[Dirkadirkastan]

Look at the numbers, guys.

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

You are more likely to be up 3-2 than down 3-2. However, your chances of capitalizing on that lead are the lowest of all possible 3-2 leads.

In baseball, you can see this is exactly what happens. The V team (played Game One as the visitor) has taken a 3-2 edge 48 times, while the H team (played Game One at home) has taken the same advantage only 43 times. However, the V teams are only 31-17 in clinching the series, while the H teams are 33-10. So the H teams have actually capitalized more times, despite having fewer opportunities.

So no, Longhorn, I don't believe you're giving it sufficient recognition. The two advantages clearly aren't the same, because the H 3-2 advantage has a significantly higher success rate than the V 3-2 one.

Unfortunately, the site doesn't separate the NBA Finals history between the two formats, but here we go. So far, in the history of 2-3-2, there have been 8 cases of the V team taking the 3-2 lead, and there have been 9 cases of the H team taking a 3-2 lead. The V team has been decent with the advantage, going 5-3, but the H team is a perfect 9-0. So not only do H teams have a firmer grip on the series by that point, but so far they seem to be just as likely to get the initial advantage.

Edit: Let's not forget that H teams are 20-7 in the NBA Finals since the introduction of the 2-3-2 format. (The Mavs' appearances constitute two of the seven, so it's easy to have our perception skewed a bit.) Before the change in '85, H teams were 26-12.

Originally Posted by Male30Dan

There really is no way to refute this. You can say you don't agree with the non-independent theory, but again, if you can be so honest with yourself to admit there is a CHANCE it is in play, one gives a better opportunity for success. Period.

On the contrary Dan, when it comes to this kind of speculation, there's always a way to talk up one side or the other. Whatever advantage you want to emphasize in one format, there's an equally defensible advantage you concede to the other.

You can talk up the 2-3-2 format by emphasizing momentum. I can talk up the 2-2-1-1-1 format by emphasizing the opportunity to clinch at home in Game Six.

You can talk down on 2-2-1-1-1 by emphasizing momentum breaks. I can talk down 2-3-2 by noting that once a mere two games are lost, the series must be clinched on the road.

Then we can banter on and on about which momentum swing or home field opportunity in which specific scenario outweighs which other specific event that could potentially happen in the other format etc etc. But now we're piling up on the speculation without any quantification whatsoever and the discussion becomes entirely meaningless.

That's why I prefer to deal with real, observable evidence. You're more likely to be right when you do.