A Finals Format Proposal

by Steve Weinman on Jun 1, 2008 12:00 AM EDT in NBA Comment 26 comments

A Daily Babble Production

With the Celtics in the Finals (repeat: Celtics in the Finals!), it's only a matter of time now before the requisite discussion about series format comes up. Since we're still enjoying the delirium of simply being in the Finals and remaining in need of another day or two before we're ready to start breaking down the basketball end of Celtics-Lakers, the time seems right for some wishful thinking about the way the NBA Finals work.

Quick refresher: While the rest of the playoffs are played in a 2-2-1-1-1 format, the Finals shift to 2-3-2, with the Celtics hosting games 1, 2, 6 and 7 and traveling to Los Angeles for 3, 4 and 5.

So far as firing the opening salvo, here we go: We'll buy some of the claims of the upside of the 2-3-2, but we'll nonetheless continue to harbor healthy dislike for it.

Read More..All of Steve's daily posts can be found in the CelticsBlog: NBA blog. Check him out!

The critical goal of the 2-3-2 format seems to be limiting cross-country travel in the only series of the playoffs that involves teams from both conferences. In addition, once a series gets to a sixth game, it's a nice perk for the higher-ranked team to have each of the last two games at home.

Of course, there are a few problems here. The 'once the series is going six games' issue is just as much of a curse as it is a blessing because of the possibility that the higher seed will be coming home on the brink of elimination. The set-up for the rest of the playoffs involves the base assumption that in a series of closely matched teams, home-court may be a major difference-maker, and thus the other rounds are set up for the higher seed to win the series if all goes 'as expected' -- meaning that each team wins its home games. The upper seed gets the first two games, the traditionally biggest swing game (five) and the decisive game. Makes perfect sense: Regular season performance has earned the team an extra home game, and if it take care of business on their home floor, it will never trail in the series. Indeed, it is true that only two teams (the 2004 Pistons and 2006 Heat) have swept the middle three games at home, but it seems counterintuitive for the league to use any set-up that allows for the reasonable expectation in a competitive series (as the Finals must expected to be) that the team with homecourt advantage will go into Game 6 with its back against the wall and no margin for error.

The idea that the travel issue is great enough to circumvent the spirit of the set-up of competition is suspect as well. Though fuel certainly costs plenty of money, we're talking about a total of one extra trip in a series that goes the distance, and it's nearly impossible to imagine that the teams don't have the money to shell out on that account.

Further, part of the idea of reducing travel is to allow the players to be as rested and fresh as possible for these games. Finals games are only played on Tuesdays, Thursdays and Sundays, and, interestingly enough, since this series starts on a Thursday, the only two-day breaks will be between games 1 and 2 and games 4 and 5. On both of those occasions, of course, there will be no travel involved, and the players will have to proceed with just one day of rest between games 2 and 3 and games 5 and 6, when they will be flying from Boston to Los Angeles and vice versa. Doesn't make much sense.

All that said, it's worth noting that far more of the uproar about the Finals in recent years seems to have been made by us fans rather than by the players and organizations themselves, and I have no knowledge of the league having reviewed the issue of late. As was mentioned above, the home team taking the middle three has only happened twice in more than two decades. So perhaps the 2-3-2 isn't as wholly evil as it is being portrayed in this space.

To that end, I propose the following experiment (as peddled in the forum threads early in the post-season): At the beginning of the Finals each year, the team with homecourt advantage should have the choice to select series format. The team would only be given 24 hours to decide after clinching its berth, so as to allow ticket sales to go on without delay. It would be an intriguing empirical look at what the players and coaches themselves actually prefer, and it would be a fair perk for the Finals team that had experienced the greater regular season success. Wouldn't mess with the television schedules, wouldn't seem to cost the league any revenue, but it would give teams the chance to play in their preferred format. Any takers?

Okay, Finals format rant officially ends in 3, 2, 1...now. Back to being thrilled just to be here. Go green!

0 recs | Comment 26 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

You must not have to fly often. That LA to BOS flight is incredibly draining.

To take that flight between games 2&3, 4&5, 5&6, and then 6&7 compromises play at the worst possible time of the season. There is really no good argument for putting that kind of additional strain on the athletes. We all want to see the best against the best, not a contest of withstanding jet-lag.

Besides, there is no way LA beats us 3 times in a row. I think the format give us the advantage.

by D Dub on Jun 1, 2008 1:34 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The format gives us the advantage if we take care of Games 1 and 2, while stealing one of the three road games. However, if LA steals one of the first two games… it favors them.

That’s the way I see it.

by CelticBalla32 on Jun 1, 2008 4:42 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I find it stupid that the only way the Lakers can win the title on their own floor is to win 4-0 or 4-1. So the road team can never clinch a close series on their own floor. Similarly, if we want the C’s to clinch in Boston, it can only be 4-2 or 4-3. So a dominant champion will always clinch on the road.

I also don’t like the fact that every game (and this was true of most of the earlier rounds) is a night game. Throw us international fans a bone!

by Bent on Jun 1, 2008 5:33 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

There are many arguments against the 2-3-2 format, but the one that makes most sense to me is that the standard format seems to work very nicely in all other instances, including NHL and MLB.

by lemonadesky on Jun 1, 2008 6:39 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

it would be interesting to see what teams would choose if given the choice, and it’s weird that this series gives the extra day of rest when there is no change of venue. time for some statistics on how these structures affect outcomes, because I think it would be the best format for the celtics…

Thank you thank you! Go Celts! Beat LA!

by Kevin Gamble's Truth on Jun 1, 2008 8:41 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

The idea that the travel issue is great enough to circumvent the spirit of the set-up of competition is suspect as well.[/i]

My sentiments exactly. Furthermore most of the Finals in the past twenty years have [i]not involved teams on opposite coasts. Bulls-Jazz, Spurs-Cavs, Knicks-Rockets, Knicks-Spurs, Pistons-Spurs, Nets-Spurs are all only 1 time zone apart.

It’s utterly preposterous- as the team with the best record in the league, that we have the possibility to play a game at home (Game 6) that may eliminate us- not because we didn’t hold serve in our home games, but because of the stupid format of the series.

by tb727 on Jun 1, 2008 9:05 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

When the new format was instituted one thoughtI had was that it was designed to make sure that the Celtics would never again be able to win a game five at home and put the pressure on the Lakers or any other West Coast team in the Finals.

When the teams are not really evenly matched,which they have not been in the majority of series since the 2-3-2 was adopted,it really doesn’t make mcuh of a difference. When the teams are evenly matched I think it gaves the road team a real advantage. Oten a road team can steal one of the first two games. This puts the burden of the team with the best record winning two games on the road to have the winning record after game five that they otherwise might. To me this was always a hidden bonus to give the Lakers a little reward that they never earned. They have always had teams that might have won without extra help, but for too many years they had good teams that always got extra help anyway. The failure to call a foul on Fisher on the last play in San Antonio is only the latest example.

Quite frankly if the NBA truly cared about ratings they would recognize that the tradiditional 2-2-1-1-1 series gave them the best chance for an exciting series decided by a game seven. The fact they have not, gives me doubts about the purpose for the 2-3-2 arrangement.

by colt45s on Jun 1, 2008 9:40 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

D Dub,

To your argument about the strain of the flights on the players, I suggest giving them an extra day off in those situations. Let them play Games 1 and 2 and games 3 and 4 on one day of rest but let ‘em have two in the travel situations. I have a hard time believing that with two days of rest in all the travel situations, the players are going to be ’strained’ to the point of compromising the level of play.

While I understand your lack of interest in watching a “contest of withstanding jet lag” there are ways to avoid that (the extra day off) that also don’t compromise the set-up of the competition, which is what’s going on here - for the reasons I detailed above and as tb727 perfectly stated in a much more succinct manner: "It’s utterly preposterous as the team with the best record in the league, that we have the possibility to play a game at home (Game 6) that may eliminate us- not because we didn’t hold serve in our home games, but because of the stupid format of the series."

-sw

by Steve Weinman on Jun 1, 2008 10:10 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bent,

There are plenty of fans right here in the US that are with you on this. Apparently, the 9 pm start times manage to strike the rare medium of being inconvenient for everyone! >:(

Silly NBA and TV networks.

Since I don’t know what zone you are in, what is the time difference for you? And what do you do about watching the games?

-sw

by Steve Weinman on Jun 1, 2008 10:12 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

lemonadesky,

Agreed about the NHL. I would hasten to point out, however, that while the MLB uses a 2-2-1 in its best-of-5 LDS match-ups, it goes to the 2-3-2 for the LCS and World Series.

-sw

by Steve Weinman on Jun 1, 2008 10:14 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

tb727,

It’s utterly preposterous- as the team with the best record in the league, that we have the possibility to play a game at home (Game 6) that may eliminate us- not because we didn’t hold serve in our home games, but because of the stupid format of the series.

More succinct and more potently put than anything I said in the original piece. Perfect. Amen.

Thanks as always for commenting, and good points about the fact that it isn’t often a bi-coastal Finals.

-sw

by Steve Weinman on Jun 1, 2008 10:15 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

It was always my understanding that the purpose of the 2-3-2 format was to neutralize home court advantage, since it is a series between the 2 Conference Champs. Having a better record shouldn’t mean as much when coming from 2 different conferences.

As for the 9pm start time, it benefits the west coast viewers (6pm PST). I get off work at 6:30, so I’m missing the first 1/2 hour already.

by lakerboddhi on Jun 1, 2008 10:28 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

lakerboddhi,

Perhaps having a record shouldn’t be as much, but when it gets to a point at which many consider the road team to have the edge in a series between two closely matched teams, I think it goes a bit too far. The 2-2-1-1-1 works in every other instance; I’m just not sure the need for a change like this is there.

Any thought to skipping out on work? ;D

If not, here’s hoping for a traffic-free trip home so that you miss as little as possible…

-sw

by Steve Weinman on Jun 1, 2008 10:45 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

You guys are ridiculous. Already whining and excuses and the series hasn’t even started yet.

by go_lakers on Jun 1, 2008 11:26 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

go_lakers,

Where does that comment come from?

I have a long-standing problem with the 2-3-2 — and I’ve addressed it in forum threads from long before the Celtics reaching the Finals became even close to a reality.

There’s no excuse being made here — just a general problem with one part of the NBA’s playoff set-up and a proposed solution. I’m not sure what your issue is.

-sw

by Steve Weinman on Jun 1, 2008 11:37 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

sw,

I agree with you and most of the comments. But I think the NBA reasoning is this. Although the format favors the road team, the home team still has 4 games on their floor in a 7 game series. Therefore it’s arguably a wash. The 2-2-1-1-1 format gives the home team a clear and undeniable advantage. Personally, I never did like the 2-3-2 format, it develops such an imbalance in the series: the road team is greatly advantaged in a short series and the home team has greater advantage if they are able to survive the first 5 games, especially with a 3-2 lead. The luck factor and other miscues are magnified in this format. The 2-2-1-1-1 format is more fair and diminishes the “luck factor” much better between 2 closely matched teams. So it goes, rules are made and we compete within the rules. I don’t see the league changing it anytime soon.

Can’t skip work, I have to close up. Fortunately, I only have a 5 minute commute.

by lakerboddhi on Jun 1, 2008 11:49 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Steve -

I’m in England. The answer is that it varies. I happened to be in NY for half of the Hawks series, so I got to see those games. One Cavs game and one Pistons game were on TV here so I watched those.

Most of the games I just got to listen to on the radio (WEEI – via NBA.com), although I was usually able to obtain a full or partial download of the game later on.

At least all the finals games will be on TV here, but not only are all of them at 1:30 in the morning, also none of them are on a Friday or Saturday. Oh well. It has all been worth it so far.

PS – to the Lakers fan: I don’t think anyone is making any excuses. Most of these guys said it favored the C’s, although we would still change it to 2-1-1-1 if we could.

by Bent on Jun 1, 2008 12:26 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

All good points, Steve. I will say this though, If the road team can split the 1st 2 games, and then take 2/3 or all 3 of the next, it has more to do with them being the better team than the format.

by D Dub on Jun 1, 2008 12:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

D Dub,

Thanks for the comment, and your assessment there is fair — I didn’t mean to imply that if the Celtics were to lose this series that the format should be used as a crutch or excuse. This is a very good Lakers team, and no matter the format, I think our boys have quite a task ahead of them.

That said, I dislike the format no matter who has the homecourt advantage, and with the Celts in the Finals, the issue seemed particularly pertinent this week.

-sw

by Steve Weinman on Jun 1, 2008 12:48 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Bent,

Yikes…sounds like it’s been a heck of an effort for you just to see/hear these games. Love the dedication :)…and hope the wee-hours starts won’t affect your work schedule too much…but glad you’ve got your priorities in order and that you’ll be watching ;D

Out of curiosity, during the season, how do you get most of your NBA news?

-sw

by Steve Weinman on Jun 1, 2008 12:50 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

lakerboddhi,

Thanks again for the response — your synopsis of the problems with the format is an excellent one. Agreed that the league won’t be changing it anytime, but hey, a guy can dream, right? If they’re going to start fining floppers, perhaps more reforms aren’t as far away as we think ;)

As you mention, the rules are what they are, and the Celts and Lakers will have to play by them. Should be quite a series no matter when and where the games are played.

-sw

by Steve Weinman on Jun 1, 2008 12:52 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I will always believe the Celtics would have had a better chance of winning the 1985 Finals (the 1st year of the 2-3-2 format) in the 2-2-1-1-1 format. DJ made a jump shot to win Game 4 and tie the series at 2 games each. If Game 5 had been in Boston I think we would have won Game 5 and possilbly the series but Bird’s injury that series really hurt his shooting ability but I think the Celtics would have found a way to gut out a win in Boston in Game 5 if it had been in Boston and then we probably would have won Game 6 or 7 for back to back titles. We will never know what would have happened but I think about it a lot.

by CelticRob on Jun 1, 2008 1:31 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Steve -

I have always got my news from the internet and by deliberately not listening to anything the British presenters have to say because their lack of knowledge is laughable.

by Bent on Jun 1, 2008 1:34 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

I hate the 2-3-2 format for the way it favors the road team. If they want to cut down on travel why not go 3-3-1?

by slamdunk1 on Jun 1, 2008 1:36 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Steve thanks for the nice words- I really am starting to think we share a brain because I NEVER disagree with things you write and in general, you seem as passionate about the things that really frustrate/inspire me ;D

by tb727 on Jun 1, 2008 7:29 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

tb727,

Right back atcha — thank you for your comments and compliments — and for your the consistent insight displayed in your posts. Always a pleasure to chat and never hurts to have someone thinking along parallel lines with some consistency :)

-sw

by Steve Weinman on Jun 2, 2008 12:07 AM EDT reply actions 0 recs