Following Tyrese Haliburton`s game-winning shot that secured Game 1 for the Indiana Pacers, the Oklahoma City Thunder responded strongly with a dominant victory in Game 2 on Sunday night, leveling the series.
The Thunder`s 123-107 win was powered by their top-ranked defense, which limited Haliburton to just five points through the first three quarters and effectively thwarted any comeback attempt. MVP Shai Gilgeous-Alexander led all scorers with 34 points. The series now heads back to Indiana for a pivotal Game 3 on Wednesday.
Our NBA experts analyze Haliburton`s performance in the Finals, discuss the necessary adjustments for the Pacers to bounce back, and identify the series` major X factor.
What is the biggest adjustment the Pacers need to make in Game 3?
Kevin Pelton: Rick Carlisle should consider tightening his rotation. While Indiana`s depth has been a strength in the playoffs, Oklahoma City`s bench is deeper and extended their lead with reserves on the court in both halves. Specifically, increasing minutes for Haliburton and Myles Turner seems wise. The Pacers played nearly even when both were on the floor but were outscored significantly in their absence.
Michael C. Wright: Five shots in the first half isn`t enough for an offensive playmaker like Haliburton to make a significant impact. Indiana would benefit from their point guard being more assertive earlier in games, which could create opportunities for his teammates. Oklahoma City deserves credit for their phenomenal defense on Haliburton, but he scored just five points on 2-of-7 shooting through the first three quarters before scoring 12 in the fourth.
Ramona Shelburne: The Pacers must increase their pace and run more. While this seems counterintuitive against the transition-savvy Thunder, Indiana struggled offensively on Sunday and failed to apply sufficient defensive pressure on Oklahoma City. If the Pacers can get out in transition more often – they had only nine fast-break points in Game 2 – it should lead to easier scoring chances.
Bobby Marks: Attack the paint more frequently. Indiana`s most effective stretch on Sunday was the seven consecutive points scored by Andrew Nembhard and Pascal Siakam in the second quarter, demonstrating aggression near the basket. This assertiveness eventually led to an Aaron Nesmith 3-pointer that reduced the Thunder`s lead to 13. Before the fourth quarter, Indiana had allowed 16 more points in the paint than they scored.
Zach Kram: In the regular season, Oklahoma City ranked 26th in opponent free throw rate and 29th in free throw differential. However, the Thunder have attempted more free throws than the Pacers in both Finals games so far. As underdogs, Indiana needs to capitalize on this rare weakness. Finding ways to generate more easy points from the free-throw line – perhaps by driving to the basket more or letting Siakam exploit smaller defenders – is crucial.
Tyrese Haliburton`s Finals performance has been _____.
Ramona Shelburne: Inconsistent. Haliburton didn`t have a great performance in Game 1, aside from hitting a brilliant shot at the end. Afterward, he admitted he was `terrible` excluding the game-winner and expected to improve. However, 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 disrupt Haliburton early in possessions, forcing the ball out of his hands and denying him touches. His challenge, like Edwards`, is to fight through this early pressure and maintain aggression.
Kevin Pelton: Predictable. As noted in our initial Finals analysis, Haliburton scored less against Oklahoma City than any other opponent over the past two seasons. I also highlighted his lower scoring average against Lu Dort compared to other regular defenders. The Thunder`s elite defense is a primary reason they were heavily favored, and benching Isaiah Hartenstein for Cason Wallace removed one defender Haliburton typically targeted in the starting lineup.
Zach Kram: Rescued by a single moment of clutch brilliance. Given that we`re already questioning his ability to elevate his game, the criticism would be significantly louder if Haliburton`s Game 1 game-winner had missed.
Bobby Marks: If judged solely on the fourth quarter, Haliburton is among 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. Before the fourth, his performance mirrored the Game 5 loss in New York, where he took only seven shots through three quarters. His six shots in the fourth quarter of Game 2 were just one less than his total for the preceding three quarters.
Michael C. Wright: Below par. Haliburton rightly criticized his own performance after Game 1, and he`ll likely feel the same about his struggles in Game 2. In Game 1, OKC used eight different defenders against him, with Dort primarily responsible and holding him to 0-for-2 shooting. The Thunder applied similar pressure in Game 2, leading to Haliburton committing five turnovers, tying his career high in either the regular season or playoffs. He has now turned the ball over three or more times in three consecutive games, his longest such streak since March 2024.
The X factor through two games has been ______.
Bobby Marks: Isaiah Hartenstein. Screen assists aren`t tracked in the box score, but if they were, Hartenstein would stand out. With Jalen Williams unable to find clean looks in the first quarter (taking just one shot), it was Hartenstein`s two screens early in the second quarter that directly led to two quick baskets for Williams.
Kevin Pelton: Shotmaking, but not in the usual sense. The `make or miss league` mantra often applies strictly to 3-point shooting, but randomness exists in shots inside the arc as well. (Pat Riley coined the phrase when 3-point rates were much lower.) Oklahoma City shot 41% on 2-point attempts in Game 1, when analytical models suggested they should have made 53% based on shot quality. In Game 2, the Thunder improved significantly, making 56.5% of their 2s.
Zach Kram: Bench scoring. Even with Haliburton`s struggles, the Pacers are a plus-7 with him on the court in the series. The issue is they are a minus-22 in the 23 minutes he`s rested. While Obi Toppin contributed 17 points and five 3-pointers in Game 1, the key bench scorers in Game 2 were Oklahoma City`s Aaron Wiggins and Alex Caruso, who combined for 38 points and nine 3s. How the role players perform away from home in Indiana could swing the series.
Michael C. Wright: The reserves for both teams. In Game 2, two players – Wiggins (18 points after scoring only 10 in his previous five games) and Caruso (his second 20-point game of the postseason after none in the regular season) – combined to outscore Indiana`s entire bench 38-34. In Game 1, the Pacers` reserves had outscored OKC`s 39-28. The saying is that role players perform better at home; we`ll see if this holds true for Game 3 in Indianapolis.
Ramona Shelburne: I hesitate to blame the referees, but the Thunder`s style relies heavily on physicality. When the officials allow them to play as physically as they did Sunday, it becomes very difficult to sustain offense against them.
Which game is more indicative of how the rest of the series will go?
Kevin Pelton: Game 1 was an anomaly in many respects, even before Indiana`s improbable comeback. Game 2 provides a more likely template for the remainder of the series, although I believe Indiana can expect better shooting performance going forward after hitting just 35% of their 3-point attempts. This was their fifth-worst accuracy of the postseason, and unsurprisingly, all five instances resulted in 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 games. In Game 1, OKC failed to extend that lead sufficiently to put the Pacers away, allowing the comeback. In Game 2, OKC`s defense was significantly better and more consistent, keeping the ball out of Haliburton`s hands. This makes it harder for him to create scoring opportunities, which is vital for Indiana`s offense.
Zach Kram: I`m hesitant to doubt Indiana`s ability to overcome large deficits through increasingly improbable late-game heroics, given their track record this postseason. However, it`s still difficult to envision them winning this series if they continue to fall behind by 15-plus points every game. At some point, they will need to play well in the first half (where they`ve averaged 43 points per game in the Finals) in addition to the second (where they`ve scored 66 points in each game) to have a chance.
Bobby Marks: Game 2 is likely more indicative, considering Oklahoma City has been the superior team for nearly the entire series, save for 0.3 seconds. However, this doesn`t mean the Thunder are immune to the kind of collapse seen in Game 1. The Pacers achieved their goal of splitting the first two games 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. Let`s be honest: most predictions favored an OKC victory in less than seven games. This outcome seems more probable only after Game 2, even though we`d all probably prefer to see Indiana continue to battle the way they have throughout the postseason.
What`s one under-the-radar storyline for Game 3?
Michael C. Wright: Pascal Siakam dropped 21 points or more in eight of his 16 games leading up to the Finals, including three 30-point performances in the Eastern Conference Finals. This raises the question of whether `Spicy P` will have a significant scoring outburst in this series. With Dort effectively limiting Haliburton in the first two games, Indiana needs more offensive production from Siakam, who has not attempted more than 15 shots in either game. In the Eastern Conference Finals, Siakam attempted at least 16 shots in every victory and 14 or fewer in his two losses.
Ramona Shelburne: The Thunder`s depth is a major advantage, especially as the series progresses. It alleviates pressure on their role players in any single game because multiple players can step up offensively, as Wiggins (18 points) did Sunday. However, role players don`t always perform as well on the road. Additionally, the Thunder potentially reduced Hartenstein`s effectiveness by moving him to the bench in the initial games.
Kevin Pelton: Rebounding. Oklahoma City allowed offensive rebounds on over 30% of Indiana`s misses in Game 1 while securing offensive boards on less than 20% of their own opportunities. In Game 2, the Thunder had four more offensive rebounds than the Pacers with the same number of chances. While not as crucial as turnovers or 3-point shooting, Indiana needs to win the rebounding battle to compete in this series.
Bobby Marks: The non-SGA minutes. It speaks to the depth of the Thunder that they can rest their MVP and still outscore their opponents by 10 points over seven minutes in the fourth quarter. For the Pacers to win this series, they must capitalize on the periods when Gilgeous-Alexander is off the court.
Zach Kram: After Holmgren and Hartenstein did not share the court in Game 1, the Thunder utilized a double-big lineup for five minutes in Game 2. They won those minutes by four points, with Mark Daigneault strategically using the pairing when Turner was on the bench, thus mitigating concerns about Indiana`s five-out spacing. Consequently, Holmgren and Hartenstein played a combined 50 minutes in Game 2, compared to 41 in Game 1. Given this successful adjustment, Daigneault might deploy the double-big alignment more frequently in Game 3.
