Indiana Pacers vs Oklahoma City Thunder Match Player Stats

The indiana pacers vs oklahoma city thunder match player stats from Game 1 of the 2025 NBA Finals tell a much deeper story than the final 111-110 score suggests. Oklahoma City controlled much of the game, built a 15-point fourth-quarter lead, and received a spectacular 38-point performance from Shai Gilgeous-Alexander. Yet Indiana produced the decisive plays when the game mattered most, with Tyrese Haliburton hitting the winning jumper with 0.3 seconds remaining. The Pacers therefore escaped Paycom Center with a one-point victory and a 1-0 series advantage.

This was not simply a game decided by one final shot. The numbers reveal a contest shaped by rebounding, three-point shooting, turnovers, second-chance opportunities, defensive activity, and Indiana’s ability to remain composed during a difficult fourth quarter.

The Pacers finished 39-of-82 from the field, including 18-of-39 from three-point range. Oklahoma City also made 39 field goals but needed 98 attempts to reach that total. Indiana won the rebounding battle 56-39 and recorded 24 assists, while the Thunder produced only 13 assists. Oklahoma City, however, protected the ball far better, committing only six turnovers compared with Indiana’s 24.

Those contrasting numbers explain why the game remained competitive despite Oklahoma City’s statistical advantages in several areas.

Table of Contents

Indiana Pacers vs Oklahoma City Thunder Match Player Stats: Game Overview

Game 1 took place at Paycom Center in Oklahoma City during the 2025 NBA Finals. The official attendance was 18,203, and Indiana entered the series as the visiting team against an Oklahoma City squad that had been exceptionally strong at home.

The final result was:

Category	Indiana Pacers	Oklahoma City Thunder
Final Score	111	110
Field Goals	39-82	39-98
Field Goal %	47.6%	39.8%
Three-Pointers	18-39	11-30
Three-Point %	46.2%	36.7%
Free Throws	15-21	21-24
Rebounds	56	39
Assists	24	13
Turnovers	24	6
Steals	1	14
Blocks	7	6
Offensive Rebounds	13	10
Defensive Rebounds	43	29
Personal Fouls	22	19

The most important statistic may be the difference between field-goal attempts.

Both teams made exactly 39 field goals, but Indiana needed only 82 attempts while Oklahoma City required 98. That is a major efficiency gap.

The Pacers compensated for their high turnover total by shooting exceptionally well from outside and dominating the glass.

Oklahoma City, meanwhile, created 14 steals and committed only six turnovers. That normally represents a winning formula.

It simply was not enough on this night.

How the Game Unfolded

The quarter-by-quarter scoring shows the direction of the game clearly.

Quarter	Pacers	Thunder
First	20	29
Second	25	28
Third	31	28
Fourth	35	25
Final	111	110

Oklahoma City established control immediately.

The Thunder led 29-20 after the first quarter and extended the advantage to 57-45 by halftime. Indiana improved during the third period but still entered the fourth quarter trailing.

The defining change came late.

Oklahoma City held a 15-point advantage early in the fourth quarter. Indiana then mounted a dramatic comeback, eventually taking the lead for the first time on Haliburton’s final shot.

According to the NBA’s official recap, the Pacers were still down by 15 with 9:42 remaining in the fourth quarter. Indiana then produced a 10-2 closing run before Haliburton delivered the decisive basket with 0.3 seconds remaining.

This makes the fourth-quarter statistics especially important.

Indiana scored 35 points in the final period compared with Oklahoma City’s 25. The Pacers did not merely wait for Oklahoma City to collapse. They increased their offensive efficiency, attacked opportunities created by their ball movement and rebounding, and found enough perimeter shooting to erase a deficit that appeared extremely difficult to overcome.

Tyrese Haliburton’s Game-Winning Performance

Tyrese Haliburton finished with 14 points, 10 rebounds, 6 assists and 3 turnovers in 39 minutes.

At first glance, 14 points may not look like a typical star-level Finals performance.

That interpretation misses the context.

Haliburton’s biggest contribution came at the most important moment. With Indiana trailing in the final seconds, he created the separation necessary to take a 21-foot jumper and converted the shot with 0.3 seconds remaining.

The NBA’s official game summary identifies the shot as the game winner.

His final statistical line was:

14 points
6 assists
10 rebounds
6-of-13 shooting
2-of-7 from three-point range
3 turnovers
1 block
+12 plus/minus
39 minutes

The +12 plus/minus is also notable.

It indicates that Indiana outscored Oklahoma City by 12 points during Haliburton’s minutes on the court. Plus/minus should never be interpreted in isolation, but in this particular game it supports the broader observation that Indiana’s offensive organization was more effective when its primary creator was controlling possessions.

His scoring volume was not the headline.

His timing was.

Shai Gilgeous-Alexander Was the Game’s Leading Scorer

If Haliburton provided the decisive moment, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander provided the dominant scoring performance.

The Oklahoma City star finished with 38 points in 40 minutes.

His complete line included:

38 points
14-of-30 field goals
3-of-6 three-pointers
7-of-8 free throws
5 rebounds
3 assists
3 steals
2 turnovers
+3 plus/minus

His 38 points were the most by any player in the game. The official NBA game record confirms that he led all scorers.

The efficiency was respectable rather than overwhelming. He made 14 of 30 attempts, or 46.7 percent, while adding efficient free-throw shooting.

What makes his performance interesting is that Oklahoma City still lost despite receiving an enormous scoring contribution from its leading player.

That is an important lesson when analyzing playoff basketball.

A player’s scoring total can dominate the box score while failing to describe the overall result. Indiana’s rebounding advantage, three-point efficiency and late-game execution collectively outweighed Gilgeous-Alexander’s scoring output.

Pascal Siakam’s All-Around Contribution

Pascal Siakam scored 19 points and collected 10 rebounds in 35 minutes.

His line:

19 points
10 rebounds
7-of-15 shooting
1-of-2 from three
4-of-6 free throws
3 assists
1 block
4 offensive rebounds
+10?

The provided game data lists Siakam at -10 plus/minus, while the official NBA box score also lists -10.

That negative plus/minus may appear surprising because Siakam contributed heavily to Indiana’s overall production.

It demonstrates why plus/minus requires context.

Siakam’s 10 rebounds were particularly valuable because four came on the offensive glass. Offensive rebounds create additional possessions, and Indiana finished with 13 offensive rebounds as a team.

His scoring also helped prevent the Thunder from focusing exclusively on Haliburton.

Siakam did not need to lead Indiana in points to be essential to the result.

Myles Turner Provided Interior Defense and Spacing

Myles Turner played 28 minutes and finished with 15 points and 9 rebounds.

More importantly, he recorded 3 blocks.

His offensive numbers included:

15 points
5-of-10 field goals
2-of-5 three-pointers
3-of-4 free throws
9 rebounds
3 blocks
5 offensive rebounds
6 turnovers
+8 plus/minus

Turner’s five offensive rebounds were significant.

Indiana’s ability to create extra possessions was one of the clearest differences between the teams. Turner contributed directly to that advantage.

His three-point shooting also mattered because it forced Oklahoma City to account for a center who could operate beyond the paint.

The six turnovers were a major weakness, however.

When analyzing this game honestly, Turner’s performance should not be presented as flawless. His rebounding, rim protection and shooting were valuable, but the turnovers created opportunities for Oklahoma City.

That balance is important when evaluating individual player statistics.

Obi Toppin Was One of Indiana’s Biggest Offensive Surprises

Obi Toppin scored 17 points in only 25 minutes.

He shot 6-of-9 from the field and an impressive 5-of-8 from three-point range.

His line included:

17 points
6-of-9 field goals
5-of-8 three-pointers
5 rebounds
2 assists
3 turnovers
+13 plus/minus

The five made three-pointers were particularly valuable.

Indiana shot 46.2 percent from three as a team. Toppin’s shooting helped create the spacing necessary for Indiana to maintain offensive balance.

His +13 plus/minus was tied for the best mark among Pacers players in the supplied statistics.

This is an example of why a box-score analysis should go beyond the leading scorers.

Toppin scored 17 points without needing a high volume of possessions. His efficiency allowed Indiana to generate points while keeping pressure away from its primary creators.

Andrew Nembhard’s Quietly Important Game

Andrew Nembhard finished with 14 points, 6 assists and 4 rebounds.

He shot 4-of-11 from the field and 2-of-6 from three-point range while making 4-of-5 free throws.

His +11 plus/minus was one of Indiana’s strongest marks.

Nembhard’s six assists tied Haliburton for the team lead.

His role was especially important because Indiana needed secondary creation. Against Oklahoma City’s aggressive defense, relying on one ball handler would have made the Pacers easier to disrupt.

Nembhard helped keep the offense moving.

That matters even when a player is not producing spectacular scoring numbers.

Aaron Nesmith’s Rebounding Was More Important Than His Scoring

Aaron Nesmith scored 10 points but collected 12 rebounds.

That included all 12 on the defensive glass.

He played 31 minutes and shot 3-of-9 from the field, including 3-of-7 from three-point range.

His +13 plus/minus matched Toppin for Indiana’s best mark in the supplied player statistics.

The 12 rebounds are particularly noteworthy for a wing player.

Indiana’s overall rebounding dominance was not produced by one center alone. Multiple perimeter players contributed to the glass, which allowed the Pacers to finish with 56 total rebounds.

Nesmith’s work prevented Oklahoma City from turning missed shots into second opportunities.

T.J. McConnell Added Efficient Bench Scoring

T.J. McConnell scored 9 points in approximately 17 minutes.

He made 4-of-6 field-goal attempts and hit his only three-point attempt.

He also recorded 4 assists and 1 steal.

His +13? The supplied data gives him -13 plus/minus, while the official box score lists -13. That contrast is useful because McConnell’s individual shooting was efficient even though Indiana was outscored during his minutes.

This is another reminder that plus/minus measures team scoring margin while a player is on the floor. It is not a direct measurement of individual efficiency.

McConnell’s role was still useful because he provided a change of pace and secondary ball handling.

Oklahoma City’s Supporting Cast

Gilgeous-Alexander carried much of Oklahoma City’s scoring load, but several teammates contributed meaningful numbers.

Jalen Williams

Jalen Williams finished with:

17 points
6-of-19 shooting
1-of-4 from three
4-of-4 free throws
4 rebounds
6 assists
1 steal
0 turnovers
-4 plus/minus

His six assists tied Haliburton and Nembhard for the most assists among the players in the supplied data.

The biggest concern was shooting efficiency.

Williams attempted 19 field goals but made only six. Oklahoma City needed more efficient scoring from its secondary creators to complement Gilgeous-Alexander.

Lu Dort

Lu Dort produced one of Oklahoma City’s more complete defensive performances.

He recorded:

15 points
5-of-10 shooting
5-of-9 three-point shooting
4 rebounds
4 steals
2 blocks
0 turnovers
-3 plus/minus

The combination of five made threes, four steals and two blocks demonstrates his two-way impact.

His five three-pointers were particularly important because Oklahoma City needed perimeter production to offset Indiana’s shooting.

Isaiah Hartenstein

Isaiah Hartenstein scored 9 points and grabbed 9 rebounds in 17 minutes.

He shot 3-of-5 from the field and made all three of his free throws.

He also recorded one steal and two offensive rebounds.

His rebounding was valuable, but Indiana’s overall control of the glass remained the larger story.

Alex Caruso

Alex Caruso finished with 11 points, 6 rebounds, 2 assists, 3 steals and 2 blocks.

He made 3-of-8 shots from the field and 1-of-4 three-pointers.

Caruso’s defensive activity was substantial. His three steals and two blocks demonstrated the kind of disruptive defense Oklahoma City relied on throughout the game.

Yet Indiana’s offensive efficiency eventually overcame that pressure.

The Biggest Statistical Difference: Rebounding

The most obvious statistical advantage for Indiana was rebounding.

The Pacers collected 56 rebounds.

The Thunder collected 39.

That is a 17-rebound difference.

Indiana also grabbed 13 offensive rebounds compared with Oklahoma City’s 10.

The Pacers’ 43 defensive rebounds were particularly important because they limited Oklahoma City’s ability to extend possessions.

Oklahoma City scored 46 points in the paint compared with Indiana’s 34, so the Thunder did have success attacking inside. But Indiana compensated by controlling the overall rebounding battle.

This is one reason the final score was so close despite the Thunder’s superior turnover numbers.

Three-Point Shooting Changed the Game

Indiana made 18 three-pointers.

Oklahoma City made 11.

That seven-three difference translated into 21 additional points from beyond the arc.

The percentages were also meaningfully different:

Indiana: 18-of-39, 46.2%
Oklahoma City: 11-of-30, 36.7%

The Thunder actually attempted fewer three-pointers, but the larger issue was conversion.

Indiana’s shooting efficiency helped offset its 24 turnovers.

If a team loses the turnover battle by 18 possessions, it normally needs exceptional efficiency or rebounding to compensate.

Indiana had both.

Turnovers Tell a Different Story

This was Oklahoma City’s clearest statistical advantage.

The Thunder committed only 6 turnovers.

The Pacers committed 24.

That is an 18-turnover difference.

Oklahoma City also recorded 14 steals compared with Indiana’s single steal.

On the surface, that should have created a comfortable path to victory.

The Thunder converted those opportunities into 28 points off turnovers, while Indiana scored only 4 points off Oklahoma City’s turnovers according to the official game summary.

This is perhaps the most surprising part of the game.

Indiana won despite giving away the ball four times as often.

The explanation lies in efficiency and possession quality elsewhere.

The Pacers shot much better from the field, dominated the glass, and made seven more three-pointers.

Why the Pacers Won Despite 24 Turnovers

There are several interconnected reasons.

1. Indiana shot more efficiently

The Pacers made 39 field goals on 82 attempts.

Oklahoma City made the same number on 98 attempts.

That means Indiana needed 16 fewer shots to make the same number of baskets.

2. Indiana dominated the glass

A 56-39 rebounding advantage created extra opportunities and limited second chances for Oklahoma City.

3. Indiana made more three-pointers

The seven-made-three advantage was worth 21 points.

4. The Pacers improved late

Indiana scored 35 points in the fourth quarter.

Oklahoma City scored 25.

5. Haliburton delivered at the decisive moment

The final shot was not merely symbolic. It changed the result from an Oklahoma City victory to an Indiana victory.

The NBA’s official recap confirms that Haliburton’s jumper came with 0.3 seconds remaining.

Why Oklahoma City Lost Despite Strong Defensive Numbers

The Thunder generated 14 steals and forced Indiana into 24 turnovers.

Their defense also held Indiana to only 34 points in the paint.

But defensive disruption alone could not compensate for inefficient shooting.

Oklahoma City shot approximately 40 percent from the field.

Indiana shot approximately 48 percent.

The Thunder also lost the rebounding battle by 17.

Those two factors created a difficult mathematical combination.

Oklahoma City received extra possessions from turnovers, but Indiana produced more efficient possessions and more second-chance opportunities.

This is why simply looking at steals or turnovers gives an incomplete picture of the game.

The Importance of Plus/Minus

Plus/minus is one of the most misunderstood statistics in basketball.

It measures the team’s point differential while a particular player is on the floor.

It does not mean that a player personally scored or prevented that exact number of points.

In this game, several Pacers players had strong plus/minus figures.

Aaron Nesmith and Obi Toppin each finished at +13.

Haliburton finished at +12.

Nembhard finished at +11.

Turner finished at +8.

At the same time, Siakam finished at -10 despite producing 19 points and 10 rebounds.

This does not mean Siakam played poorly.

It means the Pacers’ overall scoring margin during his minutes was negative.

The best player evaluation combines plus/minus with shooting, rebounding, assists, turnovers, defensive activity, role and game context.

What the Player Statistics Reveal About Indiana’s Style

The numbers show a team that did not depend on one player to carry the entire offense.

Indiana had multiple players in double figures:

Pascal Siakam: 19
Obi Toppin: 17
Myles Turner: 15
Andrew Nembhard: 14
Tyrese Haliburton: 14
Aaron Nesmith: 10

That distribution matters.

The Pacers were able to score efficiently even though Haliburton did not lead the team in points.

Their offense benefited from contributions across the rotation.

Indiana also demonstrated unusual resilience.

The team trailed for most of the game but did not abandon its offensive structure. The late comeback was built through multiple players rather than one prolonged scoring run from a single star.

What the Statistics Reveal About Oklahoma City

Oklahoma City looked more dominant in several traditional areas.

The Thunder had:

14 steals
6 turnovers
46 points in the paint
11 fast-break points
15-point largest lead

But those strengths were offset by:

39.8% field-goal shooting
36.7% three-point shooting
39 rebounds
13 assists
11 made three-pointers

The low assist total is particularly interesting.

Oklahoma City’s 13 assists compared with Indiana’s 24 suggests the Pacers generated more scoring through shared offensive creation.

The Thunder relied heavily on individual shot creation, particularly from Gilgeous-Alexander.

That approach worked for long stretches but became less reliable when Indiana increased pressure in the fourth quarter.

A Closer Look at Shot Efficiency

One of the simplest ways to understand the game is to compare field-goal attempts with made baskets.

Both teams made 39 field goals.

But Indiana took 82 attempts.

Oklahoma City took 98.

That means Oklahoma City missed 59 shots.

Indiana missed 43.

The Pacers therefore converted a much larger percentage of their opportunities.

Indiana’s 18 made three-pointers amplified the difference.

A three-point shot is worth 50 percent more than a two-point shot. When a team combines high three-point volume with strong accuracy, it can compensate for deficiencies in other areas.

That is precisely what Indiana did.

Free-Throw Shooting Was Not the Deciding Factor

Oklahoma City had the better free-throw percentage.

The Thunder shot 21-of-24, or 87.5 percent.

Indiana shot 15-of-21, or 71.4 percent.

That gave Oklahoma City a clear advantage at the line.

Yet the difference was not large enough to overcome Indiana’s advantages elsewhere.

The Pacers gave away points at the free-throw line but gained them through three-point shooting and rebounding.

This is a useful reminder that no single shooting category explains an entire playoff game.

Defensive Contributions Beyond Scoring

The player statistics also highlight several defensive performances.

Turner recorded 3 blocks.

Dort recorded 4 steals and 2 blocks.

Caruso recorded 3 steals and 2 blocks.

Gilgeous-Alexander added 3 steals.

Nesmith recorded 1 block.

Haliburton recorded 1 block.

These contributions matter because the game featured two teams capable of creating defensive disruption.

Oklahoma City generated more steals, while Indiana produced seven blocks.

The difference reflects the teams’ defensive styles.

The Thunder created pressure on the ball.

Indiana benefited more from size and rim protection.

The Role of Bench Production

Bench scoring was another subtle factor.

Indiana received 17 points from Toppin, 9 from McConnell, 5 from Bryant, 5 from Mathurin and 3 from Sheppard.

That gave the Pacers several secondary scoring sources.

Oklahoma City received useful contributions from Caruso, Hartenstein, Joe, Wiggins and others, but the overall offensive burden remained heavily concentrated around Gilgeous-Alexander and Williams.

In a close Finals game, that difference can become important.

A team does not necessarily need its bench to dominate.

It needs enough secondary production to keep the opponent from loading up defensively on its primary creators.

What This Game Means for Player Evaluation

The box score provides several lessons for evaluating players.

First, scoring volume should be viewed alongside efficiency.

Second, rebounds can be especially important when a team is losing the turnover battle.

Third, three-point shooting can dramatically alter possession value.

Fourth, plus/minus is useful but should never be treated as an individual performance grade.

Fifth, late-game execution deserves separate attention because the final possessions can determine the result of an otherwise statistically balanced contest.

Haliburton is the clearest example.

His 14-point total was not spectacular by itself.

His final shot was.

Indiana Pacers vs Oklahoma City Thunder Match Player Stats: Key Takeaways

The most important findings from the game are straightforward.

Indiana won the efficiency battle

The Pacers made the same number of field goals as Oklahoma City while taking 16 fewer attempts.

Indiana won the rebounding battle

The 56-39 advantage was one of the game’s largest statistical differences.

Indiana won from three-point range

The Pacers made 18 threes compared with 11 for Oklahoma City.

Oklahoma City won the turnover battle decisively

The Thunder committed only six turnovers against Indiana’s 24.

Shai Gilgeous-Alexander was the leading scorer

His 38 points were the highest individual total in the game.

Tyrese Haliburton made the decisive play

His jumper with 0.3 seconds remaining gave Indiana its first lead and the victory.

Indiana’s supporting cast mattered

Siakam, Toppin, Turner, Nembhard and Nesmith all made meaningful contributions.

Oklahoma City’s defense was disruptive

Fourteen steals and six total turnovers forced Indiana into difficult possessions throughout the game.

Frequently Asked Questions

Who scored the most points in Indiana vs Oklahoma City Game 1?

Shai Gilgeous-Alexander led all scorers with 38 points for Oklahoma City.

Who hit the game-winning shot?

Tyrese Haliburton hit a 21-foot jumper with 0.3 seconds remaining to give Indiana a 111-110 victory.

How many rebounds did the Pacers have?

Indiana recorded 56 total rebounds, compared with 39 for Oklahoma City.

How many three-pointers did each team make?

Indiana made 18 of 39 three-point attempts, while Oklahoma City made 11 of 30.

Who had the most rebounds for Indiana?

Aaron Nesmith led Indiana with 12 rebounds. Pascal Siakam and Tyrese Haliburton each recorded 10.

What was the final score of Game 1?

The Indiana Pacers defeated the Oklahoma City Thunder 111-110 in Game 1 of the 2025 NBA Finals.

Conclusion

The indiana pacers vs oklahoma city thunder match player stats from Game 1 demonstrate why playoff basketball cannot be reduced to the scoring column.

Shai Gilgeous-Alexander was the game’s leading scorer with 38 points, yet Oklahoma City could not turn that individual dominance into a victory. The Thunder created 14 steals, committed only six turnovers and led by as many as 15 points in the fourth quarter.

Indiana responded with superior shooting efficiency, a commanding rebounding advantage and a balanced scoring attack.

The Pacers made 18 three-pointers, collected 56 rebounds and received double-digit scoring from six players. Haliburton then supplied the defining moment, hitting the winning jumper with 0.3 seconds remaining.

The final 111-110 score therefore tells only part of the story.

The deeper statistical lesson is that Indiana won because its strengths were concentrated in high-value areas. Efficient shooting, offensive rebounding, defensive rebounding and late-game execution compensated for a severe turnover disadvantage.

For Oklahoma City, the numbers point toward a different lesson. The Thunder generated enough defensive pressure and individual scoring to control large portions of the contest, but shooting efficiency and rebounding ultimately left too little margin for error.

Game 1 was therefore an excellent example of how advanced game analysis should work: examine the full statistical profile, understand the context behind each number, and then connect those numbers to the decisive possessions.

For readers who want to verify the official box score and game details, the NBA’s official Game 1 record provides the primary reference. NBA official Game 1 box score and game details.