Despite forcing a staggering 25 turnovers (the most in a Finals game this century), getting a 38-point performance from their star guard, and leading for all but 0.3 seconds, the Oklahoma City Thunder still dropped Game 1 of the NBA Finals, falling 111-110 at home to the Indiana Pacers. The Pacers added another miraculous comeback to their playoff run, leaving the Thunder to analyze their errors and strategize for Sunday`s crucial Game 2.
Oklahoma City is widely considered the superior team and remains favored to win the series despite trailing 1-0. However, the Game 1 loss consumed their margin for error significantly. Here are five key areas the Thunder must address to rebound in Game 2 and regain control of the Finals.
1. Rapid Mental Reset
Perhaps the most critical requirement for the Thunder is not strategic but psychological. They must quickly move past the frustrating Game 1 defeat. Suffering another home loss in Game 2, as the Knicks did in the Eastern Conference Finals after their own Game 1 collapse, would be disastrous.
Fortunately, guided by the composed Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, the Thunder possess prior experience in overcoming setbacks. Following a stunning Game 1 collapse against the Denver Nuggets in the second round, they responded with a dominant Game 2 victory (scoring 87 first-half points en route to a 149-106 rout). They also demonstrated resilience by winning Game 4 on the road after an overtime loss in Game 3 against Denver.
This proven resilience will be vital in the Finals, as Indiana is expected to adjust and improve. In the initial half of Game 1, the moment seemed too large for the inexperienced Pacers, who committed 19 turnovers. However, they significantly settled down in the second half, giving the ball away only six times, which was crucial for their comeback effort.
2. Stronger Performances from Chet Holmgren and Jalen Williams
While Gilgeous-Alexander poured in 38 points in Game 1, his key teammates didn`t match his production. Holmgren and Williams often serve as indicators for the team`s success: when they perform well, OKC is nearly unbeatable, but if they struggle to carry their usual load as the second and third scorers, the Thunder become vulnerable to upsets.
Unfortunately, the latter version of both players appeared in Game 1. Williams shot poorly, hitting only 6-for-19 overall and a rough 1-for-10 on attempts away from the basket. Holmgren managed just six points on 2-for-9 shooting and was even benched for the closing minutes as coach Mark Daigneault opted for a small-ball lineup.
This dip in performance was particularly problematic because the Thunder altered their starting lineup for the first time this postseason, replacing Isaiah Hartenstein with Cason Wallace to move away from a two-big configuration. This adjustment placed added pressure on Holmgren, who didn`t meet the challenge in his first Finals game.
(Conversely, Hartenstein was effective in his 17 minutes off the bench, contributing nine points and nine rebounds. While Indiana`s lack of a dominant physical center might theoretically not be his ideal matchup, his solid performance suggests he could warrant increased playing time going forward.)
Holmgren`s struggles weren`t limited to offense. He also had an uncharacteristically poor defensive night, losing track of his assignment on several three-pointers that helped Indiana narrow the gap in the fourth quarter. While Holmgren finished with modest numbers, Indiana`s big men thrived: Myles Turner posted 15 points and nine rebounds, and reserve Obi Toppin added 17 points, including five crucial three-pointers.
Add in Pascal Siakam outplaying Jalen Williams in the matchup of the teams` No. 2 options, and Indiana`s complementary players did just enough to compensate for the difference between Gilgeous-Alexander`s stellar game and Tyrese Haliburton`s off night (prior to his game-winning shot).
3. Improved Ball Movement
Indiana entered the Finals with a clear defensive game plan: allow Gilgeous-Alexander to take difficult shots but avoid over-helping off other players to defend him.
This strategy forced Oklahoma City into unprecedented offensive stagnation. The Thunder completed only 208 passes in Game 1, according to tracking data – the lowest total for any team in any game throughout the entire season, including the regular season and playoffs. Adjusting for pace, it ranks as the second-fewest passes in a playoff game in the tracking era (since 2013-14).
Interestingly, the previous playoff games this season with the fewest pace-adjusted passes involved the Cleveland Cavaliers facing Indiana in both Game 1 and Game 5 of their series. This pattern makes sense, as the Pacers employed a similar defensive approach against Donovan Mitchell as they did against SGA.
While Gilgeous-Alexander, like Mitchell, largely handled the heavy scoring burden placed upon him, there was minimal playmaking for his teammates. The Thunder recorded just 13 assists in Game 1; their previous playoff low was 19. (Their regular season low was 16, which occurred when the starters sat out the final game.)
To be fair, the Thunder might have registered more assists had their teammates finished better (a point discussed below). However, they should dedicate their time before Game 2 to finding ways to counter the Pacers` strategy by increasing their offensive flow. This could help involve SGA`s teammates more effectively and keep the team in better rhythm during critical moments.
4. Better Finishing Near the Basket
Looking back, Oklahoma City arguably lost Game 1 in the first half, when they failed to build a larger lead despite forcing 19 turnovers. The Thunder`s defense appeared as impenetrable as ever, but their offense prevented them from capitalizing.
This was primarily due to Oklahoma City`s finishing around the basket being, to put it mildly, exceptionally poor. According to statistical tracking, the Thunder shot just 20-for-36 at the rim in Game 1 (placing them in the 14th percentile for the season) and an astonishingly bad 3-for-18 from floater range (2nd percentile).
This inability to convert inside was a major reason they struggled to turn all those forced turnovers into points. The Thunder scored only 0.4 points per steal in Game 1, based on tracking data. For context, throughout the rest of the season, they averaged 1.4 points per steal, more than three times higher.
Much credit for this goes to Myles Turner, who finished with three blocks and significantly altered many other shot attempts. The Thunder shot a mere 1-for-9 against the Pacers` center in the paint; after Gilgeous-Alexander made an acrobatic layup for the game`s initial points, the Thunder missed every subsequent close-range shot when Turner was the nearest defender. As mentioned earlier, many of these misses were rough attempts by Holmgren in traffic.
Nonetheless, the Thunder are capable of, and need to, finish better in upcoming games. Based on factors like shooter identity and defender positioning, tracking data estimates that the Thunder were expected to score eight more points in the paint than they actually did. If they had simply finished at their typical rate, the Thunder likely would have won Game 1.
5. More Effective Prevention of Open Corner Three-Pointers
The Thunder also could have won Game 1 if they hadn`t allowed the Pacers such success from the corner three-point spots. This represents the most significant vulnerability in the Thunder`s otherwise dominant defense: as a trade-off for cutting off the paint, they permitted opponents the most corner three-point attempts of any team this season.
The Pacers exploited this in Game 1, taking their highest frequency of corner three-pointers of any game this season. They converted an impressive 10 of 16 attempts (63%), including a blistering 7-for-9 (78%) in the second half, and they needed every single one of those baskets to complete their comeback.
When reviewing game film, Oklahoma City will likely accept some of these high-value attempts, particularly those that were contested or resulted from necessary defensive rotations. However, Indiana also significantly outperformed their expected three-point shot quality based on tracking data.
But on other occasions, a clear Thunder miscommunication left a Pacer player wide open in the corner, which is an unacceptable defensive lapse at this stage of the competition.
While the relentless Pacers make it challenging, the Thunder can definitely clean up these miscommunications. They will need to make these adjustments quickly, as they are now trailing in the series and must fix their Game 1 issues to have a chance at winning the first NBA title in Oklahoma City history.