A key question and an X-Factor for each NBA second-round series

A sharpshooter, a spider, the myth of playoff sustainability, and a toe

While I’m saddened to leave behind one of the greatest first rounds the NBA has ever seen, I’m already pumped for what’s next.

Inconveniently for what’s ostensibly a preview, the Pacers and Cavs kicked things off minutes before we even knew what the last second-round matchup would be, so we have already had a taste of what’s to come in that series. We’ll start there.

If you’ve been around here for a bit, you know how we do previews. Let’s look at a key question and an X-Factor for each second-round series.

1) Cleveland Cavaliers vs. 4) Indiana Pacers

Season series: 3-1 Pacers (not including last night’s Game 1 win)

It may surprise some that the Pacers took the season series from Cleveland, even before last night’s Game 1 win, but context is required. The last two games, both Pacers wins, were in mid-April, when Cleveland rested most of their starters. Indiana was also missing Tyrese Haliburton for their lone loss. So, not a lot to take away from the regular season!

Key Question: How much of Game 1’s win was sustainable?

While Cleveland fans are understandably disappointed with Game 1’s result, a 121-112 loss, a lot went Indiana’s way in a pretty close contest.

The shooting disparity is the first thing to mention, as the Pacers shot a blinding 53% from deep, while the Cavs shot an equally-blinding-in-a-different-way 24%. While those accuracy numbers will change, Indiana also did a pretty good job of limiting Cleveland’s attempts from the perimeter (just 35% of their field goal tries, compared to their season average of 42%), something that coach Kenny Atkinson and staff will need to adjust to. Indiana has always focused on sticking to perimeter players and relying upon Myles Turner to clean up messes at the rim. While they aren’t as cartoonishly married to that principle as they were at the start of last year, it’s still a hallmark of their defense.

Darius Garland also missed the game with a toe injury. This is an increasingly distressing storyline; depending on the injury, it can be difficult to plant and make explosive movements with a bum tootsie, or even just to run. I’m not sure when Garland will return or how effective he’ll be when he does. The Cavs hoped super-sub Ty Jerome would be the answer, but the double-Cavalier (he played for Virginia in college) struggled against the mighty defense of, uh, Tyrese Haliburton:

(Haliburton played far better defensively than I expected, which makes me doubly resentful of his pathetic efforts during the regular season!)

There were other issues, too. The Pacers benefited from a few high-leverage friendly whistles. Those things tend to even out over a series. The Cavs’ defense seemed weirdly unsynchronized, and there were several breakdowns involving confusion on whether Jarrett Allen was switching or dropping:

Overall, this felt like almost everything went Indiana’s way, and they still were fighting for their life until the waning moments.

But. But but but. I set a trap with my opening question. Everything in the playoffs is a tiny sample; Cleveland can’t blindly bank on regression. “Sustainable” isn’t really the point. The Pacers now have one victory in the books and need to go just .500 the rest of the way to win the series. As good as the Cavs are, that’s a scary position to be in, particularly with Garland less than 100%.

(All that said, home teams almost always respond in spectacular fashion after losing Game 1; I’d be surprised if the Cavs don’t dominate Game 2).

X-Factor: Darius Garland’s toe Andrew Nembhard/Aaron Nesmith’s foul counts

Nesmith and Nembhard both played fantastically on Sunday night, and I’d expect them to be awesome for as long as they’re on the court (if maybe not quite so accurate from deep). Nembhard has officially penned his name in my book of playoff overperformers and dropped 23 points on just 10 field goal attempts. Nesmith had arguably the most exciting sequence of the night: a massive block on Donovan Mitchell that led to a quick transition three.

But both players have a frustrating fancy for stupid, stupid fouls. That will come back to bite them at some point this series.

Nembhard and Nesmith are simultaneously physical and undersized for their positions, which naturally leads to a lot of whistles. The Pacers’ defense struggles without them, particularly Nembhard. If they can’t keep themselves on the court, the threat of a Cavalanche grows dramatically.

1) Oklahoma City Thunder vs. 4) Denver Nuggets

Season series: 2-2

It was a weird season series; despite the tie, only one game was close. The most interesting thing to note is that the Thunder consistently scored well, but not outrageously so; when they won, it was because they boxed in the Nuggets' attack, and when they lost, it was because the Nuggets ran wild.

Key Question: Can the Thunder limit Jokic?

Last series, the Los Angeles Clippers made Jokic look mortal. You can’t throw a batter like Jokic the same pitch, so every game, the Clips mixed up their defensive coverages (almost to a fault; some looks deserved another turn through the batting order). While Jokic will always get his stats, they were much harder to amass than usual. I’ve rarely seen him look so uncertain.

You’d best believe the Thunder were taking notes.