World Baseball Classic Discussion Thread

[Super-Llamaland]

But look who is in that Top 10!
Better get that 5th soon, Schiltzberg. We keep climbing, we may get it first!

Best of luck to you on that, my friend. You are definitely a lot more capable of winning a fifth going into WBC 40 than you were going into 38 or even 39, since you have that rank now. Both of us seem to have found that the quest for a fifth title is much, much more strenuous than the first four were. Schiltzberg won four titles in five years and now will be working for its third season in a row on capturing that fifth one. Maybe it isn't even possible. We will always have hope though.

scenes from when the Tigers win WBC40 and WBC41 ;p

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

21 isn't bad...right?

If it makes you fell better, I'm 32nd. (Yes! I'd say that's pretty darn good!)

(yay thank you!)

[West Phoencia]

Updated Rankings following WBC 39

Damn went from 22nd spot to 8th spot. Jeez didn't expect that.

[Frenline Delpha]

Updated Rankings following WBC 39

Damn went from 22nd spot to 8th spot. Jeez didn't expect that.

Well, you did get fourth place. Speaking of which, I think it's worth re-examining how the rankings are calculated. Not that Schiltzberg doesn't deserve a good rank, but it bothers me that the champion earned less points this tournament than third place. But maybe that's just me.

[Newmanistan]

But look who is in that Top 10!
Better get that 5th soon, Schiltzberg. We keep climbing, we may get it first!

Best of luck to you on that, my friend. You are definitely a lot more capable of winning a fifth going into WBC 40 than you were going into 38 or even 39, since you have that rank now. Both of us seem to have found that the quest for a fifth title is much, much more strenuous than the first four were. Schiltzberg won four titles in five years and now will be working for its third season in a row on capturing that fifth one. Maybe it isn't even possible. We will always have hope though.

Hope is good!
I just feel that we are now at a point where our goal can legitimately be the title!

[Frenline Delpha]

Best of luck to you on that, my friend. You are definitely a lot more capable of winning a fifth going into WBC 40 than you were going into 38 or even 39, since you have that rank now. Both of us seem to have found that the quest for a fifth title is much, much more strenuous than the first four were. Schiltzberg won four titles in five years and now will be working for its third season in a row on capturing that fifth one. Maybe it isn't even possible. We will always have hope though.

Hope is good!
I just feel that we are now at a point where our goal can legitimately be the title!

*Grabs bat

Come at us. We're ready.

[Drawkland]

Damn went from 22nd spot to 8th spot. Jeez didn't expect that.

Well, you did get fourth place. Speaking of which, I think it's worth re-examining how the rankings are calculated. Not that Schiltzberg doesn't deserve a good rank, but it bothers me that the champion earned less points this tournament than third place. But maybe that's just me.

Well, you gotta consider group stage record and series records. Sure, a team may've gotten third, but if they swept all the series they won and had an amazing group stage, then really they should be considered more dominant than the team that barely scraped by.

Not that that's the case here but still.

[Frenline Delpha]

Well, you did get fourth place. Speaking of which, I think it's worth re-examining how the rankings are calculated. Not that Schiltzberg doesn't deserve a good rank, but it bothers me that the champion earned less points this tournament than third place. But maybe that's just me.

Well, you gotta consider group stage record and series records. Sure, a team may've gotten third, but if they swept all the series they won and had an amazing group stage, then really they should be considered more dominant than the team that barely scraped by.

Not that that's the case here but still.

That's fair, and we should have the equation factor in group stage, but it shouldn't be the biggest factor. A team that courses through the group stage but gets knocked out in the round of sixteen is not really any better than a scraping team winning. I feel that the playoffs and the group stage should each factor into the equation, but as individual factors combining into each instead of one whole factor as they are now. I hope that explanation makes sense.

[Free Republics]

Well, you gotta consider group stage record and series records. Sure, a team may've gotten third, but if they swept all the series they won and had an amazing group stage, then really they should be considered more dominant than the team that barely scraped by.

Not that that's the case here but still.

That's fair, and we should have the equation factor in group stage, but it shouldn't be the biggest factor. A team that courses through the group stage but gets knocked out in the round of sixteen is not really any better than a scraping team winning. I feel that the playoffs and the group stage should each factor into the equation, but as individual factors combining into each instead of one whole factor as they are now. I hope that explanation makes sense.

Its true that the current ranking formula was designed when the WBC format featured double round robin group stages, with 1 game scorinated per day, so there's probably a good case for changing it. Granted, any change would require a constitutional amendment iirc (Isn't the formula part of the Constitution or am I confusing it with the IBC Constitution that I wrote using the WBC's as a template?) and I'd prefer if I didn't have to go back and retroactively recalculate ranks for 2 or 3 past WBCs.

If the goal is to restore the weight from before, then why not weight playoff games as equal to 2 or 3 group stage games (or maybe 2.5 group stage games)?

[Maklohi Vai]

That's fair, and we should have the equation factor in group stage, but it shouldn't be the biggest factor. A team that courses through the group stage but gets knocked out in the round of sixteen is not really any better than a scraping team winning. I feel that the playoffs and the group stage should each factor into the equation, but as individual factors combining into each instead of one whole factor as they are now. I hope that explanation makes sense.

Its true that the current ranking formula was designed when the WBC format featured double round robin group stages, with 1 game scorinated per day, so there's probably a good case for changing it. Granted, any change would require a constitutional amendment iirc (Isn't the formula part of the Constitution or am I confusing it with the IBC Constitution that I wrote using the WBC's as a template?) and I'd prefer if I didn't have to go back and retroactively recalculate ranks for 2 or 3 past WBCs.

If the goal is to restore the weight from before, then why not weight playoff games as equal to 2 or 3 group stage games (or maybe 2.5 group stage games)?

The formula for rankings is in Article V of the Constitution:

Article V: Formula for World Rankings

Section 1: For each Classic, divide the number of games a team won by the number of games played by the team playing the most games.

Section 2: A team's ranking is the sum of:
Clause a. Four times their Section 1 quotient for the most recently completed Classic;
Clause b. Twice their Section 1 quotient for the next-most-recent completed Classic; and
Clause c. The unmodified Section 1 quotient for the third-most-recent completed Classic.

Section 3: When calculating the rankings, any games won due to forfeit are still treated as bona fide wins.

[Schiltzberg]

Damn went from 22nd spot to 8th spot. Jeez didn't expect that.

Well, you did get fourth place. Speaking of which, I think it's worth re-examining how the rankings are calculated. Not that Schiltzberg doesn't deserve a good rank, but it bothers me that the champion earned less points this tournament than third place. But maybe that's just me.

I see where you are coming from, and I thought the same thing, but it is calculated by wins, and I did have more wins, because I did better in the group stage than Ethane, so that kind of makes sense.

Well, you did get fourth place. Speaking of which, I think it's worth re-examining how the rankings are calculated. Not that Schiltzberg doesn't deserve a good rank, but it bothers me that the champion earned less points this tournament than third place. But maybe that's just me.

Well, you gotta consider group stage record and series records. Sure, a team may've gotten third, but if they swept all the series they won and had an amazing group stage, then really they should be considered more dominant than the team that barely scraped by.

Not that that's the case here but still.

This agrees with my above statement.

Well, you gotta consider group stage record and series records. Sure, a team may've gotten third, but if they swept all the series they won and had an amazing group stage, then really they should be considered more dominant than the team that barely scraped by.

Not that that's the case here but still.

That's fair, and we should have the equation factor in group stage, but it shouldn't be the biggest factor. A team that courses through the group stage but gets knocked out in the round of sixteen is not really any better than a scraping team winning. I feel that the playoffs and the group stage should each factor into the equation, but as individual factors combining into each instead of one whole factor as they are now. I hope that explanation makes sense.

I disagree that this should be changed. If playoff games were weighted as more than the prelim games, this would result in an extreme polarization of the ranks of teams, where the teams that had success would have such a big advantage going into the next season that they would be extremely likely to win it again, and this would be unfair to a lot of the teams. It would lead to a situation like we had in the IBS where Gregoryisgodistan won a couple times in a row, and his rank was up to like 50 points or something like that, when the second highest was like 20 or something, and it made it basically impossible for him to lose, and that led to him winning I think six out of the ten tournaments. Besides, teams that don't make the playoffs are already heavily penalized to begin with. Take this season for example. Maklohi Vai was in the number six spot going into the season and now is in the number 13 spot after not making the playoffs. This is a big enough penalty for not making the playoffs in my opinion. Would it be fair if a team like Maklohi Vai got sent down all the way to a 20-something rank for just one bad season? Also, weighting the playoff games higher than prelim games would heavily cripple new teams, because they would be basically unranked until they made the playoffs the first time, because preliminary games would be weighted at almost nothing, and it would be harder for them to climb up in the ranks. I think that you are a good example of someone who has climbed up in the ranks gradually, FD. You went from a few mediocre seasons to slowly working your way up in the ranks, making it to the semifinals, hosting, eventually winning, and now you are the number five rank. If the wins from your WBC 33 and 34 season had not counted, you would have gone into the WBC 35 season basically unranked, and then likely wouldn't have a high enough rank to make the playoffs, and then wouldn't make it to the semifinals the next year, because you still haven't made the playoffs, and so on.

Its true that the current ranking formula was designed when the WBC format featured double round robin group stages, with 1 game scorinated per day, so there's probably a good case for changing it. Granted, any change would require a constitutional amendment iirc (Isn't the formula part of the Constitution or am I confusing it with the IBC Constitution that I wrote using the WBC's as a template?) and I'd prefer if I didn't have to go back and retroactively recalculate ranks for 2 or 3 past WBCs.

If the goal is to restore the weight from before, then why not weight playoff games as equal to 2 or 3 group stage games (or maybe 2.5 group stage games)?

The formula for rankings is in Article V of the Constitution:

Article V: Formula for World Rankings

Section 1: For each Classic, divide the number of games a team won by the number of games played by the team playing the most games.

Section 2: A team's ranking is the sum of:
Clause a. Four times their Section 1 quotient for the most recently completed Classic;
Clause b. Twice their Section 1 quotient for the next-most-recent completed Classic; and
Clause c. The unmodified Section 1 quotient for the third-most-recent completed Classic.

Section 3: When calculating the rankings, any games won due to forfeit are still treated as bona fide wins.

I stand by this ranking system. I believe that the adjustments suggested by Frenline Delpha and Free Republics would give "good" teams too much of an advantage, and while I realize that the whole point of the ranking system is to give good teams an advantage, I believe that their proposed changes would give them advantages to the point that we would see unfairly polarized ranks and lopsided results such as in the IBS. One thing that I do think would be a good change to the ranking system would be to not count third place game wins in the formula. I realize that this is ironic since I have won the last two third place games in a row, but I think that it would be the most fair, because if you think about it, in the last round of WBC 39, I got more wins than Nova Anglicana, me winning three games and Nova Anglicana only one, but Nova Anglicana had a higher place than I did, so it doesn't make sense that I should get that benefit in my ranking. Regardless, I think that the rankings should remain as they are going into the next season, and if we make any changes to the formula, it would require an amendment, and it also should not be effective until after WBC 40.

[Schiltzberg]

For anyone who ever wondered who the number one ranks were at the beginning of every season, here you go:
WBC:
1. nobody (first tournament)
2. Az-cz
3. Az-cz
4. Az-cz
5. Milchama
6. Milchama
7. Taeshan
8. Zwangzug
9. Qazox
10. Qazox
11. Newmanistan
12. Newmanistan
13. Newmanistan
14. Taeshan
15. Newmanistan
16. Newmanistan
17. Newmanistan
18. Newmanistan
19. Tarrentum
20. Cassadaigua
21. Lycrabon
22. Zwangzug
23. Western Cuba
24. Western Cuba
25. Western Cuba
26. Milchama
27. Zwangzug
28. Milchama
29. The Royal Barangay
30. The Royal Barangay
31. Super-Llamaland
32. Super-Llamaland
33. Jeckland Gregoryisgodistan (Jeckland was ranked #1, but they did not play, so #2 Gregoryisgodistan was treated as #1)
34. Maklohi Vai
35. Gregoryisgodistan
36. Schiltzberg
37. Schiltzberg
38. Schiltzberg
39. Schiltzberg
40. Schiltzberg

[Sandberg]

The WBC Hall of Fame Spreadsheet for voting reference.

Update: Voting has been opened with the following message that has been sent out to all members of the council:

Attention WBC council members,

It is time once again to vote on the council membership for those eligible to be added to the WBC council. The only nation eligible to be voted into the council at this time is The Derpy Democratic Republic of Herp, also known as Scootalove City. Your voting options are:

1. Vote FOR The Derpy Democratic Republic of Herp's admission to the council
2. Vote AGAINST The Derpy Democratic Republic of Herp's admission to the council.
3. Officially abstain

Voting will close on Sunday, April 23, at 5:00 pm Eastern Time.

In addition to council voting, we also have one nation eligible for the Hall of Fame: Darmen. If you would like to access further information to help you with your decision to vote for or against Darmen, here is a link to the official WBC history archive, and here is a link to a link to the WBC Hall of Fame spreadsheet. Your voting options are:

1. Vote FOR Darmen's admission to the Hall of Fame
2. Vote AGAINST Darmen's admission to the Hall of Fame
3. Officially abstain

Voting will close on Sunday, April 23, at 5:00 pm Eastern Time. Please vote in both voting options, and send all responses to this nation. Thank you.

[Schiltzberg]

The results are in!

The vote on The Derpy Democratic Republic of Herp's entry into the WBC council:
FOR: 6
AGAINST: 3
ABSTAIN: 0

The Derpy Democratic Republic of Herp is admitted to the WBC council.
-Anthor-
Anglatia
Drawkland
Ethane
Frenline Delpha
Gregoryisgodistan
Maklohi Vai
Newmanistan
Nova Anglicana
Saintland (aka Free Republics)
Schiltzberg
South Yerfilag (formerly Zyarus)
Super-Llamaland (aka Hicaña)
The Derpy Democratic Republic of Herp
Union of Socialist Alpine Republics (formerly Southern Democratic States)

The vote on Darmen's entry into the Hall of Fame:
FOR: 7
AGAINST: 1
ABSTAIN: 1
Darmen is admitted to the Hall of Fame. Congratulations!

The Hall of Fame looks like this after WBC 39:
Az-cz
Cassadaigua
Darmen
Gregoryisgodistan
Maklohi Vai
Milchama
Newmanistan
Nova Anglicana
Qazox
Saugeais
Schiltzberg
Super-Llamaland
Taeshan
Tocrowkia
Western cuba
Zwangzug

[Ethane]

I am against a change to the ranking because the system we have now is the least flawed.

Changing to a ranking system where the playoff games were worth more than group stage games would make the teams that reach the playoffs dominant in the rankings, and would make it rather more difficult for newcomers to break into the tournament. I understand there is some issues with newcomers having too much chance as well (quack quack) but changing to the other system would make it unfair and too difficult for them.

Maybe looking into a boost in ranking for a win - 2nd place - 3rd place finish might work, but someone would have to look at this in detail for me to be convinced.

It is a little annoying that Schiltzberg does get more ranking points than me this edition, even though he didn't even make the final, but changing to the other proposed system would only make it worse. This is the least flawed system proposed at the moment, and unless someone suggests something viable rankings-wise which would balance giving the winning teams a slight boost (and 2nd and 3rd potentially) with making sure the debutant teams have a fair chance of qualifying and of success (without ducks), I will not support any change to the way we calculate rankings for the WBC.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

I got in to the counsel?

Sweet! Thanks guys!

[Schiltzberg]

I am against a change to the ranking because the system we have now is the least flawed.

Changing to a ranking system where the playoff games were worth more than group stage games would make the teams that reach the playoffs dominant in the rankings, and would make it rather more difficult for newcomers to break into the tournament. I understand there is some issues with newcomers having too much chance as well (quack quack) but changing to the other system would make it unfair and too difficult for them.

Maybe looking into a boost in ranking for a win - 2nd place - 3rd place finish might work, but someone would have to look at this in detail for me to be convinced.

It is a little annoying that Schiltzberg does get more ranking points than me this edition, even though he didn't even make the final, but changing to the other proposed system would only make it worse. This is the least flawed system proposed at the moment, and unless someone suggests something viable rankings-wise which would balance giving the winning teams a slight boost (and 2nd and 3rd potentially) with making sure the debutant teams have a fair chance of qualifying and of success (without ducks), I will not support any change to the way we calculate rankings for the WBC.

I agree with this statement.

I got in to the counsel?

Sweet! Thanks guys!

Congrats!

[-Anthor-]

A tad off topic for the current line of conversation, but the Anthoran domestic baseball league will beginning it's season soon, and if anyone would like to have their players partake, send me some details over TG and I'll include them.

[Schiltzberg]

I just noticed that Sangti/The Royal Barangay came back from having CTE. I sent out a telegram for if they want to get involved in the WBC again.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

So, what do I do as a counsel dude?

Is there votes I can do? Is there a discord to join?

[Schiltzberg]

So, what do I do as a counsel dude?

Is there votes I can do? Is there a discord to join?

The votes are not very frequent. You will be telegrammed by the president (or his puppet more likely) whenever there is something up for vote. All voting is done via telegram to the president/his puppet. Things that we vote on are:

1. Entering people into the council, which we just did. This is done at the end of every season.
2. Entering people into the Hall of Fame, which we also just did. This is also done at the end of every season, if anyone is eligible.
3. Adding amendments to the WBC constitution. This is pretty rare, but we have had a few in recent seasons, mostly related to the HOF.
4. Host voting, which is done at the beginning of every season to decide who the host will be.
5. President voting, which is held every three seasons, determines who the WBC president will be. The next election will be after WBC 40.

I think these are the only things we vote on.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

So, what do I do as a counsel dude?

Is there votes I can do? Is there a discord to join?

The votes are not very frequent. You will be telegrammed by the president (or his puppet more likely) whenever there is something up for vote. All voting is done via telegram to the president/his puppet. Things that we vote on are:

1. Entering people into the council, which we just did. This is done at the end of every season.
2. Entering people into the Hall of Fame, which we also just did. This is also done at the end of every season, if anyone is eligible.
3. Adding amendments to the WBC constitution. This is pretty rare, but we have had a few in recent seasons, mostly related to the HOF.
4. Host voting, which is done at the beginning of every season to decide who the host will be.
5. President voting, which is held every three seasons, determines who the WBC president will be. The next election will be after WBC 40.

I think these are the only things we vote on.

Sounds good.

Thanks for the explanation!

[Schiltzberg]

The votes are not very frequent. You will be telegrammed by the president (or his puppet more likely) whenever there is something up for vote. All voting is done via telegram to the president/his puppet. Things that we vote on are:

1. Entering people into the council, which we just did. This is done at the end of every season.
2. Entering people into the Hall of Fame, which we also just did. This is also done at the end of every season, if anyone is eligible.
3. Adding amendments to the WBC constitution. This is pretty rare, but we have had a few in recent seasons, mostly related to the HOF.
4. Host voting, which is done at the beginning of every season to decide who the host will be.
5. President voting, which is held every three seasons, determines who the WBC president will be. The next election will be after WBC 40.

I think these are the only things we vote on.

Sounds good.

Thanks for the explanation!

No problem!

[Free Republics]

I've been thinking about something lately and figured it was worth bringing it up here:

For a long time, we've scheduled the WBC around the (soccer) World Cup because of the idea that running at the same time as that tournament would reduce activity in the WBC. However, it seems that most of the WBC Council no longer enters that particular tournament, so I think its worth asking whether we should continue to avoid conflict with the World Cup or whether we should schedule WBCs independently of whatever else is happening at the time.

In the past, before the soccer tournaments became as infrequent as they are today, Saug and Maklohi (our first 2 Council presidents) opened signups for the next WBC 6 weeks after the conclusion of the previous one. Now, its debatable whether we should abruptly go back to that, which might be seen by many people as too soon, but I'm not sure if its a good idea either to wait until after the World Cup and the Olympics are over, which could be pretty late in the RL baseball season.

Personally, I feel that 4 to 4.5 cycles per year is what produces the highest level of activity for NS Sports as a whole. The impression I get is that too much time spent away from RPing makes it harder to start again (that's definitely true on my end, as I spend as much time digging up my old RPs to remember what I've written these days as I do writing new material, which is a big reason why my RPs are so infrequent now).

I also think tournaments should be more frequent when their sport is in-season as opposed to when it isn't. It wouldn't be a good idea to gave a WBC in December followed by another in February. I think trying to get WBC 40 in around midseason with WBC 41 signups running around the start of the postseason would be ideal if we're going to speed up the schedule.

I've also given some thought, since Lunia is now home to quite a few WBC powers, about doing a regional baseball tournament but that would need sufficient interest from within our region to justify it (and we also need to be reasonably assured that its not going to end up turning into another IBS).

[Schiltzberg]

I've been thinking about something lately and figured it was worth bringing it up here:

For a long time, we've scheduled the WBC around the (soccer) World Cup because of the idea that running at the same time as that tournament would reduce activity in the WBC. However, it seems that most of the WBC Council no longer enters that particular tournament, so I think its worth asking whether we should continue to avoid conflict with the World Cup or whether we should schedule WBCs independently of whatever else is happening at the time.

In the past, before the soccer tournaments became as infrequent as they are today, Saug and Maklohi (our first 2 Council presidents) opened signups for the next WBC 6 weeks after the conclusion of the previous one. Now, its debatable whether we should abruptly go back to that, which might be seen by many people as too soon, but I'm not sure if its a good idea either to wait until after the World Cup and the Olympics are over, which could be pretty late in the RL baseball season.

Personally, I feel that 4 to 4.5 cycles per year is what produces the highest level of activity for NS Sports as a whole. The impression I get is that too much time spent away from RPing makes it harder to start again (that's definitely true on my end, as I spend as much time digging up my old RPs to remember what I've written these days as I do writing new material, which is a big reason why my RPs are so infrequent now).

I also think tournaments should be more frequent when their sport is in-season as opposed to when it isn't. It wouldn't be a good idea to gave a WBC in December followed by another in February. I think trying to get WBC 40 in around midseason with WBC 41 signups running around the start of the postseason would be ideal if we're going to speed up the schedule.

I've also given some thought, since Lunia is now home to quite a few WBC powers, about doing a regional baseball tournament but that would need sufficient interest from within our region to justify it (and we also need to be reasonably assured that its not going to end up turning into another IBS).

I agree that the waiting period should be lessened, because like you say, most of us aren't in the World Cup. As far as the Lunia thing, I would participate in it if it happens, but I would imagine it would be a lot more laid back than the WBC.