Rangers vs. Cardinals - WORLD SERIES!

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Your response to xrobx was extraordinarily inane, in exactly the same way as your argument here. You don't lose an advantage by winning games. You gain an advantage by winning games. I should think that would be obvious.

...

I think you have the two sides reversed. Going into Game Five of the 2010 World Series, who currently had the home field advantage?

According to you and xrobx, it was the Rangers because they got to play their third home game before the Giants got theirs. To me, it's fairly obvious that the Giants had a death grip on the home field advantage by that point because of, yes, the advantage they gained by winning games.

Originally Posted by chumdawg

Nobody but you introduced the idea of "momentum" into this discussion.

I only addressed it once Dan brought up "confidence", which I figured was close enough.

[xrobx]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

...

I think you have the two sides reversed. Going into Game Five of the 2010 World Series, who currently had the home field advantage?

According to you and xrobx, it was the Rangers because they got to play their third home game before the Giants got theirs. To me, it's fairly obvious that the Giants had a death grip on the home field advantage by that point because of, yes, the advantage they gained by winning games.

The Giants won the series at a disadvantage, having played 3 of 5 games on the road. Only 5 games were played. Games 6 and 7 do not exist and do not matter.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by xrobx

The Giants won the series at a disadvantage, having played 3 of 5 games on the road. Only 5 games were played. Games 6 and 7 do not exist and do not matter.

See, Chum? Rob is saying that the Rangers had the advantage. However, had the Rangers won the next two games, the Giants would have had the advantage.

He's the one that's saying you gain an advantage by losing and lose an advantage by winning. Not me.

[xrobx]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

See, Chum? Rob is saying that the Rangers had the advantage. However, had the Rangers won the next two games, the Giants would have had the advantage.

He's the one that's saying you gain an advantage by losing and lose an advantage by winning. Not me.

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?

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.

[Dirkadirkastan]

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."

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.

[xrobx]

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.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by xrobx

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.

Obviously, you're not looking at the series as a whole because you're deliberately ignoring games.

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.

So what? In any given scenario at any point during a series, there is a chance it goes to a Game Seven. Having this game at home will increase your overall chance to win the series; having it on the road will dampen it. You can try to ignore this game if the series ends before it gets that far. But remember that home field advantage is something won and lost over the course of a series (and is analyzed in terms of looking ahead to the rest of the games); it is not something that is gained only after the series is over.