Rangers vs. Cardinals - WORLD SERIES!

[xrobx]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Here's the conventional definition: "Home field advantage is held by the team that could potentially clinch the series without any additional road wins."

See, we're talking about two different things here. You're dealing in "could potentially" referring to a currently running series and the changes in advantages over the course of that series, and I'm dealing with the past reflection of the results of a series after it has already completed. When you look back at a 2-3-2 series that ended in 5, you notice that the team with the worse record ended up playing more home games in that series. Just the fact that that could happen makes 2-3-2 more dangerous to the team with a better record than a 2-2-1-1-1.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

You simply do not understand what home field advantage in a seven game series is.

You're defining home field advantage as "team team which, at series end, played more games at home". This has no meaningful application whatsoever and has absurd logical conclusions such as the possibility of HFA being lost while simultaneously winning games.

Here's the conventional definition: "Home field advantage is held by the team that could potentially clinch the series without any additional road wins." When a road team splits the first two games, it is said that they "steal home field advantage". This is not because the series can end in five games; that was true already. They steal home field because they can now clinch the series merely by winning out at home, whereas before the other team held that distinction.

That's all true...but it also sorta begs the question. The question is really how one format compares to another. We could imagine some other formats, too, such as HHHHRRR or RRRHHHH. Your reasoning would be exactly the same, but it is probably fair to say that the different options do introduce some complexities that your reasoning does not account for.

[Maringa]

Sigh! It's the rangers/giants series all over. Our batters disappear. Sweep by cardinals coming up.

[xrobx]

Originally Posted by Maringa

Sigh! It's the rangers/giants series all over. Our batters disappear. Sweep by cardinals coming up.

nah, surely we'll win at least 1 game.

[xrobx]

Originally Posted by xrobx

nah, surely we'll win at least 1 game.

see... I told you.

[ShaggyDirk]

Little to much Ginger Ale after the ALCS...

[chumdawg]

Things just got VERY interesting!!! C'mon, Hambone...I know you are hurting...but hang in there and drive one the other way. We need to bring home both these ducks on the pond.

[chumdawg]

Or...hit one deep enough to move Elvis over. Genius!!

[xrobx]

would be huge if they can pull this off

[Maringa]

Wow. Come on Feliz! This would be an awesome win!

[Maringa]

Come on. Don't walk em.

[Ninkobei]

what a game. wow. FELIZ!!

[Male30Dan]

Spoke a bit too soon Maringa! No sweep here.

Cardiac kids... Ugh. Next time score before the 9th inning considering you were facing a closer that was previously perfect in 5 save opportunities in the playoffs. Would also be nice for Feliz not to help push my blood pressure any higher than it already was. Bend but don't break...

What a win. What a win that coming into the 9th I didn't expect to have at all. HFA now swings our way. Hopefully Harrison and Holland are up for the challenge and hopefully CJ can FINALLY have that game we all know he is capable of.

By the way. Given the faux Exam question I posed (which no one answered btw), who right now would pick the 2-2-1-1-1 format over the 2-3-2 format? Exactly.

GO RANGERS!!!

[Maringa]

I knew they would win all along! Easy win. :>

[Male30Dan]

One more thing... I CAN'T BELIEVE WE WON THAT GAME... WOOT!!!

[sike]

whew...that felt important.

[alexamenos]

huge, so very huge.

[Dirkadirkastan]

This reminds of another recent Game Two miracle.

[mavspwnage]

Yes! First team to win a WS game when trailing after the 8th since the Dbacks won Game 7 in 2001 off Rivera. But nobody could hold a 9th inning lead in that series.

[LonghornDub]

Nice win, sons.

[LonghornDub]

The reason I've always thought 2-3-2 is a weak format for the "advantage" team is pretty simple and relies on two premises.

The obvious premise to home field advantage is that, if you win all your home games, you win the series.

But I've always thought home field advantage carries (or should carry, from a normative standpoint) a second, more subtle premise: if you are the "advantage" team and win all your home games, you should never be behind in a series. You should always be either winning the series or tied. There's a significant psychological impact that comes with being behind in a series, and I've always thought it was lame that the "advantage" team can end up not only behind but also on the brink of elimination after game 5 if both teams simply win their home games.

Conversely, that's why I love the 2-3-2 if I'm the "3" team. At least before a series starts, anyway.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

The reason I've always thought 2-3-2 is a weak format for the "advantage" team is pretty simple and relies on two premises.

The obvious premise to home field advantage is that, if you win all your home games, you win the series.

But I've always thought home field advantage carries (or should carry, from a normative standpoint) a second, more subtle premise: if you are the "advantage" team and win all your home games, you should never be behind in a series. You should always be either winning the series or tied. There's a significant psychological impact that comes with being behind in a series, and I've always thought it was lame that the "advantage" team can end up not only behind but also on the brink of elimination after game 5 if both teams simply win their home games.

Conversely, that's why I love the 2-3-2 if I'm the "3" team. At least before a series starts, anyway.

That is a strange quirk. But my question pertains to the bottom line: Does this format actually increase your overall chance to win the series? Perhaps the likelihood of a 3-2 edge is slightly boosted. But it's also a 3-2 edge of the worst kind, since the final two games are both scheduled on the road.

[xrobx]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

That is a strange quirk. But my question pertains to the bottom line: Does this format actually increase your overall chance to win the series? Perhaps the likelihood of a 3-2 edge is slightly boosted. But it's also a 3-2 edge of the worst kind, since the final two games are both scheduled on the road.

In the NBA finals, out of the eight times a series has been 3-2 in favor of the lower seeded team going into games 6 and 7 in a 2-3-2 format, the lower seeded team won game 6 (and the series) five of those eight times. The other three times the higher seeded team defended home court and won the series in 7 games. It's hardly anything conclusive with such a small sample size, but it suggests at the very least that having a 3-2 edge going on the road for games 6 and 7 hardly puts a team at a disadvantage....and the momentum of being up 3-2 (or a team being down 2-3 with their backs against the wall and added pressure) must somehow factor into it.

I'm not sure about the MLB stats in this format, I'm too tired to look it up right now.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Chum took your beliefs and pinned them on me. I was pointing out the ridiculousness in what you said and he somehow thought I was explaining my own thoughts. I do not believe one loses an advantage by winning games, but it is the direct logical consequence of your beliefs, whether you acknowledge it or not.

Historically, teams rarely win the NBA Finals when they only have the middle the games at home, even though they're supposedly one of the top two teams in the league. But sure, go ahead and pretend they win all the time. We can't effectively compare the two formats in baseball, because one has never been used.

[Male30Dan]

Guys... Seriously! The Rangers just split the friggin series in St. Louis and took HFA in the process. We have 3 games at home with an opportunity to close this thing out and win our first championship ever.

Instead of comparing the lengths of your penis over a topic that has been beaten to death, just concede to the fact that in this situation a 2-3-2 format is most definitely the preferred format to have given a 1-1 split.

You know, exactly what I said initially...

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

That is a strange quirk. But my question pertains to the bottom line: Does this format actually increase your overall chance to win the series? Perhaps the likelihood of a 3-2 edge is slightly boosted. But it's also a 3-2 edge of the worst kind, since the final two games are both scheduled on the road.

I think it absolutely does. It depends on what you think about the psychological impact of being one game from elimination when the other team isn't, but I think it's just huge--considerably more important than where the games are played. I'll take up 3-2 with two road games over down 2-3 with two home games, and I'll take it 100% of the time. Sometimes you'll lose both, but I think it's just a much better position to be in.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by LonghornDub

I think it absolutely does. It depends on what you think about the psychological impact of being one game from elimination when the other team isn't, but I think it's just huge--considerably more important than where the games are played. I'll take up 3-2 with two road games over down 2-3 with two home games, and I'll take it 100% of the time. Sometimes you'll lose both, but I think it's just a much better position to be in.

You're right, it is better to be up 3-2 than down no matter what. But this is how it balances out:

You are more likely to be up 3-2 than down 3-2. However, your chances of capitalizing on that lead are the lowest of all possible 3-2 leads.

You are less likely to fall behind 3-2 than take a 3-2 lead. However, if you do fall behind 3-2, your chances of a comeback are slim to none. This is the scenario that generally goes ignored by those that love having the middle three games.

And Dan, yes it is great that the Rangers can close out the series by sweeping at home. But this would be true in either format.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

You're right, it is better to be up 3-2 than down no matter what. But this is how it balances out:

You are more likely to be up 3-2 than down 3-2. However, your chances of capitalizing on that lead are the lowest of all possible 3-2 leads.

You are less likely to fall behind 3-2 than take a 3-2 lead. However, if you do fall behind 3-2, your chances of a comeback are slim to none. This is the scenario that generally goes ignored by those that love having the middle three games.

And Dan, yes it is great that the Rangers can close out the series by sweeping at home. But this would be true in either format.

Ah, yes it would be true in either format, unless you subscribe to the fact that each game is NOT its own entity with zero carry over. If the Cardinals win game 5 at their home in the 2-2-1-1-1 format, depending on how they win (whether or not we choke the lead away, get dominated, etc) it could carry over into our last home game, reducing our chances of winning. This is where the percentages come into play. Even if you don't buy into this component, the fact that it is possible and the fact that it isn't possible if we simply hold serve in a 2-3-2 format after splitting the first two games is the exact reason it is preferred.

Can you lose home games? Sure. We just showed that last night. Are you more likely to win home games? Check our record. If you have a 60% chance to win at home and games are not exclusively independent that would mean we could conceivably have a much higher chance of winning games 4 and 5 after winning game 3. Why wouldn't we want that advantage?

Again, even if you don't subscribe to that theory, the fact that there is no advantage with one theory and a possible advantage with the other theory makes one more valuable than the other. Just look at what happened with the Heat collapse... You don't think games 3-5 carried over into game 6? Different sport, sure, but momentum, hurt pride, frustration - those are real things that do exist and emotions are part of the game. Now that we have the split we have the momentum and we have the best opportunity with this format not to lose it again by holding our home serve.

There really is no way to refute this. You can say you don't agree with the non-independent theory, but again, if you can be so honest with yourself to admit there is a CHANCE it is in play, one gives a better opportunity for success. Period.

[LonghornDub]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

You are less likely to fall behind 3-2 than take a 3-2 lead. However, if you do fall behind 3-2, your chances of a comeback are slim to none. This is the scenario that generally goes ignored by those that love having the middle three games.

It's not ignored in the slightest; it's factored into the argument. The entire point of the argument is that the chance to get up 3-2 first via home wins is far more valuable than anything you lose, including the slim opportunity to possibly "come back" if you're down 3-2. The majority of teams don't come back from down 3-2 no matter where the last two games are. Once you're on the ropes, you usually lose.

That's the whole point, and that's where the psychological impact comes in. Give me the chance to strike first and put the opponent on the brink. I think that's considerably more valuable than the often unrealized "threat" of two games at home to end the series.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Look at the numbers, guys.

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

You are more likely to be up 3-2 than down 3-2. However, your chances of capitalizing on that lead are the lowest of all possible 3-2 leads.

In baseball, you can see this is exactly what happens. The V team (played Game One as the visitor) has taken a 3-2 edge 48 times, while the H team (played Game One at home) has taken the same advantage only 43 times. However, the V teams are only 31-17 in clinching the series, while the H teams are 33-10. So the H teams have actually capitalized more times, despite having fewer opportunities.

So no, Longhorn, I don't believe you're giving it sufficient recognition. The two advantages clearly aren't the same, because the H 3-2 advantage has a significantly higher success rate than the V 3-2 one.

Unfortunately, the site doesn't separate the NBA Finals history between the two formats, but here we go. So far, in the history of 2-3-2, there have been 8 cases of the V team taking the 3-2 lead, and there have been 9 cases of the H team taking a 3-2 lead. The V team has been decent with the advantage, going 5-3, but the H team is a perfect 9-0. So not only do H teams have a firmer grip on the series by that point, but so far they seem to be just as likely to get the initial advantage.

Edit: Let's not forget that H teams are 20-7 in the NBA Finals since the introduction of the 2-3-2 format. (The Mavs' appearances constitute two of the seven, so it's easy to have our perception skewed a bit.) Before the change in '85, H teams were 26-12.

Originally Posted by Male30Dan

There really is no way to refute this. You can say you don't agree with the non-independent theory, but again, if you can be so honest with yourself to admit there is a CHANCE it is in play, one gives a better opportunity for success. Period.

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.

[Male30Dan]

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.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by Male30Dan

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.

Sigh. Your "momentum" theory is entirely bullshit.

Look at history. H teams are just as successful closing out 3-1 leads in Game Five on the road as V teams are to closing out 3-1 leads in Game Five at home. But either way, it's pretty much a toss up. Not 80% or whatever you said earlier.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Sigh. Your "momentum" theory is entirely bullshit.

Look at history. H teams are just as successful closing out 3-1 leads in Game Five on the road as V teams are to closing out 3-1 leads in Game Five at home. But either way, it's pretty much a toss up. Not 80% or whatever you said earlier.

Ah, back to insults so quick? Whatever bro - you are wrong about your stance with me and about your stance with LHD. You keep fighting the good fight though. Showing history of series despite the players and managers themselves regularly speaking of momentum swings. Nah, they don't exist though. Ignore the emotional aspect of the game.

Like I said, your argument matters nothing to me anymore. We are in the position we want to be in and ANY FOOL or intelligent person can admit that. Being tied 1-1 with 3 games at home is the way any "smart" person would rather this series to be. Consider me expecting you to argue against it of course.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Who cares if they aren't actually more successful, what matters is that emotionally it feels like they will be. Good point Dan, good point.

What was I thinking, looking at "facts"? Why would those be more relevant than gut instincts?

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

Who cares if they aren't actually more successful, what matters is that emotionally it feels like they will be. Good point Dan, good point.

What was I thinking, looking at "facts"? Why would those be more relevant than gut instincts?

So your entire stance is that a team that splits the first two games, wins both at home, has a 3-1 lead and moves on to the road has as good of a chance of closing the series out as...

a team that splits the first two games, wins both at home, has a 3-1 lead and has a final game at home?

This being the case because past results have turned out that way? Do you know how fucking stupid that makes you look?

By the way, next time in Vegas, hit the game of roulette up. Look for the amazingly hot table where one color has hit some X number of times in a row - preferably 6-10 times. Walk up and put all your money on that same color because, you know, history shows that is what will happen again.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by Male30Dan

So your entire stance is that a team that splits the first two games, wins both at home, has a 3-1 lead and moves on to the road has as good of a chance of closing the series out as...

a team that splits the first two games, wins both at home, has a 3-1 lead and has a final game at home?

This being the case because past results have turned out that way? Do you know how fucking stupid that makes you look?

That is not my entire stance. My entire stance involves weighing all possible benefits and risks associated having the middle three games at home and the last two on the road. Most people tend to obsess over one scenario and pretend it somehow dominates all others.

By the way, next time in Vegas, hit the game of roulette up. Look for the amazingly hot table where one color has hit some X number of times in a row - preferably 6-10 times. Walk up and put all your money on that same color because, you know, history shows that is what will happen again.

A pitiful misunderstanding of formulating and testing hypotheses.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

That is not my entire stance. My entire stance involves weighing all possible benefits and risks associated having the middle three games at home and the last two on the road. Most people tend to obsess over one scenario and pretend it somehow dominates all others.



A pitiful misunderstanding of formulating and testing hypotheses.

Ugh... Answer this question... ANSWER IT WITHOUT PRANCING AROUND IT WITH STATS AND HYPERBOLE! JUST PICK ONE.

IF a team is up 3-1, would you rather play the 5th game at home where, if you lose, you have to play 2 games on the road; however, have a much higher chance to win that 5th game and the series

OR

...would you rather play the 5th game on the road where, if you lose, you still have a game to play at home; however, have a much higher chance of finding yourself only up 3 games to 2 instead of finishing out the series in 5 (and potentially allowing momentum from your opponent to be built)

Which?

I get that I am bypassing the chance of losing one of the first two games at home ouf of the 3, which would mean the lead is 2-2 going into game 5, but before going any further, I need to determine if you are an idiot or a complete moron. We can go from there...

[Dirkadirkastan]

They both look pretty strong to me.

Therefore, I am an idiot and a complete moron, due to Dan's baseless decree. What a shame.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

They both look pretty strong to me.

Therefore, I am an idiot and a complete moron, due to Dan's baseless decree. What a shame.

And of course, you prance around and show your hand. Yes, you are an idiot that I am completely done with and that has done his best to ruin this thread. Get your last word in - I'll let you, but this will be my last post to you. I find myself feeling quite a bit like Mr. Osment below...

[Dirkadirkastan]

I am an idiot because I trust neither gut instincts nor common urban myths, and instead prefer more reliable analysis.

All hail Dan's gut! I am humbled.