Difference between Best of 5 and Best of 7

[dereksbicycles]

You know that many playoffs series are best of 7 which means that the first team with 4 win wins. Some are best of 5 which means first team with 3 win wins.

Let's say that Team A gets up 3 game to 1 over Team B in a best of 7 series. Team A lost the next 3 games and the series 4 games to 3.

My question is: Do you think that if the series was best of 5 as opposed to best of 7, that Team A would win?

Team A may not have won even if it was best of 5. My reasoning is that Team B may have prepared for the series in a different way if they knew it was best of 5 as opposed to best of 7. Therefore, Team B would probably not let Team A win the series 3 games to 1.

I think there is something when your back is up to the wall. Team B wasn't exactly back against wall in best of 7 being down 2 game to 1, but they are back to their wall being down 2 game to 1 in best of 5 series. So being back to wall, Team B came back and won.

So what you think?

 

[Oink]

Me: WHAT?!

 

[sonocativo]

I think if a team is good, they wouldn't let the other team win any... Because letting a team win gives them false hopes, therefore bruising their egos and make them think about turbos doing 5 seconds and 7 seconds launch instead of winning the games.

 

[diehardbiker]

Nothing to do with how good the team was. Any games before final conference champion games, best of 5, then best of 7 on conference champion match then finally best of 7 for Stanley cup champion.