2026 NBA Finals Prediction Engine

KNICKSvs.SPURS

We use three different prediction engines to simulate the 2026 NBA Finals between the New York Knicks and San Antonio Spurs. See how we created the prediction models on Medium

Knicks Win the 2026 NBA Championship4-1
01

PACE-ADJUSTED EFFICIENCY MODEL

This is engine 1: the pace-adjusted efficiency model. It is the simplest of the three predictors. It uses only each team's offensive rating, defensive rating and pacing to predict the each team's probability of winning the 2026 NBA Finals after running 10,000 monte carlo simulations.

KnicksFavorites
100.0%
SpursUnderdogs
0.0%

Win Probability

0%
Sweep
100%
5 games
0%
6 games
0%
Game 7

Series Length Distribution

Projected Game Score

113.5 - 115.4

Knicks vs Spurs (neutral arena)

Pace

99.2

possessions per game

Win Probabilities (Home v Away)

Knickshome 53.4%|away 35.4%
Spurshome 64.6%|away 46.6%

Home Court Points Boost

+3.0 pts
02

ELO POWER RATING MODEL

This is engine 2: the elo power rating model. It rates every team with an elo system built game by game across the 2025-26 season. It then combines that with each finals team's pythagorean expectation (an estimate of how many games a team "should win" based on their offesive and defensive ratings) to predict each team's probability of winning the series after running 10,000 monte carlo simulations. The elo system is a better metric than engine 1 because it rewards beating good teams with higher power ratings and it adjusts for margin of victory.

KnicksFavorites
100.0%
SpursUnderdogs
0.0%

Win Probability

0%
Sweep
100%
5 games
0%
6 games
0%
Game 7

Series Length Distribution

Knicks Elo

1722.9

final season rating

Spurs Elo

1734.7

final season rating

Knicks Pythagorean Expectation

71.0%

expected win rate

Spurs Pythagorean Expectation

75.1%

expected win rate

Power Rating

60% ELO Rating / 40% Pythagorean Expectation

Slide toward ELO Rating to give more weight to season ELO ratings and toward Pythagorean Expectation to give more weight to scoring volume.

Knicks v Spurs Season Elo Trajectory

SpursKnicks
03

FOUR-FACTOR PLAYER IMPACT

This is engine 3: the four factor player-impact model. This is the most complex of the three predictors. It layers player-level projections on top of team-level four factors to produce a more granular prediction that can also be used to explore how the outcome of the series is affected when players are injured or playing time varies.

The layers are as follows:

  1. 1. Layer One: We calculate each team's efficiency rating using Oliver Dean's four factors: Effective Field Goal Percentage (eFG%), Turnover Percentage (TOV%), Offensive Rebounding Percentage (ORB%), Free Throw Attempt Rate (FTA Rate).
  2. 2. Layer Two: We score each player's individual offensive efficiency using their true shooting percentage and usage rate.
  3. 3. Layer Three: We adjust each player's individual offensive efficiency against the strength of their defender. You can view the matchups below.
  4. 4. Layer Four: We weight each player based on the number of minutes they are expected to play in the finals. You can adjust each players minutes to see how the series win probability for each team changes.
  5. 5. Layer Five: We combine layers 1-4 into a a single win probability for both teams using a logistic regression model. We then run 10,000 monte carlo simulations to simulate the series.
KnicksFavorites
100.0%
SpursUnderdogs
0.0%

Win Probability

0%
Sweep
100%
5 games
0%
6 games
0%
Game 7

Series Length Distribution

Four Factor Efficiency

Knicks55
Spurs58

Roster Lab

Flip a starter to injured or drag his minutes to rebuild the series. Each Knick is lined up against the Spur who guards him.

Jalen Brunson
PG · 30% usage · Rating 44
MIN
39
31.3
PTS
4.2
REB
4.6
AST
De'Aaron Fox
PG · 24% usage · Rating 40
MIN
37
12.7
PTS
3.0
REB
6.0
AST
Mikal Bridges
SG · 17% usage · Rating 51
MIN
33
10.0
PTS
3.6
REB
3.4
AST
Stephon Castle
SG · 24% usage · Rating 36
MIN
32
14.2
PTS
5.4
REB
4.2
AST
Josh Hart
SF · 16% usage · Rating 44
MIN
30
7.3
PTS
9.8
REB
4.6
AST
Julian Champagnie
SF · 15% usage · Rating 55
MIN
32
10.8
PTS
5.4
REB
1.8
AST
OG Anunoby
PF · 19% usage · Rating 53
MIN
36
20.6
PTS
4.8
REB
1.0
AST
Harrison Barnes
PF · 14% usage · Rating 54
MIN
8
0.0
PTS
1.0
REB
0.5
AST
Karl-Anthony Towns
C · 25% usage · Rating 58
MIN
31
11.9
PTS
10.6
REB
2.4
AST
Victor Wembanyama
C · 32% usage · Rating 63
MIN
40
25.4
PTS
11.2
REB
2.6
AST