The Oklahoma City Thunder managed to force an incredible 25 turnovers in Game 1 of the NBA Finals, the highest tally seen in a Finals game this century. Their star point guard delivered an outstanding 38 points, dwarfing the opposing star guard`s output by 24. They held the lead for all but a mere 0.3 seconds of the game.
Yet, despite these dominant statistics, the Indiana Pacers traveled to Oklahoma City, endured a challenging start, and managed to snatch Game 1 with a 111-110 victory. As the Pacers continue their postseason run characterized by astonishing comebacks, the Thunder are left to analyze what went wrong and determine the necessary adjustments to prevent a similar outcome in Sunday`s crucial Game 2.
Oklahoma City is widely considered the superior team in this series and remains the favorite, even trailing 1-0. However, their margin for error was significantly reduced by the Game 1 loss. Here are five key areas they must address to recover, tie the series, and regain control.
1. Swift Mental Reset
The most critical factor for the Thunder isn`t about on-court tactics but rather their mindset. They must immediately move past the disappointment of Game 1`s conclusion. Losing Game 2 at home would be catastrophic, mirroring the New York Knicks` fate in the Eastern Conference finals after their own Game 1 collapse.
Fortunately, guided by the composed Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, the Thunder have prior experience overcoming adversity. Following a shocking Game 1 defeat against the Denver Nuggets in the second round, Oklahoma City responded with determination in Game 2, erupting for 87 first-half points en route to a decisive 149-106 victory. Furthermore, they demonstrated resilience by bouncing back on the road in Game 4 after losing Game 3 in overtime against Denver.
This mental toughness will be crucial in the Finals because Indiana will undoubtedly be better prepared going forward. In the first half of Game 1, the moment seemed overwhelming for the emerging Pacers, leading to 19 turnovers. However, they settled down significantly in the second half, committing only six turnovers, which paved the way for their comeback.
2. Elevated Performances from Chet Holmgren and Jalen Williams
While Gilgeous-Alexander shone with 38 points in Game 1, his key teammates didn`t follow suit. Holmgren and Williams often serve as indicators for the team`s success: when they play well, OKC is formidable, but when they fail to carry their typical offensive load as the second and third scoring options, the Thunder become susceptible to upsets.
Both players underperformed in Game 1. Williams struggled, shooting 6-for-19, including a poor 1-for-10 on shots away from the rim. Holmgren managed only six points on 2-for-9 shooting and was notably benched during the final minutes as coach Mark Daigneault opted for a small-ball lineup.
This slump was particularly impactful because the Thunder altered their starting lineup for the first time this postseason, replacing Isaiah Hartenstein with Cason Wallace to eliminate their double-big alignment. This adjustment placed increased pressure on Holmgren, who couldn`t rise to the occasion in his first Finals appearance.
(Conversely, Hartenstein was effective off the bench in 17 minutes, contributing nine points and nine rebounds. Although Indiana`s lack of a physically dominant center theoretically makes this a less ideal matchup for him, his performance suggests he deserves more playing time going forward.)
Holmgren`s struggles weren`t limited to offense. He also had a rare defensive lapse night, losing track of his assignment on several crucial 3-pointers that helped Indiana close the gap in the fourth quarter. While Holmgren finished with six points and six rebounds, Indiana`s frontcourt players thrived: Myles Turner had 15 points and nine boards, complemented by reserve Obi Toppin`s 17 points, including five critical 3-pointers.
Adding to the challenge, Pascal Siakam outperformed Williams in the battle of the No. 2 options. Indiana`s supporting cast ultimately provided just enough to compensate for the scoring disparity between Gilgeous-Alexander and Tyrese Haliburton, who, despite an otherwise off night, hit the game-winning shot.
3. Improved Ball Movement
Indiana entered the Finals with a clear defensive game plan: Allow Gilgeous-Alexander to take challenging shots, but avoid collapsing the defense excessively to double-team or over-help against the MVP candidate.
This strategy forced Oklahoma City into unusually stagnant offensive sequences. The Thunder recorded only 208 passes in Game 1, based on tracking data – the lowest total for any team in any game throughout the entire season, including both regular season and playoffs. When adjusted for pace, it ranks as the second-fewest passes in a playoff game since the tracking era began (2013-14).
Interestingly, the previous low pace-adjusted playoff passing performances this season were by the Cleveland Cavaliers in Game 1 and Game 5 against Indiana. 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 demanding offensive burden placed upon him, there was limited playmaking for his teammates. The Thunder managed only 13 assists in Game 1; their previous playoff low was 19. (Their lowest total in the regular season was 16, occurring when their starters rested in the final game.)
To be fair, the Thunder would have registered more assists if their shooting had been better (a point discussed further below). However, they should use the days before Game 2 to find ways to counteract the Pacers` strategy by increasing their offensive flow. This improved ball movement could help involve SGA`s teammates more effectively and maintain better team rhythm, particularly in crucial late-game situations.
4. Better Finishing Near the Basket
In hindsight, Oklahoma City arguably lost Game 1 in the first half, when they failed to build a substantial lead despite forcing 19 turnovers. The Thunder`s defense appeared as dominant as usual, but their offense hindered their ability to capitalize.
This was largely due to the Thunder`s finishing around the basket, which was, to put it mildly, exceptionally poor. According to advanced tracking data, the Thunder shot just 20-for-36 at the rim in Game 1 (ranking in the 14th percentile for the season) and an astonishingly low 3-for-18 from floater range (placing them in the 2nd percentile).
Their inability to convert shots inside was the primary reason they struggled to convert turnovers into points. The Thunder scored only 0.4 points per steal in Game 1, according to tracking data. For comparison, they averaged 1.4 points per steal throughout the rest of the season – more than three times higher.
Much credit for this goes to Myles Turner, who recorded three blocks and significantly altered many other shots. The Thunder shot just 1-for-9 against the Pacers` center in the paint. After Gilgeous-Alexander made an acrobatic layup for the game`s opening points, the Thunder missed every subsequent close-range shot when Turner was the nearest defender. Many of these misses, circling back, were difficult attempts by Holmgren in traffic.
Nonetheless, the Thunder are capable of, and need to, finish better in upcoming games. Based on factors like the shooter`s identity and defender`s location, estimated data suggests the Thunder should have scored eight more points in the paint than they actually did. Had they simply finished at their expected rate based on their season track record, the Thunder would have won Game 1.
5. More Careful Prevention of Pacers` Open Corner 3s
Another factor contributing to the Thunder`s Game 1 loss was allowing the Pacers too many open looks from the corners. This is the most notable vulnerability for the otherwise dominant Thunder defense: as a consequence of prioritizing rim protection, they allowed more corner 3s than any other team this season.
The Pacers exploited this in Game 1, taking their highest frequency of corner 3s seen in any game this season. They were highly effective, making 10 out of 16 attempts (63%), including a remarkable 7-for-9 (78%) in the second half. They needed every one of those makes to complete their comeback.
Upon reviewing the film, Oklahoma City might accept some of these high-value attempts if they were well-contested or resulted from necessary defensive rotations. Indiana also significantly outperformed their expected 3-point shooting percentage based on shot quality data.
However, on other possessions, defensive miscommunication by the Thunder left a Pacer completely open in the corner. This kind of lapse is simply unacceptable at this stage of the playoffs.
While the relentless Pacers make it difficult, the Thunder must clean up these defensive errors. They will need to do so, as they are now trailing in the series and must fix their Game 1 issues to have a chance at winning the first NBA championship in Oklahoma City history.
