So what is the Indians' secret about traveling across the US less strenuously than their opponent?

My point about the travel is I'd rather have the first two games in Cleveland to try and get ahead in the series, rather than play on the road the first two games (maybe lose 1 or both) then make the trip cross country to try and come back in the series.

1-3 at home in the World Series tells me that it doesn't matter if the Indians finish ahead of the Dodgers. Having the best record in the league is a big deal because of the wild card game. If home field was so important, the Indians wouldn't have choked games 6 and 7 at home.

So why did the Indians split the first two at home, take 2 of 3 on the road and then lose two at home? Seems to me that they are just as good on the road as at home. Even slightly better this year in the regular season.

For a small market team, it is also important for revenue. I believe the Indians generated an additional $60M last year with their deep playoff run. They parlayed that into Encarnacion.

Also, keep in mind there was a strong Cubs contingent at the World Series games in Cleveland due to the closer distance between the cities. If it were an East vs. West situation, it would be a bigger home field advantage.

Not at the game that I went to. With only 35K seats, there weren't a lot of extra seats available and they certainly didn't generate that much extra revenue for 1 extra home game.

Of course. There is nothing at all wrong with the Dodgers--they simply descended back to reality, i.e., came back to earth. Among position players, they really only have 3 outstanding players--Bellinger, Seager and Turner--and other than Kershaw, the balance of the starters were pitching well above their norm. A lengthy losing streak is precisely how reality corrects for the statistical anomaly of their unlikely winning streak. In short, they never, ever were truly a 115-116 win team.

Hi Barry,

Larry

Well they did add Yu Darvish who they didnt have in 1h.......Kershaw and a healty Darvish is a tough series

People forget that 60% of the games in the regular season dont really matter when looking into the postseason. Those are games started by #3, #4, #5 and even #6 starters sometimes..

If you are telling me the Dodgers were 1-4 the last 5 games when Kershaw started that would mean something if there was a long losing streak

If the Dodgers only won 8 of their last 20 games..but those 8 wins were by Kersahaw and Darvish..would those 12 losses really mean anything? I know not that simple but you know what i mean. Who cares if they lost the last 5 games started by Brandon McCarthy

Kershaw's post season record to date isn't all that remarkable and Darvish as a Dodger isn't either. The Dodgers may win it all, but not because of your argument. There is usually a Brandon McCarthy type who plays a pivotal, unexpected role in a short series. Don Larsen was 3-21 with the Orioles (1954) before his World Series Perfecto in 1956.;)

Identifying which team the unexpected hero plays for before the playoffs is the problem.

Understood, but in your argument it doesnt matter if the dodgers won their last 15 games of the year or lost the last 15 if we are just going on what we believe certain pitchers do in the postseason and talking about unknown surprises Last year though Kershaw was very good in the postseason by the way if not great.

Thus, basically it doesnt matter then if a first place teams ends up losing their last 50 games..if their best player are great in the post season and the many many unknown surprises of players who could suck in the regular season be great in the postseason

If kershaw and Darvish win 6 games in the post season etc, that would further show who cares how the #3 to #5 pitchers did for them in many losses..we shall see..

However my point was that if you think regular season record matters during the last 30 games or whatever i would be more concerned how the #1 and #2 pitchers did not the rest of them. In post season #1 pitchers pitch more often as well

.