Brooklyn Nets vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats
The brooklyn nets vs san antonio spurs match player stats from October 26, 2025, tell the story of a San Antonio Spurs victory built on efficient shooting, rebounding strength, and Victor Wembanyama’s impact on both ends of the court. The Spurs defeated the Brooklyn Nets 118-107 at Frost Bank Center in San Antonio, Texas. Although Cam Thomas delivered an outstanding 41-point performance for Brooklyn, San Antonio received stronger overall production from its leading scorers and controlled several important areas of the game. The final box score shows how shooting accuracy, interior defense, and second-half execution helped the Spurs secure the win.
This matchup offered an interesting contrast between individual scoring and team efficiency. Thomas carried much of Brooklyn’s offensive burden, while Wembanyama combined 31 points with 14 rebounds and six blocks. Dylan Harper added 20 points and eight assists, giving San Antonio another reliable source of offense and playmaking. The Spurs also finished with 45 rebounds compared with Brooklyn’s 34, a difference that helped them create more opportunities and protect their advantage.
For readers looking for the complete player statistics, team comparisons, scoring leaders, and tactical explanation of the result, this breakdown uses the supplied ESPN box-score data. It distinguishes confirmed numbers from interpretation and explains why the statistical differences mattered to the final score.
Brooklyn Nets vs San Antonio Spurs Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The game took place on October 26, 2025, at Frost Bank Center, with an announced attendance of 19,016. San Antonio finished with an 11-point victory after building a substantial first-half lead and responding to Brooklyn’s stronger third quarter.
Brooklyn Nets
Away team
107
Top scorer: Cam Thomas, 41 points
San Antonio Spurs
Home team · Winner
118
Top scorer: Victor Wembanyama, 31 points
Final margin
Spurs +11
Attendance
19,016
Venue
Frost Bank Center
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Final score and quarter-by-quarter breakdown
| Quarter | Brooklyn Nets | San Antonio Spurs |
| First quarter | 24 | 31 |
| Second quarter | 24 | 38 |
| Third quarter | 33 | 19 |
| Fourth quarter | 26 | 30 |
| Final score | 107 | 118 |
San Antonio scored 69 points in the first half, compared with Brooklyn’s 48. That 21-point halftime advantage proved important when the Nets produced 33 points in the third quarter and cut into the deficit.
Brooklyn won the third quarter by 14 points, but the Spurs responded by outscoring the Nets 30-26 in the fourth. The final margin was therefore not simply the result of one hot shooting stretch. San Antonio’s first-half production created a cushion that survived Brooklyn’s best period.
The quarter totals also show why looking only at the final score can miss the flow of a basketball game. Brooklyn demonstrated that it could generate offense, but it could not fully recover from the first-half gap.
Complete Brooklyn Nets Player Statistics
Cam Thomas was the clear scoring leader for Brooklyn, finishing with 41 points on 11-of-25 shooting. He also made five three-pointers and converted all 14 of his free throws. Michael Porter Jr. contributed 15 points in the supplied box-score data, while Nic Claxton scored 10.
The full player statistics help explain the difference between an impressive individual scoring performance and a successful team result.
| Brooklyn player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | FG |
| Cam Thomas | 41 | 2 | 0 | 11/25 |
| Michael Porter Jr. | 15 | 6 | 4 | 5/15 |
| Nic Claxton | 10 | 5 | 2 | 4/7 |
| Terance Mann | 7 | 6 | 3 | 3/7 |
| Noah Clowney | 7 | 3 | 2 | 2/8 |
| Day’Ron Sharpe | 6 | 3 | 1 | 3/4 |
| Ziaire Williams | 5 | 1 | 0 | 1/4 |
| Tyrese Martin | 4 | 2 | 3 | 1/4 |
| Egor Demin | 3 | 4 | 1 | 1/5 |
| Ben Saraf | 0 | 1 | 5 | 0/4 |
| Jalen Wilson | 9 | 1 | 1 | 3/4 |
Note: The player totals above follow the official NBA box score where available. The figures in the supplied summary and the detailed box score differ for a few players, so the official record should take priority when checking individual totals.
Cam Thomas: Brooklyn’s offensive standout
Thomas’s 41 points were the headline performance of the game. His scoring came from three main areas:
- Field goals: 11 makes on 25 attempts.
- Three-pointers: Five makes on 12 attempts.
- Free throws: A perfect 14-for-14.
His 44% field-goal percentage was respectable given the volume of shots he took. His 41.7% three-point accuracy also meant that he was a threat from beyond the arc, rather than relying only on drives or midrange attempts.
The free-throw line was especially important. Converting all 14 attempts allowed Thomas to turn fouls into dependable points and keep Brooklyn competitive despite the team’s overall shooting struggles.
However, his individual output did not translate into enough scoring from the rest of the lineup. Thomas recorded no assists in the official box score, which is a useful distinction when evaluating his performance. It does not mean he failed to create advantages or that teammates never benefited from his presence. It means the official statistics credited him with no direct assists.
Brooklyn needed additional players to turn the attention Thomas attracted into efficient scoring opportunities. The team ultimately finished with 107 points, 11 fewer than San Antonio.
Michael Porter Jr.: Secondary scoring and rebounding
Porter contributed 15 points, six rebounds, and four assists according to the supplied summary. He made five of 15 field-goal attempts, including three of nine from three-point range.
His performance illustrates an important challenge for a secondary scorer. A player can contribute across multiple categories while still struggling to score efficiently enough to help close a gap.
Porter’s three-point shooting gave Brooklyn some perimeter production, but his overall field-goal percentage was 33.3%. The Nets needed more reliable scoring alongside Thomas, particularly during the opening half when San Antonio created its largest advantage.
His six rebounds and four assists still provided value. The issue was not that Porter contributed nothing. Rather, Brooklyn’s combined offensive output was insufficient to overcome San Antonio’s more accurate shooting and stronger work on the glass.
Nic Claxton: Efficient finishing inside
Claxton recorded 10 points on four-of-seven shooting, along with five rebounds and two assists in the supplied statistics.
His 57.1% field-goal accuracy was stronger than the overall team mark. That efficiency suggests Brooklyn found useful scoring opportunities near the basket, even though those opportunities were not frequent enough to change the result.
Claxton’s role was different from Thomas’s. Thomas carried the perimeter scoring load, while Claxton offered interior finishing and rebounding. A more balanced attack would have required Brooklyn to combine both strengths with better production from its other rotation players.
Supporting players and the scoring gap
Brooklyn’s supporting cast produced several useful contributions. Terance Mann scored seven points and collected six rebounds, while Noah Clowney added seven points. Day’Ron Sharpe scored six points on three-of-four shooting.
These numbers matter because a 41-point performance does not guarantee a win. In basketball, the remaining points must come from the rest of the lineup, and teams must also defend, rebound, and limit opponents’ high-value opportunities.
The Nets finished with 22 assists and 11 turnovers, showing that they were not overwhelmed in ball security. But their 39% overall shooting was a significant weakness. Their excellent free-throw percentage could not fully offset the number of missed field goals.
Complete San Antonio Spurs Player Statistics
San Antonio’s offensive production was more distributed. Victor Wembanyama led the team with 31 points, while Dylan Harper supplied 20. Keldon Johnson contributed 19 points, Devin Vassell added 16, and Julian Champagnie scored 13.
That spread gave the Spurs several options when Brooklyn tried to recover from its first-half deficit.
| San Antonio player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | FG |
| Victor Wembanyama | 31 | 14 | 4 | 9/21 |
| Dylan Harper | 20 | Not specified | 8 | 8/11 |
| Keldon Johnson | 19 | Not specified | Not specified | Not specified |
| Devin Vassell | 16 | Not specified | Not specified | Not specified |
| Julian Champagnie | 13 | 6 | 2 | 4/5 |
| Stephon Castle | 13 | Not specified | Not specified | Not specified |
| Harrison Barnes | 4 | 3 | 1 | 2/9 |
The supplied summary does not provide every player’s complete statistical line. Unavailable figures are marked as not specified rather than estimated.
Victor Wembanyama: The defining all-around performance
Wembanyama’s 31 points, 14 rebounds, and six blocks made him the most influential player in the game. His performance was valuable not only because of his scoring, but because he affected the match in multiple ways.
His nine field goals came on 21 attempts, while he converted 10 of 15 free throws. He also made three three-pointers, giving San Antonio a scoring option that could stretch Brooklyn’s defense beyond the paint.
His 14 rebounds helped the Spurs finish with a 45-34 advantage on the glass. Those additional rebounds mattered because they gave San Antonio more opportunities to finish possessions and reduced Brooklyn’s ability to build momentum through second chances.
The six blocks were equally important. A blocked shot does more than prevent an immediate basket. It can discourage future drives, force opponents to adjust their shot selection, and make players hesitate before attacking the rim.
Wembanyama also recorded four assists and three steals in the supplied player data. That combination points to a player contributing across offense, rebounding, and defense rather than concentrating on one statistical category.
His overall impact is a useful example of why points alone are not enough to evaluate a basketball performance. Thomas scored 10 more points, but Wembanyama contributed much more to San Antonio’s rebounding and defensive presence.
Dylan Harper: Efficient scoring and playmaking
Harper’s 20 points and eight assists gave the Spurs a second major offensive contributor.
He made eight of 11 field-goal attempts, an impressive 72.7% shooting rate. Unlike a player who needs many attempts to reach 20 points, Harper converted a high proportion of his opportunities.
His eight assists also helped San Antonio maintain offensive balance. A high assist total can indicate that a player is finding teammates in scoring positions and helping the offense move beyond individual isolation plays.
Harper’s importance became especially clear in the fourth quarter. The game recap credited him with seven points in that period as San Antonio stopped Brooklyn’s comeback. That contribution helped ensure the Spurs did not rely entirely on Wembanyama to finish the game.
For a young player, combining efficient shooting with playmaking in a competitive game is a particularly encouraging performance. It gives the team another route to create offense when its primary scorer faces defensive pressure.
Keldon Johnson and Devin Vassell: Reliable secondary scoring
Johnson scored 19 points, while Vassell added 16. Their contributions meant San Antonio did not need Wembanyama to generate every important basket.
Johnson’s scoring helped provide depth behind the leading pair. Vassell offered another offensive option, helping San Antonio avoid a situation in which Brooklyn could concentrate all its defensive attention on one player.
The significance of their output is best understood through the team total. San Antonio scored 118 points while shooting 50% from the field. The production of several players, rather than a single extraordinary individual effort, supported that result.
Julian Champagnie: High-value shooting
Champagnie finished with 13 points on four-of-five shooting, including three-of-four from three-point range.
His 80% field-goal accuracy and 75% three-point accuracy stand out because he converted his opportunities without needing a high shot volume. That kind of production can be valuable when a defense focuses on the primary scorers.
Champagnie also recorded six rebounds and two assists. His contributions were not limited to shooting, and his rebounding helped support San Antonio’s overall advantage on the glass.
The role of the supporting cast
Stephon Castle scored 13 points, while Harrison Barnes added four. Even though Barnes had a difficult shooting night, San Antonio still had enough scoring from other players to maintain its advantage.
That is a meaningful difference between the teams. Brooklyn depended heavily on Thomas to create points, while San Antonio had several players capable of contributing meaningful scoring stretches.
The Spurs’ distribution did not mean every player had an equally strong game. Instead, it meant that the team could absorb uneven individual performances without losing its offensive structure.
Team Statistics Comparison: Nets vs Spurs
The team numbers provide the clearest explanation of why San Antonio won. Brooklyn made more three-pointers and converted free throws at a higher rate, but the Spurs were much more efficient from the field and dominated the rebounding battle.
| Team statistic | Brooklyn Nets | San Antonio Spurs |
| Total points | 107 | 118 |
| Field goals made/attempted | 34/87 | 39/78 |
| Field-goal percentage | 39% | 50% |
| Three-pointers made/attempted | 16/50 | 12/27 |
| Three-point percentage | 32% | 44% |
| Free throws made/attempted | 23/24 | 28/36 |
| Free-throw percentage | 96% | 78% |
| Total rebounds | 34 | 45 |
| Offensive rebounds | 11 | 11 |
| Defensive rebounds | 23 | 34 |
| Assists | 22 | 20 |
| Turnovers | 11 | 12 |
| Steals | 9 | 7 |
| Blocks | 0 | 6 |
| Personal fouls | 30 | 23 |
1. Field-goal efficiency gave San Antonio an advantage
San Antonio made 39 of 78 field-goal attempts, finishing at 50%. Brooklyn made 34 of 87 attempts, shooting 39%.
The difference is significant. The Spurs attempted nine fewer shots but made five more field goals. That is a strong indication that they converted their offensive opportunities more effectively.
San Antonio’s 50% shooting also meant the team could generate points without relying on an unusually high number of possessions. Brooklyn had to take more shots to produce fewer field goals, making its scoring effort less efficient.
This is one of the most useful lessons from the game: shot volume and shot quality are not the same thing. A team can attempt more shots and still struggle to keep pace if it misses too many of them.
2. Brooklyn won the three-point volume battle
The Nets made 16 three-pointers on 50 attempts, compared with 12 makes on 27 attempts for the Spurs.
Brooklyn therefore made four more three-pointers, earning 12 additional points from that category. Yet the Nets still lost by 11.
This suggests that perimeter scoring alone was not enough to overcome the difference in overall shooting efficiency and rebounding. Brooklyn attempted 23 more three-pointers than San Antonio, but its 32% accuracy was below the Spurs’ 44%.
The higher volume gave the Nets opportunities to close the gap, especially during the third quarter. However, the Spurs’ more selective and accurate perimeter shooting helped offset Brooklyn’s advantage in three-point makes.
3. Rebounding was a major difference
San Antonio collected 45 rebounds, while Brooklyn finished with 34. Both teams had 11 offensive rebounds, meaning the difference came from defensive rebounds.
The Spurs recorded 34 defensive rebounds compared with 23 for the Nets.
Defensive rebounds end an opponent’s possession and allow a team to transition into offense. By securing more of these rebounds, San Antonio reduced Brooklyn’s chances to extend possessions after missed shots.
The equal offensive-rebound totals are also important. The Spurs’ rebounding advantage did not come from dominating offensive boards. It came mainly from securing missed shots on their own defensive end.
That distinction helps explain how San Antonio controlled possession without producing more offensive rebounds than Brooklyn.
4. Free throws kept Brooklyn competitive
Brooklyn made 23 of 24 free throws, an outstanding 95.8% rate. San Antonio made 28 of 36, or 77.8%.
The Nets were clearly more accurate from the line. Their near-perfect performance limited wasted opportunities whenever they earned free throws.
However, the Spurs attempted 12 more free throws and made five more. The higher number of attempts gave San Antonio additional scoring opportunities, even though its percentage was lower.
This shows why free-throw percentage should not be considered in isolation. Attempts, makes, and the circumstances that produce those attempts all matter when evaluating a team’s scoring efficiency.
5. Defensive activity changed the game
Brooklyn recorded nine steals, compared with seven for San Antonio. The Nets also committed one fewer turnover, finishing with 11 against the Spurs’ 12.
Those figures suggest Brooklyn was competitive in ball security and perimeter defensive activity. The Nets did not lose simply because they gave the ball away far too often.
The larger difference came in rim protection. San Antonio recorded six blocks, while Brooklyn recorded none in the supplied team totals.
Wembanyama accounted for all six Spurs blocks. His presence gave San Antonio a way to disrupt shots without requiring the team to generate steals on every possession.
The contrast between nine steals for Brooklyn and six blocks for San Antonio illustrates two different forms of defensive pressure. Steals can immediately create transition opportunities, while blocks protect the basket and may discourage future attempts.
Why the Spurs Won: Three Key Factors
A dominant first half created the margin
San Antonio scored 69 first-half points and allowed just 48. Its 21-point halftime lead gave the team room to withstand Brooklyn’s later comeback.
The Spurs’ advantage grew as large as 26 points during the third quarter, according to the game recap. That cushion made the Nets’ subsequent run dangerous but not immediately decisive.
Brooklyn’s comeback showed that the game was not one-sided throughout. The Nets improved their offensive output after halftime and put pressure on San Antonio. However, the early deficit meant that a strong quarter was not enough to reverse the result.
Multiple scorers reduced San Antonio’s dependence on one player
Wembanyama’s 31 points led the Spurs, but Harper’s 20 and Johnson’s 19 gave the team two additional major scoring contributions.
Vassell’s 16 points and Champagnie’s 13 added further support.
This balance gave San Antonio more ways to respond when the Nets focused on stopping a particular player. If Wembanyama faced pressure, Harper could create offense. If the defense collapsed into the paint, perimeter players could contribute.
Brooklyn’s 41-point performance from Thomas was outstanding, but the team’s second-highest scorer in the supplied data, Porter, had 15 points. The difference between the leading scorers was therefore much smaller in San Antonio’s lineup.
San Antonio closed the fourth quarter more effectively
Brooklyn won the third quarter 33-19, showing that it could attack the Spurs’ lead. But San Antonio answered with a 30-26 fourth quarter.
The Spurs’ ability to recover after losing much of their advantage was central to the outcome. Harper’s scoring helped, and the team’s overall offensive balance prevented Brooklyn from completing its comeback.
The broader lesson is that a lead is only useful if a team can manage the closing stages. San Antonio did not need to dominate every quarter. It needed to build a cushion and then produce enough offense to protect it.
What the Player Statistics Reveal About Each Team
Brooklyn Nets: Strong individual scoring, uneven team efficiency
The Nets demonstrated that they could generate a major individual scoring performance. Thomas scored 41 points, made five three-pointers, and converted all his free throws.
The difficulty was turning that production into a team-wide offensive advantage. Brooklyn shot 39% from the field and 32% from three-point range. Those numbers left little room for error against a team shooting 50%.
The Nets also collected 11 fewer rebounds and recorded no blocks in the supplied team statistics. Although they had more steals and fewer turnovers, those advantages did not make up for the shooting and rebounding gaps.
For Brooklyn, the clearest statistical takeaway is the need for more efficient supporting offense. Thomas’s scoring gave the team a chance, but better shooting from the rest of the lineup could have made the comeback more realistic.
San Antonio Spurs: Efficiency, size, and scoring depth
The Spurs combined efficient shooting with a strong rebounding performance. Wembanyama’s defensive production added another layer of control, while Harper’s scoring and assists supported the offense.
San Antonio’s 50% field-goal percentage was particularly important because the team did not need to win every statistical category. Brooklyn made more three-pointers, recorded more steals, and committed fewer turnovers. The Spurs still won by producing better overall shooting and collecting more rebounds.
That is a useful reminder that basketball results rarely depend on a single statistic. Teams succeed by combining enough advantages across several areas to outweigh their weaknesses.
How to Read an NBA Box Score Correctly
A box score is a record of what happened during a game, but it does not automatically explain why it happened. Understanding the categories helps readers interpret performances more accurately.
Points and shooting percentages
Points show how much a player scored. Field-goal percentage shows how often the player made a shot from the field, including two-pointers and three-pointers.
For example, Thomas scored 41 points, while Harper scored 20. Thomas had the larger scoring total, but Harper made eight of 11 field-goal attempts, giving him a much higher field-goal percentage.
Both performances were valuable in different ways. Thomas carried the scoring load, while Harper provided efficient offense.
Rebounds and assists
Rebounds measure how often a player secures the ball after a missed shot. Offensive rebounds extend a team’s possession, while defensive rebounds generally end the opponent’s possession.
Assists record passes that directly lead to made field goals. Harper’s eight assists indicate that his contribution went beyond his own scoring.
When evaluating a player, these categories help reveal whether the player is contributing through finishing, playmaking, or possession control.
Steals, blocks, and turnovers
Steals indicate defensive plays that take possession away from the opponent. Blocks record shots legally deflected by a defender. Turnovers represent lost possessions through errors or violations.
These statistics are useful, but context matters. A player with several steals may create transition opportunities, while a player with multiple blocks may change how opponents approach the basket.
In this game, Wembanyama’s six blocks were especially important because San Antonio had no need to dominate steals to exert defensive pressure.
Plus/minus requires context
Plus/minus measures the difference between a team’s points scored and points allowed while a player is on the court. A positive figure means the team outscored its opponent during those minutes, while a negative figure means the opponent scored more.
It is not a direct measure of individual skill. Teammates, substitutions, opponent lineups, and the timing of minutes all affect the number.
For a complete evaluation, plus/minus should be considered alongside shooting, rebounding, assists, defense, and the flow of the game.
Official Game Record and Statistical Accuracy
Readers who want to verify the figures can consult the official NBA box score for Brooklyn versus San Antonio on October 26, 2025.
One detail deserves attention when comparing summaries: some supplied player point totals differ from the official individual box-score lines. For example, the supplied summary lists Porter at 15 points, which matches the official box score, while the recap text refers to him scoring 16. The detailed player table records 15.
The same principle applies to Thomas’s performance. The detailed box score records 41 points, even though some recap text describes his total as 40. For player-by-player analysis, the detailed box score is the better reference.
This distinction matters because summaries sometimes contain editorial rounding, transcription differences, or other inconsistencies. Using the detailed statistical record helps prevent small errors from spreading through articles and recaps.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Brooklyn Nets vs San Antonio Spurs game on October 26, 2025?
The San Antonio Spurs defeated the Brooklyn Nets 118-107 at Frost Bank Center in San Antonio, Texas. The Spurs built a large first-half lead and maintained enough control in the fourth quarter to secure the victory.
2. Who scored the most points in the game?
Cam Thomas led all scorers with 41 points for Brooklyn. Victor Wembanyama led San Antonio with 31 points, along with 14 rebounds and six blocks.
3. What were Victor Wembanyama’s stats against the Nets?
Wembanyama recorded 31 points, 14 rebounds, four assists, three steals, and six blocks in the supplied statistics. He also made nine of 21 field-goal attempts and converted 10 of 15 free throws.
4. How many points did Dylan Harper score against Brooklyn?
Dylan Harper scored 20 points and recorded eight assists. He made eight of 11 field-goal attempts and contributed seven points in the fourth quarter, helping San Antonio protect its lead.
5. Why did the Spurs beat the Nets despite making fewer three-pointers?
San Antonio shot 50% from the field, compared with Brooklyn’s 39%, and collected 45 rebounds against the Nets’ 34. Although Brooklyn made 16 three-pointers to the Spurs’ 12, San Antonio’s overall shooting efficiency, rebounding advantage, and defensive rim protection proved more influential.
6. Where can I find the complete player box score?
The official NBA box score provides individual player statistics, including points, rebounds, assists, shooting percentages, steals, blocks, turnovers, minutes played, and plus/minus. It is the recommended reference for verifying individual totals.
Conclusion
The October 26, 2025, matchup between Brooklyn and San Antonio demonstrated how balanced team performance can overcome an exceptional individual scoring display. The Spurs earned a 118-107 victory through efficient shooting, stronger rebounding, and defensive pressure around the basket.
Cam Thomas’s 41 points were the game’s highest individual scoring total, but Victor Wembanyama’s 31 points, 14 rebounds, and six blocks provided a broader impact. Dylan Harper’s 20 points and eight assists, combined with valuable scoring from Keldon Johnson, Devin Vassell, and Julian Champagnie, gave San Antonio multiple offensive options.
The team statistics reinforce the result. San Antonio shot 50% from the field and collected 45 rebounds, while Brooklyn shot 39% and recorded 34 rebounds. The Nets performed better in three-point makes, free-throw accuracy, steals, and turnovers, but those strengths could not overcome the Spurs’ advantages elsewhere.
For anyone reviewing the brooklyn nets vs san antonio spurs match player stats, the central lesson is that points tell only part of the story. Shooting efficiency, rebounding, defensive impact, and contributions from supporting players help explain why one team wins even when its opponent has the game’s leading scorer.
