Which Playoff Format Do You Use?

[The Game]

I keep hearing people complain about the 2-3-2 for NBA playoffs, I am wondering if there is any disadvantage to the 2-3-2 format for MLB and what other are using instead of the 2-3-2.

[Bluenoser]

I play fictional - best of 9 using the 3-4-2 format.

The odd time I've used best of 7 it's always been 2-3-2.

Just my opinion, but HFA is way overblown in all sports, purely a psychological thing. Good players/teams are able to block those distractions out and play well anywhere.

I always thought cost saving was the biggest factor behind doing 2-3-2 vs 2-2-1-1-1. Moving a team back and forth across the country costs a lot of $$$$, even when you own the airplane.

[DreamTeams]

Currently I play a 5 game championship series (2-2-1). But in the past when I've played 7 game series it was 2-3-2 because it was one less time I had to manually switch out home/away jerseys. But, now since jerseys are switched out automatically I'd probably go with a 2-2-1-1-1 because it's simply more fun.

[The Game]

Originally Posted by DreamTeams

I'd probably go with a 2-2-1-1-1 because it's simply more fun.

I am thinking about doing this also. The more hockey I watch the more I am beginning to like their way of doing things vs NBA and MLB.

[oman19]

Always go with the 2-2-1-1-1 format.

I work for the Detroit Pistons and the 2-3-2 helped us out to win the '04 championship. (We would of won anyway I think but 2-3-2 was another advantage.) I still don't like it. I think the 2-3-2 helps out the underdog a ton.

[Mr. Baseball]

It depends on the series. The league I currently commission (WCBU), has twelve teams, two sub-leagues of six, and we accept two teams in each league in the postseason. In order to enhance the importance of winning the conference, I run the 2-5 setup for the first round. However, for the League Finals, I use the 2-2-2-2-1.

[Fyrestorm3]

2-2-1-1-1 all the way.

When I do a best-of-five, though, I switch it up and go 1-2-2. My reasoning behind this is that in a standard 2-2-1 series, the only way for the team with HFA to close it out at home is to have the series go 5 games. I agree with Bluenoser in that HFA is a little overblown, but in terms of entertainment for the fans, who doesn't want to see their team close out a series at home? With a 1-2-2 format, the only way that the HFA team DOESN'T finish at home is if they sweep, in which case, whatever, you swept.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

Just my opinion, but HFA is way overblown in all sports, purely a psychological thing. Good players/teams are able to block those distractions out and play well anywhere.

Yes, but, some teams just play better at home, and getting those first games of the series at home means a better chance to take a series lead. Teams which win the first game(s) usually go to win the series.

Curiously, the two sports with standardized playing fields have the biggest home advantage. The NBA has the highest at about 65%; the NFL is about 60%. The NHL comes in third at about 55% and MLB is last at 54%.

[DreamTeams]

Originally Posted by Fyrestorm3

When I do a best-of-five, though, I switch it up and go 1-2-2. My reasoning behind this is that in a standard 2-2-1 series, the only way for the team with HFA to close it out at home is to have the series go 5 games. I agree with Bluenoser in that HFA is a little overblown, but in terms of entertainment for the fans, who doesn't want to see their team close out a series at home? With a 1-2-2 format, the only way that the HFA team DOESN'T finish at home is if they sweep, in which case, whatever, you swept.

That's quite an interesting take on the five game format. I've never really thought about it that way. Having only the first game at home before hitting the road seems a little screwy. Still, I might have to give the 1-2-2 format a try, for a few seasons, just to see how it feels.

[Ripamaru]

I use an NFL like format with 12 teams, the top two in each league getting a bye, and 3 wild cards.

First round is a best of 3 with the higher seed getting all home games.

Second round best of 5, 2-2-1

League championship series and world series best of 7, 2-2-1-1-1

[MightyVotto]

I find it to be very boring that for the longest time in baseball there were only two post-season teams each year. So, I'm switching it up.

I've been playing a post season 1920 - 1924 with 3 teams from each team making it. The top teams in each league are the top seeds and get a bye. The 2 and 3 teams play each other in a 5 game wild card series. Format = 2-2-1.

Wild card winner plays the top seed in a 7 game Championship Series. Format = 2-3-2.

Winners advance to World Series. Format 2-3-2.

It's been fun!

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by DreamTeams

That's quite an interesting take on the five game format. I've never really thought about it that way.

I'd agree [about the 1-2-2 format]. Only I'd note that in MLB's history the most common outcome of a best-of-five series is a sweep. (Interestingly, the most frequent outcome of a best-of-seven series is a series going the distance.)

[DreamTeams]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

I'd agree [about the 1-2-2 format]. Only I'd note that in MLB's history the most common outcome of a best-of-five series is a sweep. (Interestingly, the most frequent outcome of a best-of-seven series is a series going the distance.)

Hmm. Interesting stats, Le Grand Orange. Might even try a 1-1-1-1-1 format, as well. Would have to edit the schedule, but would be an interesting five game format.

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by DreamTeams

Hmm. Interesting stats, Le Grand Orange.

I can give you an exact percentage breakdown for each possible outcome for each series length... except the data is on my regular computer which is offline at the moment. When it's back in operation (and provided I remember) I'll post the numbers.

[24Rocks]

I grew up a hockey fan when the leafs were pretty good team and I loved the hockey format, I hate the baseball one cause I feel you should come home for last game, I change it up tho every 5 years 1-2-2-1-1 then 2-2-1-1-1, then baseballs 2-3-2, 3-3-1, then 1 game all around.

[r0nster]

real life I think the current format is good however on OOTP any format would be good

[Bluenoser]

Originally Posted by r0nster

real life I think the current format is good however on OOTP any format would be good

This


In a game you can do anything and justify it

[Le Grande Orange]

Originally Posted by Bluenoser

In a game you can do anything and justify it

Well, it can't do anything just yet, there are still some possibilities that can't be duplicated. But it's slowly getting to the state of all-encompassing totality.

[RchW]

Originally Posted by 24Rocks

I grew up a hockey fan when the leafs were pretty good team and I loved the hockey format, I hate the baseball one cause I feel you should come home for last game, I change it up tho every 5 years 1-2-2-1-1 then 2-2-1-1-1, then baseballs 2-3-2, 3-3-1, then 1 game all around.

The Leafs were never a good team unless you grew up by age 2.

[Mancandy]

Originally Posted by Le Grande Orange

I can give you an exact percentage breakdown for each possible outcome for each series length... except the data is on my regular computer which is offline at the moment. When it's back in operation (and provided I remember) I'll post the numbers.

I'll save you the effort. Of the 158 Best of Seven series in MLB history, 27 (17%) were sweeps, 38 (24%) ended in five games, 42 (27%) ended in six games and 51 (32%) went the distance. Yes, not only is a seven game series the most common result, it happens almost twice as often as a sweep!

On the question of the thread, while I much prefer the 2-2-1-1-1 in real life, I use the 2-3-2 in my OOTP games because I like realism and also because I think that format makes much more sense in baseball than the NBA(fortunately, the NHL doesn't use it), to minimize off days for travel.

EDIT:

Originally Posted by oman19

Always go with the 2-2-1-1-1 format.

I work for the Detroit Pistons and the 2-3-2 helped us out to win the '04 championship. (We would of won anyway I think but 2-3-2 was another advantage.) I still don't like it. I think the 2-3-2 helps out the underdog a ton.

Not necessarily. It all depends on how the series goes. For example, just a year after the Pistons' 2004 championship(which, you're right, they would have EASILY won under any format, including if all seven games were played in LA), the same format was a significant hindrance for them against the Spurs. They probably would have lost anyway, but it would have been a lot easier to win Game 6 at the Palace and then win Game 7 in San Antonio than try to win two straight in San Antonio.

The 2-3-2 format only helps the underdog if they win one of the first two games on the road. If they don't, or if they lose one of those three home games, then the format is a huge advantage for the higher seed. That imbalance is why I don't like it.