Okc lost because of these 3 reasons

I’ll be betting on OKC ML in Game 2 — not even hesitating.

They had +20 shot attempts, forced 26 turnovers, and still only lost because of late-game execution and poor rotation choices. You clean up just one of those areas — give Chet real minutes or let Harten play the second half — and it’s a different result. Plus, the Pacers shot out of their minds from three. That’s not sustainable.

I’m locking it in over at Angliabet.com — they’ve got it at (-588) for now, and that’s value in my book before the public money comes pouring in. I like the site because I actually get my payouts fast and the odds don’t move on me last second.

Let’s see if OKC does what they should’ve done in Game 1.

from AI an interesting point of view:

• Pacers won the rebounding battle 56–39 overall en.as.com+15pacers.com+15rg.org+15.

• Specifically, in the second half, Indiana grabbed 9 offensive rebounds—key possessions that shifted momentum .

• Siakam recorded a 19-point, 10-rebound double-double, crashing the boards continuously

• Turner added 9 rebounds and 3 blocks, altering shots and controlling the interior

• Thunder removed their primary big men, Chet Holmgren and Isaiah Hartenstein, down the stretch.

• Without them, OKC was outmatched on the glass—Pacers crushed them with smaller, scrappier lineups

• r/nba noted: “Pacers shot 57?% on their threes when Hartenstein was on floor… but they outrebounded OKC by 19 when he was off.”

• OKC’s perimeter defense choice—keeping Hartenstein on court—opened Indiana's corner 3s but surrendered rebounds.

• When OKC switched to small-ball, Indiana out-rebounded them 56–39, capitalizing on that mismatch

• Indiana played for second chances late—more hustle, more tipped-tip rebounds.

• OKC, defending a lead, chose quickness over rebounding depth, and paid the price.

In short, the rebound disparity was a Pelican-planned strategy by Indiana combined with a Thunder gamble on spacing that unintentionally cost them control of the glass.

• Bring back a big man late—to secure rebounds without sacrificing spacing.

• Balance on-court lineup based on matchup: if Indiana has size, don’t go too small.

• Emphasize cleaning up the glass especially on the offensive end for extra scoring chances.

Indiana won the rebound battle because of smarter positioning, veteran aggression, and OKC’s reckless small-ball choice, not just raw boxing-out.

I would take all Siakam Under props today.