Toronto Raptors vs Washington Wizards Match Player Stats
The toronto raptors vs washington wizards match player stats from November 22, 2025, tell the story of a dominant Toronto performance, with the Raptors defeating the Wizards 140-110 at Scotiabank Arena in Toronto, Ontario. Brandon Ingram and RJ Barrett led the scoring with 24 points each, while Scottie Barnes and Sandro Mamukelashvili added 23 points apiece. Toronto’s outstanding shooting efficiency, strong ball movement, and control of the rebounds helped the team secure a convincing 30-point victory in this NBA Cup Group Play matchup.
The final score was only part of the story. Toronto made 58% of its field-goal attempts and 50% of its three-point shots, while Washington struggled to match the home team’s efficiency. The Raptors also recorded 36 assists, collected 48 rebounds, and forced the Wizards into 17 turnovers. These numbers reveal how Toronto created scoring opportunities through both individual talent and collective execution.
For readers looking for a complete statistical breakdown, this article examines the final score, quarter-by-quarter results, individual player performances, team comparisons, bench production, shooting efficiency, and the most important lessons from the game. All player and team figures below are based on the supplied ESPN box-score data for this November 22 contest.
Toronto Raptors vs Washington Wizards Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The matchup brought together two teams with very different results on the night. Toronto produced 140 points through efficient shooting and balanced scoring, whereas Washington finished with 110 points despite scoring 33 in the fourth quarter.
Match Information
| Match Detail | Information |
| Match | Toronto Raptors vs Washington Wizards |
| Date | November 22, 2025 |
| Competition | NBA Cup, Group Play |
| Venue | Scotiabank Arena |
| Location | Toronto, Ontario, Canada |
| Attendance | 19,800 |
| Final Score | Toronto Raptors 140, Washington Wizards 110 |
| Winning Team | Toronto Raptors |
| Winning Margin | 30 points |
| Raptors’ Listed Record | 11-5 overall, 4-2 at home |
| Wizards’ Listed Record | 1-14 overall, 1-8 away |
| Top Raptors Scorers | Brandon Ingram and RJ Barrett, 24 points each |
| Top Wizards Scorer | CJ McCollum, 20 points |
| Season Series After Game | Toronto led 1-0 |
The listed records reflect the information displayed on the supplied ESPN page for this game. The statistical analysis focuses on the specific November 22 matchup rather than treating these figures as current team records.
Why Toronto Won by 30 Points
Three statistical advantages explain much of the result.
First, Toronto converted its field-goal attempts at a considerably higher rate. The Raptors made 48 of 83 shots, compared with Washington’s 39 of 86. That difference meant Toronto made nine more field goals despite attempting three fewer shots.
Second, the Raptors controlled the glass. They collected 48 rebounds against Washington’s 29, creating a 19-rebound advantage. This helped Toronto limit second-chance opportunities for the Wizards while giving its own offense additional possessions.
Third, Toronto moved the ball effectively. Its 36 assists compared with Washington’s 26 indicate a substantial difference in assisted scoring opportunities. Combined with Toronto’s 50% three-point shooting, that ball movement made it difficult for Washington to contain the Raptors consistently.
These figures provide a more complete explanation than the final score alone. Toronto did not depend on one player having an unusually productive night. Four Raptors scored at least 23 points, and the team received meaningful contributions from its bench.
Quarter-by-Quarter Score Breakdown
The Raptors established control early, extended their advantage dramatically in the third quarter, and maintained the lead through the final period.
| Quarter | Toronto Raptors | Washington Wizards | Quarter Result |
| First Quarter | 31 | 20 | Raptors +11 |
| Second Quarter | 26 | 27 | Wizards +1 |
| Third Quarter | 48 | 30 | Raptors +18 |
| Fourth Quarter | 35 | 33 | Raptors +2 |
| Final Score | 140 | 110 | Raptors +30 |
First Quarter: Toronto Sets the Tone
Toronto opened the game with 31 points while limiting Washington to 20. The 11-point difference established an early advantage and placed pressure on the Wizards to respond.
A strong opening quarter matters because it allows a team to manage the game without constantly chasing the score. Toronto could continue to attack while Washington needed to find ways to close the gap.
Second Quarter: Washington Finds a Response
Washington scored 27 points in the second quarter, one more than Toronto’s 26. The Wizards won the period by a single point, showing that they could produce offense against the Raptors.
However, a one-point quarter advantage did not erase Toronto’s 11-point lead from the opening period. At halftime, the Raptors remained in a favorable position.
Third Quarter: The Decisive 48-Point Explosion
The third quarter was the defining period of the game. Toronto scored 48 points, its highest-scoring quarter of the night, while Washington managed 30.
An 18-point advantage in one quarter transformed Toronto’s early lead into a commanding margin. The Raptors’ efficient shooting and balanced attack were particularly important here because the team could generate points from several players rather than rely on a single scoring option.
This quarter also illustrates why full-game statistics can be more informative when combined with scoring by period. A team might remain competitive over several stretches but still lose decisively because of one extended period of poor defensive execution.
Fourth Quarter: Toronto Protects Its Advantage
Washington scored 33 points in the final quarter, while Toronto added 35. The Wizards produced their highest-scoring quarter of the game, but the response came too late to change the result.
Toronto’s two-point advantage in the fourth quarter ensured that its lead remained intact. The Raptors finished with 140 points and a 30-point victory.
Toronto Raptors Player Stats: Complete Performance Analysis
Toronto’s scoring distribution was the most notable feature of its performance. Brandon Ingram, RJ Barrett, Scottie Barnes, and Sandro Mamukelashvili each reached at least 23 points, while Immanuel Quickley contributed 17.
The following table summarizes the key Raptors statistics included in the supplied box-score data.
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Steals | Blocks | FG |
| Brandon Ingram | 24 | 8 | 6 | 2 | 1 | 6/12 |
| RJ Barrett | 24 | 8 | 4 | 0 listed | 0 listed | 9/15 |
| Scottie Barnes | 23 | 5 | 2 | 3 | 0 listed | 10/15 |
| Sandro Mamukelashvili | 23 | 7 | 2 | 1 | 0 listed | 8/15 |
| Immanuel Quickley | 17 | 2 | 7 | 1 | 1 | 6/10 |
| Jakob Poeltl | 3 | 9 | 1 | 0 listed | 1 | 1/1 |
Note: A zero listed in the steals or blocks columns means no such statistic was included in the supplied player summary. It should not be interpreted as an independently verified full box-score entry.
Brandon Ingram: Efficient Scoring and All-Around Production
Brandon Ingram led Toronto’s scoring alongside RJ Barrett, finishing with 24 points, eight rebounds, six assists, two steals, and one block. He made six of 12 field-goal attempts and converted 12 of 13 free throws.
His free-throw performance was especially important. Ingram scored 12 of his 24 points at the line, demonstrating how getting to the basket, drawing contact, and converting free throws can contribute to an efficient scoring night even when three-point shots are not falling.
He attempted three three-pointers and missed all three, but his overall scoring output remained strong. His ability to contribute rebounds, assists, steals, and a block also made his performance more valuable than a points-only assessment would suggest.
The supplied data lists Ingram at +25 in plus/minus, the highest figure identified in the provided summary. That means Toronto outscored Washington by 25 points during his time on the court. Plus/minus does not measure individual responsibility on its own, but it provides additional context for his contribution to the winning lineup.
RJ Barrett: Strong Finishing and Consistent Scoring
RJ Barrett recorded 24 points, eight rebounds, and four assists. He made nine of 15 field-goal attempts, including two of five from three-point range, and finished four of eight at the free-throw line.
Barrett’s 60% field-goal percentage was a key strength. He converted nine shots from the field while contributing eight rebounds, helping Toronto maintain production across both scoring and possession battles.
His four assists also show that his role extended beyond finishing plays. While Ingram supplied a combination of scoring and playmaking, Barrett provided another reliable scoring option that Washington had to account for defensively.
Barrett’s eight missed free throws or field goals should not be conflated. He missed six field goals and four free throws, but the two categories have different effects on shooting efficiency. His field-goal production remained strong even though his free-throw conversion left room for improvement.
Scottie Barnes: Efficient Shooting and Defensive Activity
Scottie Barnes finished with 23 points, five rebounds, two assists, and three steals. He made 10 of 15 field-goal attempts and three of four three-pointers.
Barnes’ 66.7% field-goal percentage and 75% three-point percentage stand out. His three made shots from beyond the arc provided additional scoring value without requiring a large number of attempts.
The three steals also indicate that he contributed defensively. Steals can interrupt an opponent’s offensive possession and create transition opportunities, although the supplied totals do not identify the exact plays or show how many points Toronto scored following those turnovers.
Barnes’ performance illustrates the advantage of combining efficient shooting with defensive activity. He delivered 23 points while also creating opportunities for Toronto to disrupt Washington’s offense.
Sandro Mamukelashvili: A Major Bench Scoring Contribution
Sandro Mamukelashvili scored 23 points in 21 minutes, making him one of the game’s most productive reserve players. He added seven rebounds, two assists, and one steal.
His shooting line was eight of 15 from the field, two of three from three-point range, and five of six at the free-throw line. That combination gave Toronto a productive scoring option away from its primary starters.
Mamukelashvili’s contribution is especially notable because bench scoring can help maintain offensive pressure when starting players rest. Toronto did not need to depend exclusively on Ingram, Barrett, or Barnes to sustain its attack.
His 23 points matched Barnes’ total and were only one point below the game-high individual scoring mark. In 21 minutes, he supplied substantial production without requiring a starter-level workload.
Immanuel Quickley: The Secondary Playmaker
Immanuel Quickley recorded 17 points, two rebounds, seven assists, one steal, and one block. He made six of 10 field-goal attempts, three of six three-pointers, and both of his free throws.
Quickley’s seven assists were the second-highest total among the Raptors’ listed players. His ability to score efficiently while creating opportunities for teammates gave Toronto another dimension in the backcourt.
He made half of his three-point attempts, helping stretch Washington’s defense. When a guard can both create shots for teammates and punish defensive space with outside shooting, the opposing defense must account for multiple threats.
Quickley’s contribution also helps explain Toronto’s 36 team assists. The overall total was not produced by a single player; it reflected contributions from several players with different roles.
Jakob Poeltl: Rebounding and Interior Presence
Jakob Poeltl finished with three points, nine rebounds, one assist, and one block. He made his only field-goal attempt and recorded one of two free throws.
Poeltl’s scoring total was modest, but his nine rebounds were the highest among the Raptors’ listed players. Rebounding is a central part of a center’s contribution because securing missed shots can prevent opponents from extending possessions and allow the offense to begin a new attack.
His one made field goal from one attempt also shows why raw point totals do not fully describe a player’s performance. Poeltl’s principal statistical contribution in this game came through rebounding and interior defense rather than a high volume of shots.
Washington Wizards Player Stats: Complete Performance Analysis
Washington scored 110 points, but the team’s shooting efficiency and possession control were not strong enough to match Toronto. CJ McCollum led the Wizards with 20 points, while rookie guard Tre Johnson added 14 and Cam Whitmore finished with 11.
The supplied player data shows that Washington had several players contribute offensively, but few matched Toronto’s combination of scoring efficiency and all-around production.
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Steals | Blocks | FG |
| CJ McCollum | 20 | 3 | 3 | 1 | 0 listed | 8/15 |
| Khris Middleton | 2 | 2 | 4 | 0 listed | 1 | 1/6 |
| Tristan Vukcevic | 4 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 listed | 2/6 |
| Kyshawn George | 5 | 3 | 4 | 0 listed | 2 | 2/7 |
| Bilal Coulibaly | 9 | 3 | 2 | 2 | 0 listed | 1/6 |
| Corey Kispert | 9 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 listed | 3/6 |
| Malaki Branham | 9 | 1 | 0 listed | 0 listed | 0 listed | 2/3 |
| Cam Whitmore | 11 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 0 listed | 5/9 |
| Jamir Watkins | 5 | Not listed | Not listed | Not listed | Not listed | 1/3 |
| Bub Carrington | 7 | 2 | 3 | 0 listed | 0 listed | 3/5 |
| Will Riley | 4 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 listed | 2/5 |
| Tre Johnson | 14 | 2 | 2 | 0 listed | 1 | 5/8 |
Note: This table reproduces the player lines supplied for the article. Where a statistic was not included in the source summary, it is marked as not listed rather than assumed to be zero.
CJ McCollum: Washington’s Leading Scorer
CJ McCollum led Washington with 20 points, three rebounds, three assists, and one steal. He made eight of 15 field-goal attempts, including two of seven from three-point range, and converted two of three free throws.
McCollum’s field-goal percentage was approximately 53.3%, making him one of Washington’s more efficient high-volume scorers. However, his three-point shooting was less successful, with two makes on seven attempts.
His 20 points represented Washington’s highest individual scoring total in the supplied data. The challenge was that Toronto had four players score at least 23 points, giving the Raptors a wider range of scoring threats.
McCollum also recorded three assists, but the Wizards’ 26 team assists indicate that playmaking was distributed among several players. His scoring helped Washington reach 110 points, yet it was not enough to compensate for the team’s defensive and rebounding disadvantages.
Tre Johnson: A Productive Shooting Performance
Tre Johnson scored 14 points, grabbed two rebounds, recorded two assists, and blocked one shot. He made five of eight field-goal attempts, including three of five three-pointers, and converted one of two free throws.
His 62.5% field-goal percentage and 60% three-point percentage represented an efficient scoring performance. Johnson’s three made three-pointers were particularly valuable because they allowed him to generate 14 points from only eight field-goal attempts.
His performance was one of the clearest positive individual takeaways for Washington. It demonstrated that the Wizards had players capable of converting efficiently, even during a game in which the overall team struggled.
The broader issue was consistency across the lineup. Johnson’s shooting success could not offset Toronto’s much higher team field-goal percentage and larger number of rebounds.
Cam Whitmore: An Important Supporting Scorer
Cam Whitmore finished with 11 points, two rebounds, one assist, and one steal. He made five of nine field-goal attempts, including one of two from beyond the arc.
Whitmore’s 55.6% field-goal percentage was solid, and his scoring provided support behind McCollum and Johnson. However, he recorded only one assist in the supplied summary, so his main statistical contribution was finishing shots rather than creating a large number of scoring chances for teammates.
In a game where Toronto had four players score 23 or more points, Washington needed more sustained production from its supporting scorers. Whitmore’s performance was useful, but the team needed a broader combination of efficient scoring, rebounding, and defensive stops to remain competitive.
Bilal Coulibaly: Free Throws Kept His Scoring Total Moving
Bilal Coulibaly scored nine points, grabbed three rebounds, recorded two assists, and collected two steals. His field-goal line was one of six, and he missed all five three-point attempts, but he made seven of eight free throws.
This is a useful example of why scoring totals need context. Coulibaly’s nine points did not come primarily from successful field-goal attempts. Free throws accounted for seven of those points.
His two steals also provided defensive activity, but the overall shooting line shows an area that Washington needed to improve. Converting more shots from the field would have made his scoring production less dependent on trips to the free-throw line.
Khris Middleton: A Difficult Shooting Night
Khris Middleton recorded two points, two rebounds, four assists, and one block. He made one of six field-goal attempts and missed all three of his three-point attempts.
Middleton’s four assists were a positive element of his line, indicating that he still contributed to creating scoring opportunities. However, his low scoring total reflected a difficult shooting performance.
Against a team shooting 58% from the field, Washington needed both efficient offense and stronger defensive execution. The supplied numbers do not establish how individual defensive assignments affected the result, so Middleton’s statistics should be evaluated as one part of the team’s overall performance rather than a complete measure of his impact.
Raptors vs Wizards Team Statistics Comparison
The team totals reveal the most important differences between the two sides. Toronto had advantages in field-goal percentage, three-point percentage, rebounds, assists, steals, and turnovers.
| Team Statistic | Toronto Raptors | Washington Wizards |
| Points | 140 | 110 |
| Field Goals Made/Attempted | 48/83 | 39/86 |
| Field-Goal Percentage | 58% | 45% |
| Three-Pointers Made/Attempted | 14/28 | 12/41 |
| Three-Point Percentage | 50% | 29% |
| Free Throws Made/Attempted | 30/39 | 20/24 |
| Free-Throw Percentage | 77% | 83% |
| Total Rebounds | 48 | 29 |
| Offensive Rebounds | 13 | 7 |
| Defensive Rebounds | 35 | 22 |
| Assists | 36 | 26 |
| Turnovers | 14 | 17 |
| Steals | 13 | 9 |
| Blocks | 4 | 4 |
| Personal Fouls | 20 | 22 |
Field-Goal Efficiency: Toronto Made More of Its Chances
Toronto made 48 of 83 field-goal attempts, while Washington converted 39 of 86. The Raptors therefore made nine more shots despite attempting three fewer.
That difference reflects both shot-making and the value of selecting and creating efficient attempts. The supplied box score does not include a complete shot-location breakdown, so it cannot establish exactly how many points came from the paint, midrange, or transition. Nevertheless, the team percentages clearly show that Toronto converted its opportunities more successfully.
Three-Point Shooting: The Biggest Percentage Gap
Toronto made 14 of 28 three-pointers, an exact rate of 50%. Washington made 12 of 41, approximately 29.3%.
The Raptors therefore made two more three-pointers on 13 fewer attempts. This is one of the clearest statistical explanations for the 30-point margin.
Three-point shooting also has a direct effect on scoring efficiency because each successful shot from beyond the arc is worth three points. Toronto scored 42 points from three-pointers, compared with Washington’s 36. The six-point difference in three-point scoring was meaningful, but it was only one part of a much larger offensive advantage.
Free Throws: Washington Had the Higher Percentage
Washington converted 20 of 24 free throws, approximately 83.3%, while Toronto made 30 of 39, approximately 76.9%.
The Wizards were more accurate at the line, but Toronto attempted 15 more free throws and made 10 more. As a result, Toronto scored 30 points from free throws, compared with Washington’s 20.
This distinction is important when comparing percentages. A team can have a higher conversion rate at the free-throw line without scoring more points there if it attempts fewer shots.
Rebounding: A 19-Rebound Toronto Advantage
Toronto collected 48 rebounds, including 13 offensive and 35 defensive rebounds. Washington recorded 29 rebounds, with seven offensive and 22 defensive.
The 19-rebound gap was substantial. Toronto secured six more offensive rebounds and 13 more defensive rebounds than Washington.
Defensive rebounds help end an opponent’s possession, while offensive rebounds can create additional chances to score. The totals indicate that Toronto controlled both sides of the rebounding battle.
However, the box score alone cannot establish how many second-chance points either team scored. Rebound totals measure possession recovery, not the exact points that follow.
Assists: Toronto’s Ball Movement Stood Out
Toronto recorded 36 assists, compared with Washington’s 26. That is a difference of 10 assists.
A high assist total can indicate that players are creating and converting opportunities for teammates rather than relying entirely on individual shot creation. Toronto’s total was consistent with its strong field-goal percentage and balanced scoring distribution.
The Raptors also had several individual contributors who could handle the ball and make decisions. Ingram recorded six assists, Quickley had seven, and Jamal Shead recorded 10 assists in 16 minutes, according to the supplied game highlights.
Shead’s contribution is especially noteworthy because he provided significant playmaking in limited playing time. His 10 assists also help explain why Toronto’s collective assist total was so high.
Turnovers and Defensive Activity
Washington committed 17 turnovers, compared with Toronto’s 14. The Raptors also recorded 13 steals, while the Wizards had nine.
A three-turnover difference may appear modest, but it becomes more important when considered alongside Toronto’s shooting efficiency and rebounding advantage. Every turnover ends a possession without a field-goal attempt, and steals can create opportunities for a quick offensive response.
Still, the available data does not identify the precise points scored off turnovers or the number of transition possessions. It is therefore more accurate to say that Toronto won the turnover comparison and produced more steals than to assign a specific number of points to those events.
Both teams recorded four blocks. The difference in defensive results was therefore more visible in shooting disruption, steals, and possession control than in the raw block total.
The Statistical Meaning Behind Toronto’s 140 Points
A 140-point performance can result from several different combinations of shooting, free throws, turnovers, and rebounding. In this game, Toronto benefited from multiple advantages at the same time.
A More Efficient Overall Shooting Night
Toronto’s effective field-goal percentage accounts for the additional value of three-pointers. Using the supplied totals, the calculation is:
Effective field-goal percentage = (Field Goals Made + 0.5 × Three-Pointers Made) ÷ Field-Goal Attempts.
For Toronto, the calculation is (48 + 0.5 × 14) ÷ 83, or approximately 66.3%.
For Washington, it is (39 + 0.5 × 12) ÷ 86, or approximately 52.3%.
This produces an effective field-goal percentage advantage of roughly 14 percentage points for Toronto. The difference is substantial because it incorporates both overall field-goal conversion and the extra value of three-point shots.
Balanced Scoring Reduced Toronto’s Dependence on One Player
Ingram and Barrett each scored 24 points, while Barnes and Mamukelashvili added 23 each. Quickley contributed another 17.
This distribution made Toronto’s offense harder to predict. Washington could not focus exclusively on one scorer without leaving other productive players available.
The Raptors’ balanced production also provided flexibility. If one player missed shots, other players were capable of maintaining the scoring pace. The game statistics support this conclusion, although they do not show the precise defensive assignments or tactical adjustments used during individual possessions.
Bench Production Helped Sustain the Offensive Output
Mamukelashvili’s 23 points in 21 minutes and Shead’s 10 assists in 16 minutes demonstrate that Toronto received substantial contributions from players outside its main scoring group.
Bench production is particularly valuable in a high-scoring game because rotations create opportunities for opposing defenses to target less experienced lineups or exploit changes in matchups. Toronto’s reserve contributions helped the team maintain offensive productivity.
It would be inaccurate, however, to claim that the bench alone determined the outcome. Toronto’s starters also delivered major scoring performances, and the result came from a combination of individual execution and team-wide statistical advantages.
What the Numbers Reveal About Washington’s Defeat
Washington’s 110 points show that the Wizards were capable of producing offense. Their fourth-quarter total of 33 points also demonstrates that they continued scoring late in the game.
The main problem was not simply a lack of points. It was the difference between how efficiently the teams generated those points.
The Three-Point Attempt Gap
Washington attempted 41 three-pointers, 13 more than Toronto, but made only two fewer. The Wizards’ 29% conversion rate meant that many of those attempts did not produce the scoring return the team needed.
Three-point volume can be valuable when shots are converted at a strong rate. When the percentage drops, however, a high volume of missed attempts can place additional pressure on the defense and rebounding unit.
Toronto’s 50% conversion rate gave the Raptors a much greater return from their outside shooting. The comparison suggests that Washington’s shot-making efficiency was a central factor in the loss.
The Rebounding Deficit Limited Possession Control
Washington’s 29 rebounds were well below Toronto’s 48. The Wizards also recorded only seven offensive rebounds, compared with Toronto’s 13.
This disparity reduced Washington’s ability to extend possessions through offensive rebounds and indicated that Toronto was more successful at securing missed shots. Although the totals do not reveal every possession sequence, the overall rebounding gap was too large to overlook.
Scoring Contributions Were Less Concentrated at the Top
McCollum led Washington with 20 points, followed by Johnson with 14 and Whitmore with 11. Several other players finished with nine points or fewer.
Toronto, by comparison, had four players score at least 23 points. That difference in top-end scoring production helped Toronto build and maintain its advantage.
The distinction is not that every player on a winning team must score heavily. Rather, the Raptors had multiple high-volume scoring options who also converted their opportunities efficiently. Washington needed a more effective combination of individual scoring and collective defense to match that output.
Head-to-Head Statistical Takeaways
The most useful way to evaluate this game is to consider several statistics together instead of treating any single number as a complete explanation.
- Toronto’s shooting advantage was decisive. The Raptors made 58% of their field goals and 50% of their three-pointers.
- The rebounding gap was unusually large. Toronto finished with 48 rebounds against Washington’s 29.
- Ball movement favored Toronto. The Raptors recorded 36 assists, 10 more than the Wizards.
- Toronto had more balanced scoring. Four Raptors reached at least 23 points, compared with Washington’s leading total of 20.
- Washington performed better at the free-throw line by percentage. The Wizards converted approximately 83% of their attempts, but Toronto made 10 more free throws.
- The third quarter changed the game’s shape. Toronto outscored Washington 48-30 in that period.
- Both teams recorded four blocks. The defensive difference appeared more clearly in rebounds, steals, turnovers, and shooting efficiency.
Taken together, these figures explain why the Raptors won by 30 points. Toronto was more accurate from the field, generated more assisted offense, recovered more rebounds, and received scoring from multiple players.
How to Interpret Basketball Player Statistics Correctly
Box scores are useful for comparing performances, but they need to be read in context. Points alone do not measure a player’s full contribution, and percentages can be misleading when sample sizes are small.
Look Beyond Points
A player who scores 20 points on 15 field-goal attempts has produced a different statistical result from a player who scores 20 points on 25 attempts. Rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, and turnovers provide further context.
In this matchup, Ingram’s 24 points came with eight rebounds and six assists. Quickley’s 17 points came with seven assists. Poeltl scored only three points but collected nine rebounds. Each line represents a different type of contribution.
Compare Attempts With Conversion Rates
Shooting percentages are most useful when paired with the number of attempts. Barnes’ three makes on four three-point attempts represented 75% shooting, but four attempts are a relatively small sample.
Washington’s 41 three-point attempts provide a larger sample, making its 29% conversion rate a more substantial part of the team comparison. Neither figure guarantees how a player or team would shoot in a future game.
Use Team Statistics to Understand Individual Results
A player’s performance can be affected by the quality of team offense, available shooting space, rebounding support, and defensive pressure. For that reason, individual statistics should be read alongside team totals.
Toronto’s 36 assists and 48 rebounds provide important context for its individual scoring numbers. They indicate that the Raptors’ offensive success was supported by ball movement and possession control, rather than scoring alone.
Recognize the Limits of a Single Box Score
A box score does not show every screen, defensive rotation, missed assignment, or off-ball movement. It also does not establish whether a player was responsible for a particular team-level result.
For deeper analysis, box scores can be combined with official play-by-play records, shot charts, video, and lineup data. These additional sources help explain how the numbers developed during the game.
Official Records and Further Statistical Verification
For readers who want to check individual player lines or investigate particular possessions, ESPN provides several relevant records for this matchup.
The official ESPN box score is the most direct reference for the player and team totals discussed here.
The box score should remain the primary source when checking points, rebounds, assists, shooting attempts, and other recorded statistics. The supplied data forms the basis of this article, and any discrepancies should be resolved by reviewing the official game record rather than assuming missing figures.
For a detailed explanation of basketball analytics, readers can also consult official NBA statistics resources. Measures such as effective field-goal percentage, true shooting percentage, usage rate, and offensive rating can provide more context than basic box-score categories, but each metric answers a different question.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. What was the final score of the Toronto Raptors vs Washington Wizards game on November 22, 2025?
The Toronto Raptors defeated the Washington Wizards 140-110 at Scotiabank Arena in Toronto. The Raptors won by 30 points in an NBA Cup Group Play matchup.
2. Who was the top scorer in the game?
Brandon Ingram and RJ Barrett were Toronto’s leading scorers with 24 points each. CJ McCollum led Washington with 20 points.
3. Which Raptors players scored 23 or more points?
Brandon Ingram scored 24 points, RJ Barrett scored 24, Scottie Barnes scored 23, and Sandro Mamukelashvili scored 23. All four players reached at least 23 points.
4. How many rebounds did the Raptors and Wizards record?
Toronto collected 48 total rebounds, while Washington recorded 29. The Raptors finished with a 19-rebound advantage.
5. Which team shot better from three-point range?
Toronto shot 50% from three-point range, making 14 of 28 attempts. Washington made 12 of 41 attempts, shooting approximately 29%.
6. Why did Toronto win by such a large margin?
Toronto combined efficient field-goal shooting, strong three-point accuracy, balanced scoring, 36 assists, and a 19-rebound advantage. Its 48-point third quarter also helped establish a lead that Washington could not overcome.
Conclusion
The November 22, 2025, matchup between Toronto and Washington was a convincing example of how shooting efficiency, balanced scoring, and control of possessions can determine an NBA result. The Raptors won 140-110, led by 24-point performances from Brandon Ingram and RJ Barrett, while Scottie Barnes and Sandro Mamukelashvili each added 23 points.
Toronto’s 58% field-goal shooting, 50% three-point accuracy, 36 assists, and 48 rebounds explain much of the difference. Washington received 20 points from CJ McCollum and efficient contributions from players such as Tre Johnson, but the team could not match Toronto’s overall production.
The 48-30 third quarter was the turning point, transforming an early lead into a decisive advantage. The Raptors’ ability to score through multiple players and control the rebounding battle made the difference more significant than any individual scoring total alone.
For anyone studying basketball performance, this game demonstrates why player statistics are most informative when viewed together. Points show who scored, shooting percentages reveal efficiency, assists help explain team creation, and rebounds provide insight into possession control. Taken as a complete picture, the numbers offer a clear explanation of Toronto’s dominant win.
