New orleans pelicans vs la clippers match player stats
The new orleans pelicans vs la clippers match player stats from the March 2, 2026 game tell a much clearer story than the final score alone. The Los Angeles Clippers defeated the New Orleans Pelicans 137-117 at Intuit Dome, but the most useful way to understand the result is to examine shooting efficiency, ball security, scoring distribution, three-point production, and the individual performances that shaped the game. Los Angeles shot 54% from the field and 47% from three-point range, while New Orleans shot 45% overall and 36% from deep. The Clippers also committed only eight turnovers compared with 16 by the Pelicans.
The game was played at Intuit Dome in Inglewood, California, with an announced attendance of 17,003. New Orleans entered the contest at 19-43 overall and 8-22 on the road, while Los Angeles was 28-31 overall and 15-13 at home. Those records provide useful context, but they do not fully explain a 20-point margin. The biggest difference came from how consistently the Clippers created efficient possessions throughout all four quarters.
For readers researching player performances, this game is especially useful because it demonstrates why raw points should not be treated as the only measure of impact. A player can score efficiently without leading his team in total points, while another player can produce a respectable scoring line but struggle to influence the broader flow of the game.
new orleans pelicans vs la clippers match player stats: Game Overview
The Clippers won 137-117 and never trailed during the contest. Los Angeles opened the game with a dominant 43-point first quarter, creating an immediate 11-point advantage. New Orleans responded with 38 points in the second period, but the Clippers still went into halftime ahead 76-70.
Los Angeles then controlled the second half. The Clippers scored 31 points in the third quarter and another 30 in the fourth. New Orleans managed 24 points in the third and 23 in the fourth.
The quarter-by-quarter scoring was:
| Quarter | Pelicans | Clippers |
| Q1 | 32 | 43 |
| Q2 | 38 | 33 |
| Q3 | 24 | 31 |
| Q4 | 23 | 30 |
| Final | 117 | 137 |
The most important observation is that New Orleans did not lose because it had one disastrous offensive quarter. The Pelicans actually scored 117 points, including 70 points in the first half. The larger problem was that Los Angeles maintained elite offensive efficiency while limiting New Orleans’ ability to generate enough additional possessions.
That distinction matters when studying player statistics. A 20-point defeat can come from poor offense, poor defense, poor rebounding, excessive turnovers, or a combination of those factors. In this game, the turnover and shooting gaps were particularly important.
Final Score and Team Statistical Comparison
The basic team comparison shows why Los Angeles controlled the game.
| Statistic | New Orleans Pelicans | LA Clippers |
| Points | 117 | 137 |
| Field Goals | 40-89 | 48-89 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 45% | 54% |
| Three-Pointers | 12-33 | 17-36 |
| Three-Point Percentage | 36% | 47% |
| Free Throws | 25-30 | 24-29 |
| Free Throw Percentage | 83% | 83% |
| Rebounds | 41 | 38 |
| Assists | 22 | 29 |
| Turnovers | 16 | 8 |
| Steals | 6 | 11 |
| Blocks | 4 | 3 |
The first thing that stands out is that both teams attempted exactly 89 field goals. That removes one common explanation for a large scoring difference.
The Clippers simply converted more of those attempts.
Los Angeles made eight more field goals despite taking the same number of attempts. That produced a nine-percentage-point advantage in field goal percentage. The gap was even more meaningful from three-point range, where Los Angeles made 17 shots compared with 12 for New Orleans.
That five-made-three difference represents 15 additional points before considering any other offensive advantage.
The free throw numbers were almost identical. Both teams shot 83%, with New Orleans making 25 of 30 attempts and Los Angeles making 24 of 29. That means free throw efficiency was not the deciding factor.
The turnover differential was much more significant.
New Orleans committed 16 turnovers, while Los Angeles committed only eight. The Clippers therefore finished with half as many turnovers as the Pelicans. In a game where both teams attempted 89 field goals, giving away eight additional possessions is particularly costly.
The Biggest Statistical Difference: Shooting Efficiency
The most important lesson from the game is the difference between volume and efficiency.
Both teams took 89 field-goal attempts. New Orleans made 40. Los Angeles made 48.
That means the Clippers converted approximately 8.99% more of their attempts into made field goals.
The difference becomes even more obvious when looking at the three-point line.
New Orleans:
- 12 made threes
- 33 attempts
- 36% shooting
Los Angeles:
- 17 made threes
- 36 attempts
- 47% shooting
The Clippers made five more three-pointers while attempting only three more.
This is a major offensive advantage because three-point shots create larger scoring swings than two-point shots. A team does not need to dominate shot volume if it consistently generates higher-value attempts and converts them efficiently.
For the Pelicans, the 36% three-point rate was not disastrous in isolation. The problem was that Los Angeles was substantially better.
When one team shoots 47% from three and the other shoots 36%, the difference can become difficult to overcome unless the lower-shooting team dominates another area such as offensive rebounding, free throws, or turnover creation.
New Orleans did not create a large enough advantage in those areas.
Turnovers Changed the Possession Battle
The turnover numbers deserve special attention.
New Orleans had 16 turnovers.
Los Angeles had eight.
That eight-turnover difference effectively gave the Clippers more opportunities to score while simultaneously taking opportunities away from the Pelicans.
The Pelicans did collect 41 rebounds compared with 38 for the Clippers, so rebounding was not a major weakness. In fact, New Orleans had the better total rebound number.
However, extra rebounds could not fully compensate for the turnover problem.
The Clippers also recorded 11 steals compared with six for New Orleans. That suggests the defensive pressure was not merely theoretical. Los Angeles actively disrupted New Orleans possessions and converted defensive activity into additional offensive opportunities.
This is one reason box-score analysis should look beyond points.
A player who forces a difficult pass, creates a deflection, or helps pressure the ball may not receive the same statistical attention as a 20-point scorer. Yet those possessions can influence the final result.
Pelicans Scoring Leaders
The official game record shows that Jeremiah Fears led New Orleans with 28 points, while Derik Queen scored 19, Dejounte Murray scored 17, and Trey Murphy III finished with 16.
That distinction is important because the supplied summary data lists Queen as the Pelicans’ top scorer at 19 points. The official game record identifies Fears as the actual scoring leader with 28.
Jeremiah Fears: 28 Points
Jeremiah Fears was the leading scorer for New Orleans and one of the most important individual offensive performers in the game.
His 28 points came with an especially impressive three-point shooting performance. He made five of six attempts from beyond the arc.
That is an 83.3% conversion rate from three-point range in the game.
Fears’ performance is significant because New Orleans needed efficient perimeter scoring against a Clippers team that was itself shooting extremely well from outside.
His 28 points provided a major offensive contribution, but the Pelicans could not get enough additional efficiency around him to close the overall gap.
This is an important example of why an individual scoring explosion does not automatically translate into a team victory.
Derik Queen: 19 Points
Derik Queen finished with 19 points and ranked among New Orleans’ leading scorers.
His scoring was important because the Pelicans needed production from multiple areas of the floor rather than relying entirely on perimeter shooting.
Queen’s contribution also helped New Orleans maintain a balanced scoring profile. However, the Clippers had more players capable of producing efficient offense across the lineup.
Dejounte Murray: 17 Points
Dejounte Murray added 17 points.
His scoring was useful, but his broader value should be considered through the team’s overall offensive organization. New Orleans finished with 22 assists, compared with 29 for Los Angeles.
That seven-assist difference reflects the Clippers’ stronger ball movement and more consistent creation of quality scoring opportunities.
Trey Murphy III: 16 Points
Trey Murphy III scored 16 points and made four three-pointers.
His four made threes were important because New Orleans needed perimeter spacing against the Clippers.
However, he also finished with three turnovers. In a game where New Orleans committed 16 turnovers as a team, those possessions became part of the larger problem.
The Pelicans needed their perimeter scoring to remain efficient while also protecting the basketball.
Clippers Scoring Leaders
Kawhi Leonard led the Clippers with 23 points. Bennedict Mathurin scored 19, while Derrick Jones Jr. added 17.
Other important Los Angeles contributors included Jordan Miller with 19 points, Brook Lopez with 16, and John Collins with 15.
The distribution is revealing.
Los Angeles did not depend on one player to produce an enormous scoring total. Instead, the Clippers received useful scoring contributions from several players.
Kawhi Leonard: 23 Points
Kawhi Leonard led the Clippers with 23 points.
His scoring total was not an overwhelming number by NBA standards, but it was enough to lead a balanced Clippers attack.
Leonard’s efficiency also needs context. He struggled from three-point range, making one of seven attempts. Yet the Clippers still shot 47% from three as a team.
That is a critical point.
A team can withstand one player’s poor shooting night when the rest of the rotation produces efficiently.
Los Angeles did exactly that.
Bennedict Mathurin: 19 Points
Bennedict Mathurin contributed 19 points and helped maintain the Clippers’ scoring depth.
His production was especially valuable because Los Angeles did not need Leonard to carry the entire offensive workload.
When multiple players are capable of reaching double figures, opposing defenses face a more difficult assignment. Double-teaming one primary scorer becomes less attractive when another player can punish the defense.
Derrick Jones Jr.: 17 Points
Derrick Jones Jr. scored 17 points.
His contribution added another layer to an already balanced Clippers offense.
Los Angeles also received meaningful production from Jordan Miller, Brook Lopez, and John Collins. That depth helped explain why the Clippers could score 137 points without requiring a single player to approach 40 points.
The Value of the 137-Point Offensive Performance
Scoring 137 points while shooting 54% from the field is the central offensive story.
The Clippers made 48 of 89 field-goal attempts.
That combination of volume and accuracy is difficult to defend.
Los Angeles also made 17 of 36 three-point attempts. That means nearly half of its three-point attempts resulted in made baskets.
The Clippers did not simply get hot for one quarter and then disappear.
They scored:
43 points in the first quarter.
33 points in the second.
31 points in the third.
30 points in the fourth.
That consistency matters.
The first quarter created the lead. The remaining three quarters preserved and expanded it.
For New Orleans, the challenge was therefore not just stopping one scoring burst. The Pelicans needed a sustained defensive adjustment, but the Clippers continued finding efficient scoring opportunities.
Why the Pelicans’ 117 Points Were Not Enough
Scoring 117 points normally represents a strong offensive performance.
The Pelicans averaged 29.25 points per quarter.
The problem was that the Clippers averaged 34.25 points per quarter.
The difference was five points per quarter.
Over four quarters, that becomes a 20-point margin.
This simple calculation shows how the final score developed. New Orleans did not necessarily have an awful offensive game. Instead, Los Angeles produced an exceptional offensive game.
The Pelicans also shot 83% from the free throw line and collected 41 rebounds.
Those numbers indicate that the team was competitive in several traditional box-score categories.
The decisive weaknesses were shooting efficiency, turnovers, assists, and the inability to slow down the Clippers’ attack.
Rebounding Did Not Decide the Game
New Orleans actually won the total rebounding comparison 41-38.
That is worth emphasizing because it demonstrates why rebounding totals alone cannot explain every result.
The Pelicans secured three more rebounds than Los Angeles but still lost by 20 points.
Why?
Because the Clippers created a larger advantage elsewhere.
The Clippers’ 54% field-goal percentage meant that many of their possessions ended successfully without needing a second opportunity.
Meanwhile, New Orleans’ 16 turnovers reduced the number of opportunities available to its offense.
This is a classic example of statistical trade-offs.
A team can win the rebounding battle and still lose comfortably if it gives away too many possessions and cannot match the opponent’s shooting efficiency.
Assists Show the Difference in Offensive Organization
Los Angeles recorded 29 assists.
New Orleans recorded 22.
That seven-assist advantage suggests that the Clippers generated more assisted scoring opportunities.
The difference is not enormous by itself, but it becomes meaningful when combined with the shooting numbers.
The Clippers were not only making shots. They were also moving the ball effectively enough to create a higher number of assisted baskets.
For analysts, this is a useful combination to watch:
- Higher field-goal percentage
- Higher three-point percentage
- More assists
- Fewer turnovers
When all four appear in the same game, the offensive advantage is usually substantial.
That is exactly what happened here.
Defensive Pressure and Transition Opportunities
The Clippers recorded 11 steals.
New Orleans had six.
That five-steal advantage indicates a more disruptive defensive performance from Los Angeles.
The official game data also shows that Los Angeles generated 22 fast-break points compared with 13 for New Orleans.
That difference matters because turnovers can become especially damaging when the opponent converts them into transition opportunities.
A live-ball turnover can create a quick scoring chance before the defense is properly organized.
The Clippers’ combination of eight Pelicans turnovers beyond their own total advantage, plus 11 steals and 22 fast-break points, helped turn defensive pressure into offense.
First Quarter Analysis
The first quarter was arguably the defining period.
Los Angeles scored 43 points.
New Orleans scored 32.
That created an 11-point deficit immediately.
The Clippers never trailed, and that early advantage allowed them to dictate the pace.
New Orleans responded with 38 points in the second quarter and actually outscored Los Angeles 38-33.
That response is important.
It shows the Pelicans were capable of adjusting offensively.
However, they did not carry that momentum into the second half.
The Clippers responded with 31 points in the third quarter and 30 in the fourth, while New Orleans managed only 24 and 23.
The pattern demonstrates that Los Angeles was able to recover from New Orleans’ second-quarter response without allowing the game to become genuinely competitive.
Second-Half Performance Was the Difference
At halftime, the Clippers led 76-70.
A six-point halftime margin is far from decisive.
The game was still within reach for New Orleans.
The third quarter changed the situation.
Los Angeles scored 31 points against 24 for New Orleans, increasing the lead from six to 13.
Then the Clippers added another 30 points in the fourth while the Pelicans scored only 23.
That produced the final 20-point margin.
The second half therefore tells a more useful story than the halftime score.
New Orleans needed to win the third quarter or at least keep the deficit stable.
Instead, Los Angeles extended its advantage in both second-half periods.
What the Player Stats Reveal About Team Strategy
The individual statistics reveal several strategic lessons.
First, the Clippers did not rely exclusively on Kawhi Leonard.
Leonard led the team with 23 points, but Mathurin and Jordan Miller were close behind at 19. Jones Jr. scored 17, Lopez had 16, and Collins had 15.
That distribution makes defensive planning difficult.
Second, New Orleans received strong scoring from Fears, Queen, Murray, and Murphy III, but the overall offensive efficiency did not match Los Angeles.
Third, turnovers prevented the Pelicans from fully benefiting from their rebounding advantage.
Fourth, three-point shooting created one of the largest numerical gaps in the game.
These factors interacted rather than operating independently.
What Happened to Zion Williamson?
Zion Williamson did not play in this game.
The official game recap reports that Williamson sat out after injuring his right ankle in the Pelicans’ previous game at Utah.
His absence is an important piece of context when evaluating New Orleans’ offensive performance.
However, it should not be used as an excuse for every aspect of the defeat.
The Pelicans still scored 117 points.
They still shot 45% from the field.
They still made 12 threes.
The more objective conclusion is that Williamson’s absence changed the available offensive and physical profile of the Pelicans, while Los Angeles simultaneously produced one of its strongest offensive performances.
Both factors matter.
What the Advanced Numbers Suggest
Even without relying on complicated formulas, several basic efficiency indicators are useful.
The Clippers made 48 of 89 shots.
The Pelicans made 40 of 89.
Because shot attempts were identical, the difference in made baskets directly reflects shooting efficiency.
Los Angeles also made five more three-pointers.
That created a 15-point advantage from made threes alone.
The Clippers committed eight fewer turnovers.
They also produced seven more assists and five more steals.
Meanwhile, New Orleans had a three-rebound advantage.
When those categories are considered together, the overall picture is clear.
The Pelicans won one important possession-related category, rebounding.
The Clippers dominated several of the categories most closely connected to efficient scoring and possession management.
Player Stats That Matter Most for Fantasy and Daily Analysis
For fantasy basketball analysis, the game provides several useful takeaways.
Jeremiah Fears’ 28-point performance stands out immediately. His five made threes from six attempts gave him strong scoring efficiency.
Kawhi Leonard’s 23 points made him the Clippers’ leading scorer, although his one-for-seven three-point shooting shows that his fantasy value was not entirely dependent on perimeter efficiency.
Derrick Jones Jr.’s 17 points also deserve attention because his contribution came within a highly efficient team offense.
Trey Murphy III’s 16 points and four made threes provide another example of how three-point production can elevate a player’s fantasy usefulness even when his overall scoring total is not enormous.
For fantasy evaluation, however, points alone should never be treated as the complete picture. Rebounds, assists, steals, blocks, turnovers, shooting efficiency, and minutes all affect player value.
How to Read This Game Without Overreacting
One of the biggest mistakes in sports analysis is treating a single game as a complete description of a player or team.
A player scoring 28 points does not automatically mean he had a better overall season than a player scoring 23.
Likewise, a team shooting 54% in one game does not guarantee that it will shoot 54% every night.
The useful approach is to identify what was sustainable and what was unusually efficient.
For the Clippers, the eight-turnover performance and strong three-point shooting were major contributors.
For the Pelicans, the 16 turnovers and 36% three-point shooting were major obstacles.
Analysts should compare these numbers with longer-term trends before drawing broad conclusions about future games.
March 2 Game Context and the Season Series
The first meeting between these teams during the 2025-26 season was a close 126-124 Clippers victory on November 1, 2025.
The March 2 game was much less competitive, with Los Angeles winning 137-117.
At that point, the Clippers had won the first two meetings of the season.
However, the later season meetings changed the overall picture.
New Orleans defeated Los Angeles 124-109 on March 18 and then won again 105-99 on March 19.
Therefore, the full four-game season series ultimately finished 2-2.
This distinction is important for anyone publishing historical statistics. Saying that Los Angeles led the season series 2-0 is accurate when describing the situation immediately after the March 2 game, but it is not accurate when describing the completed 2025-26 season series.
Comparing the Two Teams Across the Four Meetings
The four-game sequence tells an interesting story.
The Clippers won the first two games:
- November 1, 2025: Clippers 126, Pelicans 124
- March 2, 2026: Clippers 137, Pelicans 117
The Pelicans won the final two:
- March 18, 2026: Pelicans 124, Clippers 109
- March 19, 2026: Pelicans 105, Clippers 99
That progression shows why head-to-head records need dates attached to them.
The March 2 result represented a strong Clippers performance.
It did not, however, predict how the final two meetings would unfold.
The later games also demonstrate how player availability can influence matchups. For example, the March 19 meeting included a different lineup context, with Dejounte Murray held out for rest and Kawhi Leonard sitting out after his return game.
Historical matchup analysis becomes much more useful when injuries, rest, lineups, and game location are considered alongside the score.
Why This Matchup Is Useful for Basketball Analysis
The Pelicans and Clippers matchup offers several lessons that apply beyond this particular game.
1. Efficiency can beat volume
Both teams attempted 89 field goals, yet Los Angeles scored 20 more points.
That is a powerful reminder that possession volume and possession quality are different concepts.
2. Three-point shooting can quickly create separation
The Clippers made five more threes.
That difference alone represented 15 points.
3. Turnovers have a double impact
A turnover removes a potential offensive possession while potentially creating an opportunity for the opponent.
The eight-turnover difference was therefore more important than the raw number might initially suggest.
4. Balanced scoring reduces offensive pressure
Los Angeles had six players with at least 15 points.
That made the offense difficult to contain.
5. Rebounding does not guarantee control
New Orleans won the rebounding battle 41-38 but still lost by 20.
This demonstrates why box-score analysis should consider multiple categories together.
Key Takeaways From the Player Statistics
The most important conclusions from the game are straightforward.
Los Angeles won because it combined efficient shooting with excellent ball security.
The Clippers shot 54% from the field and 47% from three.
They made 17 three-pointers.
They committed only eight turnovers.
They recorded 29 assists and 11 steals.
New Orleans had several strong individual performances, especially Jeremiah Fears’ 28 points, Derik Queen’s 19, Dejounte Murray’s 17, and Trey Murphy III’s 16.
But the Pelicans could not match the Clippers’ collective efficiency.
Their 16 turnovers and 36% three-point shooting created too large a statistical gap.
The rebounding advantage was not enough to compensate.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who led the Pelicans in scoring against the Clippers on March 2, 2026?
Jeremiah Fears led New Orleans with 28 points. Derik Queen scored 19, Dejounte Murray scored 17, and Trey Murphy III scored 16.
Who was the Clippers’ top scorer?
Kawhi Leonard led Los Angeles with 23 points. Bennedict Mathurin scored 19 and Derrick Jones Jr. added 17.
What was the final score of the Pelicans vs Clippers game?
The Clippers defeated the Pelicans 137-117 at Intuit Dome.
Which team shot better?
The Clippers shot 54% from the field and 47% from three-point range. The Pelicans shot 45% from the field and 36% from three.
How many turnovers did each team have?
New Orleans committed 16 turnovers, while Los Angeles committed eight.
Who won the complete 2025-26 season series?
The completed season series finished tied at 2-2. The Clippers won the first two meetings before the Pelicans won the final two.
Conclusion
The new orleans pelicans vs la clippers match player stats from March 2, 2026 provide a strong example of why basketball analysis should go beyond the final score.
Los Angeles won 137-117 because it combined efficient shooting, accurate three-point production, stronger ball movement, defensive pressure, and excellent turnover control. The Clippers made 48 of 89 field goals and 17 of 36 three-pointers, while the Pelicans made 40 of 89 field goals and 12 of 33 from deep.
Jeremiah Fears was New Orleans’ leading scorer with 28 points, while Derik Queen, Dejounte Murray, and Trey Murphy III also reached double figures. For Los Angeles, Kawhi Leonard led the team with 23 points, supported by a balanced group that included Bennedict Mathurin, Derrick Jones Jr., Jordan Miller, Brook Lopez, and John Collins.
The most revealing statistic may be the turnover differential. New Orleans committed 16 turnovers compared with eight for Los Angeles. Combined with the Clippers’ 47% three-point shooting and 54% overall field-goal percentage, that advantage helped turn a competitive halftime margin into a 20-point final difference.
The game also needs to be placed in the correct season context. Los Angeles led the matchup 2-0 after this March 2 victory, but New Orleans won the two later meetings in March, leaving the completed season series tied 2-2.
For anyone studying this matchup, the broader lesson is clear: individual scoring numbers matter, but the most meaningful analysis comes from connecting those numbers to shooting efficiency, possession control, passing, defensive activity, and game context.
