Talk:2015 WBSC Premier12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

CAN clinched[edit]

As of the time of this writing, going into Friday's off day, Canada has clinched a QF berth. Canada is already 3-0 and so can do no worse than 3-2. This means that if at least 2 teams can do no better than 2-3, Canada has clinched. Italy is 0-3 and so can do no better than 2-3, so there's 1 of the 2 that are needed. In addition, the loser of the Chinese Taipei/Puerto Rico game can do no better than 2-3. This indicates that Canada has clinched a QF berth. The situation in Group B is not the same. With Japan already having played Dominican Republic, it is still possible for Dominican Republic to lose all 5 of its games and to have the other 5 teams finish in a 5-way tie for 1st at 3-2, at which point it would come down to TQB, which is based on runs scored and allowed and cannot be determined in advance. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:56, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

However, Japan can clinch as early as the first game on Saturday, if Dominican Republic defeats Venezuela. Japan can do no worse than 3-2, just like Canada, and just like Canada, they clinch as soon as 2 teams in the group can do no better than 2-3. That is already true of Dominican Republic, and if DR defeats Venezuela, it will also be true of Venezuela, clinching a QF berth for Japan. MrArticleOne (talk) 03:58, 13 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Group B[edit]

USA and VEN have both clinched QF berths. In the event of a 3-way tie for 3rd place, the top 2 teams advance to the Quarterfinals. The WBSC tiebreakers are that in the event of a 3-way tie, the first tiebreaker is head to head. The 3 teams are 1-1 against each other, so it would proceed to the 2nd tiebreaker. The 2nd tiebreaker is head-to-head "Team Quality Balance," which is average runs per inning scored minus average runs per inning allowed. We already know what those figures will be: against Venezuela and Mexico, USA scored 15 runs in 17 innings (.882 per inning) and allowed 7 runs in 17 innings (.411 per inning), for a TQB of .471. Venezuela scored 11 runs in 18 innings (.611 per inning) and allowed 11 runs in 18 innings (.611 per inning), for a TQB of .000. Mexico scored 6 runs in 17 innings (.353 runs per inning) and allowed 14 runs in 17 innings (.824 runs per inning) for a TQB of -.471. That eliminates Mexico in the event of a 3-way tie and allows USA and Venezuela to both advance -- although in that event, Venezuela would end up as the 3rd seed, because Mexico having been eliminated, Venezuela then wins the head-to-head 2-way tiebreaker with the United States. MrArticleOne (talk) 19:27, 14 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I think you’re correct that, if the USA and Venezuela lose later, Mexico will be eliminated as a result of the three‑way tiebreak. However, as I see it, if the USA beat South Korea and Venezuela lose to Japan, then the tiebreak will be just Mexico and Venezuela; and in that case Venezuela would be eliminated due to having lost to Mexico. So I don’t think Mexico are eliminated yet. Am I wrong? —MTC (talk) 07:57, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're wrong. There was an identical situation at this year's Pan-American Games. There was a 3-way tie, although that time it was a 3-way tie for 2nd rather than a 3-way tie for 3rd, but the same principles apply. In the 3-way tie, the 3 teams went 1-1 head to head. At that point, the Team Quality Balance for the 3 teams was calculated, and the worst team was eliminated, then head-to-head was used to break the tie between the remaining teams. Since Mexico definitely has the worst head-to-head TQB between the 3 teams, they are eliminated even if it gets to that step, meaning VEN and USA have definitely advanced before any games on 11/15. MrArticleOne (talk) 13:32, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, I didn't read your question closely. Yes, you're right, my apologies. Venezuela DOES lose a 2-way tiebreaker. I'm in the United States and have been thinking mostly about USA's concerns, not Venezuela's. Very sorry. MrArticleOne (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking you were suggesting that in a 3-way tiebreaker, the best team would advance first, which is the normal method, but for whatever reason they don't do that in baseball. That was the confusion at the PAG this summer. MrArticleOne (talk) 13:43, 15 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy part[edit]

the controversy part of the article needs to be fixed or removed, it has too many errors and it is hard to read, it is obvious that whoever wrote it, did so on google translate straight from Korean. please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:586:4A01:257D:1DEF:267B:10D4:89C9 (talk) 02:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am the one who wrote the part, if you ask. And no, I didn't use Google Translate to bring in the information. If there is a grammatical mistake though, I'll take a look.
ⓈⓊⓅⓎ ⋮ 19:45, 7 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 37 external links on 2015 WBSC Premier12. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 11:36, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Final standings[edit]

Is there any source for the Final Standings, it seems that it is a self-invented table by Wikipeida-authors. The use of head-to-head in the final standings, which is complete nonsense, suggests original research.--Anaxagoras13 (talk) 19:46, 18 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2015_WBSC_Premier12&oldid=1212602104"