NBA Finals 2025: Expert Roundtable After Game 2

Following a thrilling Game 1 decided by Tyrese Haliburton`s last-second shot for the Indiana Pacers, the Oklahoma City Thunder responded strongly in Game 2 on Sunday night, securing a dominant 123-107 victory to level the series. The Thunder`s top-ranked defense was key, limiting Haliburton to just five points through the first three quarters and thwarting any potential comeback attempt. Meanwhile, MVP Shai Gilgeous-Alexander was the game`s high scorer with 34 points. With the series now tied 1-1, attention turns to Indianapolis for a pivotal Game 3 on Wednesday.

Our panel of NBA experts weighs in on Tyrese Haliburton`s struggles in the Finals, necessary adjustments for the Pacers heading into Game 3, and identifies the biggest X-factor for the remainder of the series.

What major adjustment do the Pacers need to implement for Game 3?

Kevin Pelton: Rick Carlisle should seriously consider shortening his player rotation. While Indiana`s depth has been a strength in previous rounds, Oklahoma City`s bench has proven even deeper, expanding their lead with reserve players on the court in both halves. Specifically, it would be beneficial for Carlisle to increase the minutes for key players like Haliburton and Myles Turner. The Pacers were competitive when these two were playing together but were significantly outscored during their rest periods.

Michael C. Wright: Five shots in the first half is simply not enough for an offensive catalyst like Haliburton to influence the game effectively. Indiana could benefit from their point guard being more assertive early in contests, which could create opportunities for his teammates. Credit the Thunder for their outstanding defense against Haliburton, but his five points on 2-of-7 shooting through three quarters before scoring 12 in the final frame highlight the issue.

Ramona Shelburne: Indiana needs to increase their pace and transition scoring. Although it sounds counterintuitive against the fast-breaking Thunder, the Pacers struggled to score efficiently on Sunday and failed to apply sufficient defensive pressure on Oklahoma City. If the Pacers can run the break more frequently – they managed only nine fast-break points in Game 2 – they should generate easier scoring opportunities.

Bobby Marks: Attacking the paint needs to be a priority. Indiana`s most effective offensive stretch on Sunday came from seven consecutive points scored by Andrew Nembhard and Pascal Siakam in the second quarter, both attacking inside. This aggression eventually led to an Aaron Nesmith three-pointer that reduced the deficit to 13 points. Before the fourth quarter, the Pacers were trailing by 16 points in points allowed in the paint.

Zach Kram: During the regular season, Oklahoma City ranked poorly in opponent free throw rate (26th) and free throw differential (29th). However, the Thunder have attempted more free throws than the Pacers in both Finals games so far. As underdogs, Indiana must exploit this unusual weakness by finding ways to earn more easy points at the free-throw line, perhaps by driving to the basket more aggressively or letting Siakam post up smaller defenders.

Tyrese Haliburton`s performance in the Finals has been _____.

Ramona Shelburne: Inconsistent. Haliburton`s Game 1 performance wasn`t exceptional; he just hit a remarkable game-winner. He acknowledged afterward that he was “terrible” aside from that shot and vowed to improve. However, he didn`t play better in Game 2. Much of this is due to Oklahoma City`s defensive strategy, similar to how they defended Anthony Edwards in the Western Conference finals: roughing up Haliburton early in possessions, getting the ball out of his hands, and denying him the ball. His challenge, like Edwards`, is to push through this early pressure and remain aggressive.

Kevin Pelton: Predictable. As noted before the series, Haliburton has scored less against Oklahoma City than any other opponent over the past two seasons, and his scoring average against Lu Dort has been particularly low among regular defenders. The Thunder`s elite defense is a major reason they were favored, and starting Cason Wallace instead of Isaiah Hartenstein further limits Haliburton`s preferred attack angles.

Zach Kram: Rescued by a single moment of late-game brilliance. Considering questions are already surfacing about his ability to elevate his game, imagine the criticism if Haliburton`s Game 1 winning shot hadn`t gone in.

Bobby Marks: If judged solely on the fourth quarter, Haliburton is among the best players on the court. Unfortunately, his lack of aggression through the first three quarters in Game 2 significantly contributed to the series being tied. His performance mirrored the Game 5 loss in New York, where he took only seven shots through the first three quarters. In Game 2, his six shots in the fourth quarter were one less than his total for the preceding three quarters.

Michael C. Wright: Subpar. Haliburton`s honest self-assessment after Game 1 was justified, and he`ll likely be disappointed with his rough outing in Game 2. OKC employed multiple defenders against him in Game 1, with Dort being particularly effective (holding him to 0-for-2 when matched up), according to research. The Thunder used similar tactics in Game 2, and Haliburton committed five turnovers, tying his highest mark in any game, regular season or playoffs. He`s now had three or more turnovers in three consecutive games, his longest streak since March 2024.

The series` X-factor through two games has been ______.

Bobby Marks: Isaiah Hartenstein. While screen assists aren`t an official statistic, Hartenstein`s impact there is clear. Jalen Williams struggled for clean looks in the first quarter (taking only one shot), but Hartenstein`s two screens early in the second quarter directly led to two quick baskets for Williams.

Kevin Pelton: Shotmaking, but not just from three-point range. The `make or miss league` adage applies to two-point attempts as well, where randomness also plays a role. Oklahoma City shot 41% on two-pointers in Game 1, significantly below the expected 53% based on shot probability metrics considering location, defender proximity, and shooter skill. In Game 2, the Thunder improved dramatically, hitting 56.5% of their two-point shots.

Zach Kram: Bench scoring depth. Even with Haliburton`s struggles, the Pacers are still plus-7 with him on the court over the series. The issue is their performance without him, being minus-22 in 23 minutes. While Obi Toppin provided a boost with 17 points and five threes in Game 1, Game 2 saw major contributions from Oklahoma City`s bench, specifically Aaron Wiggins and Alex Caruso, who combined for 38 points and nine three-pointers. How these role players perform as the series shifts to Indiana could be decisive.

Michael C. Wright: The performance of both teams` reserves. We just witnessed two players, Wiggins (18 points after scoring just 10 in his previous five games) and Caruso (his second 20-point playoff game after none in the regular season), collectively outscore Indiana`s entire bench 38-34 in Game 2. This contrasts with Game 1, where the Pacers` reserves outscored OKC`s 39-28. The saying goes that role players perform better at home – we`ll see if that holds true for Game 3 in Indianapolis.

Ramona Shelburne: While I prefer not to focus on officiating, the Thunder thrive on their physical style of play. When the referees permit the level of physicality seen on Sunday, it becomes exceedingly difficult for the opposing offense to establish consistency.

Which game is more indicative of the likely trajectory for the rest of the series?

Kevin Pelton: Game 1 was an anomaly in several aspects, even before Indiana`s improbable comeback. Game 2 offers a more probable blueprint for the remainder of the series, although I anticipate better shooting from Indiana going forward after hitting just 35% from three-point range, their fifth-worst performance of the postseason, all resulting in losses.

Ramona Shelburne: The Thunder`s historical regular-season point differential indicates their capacity to build large leads, which they`ve done in both games. In Game 1, they couldn`t extend the lead enough to seal the win, allowing the Pacers to recover. Game 2 showcased OKC`s defense operating at a much higher and more consistent level, effectively keeping the ball away from Haliburton. This makes it harder for him to create scoring opportunities for himself or others, which is vital for Indiana`s offense.

Zach Kram: Given Indiana`s track record of improbable comebacks from significant deficits through late-game heroics this postseason, I`m hesitant to dismiss their ability to do so again. However, it`s challenging to envision them winning the series if they consistently fall behind by 15 points or more in every game. At some point, they`ll need to improve their performance in the first half (where they`ve averaged 43 points in the Finals) in addition to their strong second-half scoring (66 points in each game) to have a realistic chance.

Bobby Marks: Game 2`s outcome seems more representative, considering Oklahoma City has been the superior team for almost the entire series (save for 0.3 seconds). However, this doesn`t mean the Thunder are immune from the type 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, indicating a trend leaning towards Game 2`s scenario repeating in this series. Realistically, most predictions favored an OKC victory in fewer than seven games, and Game 2`s result makes that seem more plausible, even if we all hope to see Indiana continue the resilient fight they`ve shown throughout the postseason.

What is one under-the-radar storyline for Game 3?

Michael C. Wright: Pascal Siakam scored 21 points or more in eight of his 16 playoff games before the Finals, including three games with 30-plus points in the Eastern Conference finals. This raises the question of when “Spicy P” might have a breakout scoring performance in this series. With Dort effectively defending Haliburton in the first two games, Indiana needs more offensive production from Siakam, who has not taken 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 their two losses.

Ramona Shelburne: Oklahoma City`s bench depth is a significant advantage, especially as the series progresses. It reduces the pressure on any single role player to perform exceptionally each night because several players can contribute significantly, as Aaron Wiggins did with 18 points on Sunday. However, role players often perform less consistently on the road. Furthermore, the Thunder somewhat neutralized Isaiah Hartenstein`s effectiveness by moving him to the bench for the initial games.

Kevin Pelton: Rebounding. In Game 1, Oklahoma City allowed offensive rebounds on over 30% of Indiana`s missed shots while securing offensive rebounds on less than 20% of their own misses. In Game 2, the Thunder secured four more offensive boards than the Pacers with the same number of opportunities. While not as critical as turnovers or three-point shooting, Indiana needs to win the rebounding battle to compete in this series.

Bobby Marks: The minutes without Shai Gilgeous-Alexander. It speaks volumes about the Thunder`s depth that they could remove the MVP and still outscore their opponents by 10 points during a seven-minute stretch in the fourth quarter. If the Pacers are to win this series, they must capitalize on the time Gilgeous-Alexander spends off the court.

Zach Kram: After Chet Holmgren and Isaiah Hartenstein did not play together in Game 1, the Thunder deployed a double-big lineup for five minutes in Game 2. They won those minutes by four points, with coach Mark Daigneault strategically using the pairing when Myles Turner was on the bench, thus avoiding Indiana`s challenging five-out offensive spacing. Consequently, Holmgren and Hartenstein combined for 50 minutes in Game 2, compared to 41 in Game 1. Given the success of this adjustment, Daigneault might utilize the double-big alignment even more in Game 3.