Orlando Magic vs Washington Wizards Match Player Stats
The orlando magic vs washington wizards match player stats from March 13, 2026, tell the story of an exciting NBA contest that required overtime to decide a winner. The Orlando Magic defeated the Washington Wizards 136-131 at the Kia Center in Orlando, Florida. Jalen Suggs led Orlando with 28 points and eight assists, while Bilal Coulibaly delivered a game-high 29 points for Washington. Orlando also received important contributions from Tristan da Silva, Desmond Bane, Wendell Carter Jr., and Paolo Banchero, helping the home team survive a determined fourth-quarter comeback.
This matchup offered more than a high final score. It highlighted the importance of three-point shooting, ball movement, defensive pressure, and execution during critical possessions. Washington scored 42 points in the fourth quarter to force overtime, but Orlando responded with 13 points in the extra period compared with Washington’s eight. Those five additional overtime points ultimately separated the teams.
For readers examining individual performances, team efficiency, and the broader season rivalry, this breakdown covers the final score, player statistics, starting lineups, quarter-by-quarter scoring, major statistical differences, and the four-game season series. All game figures in this article are based on the supplied ESPN box-score data.
Orlando Magic vs Washington Wizards Match Player Stats: Final Score and Game Summary
The Orlando Magic secured a 136-131 overtime victory over the Washington Wizards on March 13, 2026. The game took place in front of 17,321 spectators at the Kia Center, with Orlando improving its listed record to 37-28 and its home record to 22-12. Washington entered the contest with a listed record of 16-49 overall and 5-27 on the road.
Final game information
| Category | Details |
| Matchup | Orlando Magic vs. Washington Wizards |
| Date | March 13, 2026 |
| Venue | Kia Center |
| Location | Orlando, Florida |
| Attendance | 17,321 |
| Final score | Orlando Magic 136, Washington Wizards 131 |
| Result | Orlando won in overtime |
| Orlando’s leading scorer | Jalen Suggs, 28 points |
| Washington’s leading scorer | Bilal Coulibaly, 29 points |
| Orlando’s second-leading scorer | Tristan da Silva, 26 points |
| Orlando’s third-leading scorer | Desmond Bane, 22 points |
| Washington’s fourth-quarter points | 42 |
| Orlando’s overtime points | 13 |
| Washington’s overtime points | 8 |
Orlando’s five-point victory reflected a game in which neither team maintained complete control throughout all five periods. The Magic established an early advantage, Washington gradually recovered, and a powerful fourth-quarter performance brought the visitors level enough to force overtime.
The most important distinction is that Washington’s leading scorer was not on the winning side. Coulibaly’s 29 points were an outstanding individual contribution, but Orlando had three players score at least 22 points. That broader scoring support helped the Magic absorb Washington’s late surge.
Why the result mattered
The victory completed a 3-1 season series in Orlando’s favor. The Magic won three of the four meetings, while Washington secured one win in January.
The result also demonstrated two different ways to generate offense. Washington made 48 field goals, compared with Orlando’s 47, but the Magic converted more three-pointers and produced more assists. Orlando’s defensive activity also generated 12 steals, giving the home team additional opportunities to score.
These figures are useful because a final score alone does not explain how a close NBA game unfolds. Examining shooting efficiency, possessions, rebounding, and individual contributions provides a more complete picture.
Quarter-by-Quarter Scoring Breakdown
The scoring progression explains why a game that initially appeared to favor Orlando eventually reached overtime.
| Period | Orlando Magic | Washington Wizards | Period winner |
| First quarter | 36 | 26 | Orlando |
| Second quarter | 27 | 30 | Washington |
| Third quarter | 33 | 25 | Orlando |
| Fourth quarter | 27 | 42 | Washington |
| Overtime | 13 | 8 | Orlando |
| Final score | 136 | 131 | Orlando |
First quarter: Orlando establishes an early advantage
Orlando opened with 36 points, creating a 10-point advantage over Washington’s 26. The Magic’s strong opening helped establish the offensive pace and put the visitors in a position where they needed to recover ground.
A fast start is valuable, but it does not guarantee a victory. Teams that fall behind can change their approach through better shot selection, increased defensive pressure, and improved ball movement. Washington’s later scoring runs showed that the initial deficit was far from decisive.
Second quarter: Washington begins to respond
Washington outscored Orlando 30-27 in the second period. The three-point difference reduced the damage from the opening quarter and kept the Wizards competitive.
The key lesson from this period is that scoring margins can change gradually. A team does not always need one extraordinary run to return to a game. Consistent scoring across multiple possessions can be enough to narrow a deficit before halftime.
Third quarter: The Magic regain momentum
Orlando answered with 33 points in the third quarter while holding Washington to 25. The eight-point advantage restored some separation and gave the home team a stronger position heading into the final period.
The Magic eventually finished with 30 assists and 47 successful field goals. Those overall numbers suggest that Orlando’s offense benefited from a combination of individual shot-making and opportunities created for teammates.
However, the third-quarter margin did not end Washington’s challenge. The fourth quarter became the decisive regulation period.
Fourth quarter: Washington scores 42 points
Washington’s 42-point fourth quarter was the most striking scoring performance of the game. Orlando scored 27 points during the same period, meaning the Wizards gained a 15-point advantage over those 12 minutes.
This was the stretch that transformed a potential regulation win for Orlando into an overtime contest.
Washington’s late surge illustrates why analysts should examine scoring by period rather than relying exclusively on full-game averages. A team can perform well for three quarters and still face a difficult finish if its opponent suddenly finds more efficient offensive possessions.
The supplied box-score summary does not establish the precise tactical cause of every scoring run. It would therefore be inaccurate to attribute the comeback to a particular substitution, play call, or defensive adjustment without examining the detailed play-by-play record.
Overtime: Orlando makes the decisive plays
Both teams entered overtime after Washington’s late scoring push. Orlando then scored 13 points, while Washington managed eight.
The Magic’s five-point advantage in the extra period matched the final five-point margin. Orlando’s ability to generate points in overtime proved decisive after the regulation comeback had erased much of its earlier advantage.
Overtime basketball often places greater emphasis on decision-making because each possession carries increased importance. Protecting the ball, finding high-quality shots, securing defensive rebounds, and avoiding unnecessary fouls become especially valuable when a game is decided by only a few points.
Orlando Magic Player Stats and Individual Performances
Orlando’s offensive balance was a central feature of the victory. Jalen Suggs led the team with 28 points, Tristan da Silva scored 26, and Desmond Bane added 22. Wendell Carter Jr. contributed 19 points, while Paolo Banchero recorded a double-double.
These performances gave Orlando several dependable scoring options instead of forcing the entire offensive burden onto one player.
Orlando Magic player statistics
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Steals | Blocks |
| Jalen Suggs | 28 | 4 | 8 | Not provided | Not provided |
| Tristan da Silva | 26 | 7 | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| Desmond Bane | 22 | 1 | 6 | 3 | Not provided |
| Wendell Carter Jr. | 19 | 11 | 3 | 2 | 2 |
| Paolo Banchero | 18 | 10 | 5 | Not provided | Not provided |
| Jett Howard | 10 | 6 | 2 | Not provided | Not provided |
| Moritz Wagner | 7 | 5 | Not provided | Not provided | Not provided |
| Jevon Carter | 6 | 2 | 2 | Not provided | Not provided |
| Jonathan Isaac | 0 | 1 | Not provided | Not provided | Not provided |
| Noah Penda | 0 | 3 | 2 | Not provided | Not provided |
| Goga Bitadze | 0 | 2 | Not provided | Not provided | Not provided |
Statistics are reproduced from the supplied game data. A blank or unspecified statistic means the provided summary did not include that figure; it does not mean the player recorded zero.
Jalen Suggs: Orlando’s leading scorer and playmaker
Suggs finished with 28 points, four rebounds, and eight assists. His scoring led Orlando, while his eight assists demonstrated that his contribution extended beyond finishing possessions himself.
A player who scores heavily and creates opportunities for teammates can influence an offense in two ways. First, scoring forces defenders to respect the threat of an individual shot. Second, passing can help teammates find better positions to score.
Suggs’ combination of 28 points and eight assists made him Orlando’s leading statistical contributor in the supplied summary. His performance was particularly important in a game that required the Magic to recover from Washington’s fourth-quarter surge and execute in overtime.
His eight assists also formed part of Orlando’s 30-assist team total. Although the available summary does not identify every assist or scoring sequence, the overall numbers show that playmaking was an important part of the Magic’s offensive production.
Tristan da Silva: A major scoring and defensive contribution
Da Silva recorded 26 points, seven rebounds, two assists, four steals, and two blocks. His all-around line was one of the most notable individual performances of the contest.
His 26 points placed him second among Orlando’s listed scorers. More importantly, the four steals and two blocks demonstrate contributions in several defensive categories.
Steals can interrupt an opponent’s possession before a shot is attempted. Blocks can prevent or alter attempts near the basket. Both statistics require context, since not every steal or block leads directly to a score, but they help illustrate the range of ways a player can influence a game.
Da Silva’s seven rebounds also provided support on the glass. Combined with his scoring and defensive activity, those numbers make his performance more complete than a points-only summary would suggest.
Desmond Bane: Reliable secondary scoring
Bane finished with 22 points, one rebound, six assists, and three steals.
His 22 points gave Orlando a third player with at least 22 points. That distribution mattered because it made the offense less dependent on one primary scorer.
Bane’s six assists also supported the team’s ball movement. When a player can contribute both scoring and playmaking, the offense gains flexibility. Defenders must account for the possibility of a shot as well as a pass to a teammate.
His three steals added another defensive contribution, although the supplied statistics do not show the exact possessions in which those plays occurred.
Wendell Carter Jr.: Interior production on both ends
Carter recorded 19 points, 11 rebounds, three assists, two steals, and two blocks.
His 11 rebounds gave Orlando a second player with a double-digit rebound total alongside Banchero. Rebounding is especially important in close games because a defensive rebound can end an opponent’s possession, while an offensive rebound can create another scoring opportunity.
Carter’s three assists also suggest that his involvement was not limited to scoring near the basket. His defensive statistics further strengthened an already productive performance.
For readers evaluating center and frontcourt production, Carter’s line illustrates why points and rebounds should be considered alongside playmaking and defensive activity.
Paolo Banchero: A balanced double-double
Banchero finished with 18 points, 10 rebounds, and five assists.
His double-double showed a combination of scoring and rebounding, while his five assists added another dimension to his contribution.
Banchero did not lead Orlando in points, but a player’s importance cannot be measured by scoring rank alone. Rebounding and passing can help a team maintain possession, create shots, and manage the flow of a contest.
His 18 points also gave Orlando another meaningful scoring option. Together with Suggs, da Silva, Bane, and Carter, Banchero helped form a group of five players who each scored at least 18 points.
Orlando’s supporting players
Jett Howard contributed 10 points, six rebounds, and two assists. Moritz Wagner recorded seven points and five rebounds, while Jevon Carter added six points, two rebounds, and two assists.
Jonathan Isaac, Noah Penda, and Goga Bitadze appeared in the supplied statistical summary without scoring. Isaac recorded one rebound, Penda collected three rebounds and two assists, and Bitadze finished with two rebounds.
The available data also lists Jamal Cain, Colin Castleton, Alex Morales, and Jase Richardson as did-not-play players.
These supporting contributions provide a more complete view of the roster, although the supplied summary does not contain enough information to evaluate every player’s minutes, shooting efficiency, or plus-minus rating.
Washington Wizards Player Stats and Individual Performances
Washington’s loss did not reflect an absence of offensive production. The Wizards scored 131 points and received 29 points from Bilal Coulibaly, along with contributions from several players in the supporting rotation.
The central challenge was turning that production into a win. Washington’s 42-point fourth quarter forced overtime, but the team could not match Orlando’s scoring in the extra period.
Washington Wizards player statistics
| Player | Points | Rebounds | Assists | Steals | Blocks |
| Bilal Coulibaly | 29 | 5 | 5 | Not provided | Not provided |
| Alex Sarr | 16 | 4 | Not provided | Not provided | 5 |
| Trae Young | 15 | 3 | 6 | Not provided | Not provided |
| Leaky Black | 12 | 4 | 3 | Not provided | Not provided |
| Justin Champagnie | 12 | 4 | 1 | Not provided | Not provided |
| Bub Carrington | 12 | 5 | 5 | Not provided | Not provided |
| Tristan Vukcevic | 11 | 11 | Not provided | Not provided | Not provided |
| Will Riley | 8 | 5 | Not provided | Not provided | Not provided |
| Jamir Watkins | 7 | 1 | 1 | Not provided | Not provided |
| Anthony Gill | 4 | 2 | 2 | Not provided | Not provided |
| Tre Johnson | 3 | 5 | 1 | Not provided | Not provided |
| Sharife Cooper | 2 | Not provided | 1 | Not provided | Not provided |
Only statistics included in the supplied data are shown. Missing entries should not be interpreted as zero.
Bilal Coulibaly: Washington’s leading scorer
Coulibaly scored 29 points, collected five rebounds, and recorded five assists. He was the leading scorer for either team, finishing one point ahead of Orlando’s Suggs.
His performance combined scoring with rebounding and playmaking. That matters because a high-scoring game can become predictable if a player contributes only through individual shot attempts. Adding assists gives an offense another route to create scoring opportunities.
Coulibaly’s 29 points helped Washington remain competitive throughout the contest. His five rebounds and five assists also showed that he contributed in areas beyond scoring.
Despite his strong individual production, Washington finished on the losing side. This is a useful reminder that the highest individual scoring total does not necessarily determine the winner. Team shooting, turnovers, defensive stops, and late-game execution all contribute to the final result.
Alex Sarr: Defensive presence around the basket
Sarr recorded 16 points, four rebounds, and five blocks.
The five blocks were a particularly notable part of his statistical line. Blocks can discourage opponents from attempting shots near the rim and can change how offensive players approach the paint.
However, a block total should not be treated as a complete measure of defensive impact. Positioning, contesting shots without fouling, defensive rebounds, and communication also matter. The supplied data does not include enough detail to assess all those elements.
Sarr’s 16 points gave Washington another significant scorer, while his five blocks represented a major individual defensive contribution.
Trae Young: Scoring and playmaking
Young finished with 15 points, three rebounds, and six assists.
His six assists tied Bane’s listed total for the Magic, while his scoring provided another option alongside Coulibaly and Sarr.
Assists are useful when evaluating a guard because they show how often a player’s passes directly create made baskets. They do not capture every beneficial pass, screen, or off-ball movement, but they offer a practical starting point for assessing playmaking.
Young’s numbers show that he contributed in both scoring and passing. A complete evaluation would also consider his turnovers, shooting splits, minutes, and the team’s performance during his time on the floor.
Bub Carrington and Washington’s supporting offense
Carrington contributed 12 points, five rebounds, and five assists. His balanced line added both scoring and playmaking to Washington’s attack.
Black and Champagnie also scored 12 points apiece. Black recorded four rebounds and three assists, while Champagnie added four rebounds and one assist.
Vukcevic produced a double-double with 11 points and 11 rebounds. His rebounding total was particularly useful in a game where Washington finished with 49 team rebounds.
Will Riley recorded eight points and five rebounds, while Watkins added seven points, one rebound, and one assist. Gill finished with four points, two rebounds, and two assists, and Johnson recorded three points, five rebounds, and one assist.
Cooper contributed two points and one assist.
Jaden Hardy was listed as a did-not-play player in the supplied data.
What Washington’s player numbers reveal
Washington’s production was spread across several players rather than concentrated entirely in Coulibaly. The team had multiple players score in double figures, including Coulibaly, Sarr, Young, Black, Champagnie, Carrington, and Vukcevic.
That scoring depth helped the Wizards reach 131 points. However, the Magic’s stronger three-point percentage, higher assist total, and greater number of steals helped offset Washington’s strong rebounding and late scoring.
The result suggests that offensive volume alone was not enough to secure the win. Converting possessions efficiently and limiting the opponent’s opportunities were equally important.
Orlando Magic vs Washington Wizards Team Statistics Comparison
Individual performances explain who contributed, while team statistics help explain how the game was decided.
Full team comparison
| Statistical category | Orlando Magic | Washington Wizards |
| Final points | 136 | 131 |
| Field goals made | 47 | 48 |
| Field goals attempted | 100 | 105 |
| Field-goal percentage | 47% | 46% |
| Three-pointers made | 15 | 14 |
| Three-pointers attempted | 34 | 46 |
| Three-point percentage | 44% | 30% |
| Free throws made | 27 | 21 |
| Free throws attempted | 34 | 24 |
| Free-throw percentage | 79% | 88% |
| Total rebounds | 52 | 49 |
| Offensive rebounds | 11 | 14 |
| Defensive rebounds | 41 | 35 |
| Assists | 30 | 26 |
| Turnovers | 13 | 15 |
| Steals | 12 | 7 |
| Blocks | 5 | 10 |
| Personal fouls | 22 | 27 |
Three-point shooting: Orlando’s major advantage
The clearest shooting distinction was beyond the three-point line.
Orlando made 15 of 34 attempts, while Washington converted 14 of 46. The Magic therefore made one more three-pointer despite attempting 12 fewer shots from that range.
Using the supplied shooting totals, Orlando’s three-point percentage was approximately 44.1%, compared with approximately 30.4% for Washington. These calculations are consistent with the rounded percentages listed in the box-score summary.
Three-point shooting has an outsized effect on scoring because a successful attempt is worth three points rather than two. Orlando’s 15 made three-pointers produced 45 points, while Washington’s 14 produced 42.
The difference was three points from made three-pointers alone. That does not fully explain the result, but it illustrates how shooting efficiency can outweigh a higher number of attempts.
Washington’s 46 attempts from deep also indicate a much greater reliance on perimeter shooting. The raw figures cannot tell us whether those attempts were open, contested, or forced, but the lower conversion rate meant that Washington did not receive as much scoring value from its volume.
Field-goal efficiency and scoring opportunities
Washington made 48 field goals, one more than Orlando’s 47. However, Washington attempted five additional shots and finished with a lower field-goal percentage.
Orlando shot 47% from the field, compared with Washington’s 46%. While that difference may appear small, every successful attempt matters in a close game.
Field-goal percentage also needs to be read alongside three-point shooting. A team can make many field goals but still lose ground if it misses a high percentage of its three-point attempts. Orlando’s more efficient long-range shooting helped it maintain a slight advantage in overall field-goal percentage despite making fewer shots.
Free throws: Washington was more accurate, Orlando made more
Washington converted 21 of 24 free throws, an 87.5% success rate that rounds to 88%. Orlando made 27 of 34, approximately 79.4%, which rounds to 79%.
Washington was more accurate at the line, but Orlando attempted 10 more free throws and made six more.
The additional free-throw conversions helped the Magic generate points even without making a higher percentage of their attempts. This distinction is important when evaluating team performance: accuracy and total scoring contribution are related, but they are not interchangeable.
The figures also suggest that Orlando reached the line more often. The supplied summary does not identify the specific fouls or possessions that produced those attempts, so any more detailed explanation would require the play-by-play record.
Rebounding: Washington had more offensive rebounds
Orlando finished with 52 total rebounds, three more than Washington’s 49.
The distribution is more revealing. Washington collected 14 offensive rebounds compared with Orlando’s 11. Those additional offensive rebounds created opportunities to extend possessions after missed shots.
Orlando, however, recorded 41 defensive rebounds, compared with Washington’s 35. The six-rebound advantage on the defensive glass helped the Magic finish more of Washington’s missed-shot possessions.
The distinction between offensive and defensive rebounds is essential. Offensive rebounds can create second chances, while defensive rebounds prevent the opponent from doing the same. A team can lose the overall rebounding battle in one category and still gain an advantage in the other.
In this game, Washington was stronger at extending its own possessions, but Orlando collected more total rebounds and more defensive rebounds.
Assists and ball movement
Orlando recorded 30 assists, four more than Washington’s 26.
That difference is consistent with the Magic’s strong scoring balance. Suggs, Bane, Banchero, and several other players contributed to a team attack that did not rely on one scorer alone.
Assists are not a perfect measure of offensive quality. Some successful plays do not produce an assist, and a made basket can result from individual creation rather than a pass. Nevertheless, the total provides useful evidence of how often made shots were directly connected to teammates’ passes.
Orlando’s higher assist total, paired with its superior three-point percentage, offers one plausible explanation for its offensive edge.
Turnovers: Orlando protected the ball better
Washington committed 15 turnovers, compared with Orlando’s 13.
The two-turnover difference may look modest, but each lost possession removes an opportunity to score and can sometimes create a transition chance for the opposing team.
Orlando’s lower turnover total was particularly valuable in a game decided by five points after overtime. Protecting the ball does not guarantee a victory, but avoiding unnecessary mistakes can help a team preserve its scoring opportunities.
A more detailed turnover analysis would examine live-ball turnovers, dead-ball turnovers, the players involved, and whether the opponent scored afterward. Those details are not included in the supplied team summary.
Steals and blocks: Different forms of defensive pressure
Orlando recorded 12 steals, while Washington collected seven. The Magic therefore had a five-steal advantage.
Washington, meanwhile, recorded 10 blocks compared with Orlando’s five.
These categories capture different types of defensive action. Steals often involve disrupting a pass or taking the ball from a player, while blocks occur when a defender legally deflects a shot attempt.
Orlando’s higher steal total suggests more successful disruptions of Washington’s possession sequences. Washington’s block advantage shows that its players also protected the basket effectively in individual situations.
Neither statistic alone proves which team played better defense overall. Defensive rebounds, opponent shot quality, rotations, fouls, and communication also influence defensive performance. In this contest, Orlando’s steals and Washington’s blocks illustrate contrasting defensive strengths.
Personal fouls and game management
Washington committed 27 personal fouls, compared with Orlando’s 22.
The five-foul difference provides context for Orlando’s 34 free-throw attempts and Washington’s 24. However, team foul totals and free-throw attempts should not be assumed to correspond on a one-to-one basis because different types of fouls have different consequences under NBA rules.
Orlando’s ability to convert more total free throws contributed to its scoring output. Washington’s higher foul count also shows why disciplined defense can matter in a close game.
The Statistical Factors That Decided the Game
Several numbers stand out when the final result is considered as a whole.
1. Orlando’s efficient three-point shooting
Orlando made 44% of its three-point attempts, compared with Washington’s 30%. The Magic achieved this advantage with substantially fewer attempts, demonstrating the value of shot conversion rather than volume alone.
2. Orlando’s greater scoring balance
Suggs, da Silva, Bane, Carter, and Banchero all scored at least 18 points. This gave Orlando five players with meaningful scoring contributions and reduced the pressure on any one player to produce every possession.
3. Washington’s extraordinary fourth quarter
Washington scored 42 points in the fourth period, 15 more than Orlando. This was the key reason the game required overtime.
4. Orlando’s ball security
The Magic committed two fewer turnovers. Although that difference was not enormous, every retained possession mattered in a five-point game.
5. Orlando’s defensive activity
Orlando recorded 12 steals, compared with Washington’s seven. This advantage complemented the Magic’s shooting efficiency and gave the team another way to influence possessions.
6. Execution during overtime
Orlando outscored Washington 13-8 in the extra period. After the Wizards had recovered in the fourth quarter, the Magic produced the stronger overtime performance and secured the win.
No single statistic explains every aspect of a basketball result. The combination of perimeter accuracy, balanced scoring, fewer turnovers, and stronger overtime production provides a more convincing explanation than any one category in isolation.
Starting Lineups and Roster Contributions
The supplied game data lists the following starting lineups.
Orlando Magic starting lineup
- Paolo Banchero
- Tristan da Silva
- Wendell Carter Jr.
- Desmond Bane
- Jalen Suggs
This lineup featured a combination of scoring, rebounding, and perimeter playmaking. Banchero and Carter provided frontcourt production, while Suggs and Bane offered additional scoring and passing options.
Da Silva’s 26 points and defensive statistics were also significant, especially given his contribution across several categories.
Washington Wizards starting lineup
- Alex Sarr
- Trae Young
- Bilal Coulibaly
- Will Riley
- Tre Johnson
Washington’s listed starting group included Coulibaly, its leading scorer, alongside Young’s playmaking and Sarr’s interior defense.
Sarr’s five blocks and Coulibaly’s 29 points were among the most notable individual totals from the Wizards. Young contributed 15 points and six assists.
The lineup information is useful for understanding the players identified as starters in the supplied source data. A complete lineup analysis would also require playing time, substitution patterns, and on-court efficiency figures, which are not provided here.
What the Season Series Reveals
Orlando won the four-game season series 3-1, according to the supplied data.
| Game | Date | Result | Winner |
| Game 1 | November 2, 2025 | Orlando Magic 125, Washington Wizards 94 | Orlando |
| Game 2 | January 7, 2026 | Washington Wizards 120, Orlando Magic 112 | Washington |
| Game 3 | March 4, 2026 | Orlando Magic 126, Washington Wizards 109 | Orlando |
| Game 4 | March 13, 2026 | Orlando Magic 136, Washington Wizards 131, OT | Orlando |
The first meeting produced Orlando’s largest listed margin of victory, a 31-point difference. Washington responded with a win in January, but Orlando won both March matchups.
The final game was the closest of the four listed meetings. Washington’s ability to force overtime demonstrated that the matchup could become competitive even though Orlando won the season series.
Reading the season results carefully
A season series provides useful context, but it should not be treated as a complete measure of team quality. Results can be affected by injuries, roster changes, player availability, home-court advantage, and differences in game conditions.
The supplied figures establish the outcomes and scores of the four meetings. They do not independently establish the reasons for each result, so explanations involving specific injuries or tactical changes would require additional evidence.
For readers comparing the two teams across the season, the most defensible conclusion is straightforward: Orlando won three meetings, Washington won one, and the final contest required overtime.
How to Interpret NBA Player Statistics Correctly
Understanding basketball statistics requires more than sorting a box score from highest to lowest scorer.
Points measure scoring, not total impact
Points are the most visible individual statistic, but they do not capture every contribution. A player can influence a game through passing, rebounding, defense, screening, and movement without the ball.
Coulibaly’s 29 points led the game, but Suggs combined 28 points with eight assists, while da Silva added four steals and two blocks. Each line highlights a different form of contribution.
Rebounds show possession control
Rebounds matter because they determine who gains control after a missed shot. Offensive rebounds can generate additional attempts, while defensive rebounds can prevent opponents from extending possessions.
Carter’s 11 rebounds and Banchero’s 10 helped Orlando build a 52-rebound team total. Vukcevic also recorded 11 rebounds for Washington, demonstrating that individual rebounding strength does not automatically translate into a team victory.
Assists provide context for scoring
Assists show when a player’s pass directly leads to a made basket. Suggs’ eight assists and Orlando’s 30 team assists provide useful context for the Magic’s balanced offense.
However, assists should not be used alone to determine who was the best playmaker. Potential assists, passes that create open shots, and possessions that break down before a shot are not fully captured by the basic box score.
Shooting percentages need attempt totals
A percentage without its attempt total can be misleading. Orlando’s 44% three-point accuracy becomes more informative when paired with 34 attempts, while Washington’s 30% figure is clearer alongside 46 attempts.
The number of attempts reveals how frequently a team relied on a particular shot type. The percentage indicates how effectively those opportunities were converted.
Turnovers and steals help explain possession changes
Turnovers measure lost possessions, while steals record certain successful defensive actions that take possession away from the opponent.
Orlando’s 13 turnovers and 12 steals compare favorably with Washington’s 15 turnovers and seven steals. These figures offer insight into possession management, although the full sequence of each turnover and steal would be necessary to explain its immediate impact.
Plus-minus requires playing-time context
Plus-minus measures the net scoring margin for a player’s team while that player is on the court. It is not the same as a player’s individual point total.
A player may score many points while being on the floor during opponent scoring runs. Another player may score fewer points but share the court with a lineup that consistently outperforms its opponent.
Because the supplied summary does not include individual plus-minus values or minutes played, it would be inappropriate to assign rankings in those categories.
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Who won the Orlando Magic vs Washington Wizards game on March 13, 2026?
The Orlando Magic defeated the Washington Wizards 136-131 in overtime at the Kia Center in Orlando, Florida.
2. Who scored the most points in the game?
Bilal Coulibaly led all listed scorers with 29 points for Washington. Orlando’s Jalen Suggs was close behind with 28 points.
3. What were Jalen Suggs’ statistics against Washington?
Suggs recorded 28 points, four rebounds, and eight assists, making him Orlando’s leading scorer in the game.
4. How many points did Tristan da Silva score?
Tristan da Silva scored 26 points, collected seven rebounds, recorded two assists, and added four steals and two blocks.
5. Which team had better three-point shooting?
Orlando shot approximately 44% from three-point range, making 15 of 34 attempts. Washington made 14 of 46 attempts, shooting approximately 30%.
6. What was the result of the season series?
Orlando won the season series 3-1, taking three of the four listed meetings against Washington during the 2025-26 season.
Conclusion
The March 13, 2026, meeting between Orlando and Washington was a closely contested NBA game that demonstrated the importance of efficient shooting, balanced scoring, and late-game execution. Orlando secured a 136-131 overtime victory after Washington produced 42 points in the fourth quarter to force an extra period.
Jalen Suggs led the Magic with 28 points and eight assists, while Tristan da Silva contributed 26 points and an impressive defensive line. Desmond Bane added 22 points, Wendell Carter Jr. recorded 19 points and 11 rebounds, and Paolo Banchero finished with a double-double.
For Washington, Coulibaly’s 29 points led all scorers, while Sarr recorded five blocks and Young contributed 15 points and six assists. The Wizards also won the offensive-rebounding battle and recorded more blocks, but their lower three-point percentage and higher turnover total proved important differences in the overall comparison.
The team statistics show why the final result cannot be explained by scoring totals alone. Orlando shot more effectively from three-point range, recorded more assists and steals, and scored five more points in overtime. Washington’s late comeback made the game competitive, but Orlando delivered the stronger finish.
Taken together, the individual player lines, team shooting figures, and quarter-by-quarter scoring provide a clear explanation of how the Magic earned the win and completed a 3-1 season series against the Wizards.
