As I’m sure many of you know, in the NBA playoffs a typical series has two games at Team A’s city, then two at team B’s city, then 1 at city A, 1 at city B, and 1 at city A. (Call this the 2-2-1-1-1 format). Except in the NBA Finals, where there are two games at city A, three at city B, and two at city A (the 2-3-2 format). The reason apparently is to make travel easier for the many journalists covering the Finals.
I frequently see people complaining that the 2-3-2 format hurts the team without home court advantage (that is, the team with the middle three home games). The argument is that it’s really hard to win three games in a row against tough competition, so this basically ensures they’ll be losing at least one of their home games. (The most recent example I’ve seen of this argument is here, but there are many others.)
But isn’t this a crazy way to look at it? I mean, the two formats are exactly the same until you get to game five. And once you get to that point, it seems that under every scenario a team would rather have another home game immediately.
If you’re up 3-1, you’d rather have the chance to immediately close out the series on your home court.
If you’re tied 2-2, you’d rather have an immediate home game and thus an increased chance of taking a 3-2 lead and putting your opponents backs against the wall.
If you’re down 1-3, you’re likely screwed no matter what, but you’d still probably rather have a home game and a chance to get a win and recapture some momentum, instead of immediately facing an elimination game on the road.
So surely the 2-3-2 format favors the team with home court for three games, right? (I mean, as compared to the 2-2-1-1-1).
I would say that having three consecutive home games is a huge advantage, and that’s why I’m utterly opposed to the 2-3-2 format. The lower seed should not be given any advantage at all.
That strikes me as a bogus argument. Does it apply to a 2-2-1-1-1 series? Since you can’t win three-in-a-row, winning game 2 on the road means you’re just going to lose game 3 or 4 at home. Better to just phone it in during game 2, and get your two-in-a-row at home.
I like the way the frames are played in pro bowling. Player A bowls frame 1. Player B comes up and bowls frames 1 and 2. Player A bowls frames 2 and 3. There are cliches for going first (“he put the pressure on”) or second (“he knows just what he has to do”). Whichever is true, this method spreads the advantage evenly to both players. Has anyone suggested a 1-2-2-2 finals?
One team gets four home games and the other gets three. I like 2-3-2 because it minimizes the travel. If the players don’t waste their off days flying coast-to-coast, they’ll be better rested and it will be a better game. Apart from that, the order doesn’t matter. Stop whining and play the game.
Losing a game doesn’t guarantee you win another.
I’d be curious to see how many times the home team has won all three games in the NBA under the 2-3-2 format. I suspect the team with homecourt advantage wins games 1 and 2 more often than the ‘middle’ team sweeps games 3 through 5.
They did it for hockey(Anaheim/Ottawa). I don’t see why basketball can’t do the same. 3 home games in a row is definitely an advantage for the lower seed, 2-2-1-1-1 is the way to go.
while it might seem like the team with 3 straight home games has an advantage, other than the pistons in 04 I don’t think any team has ever one all three at home.
Sure most teams fail to win three straight games at home, but many of those same teams would lose one of their home games even if they were playing a 2-2-1-1-1 format. In particular, any team that lost game 3 or 4 at home can’t blame it on the 2-3-2 format.
Among teams who are successful in winning their first two home games, the question is whether they’re better off having their third home game immediately or having to play a road game first. As hard as it may be to get that third straight win at home, it’s going to be even harder to win on a hostile court.
I think most teams would rather have the best possible chance of winning game five. Facing two road games and knowing you only have to win one is less daunting than facing two straight “must win” games, even if one of those games is at home.
My point is, saying “It’s hard to win three straight at home” isn’t really relevant, because 2/3rds of that challenge would have existed even without the 2-3-2 format.
The format change can’t effect the series until game 5, so it only makes sense to look at how it effects what happens from game five onward.
I think the 2-3-2 makes it more fair for the “3” team. If the series goes 4 games, it is even 2-2. If it goes 5 games, the lower team actually has the advantage. At 6 games it is even again, and only if the series goes the full seven games does the high seed actually get home court advantage.
I think this is good because let’s take Boston-LA this year. While Boston has a better record and is the higher seeded team, each team has played a vastly different schedule, and it wouldn’t be fair to completely sink the Lakers under a 2-2-1-1-1 format…
Personally, I think minimizing home-court advantage is a GOOD thing in the Finals. They should be played at a neutral site, but since they aren’t, why reward a team for playing in a weaker conference?
Let’s look at the recent history. Since the end of the Bulls dynasty, there have been nine NBA finals.
Remember, the 2-3-2 format can’t be a factor until game five, since until then it’s identical to the 2-2-1-1-1. Thus, if the favorites sweep the first four games, then the 2-3-2 format isn’t a factor. This happened twice. Likewise, if the favorites take a 3-1 lead they’re nearly certain to win, so the 2-3-2 format isn’t a factor. This happened three times.
In 2003 the Nets lost game five at home en route to a 4-2 series loss. But they’d already lost game three, so you can’t blame the game five loss on the difficulty of winning three straight.
In 2005, the Pistons lost game five at home en route to a 4-3 series loss. But they won game 6. So there’s no reason to think the outcome was any different than in the 2-2-1-1-1, where the only difference is that home court is reversed for games 5 and 6.
In 2004 the Pistons won their three straight home games en route to a 4-1 series win. This was considered a huge upset.
In 2006, the Heat won their three straight home games en route to a 4-2 series win and another big upset.
In total, that’s two years where the 2-3-2 arguably helped the underdog pull off a big upset, vs. no years where the 2-3-2 clearly hurt the underdog.
Most arguments I’ve heard claim that the 2-3-2 format improves the chances for the lower seeded team. I think this is the case because a team that steals one of the first two road games can win the series without the higher seeded team having a chance at another home game.
I also like this because I think that in the NBA finals there should be as little of an advantage for one team over the other as possible. In the NFL the Super Bowl teams have no advantage and I think that is the ideal scenario. Baseball has always disconnected homefield advantage from the regular season records for good reason. If it were proven that the 2-3-2 benefits the higher seeded team I’d argue it should be changed to whatever scenario has the smallest home court advantage.
