NBA Finals Showcase Tactical Excellence in Thrilling Tie

An unexpectedly fierce but predictably thrilling NBA Finals showdown has evolved into a balanced best-of-three, as the Indiana Pacers and Oklahoma City Thunder split victories in the initial quartet of games. Interestingly, each win brought a new style. The Thunder maintained control throughout most of Game 3 until the Pacers orchestrated a dramatic fourth-quarter comeback, a feat Oklahoma City replicated in Game 4. With a mere six points separating the two teams over four games, the Finals could extend to a Game 7, reminiscent of the legendary 2016 battle between the Cleveland Cavaliers and Golden State Warriors. As an eagerly anticipated Game 5 approaches (8:30 p.m. ET, ABC), here are seven key plays that form the strategic backbone and narrative arc of the 2025 Finals, illustrating how the contest reached a 2-2 deadlock and speculating on future developments.

Game 3, First Quarter: Ben Sheppard’s Strategic Steal

In Game 3, the Pacers amplified one of their cherished strategies. The cat-and-mouse between Shai Gilgeous-Alexander’s pick-and-rolls and Indiana’s robust defense has been a mini-game within the Finals. After being harassed in Game 1, the Thunder adjusted their screens higher on the court in Game 2, creating room for the MVP. In response, Indiana deprived him of possession altogether. If the ball isn’t in his hands, screen placement becomes irrelevant. Originally, Gilgeous-Alexander brought up the ball on 61% of possessions, according to GeniusIQ, but intense full-court pressure slashed this to 30% in Games 3 and 4. This marked a drastic shift for the Thunder, with Oklahoma City’s offense needing to adapt significantly since these became some of Gilgeous-Alexander’s rarest ball-handling games over past seasons.

After Indiana scored its first basket in Game 3, Andrew Nembhard denied the ball to Gilgeous-Alexander, forcing a different offensive route. Though the Thunder scored via Williams, this tactic provided Indiana with an edge, exemplified midway through the first quarter when the Thunder’s leading scorer was left without the ball, and Williams committed a turnover. Oklahoma City averages 122 points per 100 half-court possessions when Gilgeous-Alexander drives the play versus only 107 when he’s absent as the ball-handler, thanks to GeniusIQ. While it might conserve Gilgeous-Alexander’s energy for critical moments like in Game 4, this scenario underlines Indiana’s defensive impact, which has slowed down the Thunder’s highly ranked regular-season offense.

Game 4, Third Quarter: A Shot Clock Blunder from Oklahoma City

While facing a mounting deficit against Indiana’s electric crowd, the Thunder aimed to regroup during a timeout, but the plan floundered. When Alex Caruso advanced the ball—thanks to Nembhard’s persistent blocking of SGA—Isaiah Hartenstein nearly fumbled it away, only for Nembhard to effectively obstruct an isolation attempt by Gilgeous-Alexander. As the shot clock ticked away, the ball trickled out of bounds, eventually leading to a forced turnover after another inbound deflection.

This mishap highlights the Thunder’s sudden offensive disarray. Their reliance on individual, difficult plays, rather than team cohesion, is striking. The Thunder’s three lowest-assist games of the season have happened during this series: Game 4 with 11 assists, Game 1 with 13, and Game 3 with 16. This is a stark drop from their regular-season average of 27 assists—demonstrating a systemic shock within their ranks. Notably, Game 4 marked the first time in five years when Gilgeous-Alexander ended a game without an assist.

Game 4, Fourth Quarter: Nesmith’s Foul on Gilgeous-Alexander

Despite Aaron Nesmith’s success in guarding the Knicks’ Jalen Brunson, Indiana opts for Nembhard to shadow Gilgeous-Alexander, given his 187 versus 119 possession matchup advantage, according to GeniusIQ. This preference is evident as Nembhard allowed only 0.33 points per matchup, against Standard Pacers defenders who permitted higher scores. Gilgeous-Alexander continued scoring efficiently (32.8 points per game) but Nembhard’s defensive persistence forced him to exert more effort.

In crunch time during Game 4, the Thunder strategically manipulated matchups to shift Nesmith onto Gilgeous-Alexander. With Oklahoma City pioneering guard-based pick-setting, Gilgeous-Alexander screened for Williams to induce defensive switches, enhancing their comeback. In Game 4, two Williams screens led to critical results: a layup, a 3-pointer, shooting fouls (causing Nesmith’s ejection), and an open missed midrange shot. Leveraging these setups allowed Gilgeous-Alexander to score 15 points in Game 4’s final five minutes—the highest in a Finals game since 1971.

Game 1, First Quarter: Siakam’s Imposing Layup

The Pacers’ initial field goal of the Finals underscored Siakam’s advantage as a formidable presence against smaller defenders. Even against an adept defender like Cason Wallace, a misfit in stopping Siakam in isolation led to capitalizing on this mismatch for Indiana, who cleared one side for him to attack. Siakam, a 2018-19 Raptors champion, is contributing significantly in the Finals, averaging 18.8 points, 7.8 rebounds, 1.8 steals, and 1.3 blocks per game. His presence is pivotal in forcing opponent adjustments, compelling Daigneault to rotate in more size for Game 4, hence sacrificing Oklahoma City’s customary speed against Indiana’s high-paced artillery.

Game 4, Third Quarter: Nembhard Nails a 3-pointer

The Thunder, this year’s top conceders of corner threes, saw this vulnerability exploited by the Pacers. Haliburton’s deceptive moves opened chances for an ideal corner three, which Nembhard sunk. Despite teams usually avoiding weak-side corner helping to prevent easy passes, the aggressive Thunder got countered by the Pacers’ strategy. At an impressive 25-of-52 success rate on corner 3s (48%), Indiana capitalized significantly, contrasting with Oklahoma City’s lesser showing of 11-for-33. Indiana’s consistent corner proficiency (47% through playoffs) favors their progression—reminiscent of the 2009-10 Phoenix Suns.

Game 3, First Quarter: Toppin’s Electrifying Layup

Considering Indiana’s opening for corner threes and mismatches, their Finals scoring average stagnates at 109.8 points per 100 possessions compared to 116 in previous rounds. However, this point reflects on Haliburton’s dazzling turnover and ensuing 3-on-2 break leading to Toppin’s layup. Exemplifying Indiana’s transition flair, a hallmark missing in the Finals—this is critical against Oklahoma City. Indiana, previously ranking high in playoff transitions, has slid to bottom placement versus Thunder’s adept positional play, demonstrating a 5% reduction in transition chances based on GeniusIQ data.

Game 2, Second Quarter: Indiana Turns Over Ball Out of Bounds

Despite lacking an isolation reputation, Haliburton ranks top in isolation efficiency, with 1.16 points per iso. Yet against Oklahoma, his isolation effort dwindled to 0.50 points, a concerning stat as Indiana faltered late in Game 4.

While both teams boast enviable rotations, this closely matched Finals could pivot on crunch-time performances by Haliburton and Gilgeous-Alexander, leveraging their individual skills. Earlier, Haliburton capitalized on SGA’s miss for a Game 1 winner, but in Game 4, Gilgeous-Alexander’s late-game prowess overshadowed Haliburton’s missed opportunities, leveling the series and setting the stage for an exhilarating finish to the 2024-25 season.