Dissecting the 2-3-2

I hate the 2-3-2. Every playoff series should be 2-2-1-1-1. Let's go deeper.

In the 2013 NHL Western Conference Semifinals, after four games the Blackhawks trailed the Red Wings 1-3. But the Blackhawks had home ice.

So it created a decent scenario for them: You get a home game for game 5. If you win that, you'll get a road game for game 6. Win that and you'll have the momentum and a home game for game 7.

So the home ice team trailing 1-3 has a glimmer of hope.

What about the team without home ice?

Well, in the Western Finals, the Kings found themselves trailing the Blackhawks 1-3. They had to go on the road for game 5. But knew that if they won that, they would get a home game in game 6. After that it's game 7 on the road, but anything can happen in a game 7.

What if these scenarios had been in the 2-3-2?

The Blackhawks, despite having home ice, would have had to play a game 5 in Detroit. The series could have ended there and Chicago would have had less home games.

Down 1-3, the Kings would have known they would have to win back-to-back games in Chicago. Glimmer of hope, much less so.

Okay, so that shows that the trailing teams prefer the 2-2-1-1-1, regardless of home ice. But what about the winning teams?

In the first example, there's a ton of pressure on the Red Wings to close it in five. For the team without home ice to win a 2-3-2 series, they either have to close it out on the road, or win the first 4 of 5.

In the second example, the Blackhawks probably would be fine with a 2-3-2, knowing they would have game 6 and 7 at home. But they have home ice, and they're trying to end it in five. Why should they have to give LA three home games, based on the ticket money alone?

- - -

Let's shift to the 2013 NBA Finals.

The Spurs and Heat were 2-2 after four. Game 5 is huge in this scenario. In a 2-2-1-1-1, the Heat with home court should get the chance to dictate the series and go up 3-2 at home. A Heat loss at home would give the Spurs a chance to close it out at home. A Heat win at home puts the pressure on the Spurs to hold serve and force a game 7. Both of those seem right.

But in the 2-3-2? The Spurs get the game 5 home game. A Spurs win at home puts them ahead but only because the team without home court advantage has had more home games. The Spurs haven't really taken a decisive advantage in the series yet, knowing they have to close it out on the road. Meanwhile a Spurs loss at home would give Miami a huge edge.

In short, it seems unfair to both teams. After a pivotal game 5, the team with home court has had less games and could be out of the series. And the team without home court has to either win 4 out of the first 5, or go on the road to win the title.

The 2-2-1-1-1 is perfect and provides lots of little nuances and strategies.
The 2-3-2 is shit.