There are four key games in a Playoff series. In the 2-2-1-1-1 the home team gets three of them. The most important game of all, game 5, get switched in the 2-3-2. That's just a fact. Plus, coaches, players, reporters and the NBA itself have suggested going to 2-2-1-1-1 in the Finals because that makes home court, and the regular season, worth more.
This is hogwash and unsupported by the evidence. Those games are critical because of the 2-2-1-1-1 format. And some players and coaches disagree with you. Explain this: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/...o-back-to-the-2-2-1-1-1-format-for-the-finals And this: And this: And this: And this: In conclusion, I disagree that you won that debate.
None of the statistical evidence is relevant? Interesting and strange at the same time. The main point is that the home team wins more often under the 2-3-2 format than the 2-2-1-1-1 format. If you are able to sweep that fact under the rug, than I'll just let others decide for themselves how compelling your "game 5" argument is.
Yes of course. Because that's the Finals. You can't say the 2-3-2 favours the home team more because Lakers sweep Orlando in a 2-3-2 but go 4-2 against Denver in a 2-2-1-1-1. The statistics would only be relevant if the two same teams played both setups. I don't really care what others think. Coaches, your hero Bill Simmons, the NBA itself, among others, agree with me.
I don't remember seeing the Sports Guy saying he agrees with you, but I did find this: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=simmons/080605
I don't understand why bringing up games and history has any relevance here. Just because teams don't win the middle three games at home doesn't mean the 2-3-2 favours the other team. It just means the team with home court is better. Let's assume both home teams hold serve, then the 2-3-2 is a huge advantage for the away team. They actually have the chance to win the series twice being up 3-2 and a 3-3 tie. In the 2-2-1-1-1 the team with home court is never trailing and always has the advantage. If there is a split in the first two the advantage for the away team becomes even greater. Then they have a chance to win three straight at home instead of a two home and then a away game. SportsNation Bill Simmons: I hate the 2-3-2 - they started it before the '85 Finals and I'll always think that's why Boston lost that year, it would have been 2-2 after DJ's game-winner coming back to Boston for Game 5, no way we lose that game. They do it for travel reasons for the media - because God forbid the media has to travel more than twice in a 2-week span. http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=20902 1. On paper, the Celtics were the only Eastern team that could realistically consider unseating Cleveland in a seven-game series. The odds weren't good for two reasons. First, it's going to be near-impossible to win a Game 7 in Cleveland with the way LeBron James feeds off a frenzied crowd that's in "Maybe if we shower him with love, he won't leave in two years mode" (like a high school junior who starts putting out because her boyfriend is leaving for college in a few months). Realistically, you'd have to beat them four out of six times; the Lakers have a better chance because of the 2-3-2 format. In Boston's case, the Celtics have a sizable obstacle: With James Posey gone, Paul Pierce is the only Celtic who can guard LeBron. For one game, he can do it. In March, he masterfully outplayed LeBron on both ends in Boston. Thirty-six hours later, the Celtics hosted Orlando for a Sunday afternoon game and Pierce was dead. He had nothing left. http://tttan.com/HT/boards/Basketball/1240273735.html
You're a funny character. You're a Barca fan. You were a Boston fan when they were winning. And you're a Federer fan. Let me guess, you voted Obama and have stock in Microsoft, you drink bottled water and your yearly vacation spot is Hawaii. And of course your mom is a teacher.
The quote about the Lakers refers to the fact that he believed you couldn't beat the Cavs in 7 games and so you'd have to do it in 6 or less - so based on that line of logic it would be easier to win 4 of 6 in a 2-3-2 format. And while he may believe that about '85, I'd still like to see him come out and say there's clear evidence of a big benefit to the away team in this format. In my opinion, if there were such a benefit to the away team, there would be more upsets or some sort of support for your position. In fact, I believe there may be fewer game 7s in this format. But at least we agree the format sucks.
I have been a Barca fan since 2006, I started rooting for the Celtics last season, I became a Federer fan after watching him in the 2007 U.S. Open (first tennis I ever watched), and I did vote for Obama. FYI, I don't have any stock in Microsoft, I rarely drink bottled water, I vacation in Orlando, and my mom is not a teacher. How does any of this matter? I was simply poking fun at "06 Miami Salvatores" and erick.
Isn't it obvious? Unless there's a sweep, the standing after four games are either 3-1, 2-2 or 1-3, for the team with home court. In those instances, would you say it would be a advantage to play at home or away in the next game? Then if you hold home court you either win 4-1 at home, go up 3-2 with two chances to win it or take one back 2-3 instead of going out 1-4 away. I don't understand how you don't understand this.
Wasn't your post I was refering to, just your sig Why did you become a Barca and Celtics fan? Which teams did you 'support' before that?
Well - as I quoted earlier, when it's 2-2, the team with home court advantage has won 9 out of 11 times so I would say advantage to the home court team. And the two formats aren't evaluated based just on game 5. If it's 3-1 for the home team, I would argue the importance of game 5 is not very significant in terms of who will win the series because the home team has 2 shots at home to close it out. If it's 3-1 for the away team - I would agree that they would probably rather play 1 of their elimination games at home, but in a 2-2-1-1-1 format, they still will get 1 shot at home to close out the series, and in my opinion, winning a game 6 at home is arguably easier to win than a game 5 because winning 3 straight against any team is difficult and has happened so few times in Finals history. Ultimately, your opinions about this have very little evidence to back it up, which is why the league has dragged it's feet on changing it. If there were some kind of clear evidence that it was ruining the benefit of home court advantage, I would think there would be much more of an outcry to change it. In fact, the evidence suggests the format is a greater benefit to the home team than the 2-2-1-1-1 format.
Skip following two paragraphs to avoid gloryhunting rant. I became a Barca fan because they were the first major club I heard about. I was watching Brazil vs. Croatia in the 2006 World Cup (first pro men's match I ever watched) and heard of some guy named Ronaldinho who was apparently really good. After Brazil flamed out of the World Cup (), I decided to follow Ronaldinho back to "Barca". So yes, I started as a Ronaldinho fanboy As far as the NBA goes, the first NBA basketball I really started paying attention to was the 2007 Finals (Spurs-Cavs). I rooted for the Spurs mainly to have a team to root for (I also liked their style of play at the time). It wasn't until last season that I actually started following the regular season and the entire Playoffs. Once I heard about the Celtics Big 3 at the beginning of the season, I started buying into the hype and 'mission'. I grew somewhat attached to the Celtics from following them so closely last season that I continued to do so this season. Essentially, I've only been watching the NBA for two seasons now. The simple version: I support Barca and the Celtics because they were the first 'club' teams that got me interested in their respective sports (at least more interested in the case of the Celtics). Don't get me started on the Patriots
Who wins at the end is irrelevant. So you'd rather risk playing away in game five and have the other team gain some confidence? Very smart. I'd argue that if you did a poll among coaches and players if they'd want to play at home being up 3-1 100% would say they'd want to play at home. That teams don't win 3 straight is irrelevant. I could have been 1-1 after the first two. My question was would you rather play at home facing elimination or play away. The answer should be simple. Apparently to you it's not. I have no idea why. If you did a poll among players and coached I'd bet 100% would rather play at home facing elimination. Especially facing a superior team. The only reason it hasn't been changed is because of traveling. That's the reason Stern has given anyway. My evidence is common sense.
And how old are you? Just curious. I don't think I know anyone else that started following sports two years ago
Okay, so let's say you win game 5 to go up 3-2? What then? Would you rather have game 6 at home to close it out or no home games? The reason game 5 is so pivotal is because if the away team manages to win, it can close out the series at home. Who wins at the end is irrelevant? What the heck are we debating then? If the result is irrelevant, so is your argument that the format matters. I've seen the argument that the reason they don't change it is because of advertising dollars and the belief that the series is more likely to last longer with this format. I don't think the evidence supports the belief however.