After a last-second buzzer-beater from Tyrese Haliburton stole Game 1 for the Indiana Pacers, the Oklahoma City Thunder bounced back with an emphatic Game 2 win on Sunday night to even the series.

The Thunder won 123-107 as the league’s best defense held Haliburton to five points through the first three quarters and kept another comeback out of reach. MVP Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, meanwhile, was the game’s leading scorer with 34 points. The series shifts back to Indiana on Wednesday for a massive Game 3.

Our NBA Insiders break down Haliburton’s Finals struggles and what the Pacers need to do to bounce back, plus the series’ biggest X factor.

What is the biggest adjustment the Pacers need to make in Game 3?

Kevin Pelton: It’s time for Rick Carlisle to consider shrinking his rotation. As much as Indiana’s depth has been touted in the playoffs, the Thunder’s bench goes deeper, and they extended their lead with reserves on the court in both halves. In particular, Carlisle would be wise to extend the minutes for Haliburton and Myles Turner. The Pacers played almost even with both players on the court and were outscored by double digits in the minutes they rested.

Michael C. Wright: Five shots in the first half aren’t enough for an offensive engine like Haliburton to make his presence felt. So, it might benefit Indiana for the point guard to assert himself earlier in games, which could open a few things for teammates. Credit Oklahoma City for playing phenomenal defense on Haliburton. But he scored five points over the first three quarters on 2-of-7 shooting, before pouring in 12 points in the final frame.

Ramona Shelburne: The Pacers have to get out and run more. It sounds wild against the Thunder, who are deadly in the transition game, but Indiana struggled to score on Sunday — and didn’t put nearly enough pressure on Oklahoma City defensively. If the Pacers can get out on the break more — they had just nine fast-break points in Game 2 — they should at least create some easier opportunities.

Bobby Marks: Attack the paint more. The best stretch Indiana had on Sunday was the seven straight points scored by Andrew Nembhard and Pascal Siakam in the second quarter. The aggressiveness would eventually lead to an Aaron Nesmith 3-pointer that cut the Thunder’s lead to 13 points. Before the start of the fourth quarter, Indiana was minus-16 in points allowed in the paint.

Zach Kram: In the regular season, Oklahoma City ranked 26th in opponent free throw rate and 29th in free throw differential. But the Thunder have attempted more free throws than the Pacers in both Finals games thus far. As underdogs in this series, Indiana must take advantage of this rare weakness, so figuring out ways to generate more easy points at the line — say, by attacking the basket more frequently or letting Siakam work more against smaller defenders — is paramount.

Tyrese Haliburton’s Finals performance has been _____.

Shelburne: Uneven. Haliburton didn’t have a great performance in Game 1. He just hit a brilliant shot at the end. But when ESPN talked to him afterward, he said he was “terrible” outside of the game-winning shot and would be better. Well, he wasn’t better in Game 2. But a lot of that is because of how the Thunder are defending him. Much like they did against Anthony Edwards in the Western Conference finals, the Thunder have tried to rough up Haliburton early in possessions, get the ball out of his hands and then deny him the ball. His challenge is the same as Edwards’: Find a way to charge through the early blitz coverage and stay aggressive.

Pelton: Predictable. As Zach noted in our Finals first look, Haliburton scored less against Oklahoma City than any other opponent over the past two seasons, and I highlighted Haliburton averaging fewer points per matchup against Lu Dort than any other player who defended him regularly in that span. The Thunder’s historic defense is the main reason they were heavily favored entering the series, and benching Isaiah Hartenstein for Cason Wallace gave Haliburton one fewer place to attack in the starting five.

play

Tyrese Haliburton learning from series performance struggles

Tyrese Haliburton learning from series performance struggles

Kram: Saved by one moment of brilliance in the clutch. Given that we’re already wondering if he’s able to step up his game more going forward, imagine how much louder the criticism would be if Haliburton’s winning jumper at the end of Game 1 had rimmed out.

Marks: If we are judging it solely on the fourth quarter, then Haliburton is one of the best players on the court. Unfortunately, his lack of aggressiveness through the first three quarters in Game 2 played a big role in why this series is tied. Before the fourth, his performance was reminiscent of the Game 5 loss at New York, where he took a total of seven shots through the first three quarters. His six shots in the fourth quarter tonight were one fewer than his total for the first three quarters.

Wright: Subpar. Haliburton rightfully provided some critical self-analysis after Game 1, and he’ll be kicking himself again for such a rough performance in Game 2. In Game 1, OKC sent eight different defenders his way, according to ESPN Research, with Dort handling a majority of the defending and holding him to 0-for-2 from the field. The Thunder dealt with Haliburton similarly in Game 2, and the 25-year-old committed five turnovers, which tied for his most in any game, regular season or playoffs. He has turned it over three or more times in three consecutive games, his longest streak in the regular season or playoffs since last March.

The X factor through two games has been ______ .

Marks: Isaiah Hartenstein. We don’t track screen assists in the box score, but if we did, Hartenstein would stand out. With Jalen Williams unable to get any clean looks in the first quarter (he took one shot), it was Hartenstein’s two screens in the early minutes of the second quarter that led to two quick Williams baskets.

Pelton: Shotmaking, but not in the way we usually think of it. “Make or miss league” is often treated as applying strictly to 3-point shooting, but there’s randomness on shotmaking inside the arc, too. (After all, Pat Riley coined the phrase back when 3-point rates were much lower than they are now.) Oklahoma City shot 41% on 2-point attempts in Game 1, when GeniusIQ’s quantified shot probability metric suggested it should have been expected to make 53% based on the location and type of shots, distance of nearby defenders and the shooter’s ability. In Game 2, the Thunder bounced back to make 56.5% of their 2s.

Kram: Bench scoring. Even with Haliburton’s struggles, the Pacers are still plus-7 with him on the floor in this series. The problem is that they’re minus-22 in 23 minutes without him. But at least Obi Toppin contributed 17 points and five 3-pointers in Game 1; in Game 2, conversely, the big bench scorers were Oklahoma City’s Aaron Wiggins and Alex Caruso, who combined for 38 points and nine 3s. How the role players perform in Indiana instead of Oklahoma City could swing the series.

Wright: The reserves for both squads. We just watched two players — Wiggins (18 points after just 10 in his last five games) and Caruso (second 20-point game of the postseason after no such games in the regular season) — combine to outscore Indiana’s entire bench 38-34 in Game 2 after the Pacers’ reserves in Game 1 bested OKC’s 39-28. They say the role players are better at home — we’ll see if that holds for Game 3 in Indianapolis.

Shelburne: I don’t like putting anything on the officials, but the Thunder thrive on their physical style of play, and when the referees allow them to play as physically as they did Sunday, it’s very hard to sustain offense against them.

Which game is more indicative of how the rest of the series will go?

Pelton: Game 1 was an outlier in so many ways, even before the Pacers’ improbable comeback. I’d consider Game 2 more of a template for the rest of the series, though now I think it’s Indiana that can count on better shooting going forward after hitting just 35% of 3-point attempts. That was the Pacers’ fifth-worst accuracy of the postseason — unsurprisingly, all five of their losses.

Shelburne: The Thunder outscored their opponents by the largest point differential in history during the regular season, so it’s not surprising they’ve built big leads in both games. In Game 1, OKC could never extend that lead to put the Pacers away, which allowed them to come back. In Game 2, OKC’s defense was far better and more consistent, keeping the ball out of Haliburton’s hands. That makes it harder for him to create scoring opportunities for himself, which is key for Indy’s offense.

Kram: I hesitate to doubt Indiana’s ability to come back from large deficits via increasingly absurd late-game heroics, given the Pacers’ track record with that strategy this postseason. But it’s still difficult to imagine them winning this series if they keep falling behind by 15-plus points every game. At some point, they’ll need to start playing well in the first half (where they’ve averaged 43 points per game in the Finals) in addition to the second (where they’ve scored 66 points in each game) to have a chance.

Marks: It should be how Game 2 played out, considering Oklahoma City has been the better team for all but .3 seconds of this series. But that does not mean the Thunder are resolved from the Game 1 collapse. The Pacers got what they wanted in a split and still have home-court advantage.

Wright: Indiana dealt with a 15-point deficit in Game 1 and trailed in Game 2 by as many as 23 points. So, there’s a trend here that leans more toward what we saw in Game 2 continuing for the rest of this series. Let’s be honest here: Most folks predicted an OKC rout in fewer than seven games. That only looks closer to coming true after Game 2, even though we’d probably all like to see Indiana continue to scrap the way it has this entire postseason.

What’s one under-the-radar storyline for Game 3?

Wright: Pascal Siakam dropped 21 points or more in eight of 16 games coming into the Finals, including a trio of 30-pieces in the Eastern Conference finals. That begs the question of whether we’ll see Spicy P seriously heat up sometime in this series. With Dort locking down Haliburton the way he has these first two games, Indiana needs more from Siakam, who hasn’t yet taken more than 15 shots in this series. In the Eastern Conference finals, Siakam attempted at least 16 shots in every victory and took 14 or fewer in two losses.

Shelburne: The Thunder’s depth is a huge advantage for them, especially as the series extends. It alleviates the pressure on their role players in any particular game because so many guys can go off, like Wiggins (18 points) did on Sunday. Role players don’t always play as well on the road, however. And the Thunder cut into the effectiveness of Hartenstein by moving him to the bench the first few games.

play

Daigneault: Jalen Williams was huge in Game 2 win

Thunder coach Mark Daigneault speaks highly of Jalen Williams’ performance in Oklahoma City’s Game 2 win vs. the Pacers.

Pelton: Rebounding. Oklahoma City gave up offensive rebounds on more than 30% of Indiana’s misses in Game 1 while coming up with offensive rebounds less than 20% of the time. In Game 2, the Thunder had four more offensive boards than the Pacers in an identical number of opportunities. That’s not as important a battleground as turnovers and 3s, but Indiana needs to come out ahead on the glass to compete in this series.

Marks: The non-SGA minutes. It shows the greatness of the Thunder’s depth when you can take out the MVP and still outscore your opponents by 10 points through seven minutes of the fourth quarter. If the Pacers are going to win this series, they need to take advantage of Gilgeous-Alexander’s time off the court.

Kram: After Holmgren and Hartenstein didn’t share the court in Game 1, the Thunder used a double-big look for five minutes in Game 2. They won those minutes by four points, with Mark Daigneault strategically using the duo when Turner went to the bench, meaning the bigs didn’t have to worry about Indiana’s five-out spacing. Holmgren and Hartenstein therefore combined for 50 minutes in Game 2, versus 41 in Game 1. Given that successful change, Daigneault might call on the double-big alignment even more in Game 3.