Rangers vs. Cardinals - WORLD SERIES!

[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.