I think baseball being played in a collection of series' is something that really makes it unique from other sports, I enjoy it. Going in and taking a series from the Rangers is a test of the team that is different than if they were going around playing only single games. You can complain about them seemingly to let up if a sweep is a possibility. But it's still interesting to be pitted against another team for a series of games as opposed to just single games.D-train wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2024 5:01 pmLet's say you sweep a 2 game series but then lose the next day in the 1st game of the next series. Do you celebrate the loss by saying, hey we just won 2 of 3? No you don't. Why not? Just because the other team had different color jerseys on? You won 2 of 3 in both scenarios. There is literally zero difference yet people inexplicably treat them differently.gil wrote: ↑Wed May 01, 2024 4:19 pmYeah and then the Seattle Times headline after the game last night was "Mariners secure series win". Teams win or lose games. The game is the unit of analysis for team performance. I want the enjoyment of unlimited pissing and moaning if we lose today, without that enjoyment being diluted by being told we won the series.
This guy on Quora does a better job, interestingly he's in India
I guess you could look at a series as strictly a travel issue, but I also think you can look at it as a unit of measurement as winning a single game is.In Major League Baseball (MLB), winning a series is often considered more significant than winning a single game because MLB teams play a series of games against each other. A series typically consists of three or four games, and winning the majority of those games indicates a team's consistency and ability to perform well over multiple matchups. In contrast, winning a single game might be seen as a momentary success but doesn't necessarily reflect a team's overall strength or adaptability across a series. The emphasis on series victories is part of the strategic and statistical nature of baseball.
