San Antonio Spurs vs Utah Jazz Match Player Stats
The san antonio spurs vs utah jazz match player stats from October 13, 2026, reveal how the Utah Jazz secured a 119-109 preseason victory over the San Antonio Spurs at the Delta Center in Salt Lake City. Utah built its winning advantage through efficient shooting, strong defensive activity, and a dominant third quarter. San Antonio remained competitive with three-point shooting and a late scoring push, but its 22 turnovers and lower overall field-goal percentage made a comeback difficult.
This game offers several useful insights for basketball fans who want more than the final score. The team statistics explain why Utah won, how San Antonio’s offense performed, which players made notable contributions, and where both teams showed areas for improvement. However, some player names and statistical rows in the supplied ESPN data do not align consistently, so individual scoring figures must be treated carefully.
Game Overview: San Antonio Spurs vs Utah Jazz Match Player Stats
The Utah Jazz won by 10 points after establishing control during the opening and third quarters. Although San Antonio matched Utah’s scoring in the second quarter and won the fourth quarter, the Jazz had already created a substantial advantage before the final period.
San Antonio Spurs
Away team · 0-3 overall record shown
109
Utah Jazz
Home team · 2-1 overall record shown
119
Date
October 13, 2026
Venue
Delta Center
Competition
NBA preseason
Attendance
15,495
Source: supplied ESPN box-score data. Player-level extraction contains inconsistencies that require verification.
Final score by quarter
| Quarter | San Antonio Spurs | Utah Jazz |
| First quarter | 26 | 33 |
| Second quarter | 35 | 35 |
| Third quarter | 17 | 31 |
| Fourth quarter | 31 | 20 |
| Final score | 109 | 119 |
The first quarter gave Utah an early seven-point lead. Both teams scored 35 points in the second period, leaving the Jazz ahead at halftime. The decisive stretch came in the third quarter, when Utah outscored San Antonio 31-17.
San Antonio responded with a 31-point fourth quarter, while Utah scored 20. That 11-point difference reduced the margin, but it was not enough to erase the damage from the third quarter.
The most important takeaway is that the result was shaped by different levels of offensive efficiency across the game. Utah maintained its scoring pace during the middle periods, while San Antonio’s strongest response came after the deficit had grown.
Team Statistics Comparison
The broader numbers show that Utah’s victory was not simply the result of making more shots. The Jazz combined better shooting efficiency with more assists, rebounds, and steals. San Antonio produced more three-pointers and free throws, but those advantages did not compensate for its lower two-point and overall shooting accuracy.
| Team statistic | San Antonio Spurs | Utah Jazz |
| Points | 109 | 119 |
| Field goals made | 35 | 45 |
| Field goals attempted | 89 | 87 |
| Field-goal percentage | 39% | 52% |
| Three-pointers made | 15 | 9 |
| Three-point attempts | 42 | 23 |
| Three-point percentage | 36% | 39% |
| Free throws made | 24 | 20 |
| Free-throw attempts | 33 | 26 |
| Free-throw percentage | 73% | 77% |
| Total rebounds | 42 | 47 |
| Offensive rebounds | 13 | 9 |
| Defensive rebounds | 29 | 38 |
| Assists | 22 | 25 |
| Turnovers | 22 | 22 |
| Steals | 14 | 18 |
| Blocks | 4 | 3 |
| Personal fouls | 21 | 29 |
Source: supplied game data. Percentages are rounded, and some totals may vary slightly across statistical displays. The official NBA box score is the preferred reference for individual player lines.
1. Field-goal efficiency created Utah’s biggest advantage
Utah made 45 of its 87 field-goal attempts, while San Antonio converted 35 of 89. That is a difference of 10 made baskets, even though the Jazz attempted two fewer shots.
The gap in accuracy is the clearest explanation for the final result. Utah’s listed field-goal percentage was approximately 52%, compared with 39% for San Antonio.
A team does not need to attempt substantially more shots to win a basketball game. It needs to generate good opportunities and convert enough of them. Utah did that more consistently.
For San Antonio, the figures suggest that creating additional possessions was not the only challenge. The Spurs also needed to turn their opportunities into points more reliably, particularly during the third quarter.
2. San Antonio’s three-point shooting kept the game competitive
The Spurs made 15 three-pointers on 42 attempts. Utah made nine on 23 attempts.
That gave San Antonio a six-basket advantage from beyond the arc, worth 18 additional points from three-point makes before considering the teams’ other scoring differences.
However, the Spurs needed 19 more attempts to make those six additional shots. Utah’s greater overall accuracy meant that its scoring remained effective without relying on a high volume of three-point attempts.
This distinction matters when evaluating an offense. Three-point volume can help a team overcome a shooting deficit, but high-volume shooting also creates risk when the attempts do not fall consistently.
San Antonio’s outside shooting was a genuine strength in this game. The problem was that it did not translate into an overall scoring advantage.
3. Rebounding favored Utah, particularly on defense
The supplied statistics credit the Spurs with 42 rebounds and the Jazz with 47.
San Antonio recorded 13 offensive rebounds, compared with nine for Utah. This suggests that the Spurs had opportunities to extend possessions after missed shots.
Utah, however, collected 38 defensive rebounds against San Antonio’s 29. That difference is important because defensive rebounds usually end an opponent’s possession and allow the team to transition into its own offense.
Offensive rebounds can create valuable second chances, but they do not automatically guarantee points. A team must convert those additional opportunities.
The figures therefore suggest that San Antonio showed some strength on the offensive glass, while Utah was more effective at securing defensive possessions. Because some statistical feeds report different rebound totals, these numbers should be checked against the official box score before being used in detailed season comparisons.
4. Turnovers were a shared problem
Both teams committed 22 turnovers according to the supplied team statistics.
This is a useful reminder that Utah’s victory was not built on superior ball security. Both sides lost possession frequently, yet Utah still won by 10 points.
San Antonio also recorded 14 steals, while Utah recorded 18. Those numbers point to active defensive pressure from both teams, although steals alone cannot explain the full defensive performance.
The more revealing question is what happened after turnovers. A live-ball turnover can lead to an uncontested transition opportunity, while a dead-ball turnover may allow the defense to get organized.
Without a verified breakdown of turnover types and points generated from them, it would be inaccurate to attribute the entire result to transition scoring. The confirmed figures do show that San Antonio needed to improve its possession management if it wanted to make its shooting advantages count.
San Antonio Spurs Player Stats
The Spurs received meaningful scoring contributions from several players, with Ja’Kobi Gillespie leading the team in the available individual box-score data. Harrison Barnes, Keldon Johnson, Jordan McLaughlin, and Julian Champagnie also reached double figures.
The distribution of points is particularly relevant because San Antonio did not depend on a single high-volume scorer for all its offense. Several players contributed, but the team’s overall shooting efficiency remained below Utah’s.
Spurs player statistics table
The following figures are drawn from the available game box-score records. Minutes and individual statistics can differ slightly in presentation across providers, so the original official record should be used when exact values are required.
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Three-pointers |
| Ja’Kobi Gillespie | 25 | 1 | 3 | 4/8 |
| Harrison Barnes | 19 | 2 | 1 | 3/7 |
| Keldon Johnson | 15 | 4 | 4 | 0/2 |
| Jordan McLaughlin | 14 | 1 | 6 | 1/3 |
| Julian Champagnie | 14 | 4 | 0 | 3/9 |
| R.J. Davis | 5 | 1 | 2 | 1/3 |
| David Jones Garcia | 4 | 5 | 1 | 0/2 |
| Tarris Reed Jr. | 4 | 17 | 1 | 0/0 |
| Taelon Peter | 3 | 0 | 0 | 1/2 |
| Maliq Brown | 3 | 3 | 0 | 1/3 |
| Jon Elmore | 3 | 1 | 3 | 1/3 |
| Luke Kornet | 0 | 3 | 1 | 0/0 |
Ja’Kobi Gillespie: San Antonio’s leading scorer
Ja’Kobi Gillespie’s 25 points made him San Antonio’s leading scorer in the available box-score records. He shot 9-for-14 from the field and 4-for-8 from three-point range, while also recording three assists and three steals.
His shooting line stands out because he combined strong overall conversion with meaningful perimeter production. Making nine of 14 field goals represents approximately 64.3% shooting, an efficient performance by any conventional measure.
Gillespie’s four made three-pointers were also significant. They provided San Antonio with a source of scoring that helped the team remain within reach despite Utah’s advantage in overall shooting efficiency.
His three steals add another dimension to the performance. Steals can interrupt offensive rhythm and create chances to score without having to beat a set defense.
There is an important limitation when interpreting the line: a player can post excellent individual numbers without being responsible for every weakness in the team’s performance. Gillespie’s scoring was productive, but San Antonio still lost because the collective result across four quarters favored Utah.
Harrison Barnes: perimeter scoring and free throws
Barnes scored 19 points, making him one of the Spurs’ leading contributors.
His available shooting record lists three made three-pointers on seven attempts and 10 made free throws on 12 attempts. The free-throw production was particularly valuable because it allowed him to score without relying entirely on jump shots.
Barnes’ performance illustrates the value of combining different scoring methods. A player who can convert from outside while also earning trips to the free-throw line gives an offense more ways to generate points.
However, his contribution should be evaluated within the team’s wider shooting performance. Barnes scored effectively, but San Antonio’s collective field-goal percentage remained well below Utah’s.
Keldon Johnson: a balanced offensive contribution
Johnson finished with 15 points, four rebounds, and four assists in the available statistical record.
Unlike a scorer whose value comes almost entirely from shot-making, Johnson contributed across several categories. His rebounding helped support possession battles, while his assists showed that he was also involved in creating opportunities for teammates.
He did not make a three-pointer in the listed two attempts, but that small sample is not enough to draw a broad conclusion about his perimeter shooting ability.
The more useful observation is that Johnson’s all-around contribution did not fully overcome the team’s collective efficiency gap. San Antonio needed more successful possessions from the lineup as a whole, rather than relying on individual versatility alone.
Jordan McLaughlin: playmaking and scoring support
McLaughlin recorded 14 points and six assists, the highest assist total among the Spurs players listed in the available data.
Six assists suggest a useful role in facilitating offense and connecting possessions. A guard who can score while also creating opportunities gives the team more flexibility in its half-court attack.
His contribution also highlights why assists should be considered alongside points. A player can influence the offense by generating a teammate’s basket rather than taking the shot personally.
Still, assists do not reveal every aspect of playmaking. They do not measure all potential assists, passes that create open shots, or possessions where a good pass leads to a missed attempt. McLaughlin’s recorded total is informative, but it is not a complete measure of his offensive impact.
Julian Champagnie: outside shooting with room for improvement
Champagnie scored 14 points and collected four rebounds. The available box-score line credits him with three three-pointers on nine attempts.
That translates to a 33.3% success rate from beyond the arc. His three makes contributed to San Antonio’s overall advantage in three-point volume, but nine attempts also represent a substantial share of shooting opportunities.
The lesson is not that a player should stop taking perimeter shots after a difficult stretch. Shot selection must be assessed through factors such as defensive pressure, spacing, shot quality, and the player’s role in the offense.
For San Antonio, the broader challenge was to combine perimeter volume with better overall conversion. Champagnie’s contribution was part of a larger offensive picture in which the Spurs generated shots but did not match Utah’s efficiency.
Tarris Reed Jr.: rebounding as a source of value
Reed Jr. recorded 17 rebounds in the available player-statistics table, including a notable presence on the glass.
That total, if confirmed against the official box score, would represent the strongest rebounding performance among the listed Spurs players. Rebounding matters because it can determine whether a defensive possession ends successfully or whether the opponent gets another opportunity.
His line is particularly relevant when considered alongside San Antonio’s 13 offensive rebounds as a team. Strong work on the offensive glass can compensate for missed shots by creating second chances.
However, rebounds must be interpreted in context. They do not automatically establish that a player controlled the paint, defended effectively, or produced a positive overall impact. Those judgments require additional evidence, including defensive assignments, contested rebounds, and possession outcomes.
What San Antonio’s player statistics reveal
The available player lines point to three broad conclusions.
First, the Spurs had several productive scorers. Gillespie, Barnes, Johnson, McLaughlin, and Champagnie all reached double figures.
Second, the team had contributions beyond scoring. McLaughlin’s assists, Johnson’s balanced line, and Reed Jr.’s listed rebounding total indicate different ways players supported the offense and possession battle.
Third, individual production was not enough to overcome the team’s lower shooting efficiency. San Antonio made more three-pointers and free throws, but Utah made 10 more field goals overall.
That distinction is central to understanding the result. A team can have multiple impressive individual performances and still lose when its collective shot conversion is less effective.
Utah Jazz Player Stats
Utah’s scoring was more evenly distributed than a traditional performance built around one dominant scorer. Darryn Peterson led the listed starters with 14 points, while Jaren Jackson Jr. and Keyonte George each scored 13. Lauri Markkanen and Jaxson Hayes added 11 points apiece.
The bench also contributed. Isaiah Collier recorded 11 points and five assists, Brice Sensabaugh scored 11, and Mo Bamba finished with nine points and nine rebounds.
That distribution helped Utah maintain its offensive production across different lineups. Rather than depending entirely on one player, the Jazz received points from multiple starters and reserves.
Jazz player statistics table
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Three-pointers |
| Darryn Peterson | 14 | 2 | 5 | 1/2 |
| Jaren Jackson Jr. | 13 | 3 | 1 | 1/2 |
| Keyonte George | 13 | 2 | 1 | 0/1 |
| Lauri Markkanen | 11 | 1 | 2 | 1/2 |
| Jaxson Hayes | 11 | 2 | 0 | 0/0 |
| Isaiah Collier | 11 | 3 | 5 | 1/2 |
| Brice Sensabaugh | 11 | 2 | 2 | 2/5 |
| Mo Bamba | 9 | 9 | 2 | 0/0 |
| Svi Mykhailiuk | 7 | 7 | 2 | 1/4 |
| Ace Bailey | 6 | 6 | 3 | 0/2 |
| Josh Okogie | 5 | 0 | 1 | 1/1 |
| Jonas Aidoo | 3 | 5 | 0 | 0/0 |
| Tamar Bates | 3 | 1 | 0 | 1/1 |
| Harrison Ingram | 2 | 2 | 1 | 0/0 |
| Josh Green | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0/0 |
| Taylor Funk | 0 | 2 | 0 | 0/0 |
| Trey Alexander | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0/1 |
These figures summarize the available player-level data. For publication-quality statistical reporting, individual lines should be cross-checked against the official NBA box score.
Darryn Peterson: scoring and playmaking
Peterson led Utah’s listed starters with 14 points, two rebounds, and five assists.
His combination of scoring and passing is important because a guard’s influence extends beyond the number of shots he makes. A player who can create opportunities for teammates helps prevent an offense from becoming predictable.
Peterson’s five assists indicate that he participated in creating scoring chances as well as finishing possessions himself. His listed three-point shooting was one make on two attempts, a small sample that should not be treated as a reliable measure of long-term perimeter accuracy.
His performance fits the broader story of the game: Utah received contributions from several players, and its offense did not need one player to account for an overwhelming share of the final score.
Jaren Jackson Jr.: efficient interior scoring
Jackson finished with 13 points, three rebounds, and one assist in the available statistical record.
His listed field-goal performance was six makes on eight attempts, which equals 75% shooting. That level of conversion helps explain why Utah could build a scoring advantage without taking as many three-pointers as San Antonio.
The distinction between field-goal volume and field-goal efficiency is especially relevant for frontcourt players. Scoring efficiently near the basket can provide a dependable foundation for an offense, particularly when outside shots are inconsistent.
Jackson’s performance should nevertheless be judged as one part of the team’s overall effort. Utah’s shooting advantage came from its collective production rather than one player’s numbers alone.
Keyonte George: a supporting scoring role
George recorded 13 points, two rebounds, and one assist.
His contribution helped Utah distribute its scoring across the starting group. When several players can reach double figures, the defense has fewer opportunities to concentrate entirely on a single scoring option.
The available data lists George without a made three-pointer. That does not mean his overall offensive contribution was ineffective. Points can come from several areas, including drives, shots inside the arc, and free throws.
A complete assessment would consider his shot selection, defensive assignments, and involvement in creating opportunities, not just his three-point total.
Lauri Markkanen: scoring without high shot volume
Markkanen finished with 11 points, one rebound, and two assists in the available player table.
His scoring helped Utah avoid overdependence on any one teammate. A balanced attack can be especially useful in preseason basketball, when coaches often evaluate different lineups and players may have varying minutes.
His recorded three-point line was one make on two attempts. As with the other players, that limited sample offers little basis for a wider judgment about shooting consistency.
The more important team-level point is that Utah’s frontcourt and perimeter players contributed to an offense that converted 45 field goals.
Jaxson Hayes: interior support
Hayes recorded 11 points and two rebounds in the available statistics.
His scoring added another productive option to Utah’s starting group. Players who can finish near the basket give guards more choices when attacking the defense and can make an offense less dependent on perimeter shooting.
The supplied record lists no three-point attempts for Hayes, which is consistent with evaluating his contribution primarily through his interior role. However, the box score alone cannot establish how effectively he screened, defended the rim, or created space for teammates.
Isaiah Collier: passing and defensive activity
Collier recorded 11 points, three rebounds, five assists, and five steals in the available statistical record.
The five steals stand out because they indicate repeated defensive disruption. Combined with five assists, his line shows activity at both ends of the court.
Steals can create immediate opportunities for a fast break, but they can also reflect anticipation and pressure that force an opponent to change its decisions. Their value depends on what happens after the possession changes hands.
Collier’s recorded numbers therefore offer a useful example of why points alone do not tell the whole story. His contribution included scoring, creating opportunities, and disrupting San Antonio’s offense.
Mo Bamba: rebounding and second-chance control
Bamba recorded nine points and nine rebounds, according to the available player statistics. He also had two assists and one block.
His rebounding was particularly notable because Utah finished with 38 defensive rebounds in the supplied team totals. A center who secures rebounds can help end defensive possessions and give guards the opportunity to organize the next attack.
Bamba’s nine rebounds also demonstrate why bench production matters. A reserve does not need to lead the team in scoring to provide useful value. Rebounding, interior defense, and reliable finishing can all contribute to winning basketball.
The available numbers do not establish every detail of his defensive performance, but they identify rebounding as one of his clearest statistical contributions in this matchup.
Brice Sensabaugh and the bench scoring contribution
Sensabaugh scored 11 points, making him another double-digit contributor for Utah. His listed line included two three-pointers on five attempts.
That outside shooting helped diversify the Jazz’s scoring options. When bench players can score without requiring the offense to revolve around them, a team has more flexibility in how it manages lineups.
Utah also received contributions from Mykhailiuk, Bailey, Okogie, Aidoo, and other reserves. Their individual totals varied, but the combined scoring distribution supported the team’s overall production.
The larger lesson is that bench depth is not measured by the highest individual reserve score alone. It is also reflected in whether the second unit can maintain the team’s offensive rhythm, rebound effectively, and defend without creating a large performance drop.
Why Utah Won the Game
The final score was the result of several connected factors rather than one isolated statistic.
Better shooting across the court
Utah’s 45 made field goals were the clearest statistical difference. The Jazz converted approximately 52% of their attempts, compared with about 39% for San Antonio.
That difference outweighed San Antonio’s advantage in made three-pointers and free throws. The Spurs scored effectively in certain areas, but Utah converted a greater share of its overall shot attempts.
The third quarter changed the game
The third-quarter score was 31-17 in Utah’s favor.
The Jazz entered the final period with a 21-point lead, having extended their halftime advantage substantially. San Antonio’s fourth-quarter response was strong, but a deficit of that size left little room for further mistakes.
Quarter-by-quarter analysis is useful because a final score can hide how a game developed. In this case, the Spurs did not play poorly in every period. Their second quarter matched Utah’s output, and their fourth-quarter scoring exceeded it. The third quarter was the critical separation point.
Utah’s defense created more disruption
Utah recorded 18 steals against San Antonio’s 14, while both teams committed 22 turnovers.
The steal difference suggests that the Jazz were more successful at directly taking the ball away. However, steals are only one part of defense. They do not measure every forced miss, contest, rotation, or successful possession.
The safest conclusion is that Utah combined defensive activity with more effective shooting. San Antonio, by contrast, had to overcome both the shooting gap and the disadvantage in recorded steals.
A stronger defensive rebounding result
The supplied data credits Utah with 38 defensive rebounds, compared with 29 for San Antonio.
That difference points toward better defensive possession completion by the Jazz. San Antonio did collect more offensive rebounds, but Utah’s defensive rebounding helped limit the value of those extra opportunities.
Taken together, the shooting and rebounding numbers suggest that Utah was more effective at converting its offensive possessions and ending San Antonio’s possessions.
Why San Antonio’s Fourth-Quarter Comeback Fell Short
The Spurs scored 31 points in the fourth quarter, compared with Utah’s 20. They reduced the margin by 11 points in that period alone.
A late scoring run can change the feel of a game, but it cannot always change the outcome. The timing of a scoring advantage matters. Utah’s third-quarter lead was large enough to absorb San Antonio’s final push.
Three factors help explain why the comeback was incomplete.
- The deficit was too large. San Antonio needed to overcome a 21-point gap at the start of the fourth quarter.
- Earlier shooting inefficiency mattered. The Spurs could not recover every missed opportunity from the third period simply by scoring well in the fourth.
- Utah had already established its advantage. Even though the Jazz scored less in the final quarter, their earlier production kept them ahead.
The lesson is not that San Antonio’s late effort lacked value. It demonstrated the team’s ability to produce points under pressure. But the more useful improvement would be to avoid allowing the game to become so difficult to recover in the first place.
Key Statistical Lessons From the Match
The numbers from this preseason contest offer several practical lessons for anyone analyzing basketball performances. They also show why a final score should be the beginning of an analysis rather than its conclusion.
Field-goal percentage needs context
Field-goal percentage measures the share of field-goal attempts that become baskets. It includes two-point and three-point field goals but excludes free throws.
Utah’s 52% shooting figure compared favorably with San Antonio’s 39%. However, field-goal percentage does not assign extra value to a three-pointer, even though it is worth one more point than a two-point basket.
For a more complete comparison, analysts can use effective field-goal percentage, which adjusts for the additional value of three-pointers.
The formula is:
\[ \text{eFG\%}=\frac{\text{FGM}+0.5\times\text{3PM}}{\text{FGA}}\times100 \]
Using the supplied team totals, San Antonio’s effective field-goal percentage was approximately 47.8%, while Utah’s was approximately 56.9%.
This confirms that Utah’s shooting advantage remained substantial even after accounting for the Spurs’ higher number of made three-pointers.
Turnovers and shooting must be analyzed together
Both teams recorded 22 turnovers. That means neither team had an advantage in the raw number of lost possessions according to the supplied data.
Yet the Jazz still won comfortably. Their better field-goal conversion helped them score more efficiently despite committing the same number of turnovers.
A more advanced analysis would examine points per possession, turnover rate, and points allowed after turnovers. Those measures can reveal whether a team is wasting possessions, forcing opponents into difficult situations, or creating high-quality chances.
Because a complete possession-by-possession calculation is not available in the supplied figures, it would be misleading to assign an exact offensive rating or turnover rate without verifying the underlying data.
Free throws helped San Antonio, but not enough
The Spurs made 24 free throws on 33 attempts, while Utah made 20 on 26 attempts.
San Antonio therefore scored four more points at the free-throw line. It also attempted seven more free throws.
This suggests that the Spurs were able to generate scoring opportunities through fouls, an important part of basketball offense. However, Utah’s advantage in field goals more than offset that difference.
The comparison demonstrates why no single statistic should be used to explain a result. Free throws, three-point shooting, field-goal efficiency, turnovers, and rebounding all contribute to the final score.
Preseason results require a measured interpretation
This game took place during the NBA preseason, not the regular season.
Preseason contests can provide useful information about player roles, lineup combinations, shooting rhythm, and developing team chemistry. They can also feature frequent substitutions and different minute distributions from competitive regular-season games.
For that reason, one preseason result should not be treated as definitive evidence of either team’s future performance.
The Spurs’ shooting efficiency is a legitimate topic for analysis, but it does not establish how the team will perform across an entire season. Likewise, Utah’s victory is a positive result without guaranteeing future success.
What This Result Means for Both Teams
San Antonio Spurs: areas to examine
The Spurs can take several useful lessons from this performance.
Improve overall shot conversion. San Antonio made 35 field goals from 89 attempts. Finding better-quality opportunities and converting more shots would help the team make its scoring more consistent.
Reduce the damage from turnovers. The team recorded 22 turnovers. Even when an opponent commits the same number, reducing wasted possessions can create more opportunities to score.
Maintain defensive intensity throughout the game. San Antonio’s fourth-quarter performance showed that the team could score in a difficult situation. Avoiding a major third-quarter deficit would make that effort more valuable.
Build on distributed scoring. The Spurs had several players in double figures. Maintaining that distribution while improving overall efficiency could make the offense less dependent on individual scoring bursts.
These are observations from one game, not conclusions about the team’s entire season. Additional games would be needed to determine whether the same issues recur.
Utah Jazz: strengths to build on
Utah also has several positive indicators to take from the result.
Continue prioritizing efficient shots. The Jazz converted 45 field goals and shot approximately 52%. That conversion rate was central to the victory.
Use multiple scoring options. Several starters and reserves reached double figures. This distribution can make the offense harder to defend when maintained against different opponents.
Protect the defensive glass. The supplied team totals credit Utah with nine more defensive rebounds than San Antonio. Ending possessions consistently can reduce second-chance opportunities.
Keep defensive pressure productive. Utah recorded 18 steals. The next step is to maintain pressure without allowing it to create unnecessary fouls or defensive breakdowns.
The most valuable measure of progress will be whether Utah can reproduce these strengths across different matchups, rather than relying on a single preseason result.
How to Read Player Statistics Correctly
Readers looking up the san antonio spurs vs utah jazz match player stats should distinguish between a player’s recorded output and the wider context of the game.
A box score gives a factual snapshot of points, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, shooting, turnovers, and playing time. It does not automatically explain why those numbers occurred.
Here are five practical steps for reading a basketball box score.
- Start with the final score and quarter totals. These establish which team won and when the decisive scoring gap developed.
- Compare shooting efficiency. Look at field-goal percentage, three-point percentage, and effective field-goal percentage together.
- Check possession-related statistics. Rebounds and turnovers help explain how teams gained or lost scoring opportunities.
- Review individual contributions. Points should be considered alongside assists, rebounds, defensive statistics, and minutes played.
- Confirm the source and context. Verify individual lines against an official box score, especially when different statistical pages show inconsistent names or totals.
These steps help prevent common errors, such as assuming that the highest scorer necessarily had the best all-around performance or that the team with more three-pointers must have shot better overall.
They are also useful for fantasy basketball research, game recaps, statistical reporting, and comparing performances across multiple games. The key is to treat the numbers as evidence and avoid drawing conclusions that the data cannot support.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the San Antonio Spurs vs Utah Jazz game on October 13, 2026?
The Utah Jazz defeated the San Antonio Spurs 119-109 in an NBA preseason game at the Delta Center in Salt Lake City, Utah.
2. Who was the top scorer in the game?
Ja’Kobi Gillespie led the Spurs with 25 points, according to the available player statistics. Darryn Peterson led Utah’s listed starters with 14 points.
3. What was the final score by quarter?
San Antonio scored 26, 35, 17, and 31 points across the four quarters. Utah scored 33, 35, 31, and 20 points. The final score was 119-109 in Utah’s favor.
4. Which team shot more efficiently?
Utah shot approximately 52% from the field, making 45 of 87 attempts. San Antonio shot approximately 39%, making 35 of 89 attempts. Utah’s higher overall shooting efficiency was a major factor in the win.
5. How many three-pointers did each team make?
San Antonio made 15 three-pointers on 42 attempts, while Utah made nine on 23 attempts. The Spurs made six more three-pointers, but the Jazz still won because of their stronger overall field-goal conversion.
6. Was this a regular-season game?
No. The matchup was an NBA preseason game. Its statistics are useful for evaluating the performance on that date, but the result should not be treated as a regular-season standings result.
Conclusion
The October 13, 2026, matchup between the San Antonio Spurs and Utah Jazz ended with a 119-109 victory for Utah. The result reflected a clear difference in shooting efficiency, with the Jazz converting 45 field goals compared with San Antonio’s 35.
The Spurs had several positive individual performances. Ja’Kobi Gillespie led San Antonio with 25 points, Harrison Barnes contributed 19, and Keldon Johnson and Jordan McLaughlin provided additional scoring and playmaking. Utah benefited from a balanced offensive effort, led by Darryn Peterson’s 14 points among the listed starters, with contributions from Jaren Jackson Jr., Keyonte George, Lauri Markkanen, and the bench.
The third quarter ultimately proved decisive. Utah outscored San Antonio 31-17, creating a 21-point lead entering the final period. Although the Spurs won the fourth quarter 31-20, their late improvement could not erase the deficit.
The most important finding from the san antonio spurs vs utah jazz match player stats is that scoring volume and scoring efficiency are different things. San Antonio made more three-pointers and free throws, but Utah converted more field goals overall. The Jazz also recorded more rebounds, assists, and steals in the supplied team statistics.
Because the game was part of the preseason, its result should be interpreted as a snapshot rather than a prediction of the entire season. Player statistics also need careful verification where different data extracts disagree. With those limitations acknowledged, the available figures provide a useful explanation of Utah’s win and the areas both teams can evaluate in subsequent games.
