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

[DavidSterned]

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.

My team? I'm not a Celtics fan but nice try there little defensive Laker homer.

The Lakers choked in 1984 and the Celtics choked in 1987. Both of those series could have been reversed. 1985 was about Bird being unusually ineffective and Parish forgetting how basketball works.

[hourockman]

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.

My team? I'm not a Celtics fan but nice try there little defensive Laker homer.

The Lakers choked in 1984 and the Celtics choked in 1987. Both of those series could have been reversed. 1985 was about Bird being unusually ineffective and Parish forgetting how basketball works.

Wow. You have a lot of excuses working there. You're so inexperienced at this that you don't even know the original excuse for the Celtics in 87 (which was McHale having a bad foot).

[DavidSterned]

My team? I'm not a Celtics fan but nice try there little defensive Laker homer.

The Lakers choked in 1984 and the Celtics choked in 1987. Both of those series could have been reversed. 1985 was about Bird being unusually ineffective and Parish forgetting how basketball works.

Wow. You have a lot of excuses working there. You're so inexperienced at this that you don't even know the original excuse for the Celtics in 87 (which was McHale having a bad foot).

Maybe your memory is foggy or maybe you just never knew to begin with. The original excuse for the Celtics choking was fatigue from the ECF while LAL had a cake walk Western Conference. When Boston blew an 8 point lead in the final minutes of Game 4, fatigue was the excuse. McHale was fairly healthy by the finals.

[EscapoTHB]

I think it's very hard for two good teams to not end up with at least 6 games in the 2-3-2 format. Because it's impossible to sweep the middle 3 games if both teams are good. So the road team basically has to win two road games to win the title.

Does anyone know how many teams have managed to sweep the middle three games?

[Lakerfan17]

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?

jordansbulls stretching so hard with his anti laker agenda he should change his screename to gumby

[JordansBulls]

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?

jordansbulls stretching so hard with his anti laker agenda he should change his screename to gumby

What are you talking about? This is the first year the 2-3-2 format was instituted and considering the season before the series was 2-2 with game 5 in Boston which gave Boston the momentum, this season when the series was 2-2 then game 5 was in LA which gave LA the momentum. This is certainly a logical question.

[celtics792244]

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.

My team? I'm not a Celtics fan but nice try there little defensive Laker homer.

The Lakers choked in 1984 and the Celtics choked in 1987. Both of those series could have been reversed. 1985 was about Bird being unusually ineffective and Parish forgetting how basketball works.

Actually, 87 wasn't even close. LA got the one they needed (game 4) and were content. The ball did go off of Thompson, though, on Kareem's missed FT. No doubt, LA would have gotten game 5 if they lost game 4. C's got ran off the court in LA. No sniff.

[Sedale Threatt]

I think it's very hard for two good teams to not end up with at least 6 games in the 2-3-2 format. Because it's impossible to sweep the middle 3 games if both teams are good. So the road team basically has to win two road games to win the title.

Does anyone know how many teams have managed to sweep the middle three games?

I want to say two -- 04 Pistons, 06 Heat. In 27 years.

I know the 90 Pistons and 91 Bulls managed to take all three games on the road. Might have been a couple of more.

[Sedale Threatt]

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

So should we change the thread title to: 1985 Finals -- Did Larry Bird's stupidity kill Boston?

[DEEP3CL]

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.

While Game 5 is always a key game, fact of the matter is in 85 it wasn't going to matter where Game 5 was. The Lakers were the better team and still would've kicked Boston's ass even if that game was there. Point was proven in Game 6 there.

[Chronz]

What killed Boston was the brutal, torturous gauntlet that was the Eastern Playoffs. Lakers usually made the Finals with minimal effort

[Sedale Threatt]

We've already covered that.

The original excuse for the Celtics choking was fatigue from the ECF while LAL had a cake walk Western Conference.

[DavidSterned]

We've already covered that.

Really? Where?

I'm not defending the excuse as I feel LA generally had a superior team in 1986-87. But that was, in fact, a major excuse given for Boston's struggles in the Finals. Boston went through back to back brutal series against Milwaukee and Detroit while LA beat up on some pretty lousy teams in the Western Conference playoffs.

[DavidSterned]

Actually, 87 wasn't even close. LA got the one they needed (game 4) and were content. The ball did go off of Thompson, though, on Kareem's missed FT. No doubt, LA would have gotten game 5 if they lost game 4. C's got ran off the court in LA. No sniff.

I think Boston would have still won Game 5 even if they had pulled out Game 4. Then the Lakers protect their home court in 7. Boston was **** on the road that year and got outplayed badly in the Finals road games.

[Sedale Threatt]

Really? Where?

I wasn't responding to you. I was using your quote to illustrate that the excuse in the post previous to mine had already been mentioned, by you.

While we're on the subject, I'm sure it was a factor. But champions beat all comers. That's part of the process. The 88 Lakers, for example, did everything this team couldn't. Not only did they survive a brutal gauntlet, they won the last two games at home trailing 3-2.

I suppose the only difference was that Magic wasn't dumb enough to injure himself in a bar brawl.