It may have been very difficult to believe. How could the Indiana Pacers, who were down as many as 15 points in the fourth quarter, sneak through to beat the seemingly indestructible Oklahoma City Thunder on yet another last second shot by this year's playoff hero, Tyrese Haliburton.

Among the things that were especially amazing was the fact that the Pacers turned the ball over 24 times, resulting in a +18 turnover ratio for OKC, yet still managed to win the game.

So as we approach Sunday's Game 2, what we are asking is....

-- Will Indiana be as careless with the ball again, and what happens if they keep a better handle on it?

-- If they are indeed mistake-prone, can the Thunder take better advantage of it? And how much can they swing things if they convert turnovers into points in a much bigger way?

The linemakers are certainly allowing for a better performance where it counts for the home team. In the NBA Finals odds for Game 2 of the series, posted at BetOnline, OKC is laying double digits:

Oklahoma City Thunder -11 (-105)
Indiana Pacers +11 (-115)

Over 228.5 Points -110
Under 228.5 Points -110

Here is the moneyline.......
OKC -575
Indiana +431

In the moneyline that was revised after Game 1, the Thunder is still a favorite to win the series:

Oklahoma City Thunder -345
Indiana Pacers +278

Game 1 was a case of Oklahoma City peaking early while Indiana peaked late. The Pacers scored more points in each succeeding quarter, finishing up with 35 points in the fourth quarter. Meanwhile, the Thunder scored fewer points in the final period than in any other.

In the piece that we did to preview the series, we pointed out that there was a path to victory for Indiana IF they could hold down their turnovers and hit three-pointers from the corner. So how did that work out?

Well, as we mentioned, OKC had a bloated +18 TO margin. But they were only able to score eleven points off those turnovers. And Indiana slipped far less often in the second half, with only five turnovers.

The Pacers hit 18 triples (46.2%), which produced a 54-33 advantage in points that were generated by treys. We also had pointed out that the Thunder allowed more made corner threes than anyone in the league this season, and if we're reading the charts correctly, the Pacers hit seven from what would be considered the corner area.

There's still some potential upside with that.

Indiana flipped the script somehow

It's difficult to imagine having just one steal on the night and still coming away with a victory. Yet that was the case with Indiana, and evidently they made up for it in a number of other ways, including compiling a decided edge on the boards. This really surprised me. Rick Carlisle's team ranked 29th in the league in rebounding, but they hit the boards with some vigor, particularly late in the game.

Indiana out-rebounded OKC by a 56-39 margin (28-17 in the second half), and came up with 43 defensive rebounds. Three players among their starting five (Haliburton, Pascal Siakam and Aaron Nesmith) reached double figures in boards.

Part of the reason for this was the Mark Daigneault didn't always have his big guys in the game.

During the critical fourth quarter, when Indiana outscored OKC by ten points, Oklahoma City (a) did not make a three-pointer; (b) did not have an offensive rebound, (c) shot 37% from the field, and (d) got a total of ZERO points and two rebounds from its big man combination of Chet Holmgren and Isaiah Hartenstein. Apparently Daigneault felt he needed a smaller lineup in there to deal with Indiana's speed. But he may rethink that.

As far as some of the other individual performances were concerned.....

* Shai Gilgeous-Alexander shined brightly in his NBA Finals debut, with 38 points.

* Alex Caruso, one of OKC's big defensive stoppers, scored eleven points and had three steals but also committed five personal fouls in 28-1/2 minutes on the floor.

* Lu Dort, another defensive standout for the Thunder, made five shots from the field - all triples - and added two blocked shots and four steals.

* Obi Toppin, at one-time a first-round draft pick of the Knicks (ultimately shunned by Tom Thibodeau), had a big night, shrugging off some early mistakes to score 17 points (with five triples) and registering a plus/minus of +13.

* OKC center Chet Holmgren shot 2-for-9 and failed to bring down an offensive rebound in 23-1/2 minutes of action.

* Holmgren's fellow center, Isaiah Hartenstein, managed nine points and nine rebounds in just 17 minutes.

So how do we look toward Game 2?

We knew, coming into the first game, that the mindset on the part of both teams was to accelerate the pace and create opportunities that way. During the regular season, both of these squads ranked among the top five in fast break points per game. In other words, they made their livibng that way.

And we wouldn't dare say that they didn't want to hurry things up on Thursday night.

But there's wasn't a lot of yield. What people needed to pay more attention to was the fact that these are, statistically speaking, the two best transition defenses in the NBA, ranking 1-2 in fast break points allowed. There were only 21 total fast break points scored in Game 1, as both OKC and Indiana held the opponent under those low regular season defensive averages (11.8 for the Thunder, 12.6 for the Pacers).

We already knew how good the Thunder was on defense (well, except the corner threes), but an underrated factor here is Indiana's ability to stop, as the Pacers were able to get back on defense, especially after all those turnovers.

This points us toward an UNDER, as we still think defense holds the key to this series.

BetOnline has all kinds of betting options for you on the NBA Finals. And one of the best things about it is that you can join up using your debit card, or any of sixteen great cryptocurrency options!\