A commonly unknown fact is that the World Series was named after a newspaper; the NEW YORK WORLD. They sponsored the first few World Series.
Therefore, the naming had nothing to do with considering a team the best in the world, or assuming that no other teams around the world were no good at baseball. It was a corporate name, just like NASCAR's Winston Cup. The name was used for the first few in the early part of the century, and it just stuck.
We wouldn't be having this discussion if the Times had decided to sponsor it instead of the World.
So, I'm fine with it.
However, about the term "World Champions," not so sure about that. Call them "World Series Champions" and that's OK with me.
2007-12-10 08:21:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
1⤋
Fine with the name. There have been world series before those teams in the World Classic even knew how to play. Just look at the diverse ethnicity on most MLB teams and it only makes sense to call it a world series. Dice K left Japan to play for the Sox.
2007-12-10 05:31:25
·
answer #2
·
answered by Billy Dee 7
·
3⤊
0⤋
The term originated at a time when the baseball WORLD consisted of the teams in the U.S. So it was reasonably assumed the winner of the World Series was the best team in the world.
Actually, the winner of the World Series today is STILL the best team in the world. I don't think any team (not all star team, but the best TEAM of a certain country's league) would fair well against the MLB champion in any given year.
.
2007-12-10 05:31:13
·
answer #3
·
answered by Kris 6
·
2⤊
1⤋
Of course it's incorrect to call it the World Series, but that's a little like saying we should change the name of Christmas because Jesus wasn't born on December 25th, or like we should change the name of the Super Bowl because a lot of the time the games aren't that super. You know what? The name is tradition. Calling it something else would ruin it, even if it was more technically accurate. I appreciate the need for sensitivity but we're all adults here. I think we can all agree that the term is technically incorrect and say "Okay, that's what it's called. Now, moving on, who's going to be playing in it this year and will it be a good series?"
2007-12-10 06:05:15
·
answer #4
·
answered by Henry J 2
·
3⤊
0⤋
MLB has the most diverse background of professional sports in the United States. They have players from Asia, Europe, North American, Central America, South America, Australia and so on. They are a very diverse cross section of the world. Hockey tends to have US/Canada and Europe for its majority. Soccer is probably close to MLB (maybe more, I don't actually know the make up of MLS), Football is mostly North America, Basketball is pretty diverse too, but is still mostly guys from the US.
2007-12-10 07:25:51
·
answer #5
·
answered by Chris W 3
·
1⤊
0⤋
The best players in the world play in MLB and every team has a diverse mix of nationalities in the clubhouse, so I think world series and world champions fit just fine.
2007-12-10 08:34:26
·
answer #6
·
answered by DoReidos 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
Probably because USA baseball is the only one in the World that matters.
2007-12-10 06:55:05
·
answer #7
·
answered by inhere 2
·
1⤊
0⤋
Because USA has the only Real league every other leagues are garbage they send there best players here to play so we have the best players in the world
2007-12-10 05:45:40
·
answer #8
·
answered by BRAVESFAN 3
·
3⤊
0⤋
Well MLB does have players from all over the world U.S.A, Canada, Dominican Republic, Venenzuela, Japan, South Korea, Mexico it goes on and on.
2007-12-10 05:37:48
·
answer #9
·
answered by Dodgerblue 5
·
3⤊
0⤋
Well not all the players are from the USA or Canada. So it makes since that since the players are from all over it should be the world seires.
2007-12-10 05:34:34
·
answer #10
·
answered by Mr. Smith 5
·
2⤊
0⤋