Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange
How games played in total for each club? In real life the club records were Cincinnati 66-48-1 and Houston 66-49-0. Cincinnati had a game against St. Louis on April 8 end as an 8-8 tie. If that game had been turned into a regular game loss for Cincinnati in the schedule file instead of deleted that would explain why the two clubs have the same record.
|
Even at 66-48-1 to 66-49, it is still one-half game behind. The tied game would've been replayed at some point, and the Reds-Cardinals had a DH rescheduled for late August of 1994. If this was not the tie game, after the regular season was complete (93-68-1 and 93-69), the Reds, if within one-half game ahead or behind the Astros, would've been required to make up that game if they already had not at that point. The old saying in MLB: ties don't count in the standings but stats do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange
In 1994 the home field advantage for the Division Series were assigned as follows:
AL East, AL Central
NL Central, NL West
In the League Championship Series:
AL East (or the team that defeated it, excluding the Wild Card)
NL West (or the team that defeated it, excluding the Wild Card)
In the World Series, the AL would have had the home field advantage. (It was changed from the NL having it to avoid conflicts with the NFL. In compensation, the NL would have had the home field advantage in the 1995 and 1996 World Series.)
Based on the standings at the time of the strike, the Division Series match-ups would have been as follows:
AL: Cleveland vs. New York
AL: Texas vs. Chicago
NL: Atlanta vs. Cincinnati
NL: Montreal vs. Los Angeles
The team listed second in each match-up would have had the home field advantage for the best-of-five series. However, the home field rotation was 2-3, so the team listed first would have hosted the first two games of its Division Series.
|
I was aware of the 2-3 format (also regionalized TV coverage), but what on earth was the reasoning for the NL to not have HFA in 1994? I remember the printouts in TSN that said the NL would've hosted, not the AL. Was this some sort of last minute change in 1994, based upon what NL teams were in the race and shared stadiums (Astros, Reds, Giants)?
EDIT: By 1994, the only teams in MLB that still shared stadiums with an NFL franchise were: Minnesota (Twins/Vikings), Milwaukee (Brewers/Packers played 1-3 games at County a year), California (Angels/Rams), Seattle (Mariners/Seahawks), Florida (Marlins/Dolphins), Philadelphia (Phillies/Eagles), Pittsburgh (Pirates/Steelers), Cincinnati (Reds/Bengals), Houston (Astros/Oilers), Colorado (Rockies/Broncos), San Diego (Padres/Chargers), and San Francisco (Giants/49ers). Only five of those were even in contention (Angels and M's were in that Western failure)