This is something that I hear a lot, and it’s actually a misconception. Back in those days they alternated years, the NL East had 3 games in odd years and the NL West had 3 in even years. This was the West’s turn to have 3 at home. I recall that the schedule did change a little bit for TV purposes, it was a little odd to have no travel day between games 2 & 3 and a day off between 3 & 4.
I remember a lot of talk at the time about what to do with the schedule if the Cubs had advanced, and they might have switched home field to avoid having the Cubs home games during the week, figuring that the weekend games during the day would have been less of a problem for ratings. I can’t remember now if those plans were finalized and announced.
Nothing to do with lights, or with Wrigley. Through 1984* the division series (“the playoffs” as they were known before the wild card) was a 2-3 series in which one team got the first two home games and the other team got the last three. Which team was which rotated, and in 1984 it was the western division champion, SD, that got the last three games at home. In 1980, same place in the rotation, the Phillies got the first two games at home and the Astros got the next three. So the schedule was pre-ordained–had the Cardinals, Expos, or Mets won the East that year, the Padres still would have had the last three games.
*Only because after 1984 they switched to a best of seven.
After 1984 the Cubs were threatened with having to play any future postseason games in St. Louis or Comiskey if they did not install lights. Could be that’s what you’re remembering.
I think it’s more concrete than that. I don’t have the math skills to prove it, so I’ll appeal to common sense:
Let’s say 2 evenly matched teams enter the 9th inning tied. If the visitors score 1 run in the 9th, their odds of winning the game shoot up dramatically, but they’re still < 100%.
If the home team scores 1 run in the 9th, their odds of winning = 100%, because the game just ended.
We went through this last year in reference to extra inning game, but all arguments apply to the 9th as well. And the conclusion was…not much agreement at all.
Statistically, home teams do slightly worse in extra innings than in regular-length games, which suggests batting last isn’t a significant advantage. Or it suggests something else. We didn’t agree much in that thread.
I get all of my baseball on the radio, and I can’t even remember the last time I was able to listen to a Saturday postseason game, thanks to whichever asshat decided that the Washington State Cougars needed to play all their games during prime-time. The local sports station has the contracts to broadcast the Seattle Mariners, the MLB postseason, and Cougar football, and somehow Cougar football always takes priority.
Not to get this thread too off-track, but there was an inherent slight unfairness to the old system. One year the AL East champion could get home field advantage both in the ALCS and in the World Series. In the next year the NL West champ had that advantage, and it switched back and forth year to year. The AL West and NL East NEVER had that advantage for both rounds.
Cardinals started Chris Carpenter three times in 2011, though that was games 1, 5, and 7 rather than 1-4-7. Still, in some sense the most recent precedent for Kluber.
Maybe in the grind of the regular season a home team tries harder. Then again maybe the visiting team is worn out from traveling. Too many variables to really isolate a home field advantage.
But in the post-season, there’s really nothing special about NHL, NBA, or NFL over baseball. Both teams are presumably pumped up. There is nothing – nothing at all - that adequately explains a winning percentage differential between the sports. In the NBA, for instance, the team with the home field advantage is the team that has the better record, which might mean that they’re simply better to begin with.
Here’s my point or here are my points:
Home field “advantage” is probably overstated in most sports, including baseball. In the end, you have two teams, they’re playing to win, and it’s about which team performs in the moment.
But if there is a home field advantage at all, baseball is the sport that actually has a home field advantage. Sure, go ahead and pull out all kinds of stats that “prove” something to the contrary – don’t give a shit. There are quantitative arguments and qualitative arguments.
And to address something that was mentioned earlier: by “pitching to the ballpark” I never meant that pitchers can somehow come in with a different game plan depending on which park they’re throwing in – you misunderstood me. What I mean is that, pitchers have different ways to approach pitching. Some, like Kershaw, rely on the punch-out. Others rely on putting the ball in play. If you’re a pitcher that puts the ball in play and have a tendency to get fly ball outs, maybe you can get away with that if you play in a park that’s “pitcher friendly.” Move to a stadium you’re less familiar with and that same pitcher gives up three homers in two or three innings.
People seemed to snicker when I talked about the lighting or the outfield depth. Talk with Matt Holliday about the lighting in Dodger Stadium and see if he thinks it’s a joke. Talk to Nelson Cruz about playing the wall in right field in Busch Stadium and see if he thinks familiarity with the home field is insignificant. Nobody would say in golf, for instance, that knowing how to play the course is an insignificant factor. Nobody would say that the type of surface in tennis is insignificant. Clearly some players adjust to different conditions better than others – that’s fact. Baseball, unlike football, basketball, or hockey, presents players with different conditions in the playing environment.
In theory, 9 frames is 9 frames. Just like in bowling or golf. Now in sport like, say, college football, there probably is an advantage to the team that has the last possession: Go for the tie or go for the win? How close to the goal line are we? They have the flexibility in applying scoring strategy. But in baseball, runs are scored one at a time.
If there’s a home field advantage, then there must be a reason behind the home field advantage. Showing me stats that purport to show home team winning percentages isn’t necessarily convincing evidence. That could have numerous possible explanations.
I’m trying to parse this and failing. There are extensive stats that show teams win more at home, but this doesn’t demonstrate an advantage? What do you think an advantage is? What do you think the goal of the game is?
You guys are using the NBA as an example to show that the home field is more important in their sport than in baseball. Let’s consider the fact that in the NBA Finals, the home team is the team that has the better record. There is also inter-league play. Shall we accept that for starters?
Let me break this down for you:
It’s entirely possible, if not likely, that the team that wins in the NBA playoffs is simply… better.
And yet, just yesterday, you did exactly the same thing. You told me that you were right, and i was wrong, because 10 of the last 13 World Series have been won by the team with home field advantage. Here’s the quote, in case you forgot:
So, stats and home field winning percentages matter when it’s a small sample size that supports your position, but they don’t matter when it’s a large sample size that contradicts your argument?
You’re not digging; you’re going in circles.
This is also true in baseball in the Division Series and the League Championship Series.
And, as previously demonstrated, in 20 years of DS and LCS play from 1995 to 2015, the home team has actually lost more series than it has won. And in individual games, the home team has a slight advantage which is about the same as the league-wide home field advantage during the regular season.
And none of this even touches on whether that advantage is the product of park dimensions or lighting.
Not necessarily…often the wild-card team will have a better record than the division winner that they are facing. The division winner, however, always gets home-field advantage over the wild-card team.