Talk:2006 World Baseball Classic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Baseball (Rated B-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Japan / Baseball  (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 12:24, July 11, 2014 (JST, Heisei 26) (Refresh)
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the joint Japanese baseball task force.
 

Old Discussion[edit]

A lot of the old discussion regarding the content of this page can be found here: Talk:World Baseball Classic

Japan Stats[edit]

I was wondering if we could get a consensus as to whether this edit by anon user 222.3.73.150 should stay or go? Essentially, it's a response to criticisms that Korea was a better (won more games, won head to head) team than Japan, by saying "Well, Japan had good stats..." I think it's a bit argumentative and not particularly relevant (though maybe the original Korea info was a little partisan also). What do y'all think should be done regarding this section? --SuperNova |T|C| 07:45, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not think that particulary this is a problem. The worse is article above starting "This led to controversy" and ending "eliminated from finals". First it is unsourced (and thus POV and original research) and second it is only somebody crying against rules everyone knew before signing for the tournament. --Jan Smolik 13:20, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

What's most important in a tournament like the WBC is winning the championship, and winning the pivotal games where advancement to the next round is at stake. Merely winning most games is as insignificant as hitting most homeruns as far as you get knocked out of the tourney early. And it's not uncommon in a tournament like the WBC that a team could win the championship despite loosing a couple of games in the preliminary.

What was absurd about the WBC format was that Korea and Japan played against each other three times, the last two being in a row. In the soccer worldcup you won't be put in the same pool with the teams that you just played with in the regional qualifier. --Saintjust 23:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

They did this so that the US could presumably get an easy trip to the final without ever having to play a Latin American team. Too bad for them, it backfired in their face as the US was defeated by Mexico. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by J3wishVulcan (talkcontribs).

Controversies[edit]

The Controversies section is just way too long for this article. I plan on shortening this section (summarizing each controvery in one or two sentences) and then moving the text from here to the new page. Your input regarding this proposal is welcome.--DaveOinSF 17:32, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. A separate article on the controversies would work well. — Linnwood 20:19, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Dead link[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

Dead link 2[edit]

During several automated bot runs the following external link was found to be unavailable. Please check if the link is in fact down and fix or remove it in that case!

--JeffGBot (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2011 (UTC)