By Kelly Iko The Athletic
Share this story

OKLAHOMA CITY — As Tyrese Haliburton’s pull-up jumper caressed the bottom of the net and Aaron Nesmith met him near half court for a bear hug, the Indiana Pacers stormed the court — unconcerned with the 0.3 seconds left on the game clock.

The Oklahoma City Thunder players, who attempted to wade through a sea of yellow back to their bench, were stunned, as was the rest of Paycom Arena.

ADVERTISING

Oklahoma City, like the rest of the NBA world, knew about Indiana’s propensity for playoff comebacks. But witnessing it firsthand in a game and stage of this magnitude was different.

“The common denominator is them,” coach Mark Daigneault said following the Thunder’s 111-110 loss in Game 1 of the NBA Finals. “That’s a really good team. Credit them for not only tonight but their run. They’ve had so many games like that that have seemed improbable. They just play with a great spirit, they keep coming, they made plays, made shots. They deserved to win by a point. We got to learn from it. Obviously, a lot of things we can clean up. Credit them, they went and got that game.”

Oklahoma City’s second-half defense — which gave up 31 and 35 points in the third and fourth quarters — indicated a larger issue with Indiana’s offensive proficiency. But the Thunder should be worried about losing a game in which six different Pacers finished in double figures, despite none scoring more than 19 points.

With 2:36 remaining on Thursday night, the Thunder were in control of the game with a 108-99 lead. But Oklahoma City’s offense sputtered over the finish line, scoring just two points over the final 156 seconds of regulation. These Thunder, as talented as they are, have gone through offensive droughts during their postseason run — shot selection, execution issues, etc.

Much more concerning is that the Thunder allowed their defense, the bedrock of their success, to fall apart in the game’s most critical stretch, allowing the Pacers to slam the door with a 12-2 run.

Game 1’s fourth-quarter collapse was even more confusing considering how suffocating Oklahoma City’s approach had been in the first half. For 24 mind-numbing minutes, the Pacers had nowhere to turn, no room to breathe. The Thunder’s power, physicality, and pragmatism prevented Indiana, whose pace and precision have been the lifeblood of a team that has defied all odds this postseason — from getting into any sort of rhythm. The Thunder forced 19 Pacers turnovers, the most in a finals half in nearly three decades.

But in the second half, Indiana committed just six turnovers. It was a perfect storm of miscommunication, smart Pacers offense and coverage holes, especially in the final three minutes.

Because of the Thunder’s commitment to a compact defensive shell, which is loosely defined as the connective area around all five defenders on the floor, corner 3s are exposed.

It’s a simple concept; no defensive strategy is 100 percent foolproof, and elite teams can make even the most adept defenses suffer on occasion. According to NBA.com tracking data, the Thunder give up the most corner 3s among playoff teams (12.6), but opponents were shooting a shade over 31 percent on such shots. Most teams will live with that math.

But the Pacers aren’t quite like other teams the Thunder have faced in these playoffs, especially not from a shot-profile standpoint. Indiana is a middle-of-the-pack team in terms of corner 3 quantity, but it is lethal when it takes them, hitting a whopping 48.5 percent of such shots. In Game 1, the Pacers shot 10-of-16 from the corners, good for 62.5 percent. Oklahoma City was guilty of some head-scratching decisions, such as in the possession below, in which there’s no communication between Alex Caruso and Shai Gilgeous-Alexander on approaching an Obi Toppin screen. Nesmith, who shot 43.1 percent from the perimeter during the regular season, is shooting 50 percent in the playoffs (on a slightly increased volume). Leaving him with airspace is asking for trouble.

“You have to eliminate the ones that we give up, that are out of rotation where we don’t get there in time,” Caruso said, “or in early transition where we’re not matched up. I give them credit. They made big shots.”

One prominent theme late in Game 1, which Thunder All-NBA forward Jalen Williams mentioned during his news conference, was the Thunder’s rather slow offense, which carried over into their effort and aggression. And judging from the postgame appearances from Daigneault and multiple players, Indiana’s pace played a part.

Pay attention to the lack of communication as Oklahoma City gets back in transition. Both Lu Dort and Cason Wallace are making different observations and, as a result, doing different things. Ideally, Dort would be matched up with Andrew Nembhard, not stationed with Toppin in the corner. In critical moments, the Pacers got favorable matchups on switches, keeping players like Caruso and Dort away. SGA is far from a defensive liability and had several solid possessions in Game 1, but he’s the weakest link in their small-ball group and thus the target of any isolation play. This is a tough shot with a high degree of difficulty (multiple crossovers plus a stepback), but Gilgeous-Alexander shouldn’t be in that position in the first place.

Indiana’s penultimate possession — a Pascal Siakam putback which set up Haliburton’s eventual winner — was indicative of a Daigneault gamble gone awry and another momentary lapse by Gilgeous-Alexander.

The Thunder’s bold lineup change ahead of Game 1 — moving Isaiah Hartenstein to the bench in favor of Wallace— certainly had its benefits. It gave Oklahoma City more speed with the starters and prepared them for an expected track meet with Indiana. Hartenstein was still effective in his minutes, finishing with nine points and nine rebounds.

But it also put the Thunder at a constant disadvantage on the boards. Hartenstein played just 17 minutes, with Caruso (essentially a sixth starter) logging 29 minutes. But the Pacers dominated in the rebounding department (56 to 39). Below, Wallace defends Nembhard well and contests the shot, but watch Gilgeous-Alexander’s eyes. It only takes a second for him to ball watch to not notice Siakam creeping toward the restricted area for potential cleanup.

“Some of it is the cost of doing business,” Daigneault said of playing small. “To be able to get perimeter speed on the court, get more switching in the game. It’s obviously something that is a tradeoff. I thought the small lineup at the end of the first half looked pretty good. That’s why I went back to it down the stretch. When we’re small, we have to be pressure-oriented and contain the ball. I thought they got some cracks against us that hurt us a little bit more than the post-ups did.”