Would it have been better for the Indiana Pacers to win Game 1 by 30 points instead of the way it happened — with the Pacers trailing by 15 with 9:42 to go and Tyrese Haliburton giving them their only lead with 0.3 seconds remaining?
Absolutely not.
Think about it: The Pacers are in the perfect spot as they prepare for Game 2 on Sunday night.
They claimed a 1-0 lead in the NBA Finals’ best-of-seven series, but they don’t have to deal with any of the human-nature side effects that often come with it.
First, the Pacers aren’t deluded into thinking that winning Game 1 on the road guarantees they’ll hoist the Larry O’Brien Trophy. For the record, the only times in the past 20 years when a road team won Game 1 (the 2022 Boston Celtics and the 2013 San Antonio Spurs), that team still lost the series.
Second — and more important — with the way Game 1 unfolded, it’s impossible for the Pacers to believe they’re clearly superior to the Oklahoma City Thunder. There’s no reason for a psychological letdown. No reason to believe they can throw their PUMAs (in Haliburton’s case) or their Nikes on the floor Sunday night and assume victory.
“We know we’re a pretty heavy underdog here,” Pacers coach Rick Carlisle said before Game 1.
And that didn’t change just because the Pacers won.
In fact, according to BetMGM, the Pacers were 9.5-point underdogs in Game 1. The BetMGM oddsmakers were so impressed by the Pacers’ rally Thursday, they promptly made Indiana 10.5-point underdogs for Game 2.
LOL.
It’s this sort of insult that keeps the Pacers hungry to figure out how to solve the Thunder’s defensive schemes. To be fair, they showed some progress during Game 1. After committing 19 turnovers in the first half — which put them on pace to set an NBA Finals single-game record — Indiana coughed it up just five times in the second half.
“They are a menace defensively,” Carlisle said. “We too often took it into crowds. Then, you know, other times they just take the ball out of your hands. The level of their defense is crazy good.”
Even when the Pacers quit turning it over so frequently, they still looked spooked by how quickly the Thunder’s help defenders closed in.
Pacers like Haliburton and Andrew Nembhard would drive to the hoop, yet sneak glances to their left and right, worried about getting stripped from the blind side. And Chet Holmgren — with his 7-foot-6 wingspan — seemed to be everywhere.
During one three-possession stretch in the third quarter, Aaron Nesmith drove into Lu Dort for a charge. But even if the call hadn’t gone Dort’s way, Holmgren had already rotated over to challenge the shot.
On the next possession, Holmgren flew out to the corner to deflect Nesmith’s 3-point attempt.
The one after that, Myles Turner caught the ball above the 3-point arc, used a pump fake to get past Holmgren on a drive — and still got forced into a travel because Holmgren recovered.
This is classic second-guessing, but Oklahoma City led 104–96 with 3:24 left when Thunder coach Mark Daigneault subbed Holmgren out for Cason Wallace. Thirty seconds later, when Shai Gilgeous-Alexander hit two free throws to extend OKC’s lead to nine, the Pacers’ win probability stood at just 2.6 percent.
Yet Holmgren didn’t return to the court until there were 0.3 seconds left — when the Thunder’s only option was an inbounds lob for a tip-in.
That didn’t work out, which meant the Pacers became the first team since at least 1971 to win an NBA Finals game when trailing by at least nine points in the final three minutes.
Now the question: Can the Pacers become the first team since the 1995 Houston Rockets — led by Hall of Famers Hakeem Olajuwon and Clyde Drexler — to take a 2-0 Finals lead on the road?
We’ve all learned not to put anything past them.
“I think … we take everything personal as a group,” Haliburton said. “It’s not just me. It’s everybody. I feel like that’s the DNA of this group and that’s not just me. It’s our coaching staff (doing) a great job of making us aware of what’s being said. Us as players, we talk about it in the locker room and on the plane. We’re a young team, so we probably spend more time on social media than we should.
“I just think we do a great job of taking things personal, and that gives this group more confidence.”
Discussion about this post