Following Tyrese Haliburton`s dramatic last-second shot that secured Game 1 for the Indiana Pacers, the Oklahoma City Thunder responded strongly with a decisive victory in Game 2 on Sunday night, leveling the series.
The Thunder secured a 123-107 win, largely thanks to their top-ranked defense which limited Haliburton to just five points over the initial three quarters, preventing another Pacers rally. League MVP Shai Gilgeous-Alexander led all scorers with 34 points. The series now heads to Indiana for a crucial Game 3 on Wednesday.
Our panel of NBA experts discusses Haliburton`s difficulties in the Finals so far, the necessary adjustments for the Pacers to recover, and identifies the series` primary X factor.
What major adjustment must the Pacers make for Game 3?
Kevin Pelton: It`s time for Rick Carlisle to shorten his player rotation. While Indiana`s depth has been praised, the Thunder`s bench is arguably stronger, having increased their lead when reserves were playing in both halves. Pelton advises extending the minutes for Haliburton and Myles Turner specifically. The Pacers performed relatively evenly when these two were on the court but were significantly outscored when they rested.
Michael C. Wright: Five shots in the first half are insufficient for an offensive catalyst like Haliburton to impact the game. He suggests Haliburton needs to be more aggressive earlier, which could create opportunities for others. Wright acknowledges Oklahoma City`s excellent defense on him, noting Haliburton`s five points on 2-of-7 shooting through three quarters, contrasted with his 12 points in the fourth.
Ramona Shelburne: Shelburne advises the Pacers to increase their pace and run more. Although counter-intuitive against the fast-breaking Thunder, Indiana found scoring difficult in Game 2 and failed to apply sufficient defensive pressure. Increasing fast-break opportunities (they had only nine in Game 2) should lead to easier scoring chances.
Bobby Marks: Marks recommends attacking the paint more frequently. He highlights the Pacers` best offensive sequence in Game 2: a seven-point run in the second quarter by Andrew Nembhard and Pascal Siakam, whose aggression eventually set up an Aaron Nesmith three-pointer. Indiana was outscored by 16 points in the paint before the final quarter.
Zach Kram: Kram points out that during the regular season, OKC was poor defensively regarding opponents` free throws (26th in rate, 29th in differential). However, the Thunder have attempted *more* free throws than the Pacers in the Finals so far. Kram states that for the underdog Pacers, capitalizing on this Thunder weakness is crucial by finding ways to earn more free throws, perhaps through increased drives to the basket or letting Siakam exploit mismatches against smaller defenders.
Tyrese Haliburton`s performance in the Finals has been _____ .
Shelburne: Uneven. Ramona Shelburne notes that Haliburton`s Game 1 wasn`t strong except for his game-winning shot. He himself admitted post-game he was `terrible` aside from that play and aimed to improve. However, his Game 2 performance wasn`t better, largely due to OKC`s defense. Shelburne explains that the Thunder, similar to their approach with Anthony Edwards, are physically challenging Haliburton early, forcing the ball away, and denying him touches. His task is to overcome this aggressive defense and remain assertive.
Pelton: Predictable. Kevin Pelton recalls Zach Kram`s observation that Haliburton has scored less against OKC over the last two seasons than any other opponent. Pelton adds that Haliburton also averages fewer points when guarded by Lu Dort compared to other regular defenders. The Thunder`s elite defense was a key reason they were pre-series favorites. Pelton also points out that starting Cason Wallace over Isaiah Hartenstein removed one potential defensive weakness for Haliburton to target in the starting lineup.
Kram: Saved by a single brilliant clutch play. Zach Kram poses that given current questions about Haliburton`s ability to elevate his game, criticism would be far more intense if his Game 1 winning shot had missed.
Marks: Bobby Marks observes that purely based on the fourth quarter, Haliburton appears elite. However, his passivity in the first three quarters of Game 2 significantly contributed to the series being tied. Marks likens this to his low-shot performance in Game 5 against New York. He notes Haliburton took only one fewer shot in the fourth quarter of Game 2 than in the entire first three quarters combined.
Wright: Subpar. Michael C. Wright agrees with Haliburton`s self-critique after Game 1 and suggests he`ll be disappointed with Game 2 as well. Wright mentions that OKC used eight different defenders on him in Game 1 (Dort being the primary one, holding him to 0-for-2). Game 2 saw a similar defensive strategy. Haliburton also committed five turnovers in Game 2, matching his career high and marking his longest streak (three games) with three or more turnovers since March 2024.
The X-factor through the first two games has been ______ .
Marks: Isaiah Hartenstein. Bobby Marks points to Hartenstein, noting that while screen assists aren`t officially tracked, he would likely excel in this area. Marks highlights how two screens set by Hartenstein early in the second quarter directly led to quick baskets for Jalen Williams, who had struggled to find open looks in the first quarter.
Pelton: Shotmaking, but perhaps not just threes. Kevin Pelton suggests shotmaking, extending beyond the common focus on three-pointers. He cites OKC`s significantly different 2-point shooting percentages: 41% in Game 1 vs. 56.5% in Game 2, noting that analytics suggested their expected 2-point percentage in Game 1 was much higher (53%). This variation, Pelton argues, shows the randomness of made/missed shots even inside the arc.
Kram: Bench scoring. Zach Kram notes that despite Haliburton`s difficulties, the Pacers have a +7 point differential with him playing. The issue is their -22 differential in 23 minutes when he`s off the court. He contrasts the bench contributions: Obi Toppin provided 17 points in Game 1, whereas in Game 2, OKC`s Aaron Wiggins and Cason Wallace combined for 38 points. Kram suggests that bench performance, particularly with the series moving to Indiana, could be pivotal.
Wright: The reserves for both teams. Michael C. Wright points to bench players. He notes that in Game 2, OKC`s Aaron Wiggins (18 points) and Cason Wallace (second 20-point playoff game) outscored the entire Pacers bench 38-34, reversing Game 1 where Indiana`s reserves outscored OKC`s 39-28. Wright mentions the cliché that role players perform better at home and wonders if this will be true for Game 3 in Indianapolis.
Shelburne: The officials` approach. Ramona Shelburne, while hesitant to blame referees, notes that the Thunder`s physical style is effective, and when permitted by officials, as she felt happened in Game 2, it makes scoring difficult against them.
Which game provides a better indicator of how the rest of the series might unfold?
Pelton: Kevin Pelton sees Game 1 as an outlier, marked by many unusual events before the Pacers` comeback. He views Game 2 as a more likely blueprint for future games. However, he anticipates better 3-point shooting from Indiana, who only made 35% in Game 2 – their fifth-lowest percentage this postseason and coinciding with all five of their losses.
Shelburne: Ramona Shelburne notes that OKC`s historic regular-season point differential explains their large leads in both Finals games. In Game 1, they couldn`t maintain the lead to finish off the Pacers. In Game 2, their defense was significantly improved and steadier, effectively limiting Haliburton`s touches. This defensive pressure, Shelburne argues, hinders his ability to generate offense, which is vital for Indiana.
Kram: Zach Kram is reluctant to dismiss Indiana`s proven ability for dramatic late-game comebacks from large deficits this postseason. However, he finds it hard to envision them winning the series if they consistently fall behind by 15 points or more. Kram suggests they must improve their first-half performance (averaging 43 points in the Finals first halves) to complement their strong second-half scoring (66 points in each Finals second half) to truly compete.
Marks: Bobby Marks feels Game 2 is a more accurate representation, given that OKC has been the superior team for almost the entire series (except the final 0.3 seconds of Game 1). However, he cautions that this doesn`t mean the Thunder have fully overcome the trauma of their Game 1 collapse. Marks points out that the Pacers achieved their goal of splitting the first two games and retain home-court advantage.
Wright: Michael C. Wright notes a trend: Indiana faced a 15-point deficit in Game 1 and up to 23 points in Game 2. This pattern suggests Game 2 might be more representative of the series going forward. Wright acknowledges that most predictions favored an OKC win in fewer than seven games, which now seems more likely after Game 2, despite the appeal of seeing Indiana continue their spirited playoff run.
One under-the-radar storyline for Game 3?
Wright: Pascal Siakam`s scoring potential. Michael C. Wright highlights Siakam`s scoring prowess leading into the Finals (21+ points in 8 of 16 games, including three 30+ games in the ECF) and questions when he might have a breakout performance in this series. With Dort effectively guarding Haliburton, Wright argues Indiana needs more from Siakam, who hasn`t attempted more than 15 shots per game in the Finals. Wright notes that in the ECF, Siakam took at least 16 shots in every Pacers win but 14 or fewer in their losses.
Shelburne: The Thunder`s bench depth on the road. Ramona Shelburne sees OKC`s depth as a major asset, especially in a long series, reducing pressure on individual role players as different ones can step up (like Wiggins in Game 2). However, she questions how well these role players will perform away from home. She also briefly mentions OKC`s tactical adjustments regarding Isaiah Hartenstein`s role.
Pelton: Rebounding dynamics. Kevin Pelton highlights rebounding, noting OKC`s struggles on the offensive glass in Game 1 (giving up offensive rebounds on >30% of Pacers misses, getting them on <20% of their own misses) contrasted with Game 2 where they secured four more offensive rebounds than Indiana with the same number of opportunities. While perhaps less critical than turnovers or threes, Pelton believes Indiana needs to win the rebounding battle to be competitive.
Marks: Performance during Shai Gilgeous-Alexander`s rest. Bobby Marks notes that it`s a testament to OKC`s depth that they outscored the Pacers by 10 points in a seven-minute stretch of the fourth quarter in Game 2 while their MVP was off the court. Marks argues that for Indiana to win the series, they *must* capitalize during the minutes when Gilgeous-Alexander is resting.
Kram: The potential use of a Chet Holmgren/Isaiah Hartenstein `double-big` lineup. Zach Kram observes that after not sharing the court in Game 1, Holmgren and Hartenstein played five minutes together in Game 2, winning those minutes by four. Coach Mark Daigneault deployed this lineup when Myles Turner was off the court, mitigating concerns about Indiana`s spread-out offense. As a result, Holmgren and Hartenstein played a combined 50 minutes in Game 2, up from 41 in Game 1. Kram suggests that given this success, Daigneault might use this pairing more often in Game 3.
