Hello Celebritys

2-3-2 vs 2-2-1-1-1 Series Format Notes

NBA Finals history

Compiled by Alok Pattani, Scott Randall and Pete Newmann of the Stats and Information Group

Some historical assistance provided by the Elias Sports Bureau

Top things to know:

1) Under the current 2-3-2 format of the NBA Finals, implemented in 1985, 14 previous teams have won the first two games of the Finals. Out of those 14 teams, only one team led the Finals 2-0, but lost the series. That was in 2006, when the Mavericks led the Heat 2-0, before Miami won the next four games to win the NBA title.

2) 58 of the Previous 62 NBA Finals have used either the 2-2-1-1-1 (30 series) or the 2-3-2 format (28 series). The team without home-court advantage has won 21.4% of the 2-3-2 series and 30.0% of the 2-2-1-1-1 series.

3) If the NBA hoped to lengthen series by going to a 2-3-2 format in the NBA Finals, they have not succeeded so far. In NBA Finals history, the 28 series that have used the 2-3-2 format have been a little bit shorter (on average) than the 30 series that have used the 2-2-1-1-1 format.

4) The change in series format from 2-2-1-1-1 to 2-3-2 when teams are evenly matched in the past 25 postseasons has had nearly an equal impact on the winner of Game 5 and the winner of Game 6, which are the only two games whose sites are impacted by the change. Therefore, it can be said that if the different series format has an effect, it’s more in the order of who wins which games and the overall series length than on the overall series result. In such cases, the difference comes in which game the winner clinches the series.

Historical look at 2-3-2 vs. 2-2-1-1-1

58 of the Previous 62 NBA Finals have used either the 2-2-1-1-1 (30 series) or the 2-3-2 format (28 series). The team without home-court advantage has won 21.4% of the 2-3-2 series and 30.0% of the 2-2-1-1-1 series.

62 NBA Finals series

28 have been 2-3-2

- 1949, 1953-55, 1985-Present

- 6 have been won by road teams (21.4 pct)

30 have been 2-2-1-1-1

- 1947-48, 1950-52, 1957-1970, 1972-74, 1976-77, 1979-84

- 9 have been won by road teams (30.0 pct)

4 have been some other format

- 1956, 1971, 1975, 1978

*Under the current 2-3-2 format of the NBA Finals, implemented in 1985, 14 previous teams have won the first two games of the Finals. Out of those 14 teams, only one team led the Finals 2-0, but lost the series. That was in 2006, when the Mavericks led the Heat 2-0, before Miami won the next four games to win the NBA title.

*The Magic have previously trailed 2-0 on seven different occasions in their postseason history, which includes 2-0 deficits in three best-of-5 series. They have never won a playoff series in which they trailed 2-0.

Next Level look at 2-3-2 vs 2-2-1-1-1

*If the NBA hoped to lengthen series by going to a 2-3-2 format in the NBA Finals, they have not succeeded so far. In NBA Finals history, the 28 series that have used the 2-3-2 format have been a little bit shorter (on average) than the 30 series that have used the 2-2-1-1-1 format.

*Many people debate whether the 2-3-2 format benefits the team with 3 consecutive home games more than the “standard” 2-2-1-1-1 playoff format in which the team without home-court advantage gets Games 3, 4, and 6 at home. Since the first 4 games and Game 7 are at the same location in both formats, this comes down to looking at how teams perform in Games 5 and 6 in both series formats.

Win Pct of Team with Overall Home-Court Advantage

In NBA Finals Games 5 and 6, By Format

	2-2-1-1-1 Format	2-3-2 Format
	(5 at Home, 6 on Road)	(5 on Road, 6 at Home)
Game 5	.643 (18-10)	.500 (12- 12)
Game 6	.333 (7-14)	.684 (13-6)

This data seems to indicate that the team with overall home-court advantage benefits more from the 2-3-2 format in the Finals than the team with Games 3-5 at home. This is because the team with overall home-court advantage loses less by having to play Game 5 on the road (a decrease of .143 in win percentage) than it gains by getting to play Game 6 at home (increase in win percentage of .351). In other words, the “better” team can still win Game 5 at a reasonable level when it is on the road, whereas the “worse” team has a lot less success in Game 6 on the road than at home.

*To get a larger sample, look into the same questions as above in all playoff series since 1985 in which the two teams were within 10 regular-season wins of one another. The 10-win restriction is to eliminate the results from playoff series (especially in early rounds) where one team was a big favorite over its opponent, since the goal is to make inferences about the NBA Finals, where teams are generally more closely matched.

Even with a larger sample of 2-2-1-1-1 format series, we see that the average 7-game series between relatively evenly matched teams has been longer in the 2-2-1-1-1 format than in the 2-3-2 format.

*When we expand the sample of 2-2-1-1-1 series considered to all playoff series since 1985 with closely matched teams (within 10 regular-season wins of one another), the question of who benefits more from the changes in locations of Games 5 and 6 in the 2-3-2 format becomes more unclear.

While the team with home-court advantage has won Game 5 more often than not regardless of location, the drop in win percentage from having Game 5 at home to having it on the road (-.192) is comparable to the increase in win pct from having Game 6 on the road to having it at home (+.174).

So looking at it this way, the change in series format from 2-2-1-1-1 to 2-3-2 when teams are evenly matched in the past 25 postseasons has had nearly an equal impact on the winner of Game 5 and the winner of Game 6, which are the only two games whose sites are impacted by the change. Therefore, it can be said that if the different series format has an effect, it’s more in the order of who wins which games and the overall series length than on the overall series result.