The Better Team Wins

You know how you can tell which is the better team? It wins, that's how. Trust me, I have a lot of experience rooting for teams that have lost to better ones.

In 1973, the Mets lost to the A's in the World Series. Both teams were good; the A's were better.

In 1994, the Knicks lost to the Rockets in the NBA finals. Both team were good; the Rockets were better. 

In 2001, the Giants lost to the Ravens in Super Bowl 35. Both teams were good; the Ravens were better.

In 2014, the Rangers lost to the Kings in the Stanley Cup finals. Both teams were good; the Kings were better.

In 2015, the Mets lost to the Royals in the World Series. Again both teams were good; the Royals were better.

So far in the 2026 NBA finals, a lot of people have tied themselves up in knots coming up with reasons for why the Knicks couldn't possibly be the better team in this series. They point out that over the first four games, the Spurs have led for a total of 133 minutes while the Knicks have led for only 52 minutes, ergo the Spurs are better. Such a stat is about as useless as time of possession is in football. Many a team has won the time of possession while losing the game.

The fact is the Knicks have won three of the four games in this series not because they led for the majority of the time, but because they led at the end of regulation. Last time I checked, the final score was the only thing that mattered. 

Look, have the Spurs gotten off to a good start in these finals? Most definitely, yes. San Antonio has led at the end of all four first quarters. In fact, they've held double-digit leads in every game of this series. But as good as they've been in the first quarter of these games, the Knicks have been better as the game as the games have gone on. New York is a collective -47 in the first quarter, but in quarters two, three and four, they're a +24, +16 and +15 respectively. The 29-point lead the Spurs blew in the second half of game four represents the largest blown lead ever in an NBA final. That singular distinction belongs to them, not the Knicks.

This postseason, the Knicks have played better on the road than they have at Madison Square Garden. They're +171 away vs +108 at home. All three closeout games have occurred in the visitors arena, while both huge comebacks have occurred in their own. Clearly, living out of a suitcase is no problem for this team.

The Knicks have the best player in this final. They might even have the second best player. That is not a knock on the Spurs; it's just a fact based on everything we've observed from watching both teams in the closing minutes. With the exception of game three, the Knicks have been the more composed, more poised and more mature team on the court. Their best players have been better than the Spurs best players, and it hasn't been remotely close.

Ask yourself this question. Who would rather have when the game is on the line: Jalen Brunson and OG Anunoby or De'Aaron Fox and Julian Champagnie? That was a rhetorical question, by the way. I wasn't looking for answer.

I don't know why this is so hard for some people. The Knicks are not leading 3-1 because they've been lucky or because they had an easy path to the finals. They're leading because they've been the better team.

Is it possible that the Spurs can come back and win this series? Of course it is. And if they do, guess what? They will be the better team. 

That's how this works; it's how it's always worked. There are no participation trophies when it comes to sports. There are just winners and losers. The winners get to celebrate with their teammates on a podium and receive a ring; the losers get to go home empty handed. 

Sorry if that ruins your narrative, but then I've never been very good at drawing narratives. Besides, I'm a Rangers fan. Who knows more about losing to better teams than us?