![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
The section explaining the term "World Series" is intended as an explanation, not a justification. Whoever tagged that "original research" needs to raise some specific points here so that they can be properly addressed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
There's no need to compromise an article to placate cranks on the Talk page; respond to them on the Talk page. There are separate questions:
Regarding the answers:
jnestorius( talk) 09:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, some things never change.
63.131.4.149 (
talk)
17:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I don't have a clue about baseball and I visited here to learn about the World Series. The article does not make it clear how a team qualifies to play in the World Series. I believe this article could be improved with a short note at the start to explain this.
Lisztian ( talk) 10:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This whole section has been moved to a new sub-page, Talk:World Series/world title
I have made an effort to clean up and sift through the trivia section and remove material which is of no possible interest. The section is quite a bit shorter, more readable, and largely free of items that aren't even real trivia items, like the note that detailed how the Red Sox have faced off against seven of the eight original NL teams. I have also added some items into the Modern World Series section detailing changes to the Series, namely the adoption of the DH, the shift to night games, and the use of the ASG to determine home field. Vidor ( talk) 11:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Tiresome bleating about the International Baseball Federation aside, the article has a much bigger problem. It has a huge, long trivia section. Wikipedia's pretty clear about not having long lists of facts in an article. How do we fix this? How do we make it better? I would assume that the section on prior attempts at a postseason baseball championship are relevant and useful. The sections on the actual history of the World Series--the strike, the fix, the DH, etc.--are useful. But the article looks ugly mainly due to line after line about how the Cubs and White Sox once played in an all-Chicago WS and whatnot. Maybe a full re-write of the article, on a chronological basis? A 1903-1909 section might mention how the Cubs haven't won a WS in 100 years since 1908. A 1940-49 section might mention how the 1947 World Series was the beginning to the "Subway Series" era in baseball. Vidor ( talk) 21:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Quite apart from the interminable debate above, I found I couldn't edit the following paragraph for style or clarity because (no doubt due to successive good-faith edits), the intended meaning was not readily apparent. Can anyone help (not in changing the meaning, but in clarifying it)?
According to a Public Broadcasting Service Television documentary called Baseball or "Baseball: A Film by Ken Burns", baseball scholars/historians explained that team players eventually would search world-wide for players to compete in "World Games" or "World Series". While the effort failed and remained mostly in The United States and Canada, due to the diversity of nationalities with players who presently play baseball (although these games are only in North America now) it has remained "World Series" as a result of those early competitions. In these late 1800 and early 1900 competitions (the early days of baseball), players and sports equipment promoter Albert Spalding would travel the world for teams to play against other nations and/or America teams. These "tours" didn't last long, yet it also gave the opportunity to promote baseball and sporting goods, as well as create new leagues and rules.
—— Shakescene ( talk) 08:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
All I want is help parsing the paragraph as it is, so that I can make the language clearer. The other dispute (over whether this section should exist and in what form) has taken up reams of space elsewhere on this talk page, and I don't need it to inundate this query, too. —— Shakescene ( talk) 07:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I feel that something needs to be clarified about baseball only being played at a high level in america in the 1880's and 90's, as there was a fairly lively baseball scen in england until the late 1890's, as evidenced by the constuction of The Baseball Ground in Derby as the home of the Derby County Baseball Club, (later Derby County FC). Granted there was a large number of american players, but that doesn't mean they weren't playing at a 'high level'.-- OffiMcSpin ( talk) 13:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want a really concise paragraph, you could say that it was originally called "World's Championship Series" in 1884, later shortened to "World's Series" and then "World Series". You could say that while it is not "officially" a world's championship, the major leagues and the American media sometimes use the term "World Champions" in describing the World Series winner. And if necessary, point out that the origin of the name had nothing whatsoever to do with the New York World newspaper. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
¶ I removed the paragraph in question plus the section's final summary paragraph (below) until their precise meanings can be better deduced and articulated
Additionally, although originally an American sport, the entire world still tunes in or attends these games. Therefore, it still involves and incorporates the "world" in one way or another; either directly with players from different countries who play the sport, it being the name given in the early days as a result of competitions with foreign nations as well as present Olympic championships, or as a brand name for the "Fall Classic".
Keep in mind, the context of the last paragraph ties in other points already previously mentioned within the article. You have to take it all into consideration, not just single out a specific paragraph. It doesn't alienate the meaning, merely gels it together. If unneeded, reword or reduce it. I think the below "book" I typed up should nip it in the bud. (hehe) See ya in a few months, or whenever I happen to get back to this page and scope out the "changes". I don't dwell on it too much, it's not the end of the world for me. Hey, there's that word again. World. (smile) Have fun! 69.129.170.102 ( talk) 11:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
My problems with the latter paragraph include unclear references to "it" and the easily-disputable characterization of baseball being "originally an American sport" (I've seen plausible arguments both for and against its origins in North America, Great Britain or even Roumania.) I think I understand the drift of the second sentence, but it's still rather ambiguous; if expressed more clearly, it might not be consistent with what was said earlier in this section. —— Shakescene ( talk) 07:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the below paragraphs, if you viewed the documentary article it refers to, as well as the Spalding article (within Wiki), you will see it confirms what it's saying in this paragraph and certainly worth mentioning, as that is the true origin of why it includes "world" originally. That last paragraph simply ties the other previous points together (it originally said English sport which could be either N.A. or England, but was changed to American by someone) yet expresses it's a sport participated in and by the entire world in one way or another. Just my thoughts, I don't think we're gonna have to settle on a who's right or wrong. Just simply shorten it's text. The first paragraphs are how they were, the second bold set is how they could be. p.s. A general statement like the last paragraph needs no more sources/references as it's already been done previously. So eliminate it or add your own references instead. To remove it because it's not one of your edits isn't legitimate in my opinion nor discredits it. You can not disprove the one about the documentary (visit the site), if you watch it personally (as I have, not that that means anything) or check it's articles I mentioned, I think it will make more sense. Perhaps too wordy, but nonetheless, noteworthy. It's not that difficult to understand if you don't make it an unnecessary task. Smile and have a good day. Back to another article for me. Thanks! :)
According to a Public Broadcasting Service Television documentary called Baseball or "Baseball: A Film by Ken Burns", baseball scholars/historians explained that team players eventually would search world-wide for players to compete in "World Games" or "World Series". While the effort failed and remained mostly in The United States and Canada, due to the diversity of nationalities with players who presently play baseball (although these games are only in North America now) it has remained "World Series" as a result of those early competitions. In these late 1800 and early 1900 competitions (the early days of baseball), players and sports equipment promoter Albert Spalding would travel the world for teams to play against other nations and/or America teams. These "tours" didn't last long, yet it also gave the opportunity to promote baseball and sporting goods, as well as create new leagues and rules.
Additionally, although originally an American sport, the entire world still tunes in or attends these games. Therefore, it still involves and incorporates the "world" in one way or another; either directly with players from different countries who play the sport, it being the name given in the early days as a result of competitions with foreign nations as well as present Olympic championships, or as a brand name for the "Fall Classic".
According to a Public Broadcasting Service Television documentary called Baseball or "Baseball: A Film by Ken Burns", baseball scholars explain how players searched world-wide for teams to compete in "World Games" or "World Series" during the late 1800s and early 1900s. Players such as Albert Spalding would travel the world for teams to play against other nations and/or American teams. The "tours" didn't last long, yet it gave the opportunity to promote sporting goods, as well as create new leagues and rules. While the effort failed and remained mostly in The United States and Canada, due to the diversity of nationalities with players who still presently play the sport, it remained "World Series" as a result of those early competitions. [1]
(this could even be shortened a bit more but that about gets the point across. the wording may not be "perfect" but according to historians in this documentary, it's true.)
Additionally, the entire world tunes in or attends these games, which incorporates the series as a "world" event in one way or another.
(below section edited but left out... let me know if it makes any more sense this way or keep it all and tie it in together?)
;either directly with players from different countries who play the sport, it being the name given in the early days as a result of competitions with other nations (including present Olympic championships) or as a brand name for the "Fall Classic".
69.129.170.102 ( talk) 11:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Additional info: For what it's worth, I'm a native of Kansas City, home of the Negro League Museum and Buck O'Neil (featured in the documentary). While it's sometimes hard to prove/find the info via the Internet to back up statements, it doesn't make them incorrect (but I agree can be challenging to convey properly in an article). I say this because it's my hope that some of you are accepting of other editor's input and not monopolizing the entire article, considering the possiblity you may not know "everything" about a topic. Nonetheless in good faith, here are a few other references that may help though regarding the baseball and world series origin, etc.
1839: Abner Doubleday is credited with inventing baseball in Cooperstown, New York.
In 1888-1889, Spalding took a group of Major League players around the world to promote baseball and Spalding sporting goods. Playing across the western U.S., the tour made stops in Hawaii (although no game was played), New Zealand, Australia, Ceylon, Egypt, Italy, France, and England. The tour returned to grand receptions in New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago. The tour included future Hall of Famers Adrian "Cap" Anson and John Montgomery Ward. While the players were on the tour, the National League instituted new rules regarding player pay that led to a revolt of players, led by Ward, who started the Players' League the following season (1890). The league lasted one year, partially due to the competitive tactics of Spalding to limit its success.
Teddy Roosevelt and other illustrious Americans had gathered to celebrate the conclusion of a successful six-month world tour, during which baseball all-stars played 53 games in 50 cities, in such novice baseball countries as Australia, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), Egypt, Italy and France.
Like the "Sham Wow" guy says, I can't do this all day. (smile) I thank you in advance...Happy Summer! 69.129.170.102 ( talk) 11:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
(cur) (prev) 00:58, 22 May 2009 Isaacl (talk | contribs) (51,956 bytes) (→International impact and explanation of the term "World" Series: copy edit; also removed opinion that is unnecessary - "World Series" is the name used by MLB; no justification is required) (undo) <----- wasn't opinion, please don't attack editors! give benefit of the doubt and/or research yourself. we're not here to prove who is right and/or have it our way by monopolizing articles like others.
65.27.100.0 (
talk)
16:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I retitled the new "International competitions" mini-section "Intercontinental competitions" because the World Series reaches beyond the U.S. (Toronto won in 1992 and 1993, and the Expos were eligible to play while in Montréal.) The three logical alternatives are:
The substantial effects are identical, but passions may flare over the inferred nuances of each solution. So whaddya think? (If necessary, I'll start a straw poll, but I doubt its necessity.) —— Shakescene ( talk) 05:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The following paragraph just seems too detailed (or too argumentative) for the general reader. I don't want to lose any of the details, sources, authors or comparisons, but I'm not sure what can be best sent to the footnotes for specialist appreciation:
“The 19th century competitions are, however, not officially recognized as part of World Series history by Major League Baseball,[6] as it considers 19th century baseball to be a prologue to the modern baseball era. Until about 1960, some sources treated the 19th century Series on an equal basis with the post-19th century series, such as Ernest Lanigan's Baseball Cyclopedia from 1922, and Turkin and Thompson's Encyclopedia of Baseball series throughout the 1950s. The Sporting News Record Book, by contrast, which began publishing in the 1930s, only listed the modern Series, although the TSN record books did include regular-season achievements for all the 19th century leagues. Also, a paperback from 1961 called World Series Encyclopedia, edited by Don Schiffer, mentioned the 1880s and 1890s Series' in the introduction but otherwise left them out of the discussion.”
By the way, you can add an authoritative, but decidedly non-specialist source to the list, The World Almanac and Book of Facts for 1929, whose list of "Baseball's World Championships 1884-1928" on page 776 (directly following "Players who were eligible for 1928 World Series") starts with Providence's 3-0 victory over the Metropolitans. Yes, according to the almanac, my town, not Boston, beat New York for the very first world championship! However, my 1943 World Almanac (p. 677) lists "Baseball World Championships—1903-1942" —— Shakescene ( talk) 07:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
A few points and questions, then.
1. Your sentence -- "Such titles are competed for exclusively in internationally sanctioned tournaments by national teams that are sponsored by their sports' respective national federations, and on which all the players are required to be of the same nationality or national origin in order to be eligible to participate." -- seems to provide a definition of world championship that you wish to have reflected in the article. Do you have any references for such an implied definition? Is that sufficient, or merely necessary - in other words, are there other requirements as well, such as legitimacy?
2. Your use of
World_Baseball_Classic#Eligibility_rules as a link in that sentence is sneaky, by the way. Are you trying to argue that the WBC is more than an exhibition tourney during preseason training, and is, de jure, a legitimate world championship tournament?
Right now, the article doesn't claim that the World Series winners are world champions, but it does say that they are often referred to as world champions by the media and themselves. Isn't that an accurate statement of reality? What's the point of fighting this back and forth, anyway? Sheesh. --
ArglebargleIV (
talk)
00:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I could see adding the word "only" in there, admittedly. -- ArglebargleIV ( talk) 02:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)In spite of its name, the World Series remains the championship of the North American major league baseball teams (though MLB, its players, and the media continue informally to refer to the World Series winner as world champions of baseball).
( Centpacrr ( talk) 03:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC))While some informally refer to the winners of the "World Series" also as "world champions of baseball," MLB's best-of-seven playoff is not a "world's championship" as such titles in teams sports are only competed for among national teams made up of players representing their home countries whereas participation in the World Series is limited to the two League playoff champions of Major League Baseball located in the United States and Canada.
( Centpacrr ( talk) 07:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC))While some informally refer to World Series winning clubs also as "world champions of baseball," the MLB playoff is not a "world's championship" tournament open to competition by groups of national teams made up of players eligible to represent their home countries but is instead limited exclusively to the two League playoff champions of Major League Baseball located only in the United States and Canada.
(approximate) — why be bold when you can discuss first?
“The 19th century competitions are, however, not officially recognized as part of World Series history by Major League Baseball, [1] as the organization considers 19th century baseball to be a prologue to the modern baseball era. Until about 1960, some sources treated the 19th century Series on an equal basis with the post-19th century series. [2] Beginning about 1930, however, many authorities would start beginning the (world) championship series of baseball in 1903, separated from their discussions of earlier contests. [3] (For example, the 1929 World Almanac and Book of Facts lists "Baseball's World Championships 1884-1928" in a single table, [4] but the 1943 edition lists "Baseball World Championships—1903-1942". [5])”
—— Shakescene ( talk) 22:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
On my talk page you said something about having a fairly complete World Almanac collection from the 20s into the 50s. If you've got the time and can put your hands on them easily, I'm curious to know what was the first year they de-listed the 19th Century Series and/or the last year they listed them, in their World Series winners table. That's a side issue to the "World's Championship" question. It's more to do with the trend, noted in the previous section, of how various media, one by one, began ignoring the 19th Century contests. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I keep getting new epiphanies on this by looking at it from slightly different angles, and I think I might have a solution to this ongoing stalemate. See what you think: I think we're arguing the wrong argument. We're arguing over whether it's a world championship or not. I think it's fairly clear that it's not an "official" world championship, it's merely "claimed" by MLB and by media, to a certain extent. So I think the subject should really be (1) where the term "World Series" came from ("World's Championship Series") along with (2) the media and MLB's occasional claim to the "World's Champs" title. I say "occasional" because you can find frequent references to "World's Champions", but as time has gone on, "World Series champions" has become much more predominant as a term. "World Champs" has never gone away, but its percentage of use has dropped considerably since the early 1900s or even into the 1930s. I also think this ties in with the coverage of the 1880s-1890s Series, as part of the media evolution of the coverage of this event. A couple of questions about World Almanac remain: (1) what year did they stop covering the pre-1900 Series; and (2) what year did they stop calling it the world championship? I think that evolution makes for much more interesting (and verifiable) reading than the debate about whether it's "right" to call it the World Series or not, which is not wikipedia's place to judge anyway. And it would also thoroughly explain it to the original complainants from a couple of years ago or so, which triggered writing that section in the first place. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
( Centpacrr ( talk) 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC))"The term "World Series" is derived from "World's Championship Series", a term which first appeared in the 1880s and continued into the early 1900s. This was eventually shortened to "World's Series" and then "World Series". The Series has never been formally sanctioned as a world's championship event. The winner of the World Series is still occasionally, though unofficially, referred to as the "World Champions" by media and by MLB."
Centpacrr, while I don't have a strong opinion one way or another on the wording question -- just because the IBAF is a recognized body by the IOC doesn't mean that it's necessarily authorized to do anything other than be the representative of baseball in the IOC. The IOC doesn't have the authority to grant world championship sanctioning that you claim. Same for FIFA, incidentally. Its power to hold world championships for soccer doesn't flow from the IOC or any other body -- its power comes from the fact that nearly everybody is willing to let it have the power, and recognizes the authority. The IOC could tell FIFA to pound sand, and it wouldn't affect the recognized legitimacy of the World Cup tournament as a world championship for national teams one single bit. Not too many people are willing to give the IBAF that power -- the IOC doesn't even want to give the IBAF a slot for baseball and softball in the Olympics! -- ArglebargleIV ( talk) 01:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
A few answers and a few questions.
Possibly because few other sports have such a high percentage of the top professional talent concentrated in one league and system?
How and why do the opinions of "the rest of the world's sporting communities" matter in this?
Nobody is claiming that the World Series winners are world champions by fiat (although one could make an argument that the World Series winners are de facto the best baseball team in the world at that moment). I really don't know why you keep bringing that point up. What some here are objecting to is your proposed language that not only says that the WS winners aren't world champions (which is fine), but goes into details about what you think a world championship is, emphasizes the parochial nature of the WS, and practically sneers at the sheer commercialness of it all.
Just as a side point, why couldn't the winner of an hypothetical international club championship tournament (perhaps held after the end of the World Series, Mexican Series, Japan Series, and whatever the other Asian league championships are called) be considered world champions? Why must your view of a world championship be limited to competition between nations? --
ArglebargleIV (
talk)
03:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding IBAF: As I mentioned on the WikiProject Baseball talk page, teams compete internationally after having agreed upon a common set of rules, which can include agreeing on naming the winner of a given tournament the world champion, or agreeing upon a point ranking system to declare a champion, or anything else. Without any agreement in place, there is no undisputed world champion. IBAF is just the current framework under which the terms for global baseball competitions are negotiated. Isaac Lin ( talk) 05:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Blah blah blah. Look, here's the deal. It's called the "World Series". No justification is necessary or required. It just is. The explanation of the term's history is all that's required, or appropriate, since Wikipedia's place is not to argue for one or the other POV. And that's all the article should contain.
In fact, in accordance with my comment above, I am going to delete the entire section about "international participation". The World Series is not an international tournament and has never pretended to be an international tournament, and information (poorly sourced information about that) about international tournaments such as the WBC and the defunct Olympic baseball competition is not relevant to the article. Nor is there any justification to have information about international tournaments and not have information about the championships of other professial leagues such as Nippon Baseball. Such information about international play, if it is deemed necessary, should go in the Baseball article or possibly in an entirely new article. Vidor ( talk) 01:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I propose, as I wrote above, reorganizing and rewriting the entire History article in order to integrate as much of the trivia as possible into the text. The section about precursors to the World Series will remain the same. Here is my idea for how to break down the History section:
I will start work tomorrow. I will include as much of the "trivia" as I can into the History section. Vidor ( talk) 01:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I haven't gotten around to this yet. Maybe tomorrow. Vidor ( talk) 19:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
When I look at my watchlist, I see a bewildering range of moves and merges by User:Graham87. I'm not surprised by the number, because I know that a careful move or merger needs to take a number of steps to keep histories and discussions intact. (A huge amount of extra work, much of it still to be done in terms of checking redirects, was caused by a clumsy and premature move of New Yankee Stadium to Yankee Stadium and Yankee Stadium to Yankee Stadium (1923).) However, since they haven't been mentioned here before, I would like to know what the general thrust of these moves is, and what were the reasons for them. —— Shakescene ( talk) 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I've heard that the title comes from the name of the organization that used to sponsor the series a long time ago (i.e., the word "World" was not meant to refer to the Earth, but rather to the organization, something like a newspaper called the "World Post," I believe). Is there any truth to this? Thanks. -- JohnJSal ( talk) 19:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
As the Cubs have been mathematically eliminated from the possibility of participating postseason play in 2009, I have updated the information about their drought to reflect this fact. Wkharrisjr ( talk) 19:21, 24 September 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, List of World Series champions, New York Yankees, Philadelphia Phillies, Yankee Stadium, ...)? —— Shakescene ( talk) 03:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
needs full edit protection from evryone exept moderators —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.15.196.97 (
talk)
03:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe it is a scalable approach to list the results of every series and its length for championships from 2003 onward. If the results after the change in home field advantage is deemed notable, perhaps some other technique could be employed to summarize the notable info? (Probably better would be to refer to a reliable source that discusses the home field advantage.) Isaac Lin ( talk) 12:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
An aspect of " home-field advantage" that is unique to MLB is the DH rule (used in the AL park). It was not a conclusive factor this year, as there were only 6 games, i.e., 3 games in each league's park, and the DH didn't help NY in Game 1, but it clearly played a role in the decisive Game 6, with the MVP performance of DH Matsui. (The NL team's DH is a pinch-hitter who batted perhaps once every two or three games during the season [i.e., 80 to 100 at-bats], while the AL team's DH batted three or four times every game the whole season [i.e., 500+ AB's].) Eagle4000 ( talk) 05:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
For What It's Worth (cue Buffalo Springfield) to others, here are all the 7-game series (out of 7) since 1903, courtesy of the sort button at List of World Series champions (obviously Bugs has his harefeet on a much-more-detailed listing with the hosts of each game in each series). The 7-game series seem fairly evenly distributed from 1945 to 1987, but only four of the 21 subsequent series have gone the distance, so Bugs' memory is probably serving him right. On the other hand, Game 7 is only one of the advantages of having home-field advantage. —— Shakescene ( talk) 08:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
1912 | Boston Red Sox | AL | 4–3–(1) | New York Giants | NL |
1909 | Pittsburgh Pirates | NL | 4–3 | Detroit Tigers | AL |
1924 | Washington Senators | AL | 4–3 | New York Giants | NL |
1925 | Pittsburgh Pirates | NL | 4–3 | Washington Senators | AL |
1926 | St. Louis Cardinals | NL | 4–3 | New York Yankees | AL |
1931 | St. Louis Cardinals | NL | 4–3 | Philadelphia Athletics | AL |
1934 | St. Louis Cardinals | NL | 4–3 | Detroit Tigers | AL |
1940 | Cincinnati Reds | NL | 4–3 | Detroit Tigers | AL |
1945 | Detroit Tigers | AL | 4–3 | Chicago Cubs | NL |
1946 | St. Louis Cardinals | NL | 4–3 | Boston Red Sox | AL |
1947 | New York Yankees | AL | 4–3 | Brooklyn Dodgers | NL |
1952 | New York Yankees | AL | 4–3 | Brooklyn Dodgers | NL |
1955 | Brooklyn Dodgers | NL | 4–3 | New York Yankees | AL |
1956 | New York Yankees | AL | 4–3 | Brooklyn Dodgers | NL |
1957 | Milwaukee Braves | NL | 4–3 | New York Yankees | AL |
1958 | New York Yankees | AL | 4–3 | Milwaukee Braves | NL |
1960 | Pittsburgh Pirates | NL | 4–3 | New York Yankees | AL |
1962 | New York Yankees | AL | 4–3 | San Francisco Giants | NL |
1964 | St. Louis Cardinals | NL | 4–3 | New York Yankees | AL |
1965 | Los Angeles Dodgers | NL | 4–3 | Minnesota Twins | AL |
1967 | St. Louis Cardinals | NL | 4–3 | Boston Red Sox | AL |
1968 | Detroit Tigers | AL | 4–3 | St. Louis Cardinals | NL |
1971 | Pittsburgh Pirates | NL | 4–3 | Baltimore Orioles | AL |
1972 | Oakland Athletics | AL | 4–3 | Cincinnati Reds | NL |
1973 | Oakland Athletics | AL | 4–3 | New York Mets | NL |
1975 | Cincinnati Reds | NL | 4–3 | Boston Red Sox | AL |
1979 | Pittsburgh Pirates | NL | 4–3 | Baltimore Orioles | AL |
1982 | St. Louis Cardinals | NL | 4–3 | Milwaukee Brewers | AL |
1985 | Kansas City Royals | AL | 4–3 | St. Louis Cardinals | NL |
1986 | New York Mets | NL | 4–3 | Boston Red Sox | AL |
1987 | Minnesota Twins | AL | 4–3 | St. Louis Cardinals | NL |
1991 | Minnesota Twins | AL | 4–3 | Atlanta Braves | NL |
1997 | Florida Marlins [c] | NL | 4–3 | Cleveland Indians | AL |
2001 | Arizona Diamondbacks | NL | 4–3 | New York Yankees | AL |
2002 | Anaheim Angels [c] | AL | 4–3 | San Francisco Giants [c] | NL |
[c] = wild card team |
Seems like there is a lot of information in the article that is not directly relevent to the World Seris, such as a detailed discussion of the 1994 Strike and cross-town rivals that have never met in the World Series. This information should probably be moved to specific articles elsewhere in Wikipedia. Any objections? Wkharrisjr ( talk) 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Isaac Lin ( talk) 05:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Having just been invited to offer comments, I would say that -- for the sake of consistency -- the Toronto-Montreal rivalry should not be listed, as it too is not a "local" rivalry, but instead is a rivalry between cities not in the same state/province. It should instead be listed at List of MLB rivalries. If you decide to keep it and list it under "Canadian (inter-provincial)" rivalries, I would like to suggest adding a corresponding section for "Interstate" rivalries. Eagle4000 ( talk) 02:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps some specific proposals would help with obtaining feedback? I propose the following changes to the "Local rivalries" section:
Isaac Lin ( talk) 04:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the change made to the background colours in the table cells, as I believe the change decreased legibility. Isaac Lin ( talk) 04:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | Archive 6 |
The section explaining the term "World Series" is intended as an explanation, not a justification. Whoever tagged that "original research" needs to raise some specific points here so that they can be properly addressed. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 06:04, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
There's no need to compromise an article to placate cranks on the Talk page; respond to them on the Talk page. There are separate questions:
Regarding the answers:
jnestorius( talk) 09:19, 26 March 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, some things never change.
63.131.4.149 (
talk)
17:35, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello,
I don't have a clue about baseball and I visited here to learn about the World Series. The article does not make it clear how a team qualifies to play in the World Series. I believe this article could be improved with a short note at the start to explain this.
Lisztian ( talk) 10:14, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
This whole section has been moved to a new sub-page, Talk:World Series/world title
I have made an effort to clean up and sift through the trivia section and remove material which is of no possible interest. The section is quite a bit shorter, more readable, and largely free of items that aren't even real trivia items, like the note that detailed how the Red Sox have faced off against seven of the eight original NL teams. I have also added some items into the Modern World Series section detailing changes to the Series, namely the adoption of the DH, the shift to night games, and the use of the ASG to determine home field. Vidor ( talk) 11:15, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
Tiresome bleating about the International Baseball Federation aside, the article has a much bigger problem. It has a huge, long trivia section. Wikipedia's pretty clear about not having long lists of facts in an article. How do we fix this? How do we make it better? I would assume that the section on prior attempts at a postseason baseball championship are relevant and useful. The sections on the actual history of the World Series--the strike, the fix, the DH, etc.--are useful. But the article looks ugly mainly due to line after line about how the Cubs and White Sox once played in an all-Chicago WS and whatnot. Maybe a full re-write of the article, on a chronological basis? A 1903-1909 section might mention how the Cubs haven't won a WS in 100 years since 1908. A 1940-49 section might mention how the 1947 World Series was the beginning to the "Subway Series" era in baseball. Vidor ( talk) 21:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
Quite apart from the interminable debate above, I found I couldn't edit the following paragraph for style or clarity because (no doubt due to successive good-faith edits), the intended meaning was not readily apparent. Can anyone help (not in changing the meaning, but in clarifying it)?
According to a Public Broadcasting Service Television documentary called Baseball or "Baseball: A Film by Ken Burns", baseball scholars/historians explained that team players eventually would search world-wide for players to compete in "World Games" or "World Series". While the effort failed and remained mostly in The United States and Canada, due to the diversity of nationalities with players who presently play baseball (although these games are only in North America now) it has remained "World Series" as a result of those early competitions. In these late 1800 and early 1900 competitions (the early days of baseball), players and sports equipment promoter Albert Spalding would travel the world for teams to play against other nations and/or America teams. These "tours" didn't last long, yet it also gave the opportunity to promote baseball and sporting goods, as well as create new leagues and rules.
—— Shakescene ( talk) 08:12, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
All I want is help parsing the paragraph as it is, so that I can make the language clearer. The other dispute (over whether this section should exist and in what form) has taken up reams of space elsewhere on this talk page, and I don't need it to inundate this query, too. —— Shakescene ( talk) 07:54, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
I feel that something needs to be clarified about baseball only being played at a high level in america in the 1880's and 90's, as there was a fairly lively baseball scen in england until the late 1890's, as evidenced by the constuction of The Baseball Ground in Derby as the home of the Derby County Baseball Club, (later Derby County FC). Granted there was a large number of american players, but that doesn't mean they weren't playing at a 'high level'.-- OffiMcSpin ( talk) 13:25, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
If you want a really concise paragraph, you could say that it was originally called "World's Championship Series" in 1884, later shortened to "World's Series" and then "World Series". You could say that while it is not "officially" a world's championship, the major leagues and the American media sometimes use the term "World Champions" in describing the World Series winner. And if necessary, point out that the origin of the name had nothing whatsoever to do with the New York World newspaper. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 16:47, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
¶ I removed the paragraph in question plus the section's final summary paragraph (below) until their precise meanings can be better deduced and articulated
Additionally, although originally an American sport, the entire world still tunes in or attends these games. Therefore, it still involves and incorporates the "world" in one way or another; either directly with players from different countries who play the sport, it being the name given in the early days as a result of competitions with foreign nations as well as present Olympic championships, or as a brand name for the "Fall Classic".
Keep in mind, the context of the last paragraph ties in other points already previously mentioned within the article. You have to take it all into consideration, not just single out a specific paragraph. It doesn't alienate the meaning, merely gels it together. If unneeded, reword or reduce it. I think the below "book" I typed up should nip it in the bud. (hehe) See ya in a few months, or whenever I happen to get back to this page and scope out the "changes". I don't dwell on it too much, it's not the end of the world for me. Hey, there's that word again. World. (smile) Have fun! 69.129.170.102 ( talk) 11:58, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
My problems with the latter paragraph include unclear references to "it" and the easily-disputable characterization of baseball being "originally an American sport" (I've seen plausible arguments both for and against its origins in North America, Great Britain or even Roumania.) I think I understand the drift of the second sentence, but it's still rather ambiguous; if expressed more clearly, it might not be consistent with what was said earlier in this section. —— Shakescene ( talk) 07:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding the below paragraphs, if you viewed the documentary article it refers to, as well as the Spalding article (within Wiki), you will see it confirms what it's saying in this paragraph and certainly worth mentioning, as that is the true origin of why it includes "world" originally. That last paragraph simply ties the other previous points together (it originally said English sport which could be either N.A. or England, but was changed to American by someone) yet expresses it's a sport participated in and by the entire world in one way or another. Just my thoughts, I don't think we're gonna have to settle on a who's right or wrong. Just simply shorten it's text. The first paragraphs are how they were, the second bold set is how they could be. p.s. A general statement like the last paragraph needs no more sources/references as it's already been done previously. So eliminate it or add your own references instead. To remove it because it's not one of your edits isn't legitimate in my opinion nor discredits it. You can not disprove the one about the documentary (visit the site), if you watch it personally (as I have, not that that means anything) or check it's articles I mentioned, I think it will make more sense. Perhaps too wordy, but nonetheless, noteworthy. It's not that difficult to understand if you don't make it an unnecessary task. Smile and have a good day. Back to another article for me. Thanks! :)
According to a Public Broadcasting Service Television documentary called Baseball or "Baseball: A Film by Ken Burns", baseball scholars/historians explained that team players eventually would search world-wide for players to compete in "World Games" or "World Series". While the effort failed and remained mostly in The United States and Canada, due to the diversity of nationalities with players who presently play baseball (although these games are only in North America now) it has remained "World Series" as a result of those early competitions. In these late 1800 and early 1900 competitions (the early days of baseball), players and sports equipment promoter Albert Spalding would travel the world for teams to play against other nations and/or America teams. These "tours" didn't last long, yet it also gave the opportunity to promote baseball and sporting goods, as well as create new leagues and rules.
Additionally, although originally an American sport, the entire world still tunes in or attends these games. Therefore, it still involves and incorporates the "world" in one way or another; either directly with players from different countries who play the sport, it being the name given in the early days as a result of competitions with foreign nations as well as present Olympic championships, or as a brand name for the "Fall Classic".
According to a Public Broadcasting Service Television documentary called Baseball or "Baseball: A Film by Ken Burns", baseball scholars explain how players searched world-wide for teams to compete in "World Games" or "World Series" during the late 1800s and early 1900s. Players such as Albert Spalding would travel the world for teams to play against other nations and/or American teams. The "tours" didn't last long, yet it gave the opportunity to promote sporting goods, as well as create new leagues and rules. While the effort failed and remained mostly in The United States and Canada, due to the diversity of nationalities with players who still presently play the sport, it remained "World Series" as a result of those early competitions. [1]
(this could even be shortened a bit more but that about gets the point across. the wording may not be "perfect" but according to historians in this documentary, it's true.)
Additionally, the entire world tunes in or attends these games, which incorporates the series as a "world" event in one way or another.
(below section edited but left out... let me know if it makes any more sense this way or keep it all and tie it in together?)
;either directly with players from different countries who play the sport, it being the name given in the early days as a result of competitions with other nations (including present Olympic championships) or as a brand name for the "Fall Classic".
69.129.170.102 ( talk) 11:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Additional info: For what it's worth, I'm a native of Kansas City, home of the Negro League Museum and Buck O'Neil (featured in the documentary). While it's sometimes hard to prove/find the info via the Internet to back up statements, it doesn't make them incorrect (but I agree can be challenging to convey properly in an article). I say this because it's my hope that some of you are accepting of other editor's input and not monopolizing the entire article, considering the possiblity you may not know "everything" about a topic. Nonetheless in good faith, here are a few other references that may help though regarding the baseball and world series origin, etc.
1839: Abner Doubleday is credited with inventing baseball in Cooperstown, New York.
In 1888-1889, Spalding took a group of Major League players around the world to promote baseball and Spalding sporting goods. Playing across the western U.S., the tour made stops in Hawaii (although no game was played), New Zealand, Australia, Ceylon, Egypt, Italy, France, and England. The tour returned to grand receptions in New York, Philadelphia, and Chicago. The tour included future Hall of Famers Adrian "Cap" Anson and John Montgomery Ward. While the players were on the tour, the National League instituted new rules regarding player pay that led to a revolt of players, led by Ward, who started the Players' League the following season (1890). The league lasted one year, partially due to the competitive tactics of Spalding to limit its success.
Teddy Roosevelt and other illustrious Americans had gathered to celebrate the conclusion of a successful six-month world tour, during which baseball all-stars played 53 games in 50 cities, in such novice baseball countries as Australia, Ceylon (now Sri Lanka), Egypt, Italy and France.
Like the "Sham Wow" guy says, I can't do this all day. (smile) I thank you in advance...Happy Summer! 69.129.170.102 ( talk) 11:47, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
(cur) (prev) 00:58, 22 May 2009 Isaacl (talk | contribs) (51,956 bytes) (→International impact and explanation of the term "World" Series: copy edit; also removed opinion that is unnecessary - "World Series" is the name used by MLB; no justification is required) (undo) <----- wasn't opinion, please don't attack editors! give benefit of the doubt and/or research yourself. we're not here to prove who is right and/or have it our way by monopolizing articles like others.
65.27.100.0 (
talk)
16:03, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
I retitled the new "International competitions" mini-section "Intercontinental competitions" because the World Series reaches beyond the U.S. (Toronto won in 1992 and 1993, and the Expos were eligible to play while in Montréal.) The three logical alternatives are:
The substantial effects are identical, but passions may flare over the inferred nuances of each solution. So whaddya think? (If necessary, I'll start a straw poll, but I doubt its necessity.) —— Shakescene ( talk) 05:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
The following paragraph just seems too detailed (or too argumentative) for the general reader. I don't want to lose any of the details, sources, authors or comparisons, but I'm not sure what can be best sent to the footnotes for specialist appreciation:
“The 19th century competitions are, however, not officially recognized as part of World Series history by Major League Baseball,[6] as it considers 19th century baseball to be a prologue to the modern baseball era. Until about 1960, some sources treated the 19th century Series on an equal basis with the post-19th century series, such as Ernest Lanigan's Baseball Cyclopedia from 1922, and Turkin and Thompson's Encyclopedia of Baseball series throughout the 1950s. The Sporting News Record Book, by contrast, which began publishing in the 1930s, only listed the modern Series, although the TSN record books did include regular-season achievements for all the 19th century leagues. Also, a paperback from 1961 called World Series Encyclopedia, edited by Don Schiffer, mentioned the 1880s and 1890s Series' in the introduction but otherwise left them out of the discussion.”
By the way, you can add an authoritative, but decidedly non-specialist source to the list, The World Almanac and Book of Facts for 1929, whose list of "Baseball's World Championships 1884-1928" on page 776 (directly following "Players who were eligible for 1928 World Series") starts with Providence's 3-0 victory over the Metropolitans. Yes, according to the almanac, my town, not Boston, beat New York for the very first world championship! However, my 1943 World Almanac (p. 677) lists "Baseball World Championships—1903-1942" —— Shakescene ( talk) 07:22, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
A few points and questions, then.
1. Your sentence -- "Such titles are competed for exclusively in internationally sanctioned tournaments by national teams that are sponsored by their sports' respective national federations, and on which all the players are required to be of the same nationality or national origin in order to be eligible to participate." -- seems to provide a definition of world championship that you wish to have reflected in the article. Do you have any references for such an implied definition? Is that sufficient, or merely necessary - in other words, are there other requirements as well, such as legitimacy?
2. Your use of
World_Baseball_Classic#Eligibility_rules as a link in that sentence is sneaky, by the way. Are you trying to argue that the WBC is more than an exhibition tourney during preseason training, and is, de jure, a legitimate world championship tournament?
Right now, the article doesn't claim that the World Series winners are world champions, but it does say that they are often referred to as world champions by the media and themselves. Isn't that an accurate statement of reality? What's the point of fighting this back and forth, anyway? Sheesh. --
ArglebargleIV (
talk)
00:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
I could see adding the word "only" in there, admittedly. -- ArglebargleIV ( talk) 02:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)In spite of its name, the World Series remains the championship of the North American major league baseball teams (though MLB, its players, and the media continue informally to refer to the World Series winner as world champions of baseball).
( Centpacrr ( talk) 03:30, 26 May 2009 (UTC))While some informally refer to the winners of the "World Series" also as "world champions of baseball," MLB's best-of-seven playoff is not a "world's championship" as such titles in teams sports are only competed for among national teams made up of players representing their home countries whereas participation in the World Series is limited to the two League playoff champions of Major League Baseball located in the United States and Canada.
( Centpacrr ( talk) 07:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC))While some informally refer to World Series winning clubs also as "world champions of baseball," the MLB playoff is not a "world's championship" tournament open to competition by groups of national teams made up of players eligible to represent their home countries but is instead limited exclusively to the two League playoff champions of Major League Baseball located only in the United States and Canada.
(approximate) — why be bold when you can discuss first?
“The 19th century competitions are, however, not officially recognized as part of World Series history by Major League Baseball, [1] as the organization considers 19th century baseball to be a prologue to the modern baseball era. Until about 1960, some sources treated the 19th century Series on an equal basis with the post-19th century series. [2] Beginning about 1930, however, many authorities would start beginning the (world) championship series of baseball in 1903, separated from their discussions of earlier contests. [3] (For example, the 1929 World Almanac and Book of Facts lists "Baseball's World Championships 1884-1928" in a single table, [4] but the 1943 edition lists "Baseball World Championships—1903-1942". [5])”
—— Shakescene ( talk) 22:23, 24 May 2009 (UTC)
On my talk page you said something about having a fairly complete World Almanac collection from the 20s into the 50s. If you've got the time and can put your hands on them easily, I'm curious to know what was the first year they de-listed the 19th Century Series and/or the last year they listed them, in their World Series winners table. That's a side issue to the "World's Championship" question. It's more to do with the trend, noted in the previous section, of how various media, one by one, began ignoring the 19th Century contests. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 04:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
OK, I keep getting new epiphanies on this by looking at it from slightly different angles, and I think I might have a solution to this ongoing stalemate. See what you think: I think we're arguing the wrong argument. We're arguing over whether it's a world championship or not. I think it's fairly clear that it's not an "official" world championship, it's merely "claimed" by MLB and by media, to a certain extent. So I think the subject should really be (1) where the term "World Series" came from ("World's Championship Series") along with (2) the media and MLB's occasional claim to the "World's Champs" title. I say "occasional" because you can find frequent references to "World's Champions", but as time has gone on, "World Series champions" has become much more predominant as a term. "World Champs" has never gone away, but its percentage of use has dropped considerably since the early 1900s or even into the 1930s. I also think this ties in with the coverage of the 1880s-1890s Series, as part of the media evolution of the coverage of this event. A couple of questions about World Almanac remain: (1) what year did they stop covering the pre-1900 Series; and (2) what year did they stop calling it the world championship? I think that evolution makes for much more interesting (and verifiable) reading than the debate about whether it's "right" to call it the World Series or not, which is not wikipedia's place to judge anyway. And it would also thoroughly explain it to the original complainants from a couple of years ago or so, which triggered writing that section in the first place. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots 07:07, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
( Centpacrr ( talk) 18:32, 26 May 2009 (UTC))"The term "World Series" is derived from "World's Championship Series", a term which first appeared in the 1880s and continued into the early 1900s. This was eventually shortened to "World's Series" and then "World Series". The Series has never been formally sanctioned as a world's championship event. The winner of the World Series is still occasionally, though unofficially, referred to as the "World Champions" by media and by MLB."
Centpacrr, while I don't have a strong opinion one way or another on the wording question -- just because the IBAF is a recognized body by the IOC doesn't mean that it's necessarily authorized to do anything other than be the representative of baseball in the IOC. The IOC doesn't have the authority to grant world championship sanctioning that you claim. Same for FIFA, incidentally. Its power to hold world championships for soccer doesn't flow from the IOC or any other body -- its power comes from the fact that nearly everybody is willing to let it have the power, and recognizes the authority. The IOC could tell FIFA to pound sand, and it wouldn't affect the recognized legitimacy of the World Cup tournament as a world championship for national teams one single bit. Not too many people are willing to give the IBAF that power -- the IOC doesn't even want to give the IBAF a slot for baseball and softball in the Olympics! -- ArglebargleIV ( talk) 01:34, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
A few answers and a few questions.
Possibly because few other sports have such a high percentage of the top professional talent concentrated in one league and system?
How and why do the opinions of "the rest of the world's sporting communities" matter in this?
Nobody is claiming that the World Series winners are world champions by fiat (although one could make an argument that the World Series winners are de facto the best baseball team in the world at that moment). I really don't know why you keep bringing that point up. What some here are objecting to is your proposed language that not only says that the WS winners aren't world champions (which is fine), but goes into details about what you think a world championship is, emphasizes the parochial nature of the WS, and practically sneers at the sheer commercialness of it all.
Just as a side point, why couldn't the winner of an hypothetical international club championship tournament (perhaps held after the end of the World Series, Mexican Series, Japan Series, and whatever the other Asian league championships are called) be considered world champions? Why must your view of a world championship be limited to competition between nations? --
ArglebargleIV (
talk)
03:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Regarding IBAF: As I mentioned on the WikiProject Baseball talk page, teams compete internationally after having agreed upon a common set of rules, which can include agreeing on naming the winner of a given tournament the world champion, or agreeing upon a point ranking system to declare a champion, or anything else. Without any agreement in place, there is no undisputed world champion. IBAF is just the current framework under which the terms for global baseball competitions are negotiated. Isaac Lin ( talk) 05:14, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Blah blah blah. Look, here's the deal. It's called the "World Series". No justification is necessary or required. It just is. The explanation of the term's history is all that's required, or appropriate, since Wikipedia's place is not to argue for one or the other POV. And that's all the article should contain.
In fact, in accordance with my comment above, I am going to delete the entire section about "international participation". The World Series is not an international tournament and has never pretended to be an international tournament, and information (poorly sourced information about that) about international tournaments such as the WBC and the defunct Olympic baseball competition is not relevant to the article. Nor is there any justification to have information about international tournaments and not have information about the championships of other professial leagues such as Nippon Baseball. Such information about international play, if it is deemed necessary, should go in the Baseball article or possibly in an entirely new article. Vidor ( talk) 01:27, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I propose, as I wrote above, reorganizing and rewriting the entire History article in order to integrate as much of the trivia as possible into the text. The section about precursors to the World Series will remain the same. Here is my idea for how to break down the History section:
I will start work tomorrow. I will include as much of the "trivia" as I can into the History section. Vidor ( talk) 01:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I haven't gotten around to this yet. Maybe tomorrow. Vidor ( talk) 19:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
When I look at my watchlist, I see a bewildering range of moves and merges by User:Graham87. I'm not surprised by the number, because I know that a careful move or merger needs to take a number of steps to keep histories and discussions intact. (A huge amount of extra work, much of it still to be done in terms of checking redirects, was caused by a clumsy and premature move of New Yankee Stadium to Yankee Stadium and Yankee Stadium to Yankee Stadium (1923).) However, since they haven't been mentioned here before, I would like to know what the general thrust of these moves is, and what were the reasons for them. —— Shakescene ( talk) 17:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
I've heard that the title comes from the name of the organization that used to sponsor the series a long time ago (i.e., the word "World" was not meant to refer to the Earth, but rather to the organization, something like a newspaper called the "World Post," I believe). Is there any truth to this? Thanks. -- JohnJSal ( talk) 19:17, 14 August 2009 (UTC)
As the Cubs have been mathematically eliminated from the possibility of participating postseason play in 2009, I have updated the information about their drought to reflect this fact. Wkharrisjr ( talk) 19:21, 24 September 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, List of World Series champions, New York Yankees, Philadelphia Phillies, Yankee Stadium, ...)? —— Shakescene ( talk) 03:24, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
needs full edit protection from evryone exept moderators —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
75.15.196.97 (
talk)
03:21, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
I don't believe it is a scalable approach to list the results of every series and its length for championships from 2003 onward. If the results after the change in home field advantage is deemed notable, perhaps some other technique could be employed to summarize the notable info? (Probably better would be to refer to a reliable source that discusses the home field advantage.) Isaac Lin ( talk) 12:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
An aspect of " home-field advantage" that is unique to MLB is the DH rule (used in the AL park). It was not a conclusive factor this year, as there were only 6 games, i.e., 3 games in each league's park, and the DH didn't help NY in Game 1, but it clearly played a role in the decisive Game 6, with the MVP performance of DH Matsui. (The NL team's DH is a pinch-hitter who batted perhaps once every two or three games during the season [i.e., 80 to 100 at-bats], while the AL team's DH batted three or four times every game the whole season [i.e., 500+ AB's].) Eagle4000 ( talk) 05:05, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
For What It's Worth (cue Buffalo Springfield) to others, here are all the 7-game series (out of 7) since 1903, courtesy of the sort button at List of World Series champions (obviously Bugs has his harefeet on a much-more-detailed listing with the hosts of each game in each series). The 7-game series seem fairly evenly distributed from 1945 to 1987, but only four of the 21 subsequent series have gone the distance, so Bugs' memory is probably serving him right. On the other hand, Game 7 is only one of the advantages of having home-field advantage. —— Shakescene ( talk) 08:35, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
1912 | Boston Red Sox | AL | 4–3–(1) | New York Giants | NL |
1909 | Pittsburgh Pirates | NL | 4–3 | Detroit Tigers | AL |
1924 | Washington Senators | AL | 4–3 | New York Giants | NL |
1925 | Pittsburgh Pirates | NL | 4–3 | Washington Senators | AL |
1926 | St. Louis Cardinals | NL | 4–3 | New York Yankees | AL |
1931 | St. Louis Cardinals | NL | 4–3 | Philadelphia Athletics | AL |
1934 | St. Louis Cardinals | NL | 4–3 | Detroit Tigers | AL |
1940 | Cincinnati Reds | NL | 4–3 | Detroit Tigers | AL |
1945 | Detroit Tigers | AL | 4–3 | Chicago Cubs | NL |
1946 | St. Louis Cardinals | NL | 4–3 | Boston Red Sox | AL |
1947 | New York Yankees | AL | 4–3 | Brooklyn Dodgers | NL |
1952 | New York Yankees | AL | 4–3 | Brooklyn Dodgers | NL |
1955 | Brooklyn Dodgers | NL | 4–3 | New York Yankees | AL |
1956 | New York Yankees | AL | 4–3 | Brooklyn Dodgers | NL |
1957 | Milwaukee Braves | NL | 4–3 | New York Yankees | AL |
1958 | New York Yankees | AL | 4–3 | Milwaukee Braves | NL |
1960 | Pittsburgh Pirates | NL | 4–3 | New York Yankees | AL |
1962 | New York Yankees | AL | 4–3 | San Francisco Giants | NL |
1964 | St. Louis Cardinals | NL | 4–3 | New York Yankees | AL |
1965 | Los Angeles Dodgers | NL | 4–3 | Minnesota Twins | AL |
1967 | St. Louis Cardinals | NL | 4–3 | Boston Red Sox | AL |
1968 | Detroit Tigers | AL | 4–3 | St. Louis Cardinals | NL |
1971 | Pittsburgh Pirates | NL | 4–3 | Baltimore Orioles | AL |
1972 | Oakland Athletics | AL | 4–3 | Cincinnati Reds | NL |
1973 | Oakland Athletics | AL | 4–3 | New York Mets | NL |
1975 | Cincinnati Reds | NL | 4–3 | Boston Red Sox | AL |
1979 | Pittsburgh Pirates | NL | 4–3 | Baltimore Orioles | AL |
1982 | St. Louis Cardinals | NL | 4–3 | Milwaukee Brewers | AL |
1985 | Kansas City Royals | AL | 4–3 | St. Louis Cardinals | NL |
1986 | New York Mets | NL | 4–3 | Boston Red Sox | AL |
1987 | Minnesota Twins | AL | 4–3 | St. Louis Cardinals | NL |
1991 | Minnesota Twins | AL | 4–3 | Atlanta Braves | NL |
1997 | Florida Marlins [c] | NL | 4–3 | Cleveland Indians | AL |
2001 | Arizona Diamondbacks | NL | 4–3 | New York Yankees | AL |
2002 | Anaheim Angels [c] | AL | 4–3 | San Francisco Giants [c] | NL |
[c] = wild card team |
Seems like there is a lot of information in the article that is not directly relevent to the World Seris, such as a detailed discussion of the 1994 Strike and cross-town rivals that have never met in the World Series. This information should probably be moved to specific articles elsewhere in Wikipedia. Any objections? Wkharrisjr ( talk) 19:29, 5 November 2009 (UTC)
Isaac Lin ( talk) 05:17, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Having just been invited to offer comments, I would say that -- for the sake of consistency -- the Toronto-Montreal rivalry should not be listed, as it too is not a "local" rivalry, but instead is a rivalry between cities not in the same state/province. It should instead be listed at List of MLB rivalries. If you decide to keep it and list it under "Canadian (inter-provincial)" rivalries, I would like to suggest adding a corresponding section for "Interstate" rivalries. Eagle4000 ( talk) 02:39, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps some specific proposals would help with obtaining feedback? I propose the following changes to the "Local rivalries" section:
Isaac Lin ( talk) 04:34, 26 November 2009 (UTC)
I reverted the change made to the background colours in the table cells, as I believe the change decreased legibility. Isaac Lin ( talk) 04:23, 26 November 2009 (UTC)