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.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by jthig32

The hit and run in the first was a weird decision, but wanting a sacrifice in the first inning is just as weird, imo. I'm not interested in giving away an out in the first inning.

I'm also fine with moving Nellie in the order, although I'm not a huge fan of Napoli being the one to move down. Now our best hitter over the course of the season is hitting seventh. And hitting seventh cost him an at bat in a one run game. I'm not a fan of that. But moving Nellie, in and of itself, I have no problem with. Without looking at the stats, I'm pretty sure cleanup is the only position in the lineup where Nellie supposedly stops hitting due to the pressure, or whatever.

Fair enough, you agree with primarily everything Wash did. I don't. On to game 2.

[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.

[jthig32]

Originally Posted by Male30Dan

Fair enough, you agree with primarily everything Wash did. I don't. On to game 2.

Oh, I wouldn't characterize that way. Hitting German seems awfully stupid, and pitching around Punto in the sixth really bothers me.

And the lineup bothers me, and will continue to bother me. Having Elvis hit second is already a bad idea and has been all year. Now with Josh so hurt is really weakens our middle of the order.

[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.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by jthig32

Oh, I wouldn't characterize that way. Hitting German seems awfully stupid, and pitching around Punto in the sixth really bothers me.

And the lineup bothers me, and will continue to bother me. Having Elvis hit second is already a bad idea and has been all year. Now with Josh so hurt is really weakens our middle of the order.

Eh, Punto had a couple of close pitches he could have swung at and I am not so sure that he pitched around him considering Washington took him out after that. His final pitch sure seemed like he was trying to get a strike called. Body language indicated as much too. Possible that his inability to consistently throw the ball where he wants to coupled with his nibbling style just created a walk. Possible that he did pitch around him too - but not completely sure I know which took place given his performance up to that point, attitude after, and Washington's decision.

Even if he did, considering it would have been a strategy play to get Carpenter out of the game (the guy that had pretty well shut us down minus one huge Napoli swing), I wouldn't have made that a fundamental mistake by Ron at the level I felt the other mistakes were, especially considering Punto had a hit previously and the eventual swinger, while having great success in pinch hit scenarios, was put in a very tough situation.

Agree though that having Elvis and Josh moved down in the lineup would be wise in theory, of course there is some truth to the "if it ain't broke..." thought process and messing with the confidence of players with a single series left. Even if I did do that, I wouldn't have touched Cruz. Dude is just fragile in my opinion with regard to his hitting spot. Would honestly not be surprised to see him not hit a single HR this series due to that change. Would obviously be disappointed, but it wouldn't surprise me.

Hopefully last night was a series of poor decisions and bad breaks and it will even out tonight with the best team winning and taking back home field advantage.

[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.

[xrobx]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

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

Okay, I won't ignore nonexistent games anymore. How were games 6 and 7 of the world series last year? Did we win?

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

So what? In any given scenario at any point during a series, there is a chance it goes to a Game Seven.

There's a better chance of there NOT being a game 7 in a 7 game series than the odds of having a game 7 (31% chance of a game 7 occuring). So the odds are that 69% of the time, it won't come to the point that the "advantage" team actually gets to game 7 to cash in their one opportunity to finally have an advantage in a 2-3-2 series. 87.5% of best of 7 series go at least 5 games, which in a 2-2-1-1-1 format gives the "advantage" team a chance to clinch the series in 5 games OR 7 games while at the same time having played more home games than the opposition in games 5 and 7. At no point would it be possible for the "advantage" team to lose a 2-2-1-1-1 series having played less home games than the opponent. It's pretty clear to me which format provides the biggest advantage to the team with a better record.

[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.

[Maringa]

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

[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.

[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.

[ShaggyDirk]

Little to much Ginger Ale after the ALCS...

[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.

[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.

[xrobx]

Originally Posted by xrobx

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

see... I told you.

[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.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by xrobx

Okay, I won't ignore nonexistent games anymore. How were games 6 and 7 of the world series last year? Did we win?



There's a better chance of there NOT being a game 7 in a 7 game series than the odds of having a game 7 (31% chance of a game 7 occuring). So the odds are that 69% of the time, it won't come to the point that the "advantage" team actually gets to game 7 to cash in their one opportunity to finally have an advantage in a 2-3-2 series. 87.5% of best of 7 series go at least 5 games, which in a 2-2-1-1-1 format gives the "advantage" team a chance to clinch the series in 5 games OR 7 games while at the same time having played more home games than the opposition in games 5 and 7. At no point would it be possible for the "advantage" team to lose a 2-2-1-1-1 series having played less home games than the opponent. It's pretty clear to me which format provides the biggest advantage to the team with a better record.

With your logic, actually playing Game Seven at home is the only time home field advantage is capitalized upon. According to you, holding a 3-2 edge with two home games on the schedule doesn't constitute home field advantage until the first home game is lost.

There's a reason I get paid to analyze risk and you don't. Let's just leave it at that.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

With your logic, actually playing Game Seven at home is the only time home field advantage is capitalized upon. According to you, holding a 3-2 edge with two home games on the schedule doesn't constitute home field advantage until the first home game is lost.

There's a reason I get paid to analyze risk and you don't. Let's just leave it at that.

So just tell me since you previously said they were the exact same. Given the outcome of the first two games, is the 2-3-2 format still the same as the 2-2-1-1-1 format?

You damn right they aren't. We might not close it out in 5, but if you were paid to pick the format you would prefer at this point it wouldn't be the damn 2-2-1-1-1 format.

[chumdawg]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

With your logic, actually playing Game Seven at home is the only time home field advantage is capitalized upon. According to you, holding a 3-2 edge with two home games on the schedule doesn't constitute home field advantage until the first home game is lost.

There's a reason I get paid to analyze risk and you don't. Let's just leave it at that.

Are you an actuary now? I feel like I have watched you get all grownz up. Good for you, man. Seriously.

In terms of our discussion here, I guess what I would like to see is for you to take a stand. Is it your stance that any permutation of seven games where one team gets four at home and the other gets three is exactly the same? Let me know where you are coming from.

[Dirkadirkastan]

Originally Posted by Male30Dan

So just tell me since you previously said they were the exact same. Given the outcome of the first two games, is the 2-3-2 format still the same as the 2-2-1-1-1 format?

You damn right they aren't. We might not close it out in 5, but if you were paid to pick the format you would prefer at this point it wouldn't be the damn 2-2-1-1-1 format.

I take the 2-3-2, but it has nothing to do with momentum or the potential sweep. It has to do with Colby pitching on the road.

[Male30Dan]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

I take the 2-3-2, but it has nothing to do with momentum or the potential sweep. It has to do with Colby pitching on the road.

Are you actually serious? You take the 2-3-2 for reasons outside of the opportunity to play 3 straight games at home? You realize you are showing your hand here, right? And by showing your hand, I mean showing how stupid you are (and I mean that in the best way possible of course - ).

[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.

[xrobx]

Originally Posted by Dirkadirkastan

I take the 2-3-2, but it has nothing to do with momentum or the potential sweep. It has to do with Colby pitching on the road.

I knew you'd eventually give up.

[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.