1985 Finals - Did the 2-3-2 format kill Boston that season?

[JordansBulls]

As everyone knows in 1985 the 2-3-2 format was developed for the NBA Finals. The season before in the 1984 finals the Celtics played the Lakers and while the series was tied up 2-2 (having the 2-2-1-1-1) format the Celtics won game 5 to take a 3-2 series lead as game 5 was at home.

In 1985 the series was 2-2 but this time the Celtics had to play game 5 on the road. Now it is true games 6 and 7 would have been in Boston, but does anyone think the new format killed Boston in this series because they were not used to having to play a game 5 on the road in the finals knowing they had HCA?

Thoughts!!!

[nate33]

I always thought the 2-3-2 format was very difficult for the team without HCA. It's extremely hard to win 3 games in a row, which means that the no-HCA team must win two road games to win the series.

[LAKERS_1981]

No the Lakers kill the Boston in 1985 with being a better team.

Game 1 Lakers 114 Boston 148
Game 2 Lakers 109 Boston 102
Game 3 Lakers 136 Boston 111
Game 4 Lakers 105 Boston 107
Game 5 Lakers 120 Boston 111
Game 6 Lakers 111 Boston 100

This is simple Lakers were the better team that year(and i think were the better team the year before but mistakes from Worthy and Magic kill that series).

[Chosen01]

I always thought the 2-3-2 format was very difficult for the team without HCA. It's extremely hard to win 3 games in a row, which means that the no-HCA team must win two road games to win the series.

I disagree, you can flip it either way.

If you can steal one on the road of the first two games going home is huge or if the team is a very good home team then they can take advantage of the 3 home games.

[Sedale Threatt]

It's almost impossible to sweep those middle three games at home. It's only happened a couple of times.

As for the 85 Celtics, I'm pretty sure that if somebody had told them at the beginning of the series they'd have two home games to win the championship they'd have taken it in a heartbeat.

They could have sucked it up like the 88 Lakers or 10 Lakers would later do. But they didn't.

[JordansBulls]

No the Lakers kill the Boston in 1985 with being a better team.

Game 1 Lakers 114 Boston 148
Game 2 Lakers 109 Boston 102
Game 3 Lakers 136 Boston 111
Game 4 Lakers 105 Boston 107
Game 5 Lakers 120 Boston 111
Game 6 Lakers 111 Boston 100

This is simple Lakers were the better team that year(and i think were the better team the year before but mistakes from Worthy and Magic kill that series).

I'm not saying the Lakers would not have won, just asking if not having game 5 at home is what doomed the Celtics this year since they were not used to be on the road having HCA in the finals.

[TheXFactor]

Lakers beat their asses in their house, twice.

If you can't protect your home court, then you lose, dont care if the format is 1-1-1-1-1-1-1,

[hourockman]

I'm not saying the Lakers would not have won, just asking if not having game 5 at home is what doomed the Celtics this year since they were not used to be on the road having HCA in the finals.

You want to know the difference between 84 and 85?

In 85, the Lakers sacked up and got physical against them when the Cs tried to push them and hack them and intimidate them -- which was a successful ploy for Boston in 84 (and in most years, even recent ones). The Celtics have historically felt comfortable with a chip on their shoulders. If they think it gives them a mental advantage over the opponent, they'll try it. Many opponents will respond in kind, but typically a year or two later.

85 was also more about what the Lakers did at Boston Garden than what the Celtics did there. None of the mistakes that cost LA the title in 84. No "Henderson steals the ball!" scene.

Lakers in 2010 did the same thing to the team that was more physical and imposing (pretend or otherwise...we all know KG is acting) in 2008.

[sisibilio]

I'm not saying the Lakers would not have won, just asking if not having game 5 at home is what doomed the Celtics this year since they were not used to be on the road having HCA in the finals.

I guess Bird getting hurt in that barfight had a little more to d with it than whatever format the final had.

[druggas]

Last I checked, it takes 4 wins out of 7 games to be champs.

Stoopid thread.

[DavidSterned]

I'm not saying the Lakers would not have won, just asking if not having game 5 at home is what doomed the Celtics this year since they were not used to be on the road having HCA in the finals.

I guess Bird getting hurt in that barfight had a little more to d with it than whatever format the final had.

Yeah 1985 was more about Bird being hurt and his shooting being atrocious. If he's totally healthy then Boston probably wins the series.

[hourockman]

I'm not saying the Lakers would not have won, just asking if not having game 5 at home is what doomed the Celtics this year since they were not used to be on the road having HCA in the finals.

I guess Bird getting hurt in that barfight had a little more to d with it than whatever format the final had.

Yeah 1985 was more about Bird being hurt and his shooting being atrocious. If he's totally healthy then Boston probably wins the series.

Lol. You know what this is? This is the 2012 Real GM excuse for a 1985 series. Classic Real GM.

The Showtime Lakers weren't good enough to beat the Celtics because the 5th game was at the Forum and because Larry Bird was in a bar midseries and he fought with someone...

[DavidSterned]

Lol. You know what this is? This is the 2012 Real GM excuse for a 1985 series. Classic Real GM.

The Showtime Lakers weren't good enough to beat the Celtics because the 5th game was at the Forum and because Larry Bird was in a bar midseries and he fought with someone...

Laugh if you want but it definitely affected him. 1985 postseason Bird was probably the least effective Bird was during his prime years between 1983 and 1988. It wasn't the only reason the Celtics lost (Parish getting schooled by Kareem played a big part), but it did have an impact.

[hourockman]

Lol. You know what this is? This is the 2012 Real GM excuse for a 1985 series. Classic Real GM.

The Showtime Lakers weren't good enough to beat the Celtics because the 5th game was at the Forum and because Larry Bird was in a bar midseries and he fought with someone...

Laugh if you want but it definitely affected him. 1985 postseason Bird was probably the least effective Bird was during his prime years between 1983 and 1988. It wasn't the only reason the Celtics lost (Parish getting schooled by Kareem played a big part), but it did have an impact.

Yeah... I'm gonna laugh. Your team lost and then the Showtime Lakers beat them again in 87 for good measure. They choked in 84 otherwise they would've won that series too.

[Mamba Venom]

If there is no game 7, you can't complain.

But the 2-2-1-1-1 format killed the Lakers and the Boston plumber made it 114 degrees in the Laker locker room like a poor sport. Just as shadey as the food poisoning in Sactown in 2002. The fans have won a few games here and there.