Do you know how great it was? If it was for a trophy, people would be calling it one of sports’ greatest ever moments. As it was just a first round, its legacy will be to stand the test of time, as opposed to becoming part of the blur that most things become.
The Chicago Bulls locked horned with the defending champion, the Boston Celtics, and no one had any idea what was in store.
Four of the seven games went to overtime, one even went into triple overtime. The Bulls were always punching above their weight and did well to stay in the contest.
Even without Kevin Garnett, the Celtics are a force to be reckoned with and the three Bulls’ wins only came by an aggregate six points.
Apart from the Superbowl, the three major American sports use a best of seven format to decide play-off series. The only exception is the first round of the baseball playoffs, which is just best of five.
There is something special about a best of seven series.
Like a good book, it enables there to be twists and turns until the very last page. When it’s best-of-one, like we have in Australia, and it comes down to the best team on the day, that’s fine.
But when it all culminates in a Game Seven, you have something wonderful on your hands. The atmosphere is simply electric.
Last year the Celtics were taken to Seven games in the first round by the Atlanta Hawks and in the second round by the Cleveland Cavaliers. They won the conference finals in six over the Pistons, meaning that in 40 days between April 20 and May 30, they played 20 games of basketball.
Still, they had enough in the tank to defeat the Lakers in the Finals.
Will this be the case as they prepare to take on the Orlando Magic in the second round?
The Magic just took the first game in Boston to steal home-court advantage from the Celtics. But this is a best of seven series, so don’t count them out yet.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
OJ, having just written a comment that was slightly critical of you, now some praise for a good comment (actually, your comment on MJ vs MJ was factually correct throughout, but what I didn't like was the incorrect implication that I was wrong on all this and that I had misled people on these matters). I noticed a few years ago that best-of-5 had mysteriously become best-of-7 in the conference QFs, but do you know the reason? The Wiki article simply says "This change arguably benefitted the higher seeds as it reduced the likelihood of an upset by a lower seed. It also meant that a team who swept their series 4-0 might have to wait up to 2 weeks to play their next series against a team who had won 4-3." Personally I cannot see any good reason to have best-of-7 for the QFs.
ohtani's jacket
Guest
It's worth noting that the first round of the NBA playoffs has only been a best-of-seven series since 2003. Prior to that it was a best-of-five series and prior to 1984 it was best-of-three with the top two seeds receiving byes. For a full history of the NBA playoff development check out wiki -- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NBA_Playoffs Occasionally, the first round will throw up a surprise like the Celtics/Bulls series, which is by far the best sport I've watched all years, or the Mavs/Warriors series in 2007, where the number eight seed beat the top seed, but by and large the first round is a formality. And EVERY YEAR there's one insufferable series that goes the distance. This year it was Miami/Atlanta. The NBA has gotten a lot better at scheduling the second round to begin while these two teams play a Game 7, but great series and great game sevens, like everything in sport, are a rariety. They occur as infrequently as a great one-off contest. And for the record, Boston have a good chance of making the Eastern conference finals, but probably would've lost to Clevaland with Garnett playing, due to the Cavs having homecourt advantage.
Greg Russell
Roar Guru
David, thanks for the reminder about Boston's travails in the early rounds of last year's playoffs. The ease of their win in the finals has made me forget those initial difficulties in the mists of time. Although the two 4-3's last year suggest there is hope for Boston this year, I still think they are cooked. Last year they were a team new to the playoffs, and understandably took some time to get used to this different type of basketball (more pressure, etc.). This time one can't say this, and they are without Garnett. Further, the Cavs and LeBron are playing on an altogether different level this year. As far as having a finals series is concerned (best of 3, 5, 7, whatever), it's a no-brainer that this is more likely than a one-off contest to give the better team as winner. For example, I have long argued that events like WC cricket finals should be best of 3 (at least). For T20 cricket this is even more so (let's be honest, T20 is just baseball in a different guise). Similarly for Champions League finals in football. In that sport there is a world of difference - in terms of nature of the football, quality of the winner, etc. - just by adding one match, i.e., by having home-and-away ties (as used up until the final) versus one-off matches. It all comes down to whether people want the best team to win or whether they want the possibility of a chance result. It seems most people prefer the latter.