OutKick89%

Oklahoma City Thunder at San Antonio Spurs Game 4 best bets include a side and two player props 45%

By Geoff Clark0%

5/24/2026, 6:39:12 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 19 faulty reasoning types, including Confirmation Bias, Appeal to Emotion, and Anchoring Bias, with Recency Bias as the most egregious example at 9.3% saturation with 55 hits. Analysis detected 594 faulty-reasoning hits from 591 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 48% and a BS Rank of 45% (11,155 of 20,145 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 55.40% of the article peer group.

Besides the New York Knicks, who are destroying the East, the Oklahoma City Thunder had the most impressive performance so far this postseason vs. the San Antonio Spurs in Game 3 of the 2026 Western Conference Finals. 
The Thunder weathered the storm after the Spurs 15 points in their 123-108 Game 3 win. 
The foul merchant himself, Shai Gilgeous-Alexander, overcame a poor shooting performance Friday to score a team-high 26 points by hitting 12-of-12 free throws. 
However, Oklahoma City won Game 3 thanks to its terrific bench and by keeping Victor Wembanyama off the glass, as he grabbed the fewest rebounds (four) among San Antonio's starting 5. 
OUTKICK IS NOW ON THE FOX APP: CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD 
They run it back Sunday with OKC holding a 2-1 series lead. 
Without further ado, here are my looks for the Thunder-Spurs Game 4 of the 2026 Western Conference Finals. 
Best Bets for Oklahoma City Thunder at San Antonio Spurs Game 4 
Oklahoma City's depth will be tested Sunday. 
The Thunder could be missing All-Star wing Jalen Williams, aka J-Dub, who is questionable for Game 4, and they will definitely be without 2025-26 NBA Sixth Man of the Year finalist, Ajay Mitchell. 
THUNDER STAR JARED MCCAIN SAYS HE GETS HATE FOR PAINTING HIS NAILS AND DOING TIKTOK DANCES ONLINE 
But OKC's bench stepped up in a big way for Game 3. 
Especially PF Jaylin Williams and SG Jared McCain. 
Williams scored 18 points and went 5-for-6 from behind the arc. 
McCain added 24 points on 10-for-21 shooting. 
This leads me to my first player prop for Game 4: Jared McCain UNDER 13.5 points. 
Out of principle, I have to bet on a bench player's Under after a career-best playoff performance. 
First of all, McCain had the unlimited green light Friday and I'm literally betting on him getting less usage despite OKC missing two rotation players. 
He attempted the most field goals for either team in Game 3. 
That's insane for a backup in a conference finals. 
Also, McCain went 3-for-4 with Wemby defending him Friday. 
That's almost impossible and indicates just how irrationally confident he was in Game 3. 
Whether it's pure regression or coaching adjustments by the Spurs, McCain will come back down to earth Sunday. 
SPURS PHENOM VICTOR WEMBANYAMA MAKES NBA HISTORY WITH FIRST CAREER DEFENSIVE PLAYER OF THE YEAR AWARD 
My second player prop is Victor Wembanyama OVER 13.5 rebounds (+105). 
He has grabbed 14+ rebounds in seven of his 13 games this postseason. 
Wemby was injured in and ejected from two of the games in which he fell short of 14 rebounds. 
Wembanyama will be pissed after his team blew a 15-0 lead to start Game 3 and he got out-rebounded by all of San Antonio's starters and Thunder C Isaiah Hartenstein. 
This should motivate Wemby to dominate the paint and glass more Sunday. 
Finally, I'm sticking with my pre-series read that the Spurs would advance to the NBA Finals and I'm betting them to even the conference finals, and cover the -2.5, before heading back to OKC for Game 5. 
Maybe it's a year or two too soon for San Antonio and I'm just wrong. 
But I cannot believe Oklahoma City is good enough or deep enough to beat Wembanyama without its second-best player, J-Dub. 
Prediction: Spurs 113, Thunder 107 
_____________________________ 
Follow me on X @Geoffery-Clark, and check out my OutKick Bets Podcast for more betting content and random rants. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.0%Geoff Clark: 15.6%Fox Nation: 4.1%Confirmation Bias9.0%This article: 8.3%Geoff Clark: 6.8%Fox Nation: 1.2%Anchoring Bias8.3%This article: 4.2%Geoff Clark: 4.8%Fox Nation: 3.6%Availability Heuristic4.2%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 4.9%Fox Nation: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 2.4%Geoff Clark: 1.4%Fox Nation: 0.9%Hindsight Bias2.4%This article: 7.3%Geoff Clark: 10.7%Fox Nation: 3.1%Overconfidence Bias7.3%This article: 8.0%Geoff Clark: 3.0%Fox Nation: 12.0%Framing Effect8.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 1.7%Fox Nation: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Geoff Clark: 0.5%Fox Nation: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 3.7%Fox Nation: 2.8%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.5%Geoff Clark: 1.1%Fox Nation: 1.7%Pessimism Bias2.5%This article: 4.9%Geoff Clark: 2.7%Fox Nation: 10.9%Negativity Bias4.9%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 2.7%Fox Nation: 2.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.8%Fox Nation: 1.4%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.3%Fox Nation: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 1.9%Fox Nation: 3.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 1.1%Fox Nation: 2.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Geoff Clark: 4.4%Fox Nation: 2.9%Halo Effect2.7%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 1.0%Fox Nation: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 9.3%Geoff Clark: 10.0%Fox Nation: 1.4%Recency Bias9.3%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.6%Fox Nation: 2.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.7%Straw Man0.0%This article: 2.7%Geoff Clark: 7.4%Fox Nation: 5.1%Appeal to Authority2.7%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.4%Fox Nation: 1.8%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.4%Fox Nation: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 8.3%Fox Nation: 6.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 2.9%Geoff Clark: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.6%Red Herring2.9%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.8%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.0%Geoff Clark: 2.0%Fox Nation: 7.8%Appeal to Emotion9.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.6%Fox Nation: 1.3%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 7.3%Geoff Clark: 2.9%Fox Nation: 2.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.3%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.4%Fox Nation: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 2.9%Fox Nation: 2.3%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.9%Geoff Clark: 0.9%Fox Nation: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.9%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.2%Fox Nation: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 3.4%Geoff Clark: 1.2%Fox Nation: 0.1%Personal Incredulity3.4%This article: 2.9%Geoff Clark: 1.1%Fox Nation: 0.2%Special Pleading2.9%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.1%Fox Nation: 0.6%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.0%Fox Nation: 1.7%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.2%Fox Nation: 1.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 6.6%Fox Nation: 6.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.3%Fox Nation: 1.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.0%Fox Nation: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Geoff Clark: 0.0%Fox Nation: 3.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 5.1%Geoff Clark: 5.1%Fox Nation: 1.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…5.1%

591 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers5.8%attributed speech557writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageShai Gilgeous-Alexander • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageOutKick • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

OutKick

100%flagged-word coverage
11 attributed words32% of attributed speech73% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product +96.6 ptsWriter: 3.4%OutKick: 100.0%100.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.