continuing to score efficiently.

The Timberwolves’ ability to maintain their lead through three quarters provided the foundation for the victory, even though the final period was more competitive.

Fourth Quarter: Golden State Fought Back

Golden State scored 38 points in the final quarter, while Minnesota scored 28.

The Warriors showed improved scoring production, but the comeback started too late to change the result.

Minnesota had built a 21-point lead entering the quarter. Even after losing the period by 10 points, it finished with an 11-point victory.

This distinction matters when evaluating late-game performances. Winning a quarter does not necessarily mean a team controlled the game overall. The timing of scoring runs and the size of the existing margin are equally important.

Stephen Curry’s Absence and Its Effect on Golden State

Stephen Curry missed Game 5 because of a left hamstring strain. His absence was an important part of the context surrounding Golden State’s offensive performance.

Curry’s shooting threat can influence defensive positioning even when he does not have the ball. Opponents must account for his ability to create space, shoot from long range, and draw defensive attention.

Without him, other players had to assume greater responsibility for scoring and playmaking.

Podziemski responded with 28 points, while Kuminga contributed 26. Their production showed that Golden State still had players capable of scoring in volume.

However, the Warriors struggled to reproduce Minnesota’s overall offensive efficiency. Their 21 assists fell well short of the Timberwolves’ 36, and their 28.2% three-point percentage limited the value of their perimeter attempts.

It would be inaccurate to attribute the entire loss to Curry’s absence. Minnesota played an excellent offensive game, and the statistical differences were substantial. The more balanced interpretation is that Golden State was missing a major offensive creator while Minnesota successfully executed its own game plan.

What the Player Statistics Reveal About Minnesota’s Strategy

The golden state warriors vs timberwolves match player stats offer several useful lessons about postseason basketball, particularly the relationship between scoring, playmaking, and defensive positioning.

Balanced Scoring Can Be More Difficult to Defend

Randle led Minnesota with 29 points, but four other Timberwolves players reached at least 13 points.

Edwards scored 22, Gobert added 17, Conley recorded 16, McDaniels scored 14, and DiVincenzo contributed 13.

This distribution prevented Golden State from focusing exclusively on one scorer.

If defenders concentrated on Randle, Edwards could create opportunities for others. If they attempted to limit Edwards’ passing, Minnesota still had efficient scorers capable of finishing possessions.

The team did not need one player to dominate every offensive category because its production was distributed across multiple roles.

Interior Scoring Put Pressure on the Defense

Minnesota scored 72 points in the paint, compared with 50 for Golden State.

That 22-point difference was one of the game’s clearest indicators of Minnesota’s ability to attack close to the basket.

Gobert’s perfect shooting performance on eight field-goal attempts was part of that advantage. Randle also converted efficiently, and Edwards’ ability to create opportunities helped the team access different areas of the floor.

Interior scoring can be valuable for several reasons. It often produces high-percentage attempts, puts pressure on defenders to protect the rim, and can force defensive adjustments that open opportunities elsewhere.

Minnesota’s success in this area helped it maintain a large lead even when Golden State improved its offense late in the game.

Playmaking Reduced Offensive Predictability

The Timberwolves’ 36 assists were a postseason franchise record, according to the game recap.

That figure reinforces the importance of team-wide participation. Minnesota did not depend entirely on difficult individual shots. It moved the ball, created opportunities, and converted a high percentage of its attempts.

Golden State’s 21 assists indicate a less productive overall passing output in this game, although assists alone cannot measure every aspect of ball movement or shot quality.

When evaluating future matchups, it is useful to compare assist totals with field-goal percentage, turnovers, and points in the paint. Looking at these figures together provides a more complete picture of how an offense is functioning.

How to Read Basketball Player Statistics Correctly

A box score is a useful starting point for understanding a game, but its numbers become more meaningful when viewed in context. The same statistic can represent very different levels of performance depending on playing time, shooting opportunities, team responsibilities, and the game situation.

Points Do Not Measure Everything

Points are usually the first number readers check, but they do not explain how efficiently a player scored or how much he contributed in other areas.

For example, Podziemski scored 28 points on 19 field-goal attempts, while Randle scored 29 points on 18 attempts. Both had excellent scoring totals, but Randle converted a considerably higher proportion of his field-goal attempts.

A useful evaluation should consider:

• Points scored.
• Field goals made and attempted.
• Three-point shooting accuracy.
• Free-throw production.
• Rebounds and assists.
• Turnovers and defensive contributions.

These figures provide a more complete view of a player’s performance than points alone.

Understand Shooting Percentages

Field-goal percentage is calculated by dividing successful field goals by total field-goal attempts.

For Minnesota:

\[ \frac{49}{78}\times100 \approx 62.8\% \]

For Golden State:

\[ \frac{39}{90}\times100 \approx 43.3\% \]

The difference of approximately 19.5 percentage points is substantial. It indicates that Minnesota converted a much higher share of its field-goal attempts.

However, shooting percentage should not be used in isolation. Three-pointers are worth more than two-pointers, and free throws also contribute to the final score. A comprehensive comparison considers all three scoring methods.

Evaluate Playmaking Through Assists and Turnovers

Assists help describe how often a player’s pass directly leads to a made basket. They can provide useful evidence of playmaking, although they do not capture every good pass or every successful offensive action.

Edwards’ 12 assists and Conley’s eight assists show how Minnesota distributed its playmaking responsibilities.

Turnovers offer another perspective. A player who creates many scoring opportunities may also lose possession more frequently. The right interpretation considers both sides of that balance.

In this game, Minnesota recorded 36 assists and 20 turnovers. Golden State had 21 assists and 17 turnovers. Minnesota committed more turnovers, but its much higher scoring efficiency helped compensate for that disadvantage.

Why Playing Time Matters

A player who scores 12 points in 12 minutes has a different statistical profile from one who scores 12 points in 30 minutes.

Moody scored 12 points in 12 minutes for Golden State, providing efficient production in limited playing time. His performance should be recognized, but a short appearance does not automatically establish that a player would maintain the same scoring rate over a longer stretch.

Playing time, role, and shot opportunities are essential when comparing individual contributions.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Who won the Golden State Warriors vs Timberwolves Game 5 matchup?

The Minnesota Timberwolves defeated the Golden State Warriors 121-110 on May 14, 2025, in Minneapolis. The victory gave Minnesota a 4-1 series win in the Western Conference Semifinals and sent the team to the Western Conference Finals for the second consecutive season.

2. Who scored the most points in the game?

Julius Randle led Minnesota with 29 points. Brandin Podziemski was Golden State’s leading scorer with 28 points, while Jonathan Kuminga added 26 points for the Warriors.

3. How many points and assists did Anthony Edwards record?

Anthony Edwards finished with 22 points, seven rebounds, and 12 assists. His 12 assists were a playoff career high at the time and helped Minnesota generate scoring opportunities across its lineup.

4. Why did Minnesota win despite having fewer offensive rebounds?

Minnesota’s shooting efficiency and ball movement outweighed Golden State’s offensive-rebounding advantage. The Timberwolves shot 62.8% from the field and recorded 36 assists, while the Warriors shot 43.3% and finished with 21 assists.

5. Did Stephen Curry play in Game 5?

No. Curry missed the game because of a left hamstring strain. Golden State received 28 points from Brandin Podziemski and 26 from Jonathan Kuminga, but the team could not match Minnesota’s overall offensive efficiency.

6. Which team had more rebounds and assists?

Golden State collected 40 total rebounds, one more than Minnesota’s 39. Minnesota dominated the assist comparison, recording 36 assists to Golden State’s 21. The contrast demonstrates why rebounds alone did not determine the result.

Conclusion

The May 15, 2025, game record provides a clear explanation of Minnesota’s 121-110 victory over Golden State. Julius Randle led the Timberwolves with 29 points, Anthony Edwards supplied 22 points and 12 assists, and Rudy Gobert added 17 points without missing a field-goal attempt. Mike Conley and Donte DiVincenzo also made valuable contributions, helping Minnesota produce a balanced offensive performance.

Golden State had its own standout performers. Brandin Podziemski scored 28 points, Jonathan Kuminga added 26, and Jimmy Butler and Draymond Green each recorded six assists. The Warriors also secured 18 offensive rebounds and committed fewer turnovers than Minnesota.

Those advantages were not enough to overcome the shooting gap. Minnesota converted 62.8% of its field-goal attempts, made 13 three-pointers, and recorded 36 assists. Golden State shot 43.3% from the field and 28.2% from three-point range.

Ultimately, the golden state warriors vs timberwolves match player stats show that Minnesota won through efficient scoring, strong interior offense, and coordinated playmaking rather than dominance in every statistical category. The 11-point final margin reflected a game in which the Timberwolves established control early and resisted a late Warriors comeback to complete the series victory.