Despite dominating statistical categories like forcing 25 turnovers – the most in a Finals game this century – and getting a stellar 38-point performance from their star guard, who outscored his counterpart by 24, the Oklahoma City Thunder surprisingly dropped Game 1 of the NBA Finals. They held a lead for all but 0.3 seconds of game time, yet the Indiana Pacers managed to weather the early storm and steal a 111-110 victory in Oklahoma City. As the Pacers continue their improbable postseason run marked by dramatic comebacks, the Thunder are left pondering what went wrong and how to prevent a similar outcome in the crucial Game 2 on Sunday.
Oklahoma City is still considered the superior team in this series and remains the favorite, even trailing 1-0. However, their margin for error significantly decreased after the Game 1 defeat. Here are five crucial steps the Thunder must take to rebound, tie the series, and regain control.
1. Rapid Mental Reset
Beyond on-court strategy, the Thunder`s most critical task is psychological recovery. They must immediately put the painful Game 1 loss behind them. Losing Game 2 at home would be devastating, similar to how the New York Knicks stumbled in the Eastern Conference Finals after their own Game 1 collapse.
Fortunately, guided by their composed star Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, the Thunder have experience bouncing back from adversity. Following a stunning Game 1 loss to the Denver Nuggets in the second round, Oklahoma City responded with a dominant 149-106 win in Game 2, powered by 87 first-half points. They also demonstrated resilience by winning Game 4 on the road after losing Game 3 in overtime.
This mental fortitude will be vital in the Finals, especially because Indiana will likely be better prepared going forward. In the first half of Game 1, the moment seemed overwhelming for the young Pacers, leading to 19 turnovers. However, they settled down considerably in the second half, committing only six giveaways, which was key to their comeback.
2. Enhanced Performance from Chet Holmgren and Jalen Williams
While Gilgeous-Alexander delivered 38 points in Game 1, his key teammates didn`t match his production. Holmgren and Williams often serve as barometers for the team`s success: when they perform well as the second and third scoring options, the Thunder are nearly unbeatable. When they struggle to carry that load, the team becomes vulnerable.
Both players had off nights in Game 1. Williams shot poorly, hitting just 6 of 19 attempts and only 1 of 10 shots away from the basket. Holmgren was limited to just six points on 2-of-9 shooting and was even benched during the critical final moments as coach Mark Daigneault opted for a smaller lineup.
Their struggles were particularly problematic because the Thunder changed their starting lineup for the first time in the postseason, replacing Isaiah Hartenstein with Cason Wallace to move away from a double-big alignment. This put more pressure on Holmgren in his first Finals game, and he didn`t meet the challenge.
Holmgren`s impact wasn`t just lacking offensively; he also had a rare defensive lapse, losing track of his assignments on several crucial fourth-quarter 3-pointers that helped the Pacers erase the deficit. While he finished with six points and six rebounds, Indiana`s bigs were effective: Myles Turner posted 15 points and nine boards, and reserve Obi Toppin added 17 points, including five significant 3-pointers.
Combined with Pascal Siakam outplaying Williams in the battle of the teams` number two options, Indiana`s supporting cast did just enough to bridge the scoring gap between Gilgeous-Alexander and Tyrese Haliburton, who had a difficult shooting night until hitting the game-winning shot.
3. Improved Ball Movement
Indiana arrived at the Finals with a clear defensive strategy: allow Gilgeous-Alexander to take contested shots but avoid over-committing help defenders to him, thereby keeping the rest of the defense solid.
This approach led to unusual offensive stagnation for Oklahoma City. The Thunder completed only 208 passes in Game 1 – the fewest by any team in any game throughout the entire season, regular season or playoffs, according to tracking data. Adjusted for pace, it`s the second-lowest number of passes in a playoff game since the tracking era began (2013-14).
Notably, the previous playoff games with the fewest pace-adjusted passes were both by the Cleveland Cavaliers against Indiana this season, suggesting the Pacers employed a similar defensive blueprint against Donovan Mitchell as they did against SGA.
While Gilgeous-Alexander, like Mitchell, largely handled the immense scoring responsibility placed upon him, there was minimal playmaking for his teammates. The Thunder recorded just 13 assists in Game 1, significantly lower than their previous playoff low of 19 (and regular season low of 16 in a meaningless game).
To be fair, their assist total would likely have been higher if their teammates had converted more shots. However, the Thunder should use the break before Game 2 to find ways to counter the Pacers` strategy by increasing offensive flow, which could better involve SGA`s teammates and help the team find a rhythm in crucial moments.
4. Better Finishing at the Basket
Looking back, the Thunder arguably lost Game 1 in the first half when they failed to build a substantial lead despite forcing 19 turnovers. Their defense appeared impenetrable, but their offense couldn`t capitalize.
This was largely due to the Thunder`s abysmal finishing inside. According to tracking data, they shot 20-for-36 at the rim in Game 1 (ranking in the 14th percentile for the season) and an astonishingly poor 3-for-18 from floater range (2nd percentile).
Their inability to convert shots inside was the primary reason they struggled to turn turnovers into points. The Thunder scored only 0.4 points per steal in Game 1, compared to their season average of 1.4 points per steal, more than three times higher.
Much credit for this goes to Myles Turner, who recorded three blocks and altered numerous other shots. The Thunder shot a mere 1-for-9 against Turner in the paint; after Gilgeous-Alexander made an acrobatic layup for the first points, the Thunder missed every subsequent close-range shot when Turner was the nearest defender. Many of these misses, as noted earlier, were contested attempts by Holmgren in traffic.
Nevertheless, the Thunder are capable of, and must, finish better in upcoming games. Based on factors like shot quality and defender location, analytics suggest the Thunder should have scored approximately eight more points in the paint than they did. If they had finished at their typical rate, they likely would have won Game 1.
5. More Disciplined Defense on Pacers` Corner 3-Pointers
Another key factor in the Thunder`s Game 1 loss was allowing the Pacers to succeed with open shots from the corners. This is the most notable weakness of the otherwise stout Thunder defense: as a trade-off for protecting the paint effectively, they gave up the most corner 3s of any team this season.
The Pacers exploited this in Game 1, taking their highest frequency of corner 3s of any game this season. They converted an impressive 10 out of 16 attempts (63%), including 7-for-9 (78%) in the second half. These timely baskets were crucial for their comeback.
Upon reviewing the game 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 metrics.
However, in other instances, miscommunication on the Thunder`s part left a Pacer player completely open in a corner, which is an unacceptable defensive breakdown at this stage of the playoffs.
While the relentless Pacers certainly make defensive execution difficult, the Thunder can and must eliminate these mistakes.
They will need to make these corrections quickly, as they are now trailing in the series and must address their Game 1 issues to have a chance at winning the first NBA title in Oklahoma City history.
