RealGM

In 1985, the NBA changed the finals from 2-2-1-1-1 to a 2-3-2 format. This concept seems counterintuitive to the goal of taking home court advantage. Home court advantage doesn't merely mean having more home games. The point is that is home court holds for both teams, the team with home court should not have to face an elimination game until Game 7, which they have at home. 2-3-2 puts an unfair burden on the team that earned the advantage, by forcing them to potentially win back to back elimination games to win a title.

Since 1985, there are three series where the 2-3-2 format hurt the team with home court advantage:

1985: The Celtics went down 2-1 against the Lakers, and then won Game 4 on DJ's buzzer beater. However, instead of taking that momentum back to the Garden, they were forced to play a 3rd straight game at the Forum, which they lost. Had the Celtics had the home court advantage in Game 5, it is possible they would have won and at least forced that series seven games.

1988: The Lakers and Pistons has a split in the first four games. However, the Pistons played Game 5 at home, won and forced the Lakers to have to win two elimination games to win the title. Although the Lakers did, one could easily argue that a big reason they won was Isiah Thomas' ankle.

2006: Dallas won the first two games at home, and Miami won the next two at home. However, Miami had Game 5 at home and the advantage (especially regarding the officiating), and went up 3-2 eventually winning at Dallas. This is especially interesting because going home in Game 5 may have halted the momentum shift that was going Miami's way in that series. Instead, Miami continued to rally around their home crowd and went on to win the series.

Obviously, if home court holds, the team with home court advantage wins. Unfortunately, this format places the burden on the team who has home court advantage because they face elimination first. The idea of the best regular season team being forced to play three straight games in one away building, while they cannot do so themselves, is especially mystifying. It is also ludicrous because the rest of the playoffs are played in the 2-2-1-1-1 format, but suddenly this is changed for the finals.

I have been arguing this for years, but now that my team is facing this potential problem, I am obviously making a bigger deal about it. So far in the playoffs the Celtics have often been two different teams at home and away, and while I believe they can win in LA, I am pretty sure they won 66 games in the regular season so that they do not have to play three straight there.

Anyone else kind of get where I'm coming from?[/i]

I have been ranting about it in vain for over 20 years.

Celtics MUST hold serve.

Being a frequent Philadelphia to Phoenix traveler, I can say that 2-3-2 format is far from being a joke. It is the right thing to do. It really takes a toll on anybody with the jetlag, and the length of the flight.

For me, homecourt advantage means that we get to play the first game at home, and if the series goes to a max we get to end the series playing at home.

rperez2007 wrote:Being a frequent Philadelphia to Phoenix traveler, I can say that 2-3-2 format is far from being a joke. It is the right thing to do. It really takes a toll on anybody with the jetlag, and the length of the flight.

For me, homecourt advantage means that we get to play the first game at home, and if the series goes to a max we get to end the series playing at home.

Since the 2-3-2 went in before the 84-85 season there have been only 3 seven game finals.

It effectively negates the home court advantage.

rperez2007 wrote:Being a frequent Philadelphia to Phoenix traveler, I can say that 2-3-2 format is far from being a joke. It is the right thing to do. It really takes a toll on anybody with the jetlag, and the length of the flight.

For me, homecourt advantage means that we get to play the first game at home, and if the series goes to a max we get to end the series playing at home.

No one is disagreeing with that point. The main gripe for me and most other fans is why change it for the finals? Do 2-2-1-1-1 all the way through or 2-3-2 all the way through. Why change it for one series?

rperez2007 wrote:Being a frequent Philadelphia to Phoenix traveler, I can say that 2-3-2 format is far from being a joke. It is the right thing to do. It really takes a toll on anybody with the jetlag, and the length of the flight.

For me, homecourt advantage means that we get to play the first game at home, and if the series goes to a max we get to end the series playing at home.

Three things:

1) Both teams are traveling, so if anything, they will both be jet lagged. It is a wash. And they are the greatest players on earth, they can overcome it.

2) There is a three day rest between Game 4 and Game 5 (for television purposes), so the players will be sitting around LA for an extra day when the jet lag will probably have worn off. When they start traveling again, it is the standard two day rest. The NBA is not concerned with the players' traveling.

3) While there isn't a three time zone difference in the first three rounds, players seem to be able to travel frequently and still be effective.

I can see a scenario where having 232 in inter-conference competition (basically Finals) format may make some sense. for example this year's finals, is it fair to give boston the absolute edge in home court (22111 format) for playing more games in a weaker conference over the lakers? maybe this was one of the factors in the nba's decision? Just some food for thought. I personally think 22111 is the better choice.

bigbreakfast wrote:I can see a scenario where having 232 in inter-conference competition (basically Finals) format may make some sense. for example this year's finals, is it fair to give boston the absolute edge in home court (22111 format) for playing more games in a weaker conference over the lakers? maybe this was one of the factors in the nba's decision? Just some food for thought. I personally think 22111 is the better choice.

They didn't just decide this. They have been using this as the standard format for the last 23 years

*Both teams will be jet lagged. That why it should be more of a concern from the players standpoint.

*I would say, assuming the series goes to 7 games, you have to travel between games 2-3, 4-5, 5-6, 6-7. Otherwise it would be 2-3 and 5-6. Flying coast to coast, to play one game and then back and forth does take a toll. I'm sure that's why they don't do it anymore.

A 2-3 hour trip in the east is very different to a 4-5 hour flight out west with the time zones. Especially when you have to do 3 in a timespan of a week or so. But I see your point in that it reduces the homecourt advantage. For me, for some reason I seem to like the 2-3-2 format because it is more even (which is kind of like the initial post as to 'why change it'). You get to strike first and may face elimination first. But if you take care of your homecourt, you won't lose your homecourt advantage which to me is, again, the chance to play the first game at home and the last game at home.

*When teams go on the road especially on the other coast, it seems to take a toll on everybody. That's why the commentators raise that all the time (we'll see how they do on their west coast road trip etc.). Obviously it is a different thing as that is the regular season but it is truly a test for the conditioning of an athlete.

it is an outrage! the nba should keep the same format? why even have it changed? why? keep it the same throughout the playoffs.

stupid, jus another ridiculous part of the NBA, their refs & rules.

I always thought it gave an advantage to the team with home court;

But someone put it best I think - it really gives an advantage based on the results of the first 2 games. If the home team wins the first 2, they have an advantage with 3 consecutive chances to steal one on the road; the road team steals one of the first two, they have an advantage with the chance to clinch at home.

Actually kind of unfair either way, a pretty bad setup all in all.

yea 232 is definitely a load of bull...i don't know the stats, but it is very hard to win all three of those home games so i expect the celtics to be able to get on in LA. and if we can successfully win both at home to start the series then we're in great shape...

The league changed it to give the weaker team a better chance to extend the series (one more game = many more commercials). Unfoturnately, if both teams are closely matched it gives a significant advantage to the team with the worse season record - a reverse home advantage.

Also 2-3-2 ruins the back and forth tempo of a great series.

I am with JVG, you should never rewards the lesser team with home court in what is typically the key games in a close series, game 5. If you have home court advantage you should have it at every stage of the playoffs, not surrendering it for game 5.

I guess most (good) finals series involve the home team winning game 6 to take the title, or the road team winning game 5 to take it

Now, of course this year's finals are probably gunna be the most close finals in the longest time, but it's nice for a team to win the title at home, i guess.

Hi, guys --

I got my start in programming trying to figure this out back in '87(?), when they changed the format and the Celts lost to the Lakers. I did in Hypercard ... boy, that was some ugly code.

Anyway, here's two ways to think about it to see that the format doesn't make any difference that don't require math or programming:

1: If there's no home court advantage, then obviously it doesn't matter how many games you play at home or away at all. If home court advantage is 100%, then again the format doesn't matter, it's Celts in 7 either way. So if the format doesn't matter with 0% home court advantage, and it doesn't matter with 100% home court advantage, why should it matter for any HCA you'd like to invoke?

2: Break 2-2-1-1-1 vs 2-3-2 down by length of series.

A: Four game sweep, there's no difference.
B: Seven game series, comes down to the last game with the Celts at home either way.
C: The Celts are less likely to win a 5 game series in 2-3-2.
D: The Celts are more likely to win a 6 game series in 2-2-1-1-1.

It turns out that C & D cancel each other out.

---

The format might actually make a difference, but you'd have to go for second order effects, like uninterrupted length of time at home makes a difference, or something like that, to explain it.

Yours,
SHL

Damn, can't you find anything better to whine about?

The team with HCA should have 4 home games, including games 5 and 7. End of story. Anything else and it's not that much of an advantage. There is NO WAY if both teams hold serve on their homecourts through 5 games that the HCA team should be playing from behind in game 6. None.

Do you still think it hurt you? I personally think it helped. After winning your first 2 home games, the Lakers had to win 3 at home and as most people expected they managed to win only 2 of those 3 games because winning 3 games in a row against any quality team is difficult. Had it been a 2-2-1-1-1 I think the series had a better chance of going to game 7.

Zerostatic wrote:Do you still think it hurt you? I personally think it helped. After winning your first 2 home games, the Lakers had to win 3 at home and as most people expected they managed to win only 2 of those 3 games because winning 3 games in a row against any quality team is difficult. Had it been a 2-2-1-1-1 I think the series had a better chance of going to game 7.

I still don't like it at all. The game comeback/choke (take your pick) is all that stood between a critical game 5 in LA.

Since 1985 I have argued that no team with a home court advantage should ever have more road games then home ones at any point in the series. This is not at all a recent thing with me.

It also means that game 2 is the most critical game and that is too early in the series for the drama to build properly.

The Lakers weren't tough enough inside this year to really compete with the Celtics and the problems with the 2-3-2 are not as obvious with unmatched teams. But a 2-3-2 with Detroit or with a healthy (maybe younger) Spurs team would make game 5 critical...and game 5 is just in the wrong city.

And since the NBA completely butchered the days off scheduling and travel turn-around situation the whole justification for 2-3-2 was eroded anyway.

It is funny that the NBA is so focused on money but it can't figure out that only 3 seven-game finals since 1985 is an expensive, unanticipated result.

Gotta agree with BigHands on this one. The NBA has eliminated the travel excuse with their ridiculous off-day schedule this season.

Schedule the games on the following days:
1
3
6
8
11
13
15

And the series takes exactly the same number of days, but has a much better rhythm for the fans...