It really doesn’t, though. A team’s momentum going into the playoffs has basically no correlation with playoff success. As the old saying goes, momentum is tomorrow’s starting pitcher.
I don’t think this is a problem that needs to be solved. It sucks for the away team (I say as a Tigers fan) but they came in 2nd.
But if we did want to solve it, play all 3 at the same stadium but designate the visitors as the “home team” for one game so they at least get the advantage of batting last. It doesn’t mess up the schedule or travel, and it evens things out slightly.
I watched Nathaniel Lowe all summer with the Nats and wasn’t terribly surprised when he hit into a double play in a clutch situation. What’s that old saying about the definition of insanity?
I think this is a great idea. IMO, much of the ‘home field advantage’ is due to the fact that home team bats last, and this would mitigate that factor.
Agreed. It’s extremely easy to implement too.
That’s an excellent idea
It might be easy to implement on field, but who know behind the scenes. I think there’s pitch-by-pitch animations on the MLB website that shows the ballpark. Something like that could break if the team batting in the bottom half of an inning wasn’t the home team.
Or maybe that’s all worked out already.
The home team batting first has happened when a game couldn’t be played at the home stadium due to cancellations or scheduling conflicts. It looks like since 2007, a game or series like this has happened about once every other year: The Death and Rebirth of the Home Team Batting First
This happens each year during the college baseball playoffs, as the higher-seeded team hosts the Super Regional, a best-of-3 elimination series with the winner advancing to the College World Series. The home team bats last in the first game, while the visitor bats last in the second game. Home team again bats last in the 3rd game, if necessary. No reason why it couldn’t be implemented in the majors.
I very much don’t think this a problem to be solved. I would lean the other way and increase the advantage. Give the higher seed a 1-0 advantage and then play 2 games (or 4). You want teams to care about finishing higher in the regular season. You want 162 games to matter. Pennant races are good. Teams resting their starters because who cares what seed you are is terrible.
The frustrating thing is baseball did have a reasonably good system with 2 wild cards. The 1 game playoff put a huge incentive in winning the division. The current system gives a strong nod for being the first or 2nd seed, but not much beyond that. Home field advantage just isn’t that big a deal in baseball.
Also having playoff spots decided by tie-breakers is an awful change.
So, make it a “best three out of five” series, but effectively assume that the higher seed has already won game 1? It has the effect of potentially making the WC round even longer, due to a travel day between games 2 and 3, and a series taking as long as 5 days to complete, if it goes the full distance.
MLB already has an issue that the playoffs are too long, due to the WC round; this year, the World Series won’t even start until October 24th, and a Game 7 wouldn’t be played until November 1st. Your proposal adds an extra two days to the WC round, as MLB slates the next round (divisional series) to not start until the end of the WC round, plus a travel day for winners from the WC round.
Well not if you do a best of 3. That saves a day. I don’t really have a problem with the length of the baseball season though (baseball = good, more baseball = better)
Best of three probably would be a wash, calendar-wise; MLB pretty much always bakes in an off-day for travel in the playoffs.
I suspect that most fans don’t, either, my main issue with it is that the later you go into October (and even November), the more likely that it becomes that cold weather and/or snow could impact the games. Looking at who’s in the playoffs this year, for example, you have 7 teams (Yankees, Red Sox, Tigers, Indians, Cubs, Reds, Phillies) which play in open-air stadiums, in cities where wintry weather at the end of October is a very real possibility. (The Brewers and Blue Jays play in cold-weather cities, but have domes.)
This is quite possibly the worst idea I’ve ever heard regarding playoffs.
Then why are you so opposed to the idea presented by @TroutMan?
Totally agree with this.
It looks like the home team wins about 54% of the time, which is consistent with what the home-field advantage has been in the NFL in recent years. Not huge, but not negligible.
Welp, Guardians look cooked.
I’m just pulling numbers out of my ass, but of that 4%, I’d guess 3.5% of the advantage is batting last, 0.4% is knowing and playing to the ballpark dimensions, and 0.1% is the home crowd.
Given that good batting is about patience and focus, I wouldn’t be surprised if the home crowd is actually a disadvantage in high stakes at-bats.
Tigers pull it out! Mariners up next starting Saturday.
That seems a bit extreme. How about we just give the higher seed 9 innings at the plate, and the other guys only get 8? …. or the lower seed only gets 2 strikes per at bat? …. or the lower seed plays with handcuffs and blindfolds on?
I have had 4 pints of beer and I should be pitching for the Cubs now as I won’t hit a batter!