What? Orioles say if there is a 3-way tie for 2 wild-cards, they want to risk it on 1 game?

[Rojo13]

Have you guys seen this?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2016/10/01/three-way-wild-card-tiebreaker-scenario-blue-jays-tigers-orioles/91414008/

"The Toronto Blue Jays will host the first game of a potential three-way tiebreaker Tuesday while the Baltimore Orioles have opted to play one home game Wednesday instead of playing two potential road games to earn a wild-card berth, MLB officials told USA TODAY Sports."

So if that report is true, it seems to go against all logic.

The orioles could have the option of playing Toronto in the 1st game. If we won, we were in the wild card game. If we lost, we'd play Detroit and if we won that we'd be the 2nd wild-card and would then face Toronto again.

Instead, we said, "No thanks. We'll take one chance." That makes zero sense.

Two chances even at 40% per game (road) is way better than one chance at home (60%) as you only lose two in a row on the road (36%) of the time, giving you a 64% chane of advancing. Does anyone know if money plays a role in this?

IDIOTIC.

[LookitsPuck]

I'd imagine the Blue Jays had the first say.

Jays have the season series over the Tigers (4-3) and Orioles (10-9).

[Brooks The Great]

Only thing I can think of is that the Orioles are considering the probable starters for the Blue Jays and Tigers, and figure they get the best possible matchup by waiting until Wednesday.

It also looks like choosing the 1 home game saves the Orioles from a lot of travel.

Other than that, I agree that it seems like a poor decision to take one shot at home instead of two shots on the road.

[Brooks The Great]

I'd imagine the Blue Jays had the first say.

Jays have the season series over the Tigers (4-3) and Orioles (10-9).

They did, but if I'm not mistaken, the Orioles could have decided to play two road games, forcing the Tigers to host the one home game.

[LookitsPuck]

They did, but if I'm not mistaken, the Orioles could have decided to play two road games, forcing the Tigers to host the one home game.

Ah, gotcha.

[Rojo13]

Yes, the Jays had the 1st say, but we had the 2nd say. So we could start Tillman on Tuesday against Toronto. If we won, we are in and would wait until Thursday to play the loser of Detroit/Toronto.

If we lost, we could pitch Ubaldo on Wednesday or normal rest against Detroit and if we won that we'd face Toronto on Thursday with Gallardo or Bundy.

Mathematically, it's the worse decision in history. No team has ever opted to risk it one game.

[SteveA]

Have you guys seen this?

http://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/mlb/columnist/bob-nightengale/2016/10/01/three-way-wild-card-tiebreaker-scenario-blue-jays-tigers-orioles/91414008/

"The Toronto Blue Jays will host the first game of a potential three-way tiebreaker Tuesday while the Baltimore Orioles have opted to play one home game Wednesday instead of playing two potential road games to earn a wild-card berth, MLB officials told USA TODAY Sports."

So if that report is true, it seems to go against all logic.

The orioles could have the option of playing Toronto in the 1st game. If we won, we were in the wild card game. If we lost, we'd play Detroit and if we won that we'd be the 2nd wild-card and would then face Toronto again.

Instead, we said, "No thanks. We'll take one chance." That makes zero sense.

What am I missing?

Two chances at 40% (road) is way better than one chance at home (60%).

IDIOTIC.

Yeah, interes

I'd imagine the Blue Jays had the first say.

Jays have the season series over the Tigers (4-3) and Orioles (10-9).

Yes, Toronto had the first say and made the obvious choice. Home game, win and you are in, lose and you get a second chance.

We had second choice.

If Rojo's 60/40 estimate for home field advantage is correct, our chances are:

60℅ based on what we chose

The other choice would have been:

0.40 (chance we win at Tor)

+

0.60 (chance we lose at Tor) * 0.40 (chance we win at Det)

= 64%

So using Rojo's 60/40 estimate if home field advantage, there would be a slight advantage to having made the other choice. 64% vs 60%. Not enormous.

[Rojo13]

I've thought about it some more. Maybe they are considering the odds of actually winning the wild card game. I mean if we don't win it and get to the ALDS against Texas, what's the point? There's real no difference if we go out except for bragging rights as you can say youw ere the wirld card team #2 (versus #3 which isn't a real thing technically).

SO maybe the feel the odds of winning the wild card game with Ubaldo on the mound is better than having to do it with Bundy or Gallardo?

[Frobby]

Maybe it's a simple as wanting to assure that the home fans get to see a playoff game.

[LookitsPuck]

Maybe it's a simple as wanting to assure that the home fans get to see a playoff game.

Technically it's not a playoff game, though...yeah?

[$Greatness$]

I like it. If you're going to win, go deep. Don't play scared. If you have the losers mentality of "Hey 2 games are better than 1" You're more susceptible to lose. This way there is no tomorrow and you put it all on the line in one game.

[Frobby]

Technically it's not a playoff game, though...yeah?

No reason to be hyper-technical. For all intents and purposes, it's a playoff game.

[LookitsPuck]

No reason to be hyper-technical. For all intents and purposes, it's a playoff game.

Oh, I get that. But nobody is going to say the O's made the post-season if they lose this tiebreaker game.

[MDtransplant757]

Don't we all just love the genuises in the MLB commisioners office?

[LookitsPuck]

Don't we all just love the genuises in the MLB commisioners office?

I don't know if there's a better way to handle it, though. Unless you want to rely on head to head matchups to decide who's in/who's out?