Talk:Mendoza Line

Initial comments

It would be nice if this article defined the term before the sixth graf.

Agreed -- anon

Removed the following paragraph from the 'External links' section

"The Mendoza line is actually, Hitting below your weight. For instance, Bob Eucker weighed 215 during his career but he dipped below the mendoza line twice in his career, batting .208 fopr a stint in 1971, and again in 1972."

--Anchoress 06:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Uecker

The Uecker business is uncited and smells like original research. 69.214.158.244 00:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Makes no sense

This explanation makes no sense:

"The origin of the term is clouded. Peter Gammons believes that the line was originally named after Eric Salinas, a member of the Roberto Clemente All-Stars and scouted by the Cincinnati Reds while only 14."

How does this explain where the name "Mendoza" came about? Jxyama 00:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

• It doesn't, and the only reference I can find is in "answers.com", which is an echo of this site. I think it should be zapped from this article. Wahkeenah 00:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• That was added by an IP address in early July. I take it to be either vandalism or obscureness, and I deleted it. If Salinas' other surname were Mendoza, it could make sense. However, the general consensus seems to be that the source of this "Line" was Mario Mendoza. I don't know where the Minnie Mendoza stuff came from, but maybe it's got some merit. Wahkeenah 00:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
• There was Minnie Mendoza with the Twins in 1970. However, Mario Mendoza is the name that comes up, so I'm going to switch the order of the two. What a nuisance. Wahkeenah 00:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Capitalisation

Mendoza Line ? Or Mendoza line ? The Curious Origins article uses both - both mostly small l. -- Beardo 23:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• It's a proper name, so it's all init-caps. Wahkeenah 02:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mario Mendoza article & this one should be merged

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was no consensus. -- Groupthink 11:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is all borderline notable in the first place, so merge the two articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piperdown (talk • contribs)

• Oppose. I believe Wikipedia policy is the reason for Mario Mendoza having his own article, but the Mendoza Line is much more well known, and notable, than the player. A quick Google search produces almost twice as many hits for "Mendoza Line" as "Mario Mendoza", and baseball books frequently refer to the Mendoza Line. It's not known to every casual fan, sure, but that isn't the requirement for notability.Alternator 03:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• I endorse this merger proposal (actually I'm the one who added the merge tags to begin with, sorry I forgot to add a comment here). If Mario Mendoza's notability derives from "Mendoza Line", then the direction of the merge tags is backwards, but that doesn't mean two separate articles are necessary. What policy are you thinking of, Alternator? Groupthink 03:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose. Mario Mendoza spent 9 years in the majors and the Mendoza Line is certainly fairly well known, as such neither article should be merged purely on grounds of notability (at this moment in time there are many articles on baseball players with less major league experience than Mendoza). The other reason for merger would be on the grounds of understandability: in my opinion, a complete knowledge of the life and career of Mario Mendoza is not necessary to fully understand and describe the Mendoza Line and vice versa. Merger would actually result in the loss of information as we attempt to consolidate two very different subjects under one title. I think parallels should be drawn here with other examples of concepts obtaining a greater deal of fame than their eponymous creator/exemplar: Jean-Marc Bosman and the Bosman ruling in soocer, or perhaps even George Marshall and the Marshall Plan. Obviously these two examples are far more famous, but the argument is the same: merging would result in the loss of information for very little benefit. Rje 14:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Olbermann

Putting Keith Olbermann into this discussion makes it not funny anymore138.163.0.44 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Heroes

I removed the "Heroes" section which appeared without explanation or citations. It's not relevant to include every player, going back to the 19th century, that performed worse than Mendoza did. White 720 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The real meaning

The Mendoza line initially meant anyone who was not hitting his weight. If a guy was hitting .188 and weighed 200 he was below the Mendoza line.

I seem to recall this was because Mendoza gained weight during the off season and his average fell to below his new weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.56.72 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Minnie Mendoza, no Mario?

"The Mendoza line is actually named after Minnie Mendoza, a career minor leaguer, who finally made it with the Minnesota Twins in 1970 At age 36. Mendoza hit .188 in sixteen games with the Twins that year. I remember seeing the term Mendoza Line first mentioned in The Sporting News in either 1970 or 1971. It mentioned that some hitters could not even get their averages above the Mendoza Line. It then stated that the term was named after the Twins light hitting infielder Minnie Mendoza. Mario did not come along until 1974. It burns me every time I hear an announcer Mention Mario instead of Minnie when referring to the Mendoza Line. Long live Minnie!" http://www.bostonbaseball.com/whitesox/baseball_extras/mendoza.html twfowler (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Show business lingo?

An editor is claiming that the phrase Mendoza line is particularly extant in the movie business, and that an extended exposition of movie theater finances is therefore in order.

I don't see this at all. The only ref for this is a website (billing itself a source for "Box office data, movie stars, idle speculation") where the writer makes the offhand remark "It is the Mendoza Line of box office numbers...". It seems to be just him using the term, and there's nothing like "Theater managers regularly use the term Mendoza line..." or whatever. (And if there was, I question whether the source would be reliable source for that.)

Checking Google I see this usage in reference to political and financial conditions and so forth, and no evidence that's it's peculiar to the movie business. If it is, we'd need a better ref. Herostratus (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

But the ref is to the movie business, and your interpretation of what it says is purely speculative. Besides, the material you're adding is unreffed. If you want to frame it the way you prefer, use those sources you say exist and source that statement. In the meantime, what's there is sourced, please don't change it back again without providiong additional sourcing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)