Why is the theory that it is hard to close a team out? I think I could beat a half dead man easier than one that is healthy. You have a team on the ropes physically and mentally, why wouldn't they be easier to beat than harder. I just don't understand the cliche. If anyone has a different view let me know.
-
-
Perhaps the thinking is that when a team is "On the ropes" at 3-0 down or so, all pressure lifts off that squad and they actually play looser, whatever the sport. The idea being that they pretty much realize that their season is over regardless, so those particular players are much less tense and don't second guess.
Now, I don't necessarily agree with that position (As I'm fairly certain more "close out" games are won by the closer rather than the team on the brink) but it's a theory I've heard mentioned pretty much across the sports spectrum, especially in basketball and the NHL.Comment -
How about the fact that as a general rule the leagues make more money if the close out attempt fails? I hate to play the cynic but the NBA brings it on itself.Comment -
Closing team plays the game, but they don't get to ref it.Comment -
I am suggesting that the league makes more money from a 7 game series than from a 6 game series. I am suggesting that the telivision partner also makes more money. when the series goes long, "everybody" wins. More beer sales, more ticket sales, more ad revenues. If given the choice between 6 or 7, choose 7.Comment
