In a stunning turn of events, the Indiana Pacers secured a narrow 111-110 victory over the Oklahoma City Thunder in Game 1 of the 2025 NBA Finals, despite the Thunder`s dominant statistical performance. Oklahoma City forced an impressive 25 turnovers, the highest in any Finals game this century, and their star guard delivered a standout 38-point performance, significantly outscoring his counterpart by 24 points. Furthermore, the Thunder led for all but 0.3 seconds of the game. This unexpected defeat leaves the Thunder contemplating their missteps and strategizing for Sunday`s crucial Game 2. While Oklahoma City remains the favored team in the series, their Game 1 loss has significantly reduced their margin for error. To even the series and regain momentum, the Thunder must implement these five critical adjustments.
1. A Quick Mental Recovery
The most crucial factor for the Thunder`s Game 2 success lies not in strategy, but in their mental resilience. They must swiftly move past the disappointing Game 1 outcome, as a consecutive home loss, reminiscent of the New York Knicks` Eastern Conference finals setback, is unacceptable. Led by the composed Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, the Thunder have a proven track record of recovering from significant defeats. Their response to a Game 1 collapse against the Denver Nuggets in the second round, followed by a dominant 149-106 victory in Game 2, and their ability to rebound on the road after an overtime loss in Game 3 against Denver, demonstrates their fortitude. This resilience will be essential against an Indiana team that, after a shaky 19-turnover first half in Game 1, demonstrated remarkable composure in the second, committing only six turnovers and fueling their comeback.
2. Sharper Contributions from Chet Holmgren and Jalen Williams
While Shai Gilgeous-Alexander delivered an impressive 38-point performance, the Oklahoma City Thunder`s secondary stars, Chet Holmgren and Jalen Williams, notably underperformed. Their collective performance often dictates the Thunder`s success; when they are effective, OKC is formidable, but their struggles leave the team susceptible to upsets. Game 1 saw both players fall short of expectations. Williams managed just 6-for-19 from the field, including a dismal 1-for-10 from beyond the paint. Holmgren scored only six points on 2-for-9 shooting, ultimately being benched for the game`s decisive moments in favor of a small-ball lineup by Coach Mark Daigneault. This underperformance was exacerbated by the Thunder`s strategic shift to a single-big starting lineup, placing increased pressure on Holmgren, who struggled in his Finals debut. (Isaiah Hartenstein, surprisingly effective off the bench with nine points and nine rebounds in 17 minutes, may warrant more playing time despite the Pacers` lack of a traditional bruising center.) Beyond his offensive struggles, Holmgren also had a rare defensive lapse, losing track of his assignments on critical three-pointers that fueled Indiana`s fourth-quarter surge. While Holmgren recorded six points and six rebounds, the Pacers` big men, Myles Turner (15 points, nine rebounds) and especially Obi Toppin (17 points, five crucial three-pointers), excelled. Coupled with Pascal Siakam`s superior play over Williams, Indiana`s supporting cast effectively compensated for the disparity between Gilgeous-Alexander and Tyrese Haliburton, who, despite an overall quiet night, hit the game-winning shot.
3. Snappier Ball Movement
The Pacers` defensive strategy in the Finals was clear: allow Gilgeous-Alexander to take challenging shots but avoid over-helping, thus maintaining defensive integrity against the rest of the Thunder. This tactic led to an unusual offensive stagnation for Oklahoma City, who recorded a season-low 208 passes in Game 1, the fewest for any team in any game all season, regular or playoffs. Adjusting for pace, this marks the second-fewest passes in a playoff game since tracking began in 2013-14. This mirrors the Pacers` approach against Donovan Mitchell in the Cavaliers series, where similar low-pass counts were observed. While Gilgeous-Alexander largely shouldered the offensive burden, his teammates received minimal playmaking support, evidenced by the Thunder`s paltry 13 assists in Game 1, significantly below their previous playoff low of 19. Though better shooting would have naturally increased assist numbers, Oklahoma City must use the interim to devise strategies for countering Indiana`s defense, emphasizing improved offensive flow to engage teammates more effectively and maintain rhythm, especially in critical game situations.
4. Better Finishing Around the Basket
Looking back, the Thunder`s inability to establish a substantial lead in the first half, despite forcing 19 turnovers, proved costly. While their defense remained robust, their offense faltered significantly, particularly in finishing around the basket. Oklahoma City`s shooting efficiency at the rim was dismal, converting only 20 of 36 attempts (14th percentile for the season), and an astonishingly poor 3 of 18 from floater range (2nd percentile). This poor interior finishing largely explains their struggle to capitalize on turnovers; they managed only 0.4 points per steal in Game 1, a stark contrast to their season average of 1.4 points per steal. Myles Turner deserves considerable credit, tallying three blocks and disrupting numerous other attempts. The Thunder shot a mere 1-for-9 against Turner in the paint, with Gilgeous-Alexander`s opening layup being their only close-range make against him. Many of these misses were attributed to Holmgren`s struggles in traffic. However, the Thunder possess the capability to perform much better. Analytics suggest they should have scored eight more points in the paint based on shot quality and defender positioning. Had they finished according to their seasonal track record, the outcome of Game 1 would likely have favored Oklahoma City.
5. More Considered Prevention of the Pacers` Open Corner 3s
Oklahoma City`s victory in Game 1 was also hampered by their failure to contain the Pacers` prolific corner three-point shooting. This constitutes a significant vulnerability for the Thunder`s otherwise strong defense, as they consistently allow the most corner threes in the league, a byproduct of their strategy to protect the paint. The Pacers exploited this weakness in Game 1, attempting corner threes at their highest frequency all season and converting an impressive 10 out of 16 attempts (63%), including a scorching 7-for-9 (78%) in the second half—crucial for their comeback. While some contested or strategically allowed attempts might be deemed acceptable upon film review, and Indiana did significantly outperform their expected three-point shot quality, critical defensive miscommunications frequently left Pacers players wide open in the corners—an unacceptable error at this stage of the Finals. Despite the relentless pressure from the Pacers, the Thunder must rectify these defensive lapses. Addressing these Game 1 issues is paramount if they intend to secure the franchise`s first NBA championship.
