Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan
You realize Chum was the one that first called your side "extraordinarily inane", right?
He mistakenly and uncharacteristically attributed it to me, but you're the one that fails to comprehend that, in his words, "You don't lose an advantage by winning games. You gain an advantage by winning games."
So had the series gone like this:
Game Five - Rangers trail 3-1 (According to you, Rangers have HFA)
Game Six - Rangers trail 3-2 (According to you, HFA is neutral)
Game Seven - Series tied 3-3 (According to you, Giants have HFA)
Then according to you, they would have lost the home field advantage by winning games. Yep, I'd say the words "extraordinarily inane" are rather appropriate.
Let me try another angle. The Rangers lost Game Four. Before that game was played, they had a Game Four home advantage. Once that game was lost, the advantage was squandered over to the Giants. There was no Game Four advantage going into Game Five, let alone after the series ended while you did your retrospective junk analysis.
But there I go, using logic again. Why do I even bother? I cannot put it any simpler terms than this. If you fail to comprehend it once again, then perhaps you are deserving of a few insults.
|
You keep pulling a straw man and saying "according to you", when I never said or implied any of those things. I never said a team could lose home field advantage by winning games. I'm not even trying to dispute what you stated above. Perhaps you have misunderstood me. I understand how having home field advantage works and alternates as you progress through a series. I was talking about who ultimately had an advantage when the series was said and done, not who had it after game X. We aren't even talking about the same thing, and ultimately we were using this to be a reason to be pro/con 2-3-2 for a team with home field advantage in which Chum agreed with my stance and called you extraordinarily inane, you can try to spin it on me all you want. The point is that in a 2-3-2, you can win all your home games and still have home field advantage and be losing a series 2-3. As I stated a few posts up, more often than not, the team with games 6 and 7 at home LOSE the series. This is why 2-2-1-1-1 is better for a team with HCA. This entire discussion was about 2-3-2 vs. 2-2-1-1-1, and you are trying to change the subject to advantages because I think you realize at this point that 2-3-2 is not as beneficial to the team entering the series with HCA as 2-2-1-1-1 and right now you are literally the only person on here taking that stance.
And once more for the records so we don't have to go back into this, The Giants had HFA last year. They still had it after the first 2 wins. And they still held home field advantage in games 3, 4, and 5, having 6 and 7 at home. The Giants had HFA going into every single game in the series. This is not in dispute. But when you look at the series in retrospect, and see that they won the series in 5 games having played 3 on the road, the point is that ultimately they won the series and they won it having played more road games, which was not advantageous to them in the end, but they won in 5 anyway. That's all I'm saying. You can't lose HFA by winning games, I agree with you.