36 replies to this topic

[Pedro Cerrano]

(bangs head against desk)

[bnickle]

Excellent decision. The right move.

 

 

And completely agree with the ranking of NBA over MLB. NBA could possibly even be above the NFL. I think they are relatively close, especially between good teams,  once the playoffs begin.

[SportsGuy]

Madison...Remember something, the situation I spoke about in MLB is just a few games a year...We are talking post season here, not reg season...So, you are talking about, at most, 4 games and as little as 2 games.

 

So, in that instance, for that small sample size, you can say that home field is just as important in MLB as it is in the NBA...But, we are talking overall here and overall, its not really all that close.

[SportsGuy]

BTW, there are also times in MLB when teams will build their teams for the park they play in and that could hurt the opposing team.

For example, the Orioles are at a disadvantage playing in Oakland, since its a tough park to hit homers in and that is basically their offense.

 

So, in those cases, the home field really matters in MLB but again, you are picking and choosing here..using extremes.

 

In the NBA, everything is equal in terms of the air, the dimensions, etc...

[Oriole85]

Madison...Remember something, the situation I spoke about in MLB is just a few games a year...We are talking post season here, not reg season...So, you are talking about, at most, 4 games and as little as 2 games.

 

So, in that instance, for that small sample size, you can say that home field is just as important in MLB as it is in the NBA...But, we are talking overall here and overall, its not really all that close.

Yeah in the regular season it isn't close, I can agree with that it's in the NBA's favor. While I think homefield is more important in the playoffs than the regular season with baseball, I can get behind home-court in the NBA is more important in the playoffs, non-Finals or World Series.

 

So overall, I don't disagree.

 

The context of this thread began with the NBA Finals format being moved, so I think the comparison to the World Series was natural. I didn't agree with Pedro when he said home-[field] didn't matter in baseball.

[You Play to Win the Game]

I think way too much is made of home field in the NFL. I mean, typically the top 2-seeds in each league are in a class of their own and would win against the competition regardless of where the game was played. And then you take a team like the Ravens, who are perpetual road warriors - the road atmosphere doesn't matter - execution on the players part does. I'm aware of the #'s in the NFL, but again, I think it's a correlation thing more than it is a causation type of thing.

[SBTarheel]

I think way too much is made of home field in the NFL. I mean, typically the top 2-seeds in each league are in a class of their own and would win against the competition regardless of where the game was played. And then you take a team like the Ravens, who are perpetual road warriors - the road atmosphere doesn't matter - execution on the players part does. I'm aware of the #'s in the NFL, but again, I think it's a correlation thing more than it is a causation type of thing.

Do the #1 seeds ever meet in the Super Bowl?

 

I'm sure it's happened, but it's gotta be rare, right?

[Oriole85]

BTW, there are also times in MLB when teams will build their teams for the park they play in and that could hurt the opposing team.

For example, the Orioles are at a disadvantage playing in Oakland, since its a tough park to hit homers in and that is basically their offense.

 

So, in those cases, the home field really matters in MLB but again, you are picking and choosing here..using extremes.

 

In the NBA, everything is equal in terms of the air, the dimensions, etc...

I think that's magnified in the World Series, when the teams are even less familiar with the opposing stadium. I'm sure there's many Cardinals and Red Sox players who haven't played in the opposing stadium. The Orioles play 9-10 times a year at Fenway and the Cubs play the same amount at Busch, so when they play there, they aren't at as much of a disadvantage as a team in an opposing league, who only plays there once every 3-5 years.

 

That's part of my thought process like you said everything being equal. The playing surfaces are somewhat different and you are dealing with different surroundings, but home court is even more important in college basketball IMO since the arenas are even less uniform. OTOH, there is more of a separation between the best and worst in cbb than in the NBA. So it's a bit of an apples to oranges comparison.

[Oriole85]

Do the #1 seeds ever meet in the Super Bowl?

 

I'm sure it's happened, but it's gotta be rare, right?

Now it seems pretty commonplace for a lower seed (#3 or lower) to make the SB and win it as well. Until maybe a decade ago, it seemed rare when a non-#1 or 2 made the SB and even less so when they won it.

 

The Steelers, Giants, Packers, and Ravens have all won it all in recent years as a low seed (#4 or lower), I don't think it's as big of a deal when the Raiders pulled it off like 30 years ago.

[Pedro Cerrano]

You guys are still beyond wrong, even in the Finals/WS:
 

"

There have been 84 World Series played since 1924 using the 2-3-2 format in which the team with home-field advantage hosts the first two and last two games, and the home team has won 48 times, or 57%. (Excluded are years in which the travel format was altered because of war and 1994, when there was no World Series because of a strike.) From 1951 to 1980, the team without home-field advantage won 20 of the 30 Series, while 22 of the last 29 winners have been the team with home-field advantage.

"Baseball in general has the lowest home-field advantage of all sports," said Tobias Moskowitz, coauthor of "Scorecasting" and a professor at the University of Chicago. "We don't find that there is any difference in the postseason versus the regular season, once you adjust for the quality of teams."

Even though baseball is the one sport where the dimensions of the field vary in each ballpark, allowing teams to mold their rosters to the idiosyncrasies of their home stadiums, it is also the sport with the lowest historical home-team winning percentage. Over the last three complete seasons, the home team has won 55.5% of the 7,288 games. Over the last century, that figure has hovered around 54%.

Basketball, where the court is a universal size, maintains the highest home-team winning percentage. Over the last three seasons, NBA home teams have won 60.2% of their games. The next-highest rate in the four major sports comes from the NFL, at 56.7%."

 

http://articles.lati...antage-20110722

 

Now I just need to find home team win % in the NBA finals, but I can almost guarantee you it's higher than 57%

[SportsGuy]

You guys are still beyond wrong, even in the Finals/WS:
 

"

There have been 84 World Series played since 1924 using the 2-3-2 format in which the team with home-field advantage hosts the first two and last two games, and the home team has won 48 times, or 57%. (Excluded are years in which the travel format was altered because of war and 1994, when there was no World Series because of a strike.) From 1951 to 1980, the team without home-field advantage won 20 of the 30 Series, while 22 of the last 29 winners have been the team with home-field advantage.

"Baseball in general has the lowest home-field advantage of all sports," said Tobias Moskowitz, coauthor of "Scorecasting" and a professor at the University of Chicago. "We don't find that there is any difference in the postseason versus the regular season, once you adjust for the quality of teams."

Even though baseball is the one sport where the dimensions of the field vary in each ballpark, allowing teams to mold their rosters to the idiosyncrasies of their home stadiums, it is also the sport with the lowest historical home-team winning percentage. Over the last three complete seasons, the home team has won 55.5% of the 7,288 games. Over the last century, that figure has hovered around 54%.

Basketball, where the court is a universal size, maintains the highest home-team winning percentage. Over the last three seasons, NBA home teams have won 60.2% of their games. The next-highest rate in the four major sports comes from the NFL, at 56.7%."

 

http://articles.lati...antage-20110722

 

Now I just need to find home team win % in the NBA finals, but I can almost guarantee you it's higher than 57%

The problem with this research is a lot of it comes  before the DH was even in place.

 

There is no doubt that Boston will be at a disadvantage when they go to StL...They will not be able to play Napoli..a big part of their offense.

 

Doesn't mean they can't win because pitching is still the key.

[Pedro Cerrano]

Yes they will be at a huge disadvantage not playing Napoli, and I get the whole DH thing.  I still stand by the idea that it's harder to win on the road in the Finals in the NBA than the WS.  Maybe, MAYBE it's harder for AL teams to win on the road than NBA teams in general but I'd have to count up W/L record (since I can't find it online) and I don't have time to do that.

 

But again, a lot of this is just watching the sport.  Seth and MWeb are both huge NBA guys and they both agree with me.

[bnickle]

Obviously, the difference between playing a series and playing a single game is a huge factor when comparing the other sports to football. Hypothetically, if the NFL has a series of games instead of a do or die game the team with the homefield advantage would win at a higher % than they do now.

[Oriole85]

I think way too much is made of home field in the NFL. I mean, typically the top 2-seeds in each league are in a class of their own and would win against the competition regardless of where the game was played. And then you take a team like the Ravens, who are perpetual road warriors - the road atmosphere doesn't matter - execution on the players part does. I'm aware of the #'s in the NFL, but again, I think it's a correlation thing more than it is a causation type of thing.

I don't think it's as important as it once was. I think home-field advantage was more important a decade ago than it is now in the NFL playoffs, the numbers I think would back that up. In theory, it still should be the most important in the NFL, given the elements (say New Orleans has to play GB) and the fact it's single elimination. I think having home-field advantage is more important in a single game situation than a best of 7. Now there's definitely a good argument to be had, once you reach that final game, it's even more important.

 

I don't want to say the Ravens are the exception to the rule because there has been an increase in lower seeds winning like I said above, With the Ravens road record in the playoffs, you feel like they have a decent shot in most playoff games, regardless of where it's played.

[SportsGuy]

Yes they will be at a huge disadvantage not playing Napoli, and I get the whole DH thing.  I still stand by the idea that it's harder to win on the road in the Finals in the NBA than the WS.  Maybe, MAYBE it's harder for AL teams to win on the road than NBA teams in general but I'd have to count up W/L record (since I can't find it online) and I don't have time to do that.

 

But again, a lot of this is just watching the sport.  Seth and MWeb are both huge NBA guys and they both agree with me.

Yes, this is obviously true.

 

As I said, this example is only talking about a few games, so overall, its not close.

 

However, for those games, there is a clear disadvantage to the AL team.  That's all I am saying.

[Oriole85]

Do the #1 seeds ever meet in the Super Bowl?

 

I'm sure it's happened, but it's gotta be rare, right?

How top overall seeds have fared (Pro Football HOF)

 

I'm surprised it didn't happen more, although not so surprised it hasn't happened much recently. From 1975-1993, it happened 8 times. It's only happened once since then (2009).

[mweb08]

The problem with this research is a lot of it comes  before the DH was even in place.

 

There is no doubt that Boston will be at a disadvantage when they go to StL...They will not be able to play Napoli..a big part of their offense.

 

Doesn't mean they can't win because pitching is still the key.

 

Most teams aren't that hurt by the lack of the DH, though. The Cardinals for example, gain more by having a DH than would most AL teams. The Red Sox just happen to be the team that is most hurt by not having a DH since he is their best hitter and an awful fielder.