Rummpd
06-15-2005, 06:31 AM
The 2,3,2 Finals System is it an Advantage to the Road Team?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Peter Rumm, MD
for HOOPSWORLD.com
Jun 14, 2005, 23:18
http://www.hoopsworld.com/member/article_13066.shtml (Subscription side)
Is the 2,3,2 format, which the NBA went to in 1985, an actual advantage to the initial road team?
Bill Walton on ABC during the 2nd game of the series stated that if the Spurs had lost the 2nd game all the pressure would fall on them since Detroit would most likely be favored in games 3-5 in this format. He cited Detroit's home playoff record (7 - 2) this year as one of the reasons for confidence and the Spurs road playoff record (which actually is not bad at 5-2 this year so far). He also cited Detroit's regular season road record of 36 and 5 which was second to the Spurs home regular season of 38 and 3 record and claimed that the Palace was the "toughest place to play in the NBA".
Quick question, Bill why did San Antonio (despite Duncan's injury) have a superior record at the SBC Center and have lost only once in the playoffs there?
Back to the point - how much pressure was really on the Spurs to win game II based on history?
The current finals system, which is obviously set up to help travel for the press, is seemingly an unfair burden to a home team to protect their hard earned home court advantage.
To me it also takes away from the excitement of alternating sites for games 5 - 7 (and takes away the possiblity of winning by the top seeded team on their home court in game 5.)
Michael Jordan weighed in on this in 1997 (according to a story found at www.slam.canoe.ca)and said this going into a match up with the Jazz with Bulls holding initial "home court": "The Bulls realize how crucial it is to protect their home court during the first two games against the Utah Jazz. That's because the next three are scheduled for Salt Lake City under the 2-3-2 finals setup. "It's tough," Michael Jordan said. "It puts the onus on the first two games. You lose one game and lose the home court advantage, you've got to play out there in Utah three straight games, where they've only lost three games. We have to take care of our business here at home. It's a tough way to live."
On the other hand, Coach Phil Jackson has seen the setup work both ways. "The first year we were in the finals, we lost the first game and all of a sudden it was panic time, and then we won the next four," Jackson recalls of the 1991 title series against the Los Angeles Lakers".
Despite Michael's and others view on the potential unfairness of the situation, any disadvantage may in fact not be as big as expected. A nice synopsis on why this is so was found on Answer.com:
"Some observers maintain that the advantage accruing to the higher-ranked team is greater under the 2-2-1-1-1 format than under the 2-3-2 format, since in the former case the higher-finishing team will have never played fewer home games than its opponent at any point in the series, while in the latter the lower team has three of the first five games at home, and can win the series in its stadium if the teams had split the first two games.
However, this may not be as helpful to the lower-finishing team as it appears. In the NBA Finals, only one time in 19 years has the home team for games 3-5 won all three, but it was last year Pistons. In fact, the road team has swept these three games (for instance, 1990, 1991, 2001)."
Also, according to Whowins.co, if a team does what the Spurs did during the last 20 years in any seven series in the playoffs, i.e., winning the first two games, the home team has gone on to win 20/22 times (90.9%).
That is not to say the Pistons could not win all three games and make it a series (remember they are the exception!); but statistically the Spurs must be feeling pretty good about things and should win the series based on not just these stats, but also due to their domination of games one and two at home.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By Peter Rumm, MD
for HOOPSWORLD.com
Jun 14, 2005, 23:18
http://www.hoopsworld.com/member/article_13066.shtml (Subscription side)
Is the 2,3,2 format, which the NBA went to in 1985, an actual advantage to the initial road team?
Bill Walton on ABC during the 2nd game of the series stated that if the Spurs had lost the 2nd game all the pressure would fall on them since Detroit would most likely be favored in games 3-5 in this format. He cited Detroit's home playoff record (7 - 2) this year as one of the reasons for confidence and the Spurs road playoff record (which actually is not bad at 5-2 this year so far). He also cited Detroit's regular season road record of 36 and 5 which was second to the Spurs home regular season of 38 and 3 record and claimed that the Palace was the "toughest place to play in the NBA".
Quick question, Bill why did San Antonio (despite Duncan's injury) have a superior record at the SBC Center and have lost only once in the playoffs there?
Back to the point - how much pressure was really on the Spurs to win game II based on history?
The current finals system, which is obviously set up to help travel for the press, is seemingly an unfair burden to a home team to protect their hard earned home court advantage.
To me it also takes away from the excitement of alternating sites for games 5 - 7 (and takes away the possiblity of winning by the top seeded team on their home court in game 5.)
Michael Jordan weighed in on this in 1997 (according to a story found at www.slam.canoe.ca)and said this going into a match up with the Jazz with Bulls holding initial "home court": "The Bulls realize how crucial it is to protect their home court during the first two games against the Utah Jazz. That's because the next three are scheduled for Salt Lake City under the 2-3-2 finals setup. "It's tough," Michael Jordan said. "It puts the onus on the first two games. You lose one game and lose the home court advantage, you've got to play out there in Utah three straight games, where they've only lost three games. We have to take care of our business here at home. It's a tough way to live."
On the other hand, Coach Phil Jackson has seen the setup work both ways. "The first year we were in the finals, we lost the first game and all of a sudden it was panic time, and then we won the next four," Jackson recalls of the 1991 title series against the Los Angeles Lakers".
Despite Michael's and others view on the potential unfairness of the situation, any disadvantage may in fact not be as big as expected. A nice synopsis on why this is so was found on Answer.com:
"Some observers maintain that the advantage accruing to the higher-ranked team is greater under the 2-2-1-1-1 format than under the 2-3-2 format, since in the former case the higher-finishing team will have never played fewer home games than its opponent at any point in the series, while in the latter the lower team has three of the first five games at home, and can win the series in its stadium if the teams had split the first two games.
However, this may not be as helpful to the lower-finishing team as it appears. In the NBA Finals, only one time in 19 years has the home team for games 3-5 won all three, but it was last year Pistons. In fact, the road team has swept these three games (for instance, 1990, 1991, 2001)."
Also, according to Whowins.co, if a team does what the Spurs did during the last 20 years in any seven series in the playoffs, i.e., winning the first two games, the home team has gone on to win 20/22 times (90.9%).
That is not to say the Pistons could not win all three games and make it a series (remember they are the exception!); but statistically the Spurs must be feeling pretty good about things and should win the series based on not just these stats, but also due to their domination of games one and two at home.