Contents

Talk:2010 World Series

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2010 World Series article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This page is not a forum for general discussion about 2010 World Series. Any such comments may be removedorrefactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about 2010 World Series at the Reference desk.

A news item involving 2010 World Series was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 2 November 2010.

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Baseball High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. California: San Francisco Bay Area Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. stateofCalifornia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by San Francisco Bay Area task force (assessed as High-importance). Dallas-Fort Worth (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Dallas-Fort Worth, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Dallas-Fort WorthWikipedia:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthTemplate:WikiProject Dallas-Fort WorthDallas-Fort Worth articles United States: Texas Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Texas (assessed as Low-importance).

Should the color logo of a scanned patch remain or should the black and white logo remain? This is the logo that was replaced. –BuickCenturyDriver 11:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it would make much more sense to use the first pitch times for the "start times" in the article as opposed to the start times of FOX' TV coverage. There's a discrepancy of up to twenty-seven minutes between the two times, and other articles about baseball use the first pitch times. Consequently, I will change this page to reflect first pitch times like the other articles, but I'm still open for discussion. Nicklegends (talk) 19:33, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It had been the way you suggest, and it should be. I don't know who changed it, but that edit must've gotten lost in the sea of edits over the last day or so. Times should reflect first pitch, not network pregame shows. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:36, 24 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the time of 7:57pm coming from? I have never heard that as an official time anywhere. I had changed it to show what mlb.com stated. Not sure if that is the broadcast start or first pitch but it is the only official time I could find. I think it should show when the pre game starts as that really is part of the game although I'm not to picky on that either way. --98.234.74.77 (talk) 04:53, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See this page from the official MLB website: [1] Nicklegends (talk) 15:46, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no mention of where the World Series is to be held... that's the info I came here looking for. Perhaps it's obvious to others, but I am clueless. Can someone add it (ideally, with an explanation of how it's determined)? Strom (talk) 02:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realize it's listed under 'Matchups', but there is no explanation or mention in the actual article. I'm not the sports editor, but just a thought. Strom (talk) 02:26, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is also listed in the main body of the article, where it says that SF will have home field advantage because the NL won the All Star Game. Under the current rules, Home field advantage goes to the league which wins the All Star game. Thus this year Games 1, 2, (and 6 and 7 if necessary) will be played in SF, while Games 3, 4 (and 5 if necessary) will be played in Arlington. Franklin Moore (talk) 04:14, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's also listed under "Summary" where it says, for example "San Francisco @ Texas," as well as a column where it says, "Location," and under said column is says "Rangers Ballpark in Arlington." I think that's pretty clear... Kochamanita (talk) 02:08, 31 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard people say that because the World Series is between Texas and San Francisco the national TV ratings would suck. Some commentator even said that anyone east of the Mississippi River would not be watching. You could say the same thing if it was the Yankees and Phillies again. I would think TV ratings would be ever worse. No one WEST of the Mississippi River would be watching the series I sure wouldn't be. It has been my observation that everyone outside of New York HATES the Yankees. The World Series will always have the best ratings in the home states of the teams in it and pretty bad everywhere else. --98.234.74.77 (talk) 15:31, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More of the American population lives in the East half. 12.196.0.50 (talk) 01:04, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The TV ratings are going to hurt in this World Series, because Fox has been shut out of the New York City market because their affiliate, WNYW is blacked out in Cablevision homes due to the dispute between Cablevision and News Corporation, Cablevision's parent company. In Philadelphia market homes were Cablevision is the subscriber, WTXF has also been blacked out due to the dispute. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 01:29, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cablevision isn't the only provider in New York City. The ratings will be what they will be; we shouldn't report on the speculation. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:45, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason game 3 had such a low viewership compared to the four other games? --86.161.73.164 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:18, 3 November 2010 (UTC).[reply]

It's likely because of the earlier start time, though there are probably other factors that contributed. Nicklegends (talk) 17:53, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he was a member of the Giants and Rangers this season, so will get a ring regardless. I've removed it from the page because I think it's trivial. Chris Ray gets a ring either way too, but the media isn't writing about him. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:44, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe I'm missing something but why would Bengie Molina get a ring if the Giants won? Does he really get a ring just because he was on the team during the season even if he didn't contribute to the team getting to the World Series? --Jimv1983 (talk) 04:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Winning teams usually hand out rings to all players and personnel who helped out during the season, even if it was very indirectly (e.g. the equipment manager), or they are no longer with the team. — Jedzz (talk) 05:04, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I beleive the main focus was on Molina because he is an everyday player that greatly affected the shape of the Giants pitching staff. He molded many of the pitchers that are bringing the Giants to a dominant state. Ray, not to stomp on what he has done, is merely a reliever. Relievers are still hard for some to even accept as being a part of the game. Only a few are even in the Hall of Fame as their success is rarely seen in stats and something hard for the average viewer, as the World Series sees a lot of, to understand. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbfolsom122 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody jumped the gun a bit in the info box, they show Giants as having already won three games. It may not make any difference soon, but could be something to look out for in the future. Kid Bugs (talk) 03:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The article is currently littered with instances of yellow sports journalism prose. I've attempted to remove some. I remind editors that this is an encyclopedia, not a daily tabloid for colorfully recapping the game. Madcoverboy (talk) 15:16, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! I have been trying to clean up the game recaps in the other 2010 postseason series articles as well. Would you mind taking a look if you have some time? —KuyaBriBri^Talk 16:14, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How should the full quote from Duane Kuiper be formatted? All the words are present, but it's difficult to tell from listening to the call how Kuiper was intending to form his sentences. How should we format it in this article (placement of ellipses, dashes, commas, etc.)? I will also point out that MLB.com abbreviated what Kuiper actually said. He said the line "The Giants, for the first time in fifty-two years" during the live broadcast, but this was confusingly omitted from the online highlights. Nicklegends (talk) 18:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include information about how this world series was affected by the Great Recession? It was one of the first series after the start of the time period. Oops, my bad... according to Wikipedia the Great Recession is already over.

I think you mean according to the associated press the Great Recession is over, which given than there is growth in also every major country currently seems a reasonable description. --86.161.73.164 (talk) 19:25, 3 November 2010 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.102.188.95 (talk) [reply]

I think the description of game 2 should mention that Cains 7 2/3 scoreless innings brought cain to 21.1 innings without giving up a run in the playoffs. Its the fourth most innings without giving up an earned run in playoff history. Many announcers and media members made a big deal out of it and Cains hat was sent to the hall of fame. You can read about it here http://www.sportscollectorsdaily.com/renterias-bat-lincecums-jersey-to-hall-of-fame/

Added to the San_Francisco_Giants#2010_World_Series_Champions article:

At the beginning of the 2010 Major League Baseball season only one (Jim Caple of ESPN.com) of literally dozens of baseball writers and pundits picked the Giants to win the World Series with most not expecting the Giants to even make the playoffs.^[1][2][3]

References

Something of the same should be added to this article (inexplicably locked). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.231.137.92 (talk) 05:58, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's locked because of persistant vandalism. As for adding this, I don't know. I don't think the opinions of the pundits and so-called "experts" is so important. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am curious why there is not a mention of the home run by Renteria in game 5 being a called shot. This can prove to be a pretty historic homerun given he did tell a teammate in the dugout he was going to hit one and in the end if ended up being the decisive factor in the game. Unlike Ruth's historic called shot, there is no disputing this home run was called. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cbfolsom122 (talk • contribs) 23:12, 13 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After watching game 7, I think people will want to compare 2012 Giants to 2010. From the article 2010 reminds me of another fast victory against the AL. I'd say the national pundits overlooked SF in both years. The NL West gets similar media treatment, but seeing what SF did ant what the Dodgers spent, it probably was a strong division this year too. -[Bearpigman 174.51.81.228 (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)][reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 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/20110629054908/http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-worldseries&print=1tohttps://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-worldseries&print=1

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to trueorfailed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 17:00, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 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/20110203072013/http://fangsbites.com/2010/10/the-world-series-is-truly-global-with-an-international-audience/tohttp://fangsbites.com/2010/10/the-world-series-is-truly-global-with-an-international-audience/

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) 01:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 2010 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/20110715120244/http://www.profootballweekly.com/2010/11/01/steelers-saints-tops-world-series-in-ratingstohttp://www.profootballweekly.com/2010/11/01/steelers-saints-tops-world-series-in-ratings

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) 03:10, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]