Talk:2013 World Baseball Classic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Taiwan as host[edit]

The official website notes 'Taiwan' as host rather than 'Chinese Taipei' and have edited accordingly. As this is the nomenclature used by the official website, this should be how it is presented here, no matter how much ranting and whining the Chinese do here. ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 13:44, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, the official website uses 'Taiwan' as the host, not 'Chinese Taipei' or 'Republic of China'. Until it does, this page should retain the 'Taiwan' usage in the list of hosts. Twice today it has been changed with no justification. Don't do it. It violates the NPOV rules of Wikipedia. ludahai 魯大海 (talk) 09:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As host 'Taiwan' is used, but the team is called 'Chinese Taipei', so it's no wonder it's a bit confusing for readers.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 10:54, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it helps, I would interpret Taiwan as referring to the island, not the political entities that lay claim to it. For the geographical location, this seems appropriate. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I see the articles don't back me up, as Taiwan is a redirect to Republic of China. I had thought the situation would be similar to that of Ireland; why it isn't is above my pay grade, I'm sure. Perhaps we might pipe the link to Geography of Taiwan, which is the article on the island? --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 12:50, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Taiwan" is used to refer to the location that is hosting. "Chinese Taipei" is just a team name. Use "Taiwan" when referring to hosting. That Taiwan redirects to Republic of China is irrelevant. It probably does so because "Taiwan" can refer to either the country or the island, and the person who made the redirect probably thought that the reference to the country was more common. 71.255.85.81 (talk) 20:29, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Pools composition[edit]

So who put together the first round pools? And under which premises? --Hoffmansk 20:24, 21 November 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hoffmansk (talk • contribs)

  • I haven't seen an official reasoning behind the pools, but I do notice that each pool contains a semifinalist from 2009, a team that made the second round (but not the semifinals) in 2009, a team that had a 1-2 record and was bounced out of the first round in 2009, and a team that had to qualify into the tournament. Schoop (talk) 21:27, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qualifier placements in Round One pools[edit]

I haven't seen anything official about qualifier placements (except for Chinese Taipei in Pool B which is mentioned here). The last spot in the other 3 pools should be marked "TBD" until further notice. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 23:02, 21 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Canada is in Group D as well. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 23:33, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found citations for Canada and Brazil. They are now in the article. Spain therefore must be in Group A. I don't have a cite, so if you really want you can put "TBD" but since we have cites for the other three qualifiers and the other three pools, that's the the only place they can go. Smartyllama (talk) 21:31, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, seeing as we have sources for the placement of 3 of the 4 qualifiers, process of elimination would put the last (Spain) in Pool A. Can't argue with that. Surprised the WBC folks haven't issued a press release about it yet. 199.71.183.2 (talk) 19:57, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Some Notes:[edit]

So is Scottsdale confirmed as a venue?

Also I have shortened the name for the Taiwan stadium. Intoronto1125TalkContributions 00:15, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

12-hour vs 24-hour formats[edit]

Which format do we officially use? The official website uses the 12-hour format but precedent for tournaments on wiki uses 24-hour format. I would prefer to follow the 12 hour format, because not only does the host organization use it, but most average joe's by my understanding use the 12-hour format. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 17:35, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. While this year's World Baseball Classic is affiliated with MLB, this is an international event; therefore 24-hour format stands. Great50 (talk) 07:38, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
First of all I don't like your wording as it makes you sound like your the final word. Second, while is it relevant if it's an international event on this detail? The even is and always has been hosted by MLB. The official website for the even uses the 24-hour format. Shouldn't we based our stuff on the host? I see people saying "this is standard practice" but they don't cite a policy, guideline or an MOS. Would you care to provide one? CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 14:39, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WP:MOSTIME is most unhelpful, saying only that the 12/24 decision is "based on context." I interpret that to mean that either format is acceptable, and it hardly seems worth arguing over.
The use of 12-hour format on the WBC website is a point in favor of that format, while the international character of the tournament might be a point in favor of the 24-hour format. If needed, we might just have a little WP:!VOTE to gauge preferences.
Incidentally, the comment that "this year's WBC is affiliated with MLB" seems to imply that other years might be different; in fact, the WBC is wholly a production of MLB (which invites various national bodies to participate), and I have heard of no plans for it to be made independent of MLB. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:26, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 21:15, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Should there be an entry for game time in UTC? I didn't initially think this would be needed but the official page from WBC only lists local and Eastern time. The minor problem here being Eastern time is variable during the tournament. It skips ahead an hour early Sun Mar 10th. I'd personally feel that adding it would clutter things up a little but that minor hiccup there makes me wonder if it should be done. Skywayman (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a solution has already been found. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 13:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Straw poll[edit]

I'm gonna start a straw poll to see where we stand. "Support" for changing to the 12 hour format, "Oppose" is keeping the 24 hour format. CRRaysHead90 | Get Some! 13:36, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Qualification to 2017 WBC[edit]

The WBC Twitter confirms the third placed team in each group will automatically qualify to the 2017 Championship. Would it be good to include this in the pool tables?

Gonzaka (talk) 08:47, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

If it's sourced, I think it's definitely relevant. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 16:46, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Standings[edit]

Is there a source for the final standings at the bottom of the page? It seems just as likely to me that the four 4th-place teams would be the last 4 teams, regardless of the TQB score. Thus, Mexico may be team 13, regardless of TQB. MrArticleOne (talk) 23:33, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In 2006, Puerto Rico finished 5th and Venezuela 7th even though Venezuela finished 3rd and Puerto Rico 4th in Pool 2, second round due to head to head (second round was round-robin then). Of course, Puerto Rico had the better record, not the same record. Still, the 3rd place team didn't automatically finish behind the 4th place team. I'd assume it's the same. Smartyllama (talk) 15:44, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
What's the official source that Puerto Rico finished 5th and Venezuela 7th?--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 16:24, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"The Puerto Rican National Team has experienced success in international competitions, including the World Baseball Classic where they have finished fifth overall in both the 2006 and 2009 tournaments." http://www.worldbaseballclassic.com/wbc/2013/teams/index.jsp?team=pur&team_id=897 Leesw616 (talk) 11:26, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is fine, but the IBAF yearbook that you cite below is better. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:46, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the WBC is not organized by the IBAF, so an IBAF yearbook has no bearing on the WBC.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:23, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final Standings[edit]

Since Mexico has to go to the qualifiers and China does not, should China be ranked higher than Mexico despite their tie-breaker? Canada will finish higher than Mexico due to head to head, despite the tie-breaking formula. Shootmaster 44 (talk) 00:27, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

See above.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be better if the organization of the WBC decides to drop the "4th ranked team needs to qualify for the next classic"-rule. I think it should be decided on TQB. China should qualify for 2017, instead of Mexico. FAB!AN (talk) 17:01, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
China will qualify for the 2017 WBC under the current system. I think you mean Mexico instead of China. Smartyllama (talk) 17:34, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Fab!an may have meant that China should have to participate in the qualifying round for 2017. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The article's "Format" section clearly says that the tournament's final standings are based on overall TQB, though this appears to need a source. On the other hand, having to qualify for the 2017 tournament depends on placing within one's own group. I think there's some sense to this, though this is not a proper forum for discussing what ought to be. With different criteria, it's not surprising that the results might be different. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:10, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since there is no official rule for ranking, while their is an official stance on who gets sent to the qualifiers it would make more sense to present the standings by ranking the 3rd place teams against each other, followed by the 4th placed teams. If the either the world cup or world classic had a consistent formula with published final standings, we could infer some basis of a rule, but that is not so. I believe the rules for final ranking should be removed, and the standings changed.18abruce (talk) 17:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I just did some digging on 2009 World Baseball Classic, and it appears that the concept of Final Standings were added to the page by User:Leesw616, for example here and here. No sourcing is evident. It's possible that Leesw616 saw this in some official source and simply didn't cite it, but if this concept is entirely invented by WP editors then it should be removed from all WBC pages. I've posted a question to Leesw616's talk page to direct their attention to this question. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 18:30, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The IBAF definitely issues overall rankings because they use them to compute the ranking of national teams which require all teams in the tournament to be ranked one by one. We just need a citation that the criterea used to rank them that we use are in fact correct. Smartyllama (talk) 19:44, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to [1] in the 2011 Baseball World Cup, Japan finished higher than Chinese Taipei because they won the head-to-head, but ties between the Dominican Republic, Italy and Puerto Rico, and between Germany and Greece were left as ties (for 9th and 15th, respectively) because there was not a full head-to-head between them. I would assume the WBC would use the same procedure since it is an IBAF tournament. No mention is made of TQB, but that may be new. It says in the article the tiebreakers are based on IBAF rules. Can anyone actually find the IBAF rules? That might be helpful. Smartyllama (talk)
I have found the official IBAF rules for ranking here but it does not give any indication how to compare teams that have not played each other. The tie-breaking rule for 2009 (in section c) does compare teams who had not played each other, but I don't know if that should be viewed as only for that tournament.18abruce (talk) 20:41, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That document specifically says on the first page that it applies only to 2009. Also, it does not mention the WBC except for one place where it notes that the usual rules for nationality do not apply to "the World Baseball Classic and other non-official IBAF tournaments". So it's not clear to me that these rules should even apply to the 2009 WBC, still less to this year's version.
Bottom line: If we do not have a source for an actual ranking of WBC teams, I do not think WP should be making up what we think it might be. Rather, we should list all teams with the same outcome as being tied. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 14:59, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But how do we define "same outcome"? Is Mexico in fourth at 1-2 tied with teams who finished third at 1-2? Smartyllama (talk) 15:49, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably best to say that every team that didn't advance to the second round is tied for 9th place, unless we have a WP:RS for differentiating among them. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 20:12, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, I've never seen a official rule for 2013 WBC final standings. I'm just guessing. But... let's see the "Round 1 - Eliminated Teams:" section of http://m.worldbaseballclassic.com/schedule/ and compare it to the "final standings" section of wikipedia page. Is this a coincidence? I don't think so. And, if you want to see the official sources about final standings of 2006 and 2009 WBC, see 88 page of 2011 IBAF yearbook(http://www.ibaf.org/en/infopage-detail.aspx?id=6ce46799-80df-41f5-848b-2f10a25479ee). Leesw616 (talk) 12:02, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Leesw616. Both these sources are convincing as to what the rankings were and are. They really need to be cited in the pages of the 2006, 2009, and 2013 WBCs and anywhere else that the rankings are given.
As for your guess of the tiebreaker rules, the connection you point out is at least suggestive and maybe compelling. I'm not sure yet what I think of whether this is WP:SYNTH or whether it's okay. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 13:50, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I feel it makes the most sense to use the head to head tie breaker in the case placing Canada ahead of Mexico, since that is clearly stated in the WBC rules. TQB should remain a secondary tiebreaker, and is fair to use among teams who have not competed against each other for final standings. http://web.worldbaseballclassic.com/wbc/2013/about/rules.jsp#pool Tiebreaker rules clearly list Head to Head as the first tiebreaker for WBC play, although it is only stating this for pool play one would assume this should also be applied to final standings. TQB is used when head to head does not apply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.81.123.208 (talk) 03:49, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The question, though, is not whether you "feel" that that would make sense, but whether that rule would reproduce the sourced WBC standings that Leesw616 has pointed out. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 10:57, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Only if both rules comport equally well with the sources would it then be up to us to decide between them. And, in fact, I hope that's not the case (i.e., I hope that only one plausible set of rules reproduces the sourced standings) because I hate it when WP editors are making things up apart from sources. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 11:00, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That tiebreak that would place Canada ahead of Mexico only applies to breaking ties within a pool. It doesn't apply to the overall standings, or if it does, it doesn't say it in the source. Smartyllama (talk) 13:36, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly look at it a completely different way than what has been suggested by anyone here. Quite frankly there is zero official ruling on final standings that isn't speculation, but it is clear how the 2013 WBC lists final standings within the Round Robin stage and these are the teams in question when it comes to standings, the WBC appears to rank teams based on how far they have advanced within the tournament regardless of other factors. The Netherlands for instance are clearly the #4 team despite having a worse winning percentage than the Cubans because of how far they progressed. By that logic and to keep continuity throughout the tournament you would place the teams who came farthest from advancing at the bottom of the standings and then use TQB as a tie breaker. Looking at previous tournaments is a poor source due to modified double elimination in 2009 preventing this scenario and this particular conflict not occurring in 2006. The "eliminated teams" section of the link provided above is interesting to note, but clearly only sorted by TQB and not taking any other factors into account, nothing is stating them as final standing. Since the only clearly defined final standings that have been stated end at the Round Robin stage, I would suggest placing an additional separation of "Relegated to Qualifiers" below "Eliminated First Round" like this:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.122.230 (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2013‎ (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether we believe that this ranking of the Round 1 results from the official WBC website (which ranks the eliminated teams by record and then by TQB, placing the relegated Mexico above the non-relegated Canada and China) reflects the final standings. If it's convincing, then that's what we should go with. If it's not convincing (which is to say that two different rankings are both plausibly consistent with sources), then I suggest we use the table proposed by 12.107.122.230 but without any ranking for the teams eliminated in Round 1. --BlueMoonlet (t/c) 17:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any conflict. The source cited above that puts Canada ahead of Mexico relates only to ties within pools, not the overall standings. So we only have the source that puts Mexico ahead of Canada, and therefore that's what we need to go with. Smartyllama (talk) 19:31, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The source in my opinion while interesting, states nothing about it correlating to final standings and doesn't number any of the teams. It simply sorts them by TQB. It also tends to fly in the face of any other rules that have been set down to determine final standings within the tournament, which clearly bases all other final placement of team on how far a team has advanced within the tournament. Under the existing rules, which is relegation of the bottom team in each pool, would place those teams in the lowest tier of advancement possible. Unfortunately it's a dilemma for both scenarios when it comes to available documentation, because simply there is nothing concrete. We can only hope once the tournament is concluded that more light is shed on this subject, but from a logic standpoint placing relegated teams in a bottom tier of the standings simply makes the most sense if we don't have any concrete evidence because it is more in line with how other standings are determined for farther advancing teams. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.107.122.230 (talk) 20:30, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
IBAF has updated its Men’s Baseball World Rankings and I compared last ranking points with current. As a result, final standings of 2013 WBC is correct. Mexico => 11th, Canada => 12th, China => 13th. Leesw616 (talk) 02:44, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The IBAF updated it, as you said yourself, not the WBC, the WBC does not release Final standings.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 09:20, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments[edit]

Its bad news to hear about game between Mexico and Canada wasn't successful,the game went on a fight — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luvepoli (talk • contribs) 03:43, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

TQB?[edit]

I take it that the official sources use TQB, which stands for what? Why use that instead of "net run rate" which actually is a pretty good description of the statistic? 96.18.200.85 (talk) 13:07, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2013 World Baseball Classic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:14, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_World_Baseball_Classic&oldid=1196649720"