Oklahoma City Thunder vs Indiana Pacers Match Player Stats
The oklahoma city thunder vs indiana pacers match player stats from Game 1 of the 2025 NBA Finals tell a much more interesting story than the final score alone. Indiana Pacers defeated the Oklahoma City Thunder 111-110 on June 6, 2025, at Paycom Center in Oklahoma City, taking a 1-0 series lead. Shai Gilgeous-Alexander produced a huge 38-point performance for Oklahoma City, but Indiana’s balanced scoring, superior rebounding, efficient three-point shooting, and late-game execution allowed the Pacers to escape with a one-point victory. The box score shows how a team can lose despite having the best individual scorer on the floor.
Game Overview
The opening game of the NBA Finals was played at Paycom Center in Oklahoma City in front of 18,203 fans. The Thunder entered the matchup with an outstanding 68-14 regular-season record and a 35-6 home record. Indiana came in at 50-32 overall and 20-20 on the road.
Those records made Oklahoma City the clear statistical favorite entering the contest, especially because the Thunder had been extremely difficult to beat at home. However, the Pacers showed why playoff basketball often comes down to execution rather than regular-season records.
Indiana won 111-110, overcoming an early deficit and producing its best offensive quarter in the fourth.
Final Score
| Team | Q1 | Q2 | Q3 | Q4 | Final |
| Indiana Pacers | 20 | 25 | 31 | 35 | 111 |
| Oklahoma City Thunder | 29 | 28 | 28 | 25 | 110 |
The scoring pattern is particularly important. Oklahoma City led after each of the first three quarters, but Indiana scored 35 points in the fourth while the Thunder managed only 25.
That ten-point fourth-quarter difference completely changed the game.
oklahoma city thunder vs indiana pacers match player stats
When examining the oklahoma city thunder vs indiana pacers match player stats, the first number most readers notice is Shai Gilgeous-Alexander’s 38 points. His scoring performance was excellent, but the wider team statistics explain why Oklahoma City still lost.
Indiana finished with 39 made field goals on 82 attempts, compared with 39 makes on 98 attempts for Oklahoma City. Both teams made the same number of field goals, but the Pacers needed 16 fewer attempts to reach that total.
That difference in efficiency matters.
Indiana also made 18 of 39 three-point attempts, while Oklahoma City made 11 of 30. The Pacers therefore generated significantly more points from behind the arc.
At the same time, Indiana controlled the glass with 56 total rebounds compared with 39 for Oklahoma City.
The Thunder did have a major advantage in turnovers and steals. Oklahoma City committed only six turnovers and recorded 14 steals, while Indiana committed 24 turnovers and had just one steal.
This creates one of the most interesting statistical contrasts in the game:
- Oklahoma City protected the ball much better.
- Oklahoma City created many more steals.
- Indiana shot much more efficiently.
- Indiana dominated the rebounding battle.
- Indiana made seven more three-pointers.
- Indiana scored more in the decisive fourth quarter.
The game was therefore not decided by one statistic. It was decided by how several statistical advantages interacted.
Indiana Pacers Player Statistics
The Pacers did not rely on one dominant scorer. Instead, they received meaningful contributions across the lineup.
Pascal Siakam
Pascal Siakam led Indiana with 19 points.
His scoring output was the highest among the Pacers, but his importance was not simply about being the team’s leading scorer. Indiana needed multiple players to contribute because Oklahoma City had defensive pressure capable of disrupting a one-dimensional offense.
Siakam’s 19 points gave the Pacers a reliable scoring presence while other players contributed through rebounding, passing, and perimeter shooting.
Obi Toppin
Obi Toppin scored 17 points.
His 17-point performance was one of the biggest contributions outside Indiana’s starting group. Bench production is particularly valuable in an NBA Finals game because opposing teams often have elite defensive schemes designed around stopping starters.
Toppin’s scoring helped Indiana maintain offensive pressure without requiring Siakam and Haliburton to create every possession.
Myles Turner
Myles Turner finished with 15 points and nine rebounds.
The combination of scoring and rebounding made Turner one of Indiana’s more balanced contributors. His nine rebounds were especially significant considering the Pacers finished the game with 56 total rebounds.
The rebounding difference was one of the clearest areas where Indiana separated itself from Oklahoma City.
Andrew Nembhard
Andrew Nembhard recorded 14 points and six assists.
The six assists show that his contribution extended beyond scoring. Indiana needed players who could move the ball and create opportunities when the Thunder applied pressure.
His 14 points also helped prevent Oklahoma City from concentrating too heavily on Indiana’s primary offensive options.
Tyrese Haliburton
Tyrese Haliburton posted 14 points, 10 rebounds, and six assists.
The double-double is especially notable because Haliburton’s value in this game cannot be represented by scoring alone.
His 10 rebounds gave Indiana another advantage on the boards, while six assists reflected his role as a playmaker. A player producing across scoring, rebounding, and passing can influence the game even without leading the team in points.
Haliburton’s line is a good example of why box-score analysis should go beyond the scoring column.
Indiana’s Bench Made a Major Difference
The Pacers received 17 points from Obi Toppin, which was a major part of their offensive balance.
Indiana’s listed bench also included Thomas Bryant, T.J. McConnell, Ben Sheppard, Bennedict Mathurin, James Johnson, Isaiah Jackson, Jarace Walker, Tony Bradley, and Johnny Furphy.
Not every player listed on a roster contributes equally in a particular game, but the depth of the group illustrates the number of options available to Indiana.
The important takeaway is not simply that Indiana had a deep bench. It is that the Pacers were able to spread offensive responsibility instead of forcing one player to carry the entire scoring load.
That became especially valuable late in the game.
Oklahoma City Thunder Player Statistics
The Thunder had the game’s leading scorer in Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, but their offensive efficiency was lower than Indiana’s.
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander scored 38 points, making him easily Oklahoma City’s most productive scorer.
A 38-point Finals performance is an elite individual output. He accounted for a large share of the Thunder’s 110 points and consistently gave Oklahoma City a source of offense.
Yet the final result demonstrates an important lesson about basketball statistics: the highest-scoring player does not necessarily play for the winning team.
Gilgeous-Alexander’s scoring kept Oklahoma City competitive, but Indiana’s collective efficiency ultimately outweighed his individual scoring advantage.
Jalen Williams
Jalen Williams finished with 17 points and six assists.
His six assists were important because Oklahoma City needed secondary creation alongside Gilgeous-Alexander.
However, the Thunder’s overall assist total was only 13, compared with 24 for Indiana. That 11-assist difference is significant.
It suggests that Indiana generated more offense through collective ball movement, while Oklahoma City relied more heavily on individual creation.
Luguentz Dort
Luguentz Dort scored 15 points and made five three-pointers.
His five made threes were one of the brighter perimeter performances for Oklahoma City. The Thunder made 11 threes as a team, meaning Dort accounted for a substantial portion of their total three-point production.
That shooting helped Oklahoma City maintain offensive balance, but it was not enough to match Indiana’s 18 made three-pointers.
Isaiah Hartenstein
Isaiah Hartenstein recorded nine points and nine rebounds.
His near double-double highlights the Thunder’s frontcourt contribution, but the team still lost the overall rebounding battle by 17 boards.
That gap is difficult to overcome in a tightly contested Finals game.
Alex Caruso
Alex Caruso recorded 11 points, six rebounds, three steals, and two blocks.
His defensive statistics stand out immediately.
Three steals and two blocks gave him five combined steals and blocks, while six rebounds added another dimension to his performance.
Caruso’s line demonstrates why traditional scoring statistics do not always capture a player’s impact. His defensive activity helped Oklahoma City generate possessions and disrupt Indiana’s offense.
Thunder Starting Lineup
Oklahoma City’s listed starters were:
| Player | Key Statistical Contribution |
| Chet Holmgren | Starter |
| Shai Gilgeous-Alexander | 38 points |
| Luguentz Dort | 15 points, 5 made threes |
| Jalen Williams | 17 points, 6 assists |
| Cason Wallace | Starter |
The starting lineup combined scoring, perimeter defense, size, and ball handling.
However, the overall team performance shows that having a strong starting group was not enough. Indiana’s collective production and fourth-quarter surge ultimately decided the contest.
Thunder Bench Contributions
Oklahoma City’s bench included Isaiah Hartenstein, Alex Caruso, Kenrich Williams, Isaiah Joe, Aaron Wiggins, Ajay Mitchell, Jaylin Williams, Dillon Jones, and Ousmane Dieng.
Hartenstein and Caruso were particularly visible in the statistical record.
Hartenstein produced nine points and nine rebounds, while Caruso added 11 points, six rebounds, three steals, and two blocks.
The defensive activity from the Thunder was one of the game’s defining characteristics. Oklahoma City recorded 14 steals compared with Indiana’s one.
That is an enormous defensive difference.
Yet Indiana still won.
This is a useful reminder that creating turnovers does not automatically guarantee victory. The possessions created through defensive pressure must eventually be converted into enough efficient offense.
Team Shooting Comparison
The shooting numbers are among the clearest indicators of why Indiana won.
| Statistic | Pacers | Thunder |
| Field Goals | 39-82 | 39-98 |
| Field Goal Percentage | 48% | 40% |
| Three-Pointers | 18-39 | 11-30 |
| Three-Point Percentage | 46% | 37% |
| Free Throws | 15-21 | 21-24 |
| Free Throw Percentage | 71% | 88% |
The Thunder actually had the better free-throw percentage, shooting 88% compared with Indiana’s 71%.
However, free throws were not enough to offset the Pacers’ advantage in field-goal efficiency and three-point shooting.
Indiana made the same number of total field goals despite taking 16 fewer shots.
That is a major efficiency advantage.
The Three-Point Battle
The Pacers made 18 three-pointers.
The Thunder made 11.
That seven-shot difference from beyond the arc translates into 21 additional points from made threes before considering the different number of attempts.
Indiana’s 46% three-point shooting was also excellent.
Oklahoma City shot 37% from deep, which is respectable but significantly lower than Indiana’s mark.
In a one-point game, that difference becomes critical.
A few additional made threes can completely alter the outcome of a close Finals game. Indiana did not simply shoot more from outside. The Pacers converted those attempts at a higher rate.
Rebounding Was Another Major Difference
Indiana collected 56 rebounds.
Oklahoma City collected 39.
That gives the Pacers a 17-rebound advantage.
This may be the most important statistic after shooting efficiency.
Rebounding affects both ends of the court. Offensive rebounds can create additional scoring opportunities, while defensive rebounds prevent opponents from extending possessions.
Oklahoma City’s 14 steals helped create extra possessions, but Indiana’s rebounding advantage provided another method of controlling possession.
The contrast is fascinating:
Thunder defensive pressure: 14 steals.
Pacers rebounding control: 56 rebounds.
Both teams found ways to generate possession advantages, but they did so differently.
Ball Movement and Assists
Indiana recorded 24 assists.
Oklahoma City recorded 13.
That is an 11-assist advantage for the Pacers.
The number is important because it indicates a significant difference in how the offenses created scoring opportunities.
Indiana’s offense involved more assisted scoring and collective playmaking.
Oklahoma City had a much lower assist total despite scoring 110 points. That suggests the Thunder relied more heavily on individual shot creation.
Neither approach is automatically wrong.
Elite isolation scorers can carry an offense, particularly in playoff basketball. But when a team faces an opponent that shoots efficiently and moves the ball well, it can become difficult to compensate for a lack of collective offensive creation.
Turnovers and Defensive Pressure
This was one category where Oklahoma City clearly dominated.
The Thunder committed only six turnovers.
Indiana committed 24.
That is an 18-turnover difference.
Oklahoma City also recorded 14 steals.
Indiana recorded only one.
From a defensive perspective, the Thunder were extremely disruptive.
So why did they lose?
Because basketball is a multi-variable sport.
The Thunder’s turnover advantage was enormous, but Indiana compensated through:
- Better field-goal efficiency
- Better three-point efficiency
- More made three-pointers
- More rebounds
- More assists
- A stronger fourth quarter
The Pacers did not win because they controlled every statistical category. They won because the categories they controlled were powerful enough to overcome Oklahoma City’s defensive pressure.
Fourth Quarter Changed the Game
The first three quarters favored Oklahoma City.
The Thunder scored 29, 28, and 28 points in the opening three periods.
Indiana scored 20, 25, and 31.
That gave Oklahoma City a 12-point advantage entering the fourth quarter based on the cumulative scoring pattern.
Then Indiana produced 35 points in the final period.
Oklahoma City scored only 25.
That means Indiana gained 10 points on the Thunder during the final quarter.
The fourth quarter therefore represents the clearest explanation for the comeback.
The Pacers did not need to dominate the entire game. They needed to win the most important stretch.
That is a valuable way to analyze playoff basketball. A game can contain three quarters in which one team appears to be in control, followed by a final quarter where the entire outcome changes.
Why Shai’s 38 Points Were Not Enough
It is tempting to say Oklahoma City lost because its supporting cast did not score enough.
That explanation is too simple.
The Thunder actually had several strong individual performances. Gilgeous-Alexander scored 38, Williams scored 17, Dort scored 15, and Caruso scored 11.
The larger issue was efficiency and distribution.
Oklahoma City made 39 field goals on 98 attempts.
Indiana made 39 field goals on only 82 attempts.
So while both teams had the same number of made field goals, Indiana required significantly fewer shots.
The Pacers also made seven more three-pointers and collected 17 more rebounds.
Gilgeous-Alexander’s 38 points were outstanding, but one player’s scoring cannot completely compensate for a team-wide efficiency gap.
Why Indiana’s Balanced Scoring Worked
Indiana’s leading scorer had 19 points, which is 19 fewer than Gilgeous-Alexander’s total.
Yet Indiana won.
That fact alone demonstrates the value of balanced production.
The Pacers had four listed key contributors in double figures:
- Pascal Siakam: 19 points
- Obi Toppin: 17 points
- Myles Turner: 15 points
- Andrew Nembhard: 14 points
- Tyrese Haliburton: 14 points
That is five players with at least 14 points among the highlighted Pacers.
Oklahoma City, by comparison, was heavily influenced by Gilgeous-Alexander’s 38 points.
The Thunder did receive meaningful scoring from Williams and Dort, but the Pacers’ scoring distribution made their offense harder to shut down.
What the Player Stats Reveal About Each Team
The box score provides a useful snapshot of the teams’ identities.
Indiana’s Statistical Profile
Indiana’s performance was built around:
- Efficient shooting
- Three-point production
- Rebounding
- Ball movement
- Multiple scoring options
- Fourth-quarter execution
The Pacers did not need one player to dominate.
Instead, several players produced enough value to keep the offense functional throughout the game.
Oklahoma City’s Statistical Profile
The Thunder’s performance was characterized by:
- Elite individual scoring
- Strong perimeter defense
- Turnover creation
- Excellent free-throw shooting
- Strong defensive activity
- Lower overall shooting efficiency
The Thunder’s 14 steals are particularly impressive.
But the result shows that defensive disruption must be paired with efficient offensive execution.
A Closer Look at Possession Efficiency
One of the strongest ways to understand this game is to compare the number of shots required to produce the same number of made field goals.
Both teams made 39 field goals.
Indiana attempted 82.
Oklahoma City attempted 98.
That means Oklahoma City needed 16 additional field-goal attempts to make the same number of shots.
This is the clearest sign that the Pacers were more efficient from the field.
The three-point numbers reinforce that conclusion.
Indiana converted 18 of 39 attempts, while Oklahoma City converted 11 of 30.
The Pacers were therefore more productive both overall and from long range.
The Importance of Haliburton’s All-Around Line
Haliburton’s 14 points may look modest next to Gilgeous-Alexander’s 38.
But comparing only those numbers misses the point.
Haliburton added 10 rebounds and six assists.
His complete statistical contribution was much broader.
In a Finals environment, playmaking and rebounding can become just as important as scoring, particularly when a team is trying to recover from an early deficit.
His double-double also reinforces the Pacers’ overall rebounding advantage.
Defensive Impact From Oklahoma City
The Thunder’s defense deserves substantial credit despite the loss.
Fourteen steals is a huge number.
Alex Caruso contributed three steals and two blocks, while the team also recorded six total blocks.
The Thunder clearly created disruption.
The problem was that Indiana’s offense remained efficient enough to survive that pressure.
This distinction is important when evaluating defensive statistics.
A defense can force turnovers and still lose if the opponent converts its other opportunities at a very high rate.
The Role of Free Throws
Oklahoma City made 21 of 24 free throws.
Indiana made 15 of 21.
The Thunder therefore had a clear advantage at the foul line in both makes and percentage.
Oklahoma City shot 88%, while Indiana shot 71%.
In another game, that advantage might have been enough to decide the outcome.
Here, it was outweighed by Indiana’s performance in other areas.
This is another example of why looking at a single statistical category can produce a misleading conclusion.
What the Game Says About Playoff Basketball
The first game of a championship series often reveals how two teams respond when their normal strengths are challenged.
Oklahoma City had the superior regular-season record and home record.
Indiana had the inferior overall record and entered with a .500 road record.
Yet the Pacers won on the road.
That result highlights the difference between regular-season performance and a single high-pressure playoff game.
The Thunder’s 68-14 record demonstrated remarkable consistency over the regular season. It did not guarantee victory in Game 1.
Likewise, Indiana’s 50-32 record did not prevent the Pacers from executing at a championship level.
Key Numbers at a Glance
| Category | Indiana | Oklahoma City | Advantage |
| Final Score | 111 | 110 | Indiana |
| Field Goals | 39-82 | 39-98 | Indiana efficiency |
| Field Goal % | 48% | 40% | Indiana |
| Three-Pointers | 18-39 | 11-30 | Indiana |
| Three-Point % | 46% | 37% | Indiana |
| Free Throws | 15-21 | 21-24 | Oklahoma City |
| Rebounds | 56 | 39 | Indiana |
| Assists | 24 | 13 | Indiana |
| Turnovers | 24 | 6 | Oklahoma City |
| Steals | 1 | 14 | Oklahoma City |
| Blocks | 7 | 6 | Indiana |
| Fourth-Quarter Points | 35 | 25 | Indiana |
This table captures the unusual nature of the game.
The Pacers won despite committing 18 more turnovers and recording 13 fewer steals.
They overcame those disadvantages through shooting efficiency, rebounding, assists, and fourth-quarter scoring.
Real Statistical Lessons From Game 1
The most useful lesson from this box score is that winning basketball is rarely explained by one number.
A casual analysis might focus on the 38 points from Gilgeous-Alexander and conclude that Oklahoma City simply needed more scoring.
A deeper analysis suggests something different.
The Thunder needed more efficient offense.
They needed to turn their possession advantage into more points.
They needed to reduce the gap in three-point production.
And they needed to prevent Indiana from dominating the glass.
The Pacers, meanwhile, demonstrated that turnovers can be survivable when a team creates enough value in other areas.
How to Read These Stats Correctly
If you are using this matchup for fantasy analysis, historical research, team evaluation, or simply trying to understand what happened, it helps to examine the box score in layers.
Start with the final score.
Then examine the quarter-by-quarter scoring.
Next, compare shooting efficiency.
After that, look at rebounds, assists, turnovers, and defensive events.
Finally, identify which individual players influenced multiple categories.
This method prevents one headline statistic from dominating your interpretation.
For example, Gilgeous-Alexander’s 38 points are important, but so are Haliburton’s 10 rebounds and six assists, Turner’s nine rebounds, Williams’ six assists, and Caruso’s five combined steals and blocks.
Frequently Asked Questions
Who won the Oklahoma City Thunder vs Indiana Pacers game?
The Indiana Pacers defeated the Oklahoma City Thunder 111-110 in Game 1 of the 2025 NBA Finals on June 6, 2025. Indiana took a 1-0 lead in the series.
Who scored the most points in the game?
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander was the game’s leading scorer with 38 points for Oklahoma City. Pascal Siakam led Indiana with 19 points.
What were the key Oklahoma City Thunder player stats?
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander scored 38 points, Jalen Williams had 17 points and six assists, Luguentz Dort scored 15 points and made five three-pointers, Isaiah Hartenstein recorded nine points and nine rebounds, and Alex Caruso posted 11 points, six rebounds, three steals, and two blocks.
What were the key Indiana Pacers player stats?
Pascal Siakam scored 19 points, Obi Toppin scored 17, Myles Turner recorded 15 points and nine rebounds, Andrew Nembhard had 14 points and six assists, and Tyrese Haliburton finished with 14 points, 10 rebounds, and six assists.
Why did Indiana win despite committing more turnovers?
Indiana overcame its 24 turnovers by shooting more efficiently, making 18 three-pointers compared with Oklahoma City’s 11, collecting 56 rebounds compared with 39, recording 24 assists compared with 13, and outscoring Oklahoma City 35-25 in the fourth quarter.
What was the biggest statistical difference between the teams?
Several categories were important, but shooting efficiency and rebounding stand out. Indiana shot 48% from the field and 46% from three-point range while collecting 56 rebounds. Oklahoma City shot 40% overall and 37% from three while collecting 39 rebounds.
Conclusion
The oklahoma city thunder vs indiana pacers match player stats from Game 1 show how closely contested championship basketball can be decided by efficiency rather than individual scoring alone.
Shai Gilgeous-Alexander delivered the game’s biggest scoring performance with 38 points, but Indiana’s five highlighted contributors each scored at least 14 points. The Pacers also shot 48% from the field, connected on 18 three-pointers, collected 56 rebounds, and recorded 24 assists.
Oklahoma City countered with tremendous defensive activity, forcing 14 steals while committing only six turnovers. The Thunder also shot 88% from the free-throw line.
However, Indiana’s advantages in shooting efficiency, three-point production, rebounding, ball movement, and fourth-quarter scoring proved decisive.
The final 111-110 score makes the game look almost perfectly even, but the underlying numbers reveal a much richer story. Oklahoma City created more turnovers and received an extraordinary scoring performance from its star. Indiana responded with balance, efficiency, and a decisive fourth quarter.
For anyone studying the oklahoma city thunder vs indiana pacers match player stats, that is the central lesson from Game 1: a box score becomes far more useful when individual performances are connected to team-level efficiency and possession quality.
