Given that the Finals right now's deadlocked at 2-2, game 5 is pretty important. But it's actually pretty surprising to know that game 5 is almost must-win for the Celtics. And that if they lose game 5 but win the series, it would be a historical feat. Series record of teams going home up 3-2: 9-0. And home teams are 8-1 in game 6. More surprising to me is how many games ended in 6. Only Detroit took a game in SA to send it into a game 7. Anyway,it's pretty clear that when you're up 3-2 needing only 1 of 2 wins at home, it's almost time for the fat lady. OTOH, Series records of visiting teams after going up 3-2: 4-2. Which confirms our common senses that winning one game on the road is still a lot easier than winning 2 straight at home. And usually the visiting team wins game 6. Ridiculously easy trivia question: Name one of the two teams to win games 6 and 7 at home?
IIRC, we were down 3-2 going home for the remaining two games. And Rudy T said, "We are right where we wanted to be." or something like that.
Rockets in 1994 and Lakers in 1988 both were down 3-2 and won games 6 and 7 at home. Interesting thing about both is that both teams barely won game 6. And then barely won game 7.
I hate the 2-3-2. Much better to have the old 2-2-1-1-1. It's no accident that most of the championships since the 2-3-2 began have been ho-hum affairs settled in 6 games or less.
I agree that the 2-2-1-1-1 format is better. I think it gives the team with home court advantage an even bigger advantage because they're almost certainly not going to lose three games in a row on the other team's court.
OTOH, you have less series ending in 5 games. The new format at least ensures a longer series by giving the middle games to the underdog. It's a give and take. Although I'm not sure if it's a statistical fluke that the team up 3-2 is ridiculously likely to take game 6 for whatever reason. Even the road teams are 4-2 in game 6.
In 2006, most people figured the Mavs would right the ship back at home in game 6. But when crunch time came, you could clearly see them choke up because the pressure got to them and the Heat closed them out. If the Celts go up 3-2, I think the Lakers will win games 6 & 7 because of Kobe. He will carry them on his back and play the Superman role if he has to.
honestly i dont see kobe being able to go hero mode against boston, the defense is too good. he didnt in 2008, he hasnt so far in 2010 and i dont see it changing. if the lakers win i think it will be bynum and gasol on both ends controlling the glass
Home team deserves an advantage during the finals. The top seed deserves a prize for winning the most game out of the entire league.
Actually i think the 2-2-1-1-1 is the newer format 2-3-2 was the way it always was until the 90s i think but it was 2-3-2 through the whole play offs Rocket River I could be wrong
The home team already has the advantage of having four out of the seven games at home. I don't think they really need the extra advantage of being all but guaranteed to steal one on the other team's court.
No, the 2-3-2 is the newer format. For example, every best of seven was in the 2-2-1-1-1 when Boston won the title in 1981: http://www.basketball-reference.com/teams/BOS/1981_games.html I think they changed the format to save on travel for east coast versus west coast series. It didn't really turn out to matter much though until recently, as more central teams (Chicago, Houston, San Antonio) started winning the championships instead of just Boston and LA every year.
