2013 World Baseball Classic

[Sweet_Bokke]

I e-mailed Dr. Schiller on the IBAF site asking which countries may be added by 2013? He responded by not knowing yet which countries will be added, but said that discussions are the following: at least three from Latin America, possibly three from Europe, one from Asia and one from Africa.

Interesting- While any potential second African team would instantly become my second favourite, it seems difficult to justify their inclusion over a country elsewhere with a more 'developed' baseball program (relatively speaking of course)

I'm assuming the second African nation would be Nigeria, as they are traditionally the closest to South Africa in terms of competitiveness, although baseball in Ghana seems to be slowly on the rise also

Sian xx

[Americanoutlaw2.0]

look like Bobby Valentine want to manage Team USA in 2013

what you think of that??

[quinnystar27]

look like Bobby Valentine want to manage Team USA in 2013

what you think of that??

I do not know if it is a good idea or bad idea but here are some thoughts.

I like bobby v because he probably wont care about MLB teams thoughts or worries. Of course he will respect them but i doubt he will be like davey johnson. I also like him because he will do a better job of providing a balance attack for the USA so they do not rely on the HR only. Also after managing in japan he will probably be very familiar with japanese teams and pitchers. And the asian teams are favorites. Also i like his managing style.

Cons as far as i know he hasnt managed in international tournaments. Also he he will probably be a bit more hands on then johnson. He might cause worries for MLB teams. Does he want to coach team USA? I see him adding some speed in the line up possibly with BJ upton and a few other speed runners and that is not america's game. Thought he is a good manager i know he is not the best at managing pitchers, not saying he is bad but i do not think he will get the best out of his pitchers. And he will probably use USA pitchers more then johnson did

[Unit312J]

I don't think anybody deserves to host it more than Korea, except THE TWO TIME DEFENDING CHAMPIONS. The Japanese fans showed a little more gumption by showing up in larger numbers for the non-Japan games than last time, and I think if it was all there attendance WOULD be better. I think the Japanese fans would show up for a USA/Dominican Republic matchup. The Japanese don't like the Koreans or the Chinese (or anybody really) so it is unrealistic to think they would show up for China/Chinese Taipei and the like. The Japanese have several domed stadiums so they could spread it across the country. And Japan can argue that their attendance was better, which it was, for all their games, than those in Puerto Rico, where 9,000 showed up twice, and 11,000 once, or San Diego, which had two crowds of 9,300, and that was only because they handed out about 3,000 FREE TICKETS downtown before the game. The problem would be getting MLB teams to allow their players to disappear to the other side of the world during Spring Training. It was enough of hassle this time.

As for Korea, if they get that domed stadium then give them as many rounds as possible. They deserve it to. Their WBC and Olympic record the past three years is 22-4, with all those loses coming to Japan, two competitive loses, one blowout, and one loss in the meaningless seeding game this past year. But it is FREEZING in Seoul. The temperature during the Finals was 39 or something like that. It's too cold without that dome (And thanks for the info. I am hoping to Guangzhao in 2010 for the Asian Games, and now I have Incheon on the list for 2014.)

I attended all the games in Mexico City, which had pretty decent attendance (I'll just take a mask to protect against the cigarette smoke next time), and I could see a first round headed back there, or more probably, Monterrey, to mix it up. The problem with moving it around the world, which I would love, is the quality of stadiums (they will demand good quality if they are sending MLB players) and the weather. I think they make focus more on Florida and Arizona next time because everybody is there for Spring Training anyway, and Tampa Bay will have a new ballpark they could use instead of Orlando.

Personally, give me a gas mask, and play THE WHOLE THING in Mexico City. 7,300 feet up. 6 games 28 homers. I was in heaven. I went to all the games in San Diego and LA as well, and man what a difference compared to Mexico City. Just ask Cuba, who went homerless after leaving Mexico City.

I think we can expect to see the following in 2013:

The tournament will take place in March again.

There will be a play-in round for at least eight new teams and the bottom eight or twelve teams from the 2009 tournament.

South Korea will host one of the second round pools.

The Dominican Republic will host one of the first or second round pools.

Los Angeles, Anaheim, or Phoenix will host one of the quarter-final pools.

Miami will host the semi-finals and finals in its new ballpark.

Here's why I predict these things. South Korea has a definite claim to host a round. So if the WBC organizers give it to Japan again, Korea will rightfully demand to know why--and the specter of a boycott (such as the D.R. threatened this time around) could arise. What's more, I understand that Incheon plans to build a domed baseball stadium for the 2014 Asia Games. If this is ready to go by early 2013, I don't see how the WBC can say no.

The D.R.'s threatened boycott fizzled out this year, but we'll hear more about it as 2013 approaches. The D.R. can rightfully claim that their fans deserve to see them play. If they can get their act together in time, I don't see how the WBC says no--especially if the island is hosting one of the play-in rounds where tickets can be priced lower and the infrastructure doesn't need to be world-class.

I think the greater L.A. area has shown that its large ethnic communities and baseball-loving public are a perfect match for the WBC. The Dodger Stadium games were a huge success. (For those who noticed that the games didn't sell out, remember that it's a huge stadium. Dodger playoff games sometimes don't sell out.) Phoenix doesn't share L.A.'s demographics, but it's a baseball mecca in March. And with more promotion, I think the tournament could definitely be a draw for snowbirds.

(For what it's worth, I'd like to see the quarterfinals held in a single city. I know that that's a challenge for TV ratings, but it would make the tournament easier to promote and more of a draw for out-of-towners, I think.)

MLB has emphatically promised Miami officials that the WBC will be located there in 2013 if the county agrees to build the Marlins a new ballpark. Now that that's happened, I don't see how the WBC reneges on its promise. Too bad because, as I've written here for months, Miami hates going to baseball games.

[Unit312J]

I would love to see Lesotho play Hong Kong, or Lesotho play Thailand (only if I don't have to broadcast that game. I did a Thailand game on the Internet once. What a mess a I made of those names), but to get back to what Plowry was saying; aboslutely Pakistan should be there. The only question is seeding. Do they play a #1 or do you try to match them up a little more evenly, with, what would be in the early years, a clear cut favorite, say a Chinese Taipei in a group with Hong Kong, Thailand and Pakistan, or what. The seeding would be interesting, but before we bash the Pakistan baseball countries of the world because they are far behind who really was excited about UCONN battling Chattanooga in the NCAA's. But we give them their shot. No 16 as beat a 1, but they will eventually. Pakistan is not going to beat anybody anytime soon, but they will eventually, if we work to grow the sport there. If we could find 64 then I am absolutely for it.

64 teams? Maybe some day. As it now stands, IBAF only ranks 44 countries and territories. And those includes traditional international baseball powerhouses such as Lesotho and Pakistan.

[titorondon]

As I understand it, it's not eight new teams. The eight teams that advanced will be seeded (Korea, Japan, Cuba, Mexico, USA, Venezuela, Puerto Rico, Holland).
That would mean that maybe Thailand, Pakistan and the Philippines would play Taiwan and China and two would qualify, though it is possible that Taiwan would be invited and only one position would be open; in the same vein, maybe the Dominican Republic would be invited outright but Panama would have to play Colombia, Nicaragua and/or Brazil, maybe more.
Italy would have to fight off Spain, England, Germany, Russia, Czech Republic, France or maybe even Sweden or more. And South Africa would play a couple of African nations to reclaim a place.

[quinnystar27]

i think korea deserves to host. And japan deserves to host the final rounds but when i was in round one in tokyo i went to four games and the korea chinese tapei game was not that full in fact other then the cheering section i saw at least 10 seats or more per row empty. When i saw japan play it was full. Remember the population in japan is over 90% japanese so not many foreigners. Lets say that japan host the final rounds but they do not make it how many will turn up for venezuela vs. the DR? Or USA vs. Mexico? I never been to korea so i do not know how baseball crazy they are. But it would be nice to have the final rounds outside the USA. But will MLB like that? I think the MLB needs to change it's schedule to support the classic.

[Rally Monkey]

I e-mailed Dr. Schiller on the IBAF site asking which countries may be added by 2013? He responded by not knowing yet which countries will be added, but said that discussions are the following: at least three from Latin America, possibly three from Europe, one from Asia and one from Africa.

Very interesting. It doesn't tell us much, but it gives me enough to kill a few minutes by idly speculating:

Latin America: Colombia, Nicaragua, Brazil;
Europe: Germany, Spain, Czech Republic;
Asia: Philippines;
Africa: Nigeria.

I don't really see the point in inviting a second African country this time around. South Africa is light-years ahead of Ghana and Nigeria in baseball development. As I understand it, Ghana doesn't even have a single dedicated baseball field. And Nigeria and Ghana aren't exactly lighting up with world of international baseball: They're ranked 29 and 31 in the latest IBAF rankings and, as far as I know, they've never competed in a Baseball World Cup or other worldwide baseball tournament.

Having said all that, I know that a lot of the powers-that-be have really promoted the idea of developing baseball in West Africa and eventually across the continent. And there probably isn't a better way of doing that than giving one of them a shot on the biggest international stage.

The big losers here, of course, would be the European countries with well-developed baseball programs and a long-standing international presence--like Great Britain and Sweden. Unfortunately for them, the number of European teams probably won't exceed five under any scenario: It's not in the interest of the WBC to have so many of its participants come from just one continent. I suppose Europe is already used to this with the soccer world cup and the Olympics.

[Richard]

If Germany and the Czech Republic are selected in 2013, as an American, please do not allow any German-Americans or Czech-Americans to participate on the aforementioned teams. OK. Maybe two or three on each team, but that is enough.

[Mischa]

If Germany and the Czech Republic are selected in 2013, as an American, please do not allow any German-Americans or Czech-Americans to participate on the aforementioned teams. OK. Maybe two or three on each team, but that is enough.

I think similar limits should be in place for all countries. The Italians did just as well or better than the Italian-Americans; why let the latter play? One hyphenated player on a team (ex. Ray Chang on China or Leon Boyd on the Netherlands) doesn't bug me, but when they're the majority of the team, that's wrong.

[Sweet_Bokke]

I think similar limits should be in place for all countries. The Italians did just as well or better than the Italian-Americans; why let the latter play? One hyphenated player on a team (ex. Ray Chang on China or Leon Boyd on the Netherlands) doesn't bug me, but when they're the majority of the team, that's wrong.

Under Italian law they have just as much right to play as those born in Italy. There is no 'generation limit' on the heritage rules for being an Italian citizen, so anyone who has a father/mother or beyond (as far back as you can legally prove basically) that is Italian they have just as many rights to Italian citizenship as those born in the country

Do I think it's fair on the Italian league players who represent their country all year round, then when the WBC rolls around, they get shunted into the wilderness? Of course not, but you can't stop the Italian-Americans from representing a country that they are legally citizens of

Sian xx

[cutchemist42]

Under Italian law they have just as much right to play as those born in Italy. There is no 'generation limit' on the heritage rules for being an Italian citizen, so anyone who has a father/mother or beyond (as far back as you can legally prove basically) that is Italian they have just as many rights to Italian citizenship as those born in the country

Do I think it's fair on the Italian league players who represent their country all year round, then when the WBC rolls around, they get shunted into the wilderness? Of course not, but you can't stop the Italian-Americans from representing a country that they are legally citizens of

Sian xx

When it comes to my take, if they want to play Italy GO OUT AND GET THE ACTUAL PASSPORT!!! At least Leon Boyd holds a Dutch passport and lives there. These Italian-Americans only chose Italy because they weren't good enough for the American team.

I understand under Italian law they could citizenship; I just wish the WBC went by that instead of "well they COULD get one if they wanted to."

[ShawnC]

lol sorry that wasn't entirely clear of me- I didn't mean Great Britain AND Trinidad & Tobago form a team, they were just two examples of teams made from more than one country that I would accept because of historical reasons

Just squeezing two or more countries together for no other reason than to make them more competitive doesn't really cut it with me

Sian xx

I had glanced through the thread earlier and saw this but didn't fully take notice at first.

Bokke, I think you've gotten confused. Great Britain has been one country since the 1700s, so a Britain team isn't really a team made up from more than one country. And isn't Trinidad & Tobago one country? Rather like Bosnia & Herzegovina...or Sao Tome & Principe...or Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

[Agente Libre]

When it comes to my take, if they want to play Italy GO OUT AND GET THE ACTUAL PASSPORT!!! At least Leon Boyd holds a Dutch passport and lives there. These Italian-Americans only chose Italy because they weren't good enough for the American team.

I understand under Italian law they could citizenship; I just wish the WBC went by that instead of "well they COULD get one if they wanted to."

But what's the difference? Citizenship or eligibility for citizenship is based on law, not on possession of a passport. Why make people jump through hoops unnecessarily?

[ShawnC]

But what's the difference? Citizenship or eligibility for citizenship is based on law, not on possession of a passport. Why make people jump through hoops unnecessarily?

I guess it's the whole "actuality" versus "potential" aspect. Until a person who is eligible for citizenship actually takes it up, they aren't a citizen. So some of those players may be eligible for Italian citizenship, but until they do they are 100% American citizens and can't do things that actual Italian citizens could do. And then it sounds relatively easy for these guys to take out an Italian passport (no limits on heritage) so I guess the question could be "why not?"

[Sweet_Bokke]

I had glanced through the thread earlier and saw this but didn't fully take notice at first.

Bokke, I think you've gotten confused. Great Britain has been one country since the 1700s, so a Britain team isn't really a team made up from more than one country. And isn't Trinidad & Tobago one country? Rather like Bosnia & Herzegovina...or Sao Tome & Principe...or Great Britain and Northern Ireland?

As fas as I'm aware Great Britain is a political entity that is made up of three countries- England, Wales and Scotland. They are one political entity, but nothing stops them from fielding their own teams in competitions like football or the Commonwealth Games and they have their own national identity

Trinny was a bad example on my part, It was just the first 'X & X' country that popped into my head- I'm used to them playing cricket under the 'West Indies' umbrella anyway lol


The point I was trying to make though, is that I wouldn't agree with MLB just 'lumping' two or more countries together to make them more competitive, unless there was a historical precedent for it

I was more about the general idea rather than the details lol

Sian xx

[ShawnC]

As fas as I'm aware Great Britain is a political entity that is made up of three countries- England, Wales and Scotland. They are one political entity, but nothing stops them from fielding their own teams in competitions like football or the Commonwealth Games and they have their own national identity

Trinny was a bad example on my part, It was just the first 'X & X' country that popped into my head- I'm used to them playing cricket under the 'West Indies' umbrella anyway lol


The point I was trying to make though, is that I wouldn't agree with MLB just 'lumping' two or more countries together to make them more competitive, unless there was a historical precedent for it

I was more about the general idea rather than the details lol

Sian xx

Ah, okay.

But the thing about Britain is that it has been one country since 1707 (I double checked), so the normal team would be expected to be "Great Britain and Northern Ireland" but due to the football/soccer and rugby situations the formerly separate countries still field separate teams.

The point I was trying to make though, is that I wouldn't agree with MLB just 'lumping' two or more countries together to make them more competitive, unless there was a historical precedent for it

Well I can agree there. Though I would go further and say I wouldn't agree unless there was a historical precedent or the countries concerned actually fully agreed to it. So if say the Russian baseball federation and Belarus baseball federation (and the players involved) both wanted to combine and send a Russo-Belarus team then I wouldn't have a problem since it would be up to them. Just like how the Samoa, Fiji and Tonga will combine as the Pacific Islanders for rugby. Besides that example I can think of Ireland (almost all sports where the South and the North are combined), West Indies (cricket and I think in rugby league, netball at times and maybe rugby union), Great Britain (in the Olympics and the rugbies although this should be considered the normal team and England and Scotland the exceptions), the Arabian Gulf (in rugby union I think), Europe (the team for the Ryder Cup golf tournament), Korea (for the Olympic delegations) and historically the German unified team (1950s and 1960s) and the CIS team (Olympics EURO football competition and rugby back in 1992/1993).

Out of the current IBAF members, I don't think I would mind if Kenya and Uganda combined since they did form combined teams in the past in other sports (I think they played as East Africa for a long while in cricket) and because there seem to be plans for Kenya and Uganda (and Tanzania) to federate into some East African Federation sometime between 2011 and 2015 (to that end I think they have introduced some kind of secondary East African passport). I also don't think I would have a problem if the CIS countries (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Uzbekistan and Armenia) all wanted to form a CIS baseball team. Some combination like Turkey and Iran though I would probably have a problem with since there is no precedence in other sports or any real historical or cultural connection (it would be unlikely anyway that the Turkish and Iranian baseball federations would support the idea anyway).

[cutchemist42]

I guess it's the whole "actuality" versus "potential" aspect. Until a person who is eligible for citizenship actually takes it up, they aren't a citizen. So some of those players may be eligible for Italian citizenship, but until they do they are 100% American citizens and can't do things that actual Italian citizens could do. And then it sounds relatively easy for these guys to take out an Italian passport (no limits on heritage) so I guess the question could be "why not?"

Before I could even post my response you perfectly summed up my feelings. It is the fact they are ACTUALLY citizens and not COULD BE citizens. The moment you go through the trouble of becoming Italian with documentation and such says enough in my eyes. That is why I have no problems with someone like Leon Boyd; sure he's born in Canadian but went out of his way to become Dutch-Canadian. Seriously, if you want to play for Italy why not go all the way and get citizenship if you care that much?

I just don't see why anyone bothers defending the Italian WBC team, in no way did it represent the quality of baseball in Italy!

[Paul Wendt]

Which of the teams in this year's tournament was organized by MLB?
Which were national teams?
Were there any that are difficult to classify?

[Sweet_Bokke]

Before I could even post my response you perfectly summed up my feelings. It is the fact they are ACTUALLY citizens and not COULD BE citizens. The moment you go through the trouble of becoming Italian with documentation and such says enough in my eyes. That is why I have no problems with someone like Leon Boyd; sure he's born in Canadian but went out of his way to become Dutch-Canadian. Seriously, if you want to play for Italy why not go all the way and get citizenship if you care that much?

I just don't see why anyone bothers defending the Italian WBC team, in no way did it represent the quality of baseball in Italy!

I might be wrong about this, but as far as I am aware-

I think this particular loophole was caused by MLB having to 'tweak' the rules slightly to accomodate players from the Dominican Republic, who under Dominican Law, give up their rights to citizenship if they become citizens of another country

Because of this MLB changed the rules slightly to ensure that players who were so obviously Dominican could represent their country despite not being able to under 'normal' circumstances, they could then represent their country without having to actually own all the paperwork. They couldn't just have this rule for one country and another rule for the rest, so they had to implement it for everyone, which opened the door for Italian-Americans to represent Italy

There is also a bit of disagreement over this issue in South Africa, with some people not being happy with the amount of overseas-based players on the roster

Sian xx

[Sweet_Bokke]

Which of the teams in this year's tournament was organized by MLB?
Which were national teams?
Were there any that are difficult to classify?

I'm not too sure what you mean by this?

Do you mean which teams players were picked by MLB and which were picked by people outside of the MLB sphere of influence?

Sian xx

[Sweet_Bokke]

Ah, okay.

Well I can agree there. Though I would go further and say I wouldn't agree unless there was a historical precedent or the countries concerned actually fully agreed to it. So if say the Russian baseball federation and Belarus baseball federation (and the players involved) both wanted to combine and send a Russo-Belarus team then I wouldn't have a problem since it would be up to them. Just like how the Samoa, Fiji and Tonga will combine as the Pacific Islanders for rugby. Besides that example I can think of Ireland (almost all sports where the South and the North are combined), West Indies (cricket and I think in rugby league, netball at times and maybe rugby union), Great Britain (in the Olympics and the rugbies although this should be considered the normal team and England and Scotland the exceptions), the Arabian Gulf (in rugby union I think), Europe (the team for the Ryder Cup golf tournament), Korea (for the Olympic delegations) and historically the German unified team (1950s and 1960s) and the CIS team (Olympics EURO football competition and rugby back in 1992/1993).

Out of the current IBAF members, I don't think I would mind if Kenya and Uganda combined since they did form combined teams in the past in other sports (I think they played as East Africa for a long while in cricket) and because there seem to be plans for Kenya and Uganda (and Tanzania) to federate into some East African Federation sometime between 2011 and 2015 (to that end I think they have introduced some kind of secondary East African passport). I also don't think I would have a problem if the CIS countries (Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Moldova, Uzbekistan and Armenia) all wanted to form a CIS baseball team. Some combination like Turkey and Iran though I would probably have a problem with since there is no precedence in other sports or any real historical or cultural connection (it would be unlikely anyway that the Turkish and Iranian baseball federations would support the idea anyway).

The Pacific Islanders I see as being a slightly different case, as for the purposes of all IRB Tournaments they compete as their seperate Countries and only compete as the Islanders for Overseas Friendlies

Ireland probably would have been a better example for me to use, as they compete as a unified team in several sports now like Cricket and Rugby

The 'East Africa' team was implemented to give Africa some representation at the Cricket World Cup because we were banned at the time thanks to our apartheid policies. They were essentially a team of weekend-cricketers who went 0-3 and were knocked out in double quick time. That was their one and only appearance as a cricket team, so I wouldn't say it was exactly a historical sporting combination, more like a one-off, although I wouldn't be totally against it, for the other reasons you mentioned.

As for the 'Soviet-Bloc' team, I'm not exactly an expert on European matters, but would that idea be terribly popular with the former Soviet-bloc Countries that tried for so long to gain independence from Russia?

I like the idea of a 'West Indies' or 'Arabian Gulf' team though- as the precedent has been set for these teams in the past

The more I think about it, the more confused I get over which combined teams I would allow and which one I wouldn't lol

Sian xx

[Anthony]

The citizenship issue happens a lot in soccer. Back in the 1990s, the US national team had a player who was German born and rasied, but because his father was a US serviceman, he played for our national team. Supposedly he never set foot in the US until the day he came for a camp.

England uses a player who was born in Canada (to English parents) and plays in Germany. He never spent much time in england until he attended a training camp.

The Carribean countries are notorius for recruiting players from England, even though they or even their parents were born in the UK.

In lacrosse, a cousin even got to play for Italy in an U-20 tournament even though his great gandparents were the ones from Italy.

[Sweet_Bokke]

I believe that people who are born overseas to US army Personnel who have been posted to a Military Base are considered US Citizens despite being born in a foreign country as they are technically born on US territory (I think the same applies to people born in US Embassies around the world, regardless of what Country it is in). It reminds me of a footballer called Steve Lomas who was born on a British base in Germany and went on to play for Northern Ireland.

Cricket is another example of the muddy waters of qualifying to play for other Countries.

At the moment you only have to have lived in the country you want to represent for 100 days over a defined period of time to qualify- there have been players like Kepler Wessels (Australia & South Africa), Tatenda Taibu (Zimbabwe and Namibia), Anderson Cummins (West Indies and Canada) who have represented more than one country

If you take a look at the current squads for teams like Canada, USA, Netherlands etc, you'll find a lot of South Africans, Australians and West Indians playing (In the 2007 World Cup Canada's squad only had 3 actual 'Canadians' on it)

Compared to cricket, baseball's eligibility rules seem quite draconian lol

Sian xx

[Pere]

I guess it's the whole "actuality" versus "potential" aspect.

You say this as if the legal condition of citizenship was more important than physical ancestry and cultural background and personal feelings, whereas I would argue the reverse. Legal papers are a construct, which may be intended in some sense to recognize an "actuality," but they are not more meaningful to me than the realities they may or may not encapsulate.

I think the tournament's present rules for player qualification are just fine; there are several conditions under which a player may be eligible for a given team, of which legal citizenship is just one; from among the total pool of all eligible players, each country's own federation chooses an actual roster on their own criteria. I imagine most countries would field teams primarily or entirely of players who are both native-born and legal citizens--if they felt that would give them as good a showing on the field as other options--but let them make that decision for themselves.

The only rule detail I'd add would be a provision barring players from switching allegiance after having been listed on any particular roster.