Rangers vs. Cardinals - WORLD 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.