2010 NBA Finals, Game 4: Does the 2-3-2 Format Favor L.A. or Boston Most?

With Tuesday’s statement win, the Los Angeles Lakers not only reclaimed home court advantage in the NBA Finals, they turned the tables on the Boston Celtics.

No longer would the discussion focus on the possibility of Boston sweeping its three home games to close out the series. Instead, it would focus on the Lakers’ restored advantage—and on the unusual 2-3-2 format found only in the NBA’s championship series.

The 2-3-2—meaning the first two games being played at the arena of the team with the home court advantage, followed by three in the opposing team’s city, and then the final two back at the original venue—was instituted in 1985.

According to Commissioner David Stern, it was Boston’s Red Auerbach who suggested the format. In those days, the Celtics and Lakers were frequent opponents in the Finals, making coast-to-coast travel the norm on a seemingly annual basis.

It was an era when back-to-back games were still a regular occurrence in the championship series. With the arrival of Magic Johnson and Larry Bird and the renewal of the Lakers-Celtics rivalry, attention suddenly focused on the increasingly arduous schedule demanded of the teams, and of the media covering them, when a series extended to six or seven games.

The concern over the standard 2-2-1-1-1 format was obvious: A seven-game series demanded more travel and more logistical challenges, ultimately increasing expenses and imposing demands on all parties involved.

So, the league switched to the current arrangement, making the NBA the only major pro sport to use a different format for the championship series than the one that had been in effect for the rest of the playoffs.

The question is, who does the format favor this year—the Lakers, or the Celtics?

If history is any indication, it offers no undue advantage to one team over the other, aside from the expected bump afforded to the team with the better regular-season record. As always, the game is ultimately decided on the court, wherever it may be located.

Rather than reinventing the wheel on this topic, I’ll refer you to a cogent analysis by Jeff Neuman at RealClearSports.com.

Neuman tackles the question head-on, and concludes that format does not significantly alter the outcome of the NBA Finals.

As primary evidence, he cites the fact that, in the 25 championship series since the change to the 2-3-2 format in 1985, the team with the home court advantage has won 19 times.

Compare that to the 25 previous championship series played under the 2-2-1-1-1 format, when the team with the home court advantage won 18 times.

Essentially, there’s been no difference between the two.

As for this season, the Lakers not only reclaimed the advantage by virtue of their Game Three win, they already held it, even after splitting the first two games at home.

A complete breakdown of results under the 2-3-2 format is provided at NBA.com. In the eight previous series when the teams split the first two games, the team with the home court advantage went on to win six times.

Presumably, it’s because winning just one game on the opponent’s floor reestablishes home court advantage.

If the Lakers can steal another game in Boston, victory in the series is a lock. In the past 25 years, no team has gone back to an opponent’s arena down 3-2 and won two straight.

The Lakers are clearly in the driver’s seat heading into tonight’s game.

The Celtics must not only win the final two games at home, they essentially need to win three in a row, if history is to be a guide.

Only three times in the last 25 years has the Finals gone seven games, and all three times—in 1988, '94, and 2005—the team with the home court advantage was the victor.

Los Angeles did itself a big favor by winning on Tuesday. The guess here is that Kobe Bryant will secure his fifth ring, and the Lakers their 16th NBA championship, at the Staples Center next week—if not sooner.