Changing a starting lineup for the first game of a playoff series is uncommon, especially in the NBA Finals, and almost unheard of for a heavily favored team. The Oklahoma City Thunder, who won 68 regular-season games and dominated playoff opponents at home, made just such a surprising move before Game 1.
In their 111-110 loss in Game 1, the Thunder started Cason Wallace instead of Isaiah Hartenstein. This marked their first lineup alteration of the postseason and sparked controversy. Many questioned why a team that won significantly fewer games (18 less) was seemingly dictating the Thunder`s strategy from the outset, rather than using Game 1 to simply evaluate the matchup.
The most straightforward explanation likely stems from how the Indiana Pacers navigated the Eastern Conference playoffs. They faced three teams capable of using lineups with two big men and largely neutralized this strategy. Milwaukee was significantly outscored when Giannis Antetokounmpo and Brook Lopez played together, while Cleveland`s double-big pairing of Evan Mobley and Jarrett Allen also struggled against Indiana despite strong rebounding. Even the Knicks, who experimented with a double-big approach, were more effective when Karl-Anthony Towns played without Mitchell Robinson.
The Thunder, perhaps correctly, perhaps prematurely, concluded that no combination of two big men could match Indiana`s speed. Coach Mark Daigneault not only removed Hartenstein from the starting five but avoided using Hartenstein and Chet Holmgren together entirely. Both players saw limited minutes (Hartenstein 17, Holmgren 24), leading to approximately seven minutes where neither was on the court. During this time, the Thunder used an ultra-small lineup featuring Wallace, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, Lu Dort, Alex Caruso, and Jalen Williams.
Critically, this small lineup is often cited as the group that cost Oklahoma City the game. With 3:24 remaining, Wallace replaced Holmgren. Following a Gilgeous-Alexander free throw, the Thunder were outscored 13-4, surrendering their lead and Game 1. It wasn`t the one-big lineup that proved fatal, but rather the diminutive, no-big configuration in the closing moments.
While not entirely conclusive, the new starting lineup with Wallace won its minutes by two points. Lineups with Holmgren gained four points, and those with Hartenstein were plus-two. Generally, the Thunder were competitive with one big man on the floor. However, even their successful two-big lineups during the regular season weren`t overpowering. In over 200 playoff minutes, Holmgren and Hartenstein together have resulted in a modest plus-six point differential.
Looking deeper, the two-big pairing has an offensive rating of only 107.7 points per 100 possessions this postseason. The court can feel cramped, and unlike other teams, OKC hasn`t compensated with dominant offensive rebounding. Their offensive rebounding rate of 28.3% is below average by regular-season standards, and there are concerns about defensive vulnerability when both are on the floor.
Tracking data highlights this defensive concern, particularly against Tyrese Haliburton. He frequently targets opposing centers. By bringing Hartenstein off the bench, the Thunder aim to minimize his minutes matched against Haliburton, as perimeter defense is not Hartenstein`s strength, especially against a shooting big like Myles Turner. Playing drop coverage against Turner has proven problematic for other teams.
Furthermore, using Holmgren on Turner means he isn`t available to chase Indiana`s dangerous perimeter players. This necessitates matching Holmgren against Pascal Siakam. While Holmgren`s length could bother Siakam`s fadeaway, he gives up strength and risks foul trouble in this matchup.
The primary arguments for using two big men simultaneously are defense and rebounding. If the Thunder have doubts in both areas, sticking to one big at a time is logical. The key question isn`t whether to revert to starting Holmgren and Hartenstein together, but rather what adjustments are needed within the one-big framework to regain control of the series.
Based on Game 1, the zero-big lineups should likely be abandoned. They play directly into Indiana`s strengths, conceding a rebounding advantage even when Siakam plays center. The rotation also needs tightening. Playing rookie Ajay Mitchell in non-garbage time Finals minutes, especially when he`s been limited previously, seems ill-advised. While Coach Daigneault prefers deep rotations, the Finals demand a more focused approach. Isaiah Joe`s defense also requires careful monitoring, as he`s the type of mismatch the Pacers seek to exploit.
Addressing these issues is the easier part. The starting lineup decision is more complex. While a one-big approach makes sense, questions remain about whether Wallace is the ideal player to fill Hartenstein`s starting spot. The significant size difference (seven inches in wingspan, nine in height) was exploited by the Pacers. While Wallace defends guards well, he is vulnerable against bigger forwards like Siakam, a matchup the Pacers actively sought in Game 1, which the Thunder will inevitably concede due to their switching defense.
The obvious alternative to start is Alex Caruso. His defensive prowess is well-documented; if he can handle Nikola Jokić, he can likely hold up against anyone, including Siakam in the post, where he excels at ball denial. The Thunder undoubtedly considered this option.
Wallace likely got the nod for his offensive contributions, being a more reliable shooter than Caruso. However, Caruso isn`t typically a high-minutes player, averaging only 19 in the regular season as OKC managed his load. He played 28 minutes to Wallace`s 33 in Game 1. Increasing Caruso`s minutes risks diminishing the intensity he brings on every defensive possession – a balance Daigneault must weigh.
There`s no perfect counter to the Indiana Pacers; their unique style is why they reached the Finals and motivated Daigneault`s initial surprising adjustment. Caruso might be the best of the imperfect solutions. As Game 1 demonstrated, this series will not be the easy path many anticipated. Oklahoma City cannot rely solely on its 68-win reputation. Daigneault understood this beforehand, and now the rest of the team and fanbase should too.
Jasper Hawthorne