Sports question (Best-of-7 series)

[RIP Robert H Bork]

Inspired by a discussion in another thread.

Well?

[Joe Biden 2020]

I prefer Option 1 because it reduces the stress and fatigue caused by traveling every other day.

[Franzl]

None of the above. Prefer no series. Just play the game and win or lose.

[Хahar 🤔]

It depends on the sport. For basketball or hockey, where teams don't play every day, 2-2-1-1-1 is more interesting and fairer, but it's not at all desirable for baseball, given the travel time involved; 2-3-2 is preferable in that case.

None of the above. Prefer no series. Just play the game and win or lose.

It takes a very myopic worldview to not realize that that's a terrible idea for a great many sports.

[Hatman 🍁]

Option 2 is the only fair way. Otherwise the lesser team gets a home ice/field/court advantage if the series only goes five games.

[Hatman 🍁]

None of the above. Prefer no series. Just play the game and win or lose.

It takes a very myopic worldview to not realize that that's a terrible idea for a great many sports.

Correct. The more games there are, the more likely the true better team will emerge as the series winner.

[patrick1]

What Xahar said.

[Franzl]

None of the above. Prefer no series. Just play the game and win or lose.

It takes a very myopic worldview to not realize that that's a terrible idea for a great many sports.

Correct. The more games there are, the more likely the true better team will emerge as the series winner.

In that case (and I agree), scrap the play-offs entirely. Surely the regular season provides the best opportunity to determine which club is best, considering how many games are played?

[Hatman 🍁]

None of the above. Prefer no series. Just play the game and win or lose.

It takes a very myopic worldview to not realize that that's a terrible idea for a great many sports.

Correct. The more games there are, the more likely the true better team will emerge as the series winner.

In that case (and I agree), scrap the play-offs entirely. Surely the regular season provides the best opportunity to determine which club is best, considering how many games are played?

While it is perhaps the best way to determine a champion, you have to understand that sport is done for the entertainment. And not having a playoff is not entertaining. Plus, having a playoff means more money, and more incentive for successful teams. Plus, it gives weaker teams an insensitive towards the end of the season whereas they would ordinarily be playing "nothing games"- which a vast majority of games would be.  In short, playoffs are entertaining to the public. It gives teams a chance to "win" the championship in one final game.

[Хahar 🤔]

None of the above. Prefer no series. Just play the game and win or lose.

It takes a very myopic worldview to not realize that that's a terrible idea for a great many sports.

Correct. The more games there are, the more likely the true better team will emerge as the series winner.

In that case (and I agree), scrap the play-offs entirely. Surely the regular season provides the best opportunity to determine which club is best, considering how many games are played?

I'm not opposed to this, actually. I do wish baseball would get rid of the playoffs and just have the top team from each league play in the World Series, but money forfends.

[© tweed]

None of the above. Prefer no series. Just play the game and win or lose.

It takes a very myopic worldview to not realize that that's a terrible idea for a great many sports.

Correct. The more games there are, the more likely the true better team will emerge as the series winner.

In that case (and I agree), scrap the play-offs entirely. Surely the regular season provides the best opportunity to determine which club is best, considering how many games are played?

I'm not opposed to this, actually. I do wish baseball would get rid of the playoffs and just have the top team from each league play in the World Series, but money forfends.

stop being a meritocrat.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

None of the above. Prefer no series. Just play the game and win or lose.

It takes a very myopic worldview to not realize that that's a terrible idea for a great many sports.

Correct. The more games there are, the more likely the true better team will emerge as the series winner.

In that case (and I agree), scrap the play-offs entirely. Surely the regular season provides the best opportunity to determine which club is best, considering how many games are played?

I'm not opposed to this, actually. I do wish baseball would get rid of the playoffs and just have the top team from each league play in the World Series, but money forfends.

Amen, and this is why I hate Bud Selig. We should have less, not more, playoff teams. If it weren't for his move to an 8-team tournament in the first place, we wouldn't complain about baseball going into November. His current move to a 10-team postseason is only done for the attention ("now, even a third place team can win it all", as if that is a good thing!) and money.

Or, better yet, go old-fashioned. Scrap interleague play, send the best team from each league into a single-round playoff (the World Series), and give home field to the team with the better regular season.

[Hatman 🍁]

None of the above. Prefer no series. Just play the game and win or lose.

It takes a very myopic worldview to not realize that that's a terrible idea for a great many sports.

Correct. The more games there are, the more likely the true better team will emerge as the series winner.

In that case (and I agree), scrap the play-offs entirely. Surely the regular season provides the best opportunity to determine which club is best, considering how many games are played?

I'm not opposed to this, actually. I do wish baseball would get rid of the playoffs and just have the top team from each league play in the World Series, but money forfends.

Amen, and this is why I hate Bud Selig. We should have less, not more, playoff teams. If it weren't for his move to an 8-team tournament in the first place, we wouldn't complain about baseball going into November. His current move to a 10-team postseason is only done for the attention ("now, even a third place team can win it all", as if that is a good thing!) and money.

Or, better yet, go old-fashioned. Scrap interleague play, send the best team from each league into a single-round playoff (the World Series), and give home field to the team with the better regular season.

What

One of the reasons baseball is horrible is that few teams make the playoffs. As a Blue Jays fan, I'm sick of having decent teams continue to fail to make the playoffs because A) they're in a tough division and B) it's too hard to make the playoffs. It's one of the reasons baseball has become totally ignored in Canada.

It should be automatic in any sport for 2/3 of the teams to make the playoffs. Having grand playoffs tournaments is what separates us from the Europeans!

[Hatman 🍁]

If baseball had 8 teams from each league make the playoffs (like the NBA or NHL), then the Blue Jays would have made the playoffs (since the strike) in 1998 (6th), 1999 (6th), 2000 (7th), 2001 (8th), 2002 (8th), 2003 (T6th), 2005 (8th), 2006 (7th), 2007 (7th), 2008 (6th), 2010 (7th), and 2011 (7th).

They would be a consistent playoff team, only missing it in 2004 and 2009 since 1998.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

So? If you're in a tough division, too bad. My team-of-choice is in the same division as yours, and we'd be playoff contenders even more frequently in a 16-team tournament. I still don't favor it. If you want a playoff berth, go win your division first.

The 16th best (or, in other words, the 15th worst) team finished worse than half of the teams! And as such, it should not be allowed to compete for the title. This even makes it possible for a losing-record team to win the championship. That's not right, and it's not fair.

A team that's in the bottom half of a league shouldn't have the chance to luck-out and become world champion. The playoffs are and should remain only a contest between teams that have already proven their worth in the regular season.

By the way, a true pennant race (like the American League in 1967) is always more interesting than a tournament, no matter how large.

[Хahar 🤔]

None of the above. Prefer no series. Just play the game and win or lose.

It takes a very myopic worldview to not realize that that's a terrible idea for a great many sports.

Correct. The more games there are, the more likely the true better team will emerge as the series winner.

In that case (and I agree), scrap the play-offs entirely. Surely the regular season provides the best opportunity to determine which club is best, considering how many games are played?

I'm not opposed to this, actually. I do wish baseball would get rid of the playoffs and just have the top team from each league play in the World Series, but money forfends.

Amen, and this is why I hate Bud Selig. We should have less, not more, playoff teams. If it weren't for his move to an 8-team tournament in the first place, we wouldn't complain about baseball going into November. His current move to a 10-team postseason is only done for the attention ("now, even a third place team can win it all", as if that is a good thing!) and money.

Or, better yet, go old-fashioned. Scrap interleague play, send the best team from each league into a single-round playoff (the World Series), and give home field to the team with the better regular season.

Oh, god, yes. The idea that now a third-place team can win the World Series infuriates me. I agree with all of your post except for the part at the very end; baseball has never given home-field advantage to the team with the better regular-season record because the two leagues don't (or aren't supposed to) play each other; you can't compare a 100-win team from one league and a 98-win team from the other, since they don't face the same competition and either could be better than the other. Home-field advantage will always be determined essentially at random; in that respect, giving it to the league that wins the All-Star Game is no worse than alternating each year, plus it makes the All-Star Game a little more interesting. That move might be the only thing Selig's done that I'm totally fine with.

[RIP Robert H Bork]

None of the above. Prefer no series. Just play the game and win or lose.

It takes a very myopic worldview to not realize that that's a terrible idea for a great many sports.

Correct. The more games there are, the more likely the true better team will emerge as the series winner.

In that case (and I agree), scrap the play-offs entirely. Surely the regular season provides the best opportunity to determine which club is best, considering how many games are played?

I'm not opposed to this, actually. I do wish baseball would get rid of the playoffs and just have the top team from each league play in the World Series, but money forfends.

Amen, and this is why I hate Bud Selig. We should have less, not more, playoff teams. If it weren't for his move to an 8-team tournament in the first place, we wouldn't complain about baseball going into November. His current move to a 10-team postseason is only done for the attention ("now, even a third place team can win it all", as if that is a good thing!) and money.

Or, better yet, go old-fashioned. Scrap interleague play, send the best team from each league into a single-round playoff (the World Series), and give home field to the team with the better regular season.

Oh, god, yes. The idea that now a third-place team can win the World Series infuriates me. I agree with all of your post except for the part at the very end; baseball has never given home-field advantage to the team with the better regular-season record because the two leagues don't (or aren't supposed to) play each other; you can't compare a 100-win team from one league and a 98-win team from the other, since they don't face the same competition and either could be better than the other. Home-field advantage will always be determined essentially at random; in that respect, giving it to the league that wins the All-Star Game is no worse than alternating each year, plus it makes the All-Star Game a little more interesting. That move might be the only thing Selig's done that I'm totally fine with.

Alright, fair enough. I, for one, don't like the All-Star rule.

It could be true that a better regular season might be caused by poorer competition within one's own league. I still favor the even-odd rule if the regular season records are tied and if the head to head record is tied (although, if there's no interleague play, that doesn't apply).

[Hatman 🍁]

It must really anger you that an 8th place team is about to win the Stanley Cup.

[Хahar 🤔]

It angers me that the team is Los Angeles.

[© tweed]

hockey is a joke now anyway with the accrual of points for a skills competition and for losing hockey games.  there is no stratification in the standings at all and most of it has little or nothing to do with actual proficiency at hockey.

[Hatman 🍁]

hockey is a joke now anyway with the accrual of points for a skills competition and for losing hockey games.  there is no stratification in the standings at all and most of it has little or nothing to do with actual proficiency at hockey.

Personally, I like the lack of stratification in the standings. I think part of that has to do with the salary cap.  I think that since now we are seeing 8th place teams make it to the finals, it's time to increase the amount of playoff teams to 20. Back during the original six era, 4 out of 6 teams made the playoffs (2/3), so why not 20/30.

But yeah, hockey has been a joke ever since Bettman became commissioner. Things are starting to get better now, though.

[© tweed]

no it has nothing to do with the salary cap.  research has been done to death on salary constraints and it has only a minimal effect if that on equalizing outcomes.  ostensible parity in hockey has everything to do with competition is actually structured and shootouts/overtime losses are rewarded.

[Gustaf]

Assuming that this is about home-away games, how about 1-1-1-2-1-1? I think that's how they do hockey play-offs in Sweden.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Assuming that this is about home-away games, how about 1-1-1-2-1-1? I think that's how they do hockey play-offs in Sweden.

I assume you're starting with the best team on the road?  Otherwise acccording to your formula, the lesser team has home advantage.

[Gustaf]

Assuming that this is about home-away games, how about 1-1-1-2-1-1? I think that's how they do hockey play-offs in Sweden.

I assume you're starting with the best team on the road?  Otherwise acccording to your formula, the lesser team has home advantage.

Yes, the low-seed starts at home.