Analyzing the Thunder vs. Pacers NBA Finals: 7 Defining Plays

The 2025 NBA Finals, unexpectedly competitive yet predictably thrilling, has quickly shifted from a seven-game series to a best-of-three showdown, with the Indiana Pacers and Oklahoma City Thunder splitting the first four contests.

The teams have recently even swapped winning approaches. Oklahoma City held the lead for much of Game 3 before Indiana staged a strong fourth-quarter comeback. Conversely, the Thunder mirrored this feat with their own late rally in Game 4.

After four games, only a mere six points separate the two teams overall, raising the possibility of the first Finals Game 7 since the 2016 epic between the Cleveland Cavaliers and Golden State Warriors. As a crucial Game 5 approaches, let`s examine seven key plays that have shaped the tactical battles and storylines of the 2025 Finals, revealing how the series reached its 2-2 deadlock and hinting at what might come next.

Play 1: Ben Sheppard`s Steal from Jalen Williams (Game 3, 1st Quarter)

Let`s begin with Game 3, where the Pacers intensified one of their preferred strategies to an extreme level. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander`s effectiveness in pick-and-rolls has introduced a fascinating tactical subplot to the Finals. The Pacers aggressively defended him in Game 1, prompting Oklahoma City to adjust their screening actions in Game 2, setting picks higher on the court to generate space for the league MVP.

Indiana countered by denying Gilgeous-Alexander the ball entirely. If he cannot receive possession, the location of Thunder screens becomes irrelevant. Through Game 2, Gilgeous-Alexander initiated Oklahoma City`s offense on 61% of possessions while on the court, according to GeniusIQ tracking data.

However, facing Indiana`s intense full-court pressure in Games 3 and 4, that figure plummeted by half, with SGA bringing the ball up on only 30% of Thunder possessions in each game. This represents a significant shift in Oklahoma City`s offensive rhythm. Across 342 games played by Gilgeous-Alexander over the last five seasons, these two games recorded his second- and third-lowest percentages for initiating possessions.

Following Indiana`s first made basket of Game 3, Andrew Nembhard prevented Gilgeous-Alexander from receiving the inbounds pass, hindering his ability to start the offense. Although this initial possession still resulted in a score for Williams, SGA never touched the ball.

More often than not, this scenario benefits Indiana – illustrated by a possession mid-way through the first quarter of Game 3 where Oklahoma City`s primary offensive threat didn`t handle the ball, leading to an out-of-control Williams committing a turnover.

Overall, 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, per GeniusIQ. While this isn`t the complete picture (not handling the ball early might conserve SGA`s energy for crunch time, as seen in Game 4), it highlights how Indiana`s league-average defense has managed to slow the Thunder`s typically potent offense, which ranked third in the regular season.

Play 2: Thunder`s Shot Clock Violation (Game 4, 3rd Quarter)

Facing a growing deficit amidst a raucous Pacers home crowd, Oklahoma City called a timeout to regroup. The plan failed. After Alex Caruso brought the ball up (as Nembhard continued denying SGA in the backcourt), Isaiah Hartenstein`s handoff nearly resulted in a turnover. Then, Nembhard effectively shut down Gilgeous-Alexander`s attempt at a midrange isolation.

Eventually, as the shot clock expired, the ball deflected out of bounds. Following another deflection on the subsequent inbound pass, Indiana forced a violation.

This specific possession exemplifies Oklahoma City`s sudden lack of offensive fluidity. It`s remarkable how heavily the Thunder have relied on difficult one-on-one scoring attempts in this series, contrasting sharply with their usual team-oriented playmaking rhythm. The three games with the fewest assists for Oklahoma City this season are:

• Game 4 of the Finals: 11 assists.
• Game 1 of the Finals: 13 assists.
• Game 3 of the Finals: 16 assists. (The Thunder exceeded 16 assists in every regular-season game except Game No. 82, where starters rested).

This marks a significant disruption to OKC`s system; the team averaged 27 assists in the regular season and 25 in the playoffs before the Finals. In Game 4, Gilgeous-Alexander finished without a single assist for the first time in five years.

Play 3: Aaron Nesmith Fouls Gilgeous-Alexander (Game 4, 4th Quarter)

Although Nesmith served as the Pacers` primary defender in the Eastern Conference finals, achieving notable success guarding the Knicks` Jalen Brunson, Indiana prefers Nembhard to defend Gilgeous-Alexander. Nembhard has been matched against Gilgeous-Alexander on 187 possessions in the Finals, according to GeniusIQ, compared to 119 for the rest of the Pacers combined.

The outcomes demonstrate why. 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 points per matchup), Nesmith (0.73), and Myles Turner (0.73). In contrast, Gilgeous-Alexander has scored just 0.33 points per matchup when guarded by Nembhard.

Gilgeous-Alexander is still getting his points total in the Finals (32.8 points per game, similar to his 32.7 in the regular season), but Nembhard is making him expend significantly more effort for them than any other defender.

While these numbers represent a small sample size, in the closing stages of Game 4, the Thunder intentionally manipulated their offense to get Nesmith matched up against Gilgeous-Alexander. Oklahoma City – a team that typically has its guards set screens more than any other in the league – repeatedly sent Gilgeous-Alexander to screen for Williams, who was being guarded by Nesmith, aiming to force Indiana into a defensive switch.

Gilgeous-Alexander set five screens for Williams in the fourth quarter of Game 4 – tied for the most in any quarter they have played together in their careers, per GeniusIQ. The only other instance was the fourth quarter of Game 4 against the Dallas Mavericks in the previous year`s playoffs, another must-win situation for the Thunder. They clearly rely on this action in critical moments.

Against Indiana, these five plays yielded excellent results as the Thunder completed their comeback: a layup, a 3-pointer, two shooting fouls (leading to Nesmith fouling out), and an open midrange jumper which he missed. The Thunder leveled the series, and Gilgeous-Alexander scored the most points in the final five minutes of a Finals game (15) since 1971.

Play 4: Pascal Siakam`s Opening Layup (Game 1, 1st Quarter)

Indiana`s initial field goal of the Finals highlighted a key advantage for the Pacers: Siakam possesses the size and finishing skill to punish switches that leave a smaller guard defending him. Cason Wallace is a capable perimeter defender, but on this play, he offered little resistance as Indiana recognized the favorable mismatch, cleared out one side of the court, and allowed Siakam to operate.

Siakam, a champion with the 2018-19 Toronto Raptors, is leading the Pacers in the Finals with averages of 18.8 points and 7.8 rebounds per game, while also contributing 1.8 steals and 1.3 blocks. He is on track to become just the 12th player this century to average at least 18 points, 7 rebounds, 1 steal, and 1 block in the NBA Finals, joining an illustrious group that includes Shaquille O`Neal, Kobe Bryant, Tim Duncan (twice), Dwyane Wade (twice), Kevin Garnett, LeBron James (three times), Kevin Durant, Kawhi Leonard, Anthony Davis, Giannis Antetokounmpo, and Andrew Wiggins.

But it is Siakam`s effectiveness in overwhelming smaller defenders on the block that has significantly impacted these Finals. It`s not just about him generating easy points, which are hard to come by against the Thunder`s historically strong defense. It`s also because Siakam forced Thunder coach Mark Daigneault to alter his game plan. For Game 4, Daigneault inserted Hartenstein back into the starting lineup, replacing Wallace to give Oklahoma City more size.

The Thunder`s double-big lineup, however, creates vulnerabilities elsewhere by reducing Oklahoma City`s overall speed on the court – speed that is crucial for countering Indiana`s fast-paced attack. The Pacers` balanced roster forces opponents into difficult trade-offs, and Siakam, with his ability to both run the floor and power through defenders at the rim, perfectly embodies this strength.

Play 5: Andrew Nembhard`s Corner Three (Game 4, 3rd Quarter)

The Thunder allowed the most corner 3-pointers during the regular season, a vulnerability the Pacers have exploited. On this particular play, clever head and ball fakes from Tyrese Haliburton created an open look for Nembhard. Typically, NBA teams avoid `helping` off the strong-side corner, as a kickout pass from that position is straightforward for any guard, let alone the playoff leader in assists per game.

The Thunder are more aggressive with this type of help defense than other teams. While this often works to their advantage, given their personnel, Indiana has managed to turn Oklahoma City`s defensive tendencies against them. The Pacers are shooting a blistering 25-for-52 on corner 3s (48%) in the Finals, compared to 27-for-87 (31%) from above the break. Corner shots account for nearly half of their made 3-pointers despite representing only about a third of their total attempts from deep.

For comparison, Oklahoma City has made the same number of above-the-break 3s as Indiana (27), but has converted only 11-for-33 from the corners. This significant disparity has resulted in Indiana making 14 more 3s overall, translating to a difference of 42 points from beyond the arc.

Indiana`s hot shooting from the corners is unlikely to regress significantly as the Finals continue. Throughout the postseason, the Pacers are converting 47% of their corner 3s. This is the best mark for any team (minimum 100 attempts) since the Phoenix Suns shot 48% from the corners in the 2009-10 playoffs.

Play 6: Obi Toppin`s Fast Break Layup (Game 3, 1st Quarter)

So, if the Pacers are generating some favorable matchups, even against the Thunder`s formidable defense, and are excelling at hitting corner 3s, why is Indiana scoring only 109.8 points per 100 possessions in the Finals, a significant drop from their 116+ offensive rating in previous playoff rounds?

Obi Toppin`s early layup offers a clue. It was the result of a spectacular play by Haliburton, who intercepted a pass, sparked a 3-on-2 fast break, and added a touch of flair with a midair behind-the-back pass to Toppin cutting to the basket.

However, this sequence stands out precisely because of how *rare* that kind of open-court dynamism, which typically defines Indiana`s offense, has been in these Finals.

Throughout the postseason, the Pacers have scored 127 points per 100 transition opportunities, compared to just 102 points per 100 half-court possessions, according to GeniusIQ. Among teams that advanced past the first round, only the Minnesota Timberwolves had a larger discrepancy, emphasizing how critical it is for Indiana to play fast.

This is easier said than done against Oklahoma City. Transition plays have accounted for only 11% of the Pacers` possessions against Oklahoma City, per GeniusIQ, a significant drop from 15% in the first three rounds and 16% in the regular season. Indiana was one of the most frequent transition teams earlier in the playoffs but has fallen to near the bottom of that statistic against the Thunder.

Rank is out of 30 total playoff matchups.

Minnesota experienced a similar pattern: the Timberwolves had an above-average transition rate in the first two rounds but saw it drop to a mere 11% against the Thunder in the conference finals. This was a major reason why the Timberwolves` offense struggled and Oklahoma City advanced to the Finals, and it explains why Indiana is finding it harder to score than ever in this series.

Play 7: Indiana`s Turnover Late in Game 2

Haliburton might not have the conventional reputation of an isolation expert, but his statistics tell a different story. Over the past three seasons, Haliburton leads all high-volume players with 1.16 points per isolation possession that directly results in a shot, turnover, or foul, according to GeniusIQ. (SGA is second, just 0.002 points per isolation behind Haliburton).

This effectiveness largely carried through the conference finals. However, against Oklahoma City, the Pacers have generated only 0.50 points per Haliburton isolation. While this is a small sample, it`s a significant one, as several of Haliburton`s unsuccessful isolation attempts occurred as Indiana`s offense stalled late in Game 4.

On the featured play from Game 2, Haliburton couldn`t find an opening against Chet Holmgren in open space, ultimately forcing a pass that bounced out of bounds for a turnover. While Haliburton has managed to maneuver past Holmgren for contested layups a few times in the series, this early play foreshadowed his difficulty attacking any Thunder player one-on-one.

Although Oklahoma City and Indiana boast two of the deepest rotations in the league, this closely contested Finals might ultimately be decided in clutch moments by the individual brilliance of Haliburton and Gilgeous-Alexander, and their ability to beat their defender in isolation. In Game 1, SGA missed a crucial midrange jumper, and Haliburton capitalized with a game-winning shot.

In Game 4, Gilgeous-Alexander tormented Nesmith down the stretch, while Haliburton failed on a couple of vital isolation opportunities, allowing the Thunder back into the series and setting the stage for a thrilling best-of-three to conclude the 2024-25 season.