Toronto Raptors vs Pacers Match Player Stats
The toronto raptors vs pacers match player stats from the July 14, 2026, NBA Summer League game reveal how Toronto secured a narrow 94-93 victory over Indiana at the Thomas & Mack Center in Las Vegas, Nevada. Toronto finished with better shooting percentages, more assists, and a six-rebound advantage, while Indiana stayed competitive through individual scoring performances, defensive pressure, and second-chance opportunities. Seth Lundy led Toronto with 22 points, while Rien Mast paced Indiana with 23 points and 10 rebounds. The one-point final margin made this matchup an excellent example of how shooting efficiency and ball movement can outweigh advantages in steals and turnovers.
The game was part of the NBA Summer League in Las Vegas, where young players, developing prospects, and players competing for professional opportunities can demonstrate their skills in a competitive setting. Beyond the final score, the box score provides a detailed picture of how both teams created scoring opportunities, managed possessions, and responded to changing momentum across four quarters.
This breakdown examines the final score, individual performances, team statistics, quarter-by-quarter results, and the most important lessons from the contest. All game-specific figures below are based on the ESPN box score data provided for this matchup.
Toronto Raptors vs Pacers Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The Raptors defeated the Pacers 94-93 in a closely contested Summer League matchup. Toronto established an early advantage, Indiana responded with a strong second quarter, and both teams scored 24 points in the final period. Toronto’s ability to maintain its shooting advantage proved decisive.
| Game Detail | Information |
| Matchup | Toronto Raptors vs. Indiana Pacers |
| Date | July 14, 2026 |
| Competition | NBA Summer League, Las Vegas |
| Venue | Thomas & Mack Center |
| Location | Las Vegas, Nevada |
| Final Score | Toronto Raptors 94, Indiana Pacers 93 |
| Winning Team | Toronto Raptors |
| Winning Margin | 1 point |
| Toronto Record | 3-2 |
| Indiana Record | 2-3 |
| Top Toronto Scorer | Seth Lundy, 22 points |
| Top Indiana Scorer | Rien Mast, 23 points |
| Indiana Assist Leader | Braden Smith, 9 assists |
Toronto’s victory was narrow enough that a single made basket or missed defensive assignment could have changed the outcome. However, the broader statistical comparison explains why the Raptors managed to finish ahead despite committing more turnovers and recording fewer steals.
The most important distinction was shooting. Toronto made 46% of its field-goal attempts and 42% of its three-pointers. Indiana converted 39% of its field goals and 26% of its three-point attempts. These differences helped Toronto generate more points from its shooting opportunities.
At the same time, the Pacers demonstrated that efficient shooting is not the only way to remain competitive. Their 10 steals, 16 turnovers, and 16 made free throws helped offset some of Toronto’s offensive advantages.
Final Score and Quarter-by-Quarter Breakdown
The quarter-by-quarter scoring pattern shows how the lead changed throughout the game. Toronto opened strongly, Indiana produced the highest-scoring quarter of the contest, and the teams finished the second half with a close scoring balance.
| Quarter | Toronto Raptors | Indiana Pacers |
| First Quarter | 26 | 16 |
| Second Quarter | 19 | 29 |
| Third Quarter | 25 | 24 |
| Fourth Quarter | 24 | 24 |
| Final Score | 94 | 93 |
First Quarter: Toronto Establishes Early Control
Toronto scored 26 points in the opening quarter while limiting Indiana to 16. The 10-point difference gave the Raptors an early cushion and allowed them to begin the game with control of the scoreboard.
An early scoring advantage can influence how a Summer League game develops. Players are often working to establish roles, build chemistry, and demonstrate decision-making under pressure. A productive first quarter can help a team settle into its offensive system and force its opponent to respond.
Indiana’s 16 points were not enough to keep pace with Toronto’s opening production. The Pacers needed a more efficient offensive stretch to reduce the deficit, and they found that response in the second quarter.
Second Quarter: Indiana Delivers a Major Response
Indiana outscored Toronto 29-19 in the second quarter. That 10-point advantage erased Toronto’s entire first-quarter lead and brought the game to a 45-45 tie at halftime.
This was Indiana’s strongest period in terms of scoring. The Pacers found enough offensive production to turn an early disadvantage into a level contest. Their comeback also demonstrated that Toronto’s opening success did not guarantee control of the game.
The second quarter was especially important because it prevented the Raptors from building a larger cushion before halftime. Instead, both teams entered the break with the result still wide open.
Third Quarter: Toronto Regains a Small Advantage
Toronto scored 25 points in the third quarter, compared with Indiana’s 24. The Raptors therefore regained a one-point advantage over the course of the period.
Although the difference was small, Toronto’s ability to outscore Indiana after the halftime tie helped restore its position. The teams were evenly matched during this stretch, with neither side producing the type of scoring run that had defined the first two quarters.
A one-point quarter advantage may appear insignificant, but it matters in a game where the final margin is also one point. Toronto continued to make just enough progress to enter the final period with a narrow lead.
Fourth Quarter: Both Teams Score 24 Points
The fourth quarter ended 24-24. Indiana matched Toronto’s scoring output but did not generate the extra points needed to take the lead.
This result highlights the importance of the earlier quarters. The Raptors’ first-quarter production and third-quarter advantage helped establish the position they needed to survive Indiana’s comeback.
Indiana deserves credit for remaining level with Toronto in the closing period. However, matching an opponent’s scoring is not enough when trailing by one point. The Pacers needed to outscore the Raptors, and the final quarter did not provide that difference.
Toronto Raptors Player Stats and Top Performers
Toronto’s offensive production was distributed among several players. Seth Lundy led the team with 22 points, Jaden Bradley added 15, Allen Graves scored 13, and Tyreke Key contributed 16 points off the bench.
This distribution is important when evaluating a team performance. Rather than depending entirely on one scorer, Toronto received meaningful contributions from multiple players. Such balance can make an offense harder to defend because opponents must account for several scoring threats.
The following table summarizes the leading Toronto scorers documented in the supplied box score data.
| Toronto Player | Points | Performance Note |
| Seth Lundy | 22 | Team-leading scorer; made 4 of 7 three-pointers |
| Tyreke Key | 16 | Important scoring contribution off the bench |
| Jaden Bradley | 15 | Second-highest listed starter scoring total |
| Allen Graves | 13 | Provided additional offensive production |
These four players combined for 66 of Toronto’s 94 points. That is approximately 70.2% of the team’s total scoring, illustrating how a core group of contributors drove the offense while the remaining players supplied the balance.
Seth Lundy Leads Toronto With 22 Points
Seth Lundy was Toronto’s leading scorer, finishing with 22 points. His three-point shooting was particularly noteworthy: he made four of seven attempts from beyond the arc.
His individual three-point percentage was approximately 57.1%, substantially higher than Toronto’s overall three-point percentage of 42%. The difference shows how Lundy’s perimeter accuracy helped strengthen the team’s overall shooting performance.
Making four three-pointers also provides a useful illustration of scoring efficiency. Those shots accounted for 12 of his points, allowing him to generate significant production without relying entirely on shots closer to the basket or free throws.
Lundy’s performance was especially valuable in a game decided by one point. Although the box score does not establish the exact value of each individual basket to the final outcome, his scoring output was a major part of Toronto’s offensive contribution.
Jaden Bradley Adds 15 Points
Jaden Bradley finished with 15 points, giving Toronto another productive scoring option. His contribution helped reduce the pressure on Lundy to carry the entire offensive workload.
When evaluating Bradley’s performance, it is important to separate confirmed statistics from assumptions. The supplied data establishes his point total and identifies him as a starter, but it does not provide a complete individual shooting breakdown or assist total. Those figures should not be estimated.
His 15 points nevertheless represent a substantial contribution in a 94-point team performance. Combined with Lundy’s scoring, Bradley helped Toronto maintain offensive production across multiple players.
Allen Graves Contributes 13 Points
Allen Graves scored 13 points for Toronto. His contribution gave the Raptors a third double-digit scorer among the listed starters and helped maintain a balanced scoring structure.
A third scoring option is valuable because it gives the offense another player capable of punishing defensive attention directed toward its leading scorer. In this game, Graves’ points formed part of the combined production that allowed Toronto to finish with 94.
The available data does not establish his complete shooting splits or defensive statistics, so his performance is best assessed through the confirmed scoring figure rather than unsupported claims about his overall efficiency.
Tyreke Key Provides 16 Points Off the Bench
Tyreke Key recorded 16 points as a bench contributor. His total was the second-highest among Toronto’s four leading scorers, exceeding the listed totals of Bradley and Graves.
Bench scoring can be particularly important during Summer League competition because coaches may use different player combinations to evaluate skills, chemistry, and role suitability. A reserve who produces points can help sustain offensive output when the starting group is not on the floor.
Key’s contribution also shows why starting status alone does not determine offensive importance. His 16 points represented a substantial share of Toronto’s final total and helped the team receive production from outside its starting lineup.
Toronto’s Starting Lineup
The supplied game data lists the following Toronto starters:
- Nate Bittle, No. 12
- Allen Graves, No. 22
- Nimari Burnett, No. 25
- Jaden Bradley, No. 8
- Seth Lundy, No. 13
The starting lineup information helps readers distinguish the players who began the contest from those who contributed from the bench. However, the starting designation does not by itself indicate minutes played, usage rate, or overall efficiency.
For a deeper individual assessment, the box score’s minutes, field-goal attempts, rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, and turnovers should be considered alongside points.
Indiana Pacers Player Stats and Top Performers
Indiana’s offensive effort was led by Rien Mast, who recorded 23 points and 10 rebounds. Jalen Slawson added 21 points, and Gabe McGlothan contributed 16 points. Braden Smith also played an important creative role, finishing with nine assists.
The Pacers had three players score at least 16 points, giving them a strong foundation for their offensive attack. Their challenge was converting that production into enough team scoring to overcome Toronto’s more efficient shooting.
| Indiana Player | Points | Performance Note |
| Rien Mast | 23 | Team-leading scorer with 10 rebounds |
| Jalen Slawson | 21 | Second-highest listed scorer |
| Gabe McGlothan | 16 | Added another major scoring contribution |
| Braden Smith | Not specified | Led Indiana with 9 assists |
The four players listed above contributed in different ways. Mast combined scoring with rebounding, Slawson provided another high-scoring performance, McGlothan added support, and Smith helped create opportunities for teammates.
Together, Mast, Slawson, and McGlothan scored 60 points, accounting for approximately 64.5% of Indiana’s 93 points. This concentration shows that a few key contributors supplied much of the team’s offense.
Rien Mast Records 23 Points and 10 Rebounds
Rien Mast led Indiana with 23 points and 10 rebounds, recording a double-double. His performance combined two important parts of basketball production: putting points on the board and helping secure possessions through rebounding.
Mast’s 23 points exceeded the total of every listed Toronto player except none, as Lundy’s 22 points were the closest individual mark among Toronto’s leading scorers. Mast therefore finished as the game’s highest scorer according to the supplied player data.
His 10 rebounds also gave Indiana a strong individual presence on the glass. Rebounds matter because they determine whether a team can end an opponent’s possession or create another scoring opportunity after a missed shot.
However, individual rebounds do not automatically translate into team success. Indiana finished with 34 rebounds, compared with Toronto’s 40. The team totals suggest that the Pacers’ individual rebounding effort was not enough to give them an overall advantage on the boards.
Jalen Slawson Scores 21 Points
Jalen Slawson contributed 21 points, giving Indiana a second major scoring threat. His total was only two points below Mast’s team-leading figure.
Having two players score more than 20 points can help an offense remain competitive even when other parts of the game are less effective. It also creates a challenge for the opposing defense, which must account for multiple players capable of generating substantial scoring production.
Slawson’s contribution was especially significant in a game where Indiana made only 26 field goals. His scoring helped compensate for the team’s lower overall field-goal percentage.
The supplied figures do not include Slawson’s complete shooting line, minutes, or turnover total. Those details would be necessary to evaluate his scoring efficiency more precisely.
Gabe McGlothan Adds 16 Points
Gabe McGlothan scored 16 points for Indiana. His contribution gave the Pacers a third player with a substantial scoring total and helped keep the contest close through the second half.
McGlothan’s output is an important part of the overall matchup because Indiana did not rely exclusively on Mast and Slawson. The third scoring option helped Indiana approach Toronto’s team total despite making fewer field goals and fewer three-pointers.
His 16 points also matched the contribution of Toronto’s Tyreke Key, illustrating how both teams received meaningful production from players beyond their leading scorers.
Braden Smith Records Nine Assists
Braden Smith led Indiana with nine assists. Assists measure passes that directly lead to made baskets, making them useful for understanding how a team creates scoring opportunities through cooperation rather than individual shot-making alone.
Smith’s total was a notable playmaking contribution. Indiana finished with 16 team assists, meaning his nine assists accounted for more than half of the Pacers’ recorded total.
That concentration suggests Smith played a central role in the team’s documented assisted scoring opportunities. However, the number of assists alone does not reveal every aspect of his performance. Turnovers, shot creation, defensive pressure, and the quality of opportunities created would provide additional context.
Indiana’s nine-assist leader is particularly relevant when comparing the teams because Toronto recorded 24 assists. The difference suggests that the Raptors generated more assisted scoring opportunities overall, even though Smith was an effective individual facilitator for Indiana.
Indiana’s Starting Lineup
The supplied data lists these five players as Indiana’s starters:
- Jalen Slawson, No. 18
- Alex Reese, No. 65
- Braden Smith, No. 3
- Taelon Peter, No. 4
- Taevion Kinsey, No. 25
The Pacers’ bench included Gabe McGlothan, Rien Mast, Keion Brooks Jr., Yuki Kawamura, Jalen Warley, MJ Iraldi, Keba Keita, Kowacie Reeves Jr., Tamin Lipsey, and Cameron Hildreth.
One noteworthy detail is that Mast and McGlothan were among Indiana’s leading scorers despite being listed among the reserves. Their production demonstrates the importance of evaluating a complete roster instead of judging a team’s performance solely by its starting lineup.
Complete Team Statistics: Toronto Raptors vs Indiana Pacers
The overall team comparison provides the clearest explanation of the result. Toronto recorded better shooting percentages, more rebounds, and more assists. Indiana, meanwhile, committed fewer turnovers and recorded more steals.
| Team Statistic | Toronto Raptors | Indiana Pacers |
| Points | 94 | 93 |
| Field Goals Made | 33 | 26 |
| Field Goals Attempted | 72 | 66 |
| Field-Goal Percentage | 46% | 39% |
| Three-Pointers Made | 11 | 9 |
| Three-Pointers Attempted | 26 | 35 |
| Three-Point Percentage | 42% | 26% |
| Free Throws Made | 11 | 16 |
| Free Throws Attempted | 15 | 23 |
| Free-Throw Percentage | 73% | 70% |
| Total Rebounds | 40 | 34 |
| Offensive Rebounds | 13 | 13 |
| Defensive Rebounds | 27 | 21 |
| Assists | 24 | 16 |
| Turnovers | 21 | 16 |
| Steals | 9 | 10 |
| Blocks | 5 | 5 |
| Personal Fouls | 33 | 24 |
Percentages are reproduced from the supplied box score and rounded to whole numbers.
Field-Goal Efficiency Favors Toronto
Toronto made 33 of 72 field-goal attempts, while Indiana made 26 of 66. The resulting percentages were approximately 45.8% for Toronto and 39.4% for Indiana.
The Raptors made seven more field goals despite attempting only six additional shots. This distinction matters because the teams did not have dramatically different field-goal attempt totals, but Toronto converted a considerably larger share of its opportunities.
A field-goal percentage comparison helps explain why the Raptors won despite recording more turnovers. When a team turns a greater share of its shot attempts into baskets, it can offset some lost possessions elsewhere.
For Indiana, the main challenge was converting opportunities into made shots. The Pacers reached 93 points, but their lower field-goal percentage left less room for mistakes in other areas.
Three-Point Shooting Creates a Major Difference
Toronto made 11 of 26 three-point attempts, compared with Indiana’s nine makes on 35 attempts.
The difference was not simply the number of successful shots. Toronto attempted nine fewer three-pointers while making two more. The Raptors therefore converted a much larger proportion of their perimeter opportunities.
| Three-Point Measure | Toronto | Indiana |
| Three-Pointers Made | 11 | 9 |
| Attempts | 26 | 35 |
| Percentage | 42.3% | 25.7% |
| Points From Three-Pointers | 33 | 27 |
Toronto’s 33 points from three-point shots exceeded Indiana’s 27 by six points. That difference is meaningful in a game decided by one point, although it should not be interpreted as a complete explanation of the result on its own.
The key insight is that Toronto combined volume with efficiency more effectively. Indiana attempted more shots from beyond the arc but did not convert them at a comparable rate.
This is one of the clearest findings from the Toronto Raptors vs Pacers match player stats: a higher number of attempts does not necessarily create a scoring advantage if conversion rates remain low.
Free Throws Help Indiana Stay Competitive
Indiana made 16 of 23 free throws, while Toronto made 11 of 15.
The Pacers therefore scored five more points at the free-throw line. That advantage helped compensate for their lower field-goal and three-point percentages.
Free throws are important because they provide scoring opportunities without requiring a made field goal during live play. A team that draws fouls and converts its attempts can maintain offensive production even when perimeter shots are not falling.
Indiana’s free-throw advantage was particularly valuable in a close contest. Without those additional made free throws, the scoring gap could have been wider.
Toronto, however, also converted at a slightly higher free-throw percentage: 73% compared with Indiana’s 70%. The Pacers’ advantage came from attempting and making more free throws, not from superior conversion accuracy.
Rebounding Gives Toronto a Six-Rebound Advantage
Toronto recorded 40 rebounds, compared with Indiana’s 34. Both teams collected 13 offensive rebounds, meaning the difference came entirely from defensive rebounding.
| Rebounding Category | Toronto | Indiana |
| Offensive Rebounds | 13 | 13 |
| Defensive Rebounds | 27 | 21 |
| Total Rebounds | 40 | 34 |
Offensive rebounds extend possessions by giving a team another chance after a missed shot. Defensive rebounds help finish the opponent’s possession and allow the defending team to transition into offense.
Since both teams had the same number of offensive rebounds, neither had a numerical advantage in that category. Toronto’s six-rebound lead came from collecting more defensive boards.
This distinction is more useful than simply saying Toronto dominated rebounding. The Raptors did not win every rebounding category. Instead, they created their advantage through defensive rebounds.
Assists Highlight Toronto’s Ball Movement
Toronto recorded 24 assists, while Indiana finished with 16. The eight-assist difference suggests that Toronto generated more baskets directly through passes that led to made shots.
Assists can be a useful indicator of team coordination, but they do not tell the entire story of offensive quality. A team can score effectively through individual creation, while another can record more assists without necessarily shooting efficiently.
In this matchup, Toronto combined its higher assist total with better shooting percentages. That combination makes the assist advantage more meaningful than it would be in isolation.
Indiana’s 16 assists still reflect a degree of shared offensive creation, particularly with Smith recording nine. However, the team total indicates that the Pacers relied less on assisted scoring than Toronto did.
Turnovers and Steals Favor Indiana
Indiana committed 16 turnovers, five fewer than Toronto’s 21. The Pacers also recorded 10 steals, one more than Toronto’s nine.
These statistics reveal an important contrast. Indiana did a better job protecting possession in the recorded turnover totals, while its defenders also generated more steals.
Turnovers can be costly because they end possessions without a field-goal attempt. Steals can be particularly valuable when they lead to transition opportunities before the opposing defense is organized.
Yet these advantages did not produce a victory. Indiana’s lower shooting percentages and smaller assist total show why possession security alone was insufficient.
A complete evaluation must consider both the number of opportunities a team creates and the quality of the shots it converts. Toronto’s shooting efficiency helped overcome its five-turnover disadvantage.
Blocks Are Even, While Fouls Differ
Both teams recorded five blocks. This means the supplied team statistics show no advantage in total blocked shots.
Toronto committed 33 personal fouls, compared with Indiana’s 24. The nine-foul difference is substantial, although foul totals alone do not reveal how many fouls occurred during shooting attempts, how they were distributed among players, or whether they affected late-game decisions.
Indiana’s lower foul count may have helped it avoid some unnecessary trips to the free-throw line. However, the Pacers still attempted eight more free throws than Toronto, showing that overall foul totals do not directly determine free-throw opportunities.
The best interpretation is that the teams had different statistical strengths. Toronto was more efficient from the field, while Indiana protected the ball more effectively and recorded more steals.
Why Toronto Won by One Point
Toronto’s 94-93 victory was not the result of one overwhelming statistical advantage. Instead, the Raptors combined several moderate advantages that collectively offset Indiana’s strengths.
Three factors stand out from the box score.
1. Toronto Converted More of Its Shots
The Raptors made seven more field goals than the Pacers. They also made two additional three-pointers despite taking nine fewer attempts from beyond the arc.
This was the most obvious statistical advantage for Toronto. Indiana generated enough opportunities to remain competitive, but its lower shooting percentages limited the return on those attempts.
2. Toronto Generated More Assisted Scoring
The Raptors recorded 24 assists, eight more than Indiana. That difference points to a greater volume of baskets directly created through passing.
Although assists do not measure every aspect of teamwork, the combination of 24 assists and better shooting efficiency supports the view that Toronto converted its offensive opportunities more effectively.
3. Toronto Recovered More Defensive Rebounds
Toronto collected six more defensive rebounds than Indiana. Because both teams had 13 offensive rebounds, the difference came from finishing defensive possessions.
This advantage helped Toronto limit Indiana’s opportunities to recover missed shots and generate additional attempts. The Pacers still remained within one point, but Toronto’s defensive rebounding contributed to its overall statistical edge.
The Numbers That Nearly Changed the Result
Indiana had several advantages that could have produced a different outcome under slightly different circumstances.
- The Pacers committed five fewer turnovers.
- Indiana recorded one more steal.
- Indiana made five more free throws.
- The teams recorded the same number of offensive rebounds.
- Both teams blocked five shots.
These details matter because they prevent an oversimplified interpretation of the game. Toronto was not better in every category, and Indiana did not lose because of a single obvious weakness.
Instead, the Raptors’ better shooting and greater assist production helped compensate for their higher turnover total. Indiana’s free-throw advantage kept the game close, but it was not enough to overcome the gap in field-goal production.
Bench Production and Roster Contributions
Bench performance is an important part of Summer League analysis because teams frequently evaluate players for different roles. Scoring from reserves can maintain offensive production when starters are resting and can help coaches assess how players perform outside their usual combinations.
Toronto’s Tyreke Key scored 16 points off the bench, making him one of the team’s most productive offensive contributors. Indiana received 16 points from Gabe McGlothan, while Rien Mast added 23 points and 10 rebounds.
These performances demonstrate that the most influential players in a game are not always limited to the starting lineup.
| Team | Bench Contribution Highlight | Statistical Importance |
| Toronto Raptors | Tyreke Key, 16 points | Added substantial scoring beyond the listed starters |
| Indiana Pacers | Gabe McGlothan, 16 points | Helped support the team’s leading scorers |
| Indiana Pacers | Rien Mast, 23 points and 10 rebounds | Combined scoring and rebounding production |
The available information does not provide complete minutes, plus/minus figures, or individual shooting percentages for every reserve. Therefore, it would be premature to rank the entire bench by efficiency or claim that one team’s reserves were definitively better overall.
Points provide a useful starting point, but a more complete bench evaluation should include shooting attempts, turnovers, defensive contributions, minutes played, and the team’s scoring margin while each player was on the court.
What the Match Statistics Reveal About Summer League Basketball
Summer League games offer a useful setting for examining individual production, offensive decision-making, and developing team chemistry. However, the statistics should be interpreted in context.
Individual Scoring Does Not Guarantee a Team Victory
Mast scored 23 points and Slawson added 21, yet Indiana finished one point behind Toronto. This does not mean their performances were ineffective. It demonstrates that individual scoring must be considered alongside team shooting, passing, rebounding, and defensive execution.
A player can produce an impressive scoring total while the team still struggles to convert its overall possessions into enough points to win.
Efficiency Can Matter More Than Shot Volume
Indiana attempted 35 three-pointers, nine more than Toronto. Despite taking more perimeter shots, the Pacers made only nine, compared with Toronto’s 11.
The difference highlights a practical lesson for basketball analysis: shot volume should be evaluated together with accuracy. More attempts can create more scoring opportunities, but those attempts are less valuable when they are converted at a low rate.
Turnovers Need Context
Toronto’s 21 turnovers were a clear weakness in its statistical profile. A team cannot assume it will win regularly while losing that many possessions without examining the consequences.
However, Indiana’s five-turnover advantage did not guarantee a win. Toronto’s superior shooting and assist totals compensated for the lost possessions in this game.
A useful evaluation would examine how many turnovers led directly to Indiana points, how many occurred in transition, and whether Toronto’s errors were concentrated among particular players. The supplied team totals do not establish those details.
One-Point Games Require Careful Interpretation
A final margin of one point is too small to support sweeping conclusions about the overall quality of either team. One additional made shot, a missed free throw, or a turnover in a key possession could change the final result.
The strongest conclusions come from the statistics that are actually available. Toronto shot better, recorded more assists and rebounds, and won the game. Indiana committed fewer turnovers, recorded more steals, and made more free throws.
Those observations describe the matchup without assuming that one result establishes either team’s future performance.
Where to Verify the Official Box Score
For readers who want to check the underlying figures, the official ESPN box score for the Raptors vs. Pacers Summer League game is the most direct reference provided for this matchup.
The box score is the appropriate place to verify individual scoring, starting lineups, and team totals. For a detailed player-by-player evaluation, readers should also check the available minutes, shooting attempts, rebounds, assists, turnovers, steals, blocks, and plus/minus figures.
Plus/minus represents the team’s net point differential while a particular player is on the court. It is useful context, but it should not be treated as an isolated measure of individual ability because teammates, opponents, and lineup combinations also influence the result.
The figures discussed here follow the game data supplied for this article. Where the supplied information does not establish an individual statistic, the article avoids filling the gap with an estimate.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Toronto Raptors vs. Indiana Pacers game on July 14, 2026?
The Toronto Raptors defeated the Indiana Pacers 94-93 in the NBA Summer League in Las Vegas. Toronto won by one point at the Thomas & Mack Center.
2. Who was the leading scorer for Toronto?
Seth Lundy led Toronto with 22 points. He also made four of his seven three-point attempts, giving him a three-point shooting percentage of approximately 57.1%.
3. Who led Indiana in points and rebounds?
Rien Mast led Indiana with 23 points and 10 rebounds. His performance produced a double-double and made him the highest scorer identified in the supplied player statistics.
4. How did the teams compare in three-point shooting?
Toronto made 11 of 26 three-point attempts, shooting approximately 42.3%. Indiana made nine of 35 attempts, shooting approximately 25.7%. Toronto made two more three-pointers despite attempting nine fewer.
5. Which team recorded more assists and rebounds?
Toronto recorded 24 assists and 40 rebounds. Indiana finished with 16 assists and 34 rebounds. Toronto therefore held an eight-assist advantage and a six-rebound advantage.
6. Why did Toronto win despite committing more turnovers?
Toronto committed 21 turnovers compared with Indiana’s 16, but the Raptors shot more accurately from the field and beyond the three-point line. Toronto also recorded more assists and rebounds. These advantages helped offset Indiana’s better turnover and steal totals.
Deeper Statistical Interpretation: What the Numbers Do and Do Not Prove
A box score is most useful when individual figures are connected to the way a game unfolds. In this matchup, the Toronto Raptors vs Pacers match player stats provide enough information to identify major differences in shooting, passing, and rebounding. They do not, however, explain every possession or establish exactly why every player performed as they did.
Comparing Scoring Efficiency
One way to understand the shooting difference is to calculate the points generated by field goals and three-pointers.
Toronto made 33 field goals, including 11 three-pointers. Indiana made 26 field goals, including nine three-pointers. Because each three-pointer is worth one additional point compared with a two-point field goal, the teams’ scoring from made field goals can be calculated as follows:
| Calculation | Toronto | Indiana |
| Total Field Goals Made | 33 | 26 |
| Three-Pointers Made | 11 | 9 |
| Two-Point Field Goals Made | 22 | 17 |
| Points From Two-Point Field Goals | 44 | 34 |
| Points From Three-Pointers | 33 | 27 |
| Total Points From Field Goals | 77 | 61 |
Toronto scored 16 more points from made field goals than Indiana. Indiana then recovered five points through its advantage in made free throws, reducing the difference between the teams’ final scores.
This breakdown offers a clearer explanation than looking at percentages alone. Toronto produced more points through both two-point and three-point field goals, while Indiana compensated in part by reaching the free-throw line more often.
Evaluating the Importance of Possessions
Turnovers are only one part of possession analysis. Offensive rebounds, free-throw opportunities, and successful shots also influence how much a team gets from its possessions.
Toronto recorded 21 turnovers and 13 offensive rebounds. Indiana recorded 16 turnovers and 13 offensive rebounds. Both teams therefore had the same number of offensive rebounds, while Toronto lost five more possessions through turnovers.
A full possession-based analysis would also need a consistent definition of team possessions and more detailed information about the sequence of events. Without those details, it would be misleading to claim an exact offensive rating or a definitive number of possessions for either team.
The available numbers nevertheless reveal a useful contrast: Toronto was less secure with the ball but more productive when converting shots. Indiana protected possession more effectively but did not match Toronto’s shooting efficiency.
Why Individual Shooting Splits Matter
Team percentages can conceal differences between individual players. Lundy’s four made three-pointers on seven attempts, for example, show that Toronto’s perimeter success was not necessarily distributed evenly across the roster.
Similarly, Indiana’s nine made three-pointers came from 35 attempts overall. Without the complete individual shooting lines, it is not possible to determine precisely which players contributed most to the team’s low three-point percentage.
For readers comparing player performances, this is why points alone are not enough. Field-goal attempts, three-point attempts, free throws, minutes, and turnovers help establish whether a high scoring total came with efficient shooting or a large volume of attempts.
Avoiding Overinterpretation of Summer League Results
Summer League performances can be informative, but one game does not establish a player’s long-term professional value. A high-scoring outing may reflect good shot-making, an increased offensive role, favorable matchups, or several factors working together.
Likewise, a loss does not automatically indicate poor individual performances. Indiana’s leading scorers produced substantial totals, and the team remained within one point of Toronto despite its shooting disadvantages.
The most reliable assessment separates recorded facts from broader conclusions. The final score, shooting totals, rebounds, and assists are documented results. Claims about future development, roster security, or regular-season success require additional evidence from other games and relevant player context.
Conclusion
The Toronto Raptors defeated the Indiana Pacers 94-93 on July 14, 2026, in a competitive NBA Summer League matchup. Toronto’s victory was built on better field-goal accuracy, stronger three-point shooting, more assists, and a six-rebound advantage. Indiana countered with fewer turnovers, more steals, and greater free-throw production, keeping the contest close until the final score was decided.
Seth Lundy led Toronto with 22 points, including four three-pointers, while Tyreke Key added 16 points off the bench. For Indiana, Rien Mast delivered 23 points and 10 rebounds, Jalen Slawson scored 21 points, and Gabe McGlothan contributed 16. Braden Smith’s nine assists also highlighted his importance to Indiana’s offensive creation.
The most important lesson from the game is that basketball outcomes depend on how different statistical strengths interact. Indiana protected the ball more effectively, but Toronto converted its field-goal attempts at a higher rate and generated more assisted scoring opportunities. Those advantages proved sufficient to secure a one-point victory.
For readers studying individual performances, the box score provides a valuable starting point. Points identify leading scorers, shooting percentages reveal conversion efficiency, assists help explain offensive creation, and rebounds show how teams competed for possession. Considering these figures together offers a more balanced understanding than relying on the final score alone.
