The san antonio spurs vs memphis grizzlies match player stats from November 19, 2025, tell the story of a competitive NBA game that turned in San Antonio’s favor during the fourth quarter. The Spurs defeated the Grizzlies 111-101 at Frost Bank Center in San Antonio, Texas, using more efficient shooting, fewer turnovers, and stronger late-game execution to secure the victory. De’Aaron Fox led San Antonio with 26 points, while Harrison Barnes added 23 points and Keldon Johnson contributed 18. For Memphis, Cedric Coward scored 19 points, Jaren Jackson Jr. finished with 18, and Cam Spencer provided an important 15 points off the bench.

The final score alone does not explain how the game unfolded. Memphis collected 59 rebounds and recorded 30 assists, both impressive team totals, but the Grizzlies struggled to convert their possession advantage into enough points. San Antonio made 48% of its field-goal attempts, connected on 16 three-pointers, and committed only nine turnovers. Those differences became especially important in the closing period, when the Spurs outscored Memphis 25-14 to turn a narrow contest into a ten-point win.

This breakdown examines the final score, individual player performances, team statistics, quarter-by-quarter scoring, bench contributions, and the tactical factors that explain the result. All player and team figures below are based on the supplied ESPN box-score data for this specific game. The supplied figures have not been independently verified, so the analysis distinguishes recorded statistics from interpretations of what they mean.

Table of Contents

San Antonio Spurs vs Memphis Grizzlies Match Player Stats: Game Overview

San Antonio Spurs

111

Winner

FINAL

Nov. 19, 2025

10-point margin

Memphis Grizzlies

101

Runner-up

Venue

Frost Bank Center

Location

San Antonio, Texas

Attendance

18,354

Game ID

401810107

The game was listed as a regular-season NBA matchup, with San Antonio entering at 10-4 overall and 7-2 at home, while Memphis entered at 4-11 overall and 1-6 on the road, according to the supplied game data.

The Spurs’ victory reflected a useful combination of shot-making and ball security. Memphis produced more rebounds and assists, but those advantages did not compensate for its lower field-goal percentage and higher turnover count. The fourth-quarter scoring gap ultimately settled the contest.

Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Breakdown

The most revealing part of the game is the change in momentum between the first three quarters and the final period.

Quarter	Memphis Grizzlies	San Antonio Spurs
First quarter	24	23
Second quarter	23	26
Third quarter	40	37
Fourth quarter	14	25
Final score	101	111

Memphis scored 87 points through the first three quarters, while San Antonio scored 86. The Grizzlies therefore entered the fourth quarter with a one-point lead, 87-86. San Antonio then scored 25 points against Memphis’s 14, producing an 11-point advantage in the final quarter and a ten-point victory overall.

Points scored by quarter

Quarter-by-quarter scoring from the supplied game data.

■ Memphis

■ San Antonio

First quarter: Memphis takes a narrow lead

Memphis opened with a 24-23 advantage. The one-point difference suggests that neither side established a meaningful early separation. San Antonio remained close enough to keep the contest within reach, while Memphis finished the period with a small scoring edge.

Second quarter: San Antonio responds

The Spurs won the second quarter 26-23, taking the period by three points. That response demonstrated the importance of maintaining offensive balance rather than allowing a small early deficit to grow.

At halftime, the teams were tied at 47 points apiece. The game was effectively reset, leaving the second half to determine which team could sustain its scoring.

Third quarter: Memphis produces its biggest offensive burst

Memphis scored 40 points in the third quarter, its strongest period of the game. San Antonio scored 37, meaning the Grizzlies gained three points during the quarter.

Despite allowing 37 points, Memphis entered the final period ahead 87-86. Its offense had generated enough scoring to create a narrow advantage, but the margin remained too small to provide much protection against a strong Spurs finish.

Fourth quarter: San Antonio takes control

The fourth quarter decided the outcome. San Antonio scored 25 points, while Memphis managed only 14.

The 11-point difference in the final period overcame Memphis’s one-point lead and gave the Spurs their ten-point final margin. This shift is the clearest statistical explanation for the result: San Antonio maintained its offensive production while limiting Memphis’s scoring late in the game.

The supplied totals do not identify every possession that caused the swing, so it would be inaccurate to attribute the fourth-quarter collapse to a particular defensive scheme or individual mistake without the play-by-play record.

Complete Team Statistics Comparison

The team numbers explain why the Spurs won despite Memphis’s substantial rebounding advantage. San Antonio was more accurate from the field, made more three-pointers, converted free throws at a much higher rate, and protected possession of the ball more effectively.

Statistical category	Memphis Grizzlies	San Antonio Spurs
Points	101	111
Field goals made	42	42
Field goals attempted	104	87
Field-goal percentage	40%	48%
Three-pointers made	12	16
Three-pointers attempted	39	42
Three-point percentage	31%	38%
Free throws made	5	11
Free throws attempted	9	13
Free-throw percentage	56%	85%
Total rebounds	59	38
Offensive rebounds	21	4
Defensive rebounds	38	34
Assists	30	23
Turnovers	14	9
Steals	6	10
Blocks	4	3
Personal fouls	15	16

Percentages are rounded from the supplied statistics.

Field-goal efficiency: San Antonio makes its attempts count

Both teams made 42 field goals, yet San Antonio scored ten more points. This is an important distinction when evaluating basketball performance.

The Spurs attempted 87 field goals, compared with Memphis’s 104. That means San Antonio needed 17 fewer attempts to make the same number of baskets. Its 48% shooting percentage also compared favorably with Memphis’s 40%.

There are several reasons this difference matters:

Shot selection: A team that consistently finds better shooting opportunities can score efficiently without taking as many shots.
Possession management: Fewer turnovers can help a team avoid wasting possessions before it gets a shot away.
Three-point production: Made shots from beyond the arc generate more points than ordinary two-point field goals.
Late-game execution: Efficient offense becomes particularly valuable when the score is close and every possession has greater importance.

The available team totals support the conclusion that San Antonio was more efficient. They do not, by themselves, establish exactly which offensive actions created that advantage.

Three-point shooting gives the Spurs an important scoring edge

San Antonio made 16 three-pointers on 42 attempts, while Memphis made 12 on 39 attempts.

That four-basket difference from beyond the arc produced a 12-point advantage in three-point scoring for San Antonio, even though the Spurs attempted only three more threes.

The Spurs also shot approximately 38% from three-point range, compared with approximately 31% for Memphis. This combination of additional makes and better accuracy helped San Antonio build its final scoring total without needing to dominate the rebounding battle.

Three-point shooting is particularly important in games where opponents collect many offensive rebounds. A team can create more opportunities through rebounding, but efficient perimeter shooting can still offset that advantage.

Free throws: Another advantage for San Antonio

The Spurs converted 11 of 13 free throws, while Memphis made only five of nine.

That gave San Antonio six more points from the free-throw line. Its 85% conversion rate was substantially higher than the Grizzlies’ 56%.

Free-throw numbers can be influenced by many factors, including the number of shooting fouls, player roles, and late-game situations. The supplied data does not identify all those circumstances. However, the final totals clearly show that San Antonio converted its opportunities more reliably.

Turnovers: Ball security helped protect the lead

Memphis committed 14 turnovers, compared with nine for San Antonio.

The five-turnover difference matters because turnovers can end offensive possessions without a shot attempt. They may also create transition opportunities for the opposing team.

San Antonio did not need to win every statistical category. It needed to avoid wasting too many possessions while taking advantage of its more accurate shooting. Its lower turnover count helped achieve that balance.

The figures do not prove that every Memphis turnover directly produced Spurs points. They do show that San Antonio gave the ball away less frequently, which is a meaningful advantage in a closely contested game.

Rebounding: Memphis controlled the boards

Memphis won the rebounding battle 59-38, a margin of 21 rebounds. The Grizzlies also collected 21 offensive rebounds, compared with just four for San Antonio.

This was Memphis’s clearest statistical advantage.

Offensive rebounds are especially valuable because they allow a team to regain possession after a missed shot. That can create another scoring opportunity, force additional defensive work, and increase pressure on an opponent’s interior defense.

Memphis’s rebounding advantage was not enough to secure the win. The Grizzlies shot less accurately, turned the ball over more often, and scored only 14 points in the fourth quarter.

The lesson is not that rebounding was unimportant. Rather, rebounding alone could not overcome the combined effects of less efficient shooting and a poor final quarter.

Assists: Memphis moved the ball more often

Memphis recorded 30 assists, while San Antonio finished with 23.

The Grizzlies’ higher total suggests that more of their made baskets were assisted, although a complete interpretation requires player-level data and the context of individual possessions.

A high assist total can reflect effective passing, movement away from the ball, and good shot creation. It does not automatically mean a team had the better offense. Shooting efficiency, turnovers, and the value of each basket also matter.

In this game, Memphis’s 30 assists did not translate into a higher score because San Antonio converted a greater proportion of its attempts and made four more three-pointers.

Steals and blocks: Defensive disruption

San Antonio recorded ten steals and three blocks, while Memphis collected six steals and four blocks.

The Spurs’ four-steal advantage indicates that they recorded more direct takeaways. Steals can interrupt offensive rhythm and create opportunities before the defense is fully organized.

Memphis, meanwhile, recorded one more block. That figure alone does not establish that the Grizzlies defended the paint more effectively overall. Blocks are only one part of rim protection, and they do not capture every contested shot or defensive rotation.

The combined numbers suggest different forms of defensive contribution. San Antonio generated more steals, while Memphis recorded slightly more blocks. The Spurs’ lower turnover count and stronger fourth-quarter defense were more closely aligned with the final outcome.

San Antonio Spurs Player Stats and Individual Performances

San Antonio’s leading scorers supplied 67 points between them, while contributions from the rest of the rotation helped the team maintain its advantage in shooting efficiency and ball security.

The supplied data identifies three major scoring performances: De’Aaron Fox with 26 points, Harrison Barnes with 23, and Keldon Johnson with 18.

1. De’Aaron Fox

Lead scorer | Guard

26

Points

2

Steals

1

Block

De’Aaron Fox led all scorers with 26 points. His scoring output gave San Antonio a reliable offensive focal point in a game where the teams remained close for three quarters. His two steals also contributed to the Spurs’ team-leading total in that category.

2. Harrison Barnes

Second-highest scorer | Forward

23

Points

Harrison Barnes scored 23 points, providing the second major scoring contribution for San Antonio. His output was particularly important because it reduced the pressure on Fox to carry the offense alone. The official game recap also reports that Barnes scored seven consecutive points late in the contest, helping San Antonio establish a six-point lead with 53.2 seconds remaining. Source: official game recap linked in the article’s reference section.

3. Keldon Johnson

Third-highest scorer | Forward

18

Points

7

Rebounds

Keldon Johnson added 18 points and led San Antonio with seven rebounds. His scoring gave the Spurs a third significant offensive contributor, while his rebounding helped provide some support against Memphis’s considerable advantage on the boards.

4. Devin Vassell

Playmaking and defense | Guard

5

Assists

2

Steals

1

Block

Devin Vassell led the Spurs with five assists and recorded two steals and one block. These contributions illustrate why individual value should not be measured by points alone. Playmaking and defensive activity can influence the flow of a game even when a player is not the team’s leading scorer.

5. Kelly Olynyk

Bench contribution | Center/forward

+15

Plus/minus

2

Steals

1

Block

Kelly Olynyk recorded the best reported plus/minus among the Spurs, at +15. He also contributed two steals and one block. His plus/minus means San Antonio outscored Memphis by 15 points during his time on the court. It is a useful indicator of the team’s results during his minutes, but it does not independently prove that he caused the scoring margin.

Why Fox’s 26 points mattered

Fox’s scoring lead gave San Antonio a clear primary option. When a team has a player capable of producing points consistently, opposing defenses must account for that threat while also managing other scorers.

The Spurs benefited from having Barnes and Johnson contribute substantial totals as well. This reduced their reliance on a single player and made it more difficult for Memphis to contain all three scoring threats.

The available data supports the importance of Fox’s scoring contribution. It does not provide enough detail to calculate his true shooting percentage or evaluate every shot he attempted, so those measures should not be guessed.

Harrison Barnes delivered at the decisive moment

Barnes’s 23 points were more than a secondary scoring contribution. According to the official recap, his late scoring sequence helped San Antonio move from a closer contest to a more secure position in the final minute.

The timing of those points is important. Scoring during the final minute can have greater practical value than an identical number of points scored during a period when the game is already out of reach.

This does not mean every late basket is automatically more valuable in statistical terms. It means game context matters when evaluating performance, particularly when a player helps turn a narrow lead into a more comfortable one.

Keldon Johnson offered balance on both ends

Johnson’s 18 points and seven rebounds made him an important supporting contributor. The Spurs could not match Memphis’s overall rebounding output, but Johnson’s individual total helped prevent that disadvantage from being even more pronounced.

His scoring also gave San Antonio another player who could convert possessions into points. That balance was particularly useful in a game where the team relied on efficient offense rather than overwhelming its opponent on the glass.

Devin Vassell and Kelly Olynyk added defensive value

Vassell’s five assists and defensive statistics highlight his contributions beyond scoring. Olynyk’s +15 plus/minus, meanwhile, shows that the Spurs performed well during his court time.

A plus/minus figure is best understood as a team-context statistic. It records the difference between points scored by a player’s team and points scored by the opponent while that player is on the floor. It does not isolate the player’s contribution from teammates, opponent lineups, or other game circumstances.

Together, these performances illustrate the value of a balanced rotation. A team can win through several different forms of contribution, including scoring, passing, steals, blocks, and effective minutes from its bench.

Memphis Grizzlies Player Stats and Individual Performances

Memphis had several productive individual performances, even though the team did not secure the win. Cedric Coward led the Grizzlies with 19 points and 11 rebounds, Jaren Jackson Jr. scored 18 points, and Cam Spencer added 15 points off the bench.

Vince Williams Jr. also stood out as a playmaker, finishing with nine assists according to the supplied player data. His contribution helped Memphis reach 30 team assists, seven more than San Antonio.

1. Cedric Coward

Leading scorer and co-leading rebounder

19

Points

11

Rebounds

1

Assist

Coward led Memphis in scoring with 19 points and collected 11 rebounds. Reaching double figures in both categories gave him a double-double, combining scoring production with a substantial contribution on the glass. His performance was one of the clearest individual positives for Memphis.

2. Jaren Jackson Jr.

Frontcourt scoring

18

Points

Jackson finished with 18 points, placing him second among Memphis scorers. His scoring kept the Grizzlies competitive, but the team needed additional offensive production in the fourth quarter to protect its narrow lead.

3. Zach Edey

Interior presence and rebounding

11

Rebounds

Edey collected 11 rebounds, matching Coward for Memphis’s highest individual total in that category. His contribution was part of the Grizzlies’ 59-rebound team performance. The supplied summary does not provide his full shooting line, so his scoring efficiency should not be inferred from the rebounding total.

4. Vince Williams Jr.

Primary playmaker

9

Assists

+11

Plus/minus

14

Points

Williams recorded nine assists and 14 points in the official NBA box-score data. His +11 plus/minus was also a notable individual figure. The combination of scoring, passing, and a positive on-court margin makes his performance worth examining even in a losing effort.

5. Cam Spencer

Bench scoring contribution

15

Points

Spencer scored 15 points off the bench, giving Memphis another important scoring option. His contribution helped the Grizzlies’ reserves remain productive, but bench scoring alone could not offset San Antonio’s shooting efficiency and stronger finish.

Cedric Coward’s double-double was a major positive

Coward’s 19 points and 11 rebounds made him Memphis’s leading scorer and one of its most productive rebounders. His performance demonstrated that the Grizzlies had individual players capable of producing across multiple statistical categories.

A double-double is achieved when a player records at least ten in two of the five main statistical categories: points, rebounds, assists, steals, or blocks. Coward reached that threshold through points and rebounds.

However, individual achievements must be considered alongside the final result. Memphis’s challenge was not simply finding a productive scorer. It was translating its rebounding and passing advantages into enough efficient scoring to sustain a lead.

Jaren Jackson Jr. provided a second scoring option

Jackson’s 18 points gave Memphis another player capable of shouldering a meaningful share of the offense. His contribution was particularly relevant because San Antonio had three players reach at least 18 points.

Memphis’s top two scorers combined for 37 points. The Grizzlies also received 15 points from Spencer and 14 from Williams, showing that the loss was not caused by an absence of scoring contributions from every part of the roster.

The bigger issue was how the team’s production was distributed across the game. Memphis scored 40 points in the third quarter but only 14 in the fourth. That decline was large enough to erase its earlier advantage.

Vince Williams Jr. showed the value of playmaking

Williams’s nine assists were the highest individual total listed for either team. Assists help explain how a team creates scoring opportunities, and Williams was central to Memphis’s distribution of the ball.

Yet the Grizzlies’ 30 assists did not guarantee a win. Passing efficiency must be evaluated alongside shot conversion and turnovers. Memphis made the same number of field goals as San Antonio despite taking 17 additional attempts.

That difference suggests the Grizzlies could have benefited from better conversion of their scoring opportunities, although the team totals alone cannot determine whether shot selection, defensive pressure, or individual shooting variance was the main cause.

Cam Spencer supplied useful bench offense

Spencer’s 15 points were important because they reduced the scoring burden on Memphis’s starters. Bench production is often decisive when games become physically demanding or when starting players struggle to find efficient opportunities.

In this matchup, Memphis’s reserves contributed to the team’s scoring, but San Antonio also received meaningful production from its rotation. The result therefore depended on more than the scoring total of one substitute.

What Memphis could take from the individual performances

The Grizzlies had several reasons to view the game as competitive for much of its duration:

Coward produced a double-double.
Jackson reached 18 points.
Williams recorded nine assists.
Spencer added 15 points from the bench.
The team dominated the offensive glass.

The central challenge was combining those contributions with better shooting efficiency and a more productive fourth quarter. Strong individual numbers are valuable, but a team needs to convert them into a consistent performance across all four periods.

Starting Lineups and Bench Contributions

The supplied game data lists the following starting lineups.

Memphis Grizzlies starters	San Antonio Spurs starters
Jaren Jackson Jr.	Harrison Barnes
Cedric Coward	Julian Champagnie
Jaylen Wells	Luke Kornet
Zach Edey	De’Aaron Fox
Vince Williams Jr.	Devin Vassell

These lineups provide context for understanding the roles of the leading players. Memphis’s listed group included multiple frontcourt players, while San Antonio’s starting five featured Fox as its leading scorer and Vassell as a key playmaker.

The supplied summary does not include a complete verified minute-by-minute lineup record. Therefore, the starting groups should not be treated as proof of which combinations were responsible for the fourth-quarter scoring difference.

Memphis bench players

The supplied list of Memphis reserves includes:

Santi Aldama
Jock Landale
Kentavious Caldwell-Pope
John Konchar
Cam Spencer
Olivier-Maxence Prosper
GG Jackson
Jahmai Mashack

Spencer’s 15 points were the most notable bench-scoring contribution identified in the supplied summary. The available information lists Prosper, GG Jackson, and Mashack as inactive for this game by coach’s decision.

San Antonio bench players

The supplied list of Spurs reserves includes:

Kelly Olynyk
Lindy Waters III
Keldon Johnson
Jeremy Sochan
David Jones Garcia
Carter Bryant
Harrison Ingram
Riley Minix
Bismack Biyombo

Olynyk’s +15 plus/minus stood out, while Johnson supplied 18 points and seven rebounds. The supplied data lists Ingram, Minix, and Biyombo as DNP, meaning they did not play, by coach’s decision.

Why bench depth matters in close games

Bench contributions help teams maintain offensive quality when starters rest, respond to changes in the opponent’s lineup, and preserve energy for late-game situations.

However, bench depth should not be judged by points alone. Rebounding, defensive communication, ball security, and lineup combinations also influence the outcome. A substitute who scores fewer points can still provide value through defensive stops or possession management.

In this game, Memphis’s bench included a productive scoring performance from Spencer. San Antonio’s rotation, meanwhile, supported a more efficient overall offensive result. The difference was not simply which team had the best reserve scorer; it was how each team’s full rotation contributed to the final margin.

The Biggest Tactical Factors Behind the Result

The numbers reveal four important themes: shooting efficiency, possession management, rebounding, and performance under late-game pressure. Understanding these factors provides a more useful explanation than simply listing the leading scorers.

1. San Antonio maximized its scoring opportunities

San Antonio made 42 field goals from 87 attempts. Memphis made the same 42 baskets but needed 104 attempts to reach that total.

That difference is significant because every missed shot creates a possible rebound for the opponent and ends the team’s immediate scoring opportunity. While Memphis recovered many of its misses, the Spurs converted a much higher percentage of their attempts.

San Antonio’s advantage from three-point range also increased the value of its successful shots. The Spurs made 16 threes, while Memphis made 12. Combined with the difference at the free-throw line, that gave San Antonio a clear scoring advantage despite the equal number of field goals.

2. Memphis won the rebounding battle but not the game

Memphis’s 59 rebounds compared with San Antonio’s 38 demonstrate that the Grizzlies controlled a major area of the contest.

The offensive rebounding numbers are especially striking: Memphis collected 21 offensive boards, while San Antonio had four. According to the official NBA game recap, Memphis also held a 22-2 advantage in second-chance points.

This is an important detail because second-chance scoring measures what happens after an offensive rebound. It helps explain how Memphis could create additional scoring opportunities even while shooting less accurately.

San Antonio overcame that disadvantage through its more efficient shooting and stronger late-game performance. The Spurs did not need to win the rebounding category to win the game. They needed to score enough points from their available possessions to compensate for the additional chances Memphis created.

3. Turnovers reduced Memphis’s margin for error

Memphis recorded 14 turnovers, compared with nine for San Antonio.

The difference was not enormous in isolation, but it mattered alongside the shooting gap. Memphis had more offensive rebounds and assists, yet its extra possessions were not enough to produce a higher score.

When a team is already struggling to convert field-goal attempts, turnovers create another obstacle. They remove opportunities to shoot and can make it harder to build a stable offensive rhythm.

San Antonio’s nine turnovers indicate better ball security in this particular matchup. The available totals do not establish the exact points lost to turnovers, so any precise claim about their scoring cost would require further play-by-play analysis.

4. The fourth quarter changed the outcome

The most decisive statistical contrast was the final quarter. Memphis scored 14 points after putting up 40 in the third. San Antonio scored 25, giving the Spurs an 11-point advantage in the period.

A late-game scoring decline can result from several factors, including missed shots, turnovers, fatigue, defensive adjustments, and changes in possession quality. The quarter totals alone cannot identify how much each factor contributed.

What they do establish is that Memphis could not sustain its third-quarter scoring pace. San Antonio maintained enough offensive production to take control, and Barnes’s late scoring helped protect the lead.

5. The absence of major stars shaped the matchup

The official game recap states that San Antonio played without Victor Wembanyama, while Memphis was without Ja Morant. The Spurs were also missing guards Dylan Harper and Stephon Castle.

Those absences matter when interpreting the result because both teams had to rely on available players to handle responsibilities that might otherwise have been distributed differently.

San Antonio received 26 points from Fox and 23 from Barnes. Memphis relied on Coward and Jackson for its leading scoring totals, while Williams handled much of the playmaking.

The result should therefore be understood in the context of the lineups available on game night. It would be misleading to use this single matchup as definitive proof of either team’s performance at full strength.

What the Advanced Numbers Tell Us

Basic box-score statistics provide a useful overview, but several additional calculations help clarify the differences between the teams.

Effective field-goal percentage

Effective field-goal percentage adjusts ordinary field-goal percentage to account for the extra value of three-pointers.

The formula is:

\[ eFG\%=\frac{FGM+0.5(3PM)}{FGA}\times100 \]

Using the supplied team statistics:

San Antonio: (42+0.516)/87, or approximately 57.5%.
Memphis: (42+0.512)/104, or approximately 46.2%.

This calculation shows that the Spurs had a substantial advantage in shooting efficiency after accounting for the value of three-point baskets.

Turnover rate as a practical warning sign

A simple way to compare turnovers with field-goal attempts is to calculate turnovers per 100 field-goal attempts. This is not the same as the standard possession-based turnover percentage, but it provides an easy comparison.

San Antonio: 9/87100, or approximately 10.3 turnovers per 100 field-goal attempts.
Memphis: 14/104100, or approximately 13.5 turnovers per 100 field-goal attempts.

By this simple measure, Memphis recorded turnovers more frequently relative to its field-goal attempts.

A more complete analysis would estimate possessions using field-goal attempts, free-throw attempts, and turnovers. That would provide a stronger basis for comparing offensive efficiency, but the calculations above already support the observation that San Antonio combined better shooting with fewer turnovers.

Why rebounds and assists do not tell the whole story

Memphis won the rebounding battle and recorded more assists. Those are meaningful achievements, but neither category directly measures how many points a team scores per possession.

A team can rebound well but miss its next shot. It can also record an assist on a basket that is worth only two points, while an opponent scores three points on an unassisted shot.

The best interpretation considers several categories together:

Shooting efficiency indicates how well a team converts attempts.
Turnovers measure possessions lost before a shot is completed.
Rebounds indicate how effectively teams recover missed shots.
Assists help describe ball movement and scoring creation.
Quarter-by-quarter scores show when the overall advantage developed.

In this game, the combined evidence points toward San Antonio’s shooting and fourth-quarter execution as the most important factors behind the win.

How to Read NBA Match Player Stats Correctly

For readers comparing basketball box scores, a few basic principles help prevent common misunderstandings.

Points

Points measure a player’s direct scoring output. They are useful for identifying leading scorers, but they do not show how many attempts were needed to produce those points.

Rebounds

Rebounds are divided into offensive and defensive categories. Offensive rebounds give a team another chance to score after a missed shot, while defensive rebounds usually end the opponent’s possession.

Assists

An assist is credited when a pass directly leads to a made basket under the official scoring rules. Assist totals can help describe playmaking, but they do not capture every pass that creates an advantage.

Steals and blocks

Steals record defensive takeaways, while blocks record shots that a defender legally deflects or stops. These numbers show specific defensive actions rather than the full quality of a team’s defense.

Plus/minus

Plus/minus measures the difference between a team’s points and its opponent’s points while a particular player is on the court.

For example, Olynyk’s +15 means San Antonio outscored Memphis by 15 points during his playing time. It does not mean he personally scored 15 points more than any opponent, nor does it prove that he was automatically the most valuable player.

Plus/minus can be affected by teammates, opponents, substitution patterns, and the timing of scoring runs. It is most useful when combined with other statistics and game context.

Shooting percentages

Field-goal percentage is calculated by dividing made field goals by attempts. Three-point and free-throw percentages use the same principle within their respective categories.

When comparing players, it is important to consider both percentage and volume. A player who makes four shots from five attempts has a higher shooting percentage than one who makes eight from 15, but the second player has made more baskets and may have contributed more total points.

For readers who want to inspect the original numbers, the official ESPN box score and game report provide a reference for the recorded player and team statistics.

Frequently Asked Questions

1. Who won the San Antonio Spurs vs Memphis Grizzlies game on November 19, 2025?

The San Antonio Spurs defeated the Memphis Grizzlies 111-101 at Frost Bank Center. San Antonio secured the victory by outscoring Memphis 25-14 in the fourth quarter.

2. Who was the leading scorer in the game?

De’Aaron Fox led all players with 26 points for San Antonio. Harrison Barnes added 23 points, while Keldon Johnson contributed 18. Cedric Coward was Memphis’s leading scorer with 19 points.

3. How many rebounds did Cedric Coward and Zach Edey record?

Cedric Coward and Zach Edey each recorded 11 rebounds, according to the supplied game statistics. Coward also scored 19 points, giving him a double-double.

4. Which team had better shooting statistics?

San Antonio had the better shooting performance. The Spurs made 48% of their field-goal attempts and 38% of their three-pointers. Memphis shot 40% from the field and 31% from beyond the arc.

5. Why did the Spurs win despite having fewer rebounds?

San Antonio compensated for its 38-59 rebounding disadvantage by shooting more efficiently, making four additional three-pointers, converting more free throws, and committing five fewer turnovers. The Spurs also outscored Memphis 25-14 in the fourth quarter.

6. What were the key bench contributions in the game?

Cam Spencer scored 15 points off the bench for Memphis. Kelly Olynyk recorded a team-best reported plus/minus of +15 for San Antonio, while Keldon Johnson contributed 18 points and seven rebounds. These performances helped support their respective rotations.

Conclusion

The San Antonio Spurs defeated the Memphis Grizzlies 111-101 on November 19, 2025, in a game decided by shooting efficiency and fourth-quarter execution. De’Aaron Fox led San Antonio with 26 points, Harrison Barnes added 23, and Keldon Johnson contributed 18 points and seven rebounds. For Memphis, Cedric Coward finished with 19 points and 11 rebounds, Jaren Jackson Jr. scored 18, and Cam Spencer added 15 points off the bench.

Memphis controlled the boards with 59 rebounds and recorded 30 assists, but San Antonio made the same number of field goals in fewer attempts. The Spurs also converted more three-pointers, shot better from the free-throw line, and committed fewer turnovers. Those advantages helped them overcome Memphis’s second-chance scoring and rebounding success.

The defining moment came in the fourth quarter, when San Antonio outscored Memphis 25-14 after trailing by one point entering the period. The result illustrates why basketball performance cannot be judged by one statistic alone. Rebounding, passing, shooting, turnovers, and late-game execution must be considered together to understand how a team wins.

For readers analyzing NBA match results, the most useful approach is to combine individual player statistics with team efficiency and quarter-by-quarter scoring. That broader perspective provides a clearer understanding of both the final score and the performances behind it.