If the most compelling two words in sports are game seven, then the most lucrative three words that follow are home-court advantage.
There’s no feeling quite like the comfort of knowing that when it’s do or die, win or go home, the game will be played on your home court in front of the home crowd.
The Lakers have been fortunate to have had it two seasons in a row, but home-court is not a luxury the Lakers can say with complete confidence they’ll look forward to having yet again throughout the playoffs.
At this point in the season, about midway, the Lakers’ overall record is 31-13, 17-5 at home and 14-8 on the road. Yet to reach the meaty part of their schedule, the Lakers are looking on pace to be the classic 57-25 record team, typical of those coming off championship years.
Let’s assume the Lakers win their division and are either seeded 2nd or 3rd in the Western Conference. Unless something catastrophic happens to the Spurs, the Lakers won’t get the top seed. The question is, can the Lakers three-peat without the benefit of having home-court throughout the playoffs?
The latest issue of Sports Illustrated has an excerpt from the book, “Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won,” by Tobias J Moskowitz and L. Jon Wertheim. The book has an interesting take on why home-court is such an advantage. It also dispels certain myths associated with having home-court like crowd involvement and travel, while explaining why the officiating could ultimately be the biggest benefit to having home-court.
Indeed, home-court advantage exists in sports. It’s not an aberration that teams play better at home as opposed to on the road. According to the book, “98.6% of all teams fare better at home.”
Next: The benefits of a productive bench on the road
It’s widely accepted that players who come off the bench play better at home than they do on the road. Maybe the basket appears to be wider, maybe it’s the hardwood, or family members in the stands or the fact that instead of taking a two hour plane ride, they took a two hour car ride on the 405 to get to the game. Okay, so the latter may only apply in Los Angeles.
Now, it’s one thing to have a slight drop-off offensively on the road, but if the bench at least had decent defensive efforts, the disparity between production on the road and at home wouldn’t be so disheartening. It would also prevent me from having that recurring nightmare where Nate Robinson and Glen Davis put up a combined 30-points in game 4 of the finals, celebrate by having Big Baby piggyback Robinson as he slobbers all over the parquet at the Garden. Oh wait, that’s right it wasn’t a nightmare, it actually happened. Donkey, Shrek and the rest of the Boston bench had 36 points to the Lakers’ then “bench mob’s” 18 points. I’m no expert, but I know that’s not how the Lakers anticipated the game to pan-out.
Case and point, should the Lakers fail to get home-court, consistency from the bench on the road is imperative.
This isn’t anything new. A bench that comes in and doesn’t completely dismantle whatever lead, if any, that the starters have built is a welcomed sight. The Lakers’ bench has exhibited signs of being able to make a difference in the game, even on the road, but the question is can they be consistent.
Sticking to the basics, not trying to get too fancy by running erratic fast-breaks and preventing oneself from falling into the ill-advised, three-point shot trap, are just a few ways the bench is successful in hostile arenas. Clamp-down defense doesn’t hurt either.
Sometimes the Lakers’ bench gets it done, other nights you sit there and wonder why the bench player on the opposing team, that you’ve never heard of is all-of-a-sudden playing lights out against the Lakers.
The good news is, you just never know, the guys who struggle off the bench now might come out of it by the playoffs. It’s January, I’ll stay optimistic until about the second week in April.
Next: Officials are biased, that is in favor of the home team
An interesting trend, as mentioned in the excerpt is how officiating can be biased in favor of the home team. According to game studies, referees tend to give the home team the benefit-of-the-doubt-calls more often than not, especially when factoring in crowd size. When referencing NBA officiating, the book states, “Traveling is whistled 15% less often against home than away players, but at the most attended games the home team is 28% less likely to be called for traveling.”
No doubt you can figure all playoff games played at Staples are of the sold-out variety, if all 18,000-plus seats are filled to capacity, could the crowd actually have an effect on ambiguous calls?
Hard to imagine a traditionally passé Lakers crowd becoming amped-up enough to get the officials to swing calls in favor of the Lakers, but I suppose it’s possible.
If the tables were turned however, considering some of the stadiums that have been challenging for the Lakers to win in, mainly Portland, Boston, Denver and to some degree Oklahoma City, not having home-court in a game seven situation is quite a disadvantage. A rambunctious crowd could definitely get to the officials, and we already know the new guidelines for calling technical fouls can be subjective.
It’s a good thing the Lakers have another weapon to counteract biased officiating as a result of home-court. Phil Jackson.
Next: An opportunistic Jackson gets his message heard by using the media
Don’t look so blundered should that revelation surprise you, Jackson is no stranger to the media nor is he afraid to speak his mind in the subtle and not-so-subtlest of ways when it comes to officiating. Remember that comment he made during the Western Conference Finals against Denver in 09’ when Dahntay Jones tripped up Kobe Bryant? He called Jones’ action “unsportsmanlike basketball,” and basically called out the referees for taking it lightly. If you’re wondering, the following game the Nuggets got called for 11 fouls in the fourth quarter alone.
I know what you’re thinking. Who’s Dahntay Jones? Fair point, but the fact of the matter is, Jackson made a statement and it may or may not have been a coincidence that the Lakers got a few calls out of it. (For the record, I believe Jones plays for the Indiana Pacers.)
Then there was the incident during the 2009 Finals against Orlando when Jackson was fined $25,000 after referring to calls made against Pau Gasol, Lamar Odom and Andrew Bynum as “bogus” during a sideline interview. A win for the NBA cares program was also a win for the Lakers because the game that followed was the championship-clinching game 5, on the road no less, Gasol and Odom called for a combined six personal fouls.
I’d take you further down the Jackson-to-Refs memory lane montage, but you get the gist. Jackson talks, the referees listen. You be the judge of whether it’s a conscious effort by the officials or not.
Next: How will the Lakers fare without home-court?
Am I reading too much into this? Perhaps, but Jackson didn’t get 11 championship rings as a head coach by just drawing up X’s and O’s. It’s the mental aspects, intricacies and using the media to his advantage that sets Jackson apart from the rest of the coaches in the league. Well you know that and the special chair he lugs around from stadium to stadium.
If that’s not good enough, the last (and only other) three Jackson-coached teams that went on to three-peat did not have home-court advantage throughout the playoffs. Championship teams win on the road, period.
The Lakers are obviously talented and can win without the benefit of a game seven at home. Yes, they’ve had their share of mental lapses, struggles at the defensive end and at times on offense, but the championship still goes through them whether it’s at home or on the road.
The upside is the Lakers still have time to get in the habit of playing a stretch of games at a high-level.
It’s going to happen…any day now.
The book, “Scorecasting: The Hidden Influences behind How Sports Are Played and Games Are Won,” by Tobias J Moskowitz and L. Jon Wertheim, is yet to be released. An excerpt can be found in the latest issue of Sports Illustrated.