I was thinking the other day how silly it is that the playoff format switches to 2-3-2 for the Final when the rest of the playoffs are 2-2-1-1-1.
The first thing I think of is how much more of a disadvantage it is for the lower seeded team to have to win 3 in a row, albeit at home, against one of the best teams in the league. And this is just to hold serve, as it were, in terms of home-court advantage. This doesn't seem fair.
Then I thought, well if the lower seeded team can pull off one on the road in the first two games, the higher seeded team could potentially lose the series without having another game at home the rest of the way. This doesn't seem fair either, although if you lose 3 games in a row, you deserve to lose the series, so I don't have as much of a problem with it.
The bigger problem for the higher seeded team is not having game 5, which is typically a crucial game, at home.
Ideally I'd love to see a 1-1-1-1-1-1-1, but that's a logistical impossibility unless it's a Minnesota - Milwaukee Finals. Maybe in 2020 where grizzled vets Charlie Villanueva and Al Jefferson battle it out for all the marbles.
I just don't know what is to be gained by the change to 2-3-2. Why do it at all?
The reason is that in the 1984-1985 season David Stern, influenced by Boston coach Red Auerbach, decided that there was too much travel involved for both teams during a 2-2-1-1-1 series if it was West vs East. Hence, 2-3-2 and its maximum 3 flights, instead of 2-2-1-1-1 and its maximum 5 flights.
I don't care about flights, and I'm certain both teams would rather switch to the 2-2-1-1-1, even if it entails more travel time.
Here are some facts to consider:
Only 2 lower seeded teams have won all three games at home since the switch. 2 for 24 (8.3%)
One was the 2006 Heat, who beat Dallas 4-2 after losing the first two in Dallas.
The other was the Pistons in 2004, who beat the Future Hall of Famers + Devean George Lakers in 5 games.
There have been two lower seeded teams to win the first two games at home, only to lose the third. Those were the 2005 Detroit Pistons, who fell to the Spurs in 7, and the 1997 Jazz, who lost to the Bulls in 6.
It seems the only saving grace of this policy is that in the two cases in the past 24 years that it may have had an effect on the outcome of the series, it seems like the team that won would have won regardless of playoff format.
I don't see this policy lasting forever because nobody likes it. The higher seeded team doesn't have game 5 at home and the lower seeded team has to win 3 in a row to hold serve.
I think it will only get changed, though, after the following scenario:
Lower seeded team wins game 1 or 2.
Lower seeded team wins games 3 and 4 at home.
They lose game 5 at home.
They lose a close game 6 away.
They lose game 7 away.
The argument here is that the lower seeded team, up 3-2 after 5 games, should have had game 6 at home, but lost a close game away. A game that they may have won had they been at home. Instead of winning the championship in 6, they lose it in 7.
One of these days it's going to happen. I'll be the first one to send an e-mail to the commissioner of the NBA. Who knows, maybe if it doesn't happen for another 20 years there might be something much more convenient and advanced than e-mail. Maybe something where I can just think it, and David Stern will get it. *Grow the beard again, grow the beard again*
Honestly, who wouldn't want to see this make a comeback?
Finals Tidbit:
If Lamar Odom and Rashard Lewis match up (which they should), it's interesting to take a look at their stats in games where their teams played each other.
26 games (11 LAC vs SEA; 2 MIA vs SEA; 9 LAL vs SEA; 4 LAL vs ORL)
Lamar Odom: 37.7 mpg, 17.2 ppg, 8.5 rpg, 51.5% fg%
Rashard Lewis: 36.9 mpg, 17.6 ppg, 5.5 rpg, 2.3 3Ppg
In the 4 LAL vs ORL games
Lamar Odom: 37.2 mpg, 13 ppg, 10 rpg, 50% fg%
Rashard Lewis: 39.4 mpg, 18 ppg, 4 rpg, 44.7% fg%, 3.25 3Ppg
Looks like statistically Rashard Lewis has pretty good games versus the Lakers. Should be a fun matchup.
No comments:
Post a Comment