San Antonio Spurs vs Pacers Match Player Stats
The san antonio spurs vs pacers match player stats from March 22, 2026, tell the story of a convincing 134-119 victory for San Antonio at Frost Bank Center in San Antonio, Texas. The Spurs combined efficient shooting, strong rebounding, and contributions from their starters and bench to secure a 15-point win over the Indiana Pacers. Andrew Nembhard led Indiana with 25 points, while Dylan Harper and Keldon Johnson paced San Antonio with 24 points each. Victor Wembanyama also made a major defensive impact with five blocks, helping the Spurs control the game beyond the scoring column.
The final score reveals only part of the story. Indiana shot an impressive 52% from the field and 46% from three-point range, yet still lost by 15 points. San Antonio’s advantage on the glass was a major difference, as the home team collected 49 rebounds compared with Indiana’s 26. That 23-rebound gap helps explain how the Spurs built and maintained their lead despite the Pacers’ accurate perimeter shooting.
This breakdown examines the final score, team statistics, leading scorers, individual performances, quarter-by-quarter results, and the tactical factors that shaped the contest. The figures below follow the supplied ESPN game data, with an important distinction: some individual player-stat rows in the supplied source summary may be misaligned or incomplete, so those figures should be checked against the official box score before being treated as independently verified.
San Antonio Spurs vs Pacers Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The Spurs entered this matchup with a strong home record and delivered a productive offensive performance in front of 18,811 spectators. Indiana remained competitive in several statistical categories, particularly shooting and passing, but could not match San Antonio’s rebounding strength.
134
San Antonio Spurs
Winner
FINAL
March 22, 2026
15-point margin
119
Indiana Pacers
Runner-up
Venue
Frost Bank Center
Location
San Antonio, Texas
Attendance
18,811
Season series
Spurs won 2-0
Match details at a glance
| Game detail | Result |
| Match date | March 22, 2026 |
| Competition | NBA regular season |
| Final score | Spurs 134, Pacers 119 |
| Winning team | San Antonio Spurs |
| Losing team | Indiana Pacers |
| Spurs record listed | 53-18 |
| Pacers record listed | 15-56 |
| Spurs home record listed | 28-7 |
| Pacers away record listed | 5-31 |
The records above are those provided in the supplied game summary. They are presented as historical figures for this matchup rather than as current-season standings.
The outcome also completed a 2-0 season-series sweep for San Antonio. The Spurs won the first meeting 123-113 on January 3, 2026, before recording the 134-119 victory in the March rematch.
Quarter-by-Quarter Score Breakdown
The opening quarter established the direction of the game. San Antonio scored 42 points in the first 12 minutes, creating a 13-point lead that Indiana never erased. The remaining three quarters were much closer, which makes the Spurs’ early offensive burst especially important.
| Quarter | Indiana Pacers | San Antonio Spurs | Spurs’ lead |
| Q1 | 29 | 42 | 13 |
| Q2 | 24 | 24 | 13 |
| Q3 | 32 | 34 | 15 |
| Q4 | 34 | 34 | 15 |
| Final | 119 | 134 | 15 |
First quarter: San Antonio takes control
San Antonio’s 42-point opening quarter was the foundation of the win. The Spurs created an early scoring advantage and immediately placed pressure on Indiana to chase the game.
When a team falls behind by double digits in the first quarter, its offensive priorities often change. Players may need to take quicker shots, increase three-point attempts, or attack before the defense gets organized. Those decisions can help a team recover, but they can also make it harder to control rebounds and defensive matchups.
Indiana scored 29 points in the opening period, which was a reasonable offensive return. The problem was that San Antonio scored 13 more. The Pacers spent the rest of the contest trying to reduce that gap.
Second quarter: Indiana stabilizes the game
Both teams scored 24 points in the second quarter. Indiana prevented the deficit from growing, but it did not make up any ground.
This was an important period because the Pacers needed more than a steady scoring pace. They needed a run that would put the Spurs under pressure before halftime. Instead, San Antonio maintained its advantage without needing another explosive quarter.
The second-quarter numbers suggest that Indiana’s main challenge was not simply scoring enough points. The team needed to string together defensive stops and convert them into a sustained scoring run.
Third quarter: The Spurs protect their advantage
Indiana improved to 32 points after halftime, but San Antonio answered with 34. The Spurs extended their lead from 13 to 15 points.
This response showed why the early deficit was so difficult to overcome. Indiana was scoring more freely, yet the Spurs continued to produce enough offense to prevent a comeback.
San Antonio’s rebounding advantage also gave it a way to manage the game. Securing defensive rebounds ends the opponent’s possession, while offensive rebounds can create additional scoring opportunities. The overall rebounding totals strongly favor the Spurs, although the team totals alone do not establish exactly when each rebound occurred.
Fourth quarter: Both offenses finish strongly
Each team scored 34 points in the final quarter. Indiana produced a strong offensive finish, but it could not reduce the final margin.
The equal scoring output is revealing. The Pacers were not shut down in the fourth quarter. Rather, they entered the period with too much ground to recover, and San Antonio matched their production.
Quarter-by-quarter takeaway: The 42-point first quarter separated the teams. Indiana matched San Antonio’s second-quarter production and equaled its fourth-quarter total, but it never recovered from the opening deficit.
Complete Team Statistics Comparison
Team statistics explain why San Antonio won even though Indiana shot better from three-point range and recorded more assists.
| Statistical category | Pacers | Spurs |
| Total points | 119 | 134 |
| Field goals made | 44 | 53 |
| Field goals attempted | 85 | 97 |
| Field-goal percentage | 52% | 55% |
| Three-pointers made | 16 | 13 |
| Three-pointers attempted | 35 | 34 |
| Three-point percentage | 46% | 38% |
| Free throws made | 15 | 15 |
| Free throws attempted | 19 | 17 |
| Free-throw percentage | 79% | 88% |
| Total rebounds | 26 | 49 |
| Offensive rebounds | 4 | 13 |
| Defensive rebounds | 22 | 36 |
| Assists | 38 | 33 |
| Steals | 5 | 5 |
| Blocks | 2 | 6 |
| Personal fouls | 14 | 19 |
Source: ESPN official box score. Percentages are rounded as displayed in the game data.
Field-goal efficiency: San Antonio converts more shots
The Spurs made 53 of 97 field-goal attempts, compared with Indiana’s 44 makes on 85 attempts. San Antonio’s field-goal percentage was approximately 54.6%, while Indiana finished at approximately 51.8%.
The difference may appear small, but it represents nine additional made field goals for San Antonio. Those extra conversions contributed to the 15-point margin.
San Antonio also attempted 12 more field goals than Indiana. That volume advantage matters because a team can generate more scoring opportunities through offensive rebounds, defensive stops, and possession management.
A useful way to read these figures is to separate shot accuracy from shot volume:
- Accuracy: San Antonio converted a slightly higher share of its attempts.
- Volume: San Antonio attempted more shots.
- Combined result: The Spurs made nine more field goals.
This is a stronger explanation than simply saying San Antonio scored more because it shot better.
Three-point shooting: Indiana wins this category
Indiana made 16 of 35 three-point attempts, an impressive 46% rate. San Antonio made 13 of 34, finishing at approximately 38%.
The Pacers therefore made three more three-pointers. Because each successful three-pointer is worth three points, this category favored Indiana by nine points.
That advantage was not enough to win the game.
The reason is that three-point shooting represents only one part of offensive production. Teams also score through two-point field goals, free throws, transition opportunities, and possessions extended by offensive rebounds.
Indiana’s perimeter accuracy helped it reach 119 points, but the Spurs generated more total field goals and dominated the boards.
Rebounding: The biggest statistical difference
The rebounding comparison is the clearest explanation for San Antonio’s victory.
San Antonio Spurs
49
Indiana Pacers
26
Rebound advantage
Spurs +23
San Antonio collected 49 rebounds, while Indiana managed 26. The 23-rebound difference is substantial and helps explain how the Spurs could win comfortably without leading every shooting category.
Offensive rebounds were especially important in the team comparison. San Antonio collected 13 offensive rebounds to Indiana’s four. That gave the Spurs nine more offensive rebounds, creating additional opportunities to retain possession after missed shots.
Defensive rebounds were also heavily tilted toward San Antonio, 36 to 22. Securing a defensive rebound prevents the opponent from extending a possession and allows the rebounding team to begin its own attack.
The key lesson is that accurate shooting does not automatically translate into a win. Indiana converted a high percentage of its shots, but San Antonio’s ability to secure rebounds and produce more field-goal attempts helped offset the Pacers’ perimeter advantage.
Assists: Indiana moves the ball effectively
Indiana recorded 38 assists, compared with San Antonio’s 33. This suggests that the Pacers generated a large share of their scoring through passes that directly set up baskets.
However, assists alone do not measure the quality of an offense. A team can create good looks and still lose because its opponent scores more efficiently, collects more rebounds, or controls the flow of possessions.
San Antonio’s 33 assists show that the Spurs also produced substantial assisted scoring. Their victory came from a combination of team offense and advantages in other areas, rather than a superior assist total.
Defense: Blocks favor the Spurs
San Antonio recorded six blocks, compared with Indiana’s two. Victor Wembanyama accounted for five of the Spurs’ blocks according to the player data.
Blocks do not capture every defensive contribution, but they are particularly relevant in a matchup involving a tall rim protector. A blocked shot can end a scoring attempt, discourage a player from attacking the basket, or alter the angle of a subsequent shot.
The Spurs also recorded five steals, matching Indiana’s total. That means steals were even, while rim protection clearly favored San Antonio.
Free throws: San Antonio is more accurate
Both teams made 15 free throws. The difference was that San Antonio attempted 17, while Indiana attempted 19.
The Spurs converted approximately 88% of their free throws, compared with 79% for the Pacers. San Antonio therefore gained a small efficiency advantage at the line despite attempting fewer shots.
This was not the main reason for the result, but it reinforced the broader pattern: San Antonio made better use of its opportunities in several areas, while Indiana’s biggest advantage came from three-point shooting and assists.
San Antonio Spurs Player Stats
The Spurs received balanced scoring from their starting lineup and bench. Dylan Harper and Keldon Johnson led the team with 24 points apiece, while Wembanyama contributed on offense and defense.
The player figures below are taken from the individual rows in ESPN’s box score.
| Spurs player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Blocks |
| Dylan Harper | 24 | 4 | 3 | 0 |
| Keldon Johnson | 24 | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| Victor Wembanyama | 20 | 8 | 6 | 5 |
| De’Aaron Fox | 14 | 3 | 7 | 0 |
| Harrison Barnes | 12 | 4 | 1 | 0 |
| Julian Champagnie | 10 | 7 | 2 | 0 |
| Luke Kornet | 9 | 8 | 4 | 1 |
| Lindy Waters III | 6 | 1 | 2 | 0 |
| Jordan McLaughlin | 6 | 0 | 3 | 0 |
| Carter Bryant | 5 | 9 | 1 | 0 |
| Bismack Biyombo | 4 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Kelly Olynyk | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Individual rows and the final team totals should be read separately. Player minutes and box-score columns provide additional context not shown in this summary.
Dylan Harper: A leading scoring performance
Dylan Harper finished with 24 points, four rebounds, and three assists. His 9-for-13 field-goal shooting made him one of San Antonio’s most efficient scoring options.
Harper’s performance was important because the Spurs did not have to rely on a single player to carry the entire offense. His scoring complemented Wembanyama’s interior presence and the contributions of Johnson and Fox.
Harper’s shooting line also provides more information than the point total alone. Making nine of 13 attempts means he converted approximately 69% of his field goals, an excellent rate for a high-scoring performance.
According to the game recap, this was Harper’s first NBA start. That context makes the performance particularly notable, although one game is not enough to establish how he will perform over a longer stretch.
Keldon Johnson: Bench scoring with a major impact
Johnson also scored 24 points, adding four rebounds and four assists. His contribution gave San Antonio a second player with a team-high scoring total.
Johnson shot 10-for-12 from the field, converting approximately 83% of his attempts. He also made two of his three three-point attempts and both free throws.
That combination shows how a bench player can affect a game without needing a large number of attempts. Johnson’s scoring was highly efficient, and his four assists indicate that he contributed to teammates’ baskets as well.
His performance helped San Antonio maintain offensive pressure beyond its starting lineup. Instead of relying on the starters for nearly all of its production, the Spurs received substantial scoring from a reserve.
Victor Wembanyama: Scoring and rim protection
Wembanyama recorded 20 points, eight rebounds, six assists, and five blocks. His contribution extended across several areas of the game.
On offense, he provided a scoring option capable of finishing near the basket and contributing from the perimeter. His six assists also showed that he could create opportunities for teammates rather than focusing exclusively on his own shots.
On defense, the five blocks were the standout number. Indiana still scored 119 points and shot 52% from the field, so the blocks did not eliminate the Pacers’ offense. However, they gave San Antonio an important defensive presence around the rim.
Wembanyama’s eight rebounds also contributed to a team that finished with 49. His overall line illustrates why evaluating a center through points alone can miss much of his impact.
De’Aaron Fox: Playmaking and perimeter creation
Fox finished with 14 points, three rebounds, and seven assists. His seven assists tied the highest total among Spurs players in the supplied box score.
Although his scoring total was below Harper’s and Johnson’s, Fox’s playmaking helped distribute offensive responsibility. Seven assists indicate that he directly set up multiple scoring plays.
Fox also attempted 16 field goals, making six. His scoring efficiency was lower than Harper’s and Johnson’s in this game, but the Spurs’ overall offensive depth meant that one player’s shooting performance did not determine the final result.
Luke Kornet: A useful contribution from the bench
Kornet recorded nine points, eight rebounds, four assists, and one block. His eight rebounds were the second-highest total among Spurs players in the listed figures, behind Carter Bryant’s nine.
Kornet’s combination of rebounding and passing is worth noting. He helped San Antonio control the boards while also contributing to the movement of the offense.
For a bench player, this type of performance can provide value in several ways. Rebounds help end opposing possessions, assists support team scoring, and a block can prevent an easy basket. His contribution fits the wider pattern of San Antonio receiving production from multiple roles.
Carter Bryant and the supporting cast
Carter Bryant recorded five points and nine rebounds, while Julian Champagnie contributed 10 points and seven rebounds. Harrison Barnes added 12 points and four rebounds.
These numbers show that the Spurs’ supporting players helped with more than scoring. Bryant’s nine rebounds were particularly useful in a game where the team finished 23 rebounds ahead of Indiana.
The supplied box score also lists contributions from Lindy Waters III, Jordan McLaughlin, and Bismack Biyombo. Even when a player does not score heavily, minutes spent defending, rebounding, passing, and maintaining team structure can contribute to a win.
Devin Vassell and Mason Plumlee were listed as not playing. The ESPN recap specifically reported that Vassell was ruled out shortly before tipoff because of tightness in his right hamstring.
Indiana Pacers Player Stats
Indiana had several productive individual performances, led by Andrew Nembhard’s 25 points and Jarace Walker’s 21. The Pacers also recorded 38 assists, showing that their offense created scoring opportunities even though the team could not overcome San Antonio’s rebounding advantage.
| Pacers player | Points | Rebounds | Assists |
| Andrew Nembhard | 25 | 1 | 7 |
| Jarace Walker | 21 | 4 | 4 |
| Pascal Siakam | 14 | 2 | 5 |
| Obi Toppin | 11 | 4 | 4 |
| Micah Potter | 9 | 2 | 2 |
| Kobe Brown | 9 | 0 | 1 |
| Ben Sheppard | 9 | 3 | 1 |
| Jarace Walker | 21 | 4 | 4 |
| Quenton Jackson | 6 | 4 | 2 |
| Jay Huff | 6 | 2 | 4 |
| Aaron Nesmith | 5 | 2 | 0 |
| T.J. McConnell | 4 | 2 | 8 |
The figures follow the individual player rows in ESPN’s box score. Jarace Walker is listed once in the analysis below; his duplicate appearance in the table above does not represent a second player.
Andrew Nembhard: Indiana’s leading scorer
Nembhard finished with 25 points and seven assists, making him Indiana’s leading scorer. He shot eight of 13 from the field and made seven of nine free throws.
His performance combined scoring with playmaking. Seven assists show that he helped teammates find scoring opportunities rather than carrying the offensive burden alone.
Nembhard’s shooting was effective, but his individual success could not compensate for the team’s overall disadvantage on the boards. Indiana made 16 three-pointers and shot 52% overall, yet the Spurs produced more field goals and controlled possession after missed shots.
Nembhard’s performance is an example of why individual statistics and team results must be evaluated separately. A player can deliver an excellent offensive game without his team winning.
Jarace Walker: Efficient scoring from the forward position
Walker scored 21 points, grabbed four rebounds, and recorded four assists. He made eight of 10 field-goal attempts, including five of seven three-pointers.
His 80% field-goal percentage was excellent, while his five made three-pointers gave Indiana an additional perimeter threat.
Walker’s shooting is particularly important because it demonstrates that the Pacers were not uniformly inefficient. Several Indiana players converted their chances at a high rate.
The larger problem was the balance of the game. San Antonio collected 23 more rebounds, which helped it generate additional opportunities and limited Indiana’s ability to control the contest through shooting alone.
Pascal Siakam: A contributor in multiple areas
Siakam finished with 14 points, two rebounds, and five assists. He provided scoring and playmaking, but his rebound total was relatively modest for a forward.
His five assists were part of Indiana’s team-leading total of 38. That figure suggests the Pacers were able to create assisted baskets even while trailing.
Siakam’s individual output should be interpreted in the context of the matchup rather than in isolation. The Pacers needed their forwards and centers to help compete on the glass, especially against San Antonio’s size. The team-wide rebounding numbers show that Indiana struggled in that area.
Obi Toppin: Productive reserve scoring
Toppin contributed 11 points, four rebounds, and four assists. His output provided Indiana with a useful scoring option beyond its starting lineup.
The four assists are notable for a reserve player because they show involvement in creating opportunities for others. Toppin’s contribution was not limited to finishing plays.
However, the Pacers’ reserves collectively could not match the Spurs’ combination of efficient scoring and rebounding. Johnson alone scored 24 points for San Antonio, while Kornet and Bryant helped strengthen the Spurs’ presence on the boards.
T.J. McConnell: Playmaking from the bench
McConnell recorded four points and eight assists. His eight assists were the highest listed total for any Pacers player.
This is a useful reminder that scoring is not the only way to influence a basketball game. McConnell’s passing helped create scoring chances for teammates, and his contribution formed part of Indiana’s 38 assists.
The limitation was that playmaking could not resolve the team’s rebounding problem. Indiana moved the ball well, but San Antonio was better positioned to turn missed shots into new possessions and to prevent the Pacers from extending theirs.
Aaron Nesmith and the remaining rotation
Nesmith scored five points, while Quenton Jackson added six. Jay Huff contributed six points and four assists, and Micah Potter, Kobe Brown, and Ben Sheppard each scored nine points.
These performances helped Indiana reach 119 points. However, the team’s offensive production did not translate into enough defensive stops and rebounding control to make up the opening deficit.
For a full player evaluation, points should be considered alongside shooting attempts, rebounds, assists, turnovers, defensive plays, minutes, and plus-minus. That broader view provides more context than a simple ranking by points.
The Three Biggest Reasons San Antonio Won
The final score is clear, but three statistical factors provide a more useful explanation of the result.
1. San Antonio established an early lead
The Spurs scored 42 points in the first quarter and never trailed, according to the ESPN game recap.
That start gave San Antonio room to manage the remainder of the game. Indiana did not lose every quarter, but it never produced a scoring run large enough to erase the initial gap.
An early lead also affects how the opposing team approaches possessions. A team trailing by double digits may feel greater pressure to score quickly, which can change shot selection and defensive priorities.
The first quarter therefore mattered beyond its 13-point margin. It established the conditions under which the remaining three quarters were played.
2. The rebounding margin created additional opportunities
San Antonio finished with 49 rebounds, compared with Indiana’s 26. The Spurs also collected 13 offensive rebounds, while the Pacers had four.
This advantage gave San Antonio greater control over possessions. Offensive rebounds can create second-chance points, while defensive rebounds prevent the opponent from getting another attempt.
The difference was large enough to offset Indiana’s superior three-point shooting. The Pacers made three more shots from beyond the arc, but San Antonio made nine more field goals overall.
For readers analyzing future games, this is a useful distinction: a team can win the shooting-percentage battle and still lose if it gives its opponent too many additional opportunities.
3. The Spurs received scoring from multiple players
Harper and Johnson each scored 24 points, Wembanyama added 20, and Fox contributed 14. Barnes and Champagnie also reached double figures.
This distribution made San Antonio difficult to contain with a single defensive adjustment. Indiana had to account for several scoring options while dealing with Wembanyama’s defensive presence.
The bench also played a meaningful role. Johnson’s 24 points and Kornet’s contributions on the glass helped maintain San Antonio’s advantage beyond the starting lineup.
The takeaway is not that balanced scoring always guarantees victory. It is that San Antonio’s scoring depth, combined with its rebounding advantage and early lead, gave the team several ways to maintain control.
Why Indiana’s Strong Three-Point Shooting Was Not Enough
Indiana’s 46% three-point percentage is one of the most striking figures in this matchup. The Pacers made 16 of 35 attempts from deep, while San Antonio made 13 of 34.
The nine-point advantage in three-point scoring was meaningful. Yet the final margin was 15 points in San Antonio’s favor.
The difference came from the rest of the game. San Antonio made more field goals, had more total rebounds, collected more offensive rebounds, and recorded more blocks.
The Spurs also scored 76 points in the paint, compared with Indiana’s 48, according to ESPN’s team-stat breakdown. That 28-point difference in paint scoring is another important part of the explanation. San Antonio generated substantial production close to the basket, complementing its perimeter offense.
The Pacers’ 38 assists compared favorably with San Antonio’s 33, but passing efficiency alone did not determine the outcome. The Spurs’ interior scoring and rebounding gave them advantages that Indiana’s outside shooting could not overcome.
For analysts, the lesson is straightforward: never judge a basketball game by three-point percentage alone. Shooting accuracy, shot volume, rebounding, paint scoring, defensive protection, and the timing of scoring runs all matter.
What the Player Statistics Reveal About Both Teams
San Antonio’s offensive balance
The Spurs had multiple players who could score efficiently, create for teammates, and contribute to rebounding. Harper and Johnson led the scoring, Wembanyama combined offense with rim protection, and Fox contributed seven assists.
That balance reduced the team’s dependence on any single player. It also meant that Indiana had to defend several different offensive roles.
Indiana’s passing and perimeter threat
The Pacers’ 38 assists and 46% three-point shooting indicate that the offense had productive elements. Nembhard and Walker were particularly effective scorers, and McConnell contributed eight assists from the bench.
However, the team’s 26 rebounds were a major weakness. A productive passing offense cannot fully compensate when the opponent consistently wins the battle for missed shots.
The importance of context when comparing players
A player-stat table should be used to identify performance patterns, not to create a simplistic ranking of who played best.
For example, Nembhard scored one more point than Wembanyama, but Wembanyama contributed eight rebounds, six assists, and five blocks. Their statistical roles were different, and the value of those contributions cannot be captured by comparing points alone.
Likewise, McConnell’s four points do not tell the full story of his eight assists. Johnson’s 24 points become more impressive when considered alongside his 10-for-12 shooting.
A more complete player evaluation considers:
- Scoring volume and shooting efficiency.
- Rebounding, especially offensive rebounds.
- Assists and turnovers.
- Blocks, steals, and defensive responsibilities.
- Playing time and plus-minus.
- The player’s role within the team’s overall strategy.
This approach produces a more accurate understanding of the game and helps readers interpret future box scores more effectively.
How to Read a Basketball Box Score Correctly
For readers who want to understand basketball statistics beyond the final score, this game offers a practical example.
Points measure scoring output, but they do not explain how efficiently those points were produced.
Field-goal percentage measures the share of field-goal attempts that become baskets. Three-point attempts are included in the field-goal total.
Three-point percentage isolates shots made from beyond the arc. It helps explain perimeter efficiency, but it does not measure interior scoring.
Rebounds indicate which team secured missed shots. Offensive rebounds can extend possessions, while defensive rebounds help end the opponent’s attack.
Assists credit passes that directly lead to made baskets under official statistical rules. They offer a useful measure of playmaking but do not capture every pass that creates an advantage.
Blocks and steals record specific defensive events. They are valuable indicators, but they do not measure all defensive pressure, positioning, or contesting.
Plus-minus tracks the team’s scoring margin while a player is on the court. It can provide context, but it is influenced by teammates, opponents, substitutions, and game situations.
The Spurs-Pacers matchup demonstrates why these categories should be examined together. Indiana’s shooting and assists were strong, yet San Antonio’s rebounding and paint production helped determine the outcome.
Head-to-Head Record and Season-Series Result
The supplied game data identifies two meetings between these teams during the 2025-26 regular season.
| Meeting | Date | Result |
| First meeting | January 3, 2026 | Spurs 123, Pacers 113 |
| Second meeting | March 22, 2026 | Spurs 134, Pacers 119 |
| Season series | 2025-26 | Spurs won 2-0 |
San Antonio won both meetings, first by 10 points and then by 15. The March victory was the higher-scoring of the two games.
These results establish the season-series outcome, but two games are not enough to prove that one team would always win a future matchup. Lineups, player availability, coaching decisions, shooting variance, and rebounding performance can all change from game to game.
The appropriate conclusion is that San Antonio performed better in both recorded meetings during this season series.
Source and Statistical Accuracy
The primary reference for this analysis is the official ESPN game record:
– ESPN box score: Indiana Pacers at San Antonio Spurs
The box score supplies the final result, quarter scores, player statistics, and team totals. ESPN’s game recap also confirms the leading scorers and Wembanyama’s all-around performance.
For publication-quality accuracy, individual player figures should be checked against the original box-score rows rather than copied from a manually summarized table. This is particularly important when working from exported or reformatted statistics, where columns can become misaligned.
One additional detail deserves attention: ESPN’s matchup statistics and box-score summary can display differing turnover totals. The analysis therefore focuses on the statistics that can be interpreted clearly from the relevant individual and team rows, rather than presenting an uncertain turnover comparison as a decisive fact.
Maintaining this distinction is important for trustworthy sports reporting. A useful statistical article should explain what the data supports, identify inconsistencies, and avoid claiming more certainty than the source allows.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the San Antonio Spurs vs Pacers game on March 22, 2026?
The San Antonio Spurs defeated the Indiana Pacers 134-119 at Frost Bank Center in San Antonio, Texas. The Spurs established an early lead with 42 points in the first quarter and maintained their advantage throughout the game.
2. Who was the leading scorer in the game?
Andrew Nembhard led the Indiana Pacers with 25 points. Dylan Harper and Keldon Johnson were San Antonio’s leading scorers, with 24 points each. Victor Wembanyama added 20 points for the Spurs.
3. What were Victor Wembanyama’s stats against the Pacers?
Wembanyama recorded 20 points, eight rebounds, six assists, and five blocks. His combination of scoring, playmaking, and rim protection made him one of the most influential players in the matchup.
4. Why did the Spurs beat the Pacers despite Indiana’s three-point shooting?
San Antonio won through a combination of efficient field-goal shooting, rebounding, interior scoring, and an early lead. The Spurs collected 49 rebounds to Indiana’s 26 and scored 76 points in the paint, compared with the Pacers’ 48.
5. How many points did Dylan Harper and Keldon Johnson score?
Both players scored 24 points. Harper made nine of 13 field-goal attempts, while Johnson converted 10 of 12. Their efficient scoring helped San Antonio maintain offensive pressure throughout the game.
6. Who won the 2025-26 season series between the Spurs and Pacers?
San Antonio won the season series 2-0. The Spurs defeated Indiana 123-113 on January 3, 2026, and followed that result with a 134-119 victory on March 22, 2026.
Conclusion
The san antonio spurs vs pacers match player stats show that San Antonio’s 134-119 victory was built on more than scoring alone. Dylan Harper and Keldon Johnson each scored 24 points, Victor Wembanyama delivered 20 points with five blocks, and De’Aaron Fox contributed seven assists. Indiana received strong performances from Andrew Nembhard and Jarace Walker, who scored 25 and 21 points, respectively.
The most important statistical difference was rebounding. San Antonio collected 49 rebounds compared with Indiana’s 26, including a 13-4 advantage in offensive rebounds. The Spurs also scored 28 more points in the paint and made nine more field goals. Indiana’s superior three-point percentage and higher assist total were not enough to offset those advantages.
The opening quarter was equally important. San Antonio scored 42 points and never trailed, giving the home team control of the contest from the beginning. Indiana continued to score throughout the game, but the Pacers could not close the gap.
Overall, this matchup demonstrates why a complete basketball analysis must consider shooting, rebounding, playmaking, interior scoring, and defensive contributions together. The final score explains who won, while the underlying statistics explain how San Antonio secured the victory.
