Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan
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."
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.
|
I think the difference here is that I'm looking at the series as a whole, and you're taking it as a game by game basis. But my main point is that if a 2-3-2 series ends in 5 games the team that's supposed to have home field advantage ends up playing less home games than the team that's supposed to be at a disadvantage NO MATTER WHO WINS, and that never happens in a 2-2-1-1-1 format.