"World" Series

[Brewtacular]

To properly elevate this controversial nature of this post I would like to use some comments by... Joe Morgan.

 

Last night during the WBC semi between Japan and the US they were discussing why Japan, Korea, Cuba, and others tend to care more and, accordingly, have more success. Morgan, with absolutely no sense of irony, went on to suggest that the US players were more worried about preparing to win a world championship in October. Clearly, Joe did not realize that the Japanese were representing another, foreign, country in a global event.

 

WBC aside, why do we insist on calling our national championship the "world series"? There is nothing world about it. The moniker, marketing creation most likely, is self absorbed and presumptuous. Whether our champion would beat all comers is irrelevant. By that logic California could dub its high school basketball tournament the national high school champion. To continue to use the name is insult to all the globalization efforts baseball is attempting to make. To say that it has always been called that is simply not good enough...

[Ennder]

One of the definitions of the word is:

 

5. an area, sphere, or realm considered as a complete environment:

 

 

World Series means it involves the complete environment that is MLB, the national league and the american league. The world doesn't refer to the entire planet which is another definition of the word.

[Patrick425]

While I understand your point, I'm not sure how popular it would be if Baseball made an effort to change the name of it's championship series. It's been called the World Series for over 100 years and I'm sure most people would still refer to it as the World Series, even if the name was officially changed.

 

Also, it could be argued that MLB is comprised of the best players from throughout the world. While that may not be completely true, I think most baseball players throughout the world have a desire to play MLB in the U.S. (or Toronto).

[Invader3K]

Also, it could be argued that MLB is comprised of the best players from throughout the world. While that may not be completely true, I think most baseball players throughout the world have a desire to play MLB in the U.S. (or Toronto).

That's exactly what I was going to say. Just because the geographic area that the teams comrpise is limited to North America, the fact that players from all over the world come to MLB adds validity to the phrase "World Championship."

[Brewtacular]

While I understand your point, I'm not sure how popular it would be if Baseball made an effort to change the name of it's championship series. It's been called the World Series for over 100 years and I'm sure most people would still refer to it as the World Series, even if the name was officially changed.

Making decisions based on popularity lacks imagination and is devoid of leadership. Yes, we have been calling it that for 100yrs, incorrectly. To keep calling it that is nothing more than " but thats the way we've always done it." Established ignorance is not an excuse for continued ignorance.

 

World Series means it involves the complete environment that is MLB, the national league and the american league. The world doesn't refer to the entire planet which is another definition of the word.

Much like how we co-opted the term "american" for our distinct national borders we can now use the term world to refer to our national interests? Semantics at best. There is no doubt that the broad use of the term is being used here.

 

Players from around the world does not add validity to the term. Should the premiership declare their champion the world champion simply because they have foreigners? MLS has foreigners. J.P.B. has foreigners. While likely that the US champion would win there is a possibility that they could lose.

[TheCrew07]

that was part of the problem, is that USA formed an all star team and AB's and innings had to be split inorder for everyone to get the work in that they were supposed to get in their respective camps.

Why is this such an issue though? If you have a pitcher struggling why can't you pull him and have him finish his day in the pen? The Brewers have had many of their pitchers go to the pen to get the rest of their work in thus far in spring training, I guess I don't see why it would have to be any different for the WBC team. The hitters don't seem to need as much work, I just think the team was flawed. Dunn can barely play LF and they put him in RF where Japan hit most of their balls? We just don't take it as seriously as the other countries, the sheer number of injuries alone was embarrassing and has given people against the WBC enough ammunition... instead of guys like Jeter, I'd rather see a much younger team, guys that aren't as established and maybe a little bit more team orientated. Herbie Brooks said it best... all-star teams fail because there's no team, just a bunch of individuals. USA basketball has taken a different approach since their recent embarrassments, maybe MLB should look at doing something similar. Then again, maybe playing for your country doesn't mean as much to us as a whole?

 

Instead of making excuses for our players who performed badly and/or got injured, lets own up to the shortcomings in the process and come up with a better way. Morgan basically said this is how it's always going to be, which doesn't suprise me... the other commentators did think the process could be improved.

 

As far as the "World" Series issue, that's actually occurred to me in the past, and I never liked it when people involved in professional sports use the phrase "World Championship". You can define world liberally like above, but the intent clearly has a different meaning. Maybe in the future the games will actually be global and the phrase will apply, but there's nothing global about any sports league at this time. I have no use for soccer, but the World Cup is about as global as it gets outside of the Olympics, and those are tournaments, not leagues.

[pitchleague]

I would also tend to think that back in the early 1900s, when "World Series" was first coined (I'm not really sure when the term was officially used), that Major League Baseball used the term "World's Champion" because nobody else was playing the game except for Americans. As a result, over time, the term has stuck due to tradition.

 

I still think it would be cool for each league's champion (MLB, Japan, Korea, Mexico, whatever) would have a mini-tournament in November to truly determine each year's World Champion, but that'll never happen.

[Patrick425]

Brewtacular[/b]]

Making decisions based on popularity lacks imagination and is devoid of leadership. Yes, we have been calling it that for 100yrs, incorrectly. To keep calling it that is nothing more than " but thats the way we've always done it." Established ignorance is not an excuse for continued ignorance.

I think it shows very astute leadership skills. Semantics aside, changing the name of the World Series would be like the NFL looking for a new name for the Super Bowl or the Yankees looking for a new team name.

[Ennder]

Much like how we co-opted the term "american" for our distinct national borders we can now use the term world to refer to our national interests? Semantics at best. There is no doubt that the broad use of the term is being used here.

 

Not semantics at all. When the game started the world of baseball was major league baseball. Now that they have established the name it would be silly to go and change it just because the game has spread worldwide.

 

You should go find some aliens and have them complain about Mr. Universe while you are at it or go to a country that doesn't play in the World Cup and complain about that name.

[endaround]

Anyone can play in the World Cup if they qualify

[Brewtacular]

I think it shows very astute leadership skills. Semantics aside, changing the name of the World Series would be like the NFL looking for a new name for the Super Bowl or the Yankees looking for a new team name.

We call them Indians because that is what we have always called them. The fact that they have never been to India is irrelevant. Let's just perpetuate the incorrect assumption of our ancestors. Leadership involves making the correct decision not the popular one. No doubt changing the name would be painful but it would reflect the current state of the world. The world, much like the game, has evolved.

"When the game started the world of baseball was major league baseball. Now that they have established the name it would be silly to go and change it just because the game has spread worldwide. "

I agree. Similarly, when the game started black men were not allowed to play. We cannot pick and chose where we want to evolve.

or go to a country that doesn't play in the World Cup and complain about that name.

Choice is the key. Every country has the option to participate but may not participate because of financial, social, or economic reasons. In this case MLB is not the established authority for world baseball yet gives out the world title without input or consent from other interested parties.

[Ennder]

So if a country has its own league and doesn't choose to play in it then it no longer is the world cup? Just trying to figure this out.

 

Sorry, people ranting about stuff like this just is a pet peeve of mine. The idea that they should change the name of something that has existed as long as it has is just silly. Comparing that to not letting black players into the league is just insulting.

[rm121978]

Hey everyone, the players on the Brewers don't actually work at a brewery. I think I need to start a thread ranting about that... http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[Invader3K]

This whole argument just really seems like nit picking. Why is it really that big a deal if it's called the "World Series" or "MLB Championship" or "North American Baseball Cup" or whatever? Are you really that genuinely offended by it?

 

Really, MLB is the highest level of baseball in the world. As pointed out, and as you've ignored in your arguments, players from all over the world compete for the various MLB clubs. Thus, I don't think it's really that offensive to call it the World Series.

[Brewtacular]

So if a country has its own league and doesn't choose to play in it then it no longer is the world cup? Just trying to figure this out.

 

Sorry, people ranting about stuff like this just is a pet peeve of mine. The idea that they should change the name of something that has existed as long as it has is just silly. Comparing that to not letting black players into the league is just insulting.

It has nothing to do with whether the country chooses to participate. The point is that the country has been given the choice. In this case MLB has exercised choice for the rest of the world.

 

Comparing it to black players...

The point was attributable to the time period, not the struggle, and the notion above that "we have always called it that". If that is the case then why arent we doing everything exactly the same as it was done 100yrs ago?

[Patrick425]

MLB is a business. Bud Selig and the others that run baseball have the job of selling MLB. Changing the name of the World Series would be one of the biggest bone headed marketing blunders since New Coke.

 

Also, is there really a lot of outrage in other countries about this?

[Baldkin]

Why do we call it the "Super Bowl" I mean, it has no special powers. Nor is it a dish you can use to hold delicious soup.

[PKBadger]

Leadership involves making the correct decision not the popular one

 

 

I agree completely.

 

And, as Patrick425 mentioned, changing the name of the World Series would cause MLB to lose millions of dollars. Therefore, by doing so, Bud Selig would be exhibiting poor leadership.

[Invader3K]

Why do we call it the "Super Bowl" I mean, it has no special powers. Nor is it a dish you can use to hold delicious soup.

 

It has the power to generate millions and millions of dollars in revenue, I guess?

[dlk9s]

I normally expect the "World" Series complaints to crop up in the fall. This is new.

[Diskono]

Wasn't the World Series originally sponsored by a newspaper called the "New York World', hence the name?

[Tbadder]

This brings up another point. Remember when the AFL was the minor leagues, and the NFL was the majors. It's time that the US "World Series Winner" plays the Japanese champion.

[PKBadger]

Other objectionable "World Champions":

 

http://www.foxriverbnb.com/images/assets/DSC_2072-357.jpg

 

http://img133.imageshack.us/img133/1435/artie2xm.jpg

 

http://rlv.zcache.com/worlds_greatest_grandpa_hat-p14809351454138460533mr_400.jpg

 

 

How dare they!

[Brewtacular]

Really, MLB is the highest level of baseball in the world. As pointed out, and as you've ignored in your arguments, players from all over the world compete for the various MLB clubs. Thus, I don't think it's really that offensive to call it the World Series.

I havent ignore it I just think it is irrelevant. Is the English soccer champion the world champion? They invented the sport, have players from around the world, and have the highest rated league.

No doubt the US champion would beat the champs from various other countries but I would not be surprised if the Japanese champion won 2 or 3 games in a 7 game series and if that is the case then I think the term world champion should be earned not given.

[Invader3K]

Why is Japan suddenly the greatest other power in baseball? Granted, they won the WBC last time and may win again, but I'm sure Cuba, Puerto Rico, and other countries would object.

 

Also, what about players from Japan that are already on MLB teams? What if, say, the Mariners win the World Series, and were to play Japan? Who would Ichiro play for? This idea of yours has so many holes in it, it's completely unfeasible. Again, though, I think you're just taking the phrase "World Series" quite too literally.