Quote:
Originally Posted by xrobx
The next two games are irrelevant.
5 games were played.
3 were in Texas.
The Rangers had an advantage in the 5 games that were played.
Are you really disputing this?
|
In terms of individual games, no. In terms of winning the series, yes. Holding a 3-1 lead with the threat of playing Games Six and Seven at home is a HUGE advantage. The Giants didn't need to dip into that luxury. In the 2010 and 2011 ALCS, the Rangers needed one game in each.
Either way, the odds of overcoming a 3-1 deficit with only Game Five at home are nearly insurmountable. And if you fail to win that first game, you don't retrospectively say "Well, at least we had the advantage."
Quote:
Originally Posted by xrobx
Let's switch it around and say that the Rangers won the series 4-1 in 5 games (whoever won is irrelevant as well but go with it). They still would have had 3 home games in a 5 game series and thus had home field advantage in the series, in a series in which they were not supposed to have home field advantage.
|
In that scenario, they stole the home field advantage when they split on the road, which made it a best-of-five with three games at home.