This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of World Series champions article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
List of World Series champions is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
List of World Series champions is part of the Major League Baseball awards series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on October 30, 2015. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The logos shouldn't be used in this manner - sugget you have a look at WP:LOGO and WP:FAIR.-- Addhoc 20:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The Red Sox won the Series in 1918 and won their next one in 2004, 86 years later. The drought itself, however, was 85. That is, there were 85 seasons played during 1919-2003, the years in which the Red Sox did not win the Series. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The articles List of World Series champions and List of World Series winners are obvious content forks and should be merged and redirected. There is a lot more information on this article; there's not much information in the second list that doesn't already exist, so we can just squeeze over the extra relevant information from the final column into this modern WS table, and that's about all that needs to be done except for a redirect. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 13:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I think they do different things (chronology vs number of wins), so I'd prefer importing the table basically intact from the Winners list, and adding it as another table here. What's valuable about the early sections here are that they form a catalogue raisonné explaining the evolution of championships and reasons why (for example) the Providence Grays are the true first world champions. :-) (I live in Providence.) —— Shakescene ( talk) 22:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Shakescene, we can't use colors in the table that way per WP:ACCESS. The color is being used as the sole means of information conveyence, and using a symbol to accompany in this case is aesthetically displeasing and doesn't help to set anything off because everything has color. Would you mind removing them? KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 00:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I would support a merge. All this article needs is a lead, references, and some stylistic tweaks, and it would be prime material for WP:FLC. Dabomb87 ( talk) 02:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You've got "cancelled" in 1883 and "0-0" in 1891. I think the best thing would be to simply says "no Series". Likewise with 1904, which was not technically "boycotted", because there was no compulsion to play a World Series until 1905. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This list needs to be prominently placed in the World Series article, somewhere up near the top. The first thing readers are likely to want to see from this page is who the winners have been, not a long lecture about its history. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Is that really needed? I think the mass use of colour in a table generally makes it more cluttered and hard to read, and it is no different in this case. In the case of the "modern" table, the conference is indicated in a different column, so I see no reason why colour coding should be used too. I'm going to remove it for now, but I guess someone could readd it if they liked. -- Scorpion 0422 20:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Haha. I feel like the MOS Nazi, but MOS:CAPS says no: "Initial capitals or all capitals should not be used for emphasis". KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 13:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have a separate citation for each Series at the end of each line of the post-1903 table? There are dozens of complete tables, many of which are printed (and thus more permanent), but also republished on the Internet, and which come from disinterested sources.
Of course it's good to let people have a guide to each Series, but can't that be accomplished by referring to the index page for all such games at MLB/history, from which they can click to individual Series? —— Shakescene ( talk) 00:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I was inspired by List of Super Bowl champions. Also, I would like to add a column for the managers of both teams, and there is no general reference (that I have found) that covers that. However, all of the citations do include that. -- Scorpion 0422 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
In his edit summary, KillerVogel said he was removing italics from tied Series records because "there are more efficient ways" of showing this. What does he suggest? Without some indication, the record of National League wins and losses (and their challengers' wins and losses) looks very different from what it was (only one actual NL loss to the AA plus 3 or 4 tied Series). One could switch columns in those Series with just as much justice and give an equally misleading first impression. —— Shakescene ( talk) 07:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a sample of what my proposed version of the final table would look like. It is similar to List of Stanley Cup champions, except with a refs column and without a game winning goal column. My one issue with it is that I would prefer the "games" to be between the two teams, but it doesn't look right with the leage and managers columns, but that's pretty minor.
Year | Winner | Manager | League | Loser | Manager | League | Games | Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1903 | Boston Americans | Jimmy Collins | AL | Pittsburgh Pirates | Fred Clarke | NL | 5–3 † | [1] |
1904 | The New York Giants (NL champions) declined to play the Boston Americans (AL champions) | |||||||
1905 | New York Giants | John McGraw | NL | Philadelphia Athletics | Connie Mack | AL | 4–1 | [2] |
1906 | Chicago White Sox | Fielder Jones | AL | Chicago Cubs | Frank Chance | NL | 4–2 | [3] |
I'm also considering removing the rows that note cancelled serieses, which would allow for sortability to be added. Those can be noted in prose form. -- Scorpion 0422 22:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Here are the first 8 Series in the format I'm experimenting with. Managers are sortable by last names first (e.g., "Dean, Daffy" before "Dean, Dizzy" before "DiMaggio, Dom" before "DiMaggio, Joe" before "DiMaggio, Vince" before "Drysdale, Don").
No. |
Year | NL Manager |
National League | W? |
NL |
= | AL |
W? |
American League | AL Manager |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1903 [4] | Fred Clarke | Pittsburgh Pirates | – | 3 | † | 5 | AL | Boston Americans | Jimmy Collins |
2 | 1905 [5] | New York Giants | NL | 1 | – | Philadelphia Athletics | Connie Mack | |||
3 | 1906 [6] | Frank Chance | Chicago Cubs | – | 4 | AL | Chicago White Sox | Fielder Jones | ||
4 | 1907 [7] | Frank Chance | Chicago Cubs | NL | 4 | (1)* | 0 | – | Detroit Tigers | Hugh Jennings |
5 | 1908 [8] | Frank Chance | Chicago Cubs | NL | 1 | – | Detroit Tigers | Hugh Jennings | ||
6 | 1909 [9] | Fred Clarke | Pittsburgh Pirates | NL | 3 | – | Detroit Tigers | Hugh Jennings | ||
7 | 1910 [10] | Frank Chance | Chicago Cubs | – | 4 | AL | Philadelphia Athletics | Connie Mack | ||
8 | 1911 [11] | John McGraw | New York Giants | – | 4 | AL | Philadelphia Athletics | Connie Mack |
I do not like that. It is unnecessarily complex and cluttered and the symmetry is rather tacky. I think having all the winners on one side makes the most sense, because it would help with the sortability. If the point of having columns go by league rather than by winner is to eliminate the League columns, why is there still a "W" column which notes leagues? If you're going to do that, you might as well use the olf format. Also, if you're going to make the manager names sortable, use the {{ sortname}} template. -- Scorpion 0422 01:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this has already been covered, but the article should be reformatted to put the List alongside or below the photos. At first, the large gap made me think that the list was missing. Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable enough to do the necessary editing.
Nigelrg (
talk)
18:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
My 1929 World Almanac lists the last names of the managers with the NL & AL pennant winners since their start. Is it worth adding them, too? [My formatting below, not theirs]
NL
AL
P.S. to Bugs: my 1966 World Almanac (still published by the The New York World-Telegram & Sun just before they were swallowed up never to return in The New York World Journal Tribune) has several "World Series" section and table headings, but also on page 814, "Baseball World Championships, 1903-1965".
—— Shakescene ( talk) 05:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to cite sources regarding the 1876 and 1899 series? I can't find them in any conventional references. The 1899 series is especially mysterious. The series isn't mentioned in the article text. Brooklyn was the regular-season pennant winner, but Philadelphia was the third-place team and it isn't clear why the series was significant. -- Mojavemac ( talk) 20:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not following why it's necessary to list when expansion teams came into the league under the "league" column. How is that relevant? If there are no real objections, I'm leaning towards removing it. Shamedog18 ( talk) 01:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Would there be any objection to converting the refs in the "Ref" column in the table to inline ext links? It seems inefficient to have the reflist at the end of the article bloated so much... The World Series Overview page could be used instead as a single ref for the entire table, which would clean things up a lot. -- Fru1tbat ( talk) 16:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Needless to say, there seems to have been more traffic on this page once the regular baseball season closed. And also many edits by IP's (unregistered editors identified only by their Internet Protocol address) trying to change text and table entries for the Yankees, Phillies and other teams. Not to condemn all IP's, because some of them have been correcting the errors of others. But should we ask for semi-protection until mid-November for this and closely-related pages (e.g. Major League Baseball, World Series, New York Yankees, Philadelphia Phillies, Yankee Stadium, ...)? —— Shakescene ( talk) 07:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a note, I have split off the pre-World Series champions from this list, as they are inherently not World Series champions. Staxringold talk contribs 18:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I had an idea for this page and wanted to see if anyone had any objections, input, etc. I wanted to make a list of WS champions by city. For instance, the Braves franchise has 3 WS wins, but one each in three different cities: Boston, Milwaukee, and Atlanta. I think this would be an interesting and worthwhile list. I've found that in general baseball fans are aware that the Giants have won several championships, but a lot are unaware that they've yet to win since moving to San Francisco. Richjenkins talk contribs 5:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a note in case anyone's wondering, the colors were removed in response to a featured list candidacy. If you have any questions about the colors and why they were removed, ask at the FLC while it's still open. Please don't re-insert the colors, as it might hold up the nomination. Thanks. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 18:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I think there should be lists, perhaps on a separate page or two pages, to list how each World Series ended.
The two lists would be one for World Series ended on a defensive play (who got the final out), and another for World Series ended on an offensive play (who got a walk-off hit).
Year | Winning team |
Result |
Losing team |
Final out recorded by |
Pos |
Batter |
Final play |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1992 | Toronto Blue Jays | 4-2 | Atlanta Braves | Joe Carter | 1B | Otis Nixon | groundout, 4-3 |
2008 | Philadelphia Phillies | 4-1 | Tampa Bay Rays | Brad Lidge | P | Eric Hinske | strikeout swinging |
Year | Winning team |
Result |
Losing team |
Batter |
Pitcher |
Final play |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1993 | Toronto Blue Jays | 4-2 | Philadelphia Phillies | Joe Carter | Mitch Williams | Three-run home run |
1997 | Florida Marlins | 4-3 | Cleveland Indians | Edgar Renteria | Charles Nagy | RBI single |
The reason why I thought of this is because of Joe Carter. In 1992, he recorded the final out, being the end of a groundout by Otis Nixon. In 1993, he hit the famous walk-off homer off Mitch Williams to end that series. I wanted to see if anybody else have ever both recorded the final out in one series and clinched another with a walk-off hit.
What do you think? -- Kitch ( Talk : Contrib) 16:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Can the stats for the 1884-1890 series be placed into this article ? (such as a second table, or an appendix section)
76.66.195.196 ( talk) 07:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
the 2010 champs, the San Francisco Giants, won the series 4-1, not 4-2.
71.96.17.220 ( talk) 02:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, the Giants have now tied the Dodgers for most Series appearances by a National League team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.8.145 ( talk) 03:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Verbage suggestion for most Series appearances by NL team
Currently:
Suggestion:
Thanks for your efforts maintaining this page!
Dmeanea ( talk) 15:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
In this section I propose that any teams with the same number of World Series appearances by listed alphabetically. Alphabetically is one of the most common means of categorization. The problem with categorizing ties by most recent World Series appearance is that it isn't instantly recognizable in the way that alphabetically is. I suspect a person could stare at the chronological list for a minute and still not get what the order is based on (I know I didn't). And the problem with adding another header explaining that ties are chronological is that you then have a main header and sub-header to explain the situation. It just seems needlessly complex. Alphabetically is more natural and makes things more simplistic. Ultimahero ( talk) 07:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Sir, the note was added AFTER I made my edits. I edited, it was reverted, and THEN THE NOTE WAS ADDED. Still, the fact that there must be a note at all proves my point: Chronology is not the most natural way for a list to be organized. The fact that there must be a second not to explain how ties are arranged proves that it is a confusing means. Alphabetizing is the most natural way to arrange ties. No further explanation would be needed. It's much more natural and will not clog up the page with multiple headers. Ultimahero ( talk) 19:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
? I do not understand what you mean by this, sir. Ultimahero ( talk) 20:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of teams missing from this list (e.g. Texas Rangers). 65.216.107.80 ( talk) 05:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The listing of World Series appearances and the overall series record for the Baltimore Orioles is incorrect. The list indicates that the Orioles appeared 7 times and that their record in World Series contests is 3-4. In fact, they appeared 6 times and their record is 3-3. They won the World Series in 1966, 1970 and 1983, but lost in 1969, 1971 and 1979. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.75.203 ( talk) 00:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
This is true, however,the record for teams appearing in WS should then include St Louis Browns,and it does not. Jim loving ( talk) 01:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Jim Loving
1904
The Red Sox technically won the 1904 World Series by default, as the Giants refused to play them. This is not counted as a victory for the Sox, however, and when i edited the series appearances by franchise section, i never changed the amount of series the sox appeared in, or won, because they did not appear in the 1904 W.S. However, the Guants refused to play which means, they forfeited. The asterisk i put next to the Sox and at the bottom of the section did not say the Sox won, but that the Giants forfeited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.48.76 (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:V & WP:NOR, you will need to provide reliable sources to verify that the Red Sox "technically" won the World Series. Note it does not say this in the 1904 World Series article.--JayJasper (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Chapter 2, page 23, paragraph 1 of The Curse of The Bambino. Its a book. And this is what he had to say. "A year later Boston won its second American League flag, but the National League champion New York Giants refuse to play a World Series. The Sporting News declared the Pilgrims 'World Champions by default.'" Is the Sporting News reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.48.76 ( talk) 23:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
That is a reliable source. You can check the archives of the Sporting News, or you can read the book "The Curse of the Bambino". I never said the Giants were legally obligated to play, nor did I change the Red Sox appeaances in the Series. I pointed out that back then, people considered the Sox, champions by default. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.48.76 ( talk) 17:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Sir:
Really appreciate all of the hard work you have done on Wikipedia. You have the Minnesota Twins playing in 6 World Series, winning 3 and losing 3. Minnesota has actually played in 3 World Series, winning 2 and losing 1. The Twins lost in 1965 and won in 1987 and 1991.
Respectfully,
Jim Welke jamesw1437 @ yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.253.6 ( talk) 22:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The list of of teams is listed by appearances and not wins. This could be seen as confusing to users because it seems biased towards teams like the Giants who have not won as many championships as other teams (example the Cardinals). This list should have its default order World Series by wins because users are more likely to be searching for what teams have one the most. ---- 5/4/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC96:91B0:2896:6CDE:6187:6D24 ( talk) 23:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Martymar1970 has brought an excellent issue before my eyes. The Baltimore Orioles are currently listed as 'founded' in 1894, which is the correct date if you trace their roots back to their original Western League roots (the WL Brewers who became the Browns who eventually became the O's). However, several other teams are not similarly listed. The Tigers have an identical history, and an even clearer lineage to the WL (they've been the Detroit Tigers all along), yet are listed as 1901 (their AL start date). Ditto for the White Sox, Twins, Indians, and Red Sox (other originally WL teams that became current AL teams).
Meanwhile, the picture gets blurrier looking beyond the WL. The Chicago Cubs briefly discuss their pre-NL history on their page, and while they were joined the NL in 1876 are listed here and on their page as founded in 1871 (their earlier pre-NL founding). Ditto for the Braves. To state it quickly: What is our standard for the officially listed 'founding' date of a team? Its earliest founding date, traceable to that franchise? Its date of joining it's current league? Something in between (since, e.g., nobody would say the Astros were founded in 2013)? Staxringold talk contribs 18:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The series is not over, yet the 2013 winner is already entered.
Tierney.joe ( talk) 03:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Already done Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 17:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Why exactly do expansion teams & wild card teams get a special [W] & [X] footnote? Do teams founded after 1960 have a special advantage or disadvantage in winning World Series? I think not. Seems totally random, might as well footnote teams with names based on animals, or west coast teams. Wild Card is slightly more relevant, maybe, but I think a footnote is the wrong way to go about it. Instead, perhaps a new column that could be added with something like "Regular Season finish" that would read something like "AL pennant" (pre-1969), "NL East champion" (1970-present), "Wild Card" (1995-2011), and "Wild Card 1" (2012-present). SnowFire ( talk) 00:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
We need to note that note that one was stolen.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.124.242 ( talk) 04:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
User:2605:A000:CA80:9700:F5D0:28FB:FCDF:E339 recently added parentheticals to each winning/losing team for every entry in the main table, providing a running tally of that club's overall WS performance to that point (# of wins along with win-loss record). I have removed that, as (1) the information isn't particularly relevant to the data being presented (who won and who lost); (2) it can be otherwise determined from the existing table if you want it; and, most importantly, (3) including such information really clogged up the table (the parentheticals were, at times, as long as the team names themselves). Staxringold talk contribs 21:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. You are invited to comment on this RFC. Thanks, -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 18:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I just came across an article that might be good as an external link. Although it is only one group's ranking, it would provide much food for thought for baseball fans who go on this Wikipedia page. Would it be okay to add?
Eagle4000 ( talk) 15:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I see they are listed with both the Minnesota Twins and the Texas Rangers. Was this some sort of split of the original club like the Minnesota North Stars to Dallas AND San Jose? IF so, why doesn't the Rangers World Series record reflect the Senators as well? Just curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentsplanet ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of World Series champions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Has there been any discussion about adding a related column -- average years between wins (and/or appearances)? I don't think that information is anywhere on Wikipedia, and the communally agreed usefulness of the stat is kind of implied by the fact that the founding date is already included in the current chart.
23.228.141.13 ( talk) 19:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
It hasn't even started.
Please stop listing Boston as the winner.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 14:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The Washington Nationals won the 2019 World Series in 7 games (4-3) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HYTEN CREW ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Can an additional column be added to that section for "Avg. Years Between Appearances" or "Avg. Years Between Wins," or both? The Marlins' success is remarkable but I think it gets buried because their Series win count is comparable to teams that have been around a century or more. -- 136.33.163.174 ( talk) 18:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I propose removing the "Ref." column in the Results table, which has an enormous number of citations to one reference, Baseball-Reference.com, and instead just insert the reference once after the end of the table. The reasons to do this are (a) it clutters the References section with many references to the same source, (b) the cited source doesn't include all the information given (such as winning/losing managers), and (c) editors seem prone to adding new entries with "Retrieved" dates that are prior to the events in question (which is obviously erroneous). If nobody objects, I'll make that change sometime soon. -- HLachman ( talk) 03:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Article states 115 Series have been played. Should be 116 now. Mdgramling ( talk) 04:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Tampa Bay Rays won the world series in 2020. This article says they made it to the World Series, but never won it. 73.193.60.93 ( talk) 18:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
It seems there should be a [C] or [*] #ref_Cheating added to the Legend table for the 2017 Houston Astros. Citations could be e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 or even an internal reference 6. -- 172.92.177.175 ( talk) 09:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm requesting an interesting subject be added to the list. Not to illegitimize but in the best interest of knowledge. For example I noticed that nothing was mentioned of the Black Sox scandal even though that was an important event in MLB history, or the 2017 Houston Astros, which has been recognized by MLB. But as the MLB said, they (The Reds and Astros) are still legitimate championships, but in talking about historical context it would be in the best interest of documenting these events so they won't be lost to time. I would also like to see how many World Series were affected by outside sources. Recent example being the 2020 season being shortened due to the pandemic. It's not to illegitimize the Los Angeles Dodgers or the Tampa Bay Rays; however, it would still be important to note the challenges MLB had to face during that season. It's to preserve that outlier for future study. It's an important event not only in the sporting world but also in history. I'm writing this as not only a baseball fan, sports fan, but also a fan of history.
To give an idea on how to format this, my suggestion would be to put a marker next to a team if they were involved in a scandal, and a marker next to a year that was affected by outside sources.
Example:
1919 Cincinnati Reds (1, 1–0) Pat Moran 5–3[V] Chicago White Sox(*) (3, 2–1) Kid Gleason
2020(*) Los Angeles Dodgers (21, 7–14) Dave Roberts 4–2 Tampa Bay Rays (2, 0–2) Kevin Cash
Sources:
<Black Sox Scandal></ https://www.history.com/news/black-sox-baseball-scandal-1919-world-series-chicago>
<Houston Scandal></ https://www.nytimes.com/article/astros-cheating.html>
<2020 Pandemic></ https://www.npr.org/2020/06/24/882678448/major-league-baseball-comes-back-for-shorter-season-after-coronavirus-shutdown>
Again, this is NOT TO ILLEGITIMIZE A TITLE, it is to document historical events. (Especially the Black Sox Scandal)
Bryonic ( talk) 17:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Bryan
Cincinnati Reds are 1-0 verses the Boston Red Sox 1975 208.38.246.111 ( talk) 14:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
List of World Series champions article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
List of World Series champions is a featured list, which means it has been identified as one of the best lists produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
List of World Series champions is part of the Major League Baseball awards series, a featured topic. This is identified as among the best series of articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured list on October 30, 2015. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Featured list |
This article is rated FL-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The logos shouldn't be used in this manner - sugget you have a look at WP:LOGO and WP:FAIR.-- Addhoc 20:00, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
The Red Sox won the Series in 1918 and won their next one in 2004, 86 years later. The drought itself, however, was 85. That is, there were 85 seasons played during 1919-2003, the years in which the Red Sox did not win the Series. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 13:10, 9 June 2008 (UTC)
The articles List of World Series champions and List of World Series winners are obvious content forks and should be merged and redirected. There is a lot more information on this article; there's not much information in the second list that doesn't already exist, so we can just squeeze over the extra relevant information from the final column into this modern WS table, and that's about all that needs to be done except for a redirect. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 13:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
I think they do different things (chronology vs number of wins), so I'd prefer importing the table basically intact from the Winners list, and adding it as another table here. What's valuable about the early sections here are that they form a catalogue raisonné explaining the evolution of championships and reasons why (for example) the Providence Grays are the true first world champions. :-) (I live in Providence.) —— Shakescene ( talk) 22:29, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Shakescene, we can't use colors in the table that way per WP:ACCESS. The color is being used as the sole means of information conveyence, and using a symbol to accompany in this case is aesthetically displeasing and doesn't help to set anything off because everything has color. Would you mind removing them? KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 00:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I would support a merge. All this article needs is a lead, references, and some stylistic tweaks, and it would be prime material for WP:FLC. Dabomb87 ( talk) 02:29, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
You've got "cancelled" in 1883 and "0-0" in 1891. I think the best thing would be to simply says "no Series". Likewise with 1904, which was not technically "boycotted", because there was no compulsion to play a World Series until 1905. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 23:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
This list needs to be prominently placed in the World Series article, somewhere up near the top. The first thing readers are likely to want to see from this page is who the winners have been, not a long lecture about its history. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 08:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Is that really needed? I think the mass use of colour in a table generally makes it more cluttered and hard to read, and it is no different in this case. In the case of the "modern" table, the conference is indicated in a different column, so I see no reason why colour coding should be used too. I'm going to remove it for now, but I guess someone could readd it if they liked. -- Scorpion 0422 20:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
(outdent) Haha. I feel like the MOS Nazi, but MOS:CAPS says no: "Initial capitals or all capitals should not be used for emphasis". KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 13:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it necessary to have a separate citation for each Series at the end of each line of the post-1903 table? There are dozens of complete tables, many of which are printed (and thus more permanent), but also republished on the Internet, and which come from disinterested sources.
Of course it's good to let people have a guide to each Series, but can't that be accomplished by referring to the index page for all such games at MLB/history, from which they can click to individual Series? —— Shakescene ( talk) 00:37, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Well, I was inspired by List of Super Bowl champions. Also, I would like to add a column for the managers of both teams, and there is no general reference (that I have found) that covers that. However, all of the citations do include that. -- Scorpion 0422 01:44, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
In his edit summary, KillerVogel said he was removing italics from tied Series records because "there are more efficient ways" of showing this. What does he suggest? Without some indication, the record of National League wins and losses (and their challengers' wins and losses) looks very different from what it was (only one actual NL loss to the AA plus 3 or 4 tied Series). One could switch columns in those Series with just as much justice and give an equally misleading first impression. —— Shakescene ( talk) 07:09, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
This is a sample of what my proposed version of the final table would look like. It is similar to List of Stanley Cup champions, except with a refs column and without a game winning goal column. My one issue with it is that I would prefer the "games" to be between the two teams, but it doesn't look right with the leage and managers columns, but that's pretty minor.
Year | Winner | Manager | League | Loser | Manager | League | Games | Ref. |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1903 | Boston Americans | Jimmy Collins | AL | Pittsburgh Pirates | Fred Clarke | NL | 5–3 † | [1] |
1904 | The New York Giants (NL champions) declined to play the Boston Americans (AL champions) | |||||||
1905 | New York Giants | John McGraw | NL | Philadelphia Athletics | Connie Mack | AL | 4–1 | [2] |
1906 | Chicago White Sox | Fielder Jones | AL | Chicago Cubs | Frank Chance | NL | 4–2 | [3] |
I'm also considering removing the rows that note cancelled serieses, which would allow for sortability to be added. Those can be noted in prose form. -- Scorpion 0422 22:22, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Here are the first 8 Series in the format I'm experimenting with. Managers are sortable by last names first (e.g., "Dean, Daffy" before "Dean, Dizzy" before "DiMaggio, Dom" before "DiMaggio, Joe" before "DiMaggio, Vince" before "Drysdale, Don").
No. |
Year | NL Manager |
National League | W? |
NL |
= | AL |
W? |
American League | AL Manager |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1903 [4] | Fred Clarke | Pittsburgh Pirates | – | 3 | † | 5 | AL | Boston Americans | Jimmy Collins |
2 | 1905 [5] | New York Giants | NL | 1 | – | Philadelphia Athletics | Connie Mack | |||
3 | 1906 [6] | Frank Chance | Chicago Cubs | – | 4 | AL | Chicago White Sox | Fielder Jones | ||
4 | 1907 [7] | Frank Chance | Chicago Cubs | NL | 4 | (1)* | 0 | – | Detroit Tigers | Hugh Jennings |
5 | 1908 [8] | Frank Chance | Chicago Cubs | NL | 1 | – | Detroit Tigers | Hugh Jennings | ||
6 | 1909 [9] | Fred Clarke | Pittsburgh Pirates | NL | 3 | – | Detroit Tigers | Hugh Jennings | ||
7 | 1910 [10] | Frank Chance | Chicago Cubs | – | 4 | AL | Philadelphia Athletics | Connie Mack | ||
8 | 1911 [11] | John McGraw | New York Giants | – | 4 | AL | Philadelphia Athletics | Connie Mack |
I do not like that. It is unnecessarily complex and cluttered and the symmetry is rather tacky. I think having all the winners on one side makes the most sense, because it would help with the sortability. If the point of having columns go by league rather than by winner is to eliminate the League columns, why is there still a "W" column which notes leagues? If you're going to do that, you might as well use the olf format. Also, if you're going to make the manager names sortable, use the {{ sortname}} template. -- Scorpion 0422 01:33, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure if this has already been covered, but the article should be reformatted to put the List alongside or below the photos. At first, the large gap made me think that the list was missing. Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable enough to do the necessary editing.
Nigelrg (
talk)
18:16, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
My 1929 World Almanac lists the last names of the managers with the NL & AL pennant winners since their start. Is it worth adding them, too? [My formatting below, not theirs]
NL
AL
P.S. to Bugs: my 1966 World Almanac (still published by the The New York World-Telegram & Sun just before they were swallowed up never to return in The New York World Journal Tribune) has several "World Series" section and table headings, but also on page 814, "Baseball World Championships, 1903-1965".
—— Shakescene ( talk) 05:19, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
Is it possible to cite sources regarding the 1876 and 1899 series? I can't find them in any conventional references. The 1899 series is especially mysterious. The series isn't mentioned in the article text. Brooklyn was the regular-season pennant winner, but Philadelphia was the third-place team and it isn't clear why the series was significant. -- Mojavemac ( talk) 20:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not following why it's necessary to list when expansion teams came into the league under the "league" column. How is that relevant? If there are no real objections, I'm leaning towards removing it. Shamedog18 ( talk) 01:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
Would there be any objection to converting the refs in the "Ref" column in the table to inline ext links? It seems inefficient to have the reflist at the end of the article bloated so much... The World Series Overview page could be used instead as a single ref for the entire table, which would clean things up a lot. -- Fru1tbat ( talk) 16:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
Needless to say, there seems to have been more traffic on this page once the regular baseball season closed. And also many edits by IP's (unregistered editors identified only by their Internet Protocol address) trying to change text and table entries for the Yankees, Phillies and other teams. Not to condemn all IP's, because some of them have been correcting the errors of others. But should we ask for semi-protection until mid-November for this and closely-related pages (e.g. Major League Baseball, World Series, New York Yankees, Philadelphia Phillies, Yankee Stadium, ...)? —— Shakescene ( talk) 07:17, 28 October 2009 (UTC)
Just a note, I have split off the pre-World Series champions from this list, as they are inherently not World Series champions. Staxringold talk contribs 18:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I had an idea for this page and wanted to see if anyone had any objections, input, etc. I wanted to make a list of WS champions by city. For instance, the Braves franchise has 3 WS wins, but one each in three different cities: Boston, Milwaukee, and Atlanta. I think this would be an interesting and worthwhile list. I've found that in general baseball fans are aware that the Giants have won several championships, but a lot are unaware that they've yet to win since moving to San Francisco. Richjenkins talk contribs 5:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a note in case anyone's wondering, the colors were removed in response to a featured list candidacy. If you have any questions about the colors and why they were removed, ask at the FLC while it's still open. Please don't re-insert the colors, as it might hold up the nomination. Thanks. KV5 ( Talk • Phils) 18:55, 4 January 2010 (UTC)
I think there should be lists, perhaps on a separate page or two pages, to list how each World Series ended.
The two lists would be one for World Series ended on a defensive play (who got the final out), and another for World Series ended on an offensive play (who got a walk-off hit).
Year | Winning team |
Result |
Losing team |
Final out recorded by |
Pos |
Batter |
Final play |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1992 | Toronto Blue Jays | 4-2 | Atlanta Braves | Joe Carter | 1B | Otis Nixon | groundout, 4-3 |
2008 | Philadelphia Phillies | 4-1 | Tampa Bay Rays | Brad Lidge | P | Eric Hinske | strikeout swinging |
Year | Winning team |
Result |
Losing team |
Batter |
Pitcher |
Final play |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1993 | Toronto Blue Jays | 4-2 | Philadelphia Phillies | Joe Carter | Mitch Williams | Three-run home run |
1997 | Florida Marlins | 4-3 | Cleveland Indians | Edgar Renteria | Charles Nagy | RBI single |
The reason why I thought of this is because of Joe Carter. In 1992, he recorded the final out, being the end of a groundout by Otis Nixon. In 1993, he hit the famous walk-off homer off Mitch Williams to end that series. I wanted to see if anybody else have ever both recorded the final out in one series and clinched another with a walk-off hit.
What do you think? -- Kitch ( Talk : Contrib) 16:40, 22 June 2010 (UTC)
Can the stats for the 1884-1890 series be placed into this article ? (such as a second table, or an appendix section)
76.66.195.196 ( talk) 07:49, 5 July 2010 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
the 2010 champs, the San Francisco Giants, won the series 4-1, not 4-2.
71.96.17.220 ( talk) 02:45, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Also, the Giants have now tied the Dodgers for most Series appearances by a National League team. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.169.8.145 ( talk) 03:19, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
Verbage suggestion for most Series appearances by NL team
Currently:
Suggestion:
Thanks for your efforts maintaining this page!
Dmeanea ( talk) 15:21, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
In this section I propose that any teams with the same number of World Series appearances by listed alphabetically. Alphabetically is one of the most common means of categorization. The problem with categorizing ties by most recent World Series appearance is that it isn't instantly recognizable in the way that alphabetically is. I suspect a person could stare at the chronological list for a minute and still not get what the order is based on (I know I didn't). And the problem with adding another header explaining that ties are chronological is that you then have a main header and sub-header to explain the situation. It just seems needlessly complex. Alphabetically is more natural and makes things more simplistic. Ultimahero ( talk) 07:04, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
Sir, the note was added AFTER I made my edits. I edited, it was reverted, and THEN THE NOTE WAS ADDED. Still, the fact that there must be a note at all proves my point: Chronology is not the most natural way for a list to be organized. The fact that there must be a second not to explain how ties are arranged proves that it is a confusing means. Alphabetizing is the most natural way to arrange ties. No further explanation would be needed. It's much more natural and will not clog up the page with multiple headers. Ultimahero ( talk) 19:46, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
? I do not understand what you mean by this, sir. Ultimahero ( talk) 20:00, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
There are a number of teams missing from this list (e.g. Texas Rangers). 65.216.107.80 ( talk) 05:11, 29 October 2012 (UTC)
The listing of World Series appearances and the overall series record for the Baltimore Orioles is incorrect. The list indicates that the Orioles appeared 7 times and that their record in World Series contests is 3-4. In fact, they appeared 6 times and their record is 3-3. They won the World Series in 1966, 1970 and 1983, but lost in 1969, 1971 and 1979. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.55.75.203 ( talk) 00:43, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
This is true, however,the record for teams appearing in WS should then include St Louis Browns,and it does not. Jim loving ( talk) 01:24, 30 October 2013 (UTC) Jim Loving
1904
The Red Sox technically won the 1904 World Series by default, as the Giants refused to play them. This is not counted as a victory for the Sox, however, and when i edited the series appearances by franchise section, i never changed the amount of series the sox appeared in, or won, because they did not appear in the 1904 W.S. However, the Guants refused to play which means, they forfeited. The asterisk i put next to the Sox and at the bottom of the section did not say the Sox won, but that the Giants forfeited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.48.76 (talk) 22:51, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
Per WP:V & WP:NOR, you will need to provide reliable sources to verify that the Red Sox "technically" won the World Series. Note it does not say this in the 1904 World Series article.--JayJasper (talk) 05:25, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
Chapter 2, page 23, paragraph 1 of The Curse of The Bambino. Its a book. And this is what he had to say. "A year later Boston won its second American League flag, but the National League champion New York Giants refuse to play a World Series. The Sporting News declared the Pilgrims 'World Champions by default.'" Is the Sporting News reliable? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.48.76 ( talk) 23:43, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
That is a reliable source. You can check the archives of the Sporting News, or you can read the book "The Curse of the Bambino". I never said the Giants were legally obligated to play, nor did I change the Red Sox appeaances in the Series. I pointed out that back then, people considered the Sox, champions by default. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.48.76 ( talk) 17:16, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
Sir:
Really appreciate all of the hard work you have done on Wikipedia. You have the Minnesota Twins playing in 6 World Series, winning 3 and losing 3. Minnesota has actually played in 3 World Series, winning 2 and losing 1. The Twins lost in 1965 and won in 1987 and 1991.
Respectfully,
Jim Welke jamesw1437 @ yahoo.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.252.253.6 ( talk) 22:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
The list of of teams is listed by appearances and not wins. This could be seen as confusing to users because it seems biased towards teams like the Giants who have not won as many championships as other teams (example the Cardinals). This list should have its default order World Series by wins because users are more likely to be searching for what teams have one the most. ---- 5/4/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:BC96:91B0:2896:6CDE:6187:6D24 ( talk) 23:29, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
Martymar1970 has brought an excellent issue before my eyes. The Baltimore Orioles are currently listed as 'founded' in 1894, which is the correct date if you trace their roots back to their original Western League roots (the WL Brewers who became the Browns who eventually became the O's). However, several other teams are not similarly listed. The Tigers have an identical history, and an even clearer lineage to the WL (they've been the Detroit Tigers all along), yet are listed as 1901 (their AL start date). Ditto for the White Sox, Twins, Indians, and Red Sox (other originally WL teams that became current AL teams).
Meanwhile, the picture gets blurrier looking beyond the WL. The Chicago Cubs briefly discuss their pre-NL history on their page, and while they were joined the NL in 1876 are listed here and on their page as founded in 1871 (their earlier pre-NL founding). Ditto for the Braves. To state it quickly: What is our standard for the officially listed 'founding' date of a team? Its earliest founding date, traceable to that franchise? Its date of joining it's current league? Something in between (since, e.g., nobody would say the Astros were founded in 2013)? Staxringold talk contribs 18:29, 21 October 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The series is not over, yet the 2013 winner is already entered.
Tierney.joe ( talk) 03:05, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Already done Thanks, Celestra ( talk) 17:55, 31 October 2013 (UTC)
Why exactly do expansion teams & wild card teams get a special [W] & [X] footnote? Do teams founded after 1960 have a special advantage or disadvantage in winning World Series? I think not. Seems totally random, might as well footnote teams with names based on animals, or west coast teams. Wild Card is slightly more relevant, maybe, but I think a footnote is the wrong way to go about it. Instead, perhaps a new column that could be added with something like "Regular Season finish" that would read something like "AL pennant" (pre-1969), "NL East champion" (1970-present), "Wild Card" (1995-2011), and "Wild Card 1" (2012-present). SnowFire ( talk) 00:34, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
We need to note that note that one was stolen.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.124.242 ( talk) 04:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)
User:2605:A000:CA80:9700:F5D0:28FB:FCDF:E339 recently added parentheticals to each winning/losing team for every entry in the main table, providing a running tally of that club's overall WS performance to that point (# of wins along with win-loss record). I have removed that, as (1) the information isn't particularly relevant to the data being presented (who won and who lost); (2) it can be otherwise determined from the existing table if you want it; and, most importantly, (3) including such information really clogged up the table (the parentheticals were, at times, as long as the team names themselves). Staxringold talk contribs 21:33, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
Hi. You are invited to comment on this RFC. Thanks, -- BlueMoonlet ( t/ c) 18:09, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
I just came across an article that might be good as an external link. Although it is only one group's ranking, it would provide much food for thought for baseball fans who go on this Wikipedia page. Would it be okay to add?
Eagle4000 ( talk) 15:58, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
I see they are listed with both the Minnesota Twins and the Texas Rangers. Was this some sort of split of the original club like the Minnesota North Stars to Dallas AND San Jose? IF so, why doesn't the Rangers World Series record reflect the Senators as well? Just curious. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentsplanet ( talk • contribs) 19:03, 6 April 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on List of World Series champions. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 08:57, 12 May 2017 (UTC)
Has there been any discussion about adding a related column -- average years between wins (and/or appearances)? I don't think that information is anywhere on Wikipedia, and the communally agreed usefulness of the stat is kind of implied by the fact that the founding date is already included in the current chart.
23.228.141.13 ( talk) 19:19, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
It hasn't even started.
Please stop listing Boston as the winner.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 14:01, 22 October 2018 (UTC)
The Washington Nationals won the 2019 World Series in 7 games (4-3) — Preceding unsigned comment added by HYTEN CREW ( talk • contribs) 03:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
Can an additional column be added to that section for "Avg. Years Between Appearances" or "Avg. Years Between Wins," or both? The Marlins' success is remarkable but I think it gets buried because their Series win count is comparable to teams that have been around a century or more. -- 136.33.163.174 ( talk) 18:29, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I propose removing the "Ref." column in the Results table, which has an enormous number of citations to one reference, Baseball-Reference.com, and instead just insert the reference once after the end of the table. The reasons to do this are (a) it clutters the References section with many references to the same source, (b) the cited source doesn't include all the information given (such as winning/losing managers), and (c) editors seem prone to adding new entries with "Retrieved" dates that are prior to the events in question (which is obviously erroneous). If nobody objects, I'll make that change sometime soon. -- HLachman ( talk) 03:12, 19 November 2020 (UTC)
Article states 115 Series have been played. Should be 116 now. Mdgramling ( talk) 04:57, 11 December 2020 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
The Tampa Bay Rays won the world series in 2020. This article says they made it to the World Series, but never won it. 73.193.60.93 ( talk) 18:54, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
It seems there should be a [C] or [*] #ref_Cheating added to the Legend table for the 2017 Houston Astros. Citations could be e.g. 1 2 3 4 5 or even an internal reference 6. -- 172.92.177.175 ( talk) 09:03, 3 November 2021 (UTC)
I'm requesting an interesting subject be added to the list. Not to illegitimize but in the best interest of knowledge. For example I noticed that nothing was mentioned of the Black Sox scandal even though that was an important event in MLB history, or the 2017 Houston Astros, which has been recognized by MLB. But as the MLB said, they (The Reds and Astros) are still legitimate championships, but in talking about historical context it would be in the best interest of documenting these events so they won't be lost to time. I would also like to see how many World Series were affected by outside sources. Recent example being the 2020 season being shortened due to the pandemic. It's not to illegitimize the Los Angeles Dodgers or the Tampa Bay Rays; however, it would still be important to note the challenges MLB had to face during that season. It's to preserve that outlier for future study. It's an important event not only in the sporting world but also in history. I'm writing this as not only a baseball fan, sports fan, but also a fan of history.
To give an idea on how to format this, my suggestion would be to put a marker next to a team if they were involved in a scandal, and a marker next to a year that was affected by outside sources.
Example:
1919 Cincinnati Reds (1, 1–0) Pat Moran 5–3[V] Chicago White Sox(*) (3, 2–1) Kid Gleason
2020(*) Los Angeles Dodgers (21, 7–14) Dave Roberts 4–2 Tampa Bay Rays (2, 0–2) Kevin Cash
Sources:
<Black Sox Scandal></ https://www.history.com/news/black-sox-baseball-scandal-1919-world-series-chicago>
<Houston Scandal></ https://www.nytimes.com/article/astros-cheating.html>
<2020 Pandemic></ https://www.npr.org/2020/06/24/882678448/major-league-baseball-comes-back-for-shorter-season-after-coronavirus-shutdown>
Again, this is NOT TO ILLEGITIMIZE A TITLE, it is to document historical events. (Especially the Black Sox Scandal)
Bryonic ( talk) 17:04, 2 May 2022 (UTC) Bryan
Cincinnati Reds are 1-0 verses the Boston Red Sox 1975 208.38.246.111 ( talk) 14:35, 24 July 2022 (UTC)