The DU Lounge
Related: Culture Forums, Support ForumsSomething to ponder, Why is the World Series called the World Series when no other countries in the World, except for
one team in Canada, involved????

walkingman
(9,576 posts)But if you want to see the best players in the world at every position competing for the highest prize in baseball, tune in to the World Series this year and watch the Houston Astros and the Los Angeles Dodgers go head-to-head (My prediction). ☮
It doesnt get better than that.
debm55
(48,514 posts)
Oeditpus Rex
(42,108 posts)we arrogantly assumed the U.S. was the only country in which baseball was played. As a professional sport, we were no doubt correct, but also unaware it'd been played recreationally in Japan since the 1880s.
But, hell, it wasn't even invented here, but somewhere in England -- possibly the West Midlands or Wales. (The Welsh still play their own style that's about 250 years old.)
We continue to call it the "World Series" knowing it's played professionally in other countries and as a club sport around the world just as a matter of tradition, I suppose.
debm55
(48,514 posts)Rex,
Oeditpus Rex
(42,108 posts)that's what baseball's World Cup is for. The problem in that, though, is an MLB player from, say, he Dominican Republic cn choose to play for the DR team.
So, it's more like the Olympic Games than MLB versus everyone else.
I honestly believe the MLB powers that be are afraid of Japan or Taiwan or somebody beating an MLB all-star team (or our most recent "world" champion) in a traditional world series, so they don't want it played that way.
debm55
(48,514 posts)
AllaN01Bear
(26,518 posts)Oeditpus Rex
(42,108 posts)titled A Pretty Little Pocket-Book. It had a children's game for each letter of the alphabet, and noted that 'B' was for "base ball." The accompanying poem read:
Away flies the boy
Onto the next post
And then home with joy.
On the facing page was a woodcut illustration of a kid rounding the first post (wooden posts three feet high or so were used instead of the bags that were later familiar).
debm55
(48,514 posts)
debm55
(48,514 posts)
LudwigPastorius
(12,971 posts)there are nothing but human contestants.
debm55
(48,514 posts)
Response to LudwigPastorius (Reply #5)
AllaN01Bear This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to LudwigPastorius (Reply #5)
AllaN01Bear This message was self-deleted by its author.
Response to debm55 (Original post)
eppur_se_muova This message was self-deleted by its author.
eppur_se_muova
(39,454 posts)One baseball myth that just won't die is that the "World Series" was named for the New York World newspaper, which supposedly sponsored the earliest contests. It didn't, and it wasn't.
In fact, the postseason series between the AL and NL champs was originally known as the "Championship of the World" or "World's Championship Series." That was shortened through usage to "World's Series" and finally to "World Series."
This usage can be traced through the annual baseball guides. Spalding's Base Ball Guide for 1887 reported the results of the 1886 postseason series between Chicago, champions of the National League, and St. Louis, champions of the American Association, under the heading "The World's Championship." As the editor noted, the two leagues "both entitle their championship contests each season as those for the base ball championship of the United States," so a more grandiose name was required to describe the postseason showdown between the two "champions of the United States."
But the Spalding Guide -- which, after all, was published by one of the world's largest sporting goods companies, with a vested interest in bringing baseball to other lands -- had grander ambitions. By 1890, the Spalding Guide was explaining that "[t]he base ball championship of the United States necessarily includes that of the entire world, though the time will come when Australia will step in as a rival, and after that country will come Great Britain; but all that is for the future."
This didn't happen, but the name "World's Championship Series" stuck. Reporting on the first modern postseason series, the Red Sox-Pirates battle of 1903, the 1904 Reach Guide called it the "World's Championship Series." By 1912, Reach's headline spoke of the "World's Series," while editor Francis Richter's text still referred to the "World's Championship Series." The Reach Guide switched from "World's Series" to "World Series" in 1931, retaining the modern usage through its merger with the Spalding Guide and through its final issue in 1941. The separately-edited Spalding Guide used "World's Series" through 1916, switching to "World Series" in the 1917 edition.
The Spalding-Reach Guide was replaced as Major League Baseball's semi-official annual by the Sporting News Guide, first published in 1942. The Sporting News Guide used "World's Series" from 1942 through 1963, changing to "World Series" in the 1964 edition.
Moreover, the New York World never claimed any connection with postseason baseball. The World was a tabloid much given to flamboyant self-promotion. If it had been involved in any way with sponsoring a championship series, the fact would have been emblazoned across its sports pages for months. I reviewed every issue of the World for the months leading up to the 1903 and 1905 World's Championship Series -- there's not a word suggesting any link between the paper and the series.
http://roadsidephotos.sabr.org/baseball/name.htm
SABR is the Society for American Baseball Research
debm55
(48,514 posts)
malthaussen
(18,178 posts)It wasn't always called that, but hyperbole comes to us all.
-- Mal
debm55
(48,514 posts)