Talk:2006 World Baseball Classic championship

Fluppy's requests

--Fluppy 08:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)add a spoiler link, since theres the time difference -author unknown[reply]

No time difference per se, all games are broadcast live on satellite radio, some of the games are tape delayed on the ESPN family of networks. --Fluppy 07:55, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would like to see WP and LP added to the linescore as well... --Fluppy 08:02, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus/wait until later. —Nightst a llion (?) 11:28, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move

2006 World Baseball Classic championship → 2006 World Baseball Classic – This page is in a subpage of the 2006 WBC article even though that's just a redirect to the main WBC article. I'm not sure why this is in a subpage.

Add *Support or *Oppose followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

Move to World Baseball Classic/Results and transclude onto World Baseball Classic#Results: There is no guarantee that a 2009 WBC will happen, yet. When we know it will happen, World Baseball Classic will need to be completely redone, and 2006 World Baseball Classic (currently a redirect) will need to be written, and this can be stuffed into the Results section of that. So no, move elsewhere right now, since the 2006 WBC page currently is the WBC page, and when a 2006-specific page is created, put it there. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 04:24, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

Wait on it Well, I think we should wait and see if there even will be another WBC. If this isn't a success, Selig may call it off forever. Once it is officially announced there will be one in '09, go for it. Until then, no. Smartyshoe 20:09, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request

I noticed for the Domincian Republic- Venezualla game currently in progress, it has the score, but a 0 for the innings not completed yet. SHould we have a "currently in progress" templete for individual games saying "This game is currently in progress"

In progress games

Personally I don't think we should update each game while it is going on... I think we should wait until the game is officially over to begin the box score. I also don't think we should link the baseball teams in the box scores as they are already linked in the pool results. If we do update in game, I think we should keep the headers the same so the content table doesn't have to be fixed at every score update. I also think the WP, LP, SV, HR, and each innings score should be left blank until anything has been determined. There should be an indicator of whether a game is in progress or not... What do you all think? KramarDanIkabu 22:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Line Score?

Never heard the expression "line score" before and I have been following Baseball for many years. Should that not be "box score"?

nope. Box score is the entire thing: player by player, pitcher by pitcher, and everything. Line score is inning by inning, R/H/E, winner, loser, homers, and sometimes time and attendance - though it can also be used in conjunction as the box score line of a player. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 02:48, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification.

Top TOC

I made most of the changes to the TOC in this diff, but I did not, however, change the table. Before my diff, the table was nice and clean and orderly, but it became not so after my edit. So, requesting for someone to make the columns nice and even again? (And teach me how after, drop a note or something on my talk page. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 03:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Changing country names to country 3-letter abbreviations

I have made a significant change to the tables which show the standings. I have changed the entire country name with the 3-letter abbreviation. I do believe it looks quite better, expecially on those monitors that do not have a large screen resolution.

Please see my sandbox to see the changes. And reply if you think a change should be made.

(Note. made at 03:54 UTC 10 Mar) --Zimbabweed 03:58, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I like the abbreviations in the TOC table, but not the standings tables. KramarDanIkabu 04:04, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with User:KramarDanIkabu. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 04:05, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Advancing

I thought I might put a section on this talk page for the advancing situations for any who don't know the tiebreaking rules.

Pool A: Korea wins by having the best record; Japan is the runner-up by having second best record
Pool B: If United States beats South Africa in 12 innings without scoring more than nine runs and without giving up a run, United States wins by having a better RA/DIP than Mexico, the runner-up; if South Africa beats United States, Mexico wins by having beaten Canada, the runner-up
Pool C: Winner of Puerto Rico vs. Cuba will have the better record and win the pool
Pool D: Dominican Republic wins by having beaten Venezuela, the runner-up

KramarDanIkabu 06:01, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico's advancing

I made an edit that showed Mexico as the winner of Pool B, and it was reverted. Maybe my understanding of the tiebreaking procedures is flawed, but it seems to me like they have it locked up. Is there any way that Mexico could finish second in the pool? -- NClark128 06:15, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You know, I thought I had it right but then I realized that I had forgotten Canada in my reckoning. I'll have to check this again. KramarDanIkabu 06:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC) EDIT: Alright, I checked again, and if the US/SA game goes to the 12th inning scoreless and the United States then goes ahead by less than ten runs without giving up any runs, then they will have less RA per defensive inning played. Very unlikely, yes, I know, but still a possibility (unless I've made another mistake, which is very possible). 06:27, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They say that kind of stuff in the little league world series all the time. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 07:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mexico is the winner of Pool B. According to the tie-breaking rules, only RA/9IP in games /between the tied teams/ are relevant. The runs allowed in the USA-South Africa game don't matter. See http://www.worldbaseballclassic.com/2006/stats/stats.jsp?t=l_sta&lid=160&sid=wbc WLevine 07:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Goodness gracious, there has to be an easier way to break ties. Oh, it's baseball. Okay, go ahead and change it. And apologies for changing it on the main WBC article. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 07:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I apologize for reverting the edit; I obviously didn't know what I was doing. This was so much easier for the NFL... KramarDanIkabu 14:42, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some country names too long

Some country names, noticably the Dominican Republic, with a win and the marker (◄), the text wraps onto the next line. This also happens with the Netherlands and United States when a mercy rule notation is added. Do you think somehow we should abbreviate the country name in this case, or just let it be.
With the mercy rule, I think adding another bullet under the game time reading: Game note: Game ended due to mercy rule, and deleting the supertext notation would be sufficient.
And I think Dominican Republic should be shortened somehow to either Dom. Republic, Dominican Rep., or another variation thereof.
Please let me know what you feel would be the best option(s).
--Zimbabweed 04:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I dislike the bullets in the individual linescores, since they're already bolded as on pages like 2005 World Series. I don't care about line-wrappings, though. I also think we can move the mercy rule footnotes to somewhere else within each section, I just didn't know where. KramarDanIkabu 04:22, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the mercy rule footnotes are kind of silly and this info should be moved in with the rest of the game info. Also, it doesn't make sense to have the footnote after the winning team. The footnote provides info about the game, not about the winners. If we do keep the footnotes, wouldn't it make more sense to put them after the score. Dominican Rep. sounds good to me. WLevine 04:29, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think mercy rule info should be moved back to right under the linescore, where it was before. I also don't believe in bullets in the linescore, but they're a nice touch in the TOC. I don't think country names should be abbreviated under any circumstances, except if they all are, and then, by IOC codes. But that's just me. -- Jjjsixsix ^(t)/_(c) @ 05:36, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mercy!

I suggest (when this is all over) an entry for “mercy rule” games. Because this is relatively unusual it would be interesting to see the mercy rule games presented in total at conclusion of the tournament. ☼☺♥⅝Ω€ 10:54, 11 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]