Quote:
Originally Posted by xrobx
it's not when the series ends in 5, the series would have to go the full 7 games for the advantage team to even have a true "advantage", in fact after 5 games the other team has the advantage and if the series ends in 6 neither team will have had one.
|
If Game Seven is never played, then its value is zilch. If Game Seven IS played, it has ultimate value.
On the contrary, Game One will never decide a series, but it will always be played and have an impact in the series.
In the end, it all evens out and each game has the same value as any other before the series starts. Therefore, it's more desirable to get four at home than three.
Edit: Another thing I want to add to this point is that you can't look at home field in retrospect. What you said implied that if the Rangers closed out the previous series in five, then Detroit would have had the advantage. But since Detroit forced a Game Six, nobody had a home field edge. Therefore, by winning Game Five, Detroit conceded an advantage to Texas that they would have otherwise kept had they lost. As you can tell, this is nonsense.
It would be more accurate to say that, in the scenario the Rangers closed it out in Game Five, the Rangers held home field advantage throughout the series. Even though those last two home games were never played, the mere threat of two remaining games in Arlington made a full comeback by Detroit seem all the more daunting of a task.