Quote:
Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan
On the contrary Dan, when it comes to this kind of speculation, there's always a way to talk up one side or the other. Whatever advantage you want to emphasize in one format, there's an equally defensible advantage you concede to the other.
You can talk up the 2-3-2 format by emphasizing momentum. I can talk up the 2-2-1-1-1 format by emphasizing the opportunity to clinch at home in Game Six.
You can talk down on 2-2-1-1-1 by emphasizing momentum breaks. I can talk down 2-3-2 by noting that once a mere two games are lost, the series must be clinched on the road.
Then we can banter on and on about which momentum swing or home field opportunity in which specific scenario outweighs which other specific event that could potentially happen in the other format etc etc. But now we're piling up on the speculation without any quantification whatsoever and the discussion becomes entirely meaningless.
That's why I prefer to deal with real, observable evidence. You're more likely to be right when you do.
|
No man, you can't. You simply can't with a straight face. If one method proves an advantage and another method proves no advantage and there are no absolutes in play (i.e., no definitive method considered correct) and you are a manager having to select one method, how could you with a straight face say you would pick the method that has no potential for an advantage over the method that might not prove an advantage (in the event that the independent game situation is correct), but there again, might?
You just wouldn't. It is just that simple. You wouldn't. You know I'm right here, but we live in a world of Dallas-Mavs.com where no one EVER admits they are wrong or that the other person has a helluva point. You are arguing for the sake of arguing. So be it. Not interested in the penis measuring contest that you and Dub have long ago entered.
On to things WAY, WAY more important - like the Rangers going up 2-1 on the Cardinals.