I just don’t see how this saves travel.  If the #2 wild card wins (the road team), they have to travel anyway. That would mean BOTH teams would have to travel in that scenario. What travel does this save?

Is this about saving a day on the 2-2-1 format because I could have sworn there were times where there was no travel day between game 4 and 5.

Edit:
Yup, they went from Boston to Oakland with no travel day.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/postseason/2003_ALDS2.shtml

Wait, are you saying you want LOGIC from owners? That’s way too much to ask.

This is an absolutely fantasic idea that I’ve been waiting for a long time. The old format penalized the better team by giving the lesser team a theoretical two chances to clinch at home. Now said lesser team gets no such chances. Very logical.

That being said, I’d prefer a 1-2-2 with the lesser team getting those two games in the middle. But I think they’ve made a step in the right direction.

It also gives the better team a chance to be closed out after a single home game, which absolutely cannot happen to the dog.

This is absolutely insane and sucks. Which is why they did it, of course.

I don’t understand the objections. This should have been the format all along.

There is NO reason to give EITHER team ANY advantage in any series unless it is specifically unavoidable, as it is because there must be an odd number of games in the series. Scheduling them this way is IMO the least advantageous to the team that ALREADY has an advantage, as it should be. Unless you would actually rather have two games at home then three on the road in a five game series then you do think the top seeded team still has an advantage in this format. What is the case for making that advantage even larger other than the Yankees are usually top seeded?

If home field weren’t an advantage, why not play them all in one place ?

So there is an advantage to the home team, which means the team that does better in the regular faces a pretty good chance of heading to home down 0-2 in the series. And still be said to have “home field advantage”, but I’d rather go on the road needing to win 1 of 3, than having to sweep 3 at home.

The only rationale for 2-3 is that they have generally been scheduling off days between cities in a series, since the games are all night games for prime time TV coverage. But there are plenty of times they have to go coast-to-coast to play back-to-back during the regular. And they want to guarantee both teams at least 1 home game. 2-2-1 or 1-3-1 would cover this.

No, the rational is that it is the fairest way to set up the series. You basically ignored everything I said… in the 2-3 setup would you rather have the 2 or 3 at home? I’m assuming the answer is still 3. So… why give any further advantage? I don’t get it. All this stuff about travel is meaningless. The goal, I’ve always assumed at least, is to have two teams play a series in as fair a manner as possible to help determine which is better, not to keep piling advantages on to one particular team, not to give them 3 of 5 at home AND arrange those games so they always have home field advantage no matter how many games it goes on for AND setup the travel schedule to make things easier for them as well. I don’t see why anyone would argue that this should be so. Can you enlighten me?

[8] You’re preaching to a choir.  A choir all against you of course.  There’s no way it is more “fair” to give the first 2 games to a team that won maybe 20 games less.  That is basically saying the regular season has little to no meaning.  Doing better in the regular season should give you an advantage in the playoffs.  This way, you are both having a playoff system, AND giving the regular season meaning.  It makes the most sense…

jyjjy - i am with Mike K on this too. the whole point IS to give the better team an advantage. The best team is the team that wins the most in 162 games (assuming a balanced schedule, ha). The playoffs are to generate revenue.  As it is the best team does not always make it to the WS (and hopefully not this year since it is obvious that my team is not going to be the best); but MLB has to do the best it can to give the best team the best shot.

That’s still ignoring what I’m saying. They DO have an advantage, even in the 2-3 format, both competitive and financial. If you are going to start handing out unnecessary further advantages(ignoring that I think the entire concept is antithetical to sportsmanship and I firmly reject your implication that the post season is a competitively meaningless cash grab) where do you stop and why? You say “MLB has to do the best it can to give the best team the best shot” but I can’t see how anything involving scheduling is remotely the best they can do. Why not an extra roster slot or two? Top seeded gets the DH and the pitchers bat for the other team maybe? I mean you are already forcing the wild card to win a one game play in, giving the other team in the next round home field advantage and arranging those games to benefit the other team even further, why not pile it on even more?

[11] No one is ignoring what you’re saying, we’re not agreeing with it.  How does the team with the better record have an advantage in the 2-3 format?  For one, they may only get 1 home game.  Shouldn’t the team with the better record be the one that gets guaranteed at least 2 home games, for revenue purposes?  If you want to be most “fair”, all playoff games should be hosted at a neutral site, with teams splitting the (post MLB take) gate 50/50.  But for many reasons, that isn’t practical.  Another good one is to play 1-1-1-1-1.  Each team gets at least one home game and alternating as much as possible when the number of games has to be odd.

The best thing is to probably take last year’s playoff teams (for example), and then do a log5 simulation of 3 different scenarios.  3-2 format, 2-3 format, 2-2-1 format.  Find out the expected results in each series.  I’d say you take the middle result.  That is, you don’t want to give the “better” team *too* much of an advantage, b/c you want the possibility of upsets.  However, I don’t think you want to give the inferior team too much advantage either, because our job is not to handicap the playoffs.

Mostly you are not disagreeing with it though, you are actually ignoring it. You say;

“How does the team with the better record have an advantage in the 2-3 format?”

I’ve asked repeatedly if you would rather have to be the team with 2 in such a format or the team with 3. Once again I’m assuming you would still pick 3. Either correct this assumption or don’t but if not then you obviously know the answer to your own question. What you do seemingly genuinely disagree with me on is that this advantage, the unavoidable one, is not enough and should purposely be made larger. I’m asking exactly why you think it is appropriate to purposely slant the setup of a sporting event to favor a certain team and where you draw the line in doing so and why. Your last paragraph I guess expresses where, the “middle” schedule, but not why apart from “our job is not to handicap the playoffs” which you have already clearly stated is actually the goal in your previous post, “MLB has to do the best it can to give the best team the best shot.” In fact those two finishes to your last two post are directly contradictory.

Isn’t this only a ‘this year’ thing since they had to cram that play-in game after the postseason series dates were already set?  Since the Yankees won’t be in the postseason this year it seems like a non-issue, assuming they go back to the way it was after this year.

I suppose but I still don’t get how it is an “issue” at all rather than an intelligent correction in the name of the most equatable setup but I guess I’m rather unique in thinking that equity is a worthy goal in playoff scheduling. The way the concept is so openly derided though honestly leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I’ve asked repeatedly if you would rather have to be the team with 2 in such a format or the team with 3. Once again I’m assuming you would still pick 3.

Honestly, I’m not sure.  If you HAD to play all 5 games - and take the RS/RA difference or something - then 3 home games is definitely preferable.  That’s why doing the exercise I suggested would be better, because we can figure out how much of an advantage each scenario gives.  Giving the inferior team 2 home games first may be more advantageous.

I’m asking exactly why you think it is appropriate to purposely slant the setup of a sporting event to favor a certain team and where you draw the line in doing so and why

I’ve given it to you.  You play 162 game season.  That season should have meaning, and a lot of it.  One of the rewards for doing the best in that 162 game season should be getting HF in the playoffs.  All sports do seeding in a similar way, where doing better in the qualifier (full season, qualifying race, etc) gets you some benefits.  Why should baseball be different?  If you want to be “fair”, why not just pick team names out of a hat?

The way the concept is so openly derided though honestly leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

I think it’s just a reaction to the idea that the better team has a chance to be in a position where they have to sweep three games at home to advance to the next round.  How often did that happen prior to them switching the format?  I know of one case that I’d rather not think about.

The ONLY advantage the 2 team has in a 2-3 scenario is in the case of a sweep. I seriously doubt that is enough to give them an overall advantage. Honestly I’m entirely unsympathetic to complaints that the other team might end up having home field advantage when the only way such is even possible to end in a bad way is if you get swept.
I don’t even know what you are talking about with your second paragraph. No one is arguing that the team with the better record shouldn’t get home field advantage. This is not how it actually does work though, a wild card team having a better record than some of the division winners is quite common. Would you be in favor of that change? Wild card gets home field if they have the better record? While I do understand what you are saying you are still avoiding the why stop there question. Advantages that extend to the playoffs from having a good regular season record;

1) You get to be in the playoffs.

2) If you win your division you do not have to go through the one game crap shoot play in.

3) If you win your division you get home field advantage in any series against a wild card team(except possibly the World Series.)

4) If you have a better record than your opponent you get home field (unless you are are a wild card.)

If I’m reading you right you seemingly would like to add something along the lines of;

5) Each series is to be scheduled in a manner such that this home field advantage is preserved no matter the eventual length of the series if at all possible.

And you believe that 1-4 without 5 is “basically saying the regular season has little to no meaning” and without it you might just as well be “picking names out of a hat.” Ok… but even from that perspective why not go all the way with 5 and say it should be a 3-2 setup? Why is there no 6 on the list? From what you’ve said precisely the middle ground of 5 is where your sense of fairness and “not handicapping the playoffs” kicks in and I don’t have a clue why as it seems very arbitrary yet you seem almost offended by the idea that maybe not handicapping the playoffs should actually mean exactly that when possible making 5 a step too far.

“I think it’s just a reaction to the idea that the better team has a chance to be in a position where they have to sweep three games at home to advance to the next round.”

You always have to sweep the last three if you lose the first two. That all three would be at home is actually the best possible scenario. Any advantage the other team had in forcing such a situation due to the a 2-3 format is balanced by exactly that. The post season is always a crap shoot and personally I think loading the dice in ways other than natural unavoidable imbalances is really not the proper solution to that.