Talk:World Series/Archive 2

Status of World Series as world championship (and what is football and why SI units are better)

 * WIKIPEDIA function

This is an informative tool and as such should be treated by the users. The World Series is clearly not a series that involves world teams but only teams from USA and Canada. I have no interest in knowing if that's right or wrong, it's just a USEFUL INFORMATION THAT SHOULD BE STATED QUITE SOON IN THE PAGE ABOUT THE WORLD SERIES. Not everybody is a baseball expert and clarifying that mislabelling is something that a tool like Wikipedia should do for its readers, who might want to look up that page to understand more about the topic, not to be carried in an American nationalistic discussion to defend the name. Hope the above is taken in consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Barbabarba (talk • contribs)

I removed the bit about the supposed American penchant for calling their championships world championships. It's POV, and anyway their other championships are called the Super Bowl and the NBA Finals (the Stanley Cup got its name in Canada). And the British haven't set up a lot of world championships to which they "invited the world" -- perhaps the rugby World Cup qualifies (you could hardly invite the world to the cricket World Cup). Not exactly a consistent record of setting up international championships. Anyway, these days the World Series is clearly the world team championship -- I'd like to see Japanese and Korean teams playing for a world title, but I doubt they're in any hurry to challenge the major league teams. Trontonian 22:10, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Ok now, please don't bring up the OUT OF TOPIC point about the major league teams being "the best in the world: hence the world series crowns the world champions". This argument is futile and again, out of topic, even pretending that was true. However, to further debunk this theory, the same has been stated for years about the NBA (the most credited basket championship in the world), who's the world champions in basketball? The USA? Doesn't seems that's happening, even though the NBA is arguably the championship with the best players in the world. So it's quite debatable to state that "they would be the world champions so let's go ahead and call them that" untill they ACTUALLY PLAY against worldwide teams. But, even if it was true that MLB teams would blast away the competition from any other team in the world, since they have NOT played against other teams for THIS TITLE ("Champions of the MLB") they should not be naming their final the "WORLD" series. Going back to the topic, it's an important piece of information to be clarified RIGHT AWAY IN THE PAGE that the World Series does not concern World Nations other than the USA and Canada, and a tool such as wikipedia (that, let me remind you, THE WHOLE WORLD uses) should be addressed to experts and non experts alike, not asssuming that readers "already know that, of course!". :User:Barbabarba
 * You're responding to a 3-year-old post. —Wknight94 (talk) 02:45, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Kingturtle is going to write something on this topic at Baseball. Trontonian

I take it from the assertion of the failure efforts to organize a series between the World Series winner and foreign champions that such efforts have in fact been made. Some more detail about them would help clarify the issue. They would also enlighten me, because I don't remember any. Of course, I don't remember much these days. PBrain

I don't see what any of this matters. Nobody who follows baseball refers to it as the "world championship" or thinks of it in those terms. The victors are simply winners of the "World Series", the champions of Major League Baseball's championship series, and MLB is (without dispute) the most highly competitive, selective, and well-financed baseball in the world. BeakerK44 07:36, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)
 * The WS winners are called "World Champions", though. --Locarno 13:28, 13 Oct 2004 (UTC)


 * Someone should remove the phrase "persistent" in "persistent myth" in the section about the "New York World" sponsorship. This myth has only been in existence since about 1995, when attempts to scrutinize every aspect of American culture for excessive arrogance really got into high gear and presumably someone invented the "New York World" story as a way to stave off such criticism.  I'd suggest removing the reference entirely so as to not give the myth the respect that comes with a mention, but people hear about it enough that Wikipedia should probably contain a refutation. --Heian-794 17:26, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)Heian-794

I think that its fair to call the world series champions "world champions" because the best players from all over the world play in the major leagues, and the WS is the MLB championship. --Henrybaker 21:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes. Consider Japan, for example. Some of their best young players are starting to come over here, whereas the Americans in the Japanese leagues tend to be past-their-prime players who have been cut from the bigs. There is no question MLB as we know it is the best there is. NOt that there is not some arrogance about it. I recall when the Bears beat the Giants in 1963, the Chicago radio guy said, "The Bears are the World's Champions of football!" American football, of course, not Soccer or Rugby. And implicitly regarding the AFL as minor league... which, in practicality, it was at that time. Wahkeenah 21:32, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Not to be picky, but in the 1964 reference to the two Yankee losses to the DBacks and Marlins, the loss to the DBacks was in 2000, which was actually the last year of the 20th century, not part of the 21st century.


 * The loss to the Diamondbacks occurred in 2001, not 2000, so the statement is factually accurate. Raymondluxuryacht 18:20, 2 November 2005 (UTC)Raymondluxuryacht

This is what I came here to look up (whether it is a world championship). Like me, there will be may others who know next to nothing about this, so I adapted the intro a bit to clarify things for people like me. Also, there were no links to baseball, Canada and the US, so I added those. I'm still a bit puzzled, though. Are teams from all over the world free to enter? And if so, how would they classify? Through their country's national leagues? There is a section that suggests that something like this is being set up, the WBC, but that is not quite clear. Is that supposed to be a world championship or a classification round for it for other countries than the US and Canada? But then the 'world series' is for regional teams, not national teams, so is there going to be a mix of the two then? That would be quite unique, I suppose.

Remember that this article should also be informative for other people than afficionados, people like me, who haven't a clue. :) DirkvdM 09:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

This contest has been known as the "World's Championship Series" since the 1880s. At that time, baseball really existed only in the United States, so effectively it was the same thing. However, Major League Baseball is still the highest standard of the game. Meanwhile, the name of the Series is now regarded as kind of a "brand", hence the more recent term "World Series Championship". The recently inaugurated World Baseball Classic ideally would like to become what the Soccer and Cricket World Cups are now, but that will take some time. Wahkeenah 10:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * DirkvdM, to answer your specific question, the World Series is limited to Major League Baseball only. All of the teams in Major League Baseball are in the Continental United States except the Toronto Blue Jays which are in Canada (the Montreal Expos used to be in the league but are now the Washington Nationals.  They never played in a World Series while in Montreal).  Those are the only teams eligible.  The players on the teams are native to many different countries but the teams still represent areas within the U.S. and Toronto.  —Wknight94 (talk) 13:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I see. Making a separate link to baseball looked a bit strange considering this, although leaving it out looks a bit strange to people like me. Then again, following the link to 'Major League Baseball' clears that up, so that's ok, I suppose.
 * I suppose it's not a world championship in two senses; it's not between national teams and it's not worldwide. So I added that. The WBC thing is still unclear, though. DirkvdM 17:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Saying that it's "limited to countries" is a bit misleading, because it just happens that MLB exists only in US and Canada. It's actually "limited to MLB". If Mexico City, for example, were to acquire a major league expansion team, then it would be "limited to three countries". The WBC was not billed as a "world championship" as such. It might be someday, but that will depend on how it progresses. Wahkeenah 18:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, this still puzzles me. The problem has shifted. How does one then join MLB then? Could, say, a Dutch team join in? And if so, what are the criteria? I get the impression that it is more than a coincidence that all teams are from North America. The third example you mention also borders the US, and that is no coincidence. There would be a serious logistical problem if a Japanese team would want to join in (to give a more realistic example). I'm not going to make a study of this, so I won't take this any further, but I hope I've given you experts some insight in the mind of other potential ignorant readers like me, who also deserve some explaining. :)
 * Oh, one more thing. Another characteristic of a world championship is (usually?) that it is held in a different continent every year. Hell, the football world cup has even been hosted by the US not too long ago. :) DirkvdM 19:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes. I think that was 1994. We call it soccer. :) I say again, at the time it was labeled the "World's Championship Series", organized baseball was played only in the USA. The World Series is not like the World Cup or the Olympics. It's more like, for example, the FA Cup, the championship of England, which is contested among city teams. However, a much better analogy is the championships of the other major professional North American leagues: The NFL, the NBA and the NHL. The difference is simply in the naming. You could think of "World Series" as being a "brand name", like the "Super Bowl". The recently-contested World Baseball Classic might become a true World Cup of baseball someday, but currently it is a novelty, a set of exhibition games. The World Series is the "real deal" at the present time. The membership in MLB is decided by MLB. Presumably a team from Japan or Korea or the Dominican Republic could request a hearing, but it would likely not be honored for various reasons, including travel costs. But many players from those countries who have sufficient skills are welcomed into MLB. Wahkeenah 20:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I just realise that a better comparison would be the UEFA Champions League, in that that is also between city teams and that it is limited to one part of the world, albeit more principally and less for practical reasons. Note also that the logo rather suggests global ambitions. :) Which in this case is not realistic because many of the best teams are to be found in South America. There was, however, also the Intercontinental Cup (football), to remedy this, succeeded by the FIFA Club World Championship. Which was also known by the name 'world cup'. So that could also be called the association football equivalent of the world series, although it never gained much popularity. No wonder, considering only a few city teams participate, so only people from those cities would be interrested.
 * Oh, and I can't resist this one: it's ok to call association football 'soccer' if you agree to call american football 'merrer'. If you don't like that name, then you'll have some idea of how most of the rest of the world feels about the name 'soccer'. :) DirkvdM 07:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Your logic is faulty--there are many words that the "rest of the world" uses that are used differently in place or another. Understandable language is determined by common usage, not etymology.  I don't think I would insist on the word "soccer" were I in Britain.  (see also Talk: Football (soccer)
 * A good example of localized use, as I mentioned somewhere else, is how the term "corn" is used. In America, it's maize. In European countries, it's variously used for the indigenous cereal grain: wheat, oats, barley, etc. Wahkeenah 14:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Going off-topic
It may be an old (brand) name but it's still a bad (brand) name. "World Series" or "World Champions" clearly does imply that the competition is open to teams from anywhere in the world which is not the case but is certainly true for the Cricket, Rugby and Football World Cups. I know "We call it soccer. :)" was meant light heartedly but the failure to call it football (like the rest of the world) together with the whole World Series name is perceived by many people outside the US as American arrogance and does the image of the US no good at all. American Football is the one with the inappropriate name - a foot only touches a ball as a last resort or a conversion.  Come on, America, get a new name for American Football ("Gridiron"?), call football, "football", drop the "World Series" name and join in with the rest of us. MikesPlant 16:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Good luck getting them to change it. It has been the "World Series" since the 1880s, and I don't see that changing anytime soon. Notice it's "World Series", not "World Cup". In any case, I don't know of any governing power that would have the authority to force MLB to change its designation. They can't get Atlanta and Cleveland to stop calling their teams by the politically sensitive names "Braves" and "Indians", so there is little chance of the championship series being renamed. Regarding soccer, as I understand it that is short for "soccer football", which was a slangy way of saying "association football". Calling it "football" in this country would be confusing, since football here means "American football" and is likely to stay that way. Again, who would be motivated to change it? It goes both ways. It's like when you call wheat or barley "corn" and you call corn "maize". :) You may have observed over time that the USA does not necessarily do things a certain way just because the rest of the world does it that way. Take the metric system, for example... PLEASE! :) (Apologies to Henny Youngman) In fact, the rest of the world lining up like lemmings is seen by Americans as a good enough reason not to do it that way. :) Wahkeenah 17:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the football thing, I'd say we were there first, you come up with a different name :) True, I don't see that happening, so we'll have to live with it.
 * But that last bit is something I very strongly disagree with. While I sympathise with doing the opposite of what everyone else does (I also have that tendency), that does not go for standardisation. If everyone else drives on the left side of the road, you can rest assured I will do the same. Using different units of measurement once crashed an international Mars lander. So it makes sense to all use the same units. Next question is who should adapt. Two arguments here. Firstly, the SI system is much simpler (some opponents in the UK use the argument that the imperial units are better for brain development because they are so complicated :) ). 1) There is just one basic unit per quantity. 2) Other units can be formed in a way that is the same for all units (milli, kilo, and such). 3) All these prefixes are base 10, which is also the base for our decimal numbering system (decimal). Three very good reasons I'd say. The other argument is, like you pointed out, that everyone except the US uses the SI system. Hell, even China has adopted it and the UK is trying, albeit a bit half-heartedly. New Zealand did it much better. They totally switched from one day to the next. A bit of a slap in the face, but because it is such a logical set of rules it made more sense. An SI unit is not just another unit. It's part of a whole. So you should do the same. If you don't, the next time we send up a Mars lander, we might do it without you to avoid the risk of another crash. :)
 * Nothing to do with baseball any more. But then, you started it. :) DirkvdM 11:13, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Discussion about off-topicity

 * Can I be the first to suggest we end it? Soon, we'll be debating the crisis in the Middle East.  I'm tempted to delete all this as completely unrelated to the article itself.  —Wknight94 (talk) 12:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't let me stop you. Wahkeenah 13:40, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The debate over whether the name "World Series" is appropriate is pointless, because it is highly unlikely that MLB will rename its main event just to please the soccer fans. d:) Wahkeenah 17:29, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Nevermind the likelihood of a change - what about the fact that this discussion is happening on a Wikipedia talk page! These folks should go contact some Major League Baseball governing body, not talk to a bunch of random Wikipedia editors like us.  Wikipedia is not a message board...  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Even if it were, I wouldn't count on Bud Selig reading this and getting right on it. Wahkeenah 23:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That's why I changed the header, to warn readers. I'll stop here. But don't delete the discussion, that is just not done. At best one can strike through some text, but that can only be done by the editor himself. Anyway, only the last bit is totally off-topic. And why not grant us a bit of fun? :) DirkvdM 05:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is an ultra-serious encyclopedia, not a weblog where any anonymous user can post anything it wants to. Fun is against the rules. >:( Wahkeenah 10:27, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of places on Wikipedia for "fun" discussions. How about Village pump?  Or your User talk page?  Article talk pages can be useful places to see if there was a reason or consensus for something done to the article.  This one has been overrun by a pointless discussion - and about the name of football vs. soccer no less!  —Wknight94 (talk) 10:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe, but there is a semi-logical progression to the discussion, centering on the core issue, which is whether MLB has the "right" to call the World Series "the World Series". There is more to this than you realize. This has to do with whether the U.S.A. should kiss up to the rest of the world or not. Our answer so far is "NO". Maybe that will change someday. Maybe the U.S. will adopt the "slightly more than a yard" system and become enamored of the "90 minutes of kicking a ball from one end of a 91.4 meters-long field to the other" sport. And maybe the World Series will get renamed "The Bud Selig Bowl". Maybe. Wahkeenah 10:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * And before someone else says it... yes, I readily admit that there are those who find watching baseball to be on roughly the same entertainment level as watching the grass grow, or watching paint dry. Obviously, they just don't get it. d:) Wahkeenah 10:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well at least move the discussion to Talk:Football (soccer). —Wknight94 (talk) 11:05, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Or to the dustbin, I don't care. But the other user might. Wahkeenah 11:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Move which bits? Unless you want to put a lot of time in picking out the football bits, only the last two bits before this deletion discussion are not about the world series. And even there, Wahkeenah's contribution of 23 June is partly about the world series. Sop it's only my last contribution that is completely off-topic and may therefore be deleted. But why bother? This discussion is already twice as long as that. I'll add some headers to make the different parts clearer.

There is reasoning behind europeans being far from happy with the title "World Series". In Ireland for example, there is a sport, hurling, for which they have an "All Ireland Final", In Rugby we have a "Six Nations Tournament" between England, Ireland, France, Wales, Scotland and Italy, in soccer we have national championships and "European Championships". I suppose if it makes it sound like its a world event then go it. But its not, its a regional sport and sometimes i have to laugh at the audacity!!
 * Yes, we got the point. Now can you stop force feeding us this in the article itself?  —Wknight94 (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

American nickname
Never heard of either red sox or white sox called americans Smith03 02:04, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC) Red Sox were called pilgrams

It's a nickname. The Chicago Americans, Boston Americans, called that to differentiate them from the Chicago Nationals and Boston Nationals. It wasn't really the team name, just a different identifier. RickK 02:09, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC) I always heard that for 1903 it was the Pilgrams Smith03 22:14, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

It's a common misconseption that the BoSox were once known as the Pilgrims. See the Red Sox page for a link to an article about this subject. The Boston AL club didn't really have an official name until after the 1907 season. --Bobford314 13:56, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * True. Of course, this isn't about official names.

Teams
So tempting to remove the yankees have the most sentence M@ 00:10, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Washington Nationals
Could the Washington Nationals be added in the 6th expansion?


 * They are the Montreal Expos transferred. They are part of the 1969 expansion. Wahkeenah 03:01, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

World Series questions
Can anyone find the pictures of the World Series rings?

Also is there a player who won a World Series ring even though he was traded or released midway throught the season the team won.
 * Nomar Garciaparra was given a ring even though he was traded away from the 2004 Red Sox in the middle of the season.  There may be others.  It's up to the team ownership. --Locarno 13:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, such trophies are unofficial, one aspect of the series not governed by MLB --ie, not by the National Commission for 1905-1920. IIRC, the Boston Red Sox recently awarded trophies to descendants of the 1918 Red Sox. That series was marred by a wartime and a player strike. The club probably chose not to award trophies vindictively; or frugally, judging that the there was little fan & writer sympathy with the players.
 * The division of player revenue shares is also unofficial, governed by the players, although heavy reliance on "full shares" --shares of uniform size-- creates clear patterns. --P64 02:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Cash bonus?
Can anyone tell me the amount of the cash bonus a World Series player on the winning team gets? BD2412 talk 13:00, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It varies depending on the gate receipts for the first four games of the Series. Whatever portion of those receipts is allotted as the "players' share", the winning team gets 60 percent of it and the losing team 40 percent. It is then up to each club to decide the size and quantity of individual shares. From Day One, the bonus has been limited to the first four games in order to keep the games honest, i.e. there is no financial advantage to the players conspiring to stretch the Series past four games. Wahkeenah 13:27, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

Stop the headings!
Revisiting the "era" headings, do we really need them at all?! Not only are baseball eras hard to define but they're not particularly useful, esp. for an article about the World Series (they're more of a baseball history-in-general concept). In addition, they keep changing! Of course that's because they're just an invitation to invent whatever heading you want. I'm tempted to severely overhaul this whole page, removing the headings and removing the mini-novels about individual series, etc. That's all information already in the pages for the individual series themselves - or, if it's not, it should be. Maybe a paragraph or two before the list giving a few highlights is okay. Opinions? --Wknight94 (talk) 12:15, 6 January 2006 (UTC)
 * Feel free to move the little commentaries, as needed, into the individual Series writeups. That would avoid redundancy and would restrict the Series list to a bare list of who won and lost.
 * I'm thinking of having a small section to point out interesting occurrences like Buckner in '86, the various curses, etc. but getting things like that out of the actual listings will hopefully keep that area clean at least. --Wknight94 (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

1880s
I have a nifty book from the mid-1970s called "The Scrapbook History of Baseball". It is a simulated collection of mounted clippings, i.e. actual snippets from contemporary newspapers presented in a "scrapbook" format. The 1884, 1885 and 1886 inter-league contests were referred to as the "World's Championship". When Detroit defeated St. Louis in 1887, the clipping was headlined, "The World's Series". Some revisionists have tried to claim those were "just exhibition games". The fans and the writers of that time didn't think so. Also, on that premise, the 1903 Series was also "just an exhibition". One can make the case that the true "World Series", sanctioned and recognized as such by both major leagues, did not begin until 1905. Wahkeenah 15:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Yup, I'd argue that the name can't be a holdover from another series. However, there are arguments on both sides and I won't be reverting. Perhaps the article could say it's a holdover from the earlier World Chanpionshiop Series, though. John FitzGerald 15:31, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Maybe it could be worded differently, i.e. that the title "World Series" has been in use since the 1880s. Wahkeenah 16:28, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

This is why many hate Trivia sections...
All due respect to anon but, to me, this edit is a good example of why people hate trivia sections in articles. These two seem a bit cheesy to me too:


 * The Toronto Blue Jays and the Florida Marlins are tied for the most World Series titles without a loss: 2.
 * The San Diego Padres currently hold the record for most World Series appearances without a title: 2. (The San Francisco Giants are 0-3, but have won as New York).

Am I the only one that finds those uninteresting? If the records in these categories were 8 or 9 - or even 5 like some of the Super Bowl winners - maybe that would be interesting. But 2?! If the Tampa Bay Devil Rays ever make it to the WS, they'll be one shy of one of these records by default. What's next? The first World Series where a 2nd baseman's last name started with Z? —Wknight94 (talk) 17:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Those are ersatz "records" in the nature of most home runs hit by a pair of brothers, Henry and Tommy Aaron. Wahkeenah 22:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Fiction
I know this is just a small thing but I believe Marty is actually surprised about to find out about the Miami team and not the Cub's winning. In the scene where he's talking to the guy whose asking him for a donation and Marty is surprised by the headline the guy says something like "Yeah, who would've thought the Cubs could win." Then Marty starts saying "No, I mean Miami..." then gets interupted. But I don't own the movie and haven't seen it for a while so I could be wrong. Darkosnarko 22:08, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

World Series results
It seems to me that, right now, the list of World Series results is rather unseemly. I'd like to delete the descriptions of individual games and present the pertinent information (winner, loser, score, MVP) in a table. As most individual World Series' have their own pages which can be linked to, having summaries on this pages seems redundant. Significant pieces of trivia, such as Don Larsen's perfect game, could always be included in a short "Trivia" section at the end of the article.

I'm working on the baseball awards page right now, and after I finish with that I'd like to tackle this project. Please post a message if you can think of any reason why the article should stay as is. --djrobgordon 05:57, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Where it gives titles to the era's in the list of World Series, why are we dividing solely on expansion eras? There's actually a larger division where the 1994 strike occured. Baseball people always refer to it, but never refer to the same period as either the 3rd or 4th or 5th expansion eras. Not to mention, the game is very different since the strike (more long ball, return of Yankees superiority, etc). --D 02:38, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

How about these possibilities: Faded Glory (1880s/1890s); Dead Ball Days (1903-18/19); Jazz Age, First Yankees Dynasty (1919/20-28); Depression, Second Yankees Dynasty (1929-41); War Years (1942-45); Postwar Boom, Third Yankees Dynasty (1946-60); Expansion (1961-68); Further Expansion, Divisional Play, Fourth Yankees Dynasty (1969-93); Further Expansion, Wild Card, Fifth Yankees Dynasty (1994/95 to date). Wahkeenah 02:59, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Is your idiocy the reason you didn't give a name with your comment? The Yankees aren't the focus on a page about the league. Although it does make a lot of sense to name the '69-'93 era something related to divisional play, because there were many years where the team with the winingest record in the league didn't make it to the World Series and thus divisions had a more direct impact on the leagues than expansion likely did. --D 12:12, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Cool your jets, 4th-letter-of-the-alphabet. These are just ideas. I'm not even a Yankees fan... but there is no denying that they dominate certain eras. But I wasn't sure what to do with that long stretch from 1969-93. Anyway, you criticized the categories, I offered some possible alternatives. Let's hear your ideas. Wahkeenah 12:24, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

A paperback book called World Series Encylopedia, published right after the 1960 Series, categorized them this way: The Early Struggles 1903-18, The Babe Ruth Period 1919-32, Through Depression and War 1933-46, The Casey Stengel Era 1947-60. After that, we're on our own. Wahkeenah 12:42, 28 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Why not a little simpler and go by each decade? Locarno 14:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Olympics
Why is this article saying baseball may be deleted from the Summer Olympics?! It already has been!SFGiants 01:16, August 26, 2005 (UTC)

Yep, it has. Feel free to update it. d:) Wahkeenah 01:18, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Not to be picky, but the 1964 refernce to the Yankee losses to the DBacks and Marlins, refers to those losses as being in the 21st century. The loss to the DBacks was in 2000, which was the last year of the 20th century, not yet part of the 21st century.


 * No, it was 2001, a few weeks after the 9/11/01 attacks. How quickly they forget! Wahkeenah 23:03, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Omitting team names in the WS listing
What is the purpose of omitting team names in the World Series year-by-year listing? It seems to me that it is something people would want to know, and it's certainly a lot clearer than stuff like New York NL (1) and New York NL (2). If no one cries out in protest here, I'll go ahead and add those names. —Cleared as filed. 23:32, 20 October 2005 (UTC)