The 2025 NBA Finals series between the Indiana Pacers and the Oklahoma City Thunder is now tied 1-1 after two games. Game 1 saw the Pacers snatch a victory thanks to a dramatic last-second shot by Tyrese Haliburton. However, the Thunder responded emphatically in Game 2 with a dominant 123-107 win. In that second game, Oklahoma City`s top-ranked defense significantly limited Haliburton`s scoring in the initial three quarters, preventing a repeat comeback. MVP Shai Gilgeous-Alexander led the scoring with 34 points. The series now heads to Indiana for a crucial Game 3 on Wednesday.
Our panel of NBA experts discusses Tyrese Haliburton`s performance in the Finals so far, what adjustments the Pacers need to make to regain momentum, and identifies the series` key X factor.
What is the biggest adjustment the Pacers need to make in Game 3?
Kevin Pelton:
Coach Rick Carlisle should consider shortening his team`s rotation. While Indiana`s depth has been highlighted during the playoffs, the Thunder`s bench unit has proven to be more effective, extending their lead in both halves of Game 2. Specifically, giving more minutes to key players like Haliburton and Myles Turner seems wise. The Pacers performed roughly evenly with both on the court but were significantly outscored during their rest periods.
Michael C. Wright:
For an offensive catalyst like Haliburton, taking only five shots in the first half simply isn`t enough to impact the game effectively. Indiana could benefit from their point guard asserting himself earlier in games, which could open up opportunities for his teammates. While credit is due to Oklahoma City`s phenomenal defense on Haliburton, his five points through the first three quarters on 2-of-7 shooting were problematic, despite scoring 12 points in the final period.
Ramona Shelburne:
The Pacers need to increase their pace and run more in transition. While this might seem counterintuitive against a fast-breaking Thunder team, Indiana struggled offensively in Game 2 and didn`t apply nearly enough defensive pressure on Oklahoma City. Generating more fast-break opportunities—they only had nine in Game 2—should help create easier scoring chances.
Bobby Marks:
Attacking the paint needs to be a priority. Indiana`s most effective offensive stretch in Game 2 was seven consecutive points scored by Andrew Nembhard and Pascal Siakam in the second quarter, driven by aggression in the paint. This aggressiveness eventually led to an Aaron Nesmith 3-pointer that reduced the Thunder`s lead. Before the fourth quarter, Indiana was allowing 16 more points in the paint than they were scoring.
Zach Kram:
During the regular season, Oklahoma City ranked poorly in opponent free throw rate (26th) and free throw differential (29th). However, the Thunder have attempted more free throws than the Pacers in both Finals games. As the underdogs, Indiana must exploit this rare weakness. Finding ways to generate more easy points from the free-throw line, such as driving to the basket more or having Siakam work against smaller defenders, is crucial.
Tyrese Haliburton`s Finals performance has been _____.
Ramona Shelburne:
Uneven. Haliburton`s Game 1 performance wasn`t great overall; he just made a brilliant game-winning shot. He admitted afterwards he was `terrible` aside from that shot and needed to be better. He wasn`t better in Game 2, largely due to Oklahoma City`s defense. Similar to their strategy against Anthony Edwards, the Thunder have tried to be physical with Haliburton early in possessions, force the ball out of his hands, and deny him receiving it back. His challenge is to fight through this early defensive pressure and maintain his aggression.
Kevin Pelton:
Predictable. As noted before the series, Haliburton has scored less against Oklahoma City than any other opponent over the last two seasons, and specifically averaged fewer points per matchup against Lu Dort than any other frequent defender. The Thunder`s historically good defense was a major reason they were favored. Also, benching Isaiah Hartenstein for Cason Wallace removed one less favorable matchup for Haliburton to attack in the starting lineup.
Zach Kram:
Saved by one clutch moment of brilliance. Considering the current discussion about whether he can elevate his game further, the criticism would be significantly louder if his Game 1 winning jumper hadn`t gone in.
Bobby Marks:
If judged solely on the fourth quarter, Haliburton is one of the best players on the court. Unfortunately, his lack of aggressiveness through the first three quarters in Game 2 significantly contributed to the series being tied. His performance before the fourth quarter was similar to the Game 5 loss against New York, where he took only seven shots through three quarters. In Game 2, his six shots in the fourth quarter were just one less than his total for the previous three quarters combined.
Michael C. Wright:
Subpar. Haliburton rightly analyzed his own performance critically after Game 1 and will likely be frustrated with his rough outing in Game 2. According to ESPN research, OKC used eight different defenders on him in Game 1, with Dort being primary and holding him to 0-for-2. They defended him similarly in Game 2, resulting in five turnovers for the 25-year-old, tying his career high in any game. He`s now had three or more turnovers in three consecutive games, his longest streak since March 2024.
The X factor through two games has been ______.
Bobby Marks:
Isaiah Hartenstein (for the Thunder). Screen assists aren`t official stats, but Hartenstein excels at them. In the second quarter of Game 2, when Jalen Williams wasn`t getting clean looks, Hartenstein`s two screens early in the period directly led to two quick baskets for Williams.
Kevin Pelton:
Shotmaking, but specifically on two-pointers. The idea of a `make or miss league` often focuses on 3-pointers, but randomness applies to shots inside the arc too. Oklahoma City shot only 41% on 2-point attempts in Game 1, significantly below the expected 53% based on shot location, type, defender proximity, and shooter ability. In Game 2, they bounced back, making 56.5% of their 2s.
Zach Kram:
Bench scoring. Despite Haliburton`s struggles, the Pacers have been plus-7 with him on the court in this series. The issue is they are minus-22 in the 23 minutes he`s rested. While Obi Toppin contributed well in Game 1 (17 points, five 3s), Game 2 saw significant contributions from Oklahoma City`s reserves, Aaron Wiggins and Alex Caruso, who combined for 38 points and nine 3-pointers. How these role players perform as the series moves to Indiana could be pivotal.
Michael C. Wright:
The reserves for both teams. We saw two players from the Thunder bench, Wiggins (18 points after 10 in his previous five games) and Caruso (second 20-point playoff game after none in the regular season), combine to outscore Indiana`s entire bench 38-34 in Game 2. This contrasts with Game 1, where the Pacers` reserves outscored OKC`s 39-28. The common saying is that role players perform better at home; Game 3 in Indianapolis will test this theory.
Ramona Shelburne:
I hesitate to blame the officials, but the Thunder thrive on a physical style of play. When the referees allow them to be as physically aggressive as they were in Game 2, it becomes very difficult for Indiana to sustain their offensive rhythm.
Which game is more indicative of how the rest of the series will go?
Kevin Pelton:
Game 1 was an anomaly in many aspects, even before the Pacers` improbable comeback. Game 2 feels more like a blueprint for the remainder of the series, though I expect Indiana`s shooting to improve going forward after hitting just 35% from three in Game 2, their fifth-lowest percentage of the postseason and aligned with all five of their losses.
Ramona Shelburne:
The Thunder had the largest point differential in regular season history, so it`s not surprising they`ve built significant leads in both Finals games. In Game 1, they couldn`t extend the lead enough to finish the Pacers, allowing the comeback. In Game 2, OKC`s defense was much better and more consistent, keeping the ball away from Haliburton. This makes it harder for him to create scoring opportunities, which is key for Indiana`s offense.
Zach Kram:
Given the Pacers` track record this postseason with improbable late-game heroics, I`m hesitant to doubt their ability to overcome large deficits. However, it`s hard to see them winning the series if they consistently fall behind by 15 or more points each game. At some point, they need to improve their play in the first half (where they`ve averaged 43 points in the Finals) in addition to their strong second halves (scoring 66 points in each game) to have a realistic chance.
Bobby Marks:
Game 2 is likely more indicative, given that Oklahoma City has been the superior team for the vast majority of this series (excluding the last 0.3 seconds of Game 1). However, the possibility of a Game 1-style collapse doesn`t entirely disappear for the Thunder. The Pacers achieved their goal of splitting the games on the road and still hold home-court advantage.
Michael C. Wright:
Indiana faced a 15-point deficit in Game 1 and trailed by as much as 23 points in Game 2. This trend suggests that what we saw in Game 2 is more likely to continue throughout the series. Let`s be honest, many predicted a dominant OKC win in fewer than seven games. That prediction looks more probable after Game 2, even though we would all likely enjoy seeing Indiana continue to fight as they have throughout this postseason.
What`s one under-the-radar storyline for Game 3?
Michael C. Wright:
Pascal Siakam`s offensive production. He scored 21 points or more in eight of his 16 games leading into the Finals, including three 30-point games in the Eastern Conference Finals. This raises the question of whether we`ll see `Spicy P` significantly heat up in this series. With Dort effectively limiting Haliburton, Indiana needs more from Siakam, who hasn`t attempted more than 15 shots in either Finals game. In the Eastern Conference Finals, Siakam attempted at least 16 shots in every win and 14 or fewer in their two losses.
Ramona Shelburne:
The Thunder`s depth versus the challenge of playing on the road. Their depth is a major advantage, reducing the pressure on individual role players as various guys can have breakout games, like Wiggins did in Game 2. However, role players often don`t perform as well away from home. Also notable is how the Thunder adapted their defense on Hartenstein by moving him to the bench initially.
Kevin Pelton:
Rebounding. Oklahoma City allowed offensive rebounds on over 30% of Indiana`s misses in Game 1 while only securing offensive rebounds on less than 20% of their own misses. In Game 2, the Thunder secured four more offensive boards than the Pacers despite an equal number of opportunities. While not as critical as turnovers and 3-pointers, Indiana needs to win the rebounding battle to compete effectively in this series.
Bobby Marks:
The minutes without Shai Gilgeous-Alexander on the court. It highlights the Thunder`s remarkable depth that they can take the MVP out and still outscore opponents, as they did by 10 points over seven minutes in the fourth quarter of Game 2. For the Pacers to win this series, they absolutely must capitalize during the time when Gilgeous-Alexander is resting.
Zach Kram:
Oklahoma City`s use of a double-big lineup featuring Chet Holmgren and Isaiah Hartenstein. They didn`t share the court in Game 1 but played five minutes together in Game 2, winning those minutes by four points. Coach Mark Daigneault strategically deployed them when Myles Turner was on the bench, mitigating Indiana`s five-out spacing. As a result, Holmgren and Hartenstein played a combined 50 minutes in Game 2, up from 41 in Game 1. Given its success, Daigneault might use this alignment more frequently in Game 3.