Talk:2014 World Series

Verify logo

The World Series logo is found in MLB's 2014 Media Guides. One can be found here. The 2014 World Series logo is on Page 78. WikiBaseballFan (talk) 16:30, 13 July 2014 (UTC)

kc vs sf

the royals had the best post season record, won more games during the regular season and have home-field advantage. that in itself is not a reason to list them first but the "background" section needed a brief entry for kc just like the giants had. there is no reason to continue deleting this info without legitimate reasons/explanations. Thanks! 71.87.47.222 (talk) 04:17, 17 October 2014 (UTC)

Mention of "three game series" in lead?

Why is this sentence in the lead?

• "The Royals swept a three game series with the Giants in Kansas City from August 8–10, winning 4–2, 5–0, and 7–4."

Is it even mentioned in the body of the article, and what relevance does it have in the lead at all, even if it is in the body? -- Brangifer (talk) 04:48, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

Presumably that's the only other time the two met in the season? –HTD 12:46, 30 October 2014 (UTC)

"Criticism" section

Having just read the section, it is brief and I don't have much problem with it. However, the problem I do have is that it's not balanced. We have criticism from ESPN.com and Olbermann, but no rebuttals. It says in regards to the ESPN.com piece that "multiple editors responded." Perhaps we should include something from those responses? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:17, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

It's not good content. This past Series was being touted as one of the best, with the drama not atypical of a 7-game Series. The "criticism" section has at least three problems: (1) Other Series articles don't have a "criticism" section, so it's undue weight and it sounds like a sour-grapes POV-push. (2) The actual "worst" World Series was probably 1945, but anything prior to about 2010 is ancient history to ESPN types; nor does the 1945 Series have a "criticism" section, although I could find you a good quote from a contemporary reporter which supports that. (3) It's not even a criticism of the Series itself, but rather of the method used to produce the Series contenders. That's not the fault of either the Series or of the teams within it. It might belong somewhere, but it doesn't belong in this article. Hence, I intend to delete it. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:32, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

The mention is fairly short, I don't see it as a weight issue. But, I agree that it's more related to the change in team selection methodology in general and not really about this specific game. I can see a mention somewhere on Wikipedia, just not sure where - the obvious candidate of World Series doesn't really address the methodology and it doesn't make sense to add the criticism unless the methodology is also added. Even if added someplace, the criticism needs to be rewritten to clarify that it's a criticism of the change in methodology implemented, and also to clarify the wording of the rebuttal to the criticism to clearly spell it out, not just that "multiple editors responded." --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The thing is that ever since the playoff system began in 1969, many World Series have been said to not have the "right" team or teams in there. The place to put such criticism would be in an article about the MLB post-season. And not just about 2014, but about many Series since 1969 in which a team with better "numbers" lost in the LCS, LDS, etc. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:57, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

The criticism section enhances the page because it captures the environment surrounding the event. Whether you like it or not, many commentators did, in truth, question the quality of the teams involved, and their published sentiments shaped the World Series' context (and possibly the record-low ratings, though admittedly this idea is too conjectural). I don't see how this criticism doesn't fit appropriately into a section dubbed "Background." Your point about "Other Series articles" (such as the 1945 World Series page) is invalid under WP:WPNOTRS, which says that Wikipedia articles (or Wikipedia mirrors) are not reliable sources for any purpose. Whether there are "Criticism" sections on other World Series pages or not is simply irrelevant here. As for your other argument that this section criticizes the playoff-format more than the two teams, that claim centers solely on Olberman's criticism as worded here ("ESPN's Keith Olbermann criticized MLB's expanded playoff rounds"). The sentence preceding Olberman's criticism falls squarely on the two teams, using objective statistics (average W/L record, easy schedule, runs-scored vs runs allowed ratio). This sentence is also neutral because of the "to which multiple editors responded" phrase. If anyone wants to edit and say more about what those critics said, then feel free; just remain fair and do not drown ESPN.com's article. Redban (talk) 07:34, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

The point is that there is nothing special about this Series. From the time the modern World Series began over a century, there have been frequent arguments about how the "wrong" teams got to and/or won the Series. This so-called "criticism" section doesn't belong. It's undue weight. And as to using Wikipedia articles as sources, I don't know what you're getting at. Chicago sportswriter Warren Brown, who covered the 1945 Series, was asked which team was favored, and he said "I don't think either one of them can win it!" In the off-season he wrote his book on the history of the Cubs, and the chapter about the 1945 post-season he titled "World's Worst Series". Why? Because so many of its participants were 4-F's. The bottom line is that you're basically criticizing the teams for even being there. Sports is not about who "should be" winning, it's about who is winning. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Nothing special?? For the first time in the 113 years of World Series' history, we saw two teams that won less than 90 games. If something happens for the first time in 113 years, then I call that something special. You can't tell me that you don't understand where Espn and Olberman's criticism comes from. T&Tdad (talk) 07:33, 21 December 2014 (UTC) (Block evading sock of Redban)

Having come across this article and reading past World Series articles with no criticism this hardly seems worthy of being at the top of the page for the World Series. Who defines star power? The Giants actually had plenty of stars (Posey, Bumgarner, Sandoval) while the Royals may not in a few years people may think differently. It seems like a petty attack and based off the edits and attempts to remove it and the people here I think it should be removed, or at least edited in a more neutral way, possibly in the historical section. There have been teams with less wins and have a worse R/D than either of these teams. If you are going to have a criticism section it hardly makes sense to have it for just one. This is a neutral fan's take. Baseballump1937 (talk) 05:47, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• I'm surprised that more editors haven't offered their thoughts on this issue by now. The arguments above, that "This World Series has a Criticism section while the others do not ... it hardly makes sense to have it for just one", are empty-headed. If someone goes right now and adds a Criticism section to other World Series', then do you suddenly change your mind and allow the Criticism section here? If we want to edit the 2014 World Series, then we need to focus on the 2014 World Series, not on the 1945 World Series (or another Series). There's no rule that all World Series' pages must follow the same template. Just say that the Criticism section bothers you because you like the Giants and/or Royals. I think we should leave it because it provides Background, just as the section is titled. That "multiple editors" responded is enough to establish notability, and as a baseball fan who frequents baseball message boards, I will tell you that this criticism was a major topic. Think of it this way, perhaps: If a movie, album, or book gets bad-reviews by critics, do you omit those reviews on that movie, album, or book's Wikipedia, even if you disagree with the criticism? I say leave the Criticism section. T&Tdad (talk) 06:58, 21 December 2014 (UTC) {Block evading sock of Redban)

I changed the criticism notes a little bit. It is fact based and not relying on who a star is, which wasn't even mentioned in the article on ESPN. I left both articles intact. I still believe it should be deleted.Baseballump1937 (talk) 08:00, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

• I support the deletion of the section, given that it is highly unbalanced. If a reasonable counter-argument can be sourced and presented in the section, then I support inclusion. I noted the section a few weeks ago, and observed it gives the appearance of being placed by someone with a grudge against one of the teams. Jusdafax 09:48, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2014 World Series. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141101200054/http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/30/wednesday-final-ratings-the-goldbergs-modern-family-the-100-nashville-adjusted-down/321842/ to http://tvbythenumbers.zap2it.com/2014/10/30/wednesday-final-ratings-the-goldbergs-modern-family-the-100-nashville-adjusted-down/321842/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:11, 21 June 2017 (UTC)