What’s the preferable way to win a 2-1 series?

[Frobby]

At the end of the day, winning just about any series 2 games to 1 is a good outcome.  But do you have a preference as to which of the three games the O’s win?

On the one hand, it’s nerve wracking to lose the first game because then the team is behind the 8-ball.  One the other hand, when you win the first two, you’re kind of playing with house money but it’s deflating not to complete a sweep.  Win, lose, win begins and ends on a good note, but you never have that shot at a sweep.  

Which do you prefer?  I didn’t include a don’t care option.
 

[Greg Pappas]

I chose option two, just because I like to start well and finish well.  It feels good playing another series coming off of a win.

[Jim'sKid26]

Give me the opportunity to sweep every time.

[Malike]

To win the first two, sweeping any team is hard, but you are guaranteed a chance at it if you win the first two.

[Aristotelian]

 

3 minutes ago, Malike said:

To win the first two, sweeping any team is hard, but you are guaranteed a chance at it if you win the first two.

But in the hypothetical you are guaranteed to lose game 3.

[Malike]

Just now, Aristotelian said:

 

But in the hypothetical you are guaranteed to lose game 3.

Correct but you don't know that at the time. If you win the first two you had a shot at a sweep, it just didn't happen. 

[foxfield]

11 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

 

But in the hypothetical you are guaranteed to lose game 3.

This is true....but you cannot make any shots you do not take. That is the theory.

[Orioles West]

I like it best when my O’s win early and often. Take the series and go from there.

[Aristotelian]

9 minutes ago, Malike said:

Correct but you don't know that at the time. If you win the first two you had a shot at a sweep, it just didn't happen. 

OK, so after the fact after losing the third game you prefer having had a shot at the sweep even though you failed to get it. Lol, it really makes no difference to me. Feels like a trick question.

[jabba72]

I think its more satisfying if you lose the 1st then win the last two.

[Malike]

6 minutes ago, Aristotelian said:

OK, so after the fact after losing the third game you prefer having had a shot at the sweep even though you failed to get it. Lol, it really makes no difference to me. Feels like a trick question.

It's really not. Going into any series if you lose the first game, you have no shot at a sweep, so if you win the last two that's cool. If you win the first and lose the 2nd there is pressure of a rubber match game, if you win the first two, you always had a chance at a sweep, it's better to have that chance than not to, in my opinion. 

[Fiver6565]

How could this possibly matter?  If you're winning 2 of every 3, don't get picky!

[dystopia]

My initial thought was win the first two and that’s how I voted, but thinking on it some more, that might be the *worst* way, especially if there’s an off-day after. Now the loss lingers as opposed to winning the last two and going into the next series feeling good. 

[DirtyBird]

Winning the series after losing the first game is definitely the most satisfying of the three ways. Quickly goes from a series you think you’re going to lose to one that you win, and the beginning of a win streak.

[Malike]

9 minutes ago, Fiver6565 said:

How could this possibly matter?  If you're winning 2 of every 3, don't get picky!

The issue is you don't know how the series is going to play out until it's over. I was happy with the ATL series winning the first two, we lost the last one but I didn't feel like it was a crushing loss and nobody knew we were going to lose that game, I don't think the point is to look at this in hindsight, I want to win the first two games of every series if I have the choice.