New Orleans Pelicans vs Washington Wizards Match Player Stats
The new orleans pelicans vs washington wizards match player stats from March 9, 2026, tell the story of a game that changed dramatically after halftime. The New Orleans Pelicans defeated the Washington Wizards 138-118 at the Smoothie King Center in New Orleans, Louisiana, overcoming an early deficit before taking control in the second half. Trey Murphy III led the Pelicans with 24 points, while Saddiq Bey added 23 points and 10 rebounds. Zion Williamson contributed 20 points, and Dejounte Murray delivered an efficient 19-point performance. For Washington, rookie Tre Johnson scored 20 points, Justin Champagnie added 19, and Trae Young finished with 17 points and eight assists.
The final score shows a 20-point victory, but the underlying numbers explain how New Orleans created that separation. The Pelicans shot 52.8% from the field, committed only eight turnovers, and recorded 11 steals. Washington shot 45.1% and committed 17 turnovers. Although the Wizards started strongly and led after the first quarter, New Orleans steadily improved its offensive execution and defensive pressure. These statistics provide a clearer understanding of individual performances, team efficiency, bench production, and the factors that decided the contest.
New Orleans Pelicans vs Washington Wizards Match Player Stats: Game Overview
The March 9 matchup featured two teams looking to finish the season strongly. New Orleans used balanced scoring and improved defensive activity to turn a competitive opening period into a convincing home victory.
NBA REGULAR-SEASON GAME · MARCH 9, 2026
New Orleans Pelicans
138
Home team
Washington Wizards
118
Away team
Venue
Smoothie King Center
Attendance
16,698
Winning margin
Pelicans by 20
Season series
Pelicans won 2-0
Quarter-by-quarter scoring
| Quarter | Washington Wizards | New Orleans Pelicans |
| First quarter | 35 | 32 |
| Second quarter | 30 | 35 |
| Third quarter | 28 | 35 |
| Fourth quarter | 25 | 36 |
| Final score | 118 | 138 |
Washington won the opening quarter by three points. New Orleans responded with a five-point advantage in the second quarter, then extended its lead by seven points in each of the final two periods.
The pattern is important because it shows that the Pelicans did not dominate from the opening tip. They adjusted as the game progressed, improved their scoring consistency, and limited Washington’s ability to maintain its early offensive pace.
The supplied ESPN box-score data lists the Wizards at 16-47 overall and 5-25 away, while the Pelicans were 21-45 overall and 12-21 at home at the time of the game. These are historical records associated with the matchup, not current standings.
Complete Washington Wizards Player Statistics
Washington finished with 118 points, but its individual scoring leaders did not receive enough consistent support to keep pace with New Orleans in the second half. Tre Johnson led the team with 20 points, while Justin Champagnie supplied an efficient 19 points off the bench.
The following table presents the key Wizards player statistics from the supplied box score.
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | FG | 3PT | Turnovers |
| Tre Johnson | 20 | 4 | 1 | 7-13 | 4-7 | 1 |
| Justin Champagnie | 19 | 3 | 0 | 8-12 | 0-1 | 4 |
| Trae Young | 17 | 4 | 8 | 4-6 | 3-5 | 4 |
| Anthony Gill | 11 | 2 | 0 | 5-7 | 1-3 | 1 |
| Leaky Black | 10 | 4 | 2 | 4-11 | 2-6 | 0 |
| Jaden Hardy | 10 | 3 | 3 | 4-10 | 0-4 | 1 |
| Bub Carrington | 9 | 3 | 4 | 3-6 | 2-5 | 2 |
| Alex Sarr | 7 | 4 | 1 | 3-7 | 1-3 | 1 |
| Julian Reese | 5 | 9 | 3 | 1-4 | 0-0 | 2 |
| Sharife Cooper | 5 | 1 | 4 | 1-3 | 0-1 | 1 |
| Bilal Coulibaly | 5 | 4 | 1 | 1-12 | 1-7 | 0 |
FG means field goals made and attempted. 3PT means three-pointers made and attempted. The table includes the principal statistical categories relevant to each player’s performance.
Tre Johnson’s 20-point performance
Tre Johnson was Washington’s leading scorer, finishing with 20 points, four rebounds, and one assist. He made seven of his 13 field-goal attempts and four of seven three-point attempts.
His 53.8% field-goal accuracy and 57.1% three-point accuracy made him one of the most effective perimeter scorers in the game. Johnson demonstrated that Washington could produce efficient scoring even while the team struggled to contain the Pelicans.
His four successful three-pointers were particularly valuable. Long-range shooting helped Washington remain competitive during the first half, but the team needed more consistent defensive stops to turn individual scoring into a sustained challenge.
Johnson’s performance also highlights an important distinction when evaluating young players. A team’s defeat does not automatically make an individual performance unsuccessful. Shooting efficiency, shot selection, rebounding, and defensive responsibilities provide a more complete picture than the final score alone.
Trae Young’s playmaking and scoring
Trae Young recorded 17 points, four rebounds, and eight assists in 18 minutes, according to the supplied box score. He converted four of six field-goal attempts, three of five three-point attempts, and six of eight free throws.
His eight assists were a team-high, showing his ability to create opportunities for teammates. Young’s shooting numbers were also efficient, particularly from beyond the arc.
However, he committed four turnovers. That figure matters because Washington finished with 17 turnovers as a team, compared with only eight for New Orleans.
Young’s short appearance should also be considered when interpreting his overall impact. His scoring and passing totals were productive, but the box score alone does not establish why he played 18 minutes or how his role affected the game’s tactical direction.
Justin Champagnie provides valuable bench scoring
Justin Champagnie scored 19 points in 25 minutes, making eight of 12 field-goal attempts and all three free throws. His 66.7% field-goal accuracy was an impressive individual result.
Champagnie gave Washington a reliable scoring option beyond its starting lineup. He converted opportunities around the basket and from inside the arc, reducing some of the offensive burden on Johnson and Young.
His four turnovers, however, show why scoring totals should not be assessed in isolation. Champagnie contributed efficient shooting, but his possession management was an area in which the Wizards could have improved.
His performance illustrates the value of bench production: reserves can help a team maintain its offense when starters rest, although efficient shooting alone cannot overcome larger defensive and possession-related problems.
Alex Sarr’s contribution
Alex Sarr finished with seven points, four rebounds, and one assist. He shot three for seven from the field, including one successful three-pointer on three attempts.
Sarr’s seven points were modest compared with Washington’s leading scorers. Still, his role should be evaluated within the team’s overall structure rather than by points alone.
His four rebounds provided additional possessions and defensive support. For a frontcourt player, rebounding position, contesting shots, and helping protect the paint are important responsibilities that a scoring table cannot fully capture.
New Orleans’ ability to score 138 points suggests that Washington’s defensive problems extended beyond any one player. Assigning responsibility for the result to Sarr alone would go beyond what the available statistics can establish.
Leaky Black and Washington’s supporting lineup
Leaky Black contributed 10 points, four rebounds, and two assists. He made four of 11 field-goal attempts and two of six three-point attempts.
Jaden Hardy also scored 10 points, shooting four for 10 from the field. Bub Carrington added nine points and four assists, while Julian Reese produced nine rebounds to go with five points.
These performances demonstrate that Washington had several players contributing in different ways. Carrington provided secondary playmaking, and Reese helped on the glass. Nevertheless, the team struggled to combine those contributions into a defense capable of slowing New Orleans.
Bilal Coulibaly had a difficult shooting night, making one of 12 field-goal attempts and one of seven three-point attempts. His five points reflected a challenging offensive performance, although the shooting line alone does not describe his full defensive contribution.
The broader issue was collective execution. Washington needed better shooting from some supporting players, fewer turnovers, and stronger resistance around the basket to compete for all four quarters.
Complete New Orleans Pelicans Player Statistics
New Orleans received contributions from its starters and bench. Trey Murphy III led the scoring, Saddiq Bey recorded a double-double, and Zion Williamson added efficient interior scoring. Dejounte Murray supplied another productive performance, while Derik Queen made a significant contribution in a reserve role.
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | FG | 3PT | Turnovers |
| Trey Murphy III | 24 | 5 | 4 | 7-14 | 4-9 | 0 |
| Saddiq Bey | 23 | 10 | 2 | 9-17 | 0-4 | 0 |
| Zion Williamson | 20 | 2 | 1 | 6-8 | 0-0 | 0 |
| Dejounte Murray | 19 | 6 | 2 | 6-9 | 0-1 | 2 |
| Jordan Poole | 18 | 5 | 7 | 7-16 | 1-4 | 2 |
| Derik Queen | 13 | 4 | 5 | 5-9 | 1-2 | 1 |
| Karlo Matkovic | 5 | 2 | 0 | 1-2 | 1-1 | 0 |
| Bryce McGowens | 4 | 1 | 3 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 1 |
| Herbert Jones | 4 | 2 | 0 | 2-6 | 0-1 | 2 |
| DeAndre Jordan | 2 | 5 | 1 | 0-0 | 0-0 | 0 |
| Yves Missi | 2 | 2 | 0 | 1-1 | 0-0 | 0 |
| Jordan Hawkins | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1-3 | 0-1 | 0 |
| Micah Peavy | 2 | 0 | 0 | 1-2 | 0-0 | 0 |
Statistics reflect the supplied box-score data. Players who did not enter the game are not included in this table.
Trey Murphy III leads all scorers
Trey Murphy III delivered the highest individual scoring total of the game with 24 points. He also recorded five rebounds, four assists, and one steal.
Murphy made seven of 14 field-goal attempts and four of nine three-point attempts. He converted all six of his free throws, finishing with a balanced scoring line that combined perimeter shooting with opportunities at the line.
His four made three-pointers helped stretch Washington’s defense. When a perimeter shooter converts from distance, defenders must close out more aggressively, potentially creating driving lanes and space for teammates.
Murphy’s contribution therefore went beyond his raw scoring total. His shooting helped New Orleans maintain offensive spacing, while his passing gave teammates additional opportunities.
The key detail is that Murphy scored efficiently without relying exclusively on three-pointers. His ability to contribute through different scoring methods made him difficult to defend over the course of the game.
Saddiq Bey records a double-double
Saddiq Bey finished with 23 points, 10 rebounds, two assists, and two steals. He made nine of 17 field-goal attempts and five of 10 free throws.
His 10 rebounds gave him the only double-double among the principal New Orleans scoring leaders listed in the supplied data. Bey also recorded five offensive rebounds, which helped the Pelicans create additional scoring opportunities.
Offensive rebounds are particularly important in games where a team has several missed shots. Recovering a missed attempt can preserve possession and create another chance to score without requiring a defensive stop.
Bey’s two steals also contributed to New Orleans’ defensive activity. His performance combined scoring, rebounding, and disruption, giving the Pelicans production in several areas rather than relying on one skill.
His performance was especially notable against his former team. However, the most useful statistical takeaway is his combination of 23 points and 10 rebounds, which helped New Orleans maintain pressure on both ends of the floor.
Zion Williamson scores 20 points efficiently
Zion Williamson recorded 20 points, two rebounds, and one assist. He converted six of eight field-goal attempts and eight of 11 free throws.
His 75% field-goal accuracy was the best among the Pelicans’ leading scorers who attempted at least eight shots. Williamson’s ability to finish close to the basket helped New Orleans produce points without depending on high-volume three-point shooting.
He made no three-point attempts, so his scoring came entirely from two-point field goals and free throws. This is an important distinction when assessing the Pelicans’ offensive balance.
Williamson’s strength around the basket creates a different defensive challenge from Murphy’s perimeter shooting. Washington had to deal with outside scoring and interior pressure at the same time, making it more difficult to protect every area of the floor.
His relatively low turnover total also helped the Pelicans preserve possessions. He finished without a recorded turnover in the supplied box score.
Dejounte Murray controls possessions efficiently
Dejounte Murray scored 19 points, collected six rebounds, recorded two assists, and added two steals. He shot six for nine from the field and seven for nine from the free-throw line.
Murray’s 66.7% field-goal accuracy was an important part of New Orleans’ efficient offense. His ability to score without taking a large number of shots allowed other players to remain involved.
His two steals also contributed to the team’s total of 11. Steals can change a game quickly because they may prevent an opponent from taking a shot while creating a transition opportunity for the defending team.
Murray committed two turnovers, but his overall possession management was considerably better than Washington’s team-wide performance. The Pelicans’ eight total turnovers meant they gave away fewer opportunities over the full game.
Murray’s value in this matchup came from efficient scoring, defensive activity, and the ability to contribute without monopolizing the ball.
Jordan Poole adds 18 points and seven assists
Jordan Poole recorded 18 points, five rebounds, seven assists, one steal, and one block. He made seven of 16 field-goal attempts and three of three free throws.
Poole’s seven assists tied the Pelicans’ highest individual total in the supplied box score. His passing gave New Orleans another way to create shots beyond the contributions of its primary scorers.
Although he made only one of four three-point attempts, he remained productive through his overall shooting and playmaking. His performance shows why a player’s contribution cannot always be judged by three-point percentage alone.
Poole committed two turnovers, a manageable portion of the Pelicans’ eight total. His combination of scoring and assists helped sustain the offense as the game moved into the later quarters.
Derik Queen provides an effective bench performance
Derik Queen finished with 13 points, four rebounds, five assists, and one block. He made five of nine field-goal attempts, including one of two three-point attempts, and converted both free throws.
Queen also recorded the best plus/minus among Pelicans players at +17. This means New Orleans outscored Washington by 17 points during his time on the court.
Plus/minus is a useful contextual statistic, but it should not be treated as a direct measure of individual responsibility. Teammates, opponents, substitutions, and the situations in which a player enters the game all influence the number.
Queen’s combination of scoring and five assists nevertheless provides evidence of a productive outing. His passing was especially useful for a reserve player, while his efficient shooting helped the Pelicans maintain their offensive output beyond the starting lineup.
Herbert Jones and the supporting players
Herbert Jones finished with four points, two rebounds, and three steals. His scoring total was limited, but the three steals represented a meaningful defensive contribution.
Karlo Matkovic scored five points in limited minutes, while Bryce McGowens added four points and three assists. DeAndre Jordan recorded five rebounds and one assist despite not scoring a field goal.
Yves Missi contributed two points, two rebounds, and two blocks. These blocks formed part of New Orleans’ six-block team total and illustrate the defensive work of the frontcourt rotation.
The supporting lineup did not need every player to score in double figures. Instead, New Orleans benefited from several complementary contributions, including rebounding, passing, steals, and rim protection.
That distribution helped the Pelicans maintain pressure while their main scorers continued to produce.
Team Statistics Comparison: Pelicans vs Wizards
The team totals explain why New Orleans won by 20 points despite Washington’s strong opening quarter. The Pelicans shot better, protected the ball more effectively, and created more defensive disruptions.
| Statistical category | Pelicans | Wizards |
| Points | 138 | 118 |
| Field goals made/attempted | 47/89 | 41/91 |
| Field-goal percentage | 52.8% | 45.1% |
| Three-pointers made/attempted | 7/23 | 14/42 |
| Three-point percentage | 30.4% | 33.3% |
| Free throws made/attempted | 37/47 | 22/27 |
| Free-throw percentage | 78.7% | 81.5% |
| Total rebounds | 44 | 41 |
| Offensive rebounds | 12 | 13 |
| Defensive rebounds | 32 | 28 |
| Assists | 25 | 27 |
| Turnovers | 8 | 17 |
| Steals | 11 | 2 |
| Blocks | 6 | 3 |
| Personal fouls | 20 | 31 |
Percentages are calculated from the supplied makes and attempts and rounded to one decimal place. The displayed ESPN box score rounds some shooting percentages to whole numbers.
Field-goal efficiency favored New Orleans
The Pelicans made 47 of 89 field-goal attempts, compared with Washington’s 41 of 91.
That difference gave New Orleans six additional made field goals despite taking two fewer shots. Its 52.8% field-goal percentage was approximately 7.7 percentage points higher than Washington’s 45.1%.
This was a significant factor in a game with a final margin of 20 points.
The difference also illustrates why total shot attempts do not tell the whole story. Washington attempted more field goals, but the Pelicans converted a greater proportion of their opportunities.
For readers evaluating basketball efficiency, the key questions are how frequently a team makes its shots, how many additional possessions it creates, and how often it gives the ball away. All three areas help explain this result.
Washington made more three-pointers, but New Orleans scored more overall
Washington connected on 14 three-pointers, seven more than New Orleans. The Wizards also shot a better percentage from beyond the arc, converting 33.3% compared with the Pelicans’ 30.4%.
Yet Washington still lost by 20 points.
The reason becomes clearer when the other scoring categories are considered. New Orleans made 47 field goals overall and converted 37 free throws. Washington made 41 field goals and 22 free throws.
The Pelicans’ advantage at the free-throw line was especially important. They made 15 more free throws than the Wizards, which more than offset Washington’s seven additional three-pointers.
A made three-pointer is worth one point more than a made two-pointer, but a team’s total scoring depends on all scoring methods. A team can win the three-point comparison and still lose the game comfortably if its opponent produces more points inside the arc and at the free-throw line.
Free throws created a major scoring difference
New Orleans attempted 47 free throws and made 37. Washington attempted 27 and made 22.
The Pelicans therefore attempted 20 more free throws and made 15 more.
Their free-throw percentage was slightly lower, but the volume of attempts mattered much more than the small difference in accuracy.
Several factors can influence free-throw volume, including drives to the basket, defensive positioning, shooting fouls, and the timing of fouls. The available totals demonstrate the scoring advantage, although they do not independently establish the cause of every foul.
New Orleans’ interior pressure and ability to draw contact helped it build a scoring cushion that Washington could not erase with perimeter shooting.
Turnovers were one of the clearest differences
Washington committed 17 turnovers, while New Orleans committed only eight.
That nine-turnover gap is one of the most revealing statistics in the game. Every turnover ends an offensive possession without a field-goal attempt, a free-throw opportunity from that possession, or another chance to score.
New Orleans also recorded 11 steals compared with Washington’s two. The combination of more steals and fewer turnovers points to a substantial difference in ball security and defensive disruption.
The figures should not be interpreted as proof that every Wizards turnover resulted in a Pelicans basket. They do, however, show that New Orleans was much more successful at disrupting Washington’s possession flow while avoiding similar mistakes itself.
In a high-scoring contest, protecting possessions can be just as important as improving shooting accuracy.
Rebounding was relatively close
New Orleans collected 44 total rebounds, compared with Washington’s 41. The Wizards actually had one more offensive rebound, 13 to 12.
This means rebounding was not the largest statistical gap in the contest. Both teams produced a similar total on the glass, and Washington generated slightly more offensive rebounds.
The Pelicans’ advantage was more pronounced in defensive rebounding, where they recorded 32 compared with Washington’s 28. Defensive rebounds end an opponent’s missed-shot possession and allow the defending team to begin its next offensive sequence.
The three-rebound overall difference was relatively small compared with the nine-turnover gap and the difference in made free throws. This helps separate the major reasons for the outcome from the categories that were more evenly contested.
Five Key Factors That Decided the Game
1. New Orleans improved as the game progressed
The first quarter belonged to Washington, which scored 35 points against New Orleans’ 32. But the Pelicans responded with 35 points in the second quarter and repeated that total in the third.
Their scoring then increased to 36 in the fourth.
The progression from 32 points to 35, 35, and 36 indicates that New Orleans sustained and gradually improved its offensive output. Washington, by contrast, moved from 35 to 30, 28, and 25 points.
The difference between the teams’ fourth-quarter scoring was 11 points. That final-period margin helped transform a competitive game into a convincing win.
2. The Pelicans combined several scoring threats
Murphy scored 24 points, Bey added 23, Williamson recorded 20, and Murray contributed 19. Poole added another 18.
Five New Orleans players therefore reached at least 18 points.
This distribution made the offense harder to contain. Washington could not focus exclusively on Murphy’s perimeter shooting or Williamson’s interior scoring without leaving other capable scorers involved.
The Pelicans also received 13 points from Queen, who added five assists. The resulting balance between starters and reserves reduced the team’s dependence on any single offensive option.
3. Free-throw volume helped create separation
The Pelicans made 37 free throws, 15 more than Washington. That difference is larger than the final margin’s three-point equivalent in many ordinary possession scenarios and provided a major scoring cushion.
New Orleans did not need to dominate three-point shooting to win. Its scoring at the line and better overall field-goal efficiency allowed it to produce 138 points despite making only seven three-pointers.
Washington’s 14 made three-pointers were not enough to compensate for the difference.
4. New Orleans disrupted Washington’s possession management
The nine-turnover advantage and the 11-to-2 steals comparison show how effectively New Orleans pressured the ball.
Washington had 27 assists, two more than the Pelicans. This suggests the Wizards could create scoring opportunities through passing, but those assists came alongside 17 turnovers.
New Orleans’ 25 assists and eight turnovers represent a different balance. The Pelicans moved the ball effectively while preserving more possessions.
Assists alone cannot measure the quality of an offense. The number of turnovers and the efficiency of the resulting shots are also necessary to understand whether ball movement produces reliable scoring.
5. The Pelicans controlled the paint
The published game recap reported that New Orleans outscored Washington 72-44 in the paint, a 28-point advantage. This is a particularly useful statistic because it provides context for the free-throw difference and the Pelicans’ superior overall field-goal percentage.
Points in the paint include scoring from the area close to the basket. Such production often comes from drives, cuts, post moves, offensive rebounds, and finishes near the rim.
Williamson’s 20 points on eight field-goal attempts and Bey’s 23 points illustrate how New Orleans combined efficient interior scoring with contributions from other areas.
Washington’s success from three-point range was real, but it did not offset the Pelicans’ dominance closer to the basket.
Shooting Efficiency and Advanced Statistical Interpretation
Basic box-score numbers are useful, but several additional calculations provide a more detailed picture of the game.
Effective field-goal percentage
Effective field-goal percentage, commonly abbreviated as eFG%, adjusts ordinary field-goal percentage to account for the extra point awarded for a successful three-pointer.
The formula is:
\[ \text{eFG\%}=\frac{\text{FGM}+0.5(\text{3PM})}{\text{FGA}}\times100 \]
Using the supplied totals:
- New Orleans: (47+0.57)/89, or approximately 56.7%.
- Washington: (41+0.514)/91, or approximately 52.7%.
Even after accounting for Washington’s advantage in made three-pointers, New Orleans maintained a four-percentage-point advantage in effective field-goal percentage.
This reinforces the conclusion that the Pelicans were more productive with their field-goal attempts overall.
Turnover rate as a practical indicator
A simple turnover comparison gives another useful perspective:
- Pelicans: eight turnovers.
- Wizards: 17 turnovers.
- Difference: nine fewer turnovers for New Orleans.
A formal turnover percentage requires a consistent possession estimate, typically incorporating field-goal attempts, turnovers, and free-throw attempts. The supplied team totals are enough to establish the raw turnover advantage, but a precise possession-based turnover rate should be calculated using a clearly specified formula.
For a straightforward game recap, the nine-turnover difference is both understandable and meaningful.
A caution about plus/minus
Plus/minus records the team’s scoring margin while a player is on the court. It does not mean the player personally scored that many points or was individually responsible for that entire margin.
Queen’s +17 was the highest plus/minus among Pelicans players in the supplied data. Murray and Bey each recorded +15, as did Yves Missi.
These figures indicate that New Orleans outscored Washington during those players’ court time. However, plus/minus is affected by teammates, opponents, lineup combinations, and game situations.
The best analysis combines it with individual production. Queen’s 13 points and five assists, for example, provide additional evidence of his contribution beyond the plus/minus figure.
Starting Lineups and Bench Contributions
Washington Wizards starting lineup
The supplied box score lists the following Washington starters:
- Leaky Black
- Alex Sarr
- Trae Young
- Bilal Coulibaly
- Tre Johnson
The starting group featured a mix of perimeter creation, young scoring talent, and frontcourt support. Johnson led the starters with 20 points, while Young supplied eight assists.
Black contributed 10 points, but Coulibaly struggled with his shooting. The starting lineup had individual strengths, yet Washington was unable to sustain its early scoring pace.
New Orleans Pelicans starting lineup
New Orleans started:
- Herbert Jones
- Zion Williamson
- Trey Murphy III
- Dejounte Murray
- Saddiq Bey
This lineup offered several complementary scoring styles. Williamson provided interior pressure, Murphy supplied perimeter shooting, and Murray added efficient scoring and defensive activity.
Bey contributed both points and rebounds, while Jones recorded three steals despite scoring only four points.
The combination gave New Orleans several ways to influence the game. Even when one player was not scoring heavily, others could provide offense or defensive disruption.
Why bench production mattered
Champagnie scored 19 points for Washington, while Queen produced 13 for New Orleans. Poole also contributed 18 points and seven assists for the Pelicans.
These performances demonstrate that the game was not decided solely by the starting five. Reserve players helped maintain offensive output and created different lineup combinations.
New Orleans’ bench production was particularly useful because Queen and Poole contributed both scoring and passing. Washington also received valuable scoring from Champagnie, but its overall turnover and defensive numbers remained unfavorable.
A strong bench does not guarantee victory. What matters is how effectively reserve contributions fit into the team’s overall strategy and whether the lineup can maintain defensive quality while starters rest.
Season Series: New Orleans Won Both Meetings
The March 9 victory completed a 2-0 season-series sweep for the Pelicans, according to the supplied matchup data.
| Matchup date | Result | Winning margin |
| January 10, 2026 | Pelicans 128, Wizards 107 | 21 points |
| March 9, 2026 | Pelicans 138, Wizards 118 | 20 points |
Across the two listed meetings, New Orleans scored 266 points and Washington scored 225. The Pelicans therefore held a combined scoring advantage of 41 points.
The results also show a similar outcome in both games. New Orleans won the January meeting by 21 points and the March meeting by 20.
That consistency supports the conclusion that the Pelicans matched up effectively against Washington during the 2025-26 regular season. However, two games are not enough to establish that one team would always prevail in future meetings, particularly when rosters, health, and rotations can change.
For readers tracking head-to-head results, the season series is useful context alongside the individual box score. It places the 138-118 result within a broader record of the teams’ meetings.
What the Statistics Reveal About Each Team
What New Orleans did well
The Pelicans’ performance was built on a combination of efficient shooting, ball security, and multiple scoring threats.
Their most important strengths included:
- Shooting 52.8% from the field.
- Making 37 free throws.
- Committing only eight turnovers.
- Recording 11 steals and six blocks.
- Getting at least 18 points from five players.
- Outscoring Washington in the paint by 28 points.
These figures show that New Orleans did not rely on a single statistical advantage. The team scored efficiently, limited wasted possessions, and created defensive disruptions.
The ability to score inside while also getting perimeter production from Murphy made the offense less predictable. The Pelicans’ defensive activity then helped prevent Washington from keeping pace during the second half.
What Washington could have improved
The Wizards’ most obvious areas for improvement were possession management, defensive resistance near the basket, and consistency across the four quarters.
Their three-point shooting was better than New Orleans’ by both percentage and total makes. However, their 17 turnovers and the 15-free-throw difference placed them at a disadvantage.
Washington also allowed 72 points in the paint. That figure suggests the team struggled to keep the Pelicans away from high-value scoring areas.
The Wizards did have positive individual performances. Johnson scored efficiently, Young created opportunities, and Champagnie supplied productive bench scoring. But those efforts were not enough to compensate for the team’s defensive and possession-related weaknesses.
Why the final score matters beyond the margin
A 20-point result can appear straightforward, but the quarter-by-quarter progression reveals a more nuanced contest.
Washington was ahead after the first quarter. New Orleans then won each remaining period, gradually creating separation rather than relying on a single scoring burst.
The game is a useful example of how a team can win without leading every quarter. Sustained efficiency, defensive adjustments, and fewer mistakes can be more important than a strong opening stretch.
Official Box Score and Statistical Verification
For readers who want to verify individual totals, team shooting percentages, and player minutes, the most useful reference is the official ESPN box score for the Pelicans vs Wizards game.
When checking a basketball box score, pay particular attention to the following:
- Points: Confirm the player’s total and compare it with field goals and free throws.
- Shooting attempts: Distinguish made shots from attempted shots.
- Rebounds: Separate offensive rebounds from defensive rebounds when analyzing second chances.
- Assists and turnovers: Use both categories to understand playmaking and possession management.
- Plus/minus: Interpret the number as a team scoring margin during a player’s court time, not as an individual score.
These checks help prevent common mistakes in player-stat articles, such as confusing points with field goals made or interpreting a high plus/minus as proof of individual dominance.
The analysis above uses the supplied game data and calculated percentages. Individual statistics are most meaningful when read alongside team totals and the progression of the game.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the New Orleans Pelicans vs Washington Wizards game on March 9, 2026?
The New Orleans Pelicans defeated the Washington Wizards 138-118 at the Smoothie King Center. New Orleans won by 20 points after trailing 35-32 at the end of the first quarter.
2. Who was the leading scorer in the game?
Trey Murphy III was the game’s leading scorer with 24 points for New Orleans. He also recorded five rebounds and four assists, shooting seven of 14 from the field and four of nine from three-point range.
3. Which Wizards player scored the most points?
Tre Johnson led Washington with 20 points. He made seven of 13 field-goal attempts and four of seven three-point attempts, finishing with four rebounds and one assist.
4. How many points did Zion Williamson score against Washington?
Zion Williamson scored 20 points, collected two rebounds, and recorded one assist. He made six of eight field-goal attempts and eight of 11 free throws.
5. Which team had better shooting statistics?
New Orleans had the better overall field-goal percentage, converting 52.8% of its attempts compared with Washington’s 45.1%. Washington was more accurate from three-point range, shooting 33.3% against New Orleans’ 30.4%.
6. How many times did the Pelicans beat the Wizards during the 2025-26 season?
According to the supplied matchup data, New Orleans won both regular-season meetings. The Pelicans defeated Washington 128-107 on January 10, 2026, and 138-118 on March 9, 2026.
Conclusion
The new orleans pelicans vs washington wizards match player stats show that New Orleans earned its 138-118 victory through efficient shooting, strong interior scoring, defensive pressure, and careful possession management. Trey Murphy III led all scorers with 24 points, while Saddiq Bey recorded 23 points and 10 rebounds. Zion Williamson contributed 20 points, Dejounte Murray added 19, and Jordan Poole scored 18 with seven assists.
Washington also had productive individual performances. Tre Johnson scored 20 points, Justin Champagnie added 19, and Trae Young recorded 17 points with eight assists. The Wizards made 14 three-pointers, seven more than New Orleans, but struggled to match the Pelicans’ overall scoring efficiency.
The decisive statistical differences were New Orleans’ 52.8% field-goal shooting, its 37 made free throws, and its nine-turnover advantage. The Pelicans also recorded 11 steals compared with Washington’s two and dominated the paint by 72-44. After losing the first quarter, New Orleans outscored Washington in each of the final three periods.
Ultimately, the box score illustrates why basketball results depend on more than individual scoring totals. Shooting efficiency, free-throw opportunities, defensive stops, and possession control all contributed to the outcome. New Orleans’ balanced production across its starting lineup and reserves helped secure a convincing victory and complete a 2-0 season-series sweep.
