Aug 22 2007
The NBA Should Go Back to the 2-2-1-1-1 Format For the Finals
I have never liked the 2-3-2 format for a seven game playoff series. I am convinced it gives the team with the home court advantage too much of a edge. Surprisingly, in the last 10 days I have heard 2 people from Boston (a sports radio talk show host and the Celtics head coach, Doc Rivers), complain about the the 2-3-2 format because they feel that this format gives the team with the home court advantage LESS of an advantage than the 2-2-1-1-1 format. What are they smoking? I might have expected that from a sports talk show host — who are rarely as smart as they think they are; but, from not Rivers — who seems like an intelligent guy (with his team’s great comeback Thursday night and his team’s 3-1 lead, he is looking even smarter this week).
Their complaint was that with the 2-3-2 format the team with the home court advantage does not get the “pivotal game 5″ at home. First of all, game 5 maybe be pivotal when the series is tied 2-2, however, it is only pivotal when the series is exactly 2-2. Their have been 61 finals played in NBA history and in less than half (25) was there a fifth game played when the series is tied was tied 2-2. In these series when the the NBA used the 2-3-3 format (1949, 1953-55, 85-present), the team with the home court advantage won an impressive 9 out of 11 finals (81.9 winning %). When the NBA used the 2-2-1-1-1 format (or a similar format with the 5th & 7th games still played at the home court of the team with the home court advantage), the team with the home court advantage only won 10 out of 14 finals (71.4 winning %).
This is partially because even if the team the with home court advantage loses game 5 and goes down 3-2, they now have the HUGE advantage of having both game 6 AND 7 at home. In the history of the NBA Finals, the home team (before game 5 of the 2008 Finals) is 227-126, or a 64.3 winning %. And no team has EVER won games 6 AND 7 on the road to win the finals. However, THREE times teams have won games 6 & 7 at home to win the finals. Also, in NBA history when the 3-2-3 format has been used, the team with the home court advantage has a 22-5 record (81.4 winning %) in winning the finals, while they are only 24-10 (70.6 winning %) with the other formats.
The other complaint that I read concerning the 2-3-2 format was that the team with the home court advantage is at a disadvantage because they have to play three straight games on the road (unless someone is swept) in front of a raucous crowd. While there is some validity to this argument, the other side of the coin is: that it is extremely difficult to beat a great team three straight games — even if all three games are at home. Statistically, this has held true in the NBA Finals. Under the 2-3-2 format, the team without the home court advantage is only 37-34 at home, or a 52.1 winning percentage. In 28 tries, only three times (only once in the first 24 tries) have they won all three games at home; in addition, three times they have LOST ALL THREE games at home.
The bottom line is: would you rather have games 6 & 7 at home or games 5 & 7 at home. I’ll take the former and the statistics (as of 2008) back up my reasoning (the extra traveling is not a persuasive argument to me with today’s jets).
Mark D. Hauser
Owner: http://UltimateSportsRankings.com