|
I think however, the larger point is this:
When you have SUCH a disparity in home-road numbers (I think it's 22-2 for home teams now, assuming the Lakers win) it speaks to the quality of the teams, because, honestly, good teams win on the road. I think the point is, that you basically have a bunch of teams that are evenly matched and no-one's stepped up in the playoffs really. They're all just winning at home and losing on the road. It's to the point where, as Ratto said, it's not so much who is playing but where they are playing. I mean, you have a 60+ win team in Boston that lost three times on the road to a BAD Atlanta team (Atlanta by the way, is not exactly an intimidating place to play) It's almost like teams with home court advantage are just like "Eh, so what we lost on the road? We don't need to win on the road anyway." It's basically saying these teams are pretty much interchangable, and as such, the only thing that seams to make a difference is where they play.
I suppose there are two ways to look at it:
1. The lower-seeded teams are raising their level of play at home, which is why series are going seven games. This would be a good thing.
2. The higher seeded teams are playing down to their opponents on the road. This would be a bad thing.
Ratto apparently subscribes to the latter theory, and I think he's using it to point out that there are no really great teams, because if there were, why can't they win on the road?
|
