Toronto Raptors vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats

Toronto Raptors vs San Antonio Spurs match player stats from the February 25, 2026 meeting tell a much more interesting story than the final 110-107 score suggests. San Antonio entered Scotiabank Arena with a 41-16 record and left with its 10th consecutive victory, but Toronto controlled large portions of the game and held a 15-point advantage before the Spurs produced a decisive fourth-quarter comeback. Devin Vassell led San Antonio with 21 points, De’Aaron Fox added 20, while Victor Wembanyama contributed 12 points, eight rebounds, three assists, and five blocks. For Toronto, Brandon Ingram recorded 20 points and a season-high 11 rebounds, while Immanuel Quickley also scored 20.

The final score alone does not explain why San Antonio won. Toronto actually finished with more rebounds, more points in the paint, and more free throws. The Spurs separated themselves through superior three-point shooting, ball movement, defensive disruption, and an extraordinary fourth-quarter response. San Antonio shot 47% from the field and 44% from three, compared with Toronto’s 42% overall shooting and 35% from deep.

This breakdown examines the individual performances, team-level numbers, momentum swings, efficiency indicators, and late-game decisions that shaped the result. It also explains which player statistics matter most when evaluating this matchup beyond a simple points-per-game comparison.

Toronto Raptors vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats

The February 25, 2026 matchup was officially recorded as a 110-107 San Antonio victory at Scotiabank Arena in Toronto. The game drew 19,800 spectators and featured a dramatic fourth quarter in which the Spurs outscored the Raptors 32-17.

The quarter-by-quarter scoring provides the clearest starting point:

Quarter	Spurs	Raptors
First	30	29
Second	27	30
Third	21	31
Fourth	32	17
Final	110	107

Toronto looked increasingly comfortable as the game progressed. The Raptors entered the fourth quarter with a 90-78 lead after producing a 31-21 third period. San Antonio then reversed the game almost completely.

That comeback is especially important when analyzing the player numbers. A player can have an excellent statistical line for three quarters and still struggle to influence the final outcome if the opposing team finds better late-game matchups.

The Spurs did exactly that.

San Antonio Spurs player statistics

The Spurs received balanced production from several players rather than depending entirely on Wembanyama.

Player	MIN	PTS	REB	AST	STL	BLK	FG	3PT	+/-
Devin Vassell	31:55	21	5	2	2	0	8-13	5-6	+2
De’Aaron Fox	31:00	20	2	1	1	0	8-15	2-5	-11
Dylan Harper	28:56	15	5	7	2	0	7-11	1-4	+1
Stephon Castle	28:00	13	3	5	1	0	4-10	2-4	+11
Victor Wembanyama	30:00	12	8	3	1	5	3-12	1-6	+19
Julian Champagnie	28:06	10	6	5	1	0	3-8	3-7	+14
Luke Kornet	21:00	6	6	0	0	0	2-4	0-0	-9
Harrison Barnes	21:00	8	3	2	3	0	3-5	2-4	+1

The official NBA box score confirms Vassell’s 21-point performance, his 8-for-13 shooting, and his 5-for-6 accuracy from three-point range.

Devin Vassell’s scoring efficiency

Vassell was the most efficient high-volume scorer on the floor.

He scored 21 points on only 13 field-goal attempts. More importantly, he converted five of six three-point attempts. That means he generated 15 points from outside the arc alone.

His 61.5% field-goal percentage was significantly above the Spurs’ overall 47% mark. His 83.3% three-point percentage was even more impressive.

This was not simply a case of taking difficult shots and getting hot. Vassell’s efficiency helped San Antonio maintain offensive balance while Toronto’s defense had to account for Fox and Wembanyama.

De’Aaron Fox’s 20 points

Fox finished with 20 points on 8-of-15 shooting, including 2-of-5 from three. His statistical profile was less efficient than Vassell’s, but his offensive role remained important.

Fox also helped establish the Spurs’ early rhythm. He scored four points in the opening minutes and consistently pressured Toronto’s defense with his ability to attack from the perimeter.

One important detail is his plus/minus of -11.

That number might look surprising in a three-point victory. It is also a useful reminder that plus/minus should never be interpreted as a standalone measure of individual performance. Fox’s scoring and offensive pressure were meaningful even though his total minutes coincided with stretches when Toronto played well.

Victor Wembanyama’s unusual impact

Wembanyama had a difficult shooting night by his standards.

He finished with:

• 12 points
• 8 rebounds
• 3 assists
• 1 steal
• 5 blocks
• 3-for-12 field goals
• 1-for-6 from three
• 5-for-6 free throws
• +19 plus/minus

The five blocks are particularly important.

Wembanyama’s offensive efficiency was poor compared with his usual standards, but his defensive influence remained enormous. The AP game report noted that he produced a pivotal block on Jakob Poeltl with 44 seconds remaining. He also secured the rebound after Brandon Ingram missed a potential game-tying three late in the contest.

This is exactly why traditional scoring totals can be misleading.

A 12-point performance from Wembanyama might look ordinary when viewed without context. A 12-point, eight-rebound, five-block performance with a +19 plus/minus in a three-point road win tells a completely different story.

Dylan Harper’s playmaking value

Harper quietly produced one of San Antonio’s most important all-around performances.

He scored 15 points while shooting 7-of-11 from the field. He also delivered seven assists and collected five rebounds.

His seven assists were the highest total on the Spurs.

That matters because San Antonio did not rely exclusively on isolation scoring. The team finished with 28 assists, compared with 17 for Toronto. The 11-assist difference indicates a major advantage in offensive connectivity.

Harper’s performance was especially useful because it allowed the Spurs to maintain offensive structure while Toronto’s defense concentrated on the team’s primary scorers.

Toronto Raptors Player Performance Breakdown

Toronto’s individual numbers show why the Raptors were in position to win for most of the night.

Brandon Ingram and Immanuel Quickley each scored 20 points. Scottie Barnes added 15. Ingram also led Toronto in rebounding and assists.

Player	PTS	REB	AST	Key contribution
Brandon Ingram	20	11	4	Scoring and rebounding
Immanuel Quickley	20	Not provided in supplied summary	Not provided in supplied summary	Perimeter scoring
Scottie Barnes	15	Not provided in supplied summary	Not provided in supplied summary	Two-way activity
RJ Barrett	Not provided in supplied summary	Not provided	Not provided	Starting wing role
Collin Murray-Boyles	Not provided	Not provided	Not provided	Started, left with thumb issue
Jakob Poeltl	Not provided	Not provided	Not provided	+18 plus/minus

The NBA game page identifies Ingram as Toronto’s points, rebounds, and assists leader, with 20 points, 11 rebounds, and four assists.

Brandon Ingram’s all-around night

Ingram was arguably Toronto’s most complete statistical performer.

He scored 20 points, grabbed 11 rebounds, and supplied four assists. His 11 rebounds represented a season high according to the game recap.

The rebounding number is especially valuable because Toronto finished with a 50-40 advantage on the glass.

Ingram’s contribution therefore extended beyond scoring. He helped Toronto win possessions, create second chances, and control the interior for long stretches.

Yet his late-game miss became one of the defining moments of the contest.

With Toronto trailing by three, Ingram attempted a three-pointer that would have tied the game. The shot missed, Wembanyama secured the rebound, and San Antonio was able to protect its lead.

That sequence demonstrates how one shot can carry more importance than an entire box score line.

Immanuel Quickley’s scoring role

Quickley matched Ingram with 20 points.

His scoring was important because Toronto needed perimeter creation against a San Antonio defense built around Wembanyama’s rim protection.

Toronto’s overall three-point shooting, however, was only 8-for-23.

That 34.8% mark was not disastrous, but it was significantly below San Antonio’s 17-for-39 performance from deep.

The difference was nine made three-pointers.

That means San Antonio generated 27 more points from three-point makes alone.

Toronto compensated partly through free throws and interior scoring, but the long-range gap remained decisive.

Scottie Barnes contributes without dominating the scoring column

Barnes finished with 15 points and played a major role in Toronto’s strong third quarter.

The Raptors’ 31-point third period was their best offensive quarter of the game. Toronto attacked the paint effectively and created enough pressure to build a 15-point lead.

The problem was sustaining that efficiency after the Spurs adjusted.

This is an important lesson when studying individual player stats: a strong third-quarter box score can become less meaningful if the opposing team changes its defensive approach in the final period.

Team Statistics That Decided the Game

The individual numbers become easier to understand when placed beside the team totals.

Category	Spurs	Raptors
Field Goals	40-86	38-90
Field Goal %	47%	42%
Three-Pointers	17-39	8-23
Three-Point %	44%	35%
Free Throws	13-23	23-27
Free Throw %	57%	85%
Rebounds	40	50
Assists	28	17
Turnovers	13	12
Steals	11	6
Blocks	5	4

San Antonio’s advantage in shooting efficiency and playmaking offset Toronto’s substantial rebounding and free-throw advantages.

Three-point shooting was the biggest statistical separator

San Antonio made 17 three-pointers.

Toronto made eight.

That is a difference of nine made shots from beyond the arc.

Even though the Raptors attempted only 23 threes compared with San Antonio’s 39, the Spurs’ combination of volume and accuracy created a substantial scoring advantage.

The Spurs made 44% of their attempts.

Toronto made 35%.

This is one of the clearest explanations for the final result.

Toronto dominated the rebounding battle

Toronto won the rebounding battle 50-40.

That is a 10-rebound advantage.

In many games, such a margin would strongly favor the team that won it. Here, it was not enough.

Toronto’s rebounding advantage helped the Raptors generate additional possessions, but San Antonio’s shooting efficiency made those extra possessions less valuable than they might normally be.

The assist gap reveals a different kind of offensive advantage

San Antonio recorded 28 assists.

Toronto recorded 17.

That 11-assist difference is one of the most revealing numbers in the box score.

The Spurs were not merely making more shots. They were creating more shots through coordinated offense.

The difference is also reflected in the individual passing numbers. Harper had seven assists, while Champagnie and Castle each added five.

Toronto did not have an individual player reaching that same seven-assist level in the supplied game data.

How the Fourth Quarter Changed Everything

The most important statistical fact in this game was the fourth-quarter scoring.

San Antonio scored 32.

Toronto scored 17.

That 15-point swing completely erased Toronto’s 12-point advantage entering the quarter.

NBA’s official game recap describes the victory as a 15-point comeback, while the game report notes that Toronto missed eight consecutive shots to begin the fourth quarter.

That sequence is more meaningful than simply saying “San Antonio had a big fourth quarter.”

The Spurs applied pressure when Toronto’s offense stopped producing.

San Antonio reclaimed the lead at 93-92 on a Luke Kornet dunk with 7:26 remaining.

From there, the game became a possession-by-possession contest.

Fox hit an important three-pointer to tie the game at 96, while other Spurs players made timely plays that prevented Toronto from rebuilding its earlier lead.

This is where San Antonio’s depth became particularly valuable.

Vassell supplied the primary scoring.

Fox provided perimeter creation.

Harper contributed playmaking.

Wembanyama protected the rim.

Champagnie provided spacing and additional scoring.

Castle added two-way activity.

That combination gave San Antonio several ways to respond when Toronto’s initial defensive strategy became less effective.

The Plus/Minus Numbers Need Context

Plus/minus can be useful, but it needs careful interpretation.

Wembanyama posted the best Spurs plus/minus at +19.

Poeltl reportedly posted Toronto’s best at +18.

At first glance, that creates an interesting contrast.

How can a player on the losing team have a +18 rating while a player on the winning team has +19?

Because plus/minus measures the team’s scoring margin while a player is on the floor. It does not isolate individual responsibility.

Poeltl’s +18 suggests that Toronto performed extremely well during his minutes.

Wembanyama’s +19, meanwhile, shows how strongly San Antonio performed during his minutes despite his inefficient shooting.

This is a perfect example of why advanced analysis should combine several statistics rather than relying on one number.

For player evaluation, it is better to consider:

1. Scoring efficiency
2. Rebounding
3. Playmaking
4. Defensive events
5. Turnovers
6. Shot quality
7. Plus/minus
8. Role and matchup
9. Fourth-quarter impact

The combination tells a much more accurate story.

What the Shooting Numbers Say About Winning

San Antonio finished 40-for-86 from the field.

Toronto finished 38-for-90.

That means the Spurs made two more field goals despite taking four fewer attempts.

The difference is efficiency.

San Antonio’s 47% field-goal rate was five percentage points better than Toronto’s 42%.

The Spurs also made nine more three-pointers.

Toronto did have one major efficiency advantage at the free-throw line.

The Raptors made 23 of 27 free throws, an 85% conversion rate.

San Antonio made only 13 of 23, or 57%.

Toronto therefore left fewer points at the free-throw line.

But the Spurs’ advantage from the field and beyond the arc was large enough to outweigh that difference.

Why Wembanyama’s Five Blocks Matter

One of the biggest mistakes in reading this game would be to label Wembanyama’s performance as poor simply because he scored 12 points on 3-of-12 shooting.

His five blocks changed the geometry of the game.

A blocked shot is only one defensive statistic, but elite rim protection influences possessions that never become blocks.

A driving player may hesitate.

A big man may pass instead of shooting.

A guard may settle for a contested jumper.

A team may avoid attacking the paint altogether.

Those effects are not fully captured in a standard box score.

Wembanyama’s five blocks therefore provide only part of his defensive impact.

His +19 plus/minus further supports the argument that his overall influence was substantially greater than his scoring line suggested.

Toronto’s Free-Throw Advantage Was Not Enough

Toronto’s 23-for-27 performance at the line was excellent.

San Antonio’s 13-for-23 mark was considerably weaker.

That gave Toronto a 10-made-free-throw advantage.

Normally, that is a major scoring difference.

However, San Antonio created a much larger advantage from three-point shooting.

The Spurs made nine more threes.

Each additional three-pointer is worth three points, so the long-range difference alone represented a 27-point gap in made three-point baskets.

Toronto’s free-throw advantage partially compensated for that gap, but not enough to overcome it.

This is why simply counting free throws or rebounds can produce misleading conclusions.

The type of scoring matters.

Turnovers and Defensive Pressure

Toronto committed 12 turnovers.

San Antonio committed 13.

The turnover margin therefore favored Toronto by only one possession.

But the Spurs recorded 11 steals compared with Toronto’s six.

That suggests San Antonio was more disruptive defensively.

The Spurs also converted defensive pressure into transition opportunities. Their game totals included 12 fast-break points compared with Toronto’s 16, so the Raptors actually had the higher fast-break total.

This is another useful reminder that defensive success cannot always be measured through one downstream statistic.

San Antonio’s defense was effective enough to create pressure without necessarily producing a huge fast-break scoring advantage.

The Importance of the Starting Lineups

San Antonio started:

• Julian Champagnie
• Victor Wembanyama
• De’Aaron Fox
• Devin Vassell
• Stephon Castle

Toronto started:

• Brandon Ingram
• RJ Barrett
• Scottie Barnes
• Collin Murray-Boyles
• Immanuel Quickley

The matchup featured several different player archetypes.

San Antonio had a unique interior anchor in Wembanyama, surrounded by multiple perimeter creators and shooters.

Toronto had a more versatile wing-oriented group featuring Ingram, Barnes, and Barrett, alongside Quickley’s guard play.

The tactical challenge for Toronto was straightforward in theory but difficult in execution: create efficient offense without allowing Wembanyama to control the paint.

Toronto succeeded for long stretches.

The third quarter showed that the Raptors could attack San Antonio effectively.

The problem was maintaining that pressure after the Spurs adjusted.

Collin Murray-Boyles and the Injury Context

Murray-Boyles started against Wembanyama but left the game during the third quarter with a sore left thumb, according to the game report.

That detail matters when evaluating Toronto’s rotation and interior matchups.

He was given the difficult assignment of starting against Wembanyama, and his departure altered the available options during the second half.

At the same time, Jakob Poeltl returned from a sore lower back and came off the bench after sitting out Toronto’s previous game.

Poeltl eventually produced a +18 plus/minus, illustrating how important his minutes were.

What Toronto Did Well

Despite the loss, Toronto produced several strong statistical indicators.

Rebounding

The Raptors won the glass 50-40.

That demonstrated strong physical engagement and second-chance potential.

Free-throw shooting

Toronto converted 85% of its free throws.

That is a major positive from an efficiency standpoint.

Interior scoring

Toronto scored 48 points in the paint compared with San Antonio’s 36.

The Raptors were therefore effective attacking inside despite Wembanyama’s defensive presence.

Third-quarter offense

Toronto scored 31 points in the third period.

That quarter produced the team’s largest lead and showed that the Raptors had an offensive formula capable of troubling San Antonio.

The issue was not whether Toronto could score.

The issue was whether it could continue generating quality possessions when the Spurs increased defensive pressure.

What San Antonio Did Best

The Spurs’ victory was built around several connected strengths.

Elite three-point efficiency

17-for-39 from three is the most obvious statistical advantage.

Ball movement

28 assists indicate strong offensive connectivity.

Defensive disruption

11 steals and five blocks show the Spurs created problems on both the perimeter and around the rim.

Fourth-quarter execution

The 32-17 fourth quarter turned a 12-point deficit into a three-point victory.

Balanced scoring

Six Spurs players scored at least 10 points.

That balance reduced the team’s dependence on a single scorer.

The Most Important Player Stats From the Game

If the goal is to identify the statistics that best explain the outcome, these are the numbers to prioritize:

Devin Vassell: 21 points

He was San Antonio’s leading scorer and most efficient high-volume shooter.

De’Aaron Fox: 20 points

His scoring gave San Antonio another major offensive option.

Dylan Harper: 15 points and 7 assists

His combination of scoring and playmaking helped the Spurs maintain offensive flow.

Victor Wembanyama: 12 points, 8 rebounds, 5 blocks, +19

His offensive shooting was inefficient, but his defensive impact was immense.

Brandon Ingram: 20 points, 11 rebounds, 4 assists

He was Toronto’s most complete statistical contributor.

Immanuel Quickley: 20 points

His scoring helped Toronto remain competitive against San Antonio’s perimeter defense.

Toronto: 50 rebounds

A major advantage that nevertheless did not translate into victory.

San Antonio: 28 assists

A major indicator of superior offensive distribution.

San Antonio: 17 made threes

The clearest shooting advantage of the game.

Fourth quarter: Spurs 32, Raptors 17

The single most important sequence in determining the result.

A Better Way to Evaluate This Matchup

When evaluating a game such as this, I would not start with the leading scorer.

I would start with the relationship between efficiency, possessions, and late-game execution.

A useful evaluation framework is:

Step 1: Check the final margin

San Antonio won by three.

That immediately tells us the game was close enough that individual late-game possessions mattered.

Step 2: Compare shooting efficiency

San Antonio had the advantage.

The Spurs made 47% of their field goals compared with Toronto’s 42%.

Step 3: Check three-point production

San Antonio had a substantial advantage.

17 made threes versus eight is a major difference.

Step 4: Check rebounding

Toronto won this category 50-40.

That explains why the Raptors remained competitive despite the shooting disadvantage.

Step 5: Check playmaking

San Antonio had 28 assists against Toronto’s 17.

That points toward more connected offensive possessions.

Step 6: Examine the fourth quarter

This is where the game was decided.

San Antonio won the final period 32-17.

Step 7: Examine defensive impact

Wembanyama’s five blocks and San Antonio’s 11 steals show that the Spurs had multiple ways to disrupt Toronto.

This framework gives a much more useful picture than simply saying that Vassell scored 21 points.

Toronto Raptors vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats: What They Reveal

Toronto Raptors vs San Antonio Spurs match player stats reveal a classic example of how different statistical advantages can coexist in the same game.

The toronto was better in several traditional areas.

The Raptors:

• Won the rebounding battle by 10
• Made more free throws
• Scored more points in the paint
• Produced a 31-point third quarter
• Built a 15-point lead

Yet San Antonio still won.

The Spurs:

• Shot better overall
• Made nine more three-pointers
• Recorded 11 more assists
• Produced more steals
• Received balanced scoring
• Won the fourth quarter by 15 points

That combination explains the final result much better than the scoreboard alone.

The game also demonstrates why individual player evaluation needs context. Wembanyama’s 12 points were not enough to make him the game’s leading scorer, but his five blocks, eight rebounds, and +19 plus/minus were critical. Vassell was the scoring star, while Harper provided one of the most complete supporting performances.

For Toronto, Ingram’s 20-point, 11-rebound performance was excellent, while Quickley’s 20 points provided important scoring support. But the Raptors could not maintain their offensive efficiency when San Antonio increased the pressure in the final period.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who led the Spurs in scoring against the Raptors?

Devin Vassell led San Antonio with 21 points. He shot 8-for-13 from the field and 5-for-6 from three-point range.

Who led the Raptors in scoring?

Brandon Ingram and Immanuel Quickley each scored 20 points. Ingram also recorded 11 rebounds and four assists.

How many points did Victor Wembanyama score?

Wembanyama scored 12 points on 3-for-12 shooting. He also had eight rebounds, three assists, and five blocks.

What was the final score between San Antonio and Toronto?

The Spurs defeated the Raptors 110-107 at Scotiabank Arena on February 25, 2026.

Which team had the better three-point shooting?

San Antonio had the clear advantage. The Spurs made 17 of 39 three-point attempts for 44%, while Toronto made eight of 23 for 35%.

Why did the Spurs win despite being outrebounded?

San Antonio compensated for Toronto’s 50-40 rebounding advantage through better shooting, more assists, more three-point makes, defensive disruption, and a decisive 32-17 fourth quarter.

Conclusion

Toronto Raptors vs San Antonio Spurs match player stats from this contest provide a strong example of why basketball analysis should go beyond the top scorer.

San Antonio won 110-107 because its statistical advantages were concentrated in areas with major scoring and possession value. The Spurs shot 47% from the field, made 17 three-pointers, recorded 28 assists, and produced 11 steals. Their fourth-quarter surge transformed a 12-point deficit into a three-point victory.

Devin Vassell was the leading scorer with 21 points, while De’Aaron Fox added 20. Dylan Harper’s 15 points and seven assists supplied valuable balance. Wembanyama struggled as a shooter but remained a major defensive force with five blocks, eight rebounds, and a team-best +19 plus/minus.

Toronto had plenty of positives. Ingram delivered 20 points and 11 rebounds, Quickley scored 20, and the Raptors dominated the boards 50-40. They also won the paint battle and shot 85% from the free-throw line.

Ultimately, the deciding difference was execution when the game became tight. Toronto’s 31-point third quarter created the opportunity, but San Antonio’s 32-point fourth quarter finished it.

The result was not simply a story about one player outperforming another. It was a story about efficiency, spacing, ball movement, defensive disruption, and late-game execution. That is what makes this matchup particularly valuable for anyone studying player statistics rather than simply checking the final score.