2025 NBA Finals Game 2 Observations

Game 2 is in the books, and the Oklahoma City Thunder won the game 123-107, while looking significantly better than Indiana for a good chunk of the game.  These are my observations from the game.

 

OKC is a lot better than Indiana when they’re hitting their shots

This isn’t news and was what I figured going into the Finals, but as vindication for a horrible shooting game in Game 1, but OKC played better than Indiana in almost every aspect of the game.  They did a nice job defensively and often outplayed Indiana in transition, which is their specialty.  While Jalen Williams was still a bit streaky, Chet Holmgren played much better, as did several of their bench players.  Of course, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander is one of the best players in the game, and Indiana had no answers for him throughout the game.

 

Both teams are so deep, though OKC’s depth is often more promising

In a Finals game, OKC had 8 guys play for at least 20 minutes and Indiana had 10 guys play for at least 10 minutes.  While you could argue that Thomas Bryant might not have played as many minutes if it was closer, I have still never seen anything like this.  For OKC, the bench they used today of Isaiah Hartenstein (they have used Cason Wallace to start), Alex Caruso, and Aaron Wiggins is more consistent and reliable than a bench of Benedict Mathurin, T.J. McConnell, Obi Toppin, and Ben Sheppard (while Indiana’s bench is good, I think OKC’s options are better).  Even if Wiggins doesn’t have a game like he did in Game 2, OKC didn’t even play either Isaiah Joe or Kenrich Williams 10 minutes, and they could easily slide into a bigger role.  That said, role players usually play better at home, so games 3 and 4 will be huge for Indiana’s bench.

 

OKC has done a great job defending Tyrese Haliburton

Going into the series, I was adamant that the best way to defend Haliburton was by focusing on everyone else on the team without double teaming Haliburton.  After two games where OKC double teamed him frequently to much success, I am willing to lay my sword down my sword and say that the double team has worked very well so far.  There have been several plays where they are double teaming him after he turns the bend at the three-point line with the weak side defender.  At that point, he passes to another player and then largely looks lost.  However, after that point, Indiana hasn’t reacted quick enough to get the ball to the open player and get a good look.

 

OKC is excellent at defending the paint with double teams

I discussed the fact that OKC has utilized the double team against Haliburton, but their help defense in the paint has also been exceptional.  Throughout the game OKC appeared calculated with who would help.  It was often the help defender from the weak side if someone was driving in at an angle; if they were driving straight in, it was often the defender who was guarding the worse defender that would crash.  There were rarely situations where too many defenders would go in and help, and it almost always seemed like the perfect defender for that play was the one that was helping.  It was really fascinating to see how well it was designed, especially since the opposite occurred with Indiana.

 

Indiana, on the other hand, has been poor with double teams in the paint

It was night and day watching Indiana try to defend a paint attempt after OKC did.  SGA was able to get into the paint with ease in Game 2, but the issue was that there were often at least 2 guys who were crashing the paint to help.  The issue with this is that Shai is a good passer and now had more options who could be kicked out to.  There were multiple players who were over helping in the paint; the most notable example was Toppin being uncertain about whether to stay on Holmgren or help in the paint, so he literally did neither and stayed halfway in between for several plays of the second quarter.  While there isn’t a great answer, what Indiana did was a terrible one.

 

Indiana has done a better job with rebounding than OKC unless OKC has their 2-big lineup

This might sound strange since OKC had 8 more rebounds than Indiana, 43-35 (4 offensive rebounds and 4 defensive rebounds).  I’m not going to focus too much on the offensive rebounds since there weren’t many and some of them were the result of catching airballs, which are often random.  On top of that, I want to focus on defensive rebounds here because they’re more frequent than offensive rebounds.  Between missed shots and free throws, OKC had 46 missed shots and Indiana had 52.  As such, I would have expected OKC to get a few more rebounds.  When watching the game, Indiana got more offensive rebounds prior to the two bigs playing together, especially off free throws.  Neither team is great at rebounding so this isn’t going to be a massive issue since the rebounding numbers were so similar, but it should be noted and could be an issue in one game.

 

Indiana needs Pascal Siakam to play better

It’s no surprise that Siakam had a rough game when just looking at his numbers, as he went 3-11 from the field and was a -15.  His struggles are interesting because of how his and Indiana’s playing style have made it difficult for him to get going.  When he is posting up, the entry pass either isn’t available due to OKC’s defense or Indiana’s players appear nervous to make it because OKC’s defense has forced so many turnovers.  After that, he usually fades out of the post and just kind of wanders around the 3-point line.  He wasn’t as aggressive as he usually is last game, which is not great when Haliburton is unable to be aggressive.  He is such a great athlete who is also a skilled offensive player, especially as a shooter; he can totally change an offense.

 

Myles Turner is such a good fit with Indiana, though there are more opportunities to get him involved

At the start of the third quarter, Turner was physical when driving, had a couple brilliant pops and wide open looks, and set some brilliant screens.  Otherwise, Indiana treated him as more of a background option (I know he had 16 points was tied for second with 12 shot attempts, but there wasn’t much offense that involved him heavily).  While Turner shouldn’t be a team’s top option, his skillset can provide a lot to an offense, making his presence on that end important.  Even while his shot has been a little streaky the last couple rounds, the threat of him shooting makes his pick game very dangerous.  He was largely there in the background for a lot of the game; there are ways to utilize him, even if his purpose is setting screens.

 

Tyrese Haliburton getting two blocks might have been the most stunning part of the game

In the last post, I threw shade at Haliburton for his poor defense.  Every game I watch him playing, I typically watch only him on defense for five straight possessions at a random point in the game, and he often looks totally lost on that end of the court, as it seems to be a combination of disinterest, uncertainty, and making all the wrong moves.  Somehow, he stumbled into two blocks while playing good defense on both of the plays.  Given how bad he was at defense in both Finals games so far, this was genuinely the most shocking thing of Game 2, if not the entire Finals.

 

The broadcast has been so unimpressive that I might put the next game on mute

There has been a lot of criticism with ABC’s/ESPN’s coverage of the Finals, and while I find the whole aspect of the graphics to be something that doesn’t bother me (I don’t care about the design of the court or what they do with images), but I’ve been so confused as to why either network thinks this broadcast team is good for basketball fans.  All in this game, Doris Burke talked about why you use a smaller lineup to defend Pascal Siakam after Siakam hit a 3 (maybe after he misses a shot?), Mike Breen gave a half-assed bang because he was criticized for not giving hit after Haliburton drilled a 3, Richard Jefferson discussed the basketball advice he got from his therapist (I think it’s great to be open about needing therapy if you feel comfortable discussing it, but that was advice he should have gotten from a coach), Burke discussed the benefit of OKC using a double big lineup to emphasize Indiana not getting a rebound even though it went out of bounds because Indiana couldn’t pick up the ball (again, probably the wrong time), Breen got the coaches mixed up (one game after he said Carlisle was coaching Dallas), Burke had the line “he doesn’t seem to want to leave Hawaii very often”, and Jefferson complained about Caruso calling for challenges on blatant fouls when I think Jefferson would have called for a challenge after tackling someone back when he played.  I get that they usually are more focused on making sure that casual fans can understand the game, but this is atrocious; I might have the game on mute and listen to music instead I know enough about basketball that the broadcast does not provide any benefit if it is not entertaining.  As a side bar, why do the networks think that the in-between quarter interviews that result in nothing other than generic responses have any value to anyone?

 

 

What did you think of this game?  Is there anything you are looking forward to in Game 3?  Let me know in the comments!