San Antonio Spurs vs Celtics Match Player Stats
The san antonio spurs vs celtics match player stats from the January 11, 2026 matchup tell the story of a tightly contested game that San Antonio won 100-95 at TD Garden. Boston led after the first half, but the Spurs changed the game after halftime, winning the second half 50-40 and closing the final minutes with better execution. The result was not driven by one player alone. De’Aaron Fox and Victor Wembanyama each scored 21 points, Julian Champagnie controlled the glass with 13 rebounds, while Boston received huge scoring performances from Derrick White and Jaylen Brown.
This was a particularly useful game for evaluating how individual production translates into winning basketball. Boston shot slightly better from the field and made six more three-pointers, yet San Antonio still came away with the victory. The difference came from several smaller advantages working together: more free throw attempts, fewer turnovers, a narrow rebounding edge, more points in transition, and stronger execution during the closing possessions.
For readers looking beyond the final score, this matchup offers a much better lesson than simply identifying the highest scorer. The player numbers show why San Antonio was able to overcome Boston’s perimeter shooting and why the Celtics’ strong individual performances were not enough to secure the home win.
San Antonio Spurs vs Celtics Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The Spurs entered the matchup with a 27-11 record and a 14-6 mark on the road. Boston entered at 24-14 and had a 12-7 home record. The game was played at TD Garden in Boston in front of 19,156 fans.
San Antonio ultimately won 100-95.
The scoring pattern was important:
| Quarter | Spurs | Celtics |
| First | 21 | 26 |
| Second | 29 | 29 |
| Third | 23 | 20 |
| Fourth | 27 | 20 |
| Final | 100 | 95 |
Boston controlled the opening quarter and maintained a five-point advantage at halftime. The Spurs then produced the more effective second half, particularly in the fourth quarter.
San Antonio’s 27 fourth-quarter points compared with Boston’s 20 were decisive. Neither team built a double-digit lead, so the game remained within reach until the final possessions.
According to the official NBA game box score, both teams finished with 38 made field goals and 22 assists. San Antonio won the rebounding battle 53-52 and committed eight turnovers compared with Boston’s 10.
Those numbers explain why the five-point final margin was so competitive.
The Biggest Story in the Player Numbers
At first glance, Boston appears to have had the more efficient offensive night.
The Celtics shot 38-for-93 from the field, or 41 percent. San Antonio shot 38-for-95, or 40 percent. Boston also made 16 of 44 three-point attempts, while San Antonio made only 10 of 44.
That is a six-made-three advantage for Boston.
Normally, that would be a major warning sign for the opposing team. San Antonio compensated in other areas.
The Spurs attempted 20 free throws and made 14. Boston attempted only four and made three. That gave San Antonio a 14-point advantage in free throw attempts.
The Spurs also turned the ball over two fewer times.
The rebounding margin was small, but San Antonio still finished ahead, 53-52. The Spurs grabbed 12 offensive rebounds compared with nine for Boston.
None of those individual advantages was overwhelming by itself. Together, they helped offset Boston’s three-point shooting.
That is one of the most important lessons from this matchup. Box scores are not simply collections of isolated statistics. A team can lose the three-point battle and still win if it creates enough advantages in other possession categories.
De’Aaron Fox Sets the Offensive Tone
De’Aaron Fox finished with 21 points, nine rebounds and six assists.
His scoring total tied Victor Wembanyama for the team lead, but his overall contribution was broader than his point total suggests.
Fox shot 9-for-16 from the field, good for 56.3 percent. He also made both of his free throws. His three-point shooting was less effective, as he made only one of six attempts, but his efficiency inside the arc helped stabilize the Spurs’ offense.
His six assists were also important.
San Antonio had 22 assists as a team, meaning Fox accounted for more than one-quarter of the team’s assists. His ability to create shots for himself and teammates gave the Spurs another reliable offensive option when Boston focused defensive attention on Wembanyama.
Fox also had one steal and committed only two turnovers.
That combination matters because high-usage guards can sometimes create scoring opportunities while also giving possessions away. Fox avoided a major turnover problem against Boston and remained efficient as a scorer.
His nine rebounds were another valuable contribution, especially for a guard. San Antonio needed every available possession in a game decided by only five points.
Why Fox’s Efficiency Mattered
Fox’s 56.3 percent shooting was one of the cleanest individual scoring performances in the game.
He did not need a high volume of three-point makes to produce his 21 points. Instead, he generated much of his offense through efficient field-goal shooting and made his free throws when Boston sent him to the line.
That is a useful distinction when evaluating player performance.
A 21-point game can come from very different types of offensive production. Fox’s version was built on efficiency and shot creation rather than heavy three-point volume.
Victor Wembanyama’s Second-Half Impact
Victor Wembanyama also scored 21 points, but his biggest contribution came after halftime.
He finished with six rebounds, one assist and three blocks while shooting 8-for-17 from the field. He made one of four three-point attempts and all four of his free throws.
The timing of his scoring was especially important.
Wembanyama did not dominate the opening portion of the game. Boston defended him aggressively and mixed in quick double teams when he attacked. The Celtics were able to make his early possessions difficult.
The game changed after halftime.
Wembanyama became more involved offensively and scored nine consecutive points during a key third-quarter stretch. His production helped San Antonio erase Boston’s advantage and bring the game back to an even level.
He then delivered the most important offensive plays of the night in the final minutes.
With the game tied late, Wembanyama hit a fadeaway jumper to put San Antonio ahead. He later added another jumper to push the Spurs’ lead to four.
That is why his 21-point total does not fully capture his impact.
The timing of those points was more important than the raw number.
Wembanyama’s Defensive Value
Wembanyama recorded three blocks and was a constant factor around the basket.
His defensive impact also extended beyond blocks. A seven-foot-plus rim protector changes the decisions opposing players make before they even attempt a shot.
Boston had to account for his presence when attacking the paint. That can alter driving lanes, force passes, or encourage perimeter attempts.
The Celtics ultimately attempted 44 three-pointers, matching San Antonio’s total. Their ability to hit 16 of those attempts kept them competitive, but the Spurs were able to survive that shooting advantage.
Wembanyama’s defensive presence was a major part of that equation.
Julian Champagnie Controls the Rebounding Battle
Julian Champagnie was one of the most valuable players in the game despite scoring only 12 points.
He grabbed 13 rebounds, tying Boston’s Neemias Queta for the game-high total.
Champagnie collected three offensive rebounds and 10 defensive rebounds. He also added three assists and one block while shooting 5-for-12 from the field.
His plus-minus was +14, the best mark among the listed Spurs starters and rotation players.
That combination tells an important story.
Champagnie was not asked to carry the offense. Instead, he provided the type of supporting production that can decide a close game.
His offensive rebounds created additional possessions. His defensive rebounds helped finish possessions. His passing added another layer to the offense.
In a five-point game, those extra possessions have real value.
Why Offensive Rebounding Was Important
San Antonio collected 12 offensive rebounds compared with nine for Boston.
That difference may appear small, but offensive rebounds give a team opportunities to recover from missed shots.
San Antonio shot only 40 percent overall. Without second-chance opportunities, that shooting percentage could have placed the Spurs in a much more difficult position.
Champagnie’s three offensive rebounds were therefore more significant than his 12-point scoring total might suggest.
Keldon Johnson Provides Efficient Support
Keldon Johnson scored 18 points and grabbed 10 rebounds.
He shot 6-for-13 from the field and made two of seven three-point attempts. He also converted four of five free throws.
His 10 rebounds gave San Antonio another double-digit rebound performance and helped support the team’s narrow advantage on the glass.
Johnson also delivered an important three-pointer late in the game. His shot helped San Antonio establish a 93-91 lead with just over two minutes remaining.
That was a critical possession because Boston had regained momentum.
Johnson’s ability to contribute scoring, rebounding and timely shooting made him an important secondary piece of the victory.
Stephon Castle’s Difficult Shooting Night
Stephon Castle had one of the more challenging offensive games for San Antonio.
He finished with nine points on 3-for-16 shooting. He made only one of seven three-point attempts and added five assists, two steals and two turnovers.
The shooting percentage was only 18.8 percent.
That would normally be a major concern, especially in a low-scoring game.
However, Castle contributed in other areas. His five assists helped the Spurs reach 22 as a team, and his two steals added defensive value.
This is another reason why the final box score should be read as a complete performance rather than a scoring leaderboard.
Castle did not shoot well, but San Antonio still found enough production from Fox, Wembanyama, Johnson and Champagnie to overcome the inefficient night.
Derrick White Leads Boston’s Scoring
Derrick White was Boston’s leading scorer with 29 points.
He shot 11-for-26 from the field, 5-for-17 from three-point range and 2-for-2 from the free throw line.
He also finished with nine rebounds, three assists, two steals and two blocks.
White’s performance was especially notable because he produced across several statistical categories.
His 29 points were the highest individual scoring total in the game. His nine rebounds nearly produced a double-double, while his two steals and two blocks showed his defensive activity.
He was also extremely important in the fourth quarter.
White scored nine fourth-quarter points and helped Boston remain in contention after San Antonio began to take control.
The weakness in his performance was efficiency from beyond the arc. He attempted 17 three-pointers and made five.
That is a high volume of attempts, and the Celtics ultimately needed more of those shots to fall.
White’s Inside-the-Arc Efficiency
One interesting detail in White’s numbers is the contrast between his three-point and two-point shooting.
He made 5 of 17 three-point attempts.
Inside the arc, he made 6 of 9 shots.
That is a significant difference.
His ability to attack inside the three-point line gave Boston an efficient scoring source, even though his perimeter shooting was inconsistent.
It also highlights a strategic question for future matchups. If San Antonio can force Boston’s guards into lower-quality perimeter attempts while limiting clean driving lanes, the Celtics’ offense becomes more dependent on difficult three-point shooting.
Jaylen Brown Produces a Complete Offensive Game
Jaylen Brown scored 27 points and added eight rebounds and seven assists.
He shot 11-for-28 from the field and 5-for-11 from three-point range.
Unlike White, Brown was highly productive from three-point range, converting five of his 11 attempts.
His seven assists were particularly valuable because Boston finished with 22 assists overall.
Brown therefore contributed as both a scorer and creator.
His 27 points combined with White’s 29 gave Boston 56 points from its two leading scorers.
That was enough to keep the Celtics in the game, but the supporting production did not match the overall impact of San Antonio’s secondary contributions.
Brown’s late-game possessions were also important.
After Wembanyama put San Antonio ahead, Brown had opportunities to respond. He missed a three-pointer and later committed a turnover near midcourt that contributed to San Antonio extending its advantage.
Those moments were not representative of his entire game, but they became highly significant because they occurred during the closing sequence.
Neemias Queta Wins the Rebounding Battle for Boston
Neemias Queta finished with 13 rebounds, tying Champagnie for the game high.
Boston needed that production because the Celtics were dealing with a major physical challenge in the frontcourt.
Queta’s rebounding helped Boston finish with 52 total rebounds, only one fewer than San Antonio.
His presence prevented the Spurs from dominating the glass despite Wembanyama’s size.
However, Boston still lost the offensive rebounding battle 12-9.
That three-rebound difference meant San Antonio created more second-chance opportunities.
Queta’s individual rebounding performance was excellent, but the overall team rebounding result slightly favored the Spurs.
Team Shooting Comparison
The shooting numbers are among the most interesting parts of the game.
| Category | Spurs | Celtics |
| Field Goals | 38-95 | 38-93 |
| Field Goal % | 40% | 41% |
| 3-Pointers | 10-44 | 16-44 |
| 3-Point % | 23% | 36% |
| Free Throws | 14-20 | 3-4 |
| Free Throw % | 70% | 75% |
Boston won the field-goal percentage battle.
Boston also dominated from three-point range.
Yet San Antonio won.
The clearest explanation is free throw volume.
The Spurs attempted 20 free throws. Boston attempted only four.
That created a major scoring opportunity for San Antonio and helped neutralize the Celtics’ perimeter advantage.
This is a classic example of why field-goal percentage alone cannot determine which team played the more effective offensive game.
The Free Throw Gap Changed the Math
San Antonio made 14 free throws.
Boston made three.
That is an 11-point difference in made free throws.
The final margin was only five points.
Therefore, the free throw disparity was more than enough to materially influence the outcome.
Boston’s four free throw attempts were particularly unusual for a game involving two teams that combined for 188 field-goal attempts.
San Antonio repeatedly found ways to generate scoring opportunities without relying entirely on jump shots.
For Boston, the low free throw volume meant that its offense had to depend heavily on field goals and three-pointers.
The Celtics did make 16 three-pointers, but they needed even more efficiency from the perimeter to compensate for the free throw gap.
Rebounding Was Nearly Even
San Antonio finished with 53 rebounds.
Boston finished with 52.
At first glance, that difference is almost irrelevant.
But the distribution matters.
San Antonio had 12 offensive rebounds and 41 defensive rebounds.
Boston had nine offensive rebounds and 43 defensive rebounds.
The Celtics actually collected two more defensive rebounds, but San Antonio created three more offensive rebounds.
That distinction is important because offensive rebounds extend possessions.
San Antonio’s extra opportunities helped offset its poor three-point shooting.
This is a strong example of why total rebounds should not always be viewed as a single number. Offensive and defensive rebounding answer different questions.
Defensive rebounding tells you whether a team is ending opposing possessions.
Offensive rebounding tells you whether a team is extending its own possessions.
The Spurs did enough of both to gain a small overall advantage.
Turnovers Favored San Antonio
The Spurs committed eight turnovers.
The Celtics committed 10.
That two-turnover advantage may look modest, but the context makes it meaningful.
The game was decided by five points.
When margins are that small, avoiding empty possessions becomes extremely important.
San Antonio also produced eight points off turnovers compared with 12 for Boston, so the turnover advantage did not directly translate into a points-off-turnovers advantage.
Still, limiting mistakes helped the Spurs maintain control during a game in which their shooting was not especially efficient.
Assists Showed How Close the Offenses Were
Both teams recorded 22 assists.
That is another indication of how evenly matched the game was from a playmaking perspective.
San Antonio had Fox’s six assists and Castle’s five, while Boston received seven from Brown and three from White.
Neither team won the game because of a huge advantage in ball movement.
Instead, the difference came from what each team did with those created opportunities.
Boston converted more of its perimeter opportunities.
San Antonio generated enough free throws, second chances and efficient interior scoring to compensate.
The Fourth Quarter Decided Everything
The fourth quarter was the defining period.
San Antonio scored 27 points.
Boston scored 20.
The Celtics had led 55-50 at halftime, but the Spurs entered the final period having already reduced the gap.
The game remained close deep into the fourth quarter.
Boston moved ahead 91-89 before San Antonio responded with a decisive stretch.
Johnson’s three-pointer put the Spurs ahead 93-91 with just over two minutes remaining.
Brown then tied the game with a layup.
At that point, the matchup was effectively reduced to a handful of possessions.
Wembanyama answered with a difficult fadeaway jumper to put San Antonio ahead 95-93.
Fox then created a crucial defensive play by stripping Brown near midcourt.
Champagnie followed by converting a putback to make it 97-93.
Wembanyama later added another jumper, pushing San Antonio to 99 points.
Those possessions explain the final result better than the overall shooting percentages.
The Spurs executed when the margin was smallest.
Why San Antonio Won Despite Shooting 23 Percent From Three
The most surprising number in the game may be San Antonio’s 23 percent three-point shooting.
The Spurs attempted 44 three-pointers and made only 10.
That means they left 34 three-point attempts unsuccessful.
Boston, meanwhile, made 16 of 44.
A six-shot difference from three-point range would normally create a substantial advantage.
San Antonio overcame it through several areas.
Free Throws
The Spurs made 11 more free throws.
Turnovers
San Antonio committed two fewer turnovers.
Offensive Rebounds
The Spurs collected three more offensive rebounds.
Late-Game Execution
San Antonio scored 27 fourth-quarter points compared with Boston’s 20.
Interior Production
The Spurs scored 40 points in the paint compared with Boston’s 36.
None of these categories alone explains the win.
Together, they form a much clearer picture.
What the Game Says About San Antonio’s Offense
San Antonio’s offensive profile was balanced enough to survive inefficient perimeter shooting.
Fox provided guard creation.
Wembanyama provided interior scoring and matchup pressure.
Johnson provided secondary scoring and rebounding.
Champagnie provided extra possessions and efficient supporting production.
The Spurs also avoided excessive turnovers.
This is a useful offensive blueprint for a team facing a strong three-point shooting opponent.
If perimeter shots are not falling, a team needs other ways to generate points.
San Antonio found those alternatives.
What the Game Says About Boston’s Offense
Boston’s offense was effective in several areas but lacked balance late.
The Celtics made 16 three-pointers, shot 41 percent overall and received 56 points from White and Brown.
However, the team attempted only four free throws.
That made Boston unusually dependent on jump shooting.
The Celtics also scored only 20 points in the fourth quarter.
The problem was therefore not simply that Boston’s offense was poor. It was that the offense became less effective at the exact moment when each possession carried maximum value.
The Celtics had enough scoring talent to win the game.
They simply did not execute enough of the final possessions.
Comparing the Leading Players
The individual scoring leaders were:
| Player | Team | Points | Rebounds | Assists |
| Derrick White | Celtics | 29 | 9 | 3 |
| Jaylen Brown | Celtics | 27 | 8 | 7 |
| De’Aaron Fox | Spurs | 21 | 9 | 6 |
| Victor Wembanyama | Spurs | 21 | 6 | 1 |
| Keldon Johnson | Spurs | 18 | 10 | 1 |
| Julian Champagnie | Spurs | 12 | 13 | 3 |
This table shows that Boston’s two leading scorers produced more points than San Antonio’s two leading scorers.
Yet the Spurs still won.
That reinforces the idea that team success cannot be reduced to identifying which side had the highest scoring duo.
San Antonio had a broader distribution of useful contributions.
Who Was the Most Valuable Spurs Player?
There are several reasonable answers.
Fox was the team’s most efficient high-volume scorer and primary playmaker.
Wembanyama delivered the most important late-game baskets and three blocks.
Champagnie dominated the rebounding category and finished with a team-best +14 plus-minus.
Johnson supplied 18 points and 10 rebounds while making a critical late three-pointer.
If the question is about the most important offensive player, Fox and Wembanyama are the obvious choices.
If the question is about late-game impact, Wembanyama has the strongest case.
If the question is about supporting value, Champagnie deserves significant credit.
That is what makes this game interesting. There was no need to force the entire story around one player.
Who Was the Most Valuable Celtics Player?
Derrick White had the strongest statistical case.
He scored a game-high 29 points, grabbed nine rebounds and contributed three assists, two steals and two blocks.
Brown was also highly effective, finishing with 27 points, eight rebounds and seven assists.
The two players combined for 56 points.
White’s scoring volume was particularly important because Boston needed a reliable offensive creator while San Antonio adjusted defensively.
Still, the Celtics needed more efficiency from the overall offense during the final quarter.
The Importance of Plus-Minus
Plus-minus should never be used alone to judge an individual player, but it can add useful context.
Champagnie finished at +14.
Wembanyama was +15.
Johnson was +4.
Fox finished at -3 despite scoring 21 points.
That does not mean Fox played poorly. In fact, his 21 points and six assists were central to the win.
Plus-minus reflects what happened during a player’s minutes and is affected by teammates, opponents, lineup combinations and game situations.
It is best used alongside traditional statistics.
In this matchup, Wembanyama’s +15 and Champagnie’s +14 support the visual impression that both were highly influential during winning stretches.
The Season-Series Context
San Antonio took the first game of the season series with the 100-95 victory.
The matchup therefore gave the Spurs an early head-to-head advantage.
The later listed meeting ended with Boston defeating San Antonio 125-116 on March 11, 2026, which means the broader season series eventually became more balanced.
That context is useful because one close regular-season matchup does not establish long-term superiority.
The January meeting did, however, demonstrate that San Antonio could win in Boston despite shooting poorly from three-point range.
The later result also shows how quickly the story can change from one meeting to another.
What Fans Can Learn From the Box Score
A useful way to read a game like this is to move through the numbers in layers.
Start with the final score.
Then examine shooting.
Then check free throws.
Then look at turnovers and offensive rebounds.
Finally, study the fourth quarter and individual player efficiency.
That approach prevents one eye-catching number from controlling the entire interpretation.
For example, Boston’s 36 percent three-point shooting looks impressive.
But when combined with only four free throw attempts and 20 fourth-quarter points, the overall picture becomes more complicated.
Likewise, San Antonio’s 23 percent three-point shooting looks poor.
But the Spurs made 14 free throws, grabbed 12 offensive rebounds and scored 27 fourth-quarter points.
The box score becomes much more informative when the categories are considered together.
Key Takeaways From the Match
Several conclusions stand out from the numbers.
1. San Antonio Won the Possession Battle
The Spurs had fewer turnovers and more offensive rebounds.
That gave them additional opportunities to overcome inefficient shooting.
2. Boston Won the Three-Point Battle Clearly
The Celtics made 16 threes compared with 10 for San Antonio.
That advantage kept Boston in the game.
3. Free Throws Were a Major Difference
San Antonio attempted 20 free throws.
Boston attempted four.
That was one of the largest statistical differences in the game.
4. Wembanyama Improved as the Game Progressed
His 21 points were important, but his second-half and late-game scoring had the biggest effect.
5. Fox Combined Scoring and Playmaking
His 21 points, nine rebounds and six assists made him one of the most complete Spurs performers.
6. White Was Boston’s Offensive Leader
His 29 points were a game high, but his 5-for-17 three-point shooting shows why the overall offensive efficiency was not enough.
7. Champagnie Was Critical on the Glass
His 13 rebounds, including three offensive boards, gave San Antonio extra possessions.
8. The Fourth Quarter Was the Turning Point
San Antonio outscored Boston 27-20 in the final period.
That was ultimately the difference.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who led the Spurs in scoring against the Celtics?
De’Aaron Fox and Victor Wembanyama each scored 21 points, making them San Antonio’s joint leading scorers.
Who led the Celtics in scoring?
Derrick White led all players with 29 points. Jaylen Brown followed with 27.
Who had the most rebounds in the game?
Julian Champagnie of San Antonio and Neemias Queta of Boston each recorded 13 rebounds.
How did the Spurs beat Boston despite making fewer three-pointers?
San Antonio compensated through free throws, offensive rebounding, fewer turnovers, interior scoring and stronger fourth-quarter execution.
What was the final score?
The Spurs defeated the Celtics 100-95 at TD Garden.
How many three-pointers did each team make?
Boston made 16 of 44 three-point attempts, while San Antonio made 10 of 44.
Conclusion
The san antonio spurs vs celtics match player stats provide a strong example of why basketball analysis needs more than a simple look at the scoring leaders.
Boston had the higher-scoring individual performance, better three-point shooting and slightly better overall field-goal percentage. Derrick White scored 29 points, Jaylen Brown added 27, and the Celtics made 16 three-pointers.
San Antonio still found a way to win.
Fox produced 21 points, nine rebounds and six assists. Wembanyama added 21 points, six rebounds and three blocks while becoming increasingly influential as the game moved into the second half. Champagnie contributed 13 rebounds, while Johnson added 18 points and 10 rebounds.
The team statistics explain the result even more clearly. San Antonio had 53 rebounds to Boston’s 52, committed eight turnovers to Boston’s 10 and collected 12 offensive rebounds to Boston’s nine. Most importantly, the Spurs attempted 20 free throws compared with only four for the Celtics.
The fourth quarter ultimately settled the contest. San Antonio scored 27 points while Boston managed 20. With the game tied and the margin extremely small, Wembanyama, Fox, Champagnie and Johnson helped the Spurs execute the decisive possessions.
The most useful takeaway is that the final score reflected collective execution rather than one overwhelming statistical advantage. San Antonio survived poor three-point shooting because it created value in other areas, while Boston’s excellent perimeter production was not enough to overcome the free throw gap and late-game execution.
