NBA Finals: Cavaliers/Spurs
The NBA Finals shift this week from Texas to Ohio as the Spurs are up 2-0 SU/ATS and head to Cleveland for Game 3, 4, and 5. Many fans find this odd, as all the previous series are in a 2-2-1-1-1 format, but then the Finals shifts to a 2-3-2 format. It is odd, but there is a reason for the change: M-O-N-E-Y. The NBA prefers a longer series to build up interest and increase television ratings. The league won't admit it, of course, but the 2-3-2 format was instituted because it's theoretically tougher for a team to win the first two games at home, then win two of the next three on the road to close out a series in five games. The league would prefer six or seven games.
It also hasn't worked often. Since 1994 there have only been two seven-game Finals. Over the last seven years the Finals have gone 5, 6, 5, 4, 6, 5, 7 and 6 games. Too many sweeps and five-game series, not exactly what television executives and advertisers would like. It wasn't always this way. The 2-3-2 format, which copies the World Series, was put into effect for the 1985 NBA Finals between the Celtics and Lakers. Before that, the Finals had always been 2-2-1-1-1, which worked fine. In fact, from 1976-84 there were three 7th games in the Finals and five series that went six games. Since 1985 under the 2-3-2 format there have only been three seven-game NBA Finals (1988, 1994, 2005).
Some players have even suggested that the team with home court doesn't really have an edge for the Finals, being forced to play three road games in a row in the middle of the Finals. Not having home court appeared to help the Pistons three years ago, as they got a split in LA in the first two games, then came home and swept the middle three for the title. A year ago Miami, down 2-0, got back in the series by sweeping the middle three at home.
When the Celtics defeat the Lakers in seven games in 1984 (the last of the 2-2-1-1-1 format), they took a 3-2 series lead by winning the key fifth game at home. A year later when the two met again, the Lakers won the fifth game at home to take a 3-2 series lead and went on to win the series under the new 2-3-2 format. After the series, Celtics star Larry Bird commented that he didn't like the format change, and didn't like the fact that the all-important fifth game was on the road even though his team had earned the home court via a better regular season record.
You can argue the same thing happened last season when the Mavericks went up 2-0 at home, then had to play three in a row in Miami. The Heat won all three, including the pivotal fifth game, putting the pressure on Dallas. The Mavs surely would have preferred to come home for Game 5.
Not counting this current series, over the last seven years the home team is 34-9 SU, 25-17-1 ATS in the Finals, while the favorite is 27-17 SU/20-23-1 ATS. Recent results show the home team stepping up and getting the money, while the favorite has won but not always covered. In fact, from 2001-2004 the home team went just 10-10 SU/6-13-1 ATS in the Finals.
As the series shifts to Cleveland this week, keep in mind the Cavs are 37-12 SU, 26-22 ATS at home, while San Antonio is 32-16 SU, 27-20 ATS on the road. San Antonio is 4-3 SU/ATS as a dog, while Cleveland started 21-10 ATS. Defense often rules this time of the year, and note that these teams were in the top eight in defensive field goal percentage allowed, and in the Top 5 in points allowed (the Spurs were No. 1 allowing 89 ppg).
A year ago, the Mavs and Heat were strong defensive teams, and two years ago the Pistons and Spurs finished the regular season one and two in the NBA defensively and met in the Finals. This certainly adds to the long list of teams that have won titles with defense, supporting the old adage that "Defense wins championships." It might have been fun to have the run-and-gun Suns or Warriors in the Finals, but don't ever doubt the importance of defense this time of the year.
|
|
40% FREE BET 
