Toronto Raptors vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats
The toronto raptors vs san antonio spurs match player stats from February 26, 2026, tell the story of a close NBA contest decided by a strong fourth-quarter performance from San Antonio. The Spurs defeated the Toronto Raptors 110-107 at Scotiabank Arena in Toronto, completing a 2-0 season-series sweep. Devin Vassell led San Antonio with 21 points, while De’Aaron Fox added 20. Toronto received 20 points each from Brandon Ingram and Immanuel Quickley, but its late offensive struggles proved costly after a productive third quarter.
The three-point margin does not fully explain how the game unfolded. Toronto collected 50 rebounds and made 23 of 27 free throws, yet San Antonio shot more efficiently from the field, made 17 three-pointers, and recorded 28 assists. Those differences help explain how the Spurs overcame Toronto’s advantage on the boards and secured a valuable road victory.
This breakdown examines the final score, individual player contributions, team shooting, quarter-by-quarter momentum, and the statistical details that made the difference. All game figures below are based on the supplied February 26, 2026, box-score data.
Toronto Raptors vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The matchup featured two teams with several productive scorers and different approaches to creating offense. San Antonio relied on efficient shooting, ball movement, and perimeter scoring. Toronto generated opportunities through rebounding, free throws, and contributions from multiple players.
San Antonio Spurs
Away team
110
42-16 overall record displayed
Toronto Raptors
Home team
107
34-25 overall record displayed
Date
February 26, 2026
Venue
Scotiabank Arena
Attendance
19,800
Final margin
Spurs by 3
Final game details
| Match detail | Result |
| Final score | Spurs 110, Raptors 107 |
| Winning team | San Antonio Spurs |
| Spurs’ leading scorer | Devin Vassell, 21 points |
| Raptors’ leading scorers | Brandon Ingram and Immanuel Quickley, 20 each |
| Spurs’ field-goal percentage | 47% |
| Raptors’ field-goal percentage | 42% |
| Total rebounds | Spurs 40, Raptors 50 |
| Total assists | Spurs 28, Raptors 17 |
| Season series | Spurs won 2-0 |
The most important takeaway is that Toronto did several things well enough to win. It controlled the rebounding battle, earned more free throws, and received balanced scoring. San Antonio countered with superior shooting efficiency and much stronger passing production.
That combination made the difference in a game where neither side built a decisive lead.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Breakdown
The scoring pattern shows how the momentum shifted during the game. Toronto entered the fourth quarter with a four-point lead, but San Antonio responded with its highest-scoring period of the night.
| Quarter | San Antonio Spurs | Toronto Raptors | Quarter winner |
| First | 30 | 29 | Spurs |
| Second | 27 | 30 | Raptors |
| Third | 21 | 31 | Raptors |
| Fourth | 32 | 17 | Spurs |
| Final | 110 | 107 | Spurs |
First quarter: San Antonio starts slightly ahead
San Antonio scored 30 points in the opening period, one more than Toronto’s 29. Both teams found early scoring opportunities, and neither established meaningful separation.
The opening quarter set the tone for a competitive game. Toronto stayed close enough to challenge throughout the first half, while the Spurs demonstrated that they could score consistently against the home defense.
Second quarter: Toronto moves in front
Toronto won the second quarter 30-27. That three-point advantage gave the Raptors a 59-57 halftime lead.
The improvement reflected Toronto’s ability to sustain its scoring while remaining competitive in a game where San Antonio had already demonstrated effective perimeter shooting. At halftime, the contest remained finely balanced.
Third quarter: Raptors build their advantage
The Raptors produced their strongest quarter, scoring 31 points while holding San Antonio to 21. Toronto won the period by 10 points and entered the fourth quarter ahead 90-78.
At this stage, Toronto had scored 12 more points than San Antonio in the third quarter alone. The lead placed pressure on the Spurs to improve their offensive execution and find a way to reverse the momentum.
Fourth quarter: Spurs complete the comeback
San Antonio scored 32 points in the final period, while Toronto managed only 17. The Spurs won the quarter by 15 points, turning a 12-point deficit at the start of the period into a three-point victory.
The fourth-quarter swing was the defining feature of the matchup. Toronto’s offense had produced 31 points in the previous quarter, but that output fell sharply when the game reached its decisive stage.
San Antonio’s 32-point finish showed the value of sustaining offensive efficiency under pressure. Toronto’s inability to maintain its earlier scoring rate left little room for error, even with its advantage in rebounds and free throws.
San Antonio Spurs Player Stats and Individual Performances
San Antonio’s victory was a team effort, but Devin Vassell’s scoring efficiency and Dylan Harper’s playmaking were particularly important. De’Aaron Fox provided another major scoring option, while Victor Wembanyama contributed defensive value despite a difficult shooting night.
The following table summarizes the leading Spurs performances using the supplied game data and the official NBA box-score figures.
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Steals | Blocks |
| Devin Vassell | 21 | 5 | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| De’Aaron Fox | 20 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Dylan Harper | 15 | 5 | 7 | 2 | 0 |
| Stephon Castle | 13 | 3 | 5 | 1 | 0 |
| Victor Wembanyama | 12 | 8 | 3 | 1 | 5 |
| Julian Champagnie | 10 | 6 | 5 | 1 | 0 |
| Harrison Barnes | 8 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 |
| Luke Kornet | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Carter Bryant | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Keldon Johnson | 2 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
Player totals are individual statistics, not estimates. Minutes and shooting percentages are discussed below where relevant.
Devin Vassell: San Antonio’s leading scorer
Devin Vassell finished with 21 points, making him the Spurs’ highest scorer. He converted eight of his 13 field-goal attempts and made five of six three-point attempts.
His shooting efficiency was a major advantage for San Antonio. Vassell connected on approximately 61.5% of his field goals and 83.3% of his three-point attempts. Those figures demonstrate how effectively he converted his opportunities.
Vassell’s five made three-pointers were especially valuable because Toronto made only eight three-pointers as a team. San Antonio therefore received five successful perimeter shots from one player alone, reducing the pressure on its other scorers to match Toronto’s production in the paint.
He also contributed five rebounds, two assists, and two steals. His performance combined efficient scoring with useful defensive activity rather than relying on points alone.
Why his performance mattered: Vassell gave San Antonio reliable scoring without requiring an unusually high number of attempts. In a three-point game, that kind of efficiency can be more valuable than accumulating points through a large volume of difficult shots.
De’Aaron Fox: A second 20-point scoring option
Fox recorded 20 points, giving San Antonio two players with at least 20. He shot eight of 15 from the field and made two three-pointers.
Fox’s presence gave Toronto another scorer to account for when focusing on Vassell. Defenses cannot concentrate entirely on one perimeter threat when another player can create shots and attack openings.
However, Fox’s free-throw shooting was less effective. He made two of eight attempts at the line, leaving six potential points unconverted. That is an important detail because the Spurs won by only three points.
It would be inaccurate to say that Fox’s missed free throws nearly cost San Antonio the game without considering the rest of the contest. Still, his performance illustrates how individual efficiency can vary even when a player finishes with 20 points.
Fox added two rebounds, one assist, and one steal. His scoring contribution was central to the Spurs’ offense, although his overall line was less efficient than Vassell’s.
Dylan Harper: Bench scoring and playmaking
Dylan Harper supplied 15 points, five rebounds, seven assists, and two steals. His seven assists were particularly important in a game in which San Antonio finished with 28 team assists.
Harper made seven of 11 field-goal attempts, converting approximately 63.6% of his shots. He also contributed to the team’s offensive rhythm by creating opportunities for teammates rather than simply looking for his own shot.
His seven assists represented the highest total among the leading Spurs performers listed here. That production helped explain why San Antonio could generate more assisted offense than Toronto.
Harper’s contribution also illustrates the importance of bench players. A team’s starting lineup may establish the initial game plan, but reserve players can change the contest by maintaining scoring pressure when starters rest or when opponents adjust defensively.
Harper provided both scoring and distribution, giving San Antonio a productive alternative to its primary perimeter scorers.
Stephon Castle: Supporting scoring and ball movement
Castle finished with 13 points, three rebounds, and five assists. He made four of 10 field-goal attempts and two of four three-point attempts.
Although his scoring total was below those of Vassell and Fox, his five assists contributed to San Antonio’s collective passing advantage. His ability to support the offense in more than one role reduced the need for the Spurs’ leading scorers to handle every possession.
Castle’s performance is best understood as complementary production. He supplied points when needed and helped create opportunities for teammates, contributing to a balanced offensive attack.
Victor Wembanyama: Defensive impact beyond scoring
Wembanyama finished with 12 points, eight rebounds, three assists, one steal, and five blocks. His shooting performance was difficult, as he made three of 12 field-goal attempts and one of six three-point attempts.
Those figures are important because they prevent the box score from being interpreted too simply. Wembanyama was not one of San Antonio’s most efficient scorers in this matchup.
His defensive production, however, was substantial. Five blocks can disrupt an opponent’s preferred shots, force offensive players to reconsider driving into the paint, and alter possessions even when a block does not directly produce a change of possession.
Wembanyama also recorded a team-leading plus-minus of +19. This means San Antonio outscored Toronto by 19 points during his time on the court. Plus-minus is a measure of the team’s scoring margin while a player is on the floor, not a direct measurement of that player’s individual contribution.
The fourth quarter provided a decisive example of his defensive importance. Wembanyama blocked Jakob Poeltl late in the game and secured a crucial rebound after Brandon Ingram missed a potential game-tying three-pointer.
His defensive presence was therefore a major part of the Spurs’ victory, even though his shooting line was below his usual offensive expectations.
Julian Champagnie: Efficient support on both ends
Champagnie recorded 10 points, six rebounds, and five assists. He made three of eight field-goal attempts, including three of seven from beyond the arc.
His perimeter shooting added another dimension to San Antonio’s offense. Champagnie also contributed five assists, tying Castle for the second-highest total among the leading Spurs players in this breakdown.
His performance demonstrates that a player does not need to lead the team in scoring to influence a close game. Rebounding, passing, and the ability to stretch the defense all help create better conditions for teammates.
Harrison Barnes and Luke Kornet: Useful supporting contributions
Barnes scored eight points and added three rebounds, two assists, and three steals. His three steals were a team-high among the Spurs listed in the box-score breakdown.
Kornet scored six points and collected six rebounds. One of his most important moments came during the fourth-quarter comeback, when his dunk gave San Antonio a 93-92 lead with 7:26 remaining.
That basket marked a significant turning point. Toronto had controlled much of the third quarter, but San Antonio’s renewed offensive pressure allowed it to move back in front.
Barnes and Kornet show how supporting players can influence a game without posting the highest scoring totals. Defensive activity, rebounding, and timely finishes can be decisive in a narrow win.
Toronto Raptors Player Stats and Individual Performances
Toronto had several strong individual performances, particularly from Brandon Ingram, Immanuel Quickley, Scottie Barnes, and Jakob Poeltl. The Raptors also received useful scoring from RJ Barrett and Jamal Shead.
Their combined production helped Toronto reach 107 points. However, the team’s limited three-point output and fourth-quarter scoring decline meant that its positive individual performances were not enough to secure the win.
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Steals | Blocks |
| Brandon Ingram | 20 | 11 | 4 | 0 | 0 |
| Immanuel Quickley | 20 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Scottie Barnes | 15 | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| Jakob Poeltl | 15 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 3 |
| RJ Barrett | 12 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Jamal Shead | 12 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 0 |
| Ja’Kobe Walter | 5 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 0 |
| Collin Murray-Boyles | 4 | 5 | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Sandro Mamukelashvili | 2 | 3 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Jamison Battle | 2 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Jakob Poeltl entered the game from the bench. The figures above summarize the principal player contributions rather than every appearance or inactive player.
Brandon Ingram: Toronto’s all-around offensive leader
Ingram scored 20 points and recorded 11 rebounds and four assists. He was Toronto’s most productive player in terms of combining scoring with rebounding and playmaking.
His 11 rebounds were the highest individual total in the game. That production helped Toronto finish with 50 team rebounds, 10 more than San Antonio’s 40.
Ingram made nine of 22 field-goal attempts. His scoring total was therefore productive, but his shooting percentage was lower than Vassell’s. He did not make a three-pointer on two attempts, which limited his contribution from beyond the arc.
His performance highlights an important distinction between volume and efficiency. Ingram created and converted enough opportunities to reach 20 points, but he needed more attempts than Vassell to reach the same total.
In the closing seconds, Ingram missed a three-pointer that would have tied the game. That missed shot was one of the final defining moments, although the outcome had been shaped by San Antonio’s larger fourth-quarter scoring run.
Immanuel Quickley: A second 20-point performance
Quickley also scored 20 points, giving Toronto two players tied for its scoring lead. He made six of 12 field-goal attempts and three of five three-point attempts.
His 50% field-goal shooting was efficient, and his three made three-pointers accounted for a significant share of Toronto’s limited perimeter production.
Quickley also made five of seven free throws. Unlike Fox, he converted most of his attempts at the line, although he still left two points unclaimed.
One notable detail is that Quickley finished without an assist despite being a guard. That does not mean he failed to contribute to the offense. His scoring efficiency was valuable, but the team needed more overall playmaking to match San Antonio’s 28 assists.
Quickley was involved in the final stages of the contest, including making free throws with the Raptors attempting to close the gap. Toronto ultimately ran out of time to force overtime.
Scottie Barnes: Defensive activity and versatile scoring
Barnes recorded 15 points, four rebounds, two assists, three steals, and one block.
His three steals were particularly notable because they matched the highest total recorded by any Toronto player in this matchup. Steals can interrupt an opponent’s rhythm, create transition opportunities, and prevent the opposing offense from completing a possession.
Barnes made seven of 13 field-goal attempts, producing a field-goal percentage of approximately 53.8%. That was an efficient shooting performance compared with Toronto’s overall 42% figure.
However, he also committed five turnovers, the highest total among the Raptors’ leading players. Turnovers can reduce the value of an otherwise productive offensive line, especially against a team capable of converting defensive stops into scoring opportunities.
Barnes’ statistics show the complexity of evaluating an all-around player. His scoring efficiency and defensive activity were positive, but his turnovers added pressure to a team that struggled to sustain its offense in the fourth quarter.
Jakob Poeltl: Rebounding, interior scoring, and rim protection
Poeltl finished with 15 points, seven rebounds, two assists, one steal, and three blocks. He made five of 11 field-goal attempts and converted all five of his free throws.
His perfect free-throw shooting was an advantage for Toronto. The Raptors made 23 free throws as a team, compared with 13 for San Antonio, and Poeltl contributed to that efficiency.
He also recorded a team-leading plus-minus of +18. Toronto outscored San Antonio by 18 points during his time on the court, according to the supplied game figures.
That statistic does not mean Poeltl individually produced an 18-point advantage. It indicates how the team’s scoring margin looked during his minutes, which can be affected by teammates, opponents, rotations, and game circumstances.
Poeltl’s three blocks were another positive element. Yet his late-game attempt near the basket was blocked by Wembanyama, illustrating how difficult it was for Toronto to finish against San Antonio’s interior defense in a crucial moment.
RJ Barrett: Scoring support and rebounding
Barrett recorded 12 points, seven rebounds, and three assists. He made four of 14 field-goal attempts and one of six three-point attempts.
His shooting efficiency was a challenge. Barrett’s seven rebounds and three assists added value, but his 28.6% field-goal shooting limited the offensive return from his attempts.
This is an important consideration when analyzing a team’s collective shooting percentage. A few players can score efficiently, but a team may still struggle if other high-volume shooters have difficulty converting opportunities.
Toronto needed more consistent scoring across its rotation to maintain the pace established during the third quarter.
Jamal Shead: Bench scoring during a close contest
Shead scored 12 points, adding three assists and one rebound. He made three of seven field-goal attempts, including two of three from three-point range, and converted all four free throws.
His contribution gave Toronto another source of offense outside its primary starters. Shead’s two made three-pointers were particularly useful in a game where Toronto finished with only eight successful attempts from beyond the arc.
Bench scoring is often essential in close NBA games because it helps teams avoid a drop in production when their leading scorers rest. Shead provided that support, although the team’s overall late-game offense still fell short.
Ja’Kobe Walter and the remaining Raptors
Walter recorded five points and seven rebounds, along with two assists and one steal. Murray-Boyles added four points and five rebounds before leaving the game with a sore left thumb, according to the game recap.
Mamukelashvili and Battle each scored two points. Their totals were modest, but they were part of a rotation that helped Toronto collect 50 rebounds and maintain pressure during the first three quarters.
The main issue was not an absence of contributors. Toronto had several players producing meaningful statistics. The difficulty was sustaining that production when San Antonio raised its defensive intensity and scoring pace in the fourth quarter.
Team Statistics Comparison: Spurs vs Raptors
Individual performances explain who contributed, but team statistics reveal why the result favored San Antonio. Toronto won the rebounding battle and converted free throws at a higher rate. The Spurs were more accurate from the field and from three-point range, while also recording substantially more assists.
| Statistical category | San Antonio Spurs | Toronto Raptors |
| Points | 110 | 107 |
| Field goals | 40/86 | 38/90 |
| Field-goal percentage | 47% | 42% |
| Three-pointers | 17/39 | 8/23 |
| Three-point percentage | 44% | 35% |
| Free throws | 13/23 | 23/27 |
| Free-throw percentage | 57% | 85% |
| Total rebounds | 40 | 50 |
| Offensive rebounds | 6 | 12 |
| Defensive rebounds | 34 | 38 |
| Assists | 28 | 17 |
| Turnovers | 13 | 12 |
| Steals | 11 | 6 |
| Blocks | 5 | 4 |
| Personal fouls | 20 | 20 |
Percentages are rounded to whole numbers from the supplied figures. The official NBA box score is the primary reference for individual and team statistics.
Field-goal efficiency favored San Antonio
San Antonio made 40 of 86 field-goal attempts, while Toronto made 38 of 90. The Spurs therefore converted more shots despite attempting four fewer field goals.
The difference in shooting percentage was approximately five percentage points. That gap matters because successful shots allow a team to score more consistently without requiring additional possessions.
Toronto’s 38 made field goals were not a poor total in isolation. The issue was the number of attempts required to reach that figure, particularly when the game reached its final period.
San Antonio’s superior accuracy helped offset Toronto’s advantage in rebounding and free throws.
Three-point shooting was one of the biggest differences
The Spurs made 17 three-pointers from 39 attempts. Toronto made eight from 23 attempts.
That means San Antonio made nine more three-pointers, generating an additional 27 points from three-point shots compared with Toronto’s total. This is a comparison of the teams’ actual three-point scoring, not the overall margin between them.
The Spurs attempted 16 more three-pointers than the Raptors. Their willingness and ability to generate perimeter attempts created a substantial scoring advantage.
Toronto’s 35% three-point percentage was respectable, but the team did not produce enough successful attempts to match San Antonio’s output. The difference was especially important because Toronto needed every available scoring opportunity to compensate for the Spurs’ fourth-quarter comeback.
Toronto’s free-throw advantage kept the game close
Toronto converted 23 of 27 free throws, while San Antonio made 13 of 23.
The Raptors scored 10 more points at the free-throw line. Their 85% success rate was much better than San Antonio’s 57%, allowing them to remain competitive despite the gap in three-point scoring.
This is one reason the final score was so close. Without Toronto’s advantage at the line, the Spurs’ superior field-goal efficiency and perimeter shooting could have produced a wider margin.
However, free throws cannot be considered separately from the rest of the offense. San Antonio created more scoring through made field goals, while Toronto relied more heavily on its ability to draw fouls and convert at the line.
Rebounding favored Toronto
The Raptors recorded 50 rebounds, compared with 40 for San Antonio. Toronto also secured twice as many offensive rebounds, 12 to six.
Offensive rebounds can create second-chance scoring opportunities after missed shots. They also extend possessions and may force the opposing defense to continue working after it appears to have secured a stop.
Toronto’s rebounding advantage was therefore a genuine strength, not an insignificant statistic.
Yet the Raptors could not translate that advantage into enough points to overcome San Antonio’s shooting. The difference illustrates why rebounds must be evaluated alongside shooting percentages, turnovers, and the value of the possessions they create.
Assists reveal a difference in offensive execution
San Antonio recorded 28 assists, compared with Toronto’s 17.
The 11-assist gap suggests that the Spurs generated more assisted scoring opportunities and moved the ball more effectively toward successful shots. Vassell’s perimeter shooting, Harper’s seven assists, and the contributions of Castle and Champagnie all supported this approach.
Toronto’s lower assist total does not necessarily mean every basket was isolated or poorly created. Some effective scoring opportunities come from individual shot creation, transition play, and free throws. However, the overall difference indicates that San Antonio was more productive at turning team offense into made field goals.
Turnovers were close, but defensive activity differed
Toronto committed 12 turnovers, one fewer than San Antonio’s 13. That small difference did not produce a decisive advantage for either side.
The Spurs, however, recorded 11 steals against Toronto’s six. They also had five blocks compared with Toronto’s four.
These defensive numbers indicate that San Antonio created more disruptive plays. Steals can lead directly to transition opportunities, while blocks can deter shots and change the timing of an opponent’s attack.
The figures do not establish that every steal or block directly produced points. They do show that the Spurs combined disruptive defense with efficient offense, which was a productive formula for winning on the road.
Why the Spurs Won Despite Toronto’s Rebounding Advantage
San Antonio’s three-point win becomes easier to understand when the statistics are considered together rather than in isolation.
1. San Antonio converted more field-goal attempts
The Spurs made 40 field goals, two more than Toronto, despite attempting fewer shots. This gave them an advantage in scoring from the field.
2. The Spurs made nine more three-pointers
The perimeter gap was substantial. San Antonio made 17 threes, while Toronto made eight. The additional successful three-point shots helped compensate for Toronto’s superiority in rebounds and free throws.
3. San Antonio moved the ball more effectively
The 28-17 assist advantage suggests that San Antonio generated more assisted scoring opportunities. That team-wide production reduced the burden on individual scorers and helped sustain the offense.
4. Toronto’s offense stalled in the fourth quarter
The Raptors scored only 17 points in the final period after putting up 31 in the third. San Antonio scored 32 in the same period.
The 15-point quarter differential was greater than the final three-point margin, meaning the Spurs’ fourth-quarter response completely reversed Toronto’s earlier advantage.
5. Defensive plays helped San Antonio close the game
Wembanyama’s five blocks, the team’s 11 steals, and the late defensive stop against Poeltl were important elements of the finish.
The Spurs did not need every player to have an outstanding shooting night. They needed enough efficient scoring, defensive disruption, and late-game execution to overcome the deficit. They delivered those elements when the contest became most demanding.
Key Tactical Lessons From the Matchup
The game offers several useful lessons for anyone trying to understand basketball statistics beyond the final score.
Shooting volume is not the same as shooting efficiency
Toronto attempted 90 field goals, four more than San Antonio. Yet the Spurs made two more shots.
A higher number of attempts can be useful, particularly when a team generates offensive rebounds. However, the quality of those attempts and the percentage converted also matter.
San Antonio’s superior field-goal percentage shows why shot volume alone does not determine offensive success.
Three-point attempts can change a close game’s mathematics
A three-pointer is worth 50% more than a two-point field goal. As a result, a team that consistently generates good perimeter opportunities can build a scoring advantage even if its overall number of made field goals is similar to its opponent’s.
The Spurs’ nine additional made three-pointers created a major scoring difference. Toronto’s advantage at the free-throw line narrowed the gap, but it was not enough to erase it.
Rebounding must lead to useful possessions
Toronto’s 50 rebounds demonstrate strong work on the glass. Its 12 offensive rebounds also created additional opportunities to score.
But extra possessions only provide their full value when a team converts them into points. If a team repeatedly misses shots or struggles to score after securing rebounds, the statistical advantage may not translate into a victory.
Defense matters even when a star struggles offensively
Wembanyama’s 12 points on three-of-12 shooting might appear disappointing for a leading player. Yet his five blocks, eight rebounds, and +19 plus-minus show why points alone are not a complete measure of impact.
Defensive players can influence shot selection, protect the rim, and help teammates defend more aggressively. Those contributions are not always visible in scoring totals.
Fourth-quarter performance deserves separate analysis
A team can play well for three quarters and still lose because of a late collapse. Toronto’s 90-78 lead entering the fourth quarter made its subsequent scoring decline especially costly.
For a meaningful game analysis, compare quarter-by-quarter results instead of relying solely on the final score. The timing of a team’s scoring and defensive performance often explains more than the total alone.
Season Series: Spurs Complete a 2-0 Sweep
San Antonio won both meetings with Toronto during the 2025-26 regular season, according to the supplied series data.
| Meeting | Result | Winning margin |
| October 28, 2025 | Spurs 121, Raptors 103 | Spurs by 18 |
| February 26, 2026 | Spurs 110, Raptors 107 | Spurs by 3 |
The first meeting was more decisive, with San Antonio winning by 18 points. The second was considerably closer, with Toronto taking control during the third quarter before San Antonio rallied.
The two results demonstrate different paths to victory. In the first game, the Spurs won by a comfortable margin. In the second, they needed a strong final period and timely defensive plays.
A season-series sweep is a useful summary of the results between two teams, but it does not establish that one team would win every future meeting. Matchups, player availability, defensive adjustments, and shooting variance can all change the outcome of a later game.
What the Player Statistics Tell Us About Each Team
San Antonio Spurs: Strengths and areas to monitor
The Spurs’ main strengths in this game were perimeter scoring, passing, and defensive disruption.
Their 17 made three-pointers provided a major scoring advantage, while 28 assists indicated productive team offense. Eleven steals and five blocks added pressure on Toronto’s possession-by-possession execution.
The main concern was free-throw shooting. San Antonio made only 13 of 23 attempts, leaving points unclaimed in a game decided by three. Fox’s two-of-eight performance at the line was a notable part of that total.
Wembanyama’s shooting also deserves context. Although he was inefficient as a scorer, his defensive contribution remained substantial. A balanced evaluation should recognize both the offensive difficulty and the defensive impact.
Toronto Raptors: Strengths and areas to monitor
Toronto’s rebounding and free-throw shooting were its clearest strengths. Fifty rebounds and 23 made free throws gave the Raptors ways to stay competitive even when their perimeter shooting lagged behind.
Ingram’s 20 points and 11 rebounds, Quickley’s 20 points, and Barnes’ 15 points showed that the team had several productive offensive options.
The biggest concerns were the three-point gap, the assist deficit, and the fourth-quarter scoring decline. Toronto made eight three-pointers compared with San Antonio’s 17, and its 17 assists fell well below the Spurs’ 28.
The Raptors’ next step in a similar matchup would be to maintain offensive organization late in the game while continuing to take advantage of their rebounding and free-throw strengths.
How to Read NBA Match Player Statistics Correctly
Understanding a box score requires more than identifying the highest scorer. Several statistical measures help explain the difference between a productive individual performance and a winning team performance.
- Points: Measure a player’s direct scoring contribution.
- Field-goal percentage: Shows the percentage of field-goal attempts converted into baskets.
- Three-point percentage: Measures accuracy on shots taken from beyond the three-point line.
- Rebounds: Count recovered missed shots, including offensive and defensive rebounds.
- Assists: Credit passes that directly lead to a made basket under the official scoring rules.
- Steals and blocks: Measure certain defensive plays that disrupt an opponent’s possession or shot.
- Turnovers: Count possessions lost through errors or violations.
- Plus-minus: Measures the team’s scoring margin while a player is on the court.
These statistics work best when considered together. For example, Vassell’s 21 points and efficient shooting provide evidence of strong offensive production. Wembanyama’s five blocks demonstrate defensive value, while his +19 plus-minus offers additional context about the team’s performance during his minutes.
Likewise, Toronto’s 50 rebounds reveal a clear team strength, but the final result shows that rebounding alone could not compensate for the Spurs’ shooting advantage.
For readers seeking the complete player-by-player breakdown, the official NBA game box score provides a detailed record of minutes, shooting, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, and plus-minus.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Toronto Raptors vs San Antonio Spurs game on February 26, 2026?
The San Antonio Spurs defeated the Toronto Raptors 110-107 at Scotiabank Arena. San Antonio overcame a 12-point deficit entering the fourth quarter by scoring 32 points while limiting Toronto to 17.
2. Who was the top scorer in the Spurs vs Raptors game?
Devin Vassell led all scorers with 21 points for San Antonio. De’Aaron Fox added 20 points. Brandon Ingram and Immanuel Quickley led Toronto with 20 points each.
3. What were Victor Wembanyama’s stats against the Raptors?
Wembanyama recorded 12 points, eight rebounds, three assists, one steal, and five blocks. He made three of 12 field-goal attempts and finished with a team-leading plus-minus of +19.
4. Which Toronto Raptors players scored 20 points?
Brandon Ingram and Immanuel Quickley each scored 20 points. Ingram also collected 11 rebounds and four assists, while Quickley made three three-pointers and shot 50% from the field.
5. Why did the Spurs beat the Raptors despite losing the rebounding battle?
San Antonio made 17 three-pointers compared with Toronto’s eight, shot 47% from the field compared with 42%, and recorded 28 assists against Toronto’s 17. Its strong fourth-quarter performance overcame Toronto’s advantages in rebounds and free throws.
6. Did the Spurs sweep the Raptors in the 2025-26 season series?
Yes. According to the supplied season-series results, San Antonio won both meetings, defeating Toronto 121-103 in October 2025 and 110-107 in February 2026.
Conclusion
The toronto raptors vs san antonio spurs match player stats reveal a game in which shooting efficiency, perimeter scoring, and late-game execution outweighed Toronto’s advantages in rebounding and free throws.
Devin Vassell led San Antonio with 21 points, while De’Aaron Fox added 20 and Dylan Harper contributed 15 points and seven assists. Victor Wembanyama’s five blocks provided important defensive support despite his difficult shooting performance. For Toronto, Brandon Ingram and Immanuel Quickley scored 20 points apiece, while Scottie Barnes and Jakob Poeltl contributed 15 each.
The defining moment was the fourth quarter. Toronto entered the period ahead 90-78 but scored only 17 points in the final 12 minutes. San Antonio responded with 32 points, completing a three-point comeback victory.
Ultimately, the box score demonstrates why basketball results cannot be explained by one statistic alone. Toronto won the rebounding battle and converted free throws efficiently, but San Antonio created a larger advantage through three-point shooting, assists, and defensive disruption. Those combined strengths decided the contest.
