2013 World Baseball Classic

[SouthwestAmAZins]

If Israel is going to placed in the Florida group, then the Germany group may include France, Czech Republic and South Africa. Germany may have better attendance with bordering nations of France and Czech Republic than with Spain in their group.

[Rally Monkey]

If Israel is going to placed in the Florida group, then the Germany group may include France, Czech Republic and South Africa. Germany may have better attendance with bordering nations of France and Czech Republic than with Spain in their group.

Good point. And with the number of Cuban and Venezuelan ex-pats that are likely to be on the Spanish team, it makes sense to put them in Florida, where they can be closer to family, friends, and supporters.

At any rate, I was thinking it would be fun to have France play in a pool with Canada and Great Britain to play up France's natural rivalry with Great Britain--and to maybe pique the interest of Francophone Canadians. But it probably doesn't make much of a difference.

[cutchemist42]

I mean, that's right. Why would we think there'd be 20,000 fans in the seats to see, say, a Canada versus Great Britain game? Especially if, as expected, no big leaguers play? Heck, the Canada-Italy game only attracted 12,000 fans in Toronto back in '09. And that roster included Joey Votto, Justin Morneau, Jason Bay, and Matt Stairs!

Sure, promotion helps. And if the organizers did a better job, it could've been higher. But, come on. A qualifying event? 10,000 is optimistic.

I'm of the opinion the double-elimination format was bad for attendance and ticket buyers. Someone here did the homework comparing attendance numbers for games after the first 2 in a pool. They were terrible due to people not knowing what teams would be in what games after the first known one. You want better attendance, then go back to the round robin pools.

Also, not trying to make excuses, but this would not be fair to Canada to have play a scraped together Israel squad of MLBers when our program has existed for decades and promoted our own growth ourselves. I know in the past I complained about Italy using Italian-Americans to fill out portions of the roster, but the Israel team will be more ridiculous.

[USA101]

I'm of the opinion the double-elimination format was bad for attendance and ticket buyers. Someone here did the homework comparing attendance numbers for games after the first 2 in a pool. They were terrible due to people not knowing what teams would be in what games after the first known one. You want better attendance, then go back to the round robin pools.

Also, not trying to make excuses, but this would not be fair to Canada to have play a scraped together Israel squad of MLBers when our program has existed for decades and promoted our own growth ourselves. I know in the past I complained about Italy using Italian-Americans to fill out portions of the roster, but the Israel team will be more ridiculous.

If Canada can use Votto, Jason Bay and their other Major Leaguers, they should win that pool. You have to remember you're still going up a team of baseball players representing Israel. They have made steps, but are still no where near the talent pool Canada has to work with.

[cutchemist42]

If Canada can use Votto, Jason Bay and their other Major Leaguers, they should win that pool. You have to remember you're still going up a team of baseball players representing Israel. They have made steps, but are still no where near the talent pool Canada has to work with.

But every Jewish American baseball player qualifies for the team because of the stupid eligibility rules and some of those players are MLB talent. Not only that, but we've already determined anyone from a Commonwealth country can represent Great Britain too which is dumb if it happens.

[SDL]

But every Jewish American baseball player qualifies for the team because of the stupid eligibility rules and some of those players are MLB talent. Not only that, but we've already determined anyone from a Commonwealth country can represent Great Britain too which is dumb if it happens.

If iwas a player, I could qualify for *five * national sqauds.

I was born in Boston; I can play for the USA.
My father was from The Netherlands; I do have dual citizenship. I could play for The Orange.
My grandfather (mother's side) was from The Ukraine; I could represent them
His wife (my mother's mother) was from Russia; I could play for them.
I'm Jewish; I could play for Israel.

[Paula59]

If iwas a player, I could qualify for *five * national sqauds.

I don´t know if you are talented or not but I would choose USA or NL ;-)

but without no doubt and no matter what you would have good chances to make the team in Ukraine, Russia and Israel (not WBC)

And this is the point I do agree with the others here Israel playing the Qualifier and may kicking other teams out of the WBC is rediculous as they are not able to beat a Great Britain team made of "true" british players to advance out of the B-Pool at the european level

[cutchemist42]

Listing teams you could play for under WBC shows how it's so dumb.

-I'm Canadian so could play for Canada
-I am Canadian so qualify for Great Britain automatically because of Commonwealth status
-My Grandmother was English anyway so I double qualify.
-My mom is Croatian so I qualify for them.

And players can choose their countries without any prior history of representing that country or being developed by that federation. If Canada with a decades-long history of producing talent loses to an Israel team because a couple of Jewish-Americans decided on a whim,"Why the hell not?", I will rage.

Deep down, I wonder what is more important to MLB and WBC organizers? Canadian television numbers or potential Jewish-American tv numbers with future potential. The Canadian media already blasted the tourney last time for what Italy was. It could be 10x worse depending on what Israel looks like.

[Rally Monkey]

And players can choose their countries without any prior history of representing that country or being developed by that federation. If Canada with a decades-long history of producing talent loses to an Israel team because a couple of Jewish-Americans decided on a whim,"Why the hell not?", I will rage.

Did you rage when Mark Teahan, who is (or was) an American citizen, decided to play for Team Canada? Will you rage if a Great Britain team that consists mostly of Canadians, Aussies, and Americans beats Canada? Or a French team consisting of Quebecois?

Why single out Israel?

Here's the bottom line: Team Germany's organizers are free to pick only native-born Germans for their roster if they want to. They're also free to have their butts humiliated in the tournament. Italy, to their credit, wanted to win some games. And so they included Italian Americans on the team. Would I prefer to have more Alex Liddi-caliber players living in Italy? Sure. But that's not the way it is. If the WBC used strict citizenship rules, there'd be only a handful of teams who'd have a shot of winning it all. (The Dominican Republic, with the American Albert Pujols barred from playing first base, probably wouldn't be one of them.)

Oh, and and a citizens-only rule would be unique, too, among international sport tournaments. Who was the best player on Japan's Rugby World Cup team last year? A New Zealander, who qualified to play for the Brave Blossoms because he plays his club rugby in Japan. Even the FIFA World Cup--which, to be sure, requires that players be naturalized citizens of the countries they represent--still lets players play for countries that aren't their home or birth country so long as they have "clear connection" to the country. (That wasn't always the case. Before 2004, it wasn't uncommon for players to play on several different teams in international play over their careers. Countries would simply naturalize them in order to get them on the team. A lot more corrupt and nonsensical than what the WBC does now.)

So don't pick on Israel. Team New Zealand will no doubt field Americans and Aussies who've never stepped foot in New Zealand. The Phillipines will probably have Filipino-American players. I wouldn't be surprised if a Thai-American or two play for their parents' or grandparents' country. Obviously, this isn't ideal. But until baseball enjoys the kind of deep international popularity that soccer has, it's not really realistic for the WBC to do it any other way. Unless we just want to see five or six teams compete.

[SDL]

Mike Nickeas of the Mets...Canadian born, he grw up in Southern California. He's played for the USA and for Great Britain in the 2007 Euros.. His father was a soccer player from England who came over here to play in the old NASL for Vancouver. Surprised he hasn't played for Canada.

[SouthwestAmAZins]

Timing of the WBC

David Ortiz says that the timing of the "Classic needs to be changed". Paraphrasing Ortiz "Cubans and Asians beat us because they play year round, those guys sleep with their uniforms on". He proposes that Spring Training should be completed and that the Classic be played in April. Cleveland Indians manager, Manny Acta agrees with Ortiz, but says that an April WBC is not going to happen. Acta says that the "Solution is to play in the Winter" or a November time table. Acta says that players would be in better position to play in Winter League to prepare for a Fall/Winter WBC and it would be better than running the risk of injury right before the regular MLB season.

[cutchemist42]

Did you rage when Mark Teahan, who is (or was) an American citizen, decided to play for Team Canada? Will you rage if a Great Britain team that consists mostly of Canadians, Aussies, and Americans beats Canada? Or a French team consisting of Quebecois?

Why single out Israel?

Here's the bottom line: Team Germany's organizers are free to pick only native-born Germans for their roster if they want to. They're also free to have their butts humiliated in the tournament. Italy, to their credit, wanted to win some games. And so they included Italian Americans on the team. Would I prefer to have more Alex Liddi-caliber players living in Italy? Sure. But that's not the way it is. If the WBC used strict citizenship rules, there'd be only a handful of teams who'd have a shot of winning it all. (The Dominican Republic, with the American Albert Pujols barred from playing first base, probably wouldn't be one of them.)

Oh, and and a citizens-only rule would be unique, too, among international sport tournaments. Who was the best player on Japan's Rugby World Cup team last year? A New Zealander, who qualified to play for the Brave Blossoms because he plays his club rugby in Japan. Even the FIFA World Cup--which, to be sure, requires that players be naturalized citizens of the countries they represent--still lets players play for countries that aren't their home or birth country so long as they have "clear connection" to the country. (That wasn't always the case. Before 2004, it wasn't uncommon for players to play on several different teams in international play over their careers. Countries would simply naturalize them in order to get them on the team. A lot more corrupt and nonsensical than what the WBC does now.)

So don't pick on Israel. Team New Zealand will no doubt field Americans and Aussies who've never stepped foot in New Zealand. The Phillipines will probably have Filipino-American players. I wouldn't be surprised if a Thai-American or two play for their parents' or grandparents' country. Obviously, this isn't ideal. But until baseball enjoys the kind of deep international popularity that soccer has, it's not really realistic for the WBC to do it any other way. Unless we just want to see five or six teams compete.

Ummm, I've been pretty consistent in saying I hate the WBC rules for eligiblity no matter what team it is. Go back through my posts if you truly want to. Your also using sports that I agree have lax eligibility rules still. I know it won't happen but I like the IIHF rules.

Gotta play in that country for 2 years before even being allowed to play and then you still gotta prove your connection. A Canadian hockey player cannot represent Great Britain while being allowed to get citizenship until he plays 2 years in the British Hockey League to show how serious he is taking it. The two year limit really stops the IIHF from suffering from this problem even if it means a lot of countries don't have a chance.

I mean, when Italy held the Winter Olympics they were really afraid of their hockey team looking bad so thjey tried hard to recruit in Southern Ontario for Italian-Canadians to play for them. They were not successful though because its two years of your life. I mean, in hockey, you could easily put together awesome Australian/British/French/Dutch hockey teams with Canadians if the rules were that easy in hockey.

Sure, the IIHF has maybe 3-4 countries that can ever compete for a Gold Medal but atleast I know each team truly represents the efforts of their national hockey federations to grow the sport.

Just wondering if you like the WBC rules personally?

[Rally Monkey]

That's fair, cutchemist. Personally, I like the IIHF model as you described it. Assuming that real leagues can gain traction in Europe and across Asia, I think it's one the WBC can adopt down the road. But only, I think, once it's clear that it won't undermine the competitiveness of the tournament. In the meantime, some variation of the current liberal eligibility rules will have to be used--unless, again, we're happy with seeing the same five teams dominate the WBC year after year.

David Ortiz says that the timing of the "Classic needs to be changed". Paraphrasing Ortiz "Cubans and Asians beat us because they play year round, those guys sleep with their uniforms on". He proposes that Spring Training should be completed and that the Classic be played in April. Cleveland Indians manager, Manny Acta agrees with Ortiz, but says that an April WBC is not going to happen. Acta says that the "Solution is to play in the Winter" or a November time table. Acta says that players would be in better position to play in Winter League to prepare for a Fall/Winter WBC and it would be better than running the risk of injury right before the regular MLB season.

I actually agree with this. As long as MLB runs the WBC in spring training, it'll seem like exhibition games. And, as Ortiz says, countries whose players play and train through the winter will dominate. I don't think the solution is to move it to April. (MLB won't sacrifice regular season games for this.) Or to November. (It's hard for me to think of American audiences tuning in much to fall baseball after the World Series--and when football season is hitting its stride.)

No, the answer, I think is to play the tournament during the All-Star Break. An opening round in March or November makes sense: A field of 32 teams playing in 8 pools spread around the globe. Sort of like now. But then after that initial qualifying round, the top 8 or 16 teams can then cool their jets for a few months, and then play the remaining games in a single-elimination, NCAA basketball-style tournament held over four or five days the second week of July. The All-Star game would be canceled for that year, of course (or played with players who aren't in the WBC), but most of the top players we look forward to seeing that time of year will be playing for their countries instead. It'd take moving up the season to accomodate the extra day or two of the break. But the excitement of single-elimination--to say nothing of the fact that players are in peak form this time of year--would make it worth it.

[cutchemist42]

That's fair, cutchemist. Personally, I like the IIHF model as you described it. Assuming that real leagues can gain traction in Europe and across Asia, I think it's one the WBC can adopt down the road. But only, I think, once it's clear that it won't undermine the competitiveness of the tournament. In the meantime, some variation of the current liberal eligibility rules will have to be used--unless, again, we're happy with seeing the same five teams dominate the WBC year after year.





I actually agree with this. As long as MLB runs the WBC in spring training, it'll seem like exhibition games. And, as Ortiz says, countries whose players play and train through the winter will dominate. I don't think the solution is to move it to April. (MLB won't sacrifice regular season games for this.) Or to November. (It's hard for me to think of American audiences tuning in much to fall baseball after the World Series--and when football season is hitting its stride.)

No, the answer, I think is to play the tournament during the All-Star Break. An opening round in March or November makes sense: A field of 32 teams playing in 8 pools spread around the globe. Sort of like now. But then after that initial qualifying round, the top 8 or 16 teams can then cool their jets for a few months, and then play the remaining games in a single-elimination, NCAA basketball-style tournament held over four or five days the second week of July. The All-Star game would be canceled for that year, of course (or played with players who aren't in the WBC), but most of the top players we look forward to seeing that time of year will be playing for their countries instead. It'd take moving up the season to accomodate the extra day or two of the break. But the excitement of single-elimination--to say nothing of the fact that players are in peak form this time of year--would make it worth it.

Concerning eligibility, I understand the competitiveness is important but its just too lax for me. I could compromise for the moment if you allowed the current WBC rules but limited them to only 50% of your hitters and 50% of your pitchers and made the rest have to be native players, something along those lines.

My biggest fear is a WBC team having only 10% of the team represent a country's true baseball strength. To be fair, I should save my comments for when rosters are actually announced and then I can criticize the make-up of any WBC team.

[Paula59]

Why single out Israel?

My point is a WBC (Qualifier) team should be competitive at their continental level and should only invited if the do have a strong domestic league and a running (youth and growth) programm. As I don´t know how this is with Thailand, NZ, etc I only point out to Israel. They do not really run a league - well there was twice the project but it failed. The national team plays at a low level and all of sudden they can be a fear to other countries (Canada, etc) who deserve it more to represent the country at the highest level of international Baseball.
If we just go by european teams Germany, Spain, Czech Republic, Great Britain (all EC A Pool team) can fall and miss the WBC founding because Israel (never made it out of EC B Pool) fields a team made of players with no relationship (just because of their religion heritage) to the country.

I hope Germany will use the eligibilty rule as much as possible although I don´t like it but what I more like is to get the WBC money to keep the programm running for years. Doing this will cut longtime national team players who helped the team to be here where we are right now and believe me they hardly derserve to play at the WBC level. One player quoted at a WC: "I am an old player! You young players may get the chance to reach the MLB or even the World Series but this is my kind of World Series, I will never play at any higher stage like this. So let´s do as good as we can!"
I do know a lot of eligible players allready asked to play for Germany and trying to set everthing up to be eligible.

All teams are bolstering to stay/get in the money which is ok but the romantic part on international Baseball is lost.

I could compromise for the moment if you allowed the current WBC rules but limited them to only 50% of your hitters and 50% of your pitchers and made the rest have to be native players, something along those lines.

I like that idea!