Talk:2006 World Series/Archive 1

St. Louis Cardinals
† - Did not appear in 2006 World Series

"This will potentially be the final World Series televised by FOX." Umm...for eternity or just for the next couple of years? BIG Tuna 18:47, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

sources?
Why is this page marked as needing sources? It is about a future event. Seems like a waste of time, as does marking it as a stub. There's not a lot more information to add here, folks, nor a lot of reliable sources discussing future events. Reggaedelgado 01:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

2006 Major League Baseball postseason
I've recently changed the structure of that page (it's not really a disambig, isn't it?). I've added a bracket too. -- Howard  the   Duck  16:41, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

World Series rosters?
Can anyone put the 25-man rosters for both teams here in the discussion page like was done for the rounds of the playoffs? Darwin&#39;s Bulldog 19:18, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't think there were any changes from the LCS rosters. --Holderca1 12:40, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I went ahead and added them (according to the official sites of Det and Stl). Being the one to always add them, I was reluctant to add them this time because I did not see any changes.  I am still suspicious that both have remained the same so I have marked players with an "†" who have not appeared in a game. Nick81aku 21:25, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Suppan and Bonderman are tonights starters. --Holderca1 22:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Matchup
Just out of curiosity (since I am not a baseball expert by any means), why have a column for the "Home" team and one for the "Visitor"? Wouldn't it be more meaningful to show all of Detroit's scores in one column and all of St. Louis's in another? –Shoaler (talk) 12:28, 26 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That layout is designed to show which team is the host and which is the guest. The bold type shows St. L. has won two home games and split in Detroit. Home-field advantage is a crucial factor in post-season MLB play (full attendance by the most-devoted fans), so the Cards have had the edge and momentum going into Game Five.  Schweiwikist     (talk)   10:35, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the attendance column should be dropped, the average person would look at that and say that the Cardinals are getting more support when in actually their stadium holds 4,000 more. --Holderca1 14:49, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Attendance figures have been listed in box scores from time immemorial. I suppose it should be expressed as a percentage of the venue's capacity in the interest of fairness; perhaps it's up to a knowledgeable fan to know the relative sizes of the ballparks. BTW: All the trivia on Leyland and LaRoo I've moved into Background:Two Vet. Mgrs., now Trivia looks less bloated.  Schweiwikist     (talk)   05:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Incorrect statement in the article about this being only the second matchup of classic 16 teams who haven't moved...the 82 series between St. Louis and Milwaukee was another such matchup. Vamsilly 22:29, 4 January 2007 (UTC)vamsilly

Vandalism
all fixed Dool325 04:02, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --W.marsh 04:08, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

ratings
Someone should mention, at least in the trivia section, how this world series had the worst ratings ever. There were many news stories about it, and the fact that dancing with the stars had more viewers. 128.252.188.235 16:16, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. I don't think Game 5 ratings are out yet though. --W.marsh 16:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Not actually true. Because it went 5, it cumulatively had higher ratings than last year's Chicago sweep of Houston. Vamsilly 22:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)vamsilly

interference vs obstruction
I believe in game 1 Inge was charged with obstruction rather than interference. The difference is that interference would have been intentional, while obstruction is unintentional. I remember the announcers making the distinction and stating that it was the latter rather than the former. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.9.146.170 (talk • contribs).
 * I think you're right... I've gone ahead and fixed it. --W.marsh 19:15, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Front page news?
Why is this on the front page? It's hardly something that interests anyone outside of the U.S. is it? Can we now put the F.A. Cup Final on there then?
 * Well this is the English Wikipedia and 67% of native English speakers live in the US. Results of the 5 or so biggest American sports events/tournaments each year are fair game for the front page, traditionally (though this has been contested in the past). At any rate, Formula 1 was just on the main page and that's not very popular at all in the US. Anyway you can suggest stuff for the front page at In the news section on the Main Page/Candidates. --W.marsh 23:11, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Trivia sections are a no no
Here is the trivia section. This needs to be written up as prose and incorporated into the main article per WP:AVTRIV.---==Trivia==

L0b0t 22:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * The rainout of Game 4 was the first since Game 1 in 1996
 * For the second year in a row, a team from the Central Division has won the World Series. Before 2005, the World Series champion had never come from the Central Division since it was created in 1994. Both the 2005 and 2006 world series were in fact played between two Central Division teams, so a Central Division winner was guaranteed in each the moment the world series matchup was set.
 * For only the second time since 1975 (previously in 2004), both of the World Series teams have remained in the same city since the AL was established in 1901.
 * The Series resulted in the seventh different champion in seven years.
 * St. Louis finished the year 83-78. This is the second-worst record ever for a league champion (the 1973 New York Mets finished 82-79) and the worst record ever for a World Series champion and finished with 94 total wins, fewer than half of the playoff field had in the regular season (including the Tigers). The Toronto Blue Jays, Boston Red Sox, Philadelphia Phillies, Chicago White Sox, and Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim all finished with better regular season records, yet failed to make the postseason.
 * Every division has produced exactly one champion in the years 2001 to 2006 (2001 NL West-Arizona Diamondbacks, 2002 AL West-Anaheim Angels, 2003 NL East-Florida Marlins, 2004 AL East-Boston Red Sox, 2005 AL Central-Chicago White Sox and 2006 NL Central-St. Louis Cardinals).
 * The Cardinals are the second team (the 2003 Florida Marlins being the first) since the creation of the Division Series to win the World Series without ever having home-field advantage during their entire post-season.
 * Curtis Granderson (0-for-13), Iván Rodríguez (0-for-11) and Plácido Polanco (0-for-10) are the first group of three teammates, each with 10-or-more at-bats, to go hitless through the first three games of a World Series.
 * Justin Verlander's one-run throwing error propelled the Cardinals into a tie in the fourth inning of Game 5. Coupled with his previous error in Game 1, Todd Jones's in Game 2, Joel Zumaya's in Game 3, and Fernando Rodney's in Game 4, Verlander's second error left the Tigers with the dubious distinction of being the only team whose pitchers made errors in each of the first five games of a World Series. The Tigers also set the record for errors by pitchers in a World Series with 5.
 * The teams in the Series were featured in publicity efforts by the professional wrestling industry. The Tigers were shown attending World Wrestling Entertainment events and Curtis Granderson was featured in a website article.  The Cardinals, particularly David Eckstein, were spotlighted by their interest in the WWE's competitor, Total Nonstop Action Wrestling.
 * Games 1, 3 and 4 set all-time lows for television ratings, with Game 4 falling 20% from the previous year's Game 4. Fox said part of the reason for the decline was that St. Louis and Detroit are smaller markets than teams that have been in the series in recent years.
 * Jeff Weaver became the pitcher with the highest ERA to win a Series-clinching game.
 * It's useful in the article until rewritten. The guideline says "This guideline does not suggest deletion of trivia sections". --W.marsh 23:04, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * You are correct sir. Which is why I've deleted NOTHING and moved it all here for easy reference.  Please do not add a trivia section back to the article.  This info is great, it just needs to be written as prose not a bulleted list, and it has to be incorporated into the article. L0b0t 23:09, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * So incorporate it into the article, rather than just remove it. --W.marsh 23:12, 28 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We are trying to but people keep putting it back in.L0b0t 23:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe because it's interesting information that should be in the article, not on the talk page. Calm down. --W.marsh 23:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Again, I'm not advocating deletion of the info. The information however interesting has to be written up as prose and incorporated into the body of the article. Not as a bulleted list in a contra-policy trivia section. Please remember that this is an encyclopedia not the sports page of the newspaper. L0b0t 23:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * That's not policy, it's a guideline. And it doesn't say that trivia sections have to be removed instantly. --W.marsh 23:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Umm, just one more thing . . . (popups recommended)
looky here in '05 . . . trivia looky here in '04 . . . trivia looky here in '03 . . . trivia looky here in '02 . . . trivia looky here in '01 . . . trivia

looky here in '00 . . . triv...oh, Miscellanea! Smart NYer! looky here in '99 . . . trivia looky here in '98 . . . trivia looky here in '97 . . . trivia looky here in '96 . . . trivia

looky here in '95 . . . trivia looky here in '94 . . . triv...oops, no Series that year. looky here in '93 . . . trivia looky here in '92 . . . trivia looky here in '91 . . . trivia looky here in '90 . . . trivia

I'm tired of piping these links, so if you don't mind:

1989 World Series 1988 World Series 1987 World Series 1986 World Series 1985 World Series

1984 World Series 1983 World Series 1982 World Series 1981 World Series 1980 World Series

'Nuff said. Or perhaps not. Here's a tidbit from that last WS "Trivia" section linked above:


 * According to Tug McGraw, one of the police horses, who lined up in the field during the 9th inning of Game 6, was not "stadium trained." (8th item down the list)

I don't think you can top (or is it bottom?) that for trivia. There's a simple reason that over a quarter of a century of trivia sections (and probably more) have piled up in these World Series articles: Writing well is hard work. It's just too easy to simply drop minutiae onto these pages and file them under "Trivia" and let somebody else do the hard work of integrating them. . . later.

Part of my motivation for dredging up all those links above is that I've noticed an inconsistency of style and layout, and some confusing or redundant info in all the WS articles going back to 1903. It's like the same car built by different contractors at different times with different materials. I find it a bit troubling because it's a sign of limited effort, limited means for anybody to have developed a plan for what could be a real highlight of WP (can you say "Fall Classic Portal"?). I found it fairly easy to take the '06 trivia about La Russa and Leyland and create a separate section under the "Background" section, and it seems to have held up since Friday night. But it took some time to sift through it and move the info.

Cutting to the chase: All this WS "Trivia" is classifiable. The better it's organized, the less it will seem like trivia, so if a handful of "labels" could be cooked up for categories of info formerly known as trivia, the overall style of these articles will seem to read better. That ought to settle the trivia issue.

Postscript: For instance, a 4-1 WS where one contender splits "on the road" and then comes home and sweeps to win 3 more and clinch is fairly rare from what I've looked up so far. What the Cards have done against Detroit in 2006 matches what NY (NL) accomplished in 1969 (except the Mets dropped Game 1 instead of 2 to Baltimore). I'm still working my way thru past Fall Classics to see when else this happened, so I can add this info to the '06 article in an appropriate place, but not as an addition to the dreaded Trivia section. A heading that might be appropriate for this info each and every year: Long series, short series. 4 or 5 games would classified as a short series, 6 or 7 classified as long. Easy to spot trends in this area and develop copy to fill a section like this. Was a short or long series predicted each year; by who; was a trend broken, were the prognosticators wrong, did a noted BB writer point this out so it doesn't smack of the dreaded Original Research? Now really 'nuff said.  Schweiwikist    (talk)   05:08, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing those out. They will will be listed here. Please understand, no one is advocating deleting the INFORMATION, just incorporating that information, prose style, into the body of the article. It is the trivia SECTION that is a no no, not the trivia itself. L0b0t 12:19, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi L0b0t. re:"They will will be listed here." (my emphasis) Are you suggesting that the toomuchtrivia tag should be applied to the Trivia sections of the WS articles?  Schweiwikist     (talk)   13:01, 29 October 2006 (UTC)


 * If there is too much trivia in those articles, then yes I am. L0b0t 13:06, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

World Series?
Why is it called the "World Series" when it is almost exclusively played by U.S.A. teams?

Does anyone outside of the U.S.A. even play baseball? Quite a few countries play cricket, which is kind of similar I guess, but I always thought baseball was an exclusively American sport.

Sounds to me like the organisers are trying to exaggerate the championship's significance slightly. Canderra 20:38, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the 29 the USA, there is a MLB team (and several minor league teams) in Canada. Also there are affiliates in latin areas such as Mexico and Dominican Republic (i.e. winter league baseball). Hmm, North Ameican Baseball Series perhaps? Nick81aku 00:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Baseball is very popular in Latin Countries and in Japan and Korea. Some of the best players in MLB are from other countries, a sharp contrast to American Football, which truly is not very popular outside of the US/Canada and nearly all players were born here. See World Series for more information on the origin of the name. I don't really think we Wikipedia editors can do much about the inaccuracy though. --W.marsh 00:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

As the above editor indicates, the article explains why it is called the "World" Series, and has been called such since the 1880s. It is what it is. Commissioner Selig congratulated the "World Champion St. Louis Cardinals" on Friday night. Wahkeenah 01:37, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * the reason is historical, and because sports events grow from the national passions of the time. it's natural for the original organizers to use hyperbole to generate excitement. the same logic also applies to soccer's World Cup, and hockey's National Hockey League (the latter spans two countries). grandiosity and promoters just go hand in hand, even if the events and associations they create change to eventually become more inclusive, and less accurate in nomenclature. even the Olympics do not fit its original mandate and jurisdiction. these are technicalities we live with. -- Denstat 06:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It is interesting to read the history of the name in the referred article. I still contend though that it seems an attempt by the organisers to assert an allure of 'importance' to the series. I don't think comparisons with say the soccer world cup are quite just; soccer's World Cup is indisputably a "World Cup", it is a sport played all over the world and most of the world's countries follow and participate in it to some level. I guess the fact of the matter is that I could create my own sport and then hold a "world cup" for it, in some ways I would be giving my 'sport' (played only by myself) a misleading cup name, but looking at it another way, I guess it would be the most important cup in the world for that sport, so perhaps such a name can be justified. Canderra 10:29, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * That might be true, but it doesn't change the fact of what it's called, and MLB is under no legal obligation to "justify" it. Far more politically incorrect is the continued use of the nicknames "Braves" and "Indians" for two of its teams, and there is no legal remedy for that, either. Wahkeenah 11:59, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Isn't the EPL, also called the Premiership? Is it truly the premier football league in the world? Names are just names people. BTW-- the champion in Japanese baseball is also called "World Champions" and there is a Caribbean World Series as well. No one is trying to up the importance of anything or make a political point by naming the MLB championship the World Series. Ramsquire 21:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Quotes
Many of the Series articles have quotes sections. I don't see any point in isolating them to another wikipedia section, or maybe more to the point, in isolating just this one. You would have to do it for all of them... in effect, creating separate articles in wikiquotes to be linked to by the individual Series articles. Is it really worth the effort? Wahkeenah 12:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * It should be worth the effort if you want a place to find those quotes. Laziness is not a valid excuse for violating policy.  WP:NOT is rather explicit on the subject, to whit: "Wikipedia is not a directory of everything that exists or has existed. Wikipedia articles are not:

1. Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics such as quotations, aphorisms, or persons (real or fictional). If you want to enter lists of quotations, put them into our sister project Wikiquote." Seems pretty clear to me. L0b0t 13:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Then you had best get started fixing the other articles. I'm certainly not going to do it, as I think they are just fine where they are. They pertain only to the series, and putting them elsewhere with a link to them strikes me as "content forking", which is also against wiki policy. Wahkeenah 13:31, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I believe you are thinking of POV forking which is contra-policy. Articles spinoff content into new articles every day.  No one is asking you to do it, I just ask that you not put the removed sections back in. Cheers. L0b0t 13:36, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * And I ask that you fix the other 100 articles, as needed, for the sake of consistency. Or would it be better to retitle it "Comments on the Series" and thus avoid the need for all this useless busy-work? Wahkeenah 13:39, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

We're working on it. Though I find it shameful that you would consider working torwards a well-written, concise article "useless busy-work", I realize there is a place for everyone at the Wiki table. Cheers. L0b0t 14:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As long as it's consistent, it's tolerable, even if I don't agree with it. Wahkeenah 14:15, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know why people feel compelled to mess with perfectly fine articles for no reason. There was nothing wrong with that article, and nothing wrong with the quote section in it.  I want the quotes section, which I added to, put back, and I'd like people to leave it alone, please. Useless busy-work, indeed, to go around and take good information out of good articles. Vidor 17:50, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Because it is against policy perhaps, WP:NOT. --Holderca1 18:25, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * One short, interesting section of Series-related quotes inside a larger article does not a "directory" make. The article is now worse than it was before.  One would think the goal is to make articles better. Vidor 18:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * The point is that there is a place for quotes and that is at Wikiquote. Here is shortcut to the new 2006 World Series page. it contains everything that was formerly in the Quotes section.  Please note there is also now a linkbox in the main article.  Bear in mind that the quote page is new and still needs a great deal of work and you are invited to come and contribute.  Cheers. L0b0t 19:44, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Still can't say I approve, but as long as there's a link on the page to the Wikiquote article, that at least is better than deleting the quotes entirely. Vidor 20:46, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

National Anthem?
Puzzling to me that we're not allowed to have trivia or quote sections, two things that both make the article more interesting, but we can have a listing of who sang the National Anthem. Really, who cares? Will anyone object if I delete this? Vidor 03:34, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Someone's getting delete-happy. Go ahead and re-integrate the trivia into the main article, and retain the National Anthem stuff also. Wahkeenah 04:32, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You are allowed to have trivia, just put it where it is appropriate rather than lumped into it's own section. --Holderca1 14:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Tell that to the user who deleted all the trivia from The Sting on the grounds that "trivia is not allowed". Wahkeenah 18:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Game 5
Is there a real reason to have an inning analysis of the fifth game? Retropunk 20:24, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Not if it's out of step with the other Series summaris. I once saw a pitch-by-pitch summary of Don Larsen's perfect game in 1956. There is nothing approaching that level of detail in that article. Wahkeenah 20:30, 3 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The 1956 World Series doesn't have a pitch-by-pitch summary, which would be a bit overboard if it did. I don't know of any World Series that actually breaks down the game to an inning-by-inning analysis.  I understand it was broken down because of the asinine amount of information, but it doesn't even need half of it.
 * I have a book that has the batter-by-batter of each World Series game, as well as the pitch-by-pitch of the 1956 perfect game. But that depth of detail seems out of place here. Wahkeenah 06:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason not to? Why do people seem to feel compelled to strip this article down? Vidor 06:55, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How does removing the section titles strip it down? There was no content removed.  --Holderca1 13:52, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It shortens it by up to 9 lines. That helps a lot, with both content and readability. Right. Wahkeenah 14:03, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

TV ratings
Are the mentioned here? They should be, they were notoriously poor. Quadzilla99 01:21, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:World Series - Game 3 Scoreboard.png
Image:World Series - Game 3 Scoreboard.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 16:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:MLB-WS 7361.png
Image:MLB-WS 7361.png is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 00:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Swell job removing the Yadier Molina picture
And making the article worse. Vidor (talk) 01:20, 4 November 2008 (UTC)