I believe that's true, but I suspect that the WBC may have been imitating the Caribbean Series, which is a double round-robin format, which itself may have been emulating soccer. (So the soccer influence may be indirect at this point.)

I agree with what you said about tie-breakers. They wind up being a disaster in baseball if you have four teams in single round-robin play.

Say France, England, Denmark, and Sweden are in a pool. The Danes are just awful at baseball, and the French, Swedes, and English are about equal. England beats France 2-1 in 8 1/2 innings because England was the home team. Sweden beats England 2-1 in a full 9 innings because England was the home team. France beats Sweden 2-1 in a walk-off fashion with two outs, 8 5/6 inning. England Beats the Danes 27-0 in the ninth inning; as the visiting team, they scored 18 in the top of the ninth. France beats Denmark 15-0 after 5 innings, they were the visiting team. Sweden beats Denmark 15-0 without batting in the fifth because they were the home team, 4 1/2 innings.

There's no simple way for these teams to know if they did enough to advance in a round-robin. If you're normalizing, you're involving formulas too complex to figure out quickly, and your system isn't transparent enough for the participants.

In this morning's Japan-Korea game, the announcers mentioned how this game was important for seeding, because the loser would probably have to play Cuba in the first game of the next round. (Cuba probably being one of the best teams in the tournament.) But, Cuba will play their seeding-deciding game after Japan-Korea, so they will know who they will play if they win (Japan) and if they lose (Korea). What's to keep them from deciding that Japan is a tougher draw and deciding to tank?

Also, how important is seeding if the second round is also double-elimination? You only need to win two games. Now, seeding in the second round will be more important, as it then goes to single-elimination.

I think Ubes and I agree on this. Format should be:
Rounds 1 and 2: Five games, team that wins their first two games advances as pool winner, and the team that wins two out of the losers' bracket advances as the pool runner-up. This way, each game will have a purpose... winning furthers a team to advancement.
Round 3: Full four-team double-elim tournament, with six or seven games.

I think that if anyone gets seriously injured in a game 6 in this tourney, that what I have proposed above will be the 2013 format.

Also, if you're going to give the advancing teams an extra game, they should give the non-advancing team a consolation game. Or maybe do that in lieu of the current game 6, ensuring each team gets to play 3 games.

I was just watching the beginning of that game. I would normally agree about the baserunners thing, but it was one of those "vintage Silva" outings where he allows some singles but no one's getting great contact off of him and he kept the DP in order. Venezuela could have given DeFelice some more trouble at the beginning of the game if not for some sloppy play, too.

Australia actually set WBC records in their game (most hits; I think they also nailed down most runs, but I'm not sure), but try as I might, I can't put them in the second round.

I wonder what the park factor is for that park in Mexico City. The OF looked gigantic and they're certainly at altitude.

As far as who is going to advance, obviously from Pool A, Japan and S. Korea are advancing. I would assume that Mexico will handle South Africa, so Australia will have to beat either Cuba or Mexico. I think they've got a fighting chance to do that, but wouldn't go so far as to put it over 50% odds.

Canada ought to beat Italy, and Canada vs. Venezuela is a toss-up, though Venezuela made the odd decision to throw Silva and Felix in their first game, so it's not hard to imagine the Canadian line-up putting a ton of runs on the board. I guess I expect the Netherlands to lose their next two games (especially since PR is on their home turf), but who knows. Either way, it's tough to see much offense out of them.

Panama scored no runs in either game before they were eliminated. Is that a first?

The last time around everyone was guaranteed 3 games (round-robin pool play), so it was a different situation. In 2006, Australia was shut out in their first two games, but lost 4-6 in their third (and final) game against the DR. Otherwise no one else was shut out twice in the first round.

I still expect Australia and the Netherlands to be knocked out of this thing before the second round, but at this point they only have to have one good game out of two...much better odds. Australia actually set WBC records in their game (most hits; I think they also nailed down most runs, but I'm not sure), but try as I might, I can't put them in the second round.

Very strange to see Bert running to the mound for a visit. He seems to be having fun there. Well, considering the result of game one, he'd have to be.

Panama scored no runs in either game before they were eliminated. Is that a first?