Talk:2009 Baseball World Cup

Time

Is there any particular reason that there are no times listed for the games on this article? MrArticleOne (talk) 12:15, 13 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Game Location

Location for 2nd round are not correct. Take a look in http://www.2009baseballworldcup.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Schedule/Game_Schedule_for_BWC09_September_1_Second_Round.pdf where correct location and time are listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Groucho75 (talk • contribs) 13:29, 8 September 2009

Clinching

Does anybody have a good method for calculating when teams have clinched a spot in the Semifinals? I usually do it by hand and can sorta work it out with a little time, but with two 8-team groups and 12,288 possibilities spread across the two of them (as of this writing) it was a headache I just didn't care to deal with. At the moment, I'm just wondering if any of the 4-0 teams are through to the next round, but it'd be nice to have precise shading as soon as teams have clinched. MrArticleOne (talk) 12:18, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm doing just the same rigth now :-) What I can say, is, that Cuba can even drop to 6th in their group (5 teams at 4-3 for 2-6th place), that's one extreme example I found.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 12:34, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, Cuba has clinched a spot in the Semifinals, because they won over Spain, Nicaragua and Venezuela, which are able to finish 4-3. So Cuba will always finish higher than these three teams, because it will be a 3-0 head-to-head tiebreaker for Cuba.FAB!AN (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba could still have droped behind Esp, Nic or Ven (as of after Sep. 17-games)! You have to consider the teams between Cuba and Esp/Nic/Ven to end at 4-3 too, for example a tie between Cuba, Nicaragua and Puerto Rico for 3-5th place, in which Cuba can be last in this tie and 5th overall!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 15:57, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would be more helpful if you proposed a hypothetical series of game outcomes with specificity (x loses to y; a loses to b; etc.) and the result that would produce. That would be an easy way to demonstrate that someone has not clinched, because it only takes one example to demonstrate a failure to clinch. I would think the only teams to worry about would be the 4-0 teams at this point. The next question is: would all (or any) of the 4-0 teams clinch if they got to 5-0 today? How many of the 3-1 teams can clinch today by getting to 4-1? MrArticleOne (talk) 16:12, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

After today, things get much simpler; assuming they play all 8 games today, there will be only 768 total possible outcomes across the two groups. At that point, the math and hypotheticals will become much easier. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Do you still want a complete scenario? :-))
That is the example I mentioned above:
18.09.09 Cuba – Puerto Rico -:+
18.09.09 Great Britain – Netherlands -:+
18.09.09 Venezuela – South Korea +:-
18.09.09 Spain – Nicaragua -:+
19.09.09 Great Britain – Spain -:+
19.09.09 Nicaragua – Netherlands +:-
19.09.09 Venezuela – Puerto Rico +:-
19.09.09 South Korea – Cuba +:-
20.09.09 South Korea – Spain +:-
20.09.09 Venezuela – Great Britain +:-
20.09.09 Netherlands – Cuba +:-
20.09.09 Nicaragua – Puerto Rico +:-

which leads to Neth 6-1
Venezuela 4-3 3-1
Cuba 4-3 2-2
Puerto Rico 4-3 2-2
Korea 4-3 2-2
Nicaragua 4-3 1-3
Spain 2-5
GB 0-7

Ven -> 2, Nic -> 6
There is no rejumping up the tie-breakers-ladder and calculate the head-to-heads again between Cuba, PR and Kor (like in the NFL), so due to the runs Cuba, PR and Kor can end up 3-5th any way around (o.k. in this example Cuba can drop to 5th, not 6th, little mistake).--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 16:39, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I found this much more helpful. We plotted out scenarios like this on the talk page for the 2009 IIHF World Championship this past Spring. I take it you conclude the same about Netherlands and USA? MrArticleOne (talk) 16:50, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Format

This is maybe a little subjective, but does anybody have an explanation for the loony format in this tournament? The way they are handling the Semifinals and then doing crossovers for the classification/medal games seems insane. I think anybody would acknowledge that this tournament is shaping up to be a USA-Cuba rematch in the Gold Medal game; it isn't guaranteed but they're pretty clearly the best 2 teams so far. This means that the odds are, they will play a meaningless game on Friday, Sept. 25th, and then turn around and play again on Sunday, Sept. 27th for the title. Moreover, if USA had defeated Venezuela in the first game of the tournament (and they easily could have, it went extra innings; those are basically coin flips), they would have been placed in Group F, and the "Gold Medal game" of this tournament would effectively have been the USA-Cuba game in the Round 2 round robin in Group F, which would have been when Venezuela played Cuba earlier this week. I don't get it. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:55, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you consider, you have a full 8-team-round-robin-schedule for the 8 semifinalists, it would have been the most logical way to have one single group ot 8 instead of keeping them apart in 2 groups, and have a final 1-2 or real semifinals 1-4, 2-3. It could be also the case, that a runner-up has a better record than the other group winner (after they played the same opponents), this would be a odd final.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 17:19, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All of these are reasons I find it so odd. It makes the draw for how the Round 1 teams were amalgamated into the Round 2 groups extraordinarily important. What you describe is how the Quarterfinals have worked for the last few tournaments at the FIBA Americas Championship. It begins with 10 teams split into 2 groups, and the top 4 teams in each group advance to the Quarterfinals. The games against other advancing teams from your group carry over, so you play the 4 teams that advanced from the other group to complete the round robin. On the basis of the 1-8 standings, they have 1 play 4 and 2 play 3 in the Semis, and then a championship game. This tournament will do effectively the same thing (drawing the top 4 from 2 groups of 8 instead of 2 groups of 5, but it's the same otherwise), finished the round robin, so why they aren't having a normal bracketed 1-4/2-3 playoff is beyond me. That would have palliated the unbelievable importance that is attached to where you finish in your group's standings; if you're not at the top, you can't play for the championship! MrArticleOne (talk) 19:07, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tiebreaker

I see someone has rearranged the standings to reflect the TBQ as a tiebreaker. It was not my understanding that it was being used in this tournament. Can someone confirm? MrArticleOne (talk) 21:05, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The tiebreaker is runs allowed, not TBQ. http://2009baseballworldcup.com/index.php?id=13&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=190&tx_ttnews[backPid]=8&cHash=a4ba9b562a MrArticleOne (talk) 21:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Look at this; The IBAF employs a standard tiebreaking system across all tournaments it sanctions, though it will use a modified version for this World Cup. Ordinarily there are five criteria available to be used when two or more teams finish the tournament (or a section there of) with the same winning percentage; if the first method does not split the teams involved, the next one is used, continuing down the list of methods until there distinction is acheived. They criteria used to determine the higher placed finishing team, in order, are:

the team with the better head-to-head record for the teams involved
the team with the better ratio of runs allowed per fielding inning subtracted from the ratio of runs scored per batting inning, referred to as the "Team Quality Balance", from the games involving the tied teams

FAB!AN (talk) 21:22, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That is not in use for the 2009 World Cup!

Note for 2009 BWC, the following Tie Breaking system will be used for Baseball World Cup2009. Tie-Breaking System for 2009 Baseball World Cup The Classification of the teams in all the rounds (I, II and III) will be established by the greatest AVE in the games won and lost of all the participants. In the 1st round, the following will be applied to determine the 3rd place teams that qualify for the 2nd round (in successive order). 1. The least number of runs allowed 2. The lowest ERA. 3. The highest batting average. For all rounds (I, II and III), tie-breaking will be determined in the following manner (in successive order). 1. The team which won the Game(s) among the ties will be given the highest position. 2. The least number of runs allowed 3. The lowest ERA. 4. The highest batting average.

--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 21:29, 20 September 2009 (UTC) Runs allowed are the runs in games betweenn the tied teams only.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 21:31, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, it should be mentioned in section 1.1, as the Group F final standings do not follow from the system as summarized there. Zwart (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They do, I believe.--217.93.213.253 (talk) 11:13, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just FYI, according to the website the 3-way tie in Group F was broken on head-to-head runs allowed (eliminating CUB), and then the secondary tie between PUR and NED was broken on their head-to-head game. It's explained here: http://www.2009baseballworldcup.com/index.php?id=13&tx_ttnews[tt_news]=198&tx_ttnews[backPid]=8&cHash=1d898f36de MrArticleOne (talk) 12:04, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe, they don't know their rules proberly either!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 12:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So that is different from what is stated in 1.1, where you just look at runs allowed, not runs allowed in head-to-head games.Zwart (talk) 14:30, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These tiebreakers are poorly written, and the whole situation seems almost like IBAF is making things up as they go along. For example, in a 2-way tie, head-to-head runs allowed is going to produce exactly the same result as the winner of the head-to-head contest between the teams. They did a very bad job of expressing in advance how their tiebreakers work; how their application differs in the situation of a 3-team tie; and, in a 3-team tie, how to handle a situation (such as the present circumstance) where the tie is broken as to the 3rd team but the top 2 teams remain tied. And, of course this would be the year they'd experiment with a tournament format in which your position within your group is extremely important, and only teams who control the tiebreakers control their own destiny to play for the Gold Medal. MrArticleOne (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One funny sidekick: look at the rules of the CEB, the european organization:[1],13. i. (page 20), almost the same rules as applied here, only there are innings considered too, but clearly stated, they just had to write it like there!!!--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 18:43, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's very strange that Cuba's win over Holland (or Puerto Rico's win over Cuba, for that matter) will not have any effect as long as the three-way tie stands, and that the tournament will be decided without these three competitors meeting again. Zwart (talk) 21:54, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that it has no effect; it's that it's cancelled out by the other loss. That seems fine in other circumstances (say, breaking a 3-way tie between teams tied for 3rd through 5th, where only the top 4 can advance). But it is a truly odd format to make the ability to appear in the Gold Medal game so wholly dependent on the tiebreakers. In most tournaments, there is usually some kind of 4-team bracketed tournament at the end to decide things. As long as a team does well enough to appear in that, it controls its own destiny to win the tournament. But now, only the team with the tiebreakers in their pocket controls their own destiny. Look at the huge hole that AUS has dug for themselves with their tough loss today to USA. Even though it'd be pretty monumental for them to make up 2 games on USA, that still isn't enough, since USA holds the head-to-head tiebreaker; you can almost pencil USA into the Gold Medal game before playing a single Semifinal contest. It seems crazy to me that a team as good as AUS doesn't control their own destiny to at least have a shot at the GMG; they have to go 4-0 and hope USA goes 1-3 (or 3-1 and USA 0-4) to make it in. The sensible thing to do would be to combine these 8 teams into 1 group, finish the round robin, and have 1 play 4 and 2 play 3 (with winners in the GMG), instead of maintaining the separate groups and having crossovers which are so dependent on tiebreakers. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:13, 22 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Attendance

Changed the number for the Puerto Rico - Great Britain game in Round 2 to 1,477 (from 251), as is given in the boxscore. Still, the total figure for the tournament (as in the top righ-hand corner) seems not correct. By my calculation it should be 114,005 after 90 games, 1,267 per game. Whoever takes care of that, please give it a quick look.Robert Jay (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Another attendance issue: figure given in boxscore for AUS-PUR is 500, game tracker reported 300.Robert Jay (talk) 20:29, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor detail

I see that San Marino is listed as a host nation. I question this. While games were held in San Marino, they were (as I understand it) organized and hosted under the auspices of the Italian baseball authorities, who happened to use San Marino as a venue. It seems misleading to put San Marino on the list, since they did not get a national team in this tournament like all of the other host nations did. MrArticleOne (talk) 14:20, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Clinching

By my math, the United States has clinched a position in no worse than the Bronze Medal game, and will clinch a spot in the Gold Medal game with either a win or a Canada loss today. I don't think any other teams have clinched similar positions yet. Are we interested in doing some kind of color-coded shading to express this? MrArticleOne (talk) 14:22, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Cuba and the Netherlands have both clinched a position in no worse than the fifth place game. So I don't think its very useful to add color-coded shading for any clinching.FAB!AN (talk) 15:35, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was restricting my observation to games in which a medal is at stake. MrArticleOne (talk) 15:43, 23 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Classification

Did IBAF publish any rules about the classification for place 9 until 16. Italy, Japan, Mexico, Spain and Nicaragua are all 2-5 in the second round, but Italy didn't play any games in the first round and, of course, did not have any extra wins from the first round. That should not be the reason to put them on place 14. It is not fair to add first round result, while Italy did not have a first round. Shouldn't it be that only second round results count in this classifications? MascNL (talk) 11:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Its about the winning percentage, Italy has .286, while the other teams you mentioned have .300 or above. FAB!AN (talk) 12:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

why not show the winning percentage as extra column. MascNL (talk) 12:37, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The IBAF has updated | the final standings, but it doens't seem right to me. So they do have only used the games in the second round. But in that case it would be, right?

Korea 3-4
Nicaragua 2-5 (but 1-0 record in the head-to-head game against Spain, so a 1.000 winning percentage)
Japan 2-5 (but 1-1 record in the head-to-head games against Italy and Mexico, see Group G for next tiebreaker)
Italy 2-5 (same as Japan)
Mexico 2-5 (same as Japan and Italy)
Spain 2-5 (0-1 record, see Nicaragua)
Great Britain 0-7 (50 RA)
Antilles 0-7 (87 RA)

I think they also used the head-to-head game Nicaragua and Japan, so in that case the IBAF' final standings are correct. But I thought they weren't using the games in the first round? FAB!AN (talk) 20:31, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think they used rank in round two as first criterion and then either winning percentage or RA in round two. Robert Jay (talk) 20:55, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on 2009 Baseball World Cup. 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:

Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.2009baseballworldcup.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Schedule/Page_1.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707061809/http://www.2009baseballworldcup.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Schedule/Page_2.pdf to http://www.2009baseballworldcup.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Schedule/Page_2.pdf
Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110707061822/http://www.2009baseballworldcup.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Schedule/Page_3.pdf to http://www.2009baseballworldcup.com/fileadmin/user_upload/Schedule/Page_3.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://hosting3.sportingpulse.com/www.ibaf.org/fileadmin/user_upload/The_Game/Norms_2009_Eng_final.pdf
Corrected formatting/usage for http://competition.baseballeurope.com/2009/world/stats/BWC_Final.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 05:19, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 28 external links on 2009 Baseball World Cup. 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: 5 June 2024).

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) 10:12, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]