Winning three in a row is tough, but that’s only because winning any specified three games is tough. Putting them all in a row doesn’t make it any tougher.
I’m fairly sure in the NBA no team has ever won three in a row at home, it’s not an advantage.
That’s kind of my point, that to win 3 in a row is extremely difficult; if the lower seeded team is expected to hold serve, it would be more attainable with a 2-2-1-1-1.
But you don’t need to win three in a row. It’s exactly as hard to win games 3, 4, and 5 as it is to win games 3, 4, and 6.
I disagree - the home team has a distinct advantage with the home crowd, which I feel is negated by having the 3 games in a row.
I’ve always heard the opposite. In every other major team sport, the playing field is essentially identical from one venue to the next; every baseball field is unique, with its own quirks (distance to the different parts of the outfield fences, heights of those fences, amount of foul territory, the way the grass is groomed, etc.), and most baseball teams are built to take advantage of the home field’s characteristics, like loading up on left-handed power hitters to take advantage of a short porch in right field. “Home field advantage” in baseball is a literal home field advantage. In other sports the only tangible advantage is the home crowd.
According to a brief Google search, MLB home-field advantage is typically 53-55%, NFL is 57-60% and NBA is about 60%.
This was covered by the master himself:
although his numbers are slightly different from the ones I found on the interwebs.
As markdash points out, the simple evidence is that MLB teams don’t enjoy a big home field advantage.
It’s true that the fields are different in some ways, but for one thing they’re not THAT different - it’s not like one team has the left field fence 250 feet away and another has it 400 feet away - and the parts that really matter, the diamond itself, are always the same. Very few games are decided by how a ball bounces off a wall, and after all they’re major leaguers who know to account for such things.
As Cecil mentioned, crowd effects are more important indoors than outdoors. And in baseball, most of the play is individual or one-on-one. Communication is generally less important, lessening the impact of crowd noise even.
It’s possible, though, that Mister Rik’s differences are a small effect as well. Perhaps with cookie cutter ball fields, the baseball home field advantage would be even lower than it is.
Detroit Pistons 2004 vs Los Angeles Lakers
Miami Heat 2006 vs Dallas Mavericks
NBA switched to 232 format for the finals in 1985.
Yes, of course the home team has an advantage (even if it is a small one), but that’s not the point. The point is, what does 3 games in a row have to do with anything? Couldn’t you just as easily say of the 2-2-1-1-1 format “The home team has an advantage, but it’s negated by having to play two games in a row at home, then one away, then another one at home”?
Actually, there were variations in NBA and NHL fields (and some may still exist). Hockey rinks varied in length; the difference was in the size of the center ice area.
Though there are park effects in baseball, the affect both teams equally. Crowd noise, OTOH, is not a factor: things are outdoors, which reduces reverberation, and communication on the field is done by visual signals, which can’t be drowned out by noise.
You can load up on players that fit your stadium, but to get to the postseason, you need players who can do well in any park.
Baseball’s playoff setup is partly tradition, but is also part of the fact that baseball is played every day and strategy is based upon that fact. The extra days of rest would mean a different game than in the regular season, especially with pitching rotations.
I stand corrected 
It seems to me that the biggest argument against 2-3-2 is the one Cheesesteak raised: the favored team can wind up with fewer home games than the underdog. It seems like one of the rewards for being the better team over the course of the season (so this doesn’t really apply to baseball’s stupid home-field advantage rule in the World Series) is that you get more home games than your opponents. That’s better for the team and for the team’s fans.
I know - all N games at a neutral field! (or split up amoung several neutral fields)
(Not a very serious proposal)
Brian
Actually only the 1919 series was played as 2-3-2-2. (well only one of the last two games was actually played). The 1920 series between Brooklyn and Cleveland was scheduled as 3-4-2 with the final game not played. The 1921 series was between the Giants and Yankees. All games were in the Polo Grounds and they alternated as home team.
I think it matters a bit if the way that things are structured is designed to give an advantage to one team over another or if one team is to have an advantage simply due to the fact that having an even number of games is silly.
Like for baseball, before 2003, home-field advantage for the World Series simply alternated from year to year. So, the team with this advantage got it as basically just a fluke. In this case, for me it makes more sense that the other team get some other advantage that would even things out a bit, and it seems that 2-3-2 does that. (And even since 2003, the home-field advantage for the World Series is not given by anything the team itself has done. Also, this holds for the Super Bowl, which is played at a neutral site.)
In other sports, and with the DSes and CSes in baseball, it’s a different story, in that the team with the better record has earned the advantage. So perhaps here, it might make more sense to make the home-field (court, rink, etc.) advantage a bit more advantageous.
Not to derail, but what are we talking about here? Is this home-and-away schedules during playoff series? What’s a 2-2-1-1-1?
2 games in City A
2 games in City B
1 game in City A (if necessary)
1 game in City B (if necessary)
1 game in City A (if necessary)
Not to mention, you can and usually do play baseball almost every day during the regular season. Teams playing each other for 2-4 games in a row on one field before traveling to a new location or hosting a new rival has been the regular-season norm since practically the beginning of time. The 2-3-2 is the natural adaptation of that to the postseason.
In basketball and hockey, playing games on consecutive nights is more the exception than the rule, even during the regular season, and a team almost never plays 3 nights in a row.