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 le 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.
I hate the 2-3-2. No Team, let alone the lower seed, should have the opportunity to get on 3 game roll at home. To me one of the big advantages of having home court in the earlier rounds (besides having 1 more home game) is that the home team has game 5 back at home to stop any kind of run the lowe seed can get on at home.
ing TV people.
I believe that the Spurs will bounce back and win game 4 and hopefully 5 as well (will be there for that one in Detroit "keeping a low profile")
Keep very low. Hate to see you get hurt.
Oh yeah, why do you think the Spurs win game 5.
They will have learned a lession from playing bad/weak in game 3
I hope its that easy.
It will be for Duncan I think.
The 2-3-2 format is used to even the playing field as much as possible. The higher seed gets the 4 games, and the lower seed gets 3 in a row. I don't agree with it, but I guess there is a logic to it. Personally, I'd rather have game 6 at home and alternate. As a Piston fan, I don't want to go back to San Antonio for 6 AND 7.
And, there's only one team in history to win all 3 games of the middle 3 format. Can you name the team?
Detroit Pistons, 2004.
See that point in the article - and the 2004 team will still be the only one to do it!
Spurs played absolutely worst game but were within 11 with a in out 3 pointer by Bowen about 6 minutes left.
They won't get blown out again and will win at least one of next two.
To prove you are the Champ you must win on the road.
Past statistics are a lousy gauge for current games. Each team is different in the way they respond to wins and losses in a series.
And injuries, refereeing and simple little breaks of the game when the ball just happens to bounce one way or another play a big part in the way the series goes as well.
In my opinion, the Spurs don't deserve to be champs if they can't win one in Detroit. The venue shouldn't matter.
It's all about execution and effort. The Spurs had neither last night.
You are correct. The Pistons were the first to win all 3 HOME games. Others have won middle 3 games on the road.
I don't know about the home team loosing advantage w/2-3-2. But I think the probability of a Longer series increases w/2-3-2. In the end, the better team will win I beleive, but it'll be an unnecessary longer series, like this one
This is going to embarrass the out of you, but three other teams have done it.
-The 2001 Lakers
-The 1991 Bulls
and . . . The 1990 Pistons.
ShoogarBear - that was an an exact quote from another source and believe that was the "home team" for games 3-5. It was alluded to later in article that three road teams have swept the 3-5 games.
See below!
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)."
I'm sure the spurs wouldn't give two s if they had to get all four wins at home.
The 2-3-2 series is an advantage to the road team if they were to take one of the first two. But now the pressure is on them to hold their home court.
well said and historically true
GO SPURS!
Of course, with the Spurs one of the few teams to lose 4 straight after winning the first two, and the Pistons one of the few to win all 3 at home, does this really bode well?
The Pistons will not win any games in SA. Not going to happen.
Why not? Den & Phx both won 1, the way DET playing @ home, we'll be heading back down 3-2 & Det can pull off 1 win if given the chance @ SBC.
Game 5 is a must just like game 5 of last yrs against the Fakerz. Sadly I don't see what adjustments POP can make to turn this anic ship around.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
