Toronto Raptors vs Oklahoma City Thunder Match Player Stats
The toronto raptors vs oklahoma city thunder match player stats from January 26, 2026, tell the story of a hard-fought NBA contest in which Toronto defeated Oklahoma City 103-101 at Paycom Center. Despite entering the game with a strong 37-10 record and a 20-5 home record, the Thunder could not protect their advantage. The Raptors combined efficient three-point shooting, strong rebounding, balanced scoring, and timely defensive plays to secure a two-point road victory. Immanuel Quickley led Toronto with 23 points, while Shai Gilgeous-Alexander scored 24 for Oklahoma City. The result demonstrated how perimeter efficiency, possession control, and contributions from multiple players can determine a close game even when one team has an impressive regular-season record.
This detailed breakdown examines the final score, individual player performances, team statistics, quarter-by-quarter scoring, shooting efficiency, bench contributions, and the tactical factors that shaped the result. All player statistics and game details below follow the supplied ESPN box-score data. Where the supplied figures contain inconsistencies, those limitations are identified rather than silently corrected.
Game Overview: Toronto Raptors vs Oklahoma City Thunder Match Player Stats
The matchup brought together a Toronto team looking to earn a valuable road win and an Oklahoma City team seeking to defend its home court. The final result was decided by just two points, making the differences in shooting efficiency, rebounding, and defensive execution especially important.
| Game Detail | Information |
| Matchup | Toronto Raptors vs Oklahoma City Thunder |
| Date | January 26, 2026 |
| Venue | Paycom Center |
| Location | Oklahoma City, Oklahoma |
| Attendance | 18,203 |
| Final Score | Raptors 103, Thunder 101 |
| Winner | Toronto Raptors |
| Leading Raptors Scorer | Immanuel Quickley, 23 points |
| Leading Thunder Scorer | Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, 24 points |
| Raptors Field Goal Percentage | 43% |
| Thunder Field Goal Percentage | 44% |
| Raptors Three-Point Percentage | 35% |
| Thunder Three-Point Percentage | 26% |
| Raptors Total Rebounds | 51 |
| Thunder Total Rebounds | 37 |
| Raptors Assists | 28 |
| Thunder Assists | 21 |
Toronto secured the win despite recording a slightly lower overall field goal percentage than Oklahoma City. The decisive difference came from the three-point line and the glass. Toronto made 12 of 34 three-point attempts, while Oklahoma City converted 11 of 43. The Raptors also collected 14 more rebounds and recorded seven additional assists.
Those numbers help explain the result. The Thunder had opportunities to win, but Toronto generated more productive possessions and made better use of its perimeter attempts.
What the Final Score Reveals
A 103-101 result is close enough that a few possessions can change the outcome. Neither team dominated the scoreboard throughout the entire contest. Instead, the game featured alternating stretches of control.
Oklahoma City began strongly, Toronto responded in the second quarter, and the Thunder regained momentum after halftime. The Raptors then held firm in the fourth quarter, limiting the home team’s scoring to 20 points.
Three factors stand out:
- Three-point efficiency: Toronto converted a higher percentage of its perimeter attempts.
- Rebounding advantage: The Raptors finished with 51 rebounds, compared with Oklahoma City’s 37.
- Fourth-quarter defense: Toronto conceded only 20 points in the final period, matching the Thunder’s lowest-scoring quarter.
The margin was narrow, but the supporting statistics suggest that Toronto’s victory was not simply a matter of one fortunate final possession. The Raptors created advantages in several important areas over the course of the game.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Analysis
The scoring progression shows how the momentum shifted between the two teams. Oklahoma City started quickly, Toronto took control of the second quarter, and the Thunder responded with their strongest offensive period after halftime.
| Quarter | Toronto Raptors | Oklahoma City Thunder | Quarter Winner |
| First | 25 | 30 | Oklahoma City |
| Second | 29 | 20 | Toronto |
| Third | 25 | 31 | Oklahoma City |
| Fourth | 24 | 20 | Toronto |
| Total | 103 | 101 | Toronto |
First Quarter: Oklahoma City Establishes Early Control
The Thunder opened the game with 30 points, five more than Toronto. Their early scoring gave them an initial advantage and put the Raptors in a position where they needed to respond offensively.
Oklahoma City’s overall field goal percentage finished at 44%, slightly above Toronto’s 43%. That small difference suggests the Thunder were capable of generating quality scoring opportunities. However, their eventual three-point percentage of 26% indicates that perimeter shooting would become a major limitation as the game progressed.
Toronto’s first-quarter total of 25 was not disastrous, but the Raptors needed a stronger response to avoid allowing the home team to dictate the pace.
Second Quarter: Toronto Changes the Direction of the Game
The Raptors scored 29 points in the second quarter while holding Oklahoma City to 20. Toronto therefore gained a nine-point advantage in the period, enough to erase the Thunder’s five-point opening-quarter lead and move ahead by four at halftime.
This was an important stretch because it showed Toronto could respond after a difficult start without depending on a single scorer. The team’s 28 assists for the game support the broader picture of shared offensive responsibility, although the supplied data does not identify every assist by quarter.
The second-quarter turnaround also highlights a basic principle of basketball analysis: a team’s overall record or reputation does not guarantee control of individual periods. Toronto won the middle quarter by creating a more favorable scoring balance.
Third Quarter: The Thunder Strike Back
Oklahoma City produced 31 points in the third quarter, its highest-scoring period of the game. Toronto scored 25, giving the Thunder a six-point advantage in the quarter.
That response restored Oklahoma City’s momentum and made the final period decisive. The Thunder had enough offensive production to remain in contention, but their high volume of three-point attempts did not translate into strong long-range efficiency across the game.
Toronto entered the final quarter needing to manage a close contest rather than simply rely on its earlier scoring run.
Fourth Quarter: Toronto Delivers the Winning Response
The Raptors scored 24 points in the fourth quarter and limited Oklahoma City to 20. That four-point advantage was enough to produce the final two-point margin.
The final period was especially important because the Thunder had just scored 31 points in the third. Toronto’s ability to reduce that output to 20 helped prevent the home team from carrying its offensive momentum into the closing minutes.
The available figures do not establish the exact sequence of the final possessions, so it would be inaccurate to assign the victory to a specific late-game play without a verified play-by-play record. The quarter totals nevertheless establish that Toronto finished the game with the stronger scoring balance.
Toronto Raptors Player Stats and Individual Performances
Toronto’s victory featured several useful contributions beyond the leading scorer. Immanuel Quickley delivered the highest point total among the listed Raptors, Scottie Barnes contributed across multiple statistical categories, and RJ Barrett supplied efficient perimeter scoring in limited minutes.
The following table summarizes the principal Toronto player statistics supplied for the game.
| Player | MIN | PTS | REB | AST | STL | BLK | FG |
| Immanuel Quickley | 32 | 23 | 11 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 7-14 |
| RJ Barrett | 21 | 14 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 6-12 |
| Brandon Ingram | 36 | 13 | 5 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 5-18 |
| Scottie Barnes | 32 | 10 | 11 | 8 | 1 | 3 | 3-8 |
| Sandro Mamukelashvili | 32 | 10 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 3-8 |
| Gradey Dick | 21 | 10 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4-7 |
| Jamal Shead | 24 | 9 | 4 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 4-9 |
| Ja’Kobe Walter | 28 | 9 | 3 | 2 | 3 | 0 | 3-8 |
| Ochai Agbaji | 15 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 2-2 |
MIN = minutes, PTS = points, REB = rebounds, AST = assists, STL = steals, BLK = blocks, and FG = field goals made and attempted.
The listed player totals may not reconcile perfectly with the team totals in the supplied data. The table therefore reproduces the individual figures as provided rather than presenting them as a fully reconciled official statistical record.
Immanuel Quickley: Toronto’s Leading Scorer
Quickley led Toronto with 23 points in 32 minutes. He made seven of 14 field goal attempts, including six of 10 from three-point range, and converted three of four free throws.
His three-point shooting was particularly influential. Quickley made six three-pointers, accounting for half of Toronto’s 12 made threes. He also recorded 11 rebounds, two assists, two steals, and only one turnover.
Quickley’s performance combined perimeter scoring with meaningful work away from the ball. Eleven rebounds from a guard are a significant contribution, especially in a game where Toronto finished with a substantial team rebounding advantage.
His shooting line also illustrates the value of shot selection. Quickley made 60% of his three-point attempts, while the Thunder converted 26% of their attempts from beyond the arc as a team. Those percentages are not a direct player-versus-team comparison, but they highlight the difference between Quickley’s individual perimeter success and Oklahoma City’s broader shooting struggles.
Quickley did not need to lead Toronto in assists to have a major offensive impact. His ability to convert long-range attempts gave the Raptors an important scoring source while allowing other players to contribute through rebounding, playmaking, and defense.
Scottie Barnes: A Complete All-Around Contribution
Barnes finished with 10 points, 11 rebounds, eight assists, one steal, and three blocks in 32 minutes. His plus/minus was listed at +15, the strongest figure among the Raptors players included in the supplied data.
His scoring total does not fully reflect his influence. Barnes collected a double-double through points and rebounds, while his eight assists helped Toronto create opportunities for teammates.
The defensive numbers are equally notable. Three blocks provided direct rim protection, while 11 rebounds helped the Raptors secure possessions at both ends of the court. Barnes also recorded three offensive rebounds, according to the supplied player line.
A player who contributes in these areas can influence the game even when he is not the team’s leading scorer. Barnes helped connect Toronto’s offensive possessions while providing defensive support around the basket.
His +15 plus/minus indicates that Toronto outscored Oklahoma City by 15 points during his minutes on the floor. It does not mean Barnes personally scored 15 points more than his opponents, nor does it isolate his individual contribution from that of his teammates. It is best interpreted alongside his rebounding, passing, and defensive statistics.
RJ Barrett: Efficient Scoring in Limited Minutes
Barrett recorded 14 points in 21 minutes, shooting six of 12 from the field and two of three from three-point range. He also collected six rebounds and two steals.
His 50% field goal shooting and 66.7% three-point shooting gave Toronto another efficient perimeter option. Barrett’s contribution was valuable because the Raptors did not have to depend exclusively on Quickley’s outside shooting.
Barrett’s two steals also helped the defensive effort. Steals can disrupt an opponent’s offensive rhythm and create transition opportunities, although the supplied box score does not specify how many points Toronto scored directly after his steals.
His +2 plus/minus was modestly positive. That figure is consistent with a useful contribution during his playing time, but it should not be treated as an independent measure of overall performance.
Brandon Ingram: Playmaking and Rim Protection Despite Shooting Difficulties
Ingram played 36 minutes, the highest total among the listed Raptors players. He scored 13 points on five-of-18 shooting, including zero makes on three three-point attempts, and converted three of four free throws.
His shooting efficiency was below that of Quickley and Barrett. A five-of-18 field goal line represents approximately 27.8% shooting, making his scoring less efficient than Toronto needed from a player with substantial playing time.
However, his contribution was not limited to scoring. Ingram recorded five rebounds, four assists, and two blocks while committing one turnover.
The two blocks were particularly useful within a team performance that included six total blocks. His four assists also helped maintain offensive movement even when his own shots were not falling consistently.
This is an important distinction when assessing a box score. A difficult shooting night can reduce a player’s offensive efficiency without eliminating every other form of value. Ingram’s minutes, passing, and rim protection remained relevant to the contest.
Sandro Mamukelashvili: Frontcourt Support and Rebounding
Mamukelashvili contributed 10 points and five rebounds in 32 minutes. He shot three of eight from the field and four of eight from the free-throw line, while also recording three assists, one steal, and one block.
His free-throw percentage was 50%, leaving opportunities unused at the line. In a two-point game, missed free throws can be important, but the available figures do not establish that his misses directly determined the result.
He also recorded four personal fouls and a -8 plus/minus. Those numbers provide context for his performance but do not tell the entire story of his defensive assignments or the circumstances of each foul.
His three assists helped support Toronto’s team total of 28, and his five rebounds added to the Raptors’ overall advantage on the glass.
Gradey Dick: Reliable Shooting from the Field
Dick scored 10 points in 21 minutes, making four of seven field goal attempts and two of three three-point attempts. He added three rebounds and one assist.
His field goal percentage was approximately 57.1%, while his three-point percentage was 66.7%. Those figures made him one of Toronto’s more efficient listed scorers in this matchup.
Dick’s contribution shows why bench and secondary scoring matter in close games. A player does not need a high shot volume to provide useful offensive production. Converting a limited number of attempts efficiently can help sustain a team’s scoring while the primary options share the offensive workload.
His listed plus/minus of -3 indicates that Toronto was outscored during his minutes, despite his efficient shooting. This is a reminder that individual shooting performance and overall on-court scoring margin measure different things.
Jamal Shead: Secondary Playmaking
Shead finished with nine points, four rebounds, and five assists in 24 minutes. He made four of nine field goal attempts and one of five three-point attempts.
His five assists were the second-highest total among the listed Raptors players, behind Barnes. Shead also recorded one steal and committed one turnover.
The five assists against one turnover suggest a productive balance between creating opportunities and protecting possession. His three-point shooting was less successful, but his overall contribution included playmaking and defensive activity.
Shead’s +1 plus/minus was slightly positive, indicating that Toronto held a small scoring advantage during his time on the court.
Ja’Kobe Walter: Defensive Activity from the Bench
Walter recorded nine points, three rebounds, two assists, and three steals in 28 minutes. He made three of eight field goal attempts and one of six three-point attempts, while converting both free throws.
His three steals were the highest total among the listed Toronto players. Those defensive plays helped support a team total of 10 steals, twice Oklahoma City’s five.
Walter’s +12 plus/minus was another strong number. While plus/minus cannot establish individual causation, the combination of defensive activity and a positive on-court margin makes his performance worth noting.
His shooting from three-point range was inefficient, but his defensive production illustrates how a reserve can contribute without being one of the team’s most accurate shooters.
Ochai Agbaji: Productive Work in a Short Appearance
Agbaji played 15 minutes and scored five points, making both of his field goal attempts. He added three rebounds, one assist, and three offensive rebounds.
His perfect field goal percentage was encouraging, although two attempts are too small a sample to support a broad conclusion about his shooting ability. He also recorded one turnover and two personal fouls.
Three offensive rebounds in 15 minutes provided extra-possession opportunities. Offensive rebounds can be especially useful when a team is trying to sustain attacks after missed shots, though the supplied data does not specify the direct scoring outcome of each rebound.
The five-point contribution was modest in volume but complemented Toronto’s broader pattern of receiving production from multiple players.
Oklahoma City Thunder Player Stats and Individual Performances
The Thunder had the game’s leading scorer in Shai Gilgeous-Alexander and received important contributions from Luguentz Dort, Kenrich Williams, and several other rotation players. However, their 26% three-point shooting was a major weakness relative to Toronto’s 35%.
| Player | MIN | PTS | REB | AST | STL | BLK | FG |
| Shai Gilgeous-Alexander | 35 | 24 | 3 | 6 | 1 | 2 | 8-11 |
| Luguentz Dort | 36 | 19 | 8 | 2 | 2 | 0 | 6-10 |
| Chet Holmgren | 29 | 11 | 10 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 5-10 |
| Kenrich Williams | 28 | 15 | 5 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 4-11 |
| Aaron Wiggins | 29 | 11 | 3 | 4 | 0 | 2 | 3-10 |
| Isaiah Joe | 22 | 10 | 1 | 2 | 1 | 0 | 3-9 |
| Jaylin Williams | 21 | 5 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2-7 |
| Ousmane Dieng | 20 | 3 | 2 | 4 | 0 | 0 | 1-3 |
| Cason Wallace | 16 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 1-3 |
| Brooks Barnhizer | 3 | 0 | 1 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0-1 |
The player figures above are reproduced from the supplied data. As with Toronto, the listed individual totals should be treated cautiously where they do not reconcile with the team totals.
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander: Oklahoma City’s Leading Scorer
Gilgeous-Alexander scored 24 points in 35 minutes, making eight of 11 field goal attempts. He converted eight of 10 free throws and finished with six assists, three rebounds, one steal, and two blocks.
His field goal percentage was approximately 72.7%, an outstanding mark for the supplied shooting line. His 24 points led all listed players, and his six assists helped create opportunities for teammates.
The most striking detail is that he made only one of his three-point attempts. His scoring therefore came primarily from two-point field goals and free throws, rather than from a high volume of perimeter shooting.
Gilgeous-Alexander’s performance was highly efficient individually, but basketball games are decided by total team production. Toronto’s rebounding advantage and superior three-point percentage offset his strong scoring output.
His -3 plus/minus indicates that Oklahoma City was outscored by three points during his minutes. That number does not contradict his individual efficiency. A player can score effectively while his team loses the overall minutes played around him.
Luguentz Dort: Strong Scoring and Rebounding
Dort scored 19 points in 36 minutes, making six of 10 field goal attempts and four of eight three-point attempts. He also converted three of five free throws and collected eight rebounds, two assists, and two steals.
His four made three-pointers were the highest total among the listed Thunder players. Dort’s 50% three-point shooting was considerably better than the team’s overall percentage of 26%.
He also contributed on the glass, recording eight rebounds. That total placed him behind only the double-digit rebound performances listed for Toronto’s Barnes and Quickley and Oklahoma City’s Holmgren.
Dort’s +3 plus/minus was positive, indicating that Oklahoma City outscored Toronto during his minutes. His individual performance was therefore a bright spot in a narrow defeat.
The broader issue was that his perimeter efficiency was not matched consistently by the rest of the team. A strong shooting performance from one rotation player cannot always compensate for a large volume of missed attempts elsewhere.
Chet Holmgren: Double-Digit Rebounds but Limited Playmaking
Holmgren recorded 11 points and 10 rebounds in 29 minutes, shooting five of 10 from the field. He also recorded two offensive rebounds, eight defensive rebounds, and two turnovers.
His double-double provided valuable frontcourt production. Ten rebounds helped Oklahoma City compete around the basket, although the team still finished 14 rebounds behind Toronto.
Holmgren did not record an assist, steal, or block in the supplied line. That does not mean he had no defensive influence, since a box score cannot capture every contested shot, altered attempt, or positional contribution.
His -9 plus/minus indicates that the Thunder were outscored during his minutes. That figure is worth noting alongside the rebounding total, but it should not be used alone to judge his overall performance.
Kenrich Williams: A Productive Bench Scorer
Kenrich Williams scored 15 points in 28 minutes, making four of 11 field goal attempts and six of six free throws. He collected five rebounds, added one assist, and finished with a +9 plus/minus.
His six made free throws were particularly useful in a game where Oklahoma City converted 24 of 31 attempts at the line as a team. Williams also showed that bench scoring can remain valuable even when field goal efficiency is not especially high.
He made one of seven three-point attempts, so his long-range shooting did not match his free-throw accuracy. Still, his overall scoring helped the Thunder maintain offensive production beyond Gilgeous-Alexander and Dort.
His +9 plus/minus was one of Oklahoma City’s strongest listed figures, suggesting that the team performed well during his minutes despite the final defeat.
Aaron Wiggins: Scoring and Defensive Contributions
Wiggins scored 11 points in 29 minutes, adding three rebounds, four assists, and two blocks. He made three of 10 field goal attempts and two of nine three-point attempts, while converting three of four free throws.
His four assists tied for the second-highest total among the listed Thunder players. The two blocks also provided defensive value.
However, his shooting efficiency was limited. He converted 30% of his field goal attempts and approximately 22.2% of his three-point attempts. His -10 plus/minus was the lowest among the Thunder players listed in the main rotation table.
These figures illustrate the difference between contributing in several categories and producing an efficient offensive performance. Wiggins provided passing and shot-blocking, but his shooting struggles coincided with a negative team margin during his minutes.
Isaiah Joe: Perimeter Scoring with Mixed Results
Joe recorded 10 points in 22 minutes, making three of nine field goal attempts and two of seven three-point attempts. He converted both free throws and added two assists and one steal.
His three-point percentage was approximately 28.6%. That was above the Thunder’s overall three-point percentage of 25.6%, but still represented a difficult shooting night by the standards of a perimeter specialist.
Joe’s contribution was useful as part of the team’s secondary scoring, although the supplied numbers do not indicate that his production was enough to overcome Toronto’s rebounding and perimeter advantages.
Jaylin Williams: Supporting the Frontcourt
Jaylin Williams scored five points in 21 minutes, shooting two of seven from the field and one of three from three-point range. He added three rebounds, one assist, one steal, and one block.
He also recorded one offensive rebound and two defensive rebounds. His listed -5 plus/minus indicates that Oklahoma City was outscored during his time on the floor.
His statistical line reflects a supporting role rather than a primary scoring assignment. The available figures do not provide enough detail to determine his full impact on screens, defensive rotations, or other actions that do not appear directly in the box score.
Ousmane Dieng and Cason Wallace: Secondary Rotation Contributions
Dieng scored three points in 20 minutes, recording two rebounds and four assists without a turnover. He made one of three field goal attempts, including one of three from three-point range, and finished with a +17 plus/minus.
That was the highest plus/minus among the listed Thunder players. It is an interesting contrast with the final score, but it should not be interpreted as proof that Dieng was Oklahoma City’s best player. Plus/minus depends on what happens during a player’s minutes and can be influenced by teammates, opponents, and substitution patterns.
Wallace played 16 minutes and scored three points on one-of-three shooting. He also recorded one rebound, one assist, one turnover, and a -4 plus/minus.
Both players provided rotation minutes, but the supplied statistics do not support assigning either player a decisive role in the final outcome.
Brooks Barnhizer: A Brief Appearance
Barnhizer played three minutes and did not score, finishing with one rebound and one turnover. His limited playing time makes it difficult to draw meaningful conclusions about his performance from the box score alone.
Small samples can produce misleading impressions. A player who appears for only a few minutes has fewer opportunities to accumulate points, rebounds, assists, or defensive statistics, so his totals should be interpreted in the context of his role.
Team Statistical Comparison: Where Toronto Gained the Advantage
The team comparison provides the clearest explanation for why Toronto won despite Oklahoma City’s strong overall field goal percentage and efficient scoring from its leading player.
| Statistical Category | Toronto Raptors | Oklahoma City Thunder |
| Points | 103 | 101 |
| Field Goals | 37-86 | 33-75 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 43% | 44% |
| Three-Pointers | 12-34 | 11-43 |
| Three-Point Percentage | 35% | 26% |
| Free Throws | 17-26 | 24-31 |
| Free-Throw Percentage | 65% | 77% |
| Total Rebounds | 51 | 37 |
| Offensive Rebounds | 12 | 5 |
| Defensive Rebounds | 39 | 32 |
| Assists | 28 | 21 |
| Turnovers | 11 | 11 |
| Steals | 10 | 5 |
| Blocks | 6 | 5 |
| Personal Fouls | 22 | 17 |
Three-Point Shooting: Toronto Made Better Use of Its Attempts
Toronto made 12 of 34 three-point attempts, compared with Oklahoma City’s 11 of 43. The Raptors therefore made one more three-pointer despite attempting nine fewer.
The percentage gap was substantial. Toronto shot approximately 35.3% from beyond the arc, while the Thunder shot approximately 25.6%.
That difference matters because three-pointers are worth 50% more than two-point field goals. A team that converts a higher percentage of its perimeter shots can create a scoring advantage without necessarily dominating overall field goal percentage.
The simple scoring calculation highlights the difference:
- Toronto scored 36 points from its 12 made three-pointers.
- Oklahoma City scored 33 points from its 11 made three-pointers.
Toronto gained three points from made threes alone. The Thunder attempted more shots from that distance, but the additional attempts did not produce enough extra scoring to compensate for their lower accuracy.
This is not proof that every Thunder three-point attempt was a poor decision. Shot quality, defensive pressure, game situation, and player roles are not fully available in the supplied data. It does show that the final shooting results favored Toronto.
Rebounding: A 14-Rebound Gap
Toronto collected 51 rebounds, compared with Oklahoma City’s 37. That 14-rebound difference was one of the largest statistical gaps in the game.
The offensive rebounding figures were even more revealing. Toronto recorded 12 offensive rebounds, while Oklahoma City had five. The Raptors therefore collected seven more rebounds on their own missed shots.
Offensive rebounds can extend possessions and provide additional chances to score. They may also force the defense to remain engaged for longer, potentially creating opportunities for a second-chance basket or a foul.
Toronto’s 39 defensive rebounds also exceeded Oklahoma City’s 32. That suggests the Raptors were more successful overall at finishing defensive possessions by securing the ball after missed shots.
Rebounding is not simply a matter of player height. Positioning, timing, effort, shot trajectory, and team assignments all influence who collects a miss. The supplied box score establishes the statistical advantage, though it does not identify every tactical reason behind it.
Assists: Toronto Shared the Offensive Workload
Toronto recorded 28 assists, seven more than Oklahoma City’s 21. The difference suggests that the Raptors generated more made baskets credited to passes from teammates.
Barnes led Toronto’s listed players with eight assists, while Shead contributed five and Ingram added four. This distribution indicates that Toronto had multiple players involved in creating scoring opportunities.
Gilgeous-Alexander led Oklahoma City with six assists, and Wiggins and Dieng recorded four each. The Thunder had playmaking contributions of their own, but their team total was lower.
Assists do not capture every form of creation. A pass can create an open shot without resulting in an official assist, while an individual score may come without a pass immediately preceding it. Even so, the seven-assist gap is consistent with Toronto’s broader advantage in shared offensive production.
Turnovers: Neither Team Gained an Advantage
Both teams recorded 11 turnovers. Toronto therefore did not win by committing fewer turnovers than Oklahoma City.
This is an important finding because turnovers can influence the number of scoring opportunities available to each team. If both sides surrender the ball the same number of times, other factors become more important in explaining the final difference.
The equal turnover total also places the Raptors’ rebounding advantage in context. Toronto created a larger number of rebounds and more assists without giving away fewer possessions through turnovers.
A complete possession analysis would require additional information, including the number of possessions, points scored after turnovers, and the distribution of offensive rebounds. The supplied box score does not provide all of those details.
Free Throws: Oklahoma City Won This Category
The Thunder made 24 of 31 free throws, while Toronto made 17 of 26. Oklahoma City scored seven more points at the line.
The difference in free-throw percentage was also clear. The Thunder converted approximately 77.4%, compared with Toronto’s 65.4%.
This was a meaningful advantage for Oklahoma City and helps explain why the final score remained close. The Thunder compensated for some of their perimeter shooting difficulties by getting to the free-throw line and converting a larger share of their attempts.
Toronto nevertheless won the game because the free-throw advantage did not fully offset the Raptors’ benefits in three-point shooting and rebounding.
It would be misleading to claim that Toronto dominated every statistical category. The more accurate conclusion is that the Raptors won several important possession and perimeter categories while Oklahoma City performed better at the free-throw line.
Defensive Activity: Toronto Recorded More Steals and Blocks
Toronto finished with 10 steals and six blocks. Oklahoma City recorded five steals and five blocks.
The Raptors therefore had five more steals and one more block. These totals point to greater recorded activity in certain defensive categories, although they do not measure every aspect of defensive quality.
A steal can end an opponent’s possession immediately and may create a transition opportunity. A block can prevent a shot from reaching the basket, but it does not always result in a change of possession if the offensive team recovers the ball.
Toronto’s advantage in steals complemented its rebounding edge. Together, those figures indicate that the Raptors were able to generate defensive stops and secure possessions more effectively in the statistical categories recorded.
Why Toronto Won: Five Key Factors
The Toronto victory becomes easier to understand when the individual statistics are considered alongside the team comparison.
1. Quickley’s Perimeter Shooting Created a Scoring Edge
Quickley’s 23 points and six made three-pointers gave Toronto a reliable source of outside scoring. His performance was especially valuable because the Thunder struggled to convert their own perimeter attempts consistently.
Quickley did not need to take an unusually high number of shots to lead the Raptors. He made seven of 14 field goal attempts, demonstrating how efficient scoring can have a large impact without excessive shot volume.
2. Barnes Connected Scoring, Rebounding, and Playmaking
Barnes recorded 10 points, 11 rebounds, and eight assists. That combination allowed him to contribute to multiple phases of the game.
His value was not confined to scoring. He collected defensive rebounds, helped create shots for teammates, and recorded three blocks. A performance with contributions across these categories can help a team maintain balance when another player is having a difficult shooting night.
3. Toronto Won the Battle for Missed Shots
The Raptors’ 51-37 rebounding advantage gave them 14 more rebounds overall. Their seven-rebound edge on the offensive glass was particularly significant.
More offensive rebounds can mean additional scoring chances, while defensive rebounds help prevent opponents from extending their possessions. Although the supplied data does not quantify the exact number of points generated from second chances, the difference in rebounds is clear.
4. The Thunder’s Three-Point Volume Did Not Deliver Enough Points
Oklahoma City attempted 43 three-pointers and made 11. Toronto attempted 34 and made 12.
The Thunder’s strategy of taking a high volume of perimeter shots did not produce the same scoring return as Toronto’s more efficient long-range shooting. The result shows why shot volume and shot conversion must be evaluated together.
A high number of three-point attempts can be useful when the shots are open and the shooters convert them. However, missed attempts can become costly when the opponent also controls the rebound.
5. Toronto Responded Better in the Fourth Quarter
The Raptors outscored Oklahoma City 24-20 in the final quarter. That advantage was decisive in a game that ended with only a two-point margin.
Toronto had already shown it could respond to adversity in the second quarter, when it outscored the Thunder 29-20. The final period provided another example of the Raptors matching the game’s demands at an important moment.
The available data supports the conclusion that Toronto finished stronger on the scoreboard. It does not establish the exact defensive scheme or play sequence responsible for the final result, so those details should not be assumed without further evidence.
Shooting Efficiency and the Meaning of the Numbers
A useful analysis of a close basketball game should distinguish raw totals from efficiency. Points show how much a player scored, while shooting percentages provide context about how many attempts were needed to produce those points.
Quickley scored 23 points on 14 field goal attempts and four free-throw attempts. Gilgeous-Alexander scored 24 points on 11 field goal attempts and 10 free-throw attempts. Both players delivered strong scoring performances, but their methods were different.
Quickley made six three-pointers, creating 18 points from beyond the arc. Gilgeous-Alexander made eight field goals and eight free throws, with most of his scoring coming from two-point attempts and the free-throw line.
The distinction matters because scoring totals alone do not reveal shot distribution. Two players can score a similar number of points while relying on different areas of the court.
Effective Field Goal Percentage
Effective field goal percentage, commonly written as eFG%, adjusts ordinary field goal percentage to account for the extra value of a made three-pointer.
The formula is:
eFG% = (Field Goals Made + 0.5 × Three-Pointers Made) ÷ Field Goal Attempts
Using the supplied team figures:
- Toronto: (37 + 0.5 × 12) ÷ 86 = approximately 50.0%.
- Oklahoma City: (33 + 0.5 × 11) ÷ 75 = approximately 51.3%.
This calculation produces a different picture from three-point percentage alone. Oklahoma City’s estimated effective field goal percentage was slightly higher because it made a higher proportion of its total field goal attempts, including two-point shots.
That does not contradict Toronto’s victory. Effective field goal percentage excludes free throws and turnovers, and it does not directly measure rebounding. Toronto’s advantage in rebounds and assists, along with its greater number of made three-pointers, helped shape the overall result.
The figures should also be interpreted cautiously because the supplied player and team totals contain inconsistencies.
Why Plus/Minus Needs Context
Plus/minus measures the team’s net point difference while a player is on the floor. It is a useful descriptive statistic, but it is not a direct measure of individual skill.
Barnes recorded +15 for Toronto, while Walter recorded +12. For Oklahoma City, Dieng recorded +17 and Kenrich Williams recorded +9 in the supplied figures.
Those numbers may seem surprising given the final score, particularly for players on the losing team. However, plus/minus depends on the score during each player’s minutes, not just the final result or the player’s individual statistics.
It can also be influenced by teammates, opponents, substitution timing, and short stretches of unusually good or poor shooting. For that reason, plus/minus is best used alongside points, rebounds, assists, turnovers, defensive statistics, and playing time.
Bench Production and Rotation Depth
Bench contributions can determine whether a team maintains its performance when starters rest. Toronto received scoring from Dick, Shead, Walter, and Agbaji, while Oklahoma City received notable production from Kenrich Williams, Joe, Wiggins, and Dieng.
The Raptors’ listed bench players contributed useful combinations of shooting, playmaking, rebounding, and defensive activity. Dick scored 10 points on four-of-seven shooting, Shead recorded five assists, and Walter collected three steals.
Oklahoma City’s bench also produced several positive individual performances. Kenrich Williams scored 15 points, Joe added 10, and Wiggins recorded 11 points and four assists. Dieng’s four assists and +17 plus/minus were also notable.
However, bench statistics require careful interpretation. A reserve’s points do not automatically show whether a team won the bench scoring battle, because the total contribution depends on which players are classified as starters or reserves and how many minutes each player receives. The supplied data does not provide a fully reconciled official bench total.
The strongest conclusion is that both teams received contributions beyond their leading scorers. Toronto’s victory was supported by several players filling different roles rather than by a single scoring performance alone.
Season Context and the Meaning of the Result
The supplied ESPN data listed Toronto at 29-19 overall and 16-9 on the road before or around this matchup, while Oklahoma City was listed at 37-10 overall and 20-5 at home.
Those records make the result noteworthy. The Thunder entered with the stronger overall record and an excellent home record, yet Toronto managed to win at Paycom Center.
The supplied page indicated that Toronto led the season series 1-0 after this game. It also listed a subsequent matchup on February 25, 2026, in which Oklahoma City defeated Toronto 116-107.
That later result is useful context because it shows that the January win did not determine the outcome of every meeting between the teams. A season series can shift as teams adjust their rotations, players become available or unavailable, and matchups produce different results.
A single game should therefore be treated as evidence of how the teams performed on that date, rather than a complete verdict on their relative strength throughout the season.
Data Accuracy and Box-Score Limitations
Accurate statistical analysis depends on distinguishing supplied figures from independently verified facts. The numbers in this article follow the provided ESPN-derived data, but the supplied text specifically notes inconsistencies between certain individual player totals and team totals.
For example, the listed individual scoring lines should not automatically be summed and treated as a definitive reconciliation of the team score. Similar caution applies to other totals when the underlying source extraction is inconsistent.
The following principles help preserve accuracy:
- Use the supplied final score of Toronto 103, Oklahoma City 101 as the reported game result.
- Attribute the listed 23 points to Quickley and 24 points to Gilgeous-Alexander as provided.
- Treat the team shooting and rebounding totals as the supplied comparison figures.
- Avoid inventing the final play, exact late-game sequence, or unreported tactical details.
- Consult the original ESPN NBA box score when a fully verified player-by-player reconciliation is required.
This distinction is important for readers who use basketball statistics to compare players, evaluate team performance, or prepare their own analysis. A transparent explanation of data limitations is more useful than silently changing figures to make every total appear consistent.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Toronto Raptors vs Oklahoma City Thunder game on January 26, 2026?
The Toronto Raptors defeated the Oklahoma City Thunder 103-101 at Paycom Center in Oklahoma City. Toronto won by two points after outscoring the Thunder 24-20 in the fourth quarter.
2. Who scored the most points in the game?
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander led all listed players with 24 points for Oklahoma City. Immanuel Quickley led Toronto with 23 points, including six made three-pointers.
3. What were Immanuel Quickley’s stats against the Thunder?
Quickley recorded 23 points, 11 rebounds, two assists, and two steals in 32 minutes. He made seven of 14 field goal attempts, six of 10 three-point attempts, and three of four free throws.
4. How did Scottie Barnes perform in the matchup?
Barnes finished with 10 points, 11 rebounds, eight assists, one steal, and three blocks in 32 minutes. His listed plus/minus was +15, the highest among the Toronto players included in the supplied data.
5. Why did Toronto beat Oklahoma City despite the Thunder’s strong shooting percentage?
Toronto benefited from better three-point efficiency, a 51-37 rebounding advantage, and seven more assists. Oklahoma City shot a slightly higher overall field goal percentage and made more free throws, but those advantages were not enough to overcome Toronto’s performance in other categories.
6. When did the teams meet again after the January 26 game?
The supplied data lists another meeting on February 25, 2026, when Oklahoma City defeated Toronto 116-107. This subsequent result shows that the January contest was one part of the teams’ season series rather than a definitive measure of every matchup.
Conclusion
The January 26, 2026, contest between Toronto and Oklahoma City was a close game decided by a combination of perimeter shooting, rebounding, and late-game execution. Toronto won 103-101, with Immanuel Quickley’s 23 points and six made three-pointers leading the scoring effort. Scottie Barnes added an all-around performance with 11 rebounds, eight assists, and three blocks, while RJ Barrett and several rotation players supplied valuable support.
Oklahoma City also had strong individual performances. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander scored 24 points on efficient shooting, and Luguentz Dort contributed 19 points and eight rebounds. The Thunder converted more free throws and recorded a slightly higher overall field goal percentage, but their 26% three-point shooting and 14-rebound deficit proved costly in the final statistical comparison.
The most important lesson from this matchup is that winning basketball involves more than identifying the highest scorer. Shooting distribution, second-chance opportunities, ball movement, and defensive possessions all help explain how a narrow result develops. The supplied statistics show Toronto gaining advantages in several of those areas, while the data limitations make it important to verify individual totals before drawing more detailed conclusions.
