World Cup History

[Mattymo]

Semifinals

United States 12, England 0
W-Slow Joe Doyle (2-0) L-Kieron Mounfield (1-1)

Slow Joe Doyle allowed just seven hits in nine innings and Tris Speaker and Joe Jackson each had three RBI as the United States advanced to the Title Game for the fifth straight time. Every starter had at least one hit, including three for George Stone. Al Shaw had three hits for England who became the first European team ever to advance out of pool play.

Canada 8, Cuba 0
W-Russ Ford (2-0) L-Jose Rivera (1-1)

Russ Ford struck out 12 in nine innings, allowing just three hits, as Canada advanced to the Title Game to defend their 1907 Title. Ford also had two hits and two runs scored, while leadoff man Bill O'Hara had four hits and *Dao-Zi Lee had two RBI. Nig Clarke and *Tom Joly each had two hits for the Canadians.

[Mattymo]

1909 World Cup Title Game

Canada vs. United States

Starting Lineups:

Canada

1. CF Bill O'Hara (26); 2 for 9, 2 R; New York Giants; .267, 37 R, 19 RBI in 1909
2. 2B *Dao-zi Lee (24); 1 for 3; Vancouver (AAA); .182, 1 R in 1909
3. RF Bunk Congalton (34); 3 for 13, 2 RBI, 3 R; St. Louis Browns; .309, 52 RBI, 74 R in 1909
4. C Nig Clarke (26); 5 for 13, 3 RBI, 4 R; Cleveland Indians; .261, 24 RBI, 28 R in 1909
5. 3B Larry McLean (28); 9 for 12, 1 HR, 5 RBI; Pawtucket (AAA); .302, 34 RBI, 35 R in 1909
6. 1B *Tom Joly (29); 5 for 11, 3 RBI, 3 R; Phoenix (AAA); .245, 15 RBI, 5 R in 1909
7. SS *Gaston Belanger (33); 2 for 11, 2 RBI, 1 R; Buffalo (AAA); .173, 2 HR, 32 RBI in 1909
8. LF *Ed Tippett (32); 0 for 3; Rochester (AAA); .243, 1 RBI, 3 R in 1909

SP Win Kellum (33); 1 GS, 1-0, 2 ER, 1 BB, 3 K; Colorado Springs (AAA); 9-8, 3 Svs, 2.69 ERA in 1909

United States

1. 1B Frank Chance (33); 3 for 10, 1 RBI, 2 R; Chicago Cubs; .319, 4 HR, 79 RBI in 1909; 1908 NL MVP
2. LF George Stone (33); 1 for 1, 1 R; New York Highlanders; .311, 3 HR, 43 RBI in 1909; 1908 AL MVP
3. CF Tris Speaker (21); 7 for 13, 3 RBI, 3 R; Boston Red Sox; .334, 2 HR, 79 RBI in 1909;
4. RF Shoeless Joe Jackson (20); 5 for 10, 6 R, 3 RBI; Philadelphia Athletics; .359, 60 RBI, 14 3B in 1909
5. SS Honus Wagner (35); 6 for 8, 3 RBI, 5 R; Pittsburgh Pirates; .301, 1 HR, 75 RBI in 1909; 3-time NL MVP
6. 2B Larry Doyle (23); 4 for 9, 2 RBI, 2 R; New York Highlanders; .252, 1 HR, 41 RBI in 1909
7. 3B Art Devlin (30); DNP; New York Highlanders; .249, 1 HR, 44 RBI in 1909
8. C Ted Easterly (24); 4 for 13, 1 RBI, 2 R; Cleveland Indians; .257, 2 HR, 3 RBI in 1909;

SP Elmer Steele (23); 1 GS, 1-0, 0 ER, 1 BB, 5 K; Boston Red Sox; 18-15, 1.99 ERA in 1909

[Mattymo]

Canada Wins Second World Cup in a Row
Win Kellum Shuts Down Americans Again

When Win Kellum fielded Dick Hoblitzel's grounder and threw to *Tom Joly at first, he just looked at all his teammates and let the feeling just sink in.

"This feels really great, being on the mound when and winning the World Cup," said Kellum, who allowed just three runs on six hits to the might Americans, "to think that I wasn't good enough to be in the Majors but I can shut down this lineup."

The Canadians scored in each of the first three innings, and again in the fifth, then held on in the ninth despite loading the bases.

Bill O'Hara led off the game against Elmer Steele with a single and scored on Bunk Congalton's double. Congalton then scored on an error by Art Devlin. Kellum helped himself in the 2nd, connecting on an RBI single to score *Ed Tippett.

The Americans got on the board in their half of the 2nd with an RBI double by Honus Wagner and an RBI single by Devlin. However, Canada tacked on runs in the 3rd and 5th on a Larry McLean RBI single and a Gaston Belanger RBI fielder's choice.

"To do this twice in a row is just amazing," said Nig Clarke, who was 3 for 4 with 2 runs scored, "we'll definitely have the bragging rights when we arrive at Spring Training."

Down 5-2 in the ninth, the Americans loaded the bases with one out. Larry Doyle then grounded out to second scoring Tris Speaker. However, Hoblitzel then grounded out to the pitcher.

Larry McLean had two hits and an RBI for Canada. Joe Jackson and Wagner each had two hits for the Americans, who got four innings of shutout relief from Roy Patterson to keep them in the game.

Canada 5, United States 3
W-Win Kellum (2-0) L-Elmer Steele (1-1)

[RMc]

I understand that you're trying to create a baseball version of the Soccer World Cup, but having baseball teams playing single games just doesn't work: soccer is played once a week, while baseball is played every day.

I'd have the qualifying rounds at least a double round-robin, probably 4x, with the semifinals a best-of-5 and the championship a best-of-7. Then you'd greatly reduce chances of the Canadians winning at all, let alone twice in a row.

[Mattymo]

Originally Posted by RMc

I understand that you're trying to create a baseball version of the Soccer World Cup, but having baseball teams playing single games just doesn't work: soccer is played once a week, while baseball is played every day.

I'd have the qualifying rounds at least a double round-robin, probably 4x, with the semifinals a best-of-5 and the championship a best-of-7. Then you'd greatly reduce chances of the Canadians winning at all, let alone twice in a row.

The Semifinals and Finals are done EXACTLY the same as the World Baseball Classic. And the only difference in mine is that the Pool Play is round-robin rather than Double-elimination. And it's done that way in the Baseball World Cup, the Olympics and Little League WS. So it must work on some level. Your way is not realistic.

I am not a soccer fan, so I'm not striving to make it more like soccer. I'm RE-creating the Baseball World Cup, which has existed since 1938, and happens to be similar to the soccer World Cup.

[Mattymo]

Current World Standings

1 Canada
2 United States
3 Cuba
4 England
5 Puerto Rico
6 Japan
7 Germany
8 Netherlands
9 Dominican Republic
10 Mexico
11 France
12 Ireland
13 Venezuela
14 Scotland

Notes: Canada takes over the #1 spot for the first time ever, moving the United States down to #2. England, after just one World Cup, moves all the way up to #4. The World Rankings will determine the Pools for 1911's first ever "Stage Play", rather than continental qualifier's.

[RMc]

The Semifinals and Finals are done EXACTLY the same as the World Baseball Classic.

So far, anyway.

And the only difference in mine is that the Pool Play is round-robin rather than Double-elimination. And it's done that way in the Baseball World Cup, the Olympics and Little League WS.

So? They do it that way largely due to the fact the people who run the tournaments are cheap and lazy. You could easily do a double-elimination, best-of-three championship format in any of these tournaments, but the people who run them don't want to be bothered.

Your way is not realistic.

Er, why not? I thought the idea was to crown a "world champion", and you can't do that by playing a tiny handful of games. Baseball is not football, or soccer.

I am not a soccer fan, so I'm not striving to make it more like soccer. I'm RE-creating the Baseball World Cup, which has existed since 1938, and happens to be similar to the soccer World Cup.

The real way to do it, actually, is to have the national teams play a mini-season, perhaps a month or so, over the winter, followed by best-of-seven playoff series...the way real baseball is played. Then you'd get more realistic results. I mean, Canada winning the World Cup twice in a row? Please.

Look, I'm not saying this isn't a good idea. It's just that you have to tweak it a bit so that the best teams win. That's the whole idea, isn't it?

[Mattymo]

Originally Posted by RMc

The Semifinals and Finals are done EXACTLY the same as the World Baseball Classic.

So far, anyway.

And the only difference in mine is that the Pool Play is round-robin rather than Double-elimination. And it's done that way in the Baseball World Cup, the Olympics and Little League WS.

So? They do it that way largely due to the fact the people who run the tournaments are cheap and lazy. You could easily do a double-elimination, best-of-three championship format in any of these tournaments, but the people who run them don't want to be bothered.

Your way is not realistic.

Er, why not? I thought the idea was to crown a "world champion", and you can't do that by playing a tiny handful of games. Baseball is not football, or soccer.

I am not a soccer fan, so I'm not striving to make it more like soccer. I'm RE-creating the Baseball World Cup, which has existed since 1938, and happens to be similar to the soccer World Cup.

The real way to do it, actually, is to have the national teams play a mini-season, perhaps a month or so, over the winter, followed by best-of-seven playoff series...the way real baseball is played. Then you'd get more realistic results. I mean, Canada winning the World Cup twice in a row? Please.

Look, I'm not saying this isn't a good idea. It's just that you have to tweak it a bit so that the best teams win. That's the whole idea, isn't it?

realistic= how it's done in the real world

How you want it done is not how it's done in the real world, therefore it's not realistic

You are never going to get the best players in the world, aka professionals, to play that many games outside of their professional teams. That's how guys get hurt and these teams have waaaaay too much money invested in the players. I would be really upset if Chien Ming Wang or Joba or anyone else was playing a "mini-season" in which he was going to start 3-5 games in additional to playing a full Major League schedule. It would never happen.

You keep saying baseball is not soccer. Exactly! Baseball takes much more of a toll on your body and its just IMPOSSIBLE to play it year-round. Pitchers need rest, they can't start 30 games in the regular season and then go into another international competition that lasts through November and December (or February and March). Plus they are away from their families all season, not one player would want to do that outside of their regualr season. So many players either have surgery after the season or are injured but playing through it.

If you disagree, fine, but it's my dynasty not yours. Do your own with your own ideas. But the respectful, mature thing to do would have been to either PM me, stay quiet, or say "hey mattymo, did you ever think about doing it differently", not tell me it doesn't work.

But really, in how many leagues does the true "best team" win? Some would still argue the Angels and Cubs were the best teams in their individual leagues and they DO HAVE a best-of series. How often have Wild-Card teams won the world series? Super bowl? How often does a non-#1 seed win the NCAA tournament? What seed was the College baseball champion? If the best team on paper won every championship there would be no point in watching.

Realistic results=the impossible happening. Is Tampa Bay realistic? It must be because it happened. I'd consider it pretty realistic if the 1909 Canadian team beat the United States. The U.S. has a bunch of stars who really don't give a hoot because they aren't getting paid and they just finished a full season, and they know that despite whatever happens in the World Cup, they are still the best country with the best players. Then you have Canada, who is the United States' "little brother", playing for pride, wanting to beat the might Americans. Indifference vs. Passion. Sounds kind of like the 2006 World Baseball Classic, no? THAT'S REALISTIC.

[RMc]

But the respectful, mature thing to do would have been to either PM me, stay quiet, or say "hey mattymo, did you ever think about doing it differently", not tell me it doesn't work.

Gee, excuse me for not being "respectful" and/or "mature" about your little dynasty. And relax. I never said "it doesn't work," I merely pointed out that when you have Canadians beating Americans in baseball two years in a row, there's probably something wrong with your set-up. But, no, you had to throw a fit. Fine.

I'd consider it pretty realistic if the 1909 Canadian team beat the United States. The U.S. has a bunch of stars who really don't give a hoot because they aren't getting paid and they just finished a full season, and they know that despite whatever happens in the World Cup, they are still the best country with the best players. Then you have Canada, who is the United States' "little brother", playing for pride, wanting to beat the mighty Americans.

I didn't realize there was "passion/laziness" function in the game. Would you be so kind as to point it out?

You can do your game any way you want, of course. But because you're ignoring one of the inherent limitations of baseball -- you need more than a single game to determine who's really best -- your World Cup setup doesn't accomplish what it sets out to accomplish: crown a true champion.

[Mattymo]

Originally Posted by RMc

You can do your game any way you want, of course. But because you're ignoring one of the inherent limitations of baseball -- you need more than a single game to determine who's really best -- your World Cup setup doesn't accomplish what it sets out to accomplish: crown a true champion.

So then evidentally you are the only one who has realized that baseball needs to be done this way...the IBF, Little League, JUCO, NAIA and every state high school organization in the United States, not to mention Japan, none of them have more than a single game to determine the champion.

Were the 2004 Boston Red Sox the best team? I don't see how, because they didn't even win the AL East that season. So over the course of a 7-game series vs. the Yankees, they were the better team. But over 162 they weren't. They didn't even win the season series that year.

Anyone who has played sports knows that whoever wins was the best team on the field that day, and that's all that really matters.

You've yet to argue the points I made in my last post...because you don't have an argument.
And you did say it doesn't work.

Quote: "but having baseball teams playing single games just doesn't work"

Go find a single international baseball competition that has a completely different setup than I do. Until then, I'm trying to re-create the Baseball World Cup that is used IN REAL LIFE. So it's completely realistic.

And as for my "passion/laziness" factor; if you are going to play OOTP, you HAVE to use some sort of imagination or else the game just doesn't work. So you make up storylines in your head, your create images and you go with it.

Go make your own. If there's something wrong with MY setup, then there's something wrong with every baseball organization's setup outside of the MLB because that's what I'm striving to re-create. But even then, why don't they justt crown the team with the best record after 162 games the Champion?

And if you had it your way, the U.S. would beat Canada in every single World Cup Title game until modern baseball, which then the U.S. would beat the Dominican Republic in every Title game. That's real interesting. The improbable and unexpected is what makes sports great, no?

If I had run a sim of the 2008 season way back in March and said that the Tampa Bay Rays made the World Series, what would your reaction have been? That there's something wrong with the game or the setup, and that it's not realistic.

[Piggy Lid]

I know you're not trying to put together a 100% historically accurate thing but it's interesting to put out the strengths of some of the European nations involved here.

France - baseball wasn't introduced until the twenties. A real-life French team would be 100% French-Americans. The weakest player base by far.

Germany - No serious baseball until after WW2. Again a real-life team would have been 100% German-Americans but at least there are more of them than French.

Holland - The first club in Holland was founded in 1911 so until then again all Dutch-Americans.

Scotland - Unlike England baseball never reached Scotland. Scots-Americans with a handful of a players playing in England.

Ireland - Same as Scotland except they would a load of Irish-Americans to pick from.

England - You've started right in the middle of the "golden age" of English baseball. From the late 19th century until WW1 they was a small (semi-) professional league in England even occasionally importing a few American pros.
Add in a few English born Major-leaguers and England would expect to be as dominant over the rest of the Europeans (except maybe Ireland) as the US would be over the rest of the world.

If you wanted to add some more European nations then Wales (where baseball was played to an amateur standard) and Norway/Italy/Russia (emigration to the USA) would probably be stronger than at least France and Holland at that time.

Just a suggestion.

[Mattymo]

Originally Posted by Piggy Lid

I know you're not trying to put together a 100% historically accurate thing but it's interesting to put out the strengths of some of the European nations involved here.

France - baseball wasn't introduced until the twenties. A real-life French team would be 100% French-Americans. The weakest player base by far.

Germany - No serious baseball until after WW2. Again a real-life team would have been 100% German-Americans but at least there are more of them than French.

Holland - The first club in Holland was founded in 1911 so until then again all Dutch-Americans.

Scotland - Unlike England baseball never reached Scotland. Scots-Americans with a handful of a players playing in England.

Ireland - Same as Scotland except they would a load of Irish-Americans to pick from.

England - You've started right in the middle of the "golden age" of English baseball. From the late 19th century until WW1 they was a small (semi-) professional league in England even occasionally importing a few American pros.
Add in a few English born Major-leaguers and England would expect to be as dominant over the rest of the Europeans (except maybe Ireland) as the US would be over the rest of the world.

If you wanted to add some more European nations then Wales (where baseball was played to an amateur standard) and Norway/Italy/Russia (emigration to the USA) would probably be stronger than at least France and Holland at that time.

Just a suggestion.

yeah really I just went off the OOTP nations list...whoever had the most players "created" got an amateur team. Like I said in my first post, I really didn't aim to be historically accurate b/c it's only a side-bar to my universe, not what it's based on. I am working on a dynasty that will be historically accurate and will be more traditional, about one player rather than a world or league.