The forecasts could offer no comfort when Jalen Brunson’s shot struck the front rim. New York trailed San Antonio by one point in Game 4. OG Anunoby reached above the bodies beneath the basket and tipped the ball home with 1.2 seconds remaining. The Associated Press captured the tiny detail that made the finish possible: Brunson’s miss bounced softly off the rim.
Madison Square Garden had witnessed something without precedent. In the NBA’s official record, New York’s 29-point rally stands as the largest comeback in Finals history. Fifty-three years after the franchise’s previous championship, the Knicks stood one victory from ending the wait.
Nothing about that finish felt predictable. Yet a month earlier, one public forecast had already placed New York among the leading contenders. Oklahoma City, rather than San Antonio, looked like its likeliest Finals opponent.
Anunoby’s touch turned one possible ending into something the Garden could roar about. To understand how uncertain that ending once looked, rewind to May, when four contenders still crowded the clearest routes toward June.
What the May forecast actually told us
Predictium, a public sports prediction platform, published a May 6 playoff snapshot based on 10,000 simulations. Its page labeled that run a net-rating fallback model and said playoff-specific backtesting would follow. Those qualifications make it a useful reference, rather than an established authority readers should accept without scrutiny.
Oklahoma City had a 47.8% chance of reaching the Finals, close to a coin flip against the entire Western field. San Antonio followed at 36.0%. In the East, New York’s 43.4% barely separated it from Detroit’s 41.3%. The Knicks held the edge, but the forecast left little room to dismiss the Pistons.
What happens when you put those conference forecasts together? If the outcome in one conference does not affect the other, multiplying each pair’s chances gives a rough estimate. Thunder–Knicks lands at 20.7%, just ahead of Thunder–Pistons at 19.7%. Spurs–Knicks comes next at 15.6%, followed by Spurs–Pistons at 14.9%.
Those pairing estimates come from our calculations using Predictium’s rounded numbers; the platform did not publish them directly. Its own title forecast gave New York a 22.3% chance, second among the remaining teams.
The Knicks, then, hardly came from nowhere. This forecast already placed them among the strongest championship contenders.
Even the leading matchup remained a long way from certain. Thunder–Knicks accounted for roughly one chance in five. Take every other possible pairing together, and the better bet was that June would bring something else.
Four routes toward June
A bracket creates an obstacle that a list of championship favorites can hide. Oklahoma City and San Antonio could both look formidable, yet only one could represent the West.
That makes picking the best team a different exercise from guessing the Finals. A contender’s chances depend partly on who stands in its way. Two excellent teams sharing a conference can make each other less likely to reach June.
The four leading combinations also posed different basketball questions. A Thunder–Knicks series would demand scrutiny of Brunson’s ability to create against Oklahoma City’s perimeter defenders. Against Detroit, the Thunder would face another set of ball handlers, screening combinations and rebounding assignments.
San Antonio’s potential meetings required attention to Victor Wembanyama’s positioning. Could an opponent draw him away from the basket without sacrificing its own offensive rebounding? Would a guard finish the drive, release the pass early or retreat after seeing those arms?
Those questions help explain a matchup. They cannot supply an honest percentage without supporting evidence.
The May estimates established a starting point. Before trusting them further, a reader needed to know how the model handled injuries, opponent strengths, and uncertainty. A decimal place cannot answer those questions by itself.
Then the bracket narrowed, and hypothetical matchups gave way to actual possessions.
New York made San Antonio finish the job
The Finals put the Knicks opposite Wembanyama’s Spurs. New York won the series 4–1, but that margin conceals how precarious parts of the championship became.
The league’s game notes preserve the narrower truth: Games 2 and 4 each finished with a one-point difference. A comfortable series score can grow from uncomfortable nights. The championship still required New York to complete the possessions San Antonio could not.
Defense supplied part of the answer. Reviewing Game 1 for NBA.com, John Schuhmann traced how New York closed off San Antonio’s corner opportunities after halftime.
That adjustment offers something more useful than a vague claim about wanting victory more. Protecting the paint can leave a corner shooter unattended; staying connected to that shooter can expose a driving lane. The defensive task involves deciding where help comes from and how quickly the next defender moves.
A season-long rating can reflect the results of those decisions. It cannot explain every adjustment a coach will make after watching the previous half.
For the Knicks, the work continued after the first contest. Getting Brunson a shot did not guarantee a basket. Making San Antonio miss did not guarantee possession.
Game 4 would compress both problems into its closing seconds.
Anunoby needed two plays
NBA.com’s account of the finish begins at the other basket, where Anunoby chased down De’Aaron Fox and blocked his layup. That recovery gave New York the chance to complete its comeback.
The sequence gives the comeback its physical meaning. Anunoby had to recover toward his own basket before he could attack the other one. One effort preserved the opportunity; the next converted it.
Calling that finish an algorithm-shattering miracle would miss the basketball. The rebound still required a player to reach the ball. New York’s possession did not end when Brunson’s attempt missed.
Even the official game notes convey how little room remained: the Knicks trailed by 17 with fewer than nine minutes left. Anunoby’s tip completed a comeback that the Finals had never seen.
For supporters who had waited decades, the record mattered. So did the terrifying pause between the miss and the touch that changed everything.
Brunson closed the door
Three nights later, Brunson scored 45 points as New York won the clincher 94–90. The Associated Press’s championship account followed another escape: a 16-point deficit, then 13 consecutive Knicks points from Brunson in the fourth quarter.
That performance gives the offensive analysis a name and a consequence. Brunson did more than create a hypothetical advantage against length. He supplied the scoring that carried New York through the closing stretch of a championship game.
There lies the difference between discussing shot creation and watching someone bear its responsibility. A model can estimate how often an offense succeeds. Brunson still had to take the next shot.
What remains after the numbers settle
The championship ledger now places 2026 beside 1973 and 1970 in New York’s history. Between the two most recent titles stretched 53 years of waiting.
Fans who had inherited championship stories could finally tell one themselves. Anunoby’s hand above the rim would belong to their memory, rather than somebody else’s archive.
The forecasts still deserve a fair reading. A projection that leaves room for several outcomes does not fail simply because its leading scenario misses. Nor does picking the eventual champion prove that a model understands basketball better than its competitors.
The sharper criticism concerns how we present those numbers. Readers deserve a date, a clear explanation of what the percentage measures and an honest account of the model’s limits. Analysts should also distinguish their own calculations from figures a source actually published.
After that comes the film. Watch where the help defender stands. Follow the player who moves after the shot leaves Brunson’s hand. Notice that Anunoby’s winning touch required him to keep playing through a miss.
Those details do not make probability useless. They show what a percentage asks us to hold in mind: several endings remain possible until the players eliminate them.
For New York, the ending finally included a championship. The lasting image came earlier, with the ball hanging above the rim and Anunoby reaching for the inch that remained.
READ MORE: When NBA offenses decide to attack a mismatch rather than run their primary set
FAQs
Who won the 2026 NBA Finals?
The New York Knicks beat the San Antonio Spurs 4–1, winning their first championship since 1973.
How big was the Knicks’ Game 4 comeback?
The Knicks overcame a 29-point deficit, the largest comeback in NBA Finals history. OG Anunoby’s tip-in secured the win.
How many points did Jalen Brunson score in the championship clincher?
Brunson scored 45 points in Game 5. He supplied 13 consecutive Knicks points during the fourth quarter as New York won 94–90.
Which Finals matchup looked most likely in the May forecast?
Using Predictium’s May 6 figures, the article estimated Thunder–Knicks at 20.7%. That calculation assumes the two conference outcomes are independent.
Does an unexpected champion mean a prediction model failed?
One result cannot settle that question. A forecast can favor one outcome while still giving other teams a meaningful chance.
