Hypothetical scheduling question
Bill Morgan
this one. Surely, someone in this group will know.
If Seattle and the Yankees win their 5 game series, who gets home field
advantage for the ALCS? In the NFL, a wild card can never get home
field advantage in a later round. But, our record is better than NY.
Anyone?
Thanks. Bill Morgan
Hsberman
>advantage for the ALCS? In the NFL, a wild card can never get home
>field advantage in a later round. But, our record is better than NY.
>Anyone?
>
>Thanks. Bill Morgan
Unfortunately, baseball has the same rule. Most of the time that would be
fair, but since the Mariners never really lost the West--they could have won it
if Oakland had played that last game and if the rules dictated a playoff just
for this reason, then they would have had the advantage over the Yankees.
Henry
Benjamin Ramm
> I've done a little searching and can't find the guaranteed answer to
> this one. Surely, someone in this group will know.
>
> If Seattle and the Yankees win their 5 game series, who gets home
> field advantage for the ALCS? In the NFL, a wild card can never get
> home field advantage in a later round. But, our record is better than
> NY. Anyone?
I've read it's the same in MLB.
Ben Ramm
Kurt & Nancy Harris
> >advantage for the ALCS? In the NFL, a wild card can never get home
> >field advantage in a later round. But, our record is better than NY.
> >Anyone?
> >
>
> fair, but since the Mariners never really lost the West--they could have
won it
> if Oakland had played that last game and if the rules dictated a playoff
just
> for this reason, then they would have had the advantage over the Yankees.
I've sat here and kept my peace through all the complaints about the
unfairness of the playoff system and how the A's won without having to play
their make up game. I may have wished things were different, but I can
understand the rationale behind the rules and can't say it isn't fair.
But this one bites. If they're going to try and make us believe, as the rule
that lets the A's off of their make up game seems to be an attempt to, that
the Wild Card is an honorable play off spot, then the fact that a Wild Card
team outperformed their opponents on the field during the season ought to
count for something. And it bites extra hard that it's the Yankees that
benefit from what I consider an unfair rule. Agree?
Oh well, I'll be in Thailand, a million miles from watching the last couple
of games of a possible M's vs. Yankees series and then will miss ALL of the
WS. Ouch!
Hsberman
>benefit from what I consider an unfair rule. Agree?
Well, first the Yankees have to beat the A's. Then the Mariners have to beat
the White Sox. If all that happens, then it is true that the Yankees would
benefit unfairly.
Henry
Bill Morgan
http://www.mariners.org/gameday/redirect.asp?link=news/9-19-00.asp
Since the ALCS still shows 'site' TBD for each game and the text implies
that advancing division series winners with best record have home field
advantage, perhaps the Ms do get home field. I guess we'll find out
if/when we beat Sox and Yanks knock off As
Benjamin Ramm wrote:
>
> On Mon, 2 Oct 2000, Bill Morgan wrote:
>
> > I've done a little searching and can't find the guaranteed answer to
> > this one. Surely, someone in this group will know.
> >
> > If Seattle and the Yankees win their 5 game series, who gets home
> > field advantage for the ALCS? In the NFL, a wild card can never get
> > home field advantage in a later round. But, our record is better than
> > NY. Anyone?
>
Michael Roper
> If all that happens, then it is true that the
> Yankees would benefit unfairly.
With the whacked 2-3-2 format, home-field advantage isn't what it used
to be. It's hard for me to get too worked up over the wildcard thing
for that reason.
Michael Roper
mich...@encraft.com
Hsberman
>to be. It's hard for me to get too worked up over the wildcard thing
>for that reason.
>
>Michael Roper
I'm not sure what you are getting at. Baseball has always used the 2-3-2
format--originally just for the WS, then for League Championships once they
required 7 games. It is the first round that they changed last year or the
year before--at first it was 2-3, with the 3 being considered the advantage.
But it meant that a team like the Mariners, considered to have the homefield
advantage in 1995, could well start out 0-2 before they ever got home.
It is basketball that has the 2-2-1-1-1, and then changes to 2-3-2 for the
Finals, presumably because of the greater travel expected in an East-West
matchup. Not always true--Chicago-Houston isn's much travel, for example. But
the old Boston-LA series were...
Henry
Michael Roper
> I'm not sure what you are getting at.
It was just a (perhaps poorly expressed) observation that 2-3-2 offers
no home-field advantage to a team that loses the series in five games.
It has the same problem that the 2-3 format had.
Michael Roper
mich...@encraft.com
Hsberman
>no home-field advantage to a team that loses the series in five games.
>It has the same problem that the 2-3 format had.
>
>Michael Roper
but it means you lost 4-1. Hard to claim that you were the better team, but
didn't have enough home games. Whereas the old 2-3, you could lose 2 on the
road, and win 2/3 at home, but lose.
Henry
Michael Roper
> but it means you lost 4-1. Hard to claim that you were the
> better team, but didn't have enough home games. Whereas
> the old 2-3, you could lose 2 on the road, and win 2/3 at home,
> but lose.
The point is that in both cases, it is possible for the "home-field
advantage" team to lose a series having played more games on the road
than at home. That's the problem with both configurations--backloading
the HFA games does a disservice to the HFA team.
Michael Roper
mich...@encraft.com
Hsberman
>advantage" team to lose a series having played more games on the road
>than at home. That's the problem with both configurations--backloading
>the HFA games does a disservice to the HFA team.
>
>Michael Roper
>mich...@encraft.com
But a 2-2-1-1-1 is hardly practical. Imagine Atlanta and Seattle flying across
the country in the WS, for a series of one-game home stands.
Henry
Michael Roper
> But a 2-2-1-1-1 is hardly practical.
I understand that Henry. I originally entered this discussion only to
say that it doesn't much matter to me that the M's won't have the HFA
for the ALCS--because a 2-3-2 negates the HFA to some extent. That
2-2-1-1-1 isn't practical doesn't mean that 2-3-2 is fair.
Michael Roper
mich...@encraft.com
Michael Roper
>> I originally entered this discussion only to say that it doesn't
>> much matter to me that the M's won't have the HFA for the
>> ALCS--because a 2-3-2 negates the HFA to some extent.
>
> "With the whacked 2-3-2 format, home-field advantage isn't what
> it used to be. [It's hard for me to get too worked up over the
Geez, Henry. You're really killing my glorious-victory buzz. I
restored the rest of my quote in the brackets. It's clear from your
editing job that you have fixated on "isn't what it used to be" even
though in my followup I admitted it was poorly expressed, and I never
contested your correction. A better phrase would have been "isn't what
it should be."
In any case, I'm surprised that this is apparently all you've been
trying to communicate for the last five posts. If your only goal here
has been to establish that "it's never been any different," please
consider it mission accomplished. I thought there was more to it.
Michael Roper
mich...@encraft.com
Hsberman
>say that it doesn't much matter to me that the M's won't have the HFA
>2-2-1-1-1 isn't practical doesn't mean that 2-3-2 is fair.
No, you originally entered the discussion by saying the following: "With the
whacked 2-3-2 format, home-field advantage isn't what it used
to be."
Therefore, I followed up with comments that it never used to be any different.
Now you are saying that you entered the discussion "only to say it doesn't
matter." I agree it doesn't matter much--I think in the WS, it is almost 50-50
in the past 20 years, so HFA hasn't mattered much there. But you ended up in a
different place from where you started.
Henry