Every year, the schedule changes. Sometimes, from our perspective, this is good, sometimes it's bad. The people behind the scenes in the MLB keep working it and working it, in a seeming constant search for perfection. Interleague play, Bay Bridge Series, Unbalanced schedule... These are some different types of innovations that are used to try and, hopefully, achieve balance in all schedules.

However, one thing which is often overlooked by the casual refridgerator-magnet-peerer is the frequency of 4 game series, the frequency of 3 game series, and now 2 game series. I am a personal fan of the four game series, at which you can really feel like you have achieved something if you win, and even more so if you sweep. Still the three game series provides a thrill with the sweep, and a pleasant feeling of accomplishment with a 2 out of 3. But the 2 game series...
The 2 game series is a different matter. If you get swept, you've been swept. There's no concillation there. You've played a team, and you've lost.
A split then feels just indecisive. In a four game series, if you split, you can say to yourself, "well, I think we're pretty evenly matched teams", or "darn, it's too bad Harden was injured", but if you split a two game series, no conclusive results can be found whatsoever, except perhaps, "well, we'll see what happens when we play them more times"...
And then, there's the problem with sweeping a two game series. A sweep of a 2 game series? That's not even a winning streak. Sure, you beat the other team! All... 2 times.
My questions are these: Why have there been so many 2 game series so far in this 2007 season, and what does everybody else think of the Two Gamers?