San Antonio Spurs vs Houston Rockets Match Player Stats
The san antonio spurs vs houston rockets match player stats from October 24, 2026, reveal how Houston secured a narrow 114-110 victory over San Antonio in an exciting NBA contest at Moody Center in Austin, Texas. Alperen Sengun led the Rockets with 29 points, while Victor Wembanyama delivered 25 points and 13 rebounds for the Spurs. The four-point margin reflected a closely contested game in which efficient free-throw shooting, rebounding, defensive pressure, and individual performances all played important roles.
Houston improved to 2-0 overall according to the supplied ESPN box score, while San Antonio fell to 0-2. Both teams scored 29 points in the fourth quarter, meaning Houston’s advantage was built through its performance across the earlier periods rather than a decisive final-quarter scoring burst.
This detailed breakdown examines the final score, individual player performances, team shooting percentages, assists, turnovers, rebounding, and the statistical factors that explain the outcome. The analysis uses the supplied ESPN box-score data and distinguishes recorded statistics from interpretations of how those numbers shaped the game.
San Antonio Spurs vs Houston Rockets Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The Rockets defeated the Spurs 114-110 in the first listed meeting between the teams in the 2026-27 regular season. The game took place at Moody Center, with an attendance of 16,723, according to the supplied data.
Houston Rockets Resultados, vídeos e estatísticas – ESPN (BR)
Houston Rockets
114
2-0 overall
Final
Oct. 24, 2026
VS
San Antonio Spurs
110
0-2 overall
Venue
Moody Center
Location
Austin, Texas
Attendance
16,723
Winning margin
Houston by 4
Final score by quarter
| Quarter | Houston Rockets | San Antonio Spurs |
| First quarter | 32 | 27 |
| Second quarter | 29 | 32 |
| Third quarter | 24 | 22 |
| Fourth quarter | 29 | 29 |
| Final score | 114 | 110 |
Houston started strongly, scoring 32 points in the opening period and establishing a five-point advantage. San Antonio responded with a 32-point second quarter to level the scoring across the first half.
The Rockets then outscored the Spurs 24-22 in the third quarter. That two-point difference proved important in a game decided by only four points. Both teams produced 29 points in the fourth, so San Antonio did not gain ground during the final period.
The quarter-by-quarter figures show why small stretches of basketball matter in close games. Houston did not dominate every period. Instead, the Rockets scored just enough more than San Antonio across the first and third quarters to preserve the overall advantage.
Complete Houston Rockets Player Statistics
Alperen Sengun was Houston’s leading scorer and playmaker, finishing with 29 points and seven assists. Kevin Durant and Amen Thompson added 20 points each, giving the Rockets three players with at least 20 points.
The team’s performance also benefited from contributions across the rotation. Fred VanVleet scored 14 points and recorded three steals without committing a turnover, while Tari Eason added 12 points and three steals.
Houston Rockets player stats table
| Player | MIN | PTS | REB | AST | FG | 3PT | FT |
| Alperen Sengun | 36 | 29 | 7 | 7 | 10/20 | 2/4 | 7/8 |
| Kevin Durant | 37 | 20 | 7 | 6 | 5/10 | 2/2 | 8/8 |
| Amen Thompson | 36 | 20 | 10 | 4 | 9/15 | 1/2 | 1/1 |
| Fred VanVleet | 32 | 14 | 3 | 5 | 4/10 | 3/8 | 3/4 |
| Tari Eason | 27 | 12 | 6 | 0 | 4/8 | 0/2 | 4/4 |
| Jabari Smith Jr. | 34 | 7 | 5 | 1 | 2/5 | 1/2 | 2/2 |
| Marcus Smart | 21 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1/6 | 0/4 | 3/4 |
| Steven Adams | 9 | 4 | 2 | 1 | 2/2 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
| Bogdan Bogdanovic | 9 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1/2 | 1/1 | 0/0 |
MIN = minutes, PTS = points, REB = rebounds, AST = assists, FG = field goals, 3PT = three-pointers, and FT = free throws.
Jae’Sean Tate, Isaiah Crawford, Clint Capela, and Bruce Thornton were listed as inactive for this game by coach’s decision in the supplied data.
Alperen Sengun: Houston’s leading scorer
Sengun’s 29-point performance was the highest individual scoring total of the game. He shot 10-of-20 from the field, made two of his four three-point attempts, and converted seven of eight free throws.
His complete statistical contribution included:
- 29 points
- 7 rebounds
- 7 assists
- 1 block
- 3 turnovers
- 10-of-20 field-goal shooting
Sengun’s seven assists are particularly important when assessing his impact. He was not limited to finishing possessions himself. He also helped create scoring opportunities for teammates, making his contribution relevant to both Houston’s individual scoring and its collective offense.
His field-goal percentage was 50%, and his three-point percentage was 50%. Those percentages suggest that he scored efficiently from the opportunities recorded in the box score. However, shooting percentage alone does not establish the quality of every shot or reveal how much defensive attention he received.
Sengun’s three turnovers are worth considering alongside his seven assists. Turnovers are a normal part of a high-involvement offensive role, and the overall figures indicate that he generated considerably more assists than turnovers. That balance helped Houston maintain productive offensive possessions.
Kevin Durant: Efficient scoring and reliable free throws
Durant scored 20 points in 37 minutes, making five of his 10 field-goal attempts and both of his three-pointers. He also converted all eight free throws.
His final line was:
- 20 points
- 7 rebounds
- 6 assists
- 3 turnovers
- 2-of-2 three-point shooting
- 8-of-8 free-throw shooting
- Plus/minus of +6
Durant’s perfect free-throw record was an important part of his scoring total. He made eight points from the free-throw line without a miss, while his two three-pointers supplied another six points.
His six assists also show that his role extended beyond scoring. Although Sengun led Houston in assists, Durant provided a second important source of playmaking.
The plus/minus figure of +6 means Houston outscored San Antonio by six points during Durant’s time on the court. This does not mean that Durant personally created a six-point advantage through his actions alone. Plus/minus reflects the team’s net scoring during a player’s minutes and is affected by teammates, opponents, and lineup combinations.
Amen Thompson: A double-double and defensive activity
Thompson recorded 20 points and 10 rebounds, producing a double-double. He shot nine of 15 from the field and added four assists, two steals, and two blocks.
His complete line demonstrates his value across multiple statistical categories. Thompson was not simply a perimeter scorer or a rebounder. He contributed to ball movement, defensive disruption, and possession recovery as well.
Three of his rebounds came on the offensive glass. Offensive rebounds can extend a possession and create another scoring opportunity, although the box score does not identify what happened after each individual rebound.
One detail requires care when interpreting his numbers: Thompson finished with a plus/minus of -12 despite Houston winning the game. This means the Rockets were outscored by 12 points during his minutes, not that he necessarily played poorly in every stretch.
His individual production was substantial, but the plus/minus figure indicates that the team experienced difficulties in the lineup combinations used during his court time. More detailed play-by-play data would be needed to determine exactly when and why that happened.
Fred VanVleet: Playmaking and pressure on the ball
VanVleet finished with 14 points, five assists, three steals, and zero turnovers in 32 minutes.
His shooting figures were four of 10 from the field and three of eight from beyond the arc. His three made three-pointers accounted for nine of his 14 points.
The most notable detail beyond his scoring is the combination of five assists, three steals, and no turnovers. Those numbers suggest that he contributed to Houston’s ball movement while avoiding a lost possession in his recorded minutes.
VanVleet’s three steals were also part of a broader defensive effort. Houston recorded 11 steals as a team, compared with San Antonio’s 10. The one-steal difference was small, but it shows that the Rockets generated slightly more recorded takeaways.
Tari Eason and the supporting cast
Eason supplied 12 points, six rebounds, and three steals in 27 minutes. He made four of eight field goals and all four of his free throws.
His three steals matched VanVleet’s individual total and helped Houston build a broader defensive contribution beyond its leading scorers. Eason also collected two offensive rebounds, giving the Rockets additional possessions.
Jabari Smith Jr. scored seven points and added five rebounds, two steals, and two blocks. His plus/minus of +12 was the best among Houston’s players in the supplied statistics.
Smith’s scoring was modest, but his defensive counting statistics and positive plus/minus show why a player’s impact cannot be judged entirely by points. Still, neither blocks nor plus/minus independently prove the overall quality of a player’s defensive performance.
Marcus Smart scored five points and recorded one steal in 21 minutes. He struggled from the field, making one of six attempts and missing all four of his three-point shots. Steven Adams made both of his field-goal attempts in nine minutes, finishing with four points, two rebounds, and one assist.
Bogdan Bogdanovic added three points by making his only three-point attempt. Although these bench contributions were limited in volume, they added to the scoring provided by Houston’s primary rotation players.
Complete San Antonio Spurs Player Statistics
San Antonio had an impressive scoring performance from Wembanyama and received 19 points from De’Aaron Fox and 20 from rookie guard Dylan Harper, according to the supplied box score.
The Spurs made more field goals than Houston, converting 40 attempts compared with Houston’s 38. However, they attempted nine more field goals and made fewer free throws. Their lower three-point and free-throw percentages were significant differences in a four-point contest.
San Antonio Spurs player stats table
| Player | MIN | PTS | REB | AST | FG | 3PT | FT |
| Victor Wembanyama | 32 | 25 | 13 | 2 | 9/21 | 2/6 | 5/8 |
| Dylan Harper | 36 | 20 | 3 | 2 | 8/15 | 1/4 | 3/4 |
| De’Aaron Fox | 34 | 19 | 4 | 9 | 6/11 | 2/5 | 5/5 |
| Stephon Castle | 33 | 15 | 7 | 5 | 6/15 | 3/9 | 0/1 |
| Devin Vassell | 36 | 10 | 4 | 2 | 3/8 | 2/5 | 2/2 |
| Keldon Johnson | 19 | 8 | 6 | 1 | 4/7 | 0/1 | 0/0 |
| Luke Kornet | 16 | 7 | 3 | 0 | 2/3 | 0/0 | 3/5 |
| Julian Champagnie | 25 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 2/5 | 2/5 | 0/0 |
| Harrison Barnes | 5 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0/2 | 0/2 | 0/0 |
| Carter Bryant | 4 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0/0 | 0/0 | 0/0 |
Tarris Reed Jr. and Jordan McLaughlin were listed as DNP, meaning they did not play, with the coach’s decision given as the reason.
Victor Wembanyama: The game’s leading rebounder
Wembanyama finished with 25 points, 13 rebounds, and two blocks. His 13 rebounds were the highest individual total for either team, and his scoring placed him second among all players in the game.
His shooting line included nine field goals from 21 attempts, two three-pointers from six attempts, and five free throws from eight attempts.
Wembanyama’s 13 rebounds included four offensive rebounds and nine defensive rebounds. This split matters because offensive rebounds can extend possessions, while defensive rebounds help a team finish an opponent’s possession and begin its own attack.
His two blocks also contributed to San Antonio’s total of three. The Spurs had enough interior defensive activity to challenge Houston at the rim, but the final score shows that these contributions did not completely offset Houston’s advantages elsewhere.
Wembanyama’s scoring efficiency was lower than Sengun’s in this game. He converted approximately 42.9% of his field-goal attempts, while Sengun converted 50%. That difference does not explain the entire result, but it is a useful point of comparison between the two leading scorers.
De’Aaron Fox: Nine assists and a strong scoring contribution
Fox scored 19 points and led San Antonio with nine assists. He made six of 11 field-goal attempts, two of five three-pointers, and all five free throws.
His final line included four rebounds and two steals, alongside five turnovers.
Fox’s nine assists were the highest total by any player in the game. This indicates that he was a major source of playmaking for San Antonio, helping teammates find scoring opportunities rather than relying solely on his own shot creation.
The five turnovers, however, are an important counterpoint. A player handling the ball frequently will naturally have more opportunities to lose possession, but turnovers still reduce the number of chances available to score.
Fox’s five turnovers were more than Sengun’s three and VanVleet’s zero. In a four-point defeat, those possessions are worth examining. Nevertheless, the box score alone cannot tell us whether each turnover resulted directly in a Houston basket or whether a particular turnover changed the game’s momentum.
Fox also made all five of his free throws. His perfect performance at the line helped his personal scoring efficiency, even though San Antonio’s team-wide free-throw conversion rate was lower than Houston’s.
Dylan Harper: A productive 20-point performance
Harper recorded 20 points in 36 minutes, matching Durant and Thompson for the second-highest scoring total in the game.
He shot eight of 15 from the field, including one of four from three-point range, and converted three of four free throws. He also recorded three rebounds and two assists without committing a turnover.
Harper’s zero turnovers stand out because he contributed 20 points while maintaining possession security in his recorded minutes. That is a useful indicator of an efficient individual performance, although it does not reveal every aspect of his decision-making.
His field-goal percentage was approximately 53.3%, higher than Wembanyama’s and Fox’s in this matchup. That efficiency helped San Antonio keep pace offensively despite its lower team three-point and free-throw percentages.
Harper’s performance also illustrates why the Spurs’ loss should not be reduced to a lack of individual scoring. Several players produced strong offensive numbers, but the team’s overall efficiency and possession outcomes were not quite enough to secure the win.
Stephon Castle and Devin Vassell
Castle scored 15 points, grabbed seven rebounds, and recorded five assists. He made six of 15 field-goal attempts and three of nine three-pointers.
His nine three-point attempts were the highest among San Antonio’s listed players. He made three, giving him a 33.3% conversion rate from beyond the arc. He also recorded one steal and committed one turnover.
Castle’s five assists helped distribute the ball, but his shooting line shows a mixed offensive result. He contributed from long range without converting a majority of his overall field-goal attempts.
Vassell finished with 10 points, four rebounds, two assists, and three steals. He made three of eight field-goal attempts and two of five three-pointers, converting both free throws he attempted.
Vassell’s three steals matched the highest individual total for San Antonio. His defensive activity was a positive statistical contribution, even though his team could not turn that activity into a winning result.
Contributions from San Antonio’s bench
Keldon Johnson led the Spurs’ bench scorers with eight points and six rebounds in 19 minutes. He made four of seven field-goal attempts and grabbed three offensive rebounds.
Luke Kornet added seven points, three rebounds, and one block in 16 minutes. He converted two of three field-goal attempts but made three of five free throws.
Julian Champagnie scored six points by making two of five three-point attempts. He also recorded three steals, tying the individual high for San Antonio. His plus/minus of +7 was the best on the Spurs.
Harrison Barnes played five minutes without scoring, while Carter Bryant appeared for four minutes and did not record a point. Their small minute totals should be considered when evaluating their individual lines.
Overall, San Antonio had several useful bench contributions, but none of its listed reserves scored more than Johnson’s eight points. Houston received 12 points from Eason alone, giving the Rockets a more substantial contribution from their highest-scoring bench player.
Team Statistics Comparison
The team totals provide a clearer explanation of the result than the final score alone. Houston did not lead in every category. San Antonio made more field goals and recorded more offensive rebounds, while the Rockets were more accurate from three-point range and the free-throw line.
Houston vs San Antonio: Team box score
| Statistical category | Houston Rockets | San Antonio Spurs |
| Total points | 114 | 110 |
| Field goals made | 38 | 40 |
| Field-goal attempts | 78 | 87 |
| Field-goal percentage | 49% | 46% |
| Three-pointers made | 10 | 12 |
| Three-point attempts | 25 | 37 |
| Three-point percentage | 40% | 32% |
| Free throws made | 28 | 18 |
| Free-throw attempts | 31 | 25 |
| Free-throw percentage | 90% | 72% |
| Total rebounds | 44 | 40 |
| Offensive rebounds | 8 | 9 |
| Defensive rebounds | 36 | 31 |
| Assists | 25 | 21 |
| Turnovers | 15 | 15 |
| Steals | 11 | 10 |
| Blocks | 5 | 3 |
| Personal fouls | 22 | 26 |
Percentages are reported as provided in the supplied game data. The displayed team shooting percentages are rounded.
Shooting efficiency made a difference
Houston converted 38 of 78 field-goal attempts, while San Antonio made 40 of 87. The Rockets therefore made two fewer field goals despite attempting nine fewer shots.
Using the supplied makes and attempts, Houston’s field-goal percentage was approximately 48.7%, compared with 46.0% for San Antonio. Houston’s advantage was small, but it indicates that the Rockets converted their opportunities at a higher rate.
Three-point shooting created another important distinction. The Spurs made 12 three-pointers, two more than Houston, but attempted 12 more shots from beyond the arc.
Houston’s 10-of-25 performance translated to 40%. San Antonio’s 12-of-37 performance translated to approximately 32.4%. In other words, Houston was more accurate from long range even though the Spurs made more three-pointers in total.
This difference demonstrates why made shots cannot be evaluated without considering attempts. San Antonio generated more three-point attempts, but Houston converted a larger proportion of its long-range opportunities.
Free throws were one of the clearest differences
Houston made 28 of 31 free throws, while San Antonio made 18 of 25.
That created a 10-point advantage for the Rockets at the free-throw line. Houston converted approximately 90.3% of its attempts, compared with 72% for the Spurs.
The 10-point difference in free-throw scoring exceeded Houston’s four-point winning margin. This does not mean free throws alone determined the outcome, because a different game could have produced different shooting decisions, possessions, and defensive responses. It does show that free-throw conversion was one of the most significant measurable differences between the teams.
Durant made all eight of his free throws, while Sengun made seven of eight. Fox made all five of his attempts for San Antonio. Houston’s advantage came from its overall team performance rather than one player alone.
Rebounding and possession control
Houston collected 44 total rebounds, four more than San Antonio’s 40. The Rockets recorded 36 defensive rebounds and eight offensive rebounds, while the Spurs had 31 defensive rebounds and nine offensive rebounds.
San Antonio’s one-rebound advantage on the offensive glass suggests that both teams found ways to create additional chances after missed shots. Houston’s overall rebounding advantage came from the defensive side, where it collected five more rebounds.
A defensive rebound usually ends the opponent’s possession, while an offensive rebound can create a second scoring opportunity. These statistics therefore help explain how teams manage possessions, although they do not independently measure every aspect of rebounding quality.
Wembanyama’s 13 rebounds led all players, and Thompson led Houston with 10. Their performances helped both teams compete on the glass despite the difference in the final score.
Assists and turnovers
Houston recorded 25 assists, four more than San Antonio’s 21. Both teams committed 15 turnovers.
The equal turnover total is important because it means Houston did not win by committing fewer turnovers overall. Instead, the Rockets recorded more assists while keeping their turnover count level with San Antonio’s.
The assist figures suggest that Houston generated more made baskets credited to a teammate’s pass. However, assists do not capture every type of offensive creation. A player can create a scoring opportunity through screening, drawing defensive attention, or making a pass that leads to a shot without receiving an assist.
Fox’s nine assists and Sengun’s seven were the individual leaders in this category. Both players played important roles in their teams’ offensive organization.
Defensive statistics and personal fouls
Houston recorded 11 steals and five blocks, compared with San Antonio’s 10 steals and three blocks. The Rockets also committed four fewer personal fouls.
The small differences in steals and blocks should not be treated as complete measures of defensive performance. Defensive positioning, contested shots, forced passes, and the ability to prevent an opponent from reaching a preferred shooting area are not fully captured by traditional box-score statistics.
Nevertheless, Houston’s recorded totals show a slight advantage in both steals and blocks. The lower foul total also accompanied a much stronger team free-throw percentage.
San Antonio’s 26 personal fouls compared with Houston’s 22 provide useful context for the free-throw disparity. However, the foul totals alone do not establish how many free throws came from shooting fouls or how each individual foul affected the game.
Five Key Factors Behind Houston’s Victory
The most useful way to interpret a close basketball game is to connect the statistical differences to the final result without assuming that any single number explains everything.
1. Houston converted free throws more consistently
The Rockets made 28 free throws compared with San Antonio’s 18. That 10-point gap was the largest clear scoring difference in the team box score.
Houston’s 90% team conversion rate meant that it missed only three of its 31 attempts. San Antonio missed seven of its 25 attempts.
When a game ends with a four-point margin, missed free throws can be especially important to examine. The figures do not prove that San Antonio would have won by making more of them, but they identify a clear area where the Spurs left points unscored.
2. Houston shot more accurately from three-point range
The Rockets made 40% of their three-point attempts, compared with approximately 32% for the Spurs.
San Antonio made two more three-pointers, but Houston required fewer attempts to produce its 10 makes. The Rockets’ higher percentage reflects more efficient conversion from beyond the arc.
A team can create value from three-point shooting through both volume and accuracy. San Antonio generated greater volume, but Houston had the better conversion rate in this game.
3. Sengun supplied scoring and playmaking
Sengun’s 29 points and seven assists made him Houston’s leading scorer and one of its main offensive facilitators.
His combination of scoring and passing gave Houston more than one way to create offense. He could finish possessions himself or help teammates find scoring opportunities.
Durant’s 20 points and six assists added another layer of offensive production. Together, the two players recorded 49 points and 13 assists, giving Houston a strong foundation in scoring and creation.
4. Houston received meaningful contributions from several players
Durant and Thompson each scored 20 points, while VanVleet added 14 and Eason scored 12. That spread of scoring meant Houston did not depend entirely on Sengun.
San Antonio also had multiple productive players, including Wembanyama, Harper, Fox, and Castle. The difference was not that the Spurs lacked individual scoring. Rather, Houston’s leading performers combined with its free-throw and shooting advantages to produce a four-point win.
5. Houston protected its lead in the final quarter
Both teams scored 29 points in the fourth quarter. Houston therefore maintained its four-point advantage over the final period rather than increasing it.
This is an important distinction. The result was not a blowout or a late collapse by San Antonio. It was a close game in which Houston’s earlier scoring advantages were enough to secure the victory.
Head-to-Head Player Comparison
Comparing players in similar roles can help readers understand the matchup more clearly. These comparisons are based on the supplied statistics from this game, not on season-long averages.
| Comparison | Houston player | San Antonio player | Statistical takeaway |
| Leading scorer | Sengun, 29 points | Wembanyama, 25 points | Sengun scored four more points |
| Leading rebounder | Thompson, 10 rebounds | Wembanyama, 13 rebounds | Wembanyama collected three more rebounds |
| Primary playmaker | Sengun, 7 assists | Fox, 9 assists | Fox recorded two more assists |
| Scoring efficiency | Durant, 50% FG | Harper, 53.3% FG | Harper had the higher field-goal percentage |
| Defensive activity | VanVleet, 3 steals | Vassell, 3 steals | Both recorded three steals |
| Highest-scoring reserve | Eason, 12 points | Johnson, 8 points | Eason scored four more bench points |
The table highlights several distinct strengths. Houston had the game’s leading scorer, while San Antonio had the leading rebounder and the player with the most assists. Harper also recorded the higher field-goal percentage among the two players in the efficiency comparison.
These differences help explain why the game was competitive. San Antonio had strong individual performances, but Houston finished with the better overall score.
Sengun versus Wembanyama
Sengun and Wembanyama were the most productive big men in the matchup, but their statistical profiles differed.
Sengun scored 29 points and recorded seven assists, making him Houston’s leading scorer and playmaker. Wembanyama finished with 25 points, 13 rebounds, and two blocks, leading both teams in rebounding.
Sengun had the higher point total and more assists. Wembanyama had the stronger rebounding line and matched Sengun with two made three-pointers, despite attempting six compared with Sengun’s four.
Neither line tells the whole story of their matchup. The statistics show their recorded contributions, but evaluating screening, defensive positioning, off-ball movement, and the quality of individual possessions would require video or play-by-play analysis.
Durant versus Fox
Durant recorded 20 points, seven rebounds, and six assists. Fox finished with 19 points, four rebounds, and nine assists.
Durant scored one more point and collected three additional rebounds. Fox provided three more assists, making him the stronger statistical playmaker in this individual comparison.
Their turnover totals also differed. Durant committed three turnovers, while Fox committed five. That comparison is relevant to possession management, but the different responsibilities of each player must be considered before drawing broader conclusions about their overall performance.
What Plus/Minus Reveals About the Game
Plus/minus measures the team’s point differential while a player is on the court. It is useful as a contextual statistic, but it is not a direct measurement of individual skill or responsibility.
The supplied figures show the following notable results:
| Team | Player | Plus/minus |
| Houston | Jabari Smith Jr. | +12 |
| Houston | Kevin Durant | +6 |
| Houston | Steven Adams | +6 |
| Houston | Fred VanVleet | +5 |
| Houston | Amen Thompson | -12 |
| San Antonio | Julian Champagnie | +7 |
| San Antonio | Dylan Harper | +4 |
| San Antonio | Victor Wembanyama | +3 |
| San Antonio | De’Aaron Fox | -14 |
Smith had Houston’s best plus/minus at +12, while Thompson recorded -12. For San Antonio, Champagnie’s +7 led the team, and Fox had the lowest figure at -14.
These numbers can appear surprising when compared with points scored. Thompson scored 20 points and grabbed 10 rebounds, yet Houston was outscored during his minutes. Fox recorded 19 points and nine assists, but San Antonio was outscored by 14 points during his court time.
This does not establish that either player caused his team’s difficulties. Plus/minus is influenced by the other players on the court, the opposing lineup, substitutions, and the timing of scoring runs. A more complete evaluation would examine lineup data and the play-by-play sequence.
For readers studying player statistics, the best approach is to use plus/minus alongside points, rebounds, assists, shooting efficiency, turnovers, and defensive contributions rather than relying on it alone.
How to Read Basketball Player Statistics Correctly
Understanding the box score is essential for anyone researching individual performances, fantasy basketball, team tactics, or historical NBA results. The numbers become more useful when they are read together instead of in isolation.
Field-goal percentage
Field-goal percentage measures how many field-goal attempts a player makes.
For example, Sengun made 10 of 20 attempts:
\[ \text{FG\%}=\frac{10}{20}\times100=50\% \]
A higher percentage indicates that a player converted a greater share of attempts. However, it does not account for the different values of two-point and three-point baskets.
Effective field-goal percentage
Effective field-goal percentage accounts for the additional point awarded to a successful three-pointer.
\[ \text{eFG\%}= \frac{\text{FGM}+0.5(\text{3PM})}{\text{FGA}}\times100 \]
Using Houston’s team figures:
\[ \frac{38+0.5(10)}{78}\times100 \approx55.1\% \]
Using San Antonio’s figures:
\[ \frac{40+0.5(12)}{87}\times100 \approx52.9\% \]
Houston’s effective field-goal percentage was approximately 55.1%, compared with 52.9% for San Antonio. This measure supports the observation that Houston was more efficient from the field after accounting for three-point value.
Turnover rate and ball security
Turnovers measure lost possessions, but a raw total does not account for how frequently a team handles the ball or how many possessions it uses.
Both teams committed 15 turnovers in this game. That establishes an equal turnover count, but calculating a more meaningful turnover rate would require additional possession data.
At the individual level, VanVleet and Harper recorded zero turnovers, while Fox recorded five. These numbers help identify differences in possession security, although a complete assessment should also consider each player’s time on the ball and offensive responsibilities.
Rebounds and second-chance opportunities
Rebounds are divided into offensive and defensive categories.
- Offensive rebounds: Give a team another opportunity after a missed shot.
- Defensive rebounds: Help a team finish the opponent’s possession.
- Total rebounds: Combine both categories.
Wembanyama’s 13 rebounds led the game, while Thompson collected 10 for Houston. San Antonio recorded nine offensive rebounds compared with Houston’s eight, but Houston finished with four more total rebounds.
The distinction matters because offensive rebounding and defensive rebounding serve different purposes. A team can lose the overall rebounding count while still creating useful second-chance opportunities.
For additional official game information, readers can consult the ESPN box score for this matchup.
What This Result Means for Both Teams
Houston Rockets: Positive signs and areas to monitor
Houston’s victory reflected a combination of scoring efficiency, reliable free throws, and contributions from multiple rotation players.
Three positive indicators stand out:
- Multiple scoring options: Sengun, Durant, and Thompson each scored 20 or more points.
- Strong free-throw conversion: Houston made 28 of 31 attempts.
- Balanced offensive production: The Rockets recorded 25 assists and had several players contribute meaningful scoring.
The game also revealed areas worth monitoring. Houston committed 15 turnovers, and Thompson’s negative plus/minus contrasted with his strong individual statistics. These figures do not prove that Houston has a persistent weakness, but they provide useful starting points for reviewing lineup performance and possession management.
A single game cannot establish a season-long trend. Further results would be needed to determine whether Houston’s shooting efficiency and free-throw accuracy remain consistent.
San Antonio Spurs: Offensive strengths and opportunities for improvement
San Antonio demonstrated that it could generate scoring from several players. Wembanyama finished with 25 points, Harper scored 20, Fox added 19, and Castle contributed 15.
The Spurs also made more field goals and more three-pointers than Houston. Their total of 12 made threes exceeded the Rockets’ 10.
However, San Antonio’s lower three-point percentage and free-throw conversion rate reduced the value of those additional makes. The team also committed the same number of turnovers as Houston while recording four fewer assists.
Areas to examine in subsequent games include:
- Improving free-throw conversion.
- Maintaining three-point volume while increasing accuracy.
- Creating efficient possessions without increasing turnovers.
- Evaluating defensive lineup combinations and their impact on scoring runs.
These are statistical observations, not predictions about how the Spurs will perform in their next game. Their longer-term significance depends on whether similar patterns appear across a larger sample of games.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the San Antonio Spurs vs Houston Rockets game on October 24, 2026?
The Houston Rockets defeated the San Antonio Spurs 114-110 at Moody Center in Austin, Texas, according to the supplied ESPN box score.
2. Who was the highest scorer in the game?
Alperen Sengun was the leading scorer with 29 points for Houston. Victor Wembanyama led San Antonio with 25 points.
3. How many rebounds did Victor Wembanyama record?
Wembanyama recorded 13 rebounds, including four offensive rebounds and nine defensive rebounds. He also scored 25 points and blocked two shots.
4. How many points did Kevin Durant score against the Spurs?
Kevin Durant scored 20 points in 37 minutes. He made five of 10 field-goal attempts, both of his three-pointers, and all eight free throws.
5. Which team shot better from three-point range?
Houston shot better from three-point range, converting 10 of 25 attempts for 40%. San Antonio made 12 of 37 attempts, approximately 32.4%.
6. What was the biggest statistical difference between the teams?
The clearest difference was free-throw scoring. Houston made 28 of 31 free throws, while San Antonio made 18 of 25, giving the Rockets a 10-point advantage from the line.
Conclusion
The san antonio spurs vs houston rockets match player stats show that Houston earned a narrow 114-110 victory through a combination of efficient shooting, strong free-throw conversion, and contributions from several players.
Alperen Sengun led the Rockets with 29 points and seven assists, while Kevin Durant and Amen Thompson scored 20 points apiece. Thompson also recorded a double-double with 10 rebounds. For San Antonio, Victor Wembanyama produced 25 points and 13 rebounds, De’Aaron Fox led the team with nine assists, and Dylan Harper added 20 points.
The team statistics provide the clearest explanation of the four-point margin. Houston shot 40% from three-point range compared with San Antonio’s approximately 32%, made 10 more free throws, and recorded four more assists. The Spurs made more field goals and three-pointers, but their lower shooting percentages and free-throw conversion rate limited the value of those advantages.
Neither team dominated every statistical category. Instead, the result reflected several small differences that combined to determine a close game. The box score offers a useful record of those differences while also reminding readers that individual statistics, plus/minus, and team totals must be considered together to understand a player’s or team’s performance.
