An unexpectedly competitive, yet thoroughly entertaining, NBA Finals has quickly evolved from a best-of-seven contest into a best-of-three showdown. The Indiana Pacers and Oklahoma City Thunder have traded victories across the first four games, resulting in a 2-2 series tie.
Adding to the drama, they`ve even alternated winning styles. The Thunder held a significant lead for much of Game 3, only to see the Pacers mount a strong comeback in the fourth quarter. Oklahoma City then mirrored this feat in Game 4, staging their own late surge.
Through four intense matchups, the combined score difference between the two teams is a mere six points. This tight margin suggests the possibility of the first NBA Finals Game 7 since the memorable Cleveland Cavaliers versus Golden State Warriors clash in 2016. With a crucial Game 5 approaching (scheduled for 8:30 p.m. ET), let`s examine seven specific plays that have significantly influenced the strategic battles and overarching narratives of the 2025 Finals, explaining how the series reached this deadlock and offering clues for the games ahead.
Game 3, First Quarter: Ben Sheppard Intercepts Jalen Williams
We begin our analysis in Game 3, where the Pacers aggressively implemented one of their favored defensive strategies. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander`s use of pick-and-rolls has been a focal point, creating an intriguing tactical subplot in the Finals. After the Pacers` aggressive defense in Game 1, Oklahoma City adjusted in Game 2, setting screens higher up the court to provide their league MVP more space to operate.
Indiana countered effectively by simply denying Gilgeous-Alexander the ball. If he doesn`t receive the pass, the location of the screen becomes irrelevant. In the first two games, Gilgeous-Alexander initiated the offense on 61% of the Thunder`s possessions when he was on the court, according to tracking data.
However, facing Indiana`s relentless full-court pressure in Games 3 and 4, this percentage plummeted by half, with SGA bringing the ball up on only 30% of possessions in each game. This represents a dramatic shift for Oklahoma City`s offense. Out of 342 games Gilgeous-Alexander has played over the last five seasons, these two games marked his second and third lowest percentages for initiating possessions.
Early in Game 3, immediately after Indiana`s first score, Andrew Nembhard prevented Gilgeous-Alexander from receiving the inbounds pass, disrupting Oklahoma City`s typical offensive initiation. Although that initial possession still resulted in a score for Williams, SGA never touched the ball.
More often, this strategy benefits Indiana, as seen midway through the first quarter of Game 3 when Oklahoma City`s primary offensive threat was bypassed, leading to an out-of-control Jalen Williams committing a turnover.
Statistics reinforce this point. The Thunder average 122 points per 100 half-court possessions in the Finals when Gilgeous-Alexander initiates the offense, compared to just 107 when he is on the court but doesn`t bring the ball up. While not the complete picture (for instance, not bringing the ball up early might conserve SGA`s energy for clutch moments, as seen in Game 4), this highlights how Indiana`s defense, though statistically middling, has effectively slowed the Thunder`s offense, which ranked third in the regular season.
Game 4, Third Quarter: OKC Commits a Shot Clock Violation
Facing a widening deficit amidst a raucous home crowd, Oklahoma City called a timeout in Game 4 hoping to reset. The plan failed. After Alex Caruso was forced to bring the ball upcourt due to Nembhard`s continued denial of SGA, Isaiah Hartenstein`s handoff nearly resulted in a turnover. Nembhard then stifled Gilgeous-Alexander`s attempt at a midrange isolation play.
As the shot clock expired, the ball deflected out of bounds. Following yet another deflection on the subsequent inbound pass, Indiana successfully forced a shot clock violation.
This possession perfectly illustrates Oklahoma City`s recent lack of offensive rhythm. It`s remarkable how heavily the Thunder have relied on difficult one-on-one scoring in this series, rather than their usual fluid, team-oriented playmaking. The three games this season where Oklahoma City recorded the fewest assists are all in the Finals:
- Game 4 of the Finals: 11 assists.
- Game 1 of the Finals: 13 assists.
- Game 3 of the Finals: 16 assists (They had more than 16 assists in every regular-season game except the final one where starters rested).
This represents a massive disruption to OKC`s offensive system, which averaged 27 assists in the regular season and 25 in the playoffs prior to the Finals. In Game 4, Gilgeous-Alexander recorded zero assists for the first time in five years.
Game 4, Fourth Quarter: Aaron Nesmith Fouls Gilgeous-Alexander
Although Aaron Nesmith was Indiana`s primary defensive stopper in the Eastern Conference Finals, effectively guarding players like Jalen Brunson, the Pacers prefer Andrew Nembhard to defend Shai Gilgeous-Alexander. Nembhard has been matched up against Gilgeous-Alexander for 187 possessions in the Finals, compared to 119 for all other Pacers players combined, according to tracking data.
The results explain this preference. Among 27 defenders who have guarded SGA for at least 10 matchups this postseason, his three highest points-per-matchup figures are against non-Nembhard Pacers: Bennedict Mathurin (0.89), Nesmith (0.73), and Myles Turner (0.73). In stark contrast, Gilgeous-Alexander has scored only 0.33 points per matchup against Nembhard.
While Gilgeous-Alexander is still getting his points in the Finals (32.8 points per game, consistent with his 32.7 in the regular season), Nembhard is undeniably making him work significantly harder than anyone else.
These numbers, while reflecting a relatively small sample size, influenced the tactical battle late in Game 4. The Thunder strategically shifted their offense to force Nesmith to guard Gilgeous-Alexander instead. Oklahoma City, a team that typically has its guards set screens frequently, repeatedly sent Gilgeous-Alexander to set picks for Williams, who was being guarded by Nesmith, aiming to trigger a defensive switch.
Gilgeous-Alexander set five picks for Williams in the fourth quarter of Game 4. This equals the most picks he has ever set for Williams in any single quarter throughout their time playing together, according to tracking data. The only other instance was the fourth quarter of Game 4 against the Dallas Mavericks in the previous year`s playoffs, another critical must-win game for the Thunder. This suggests they trust this specific action in moments of high pressure.
Against Indiana, these five plays proved highly effective as the Thunder completed their comeback: they resulted in a layup, a successful 3-pointer, two shooting fouls against Nesmith (ultimately leading to him fouling out), and an open midrange jumper that Gilgeous-Alexander missed. This sequence allowed the Thunder to tie the series, with Gilgeous-Alexander scoring 15 points in the final five minutes of Game 4 – the most in the last five minutes of a Finals game since 1971.
Game 1, First Quarter: Pascal Siakam Makes a Layup
Indiana`s first made field goal of the Finals immediately showcased one of the Pacers` key advantages: Pascal Siakam`s size and finishing ability make it difficult for smaller guards to defend him when switched onto him. Cason Wallace, while an excellent perimeter defender, was unable to offer significant resistance on this play. Indiana recognized the favorable mismatch, cleared out one side of the court, and allowed Siakam to attack.
Siakam, an NBA champion with the 2018-19 Toronto Raptors, has been a force for the Pacers in the Finals, leading the team with 18.8 points and 7.8 rebounds per game, while also contributing defensively with 1.8 steals and 1.3 blocks. He is on track to join an elite group as potentially the 12th player this century to average at least 18 points, 7 rebounds, 1 steal, and 1 block in the Finals. This list includes legends like Shaquille O`Neal, Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan, LeBron James, Kevin Durant, Kawhi Leonard, and Giannis Antetokounmpo.
Crucially, Siakam`s effectiveness overwhelming smaller defenders in the post has significantly impacted the Finals. It`s not just about his ability to generate relatively easy scores against the historically stingy Thunder defense. It`s also about how he forced Thunder coach Mark Daigneault to alter his strategy. For Game 4, Daigneault adjusted the starting lineup, reinserting Isaiah Hartenstein instead of Wallace to increase the Thunder`s size.
However, Oklahoma City`s decision to use a larger lineup with two traditional big men creates vulnerabilities elsewhere, reducing the team`s overall speed – a critical factor when trying to contain Indiana`s fast-paced offense. The Pacers` well-rounded offensive attack forces their opponents to make difficult trade-offs, and Siakam, with his versatility to run the floor and power through defenders, perfectly embodies this strength.
Game 4, Third Quarter: Andrew Nembhard Makes a 3-pointer
The Thunder allowed opponents the most corner 3-pointers during the regular season, and the Pacers have capitalized on this defensive tendency. On this particular play, some clever head and ball fakes from Tyrese Haliburton created an open look for Nembhard in the corner. Generally, NBA teams try to avoid helping too far off the strong-side corner because a pass to that spot is straightforward for any guard, let alone the player leading the playoffs in assists per game.
The Thunder are more aggressive in providing this kind of help defense compared to many other teams. While this aggression often works to their advantage given their personnel, Indiana has successfully exploited Oklahoma City`s tendencies against them. The Pacers are shooting an impressive 25-for-52 (48%) on corner 3-pointers in the Finals, compared to 27-for-87 (31%) from above the break. Corner shots account for nearly half of their made 3s despite representing only about one-third of their total 3-point attempts.
For comparison, Oklahoma City has matched Indiana with 27 made 3-pointers from above the break but has struggled from the corners, hitting only 11-for-33. This significant difference in corner shooting has given Indiana a total of 14 more made 3-pointers overall, translating to 42 extra points scored from beyond the arc.
Indiana`s hot shooting from the corners is unlikely to significantly regress as the Finals continue. Throughout the entire postseason, the Pacers are shooting 47% on corner 3s. This marks the best percentage for any team with at least 100 corner attempts since the Phoenix Suns shot 48% from the corners in the 2009-10 playoffs.
Game 3, First Quarter: Obi Toppin Makes a Layup
Given that the Pacers are successfully creating mismatches, even against Oklahoma City`s formidable defense, and are thriving on corner 3-pointers, why is Indiana`s offensive rating in the Finals just 109.8 points per 100 possessions, a significant drop from their 116+ rating in previous playoff rounds?
Indiana Offensive Rating:
- Regular Season: 115.4
- vs. Bucks: 118.0
- vs. Cavaliers: 116.7
- vs. Knicks: 118.2
- vs. Thunder: 109.8
The Obi Toppin layup provides a hint. This play was initiated by a spectacular sequence from Tyrese Haliburton, who intercepted a pass, sparked a 3-on-2 fast break, and added a touch of flair with a behind-the-back pass in midair to a cutting Toppin for the finish.
This specific play stands out, in part, because of how *rare* such open-court transitions – which are a defining characteristic of Indiana`s offense – have been in these Finals.
Throughout the postseason, the Pacers have been highly efficient in transition, scoring 127 points per 100 opportunities, compared to just 102 points per 100 in the half court. Among teams that advanced past the first round, only the Minnesota Timberwolves had a larger disparity between their transition and half-court efficiency, underscoring the importance for Indiana to push the pace.
However, running against Oklahoma City is significantly more challenging. Transition plays have accounted for only 11% of the Pacers` offensive opportunities against Oklahoma City, according to tracking data. This is a notable decrease from 15% in the first three playoff rounds and 16% during the regular season. Indiana, one of the most frequent transition teams earlier in the playoffs, has fallen towards the bottom of the league in transition rate against the Thunder.
Transition Rate by Opponent (Rank out of 30 playoff matchups):
- Knicks: 15.8% (3rd)
- Cavaliers: 15.6% (5th)
- Bucks: 12.7% (14th)
- Thunder: 10.9% (27th)
The Minnesota Timberwolves experienced a similar drop in transition rate against the Thunder in the Western Conference Finals (a mere 11% after having an above-average rate in earlier rounds). This was a major factor in the Timberwolves` offense struggling, which paved the way for Oklahoma City to reach the Finals. Similarly, it helps explain why Indiana is finding it harder to score than in previous series.
Game 2, Second Quarter: Indiana Loses the Ball Out of Bounds
Tyrese Haliburton may not have the reputation of being an isolation master, but his numbers tell a different story. Over the past three seasons, among high-usage players, Haliburton leads the league with 1.16 points per isolation play that directly results in a shot, turnover, or foul, according to tracking data. (Shai Gilgeous-Alexander is second, just 0.002 points behind Haliburton).
This effectiveness largely continued through the conference finals. However, against Oklahoma City, the Pacers have scored just 0.50 points per Haliburton isolation. While a small sample, it`s significant, as several of Haliburton`s unsuccessful isolation attempts occurred when Indiana`s offense stalled in the closing moments of Game 4.
On this specific play from Game 2, Haliburton struggled to find an opening against Chet Holmgren defending in space, ultimately forcing a pass that went out of bounds for a turnover. While Haliburton has managed to maneuver past Holmgren for contested layups a couple of times in the series, this early play hinted at the difficulty he would face consistently attacking Thunder defenders one-on-one.
Although both Oklahoma City and Indiana boast some of the league`s deepest rotations, this tightly contested Finals series may ultimately be decided in crunch time by the individual performance of Haliburton and Gilgeous-Alexander – specifically, their ability to beat their assigned defender one-on-one. In Game 1, SGA missed a midrange jumper, and Haliburton seized the opportunity with a game-winning shot.
In Game 4, Gilgeous-Alexander effectively exploited the matchup against Nesmith down the stretch, while Haliburton failed to convert on a couple of crucial isolation opportunities. This allowed the Thunder to claw back into the series, setting the stage for a thrilling best-of-three conclusion to the 2024-25 NBA season.