Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

WikiProject Baseball
Main project page + talk Special projects talk Resource Library talk Article Improvement Drive talk Requested articles and todo talk  → Articles needing attention talk  → Cleanup listing talk  → Nominations for deletion talk  → Article alerts talk Article assessment (Log) talk  → Featured articles (62) talk  → Featured lists (211) talk  → Good articles (557) talk Outreach talk  → Newsletter talk Portal talk Notability guidelines talk Style advice talk  → Naming conventions talk  → Player style advice talk  → Season article format talk Handling transactions talk Popular pages talk Active editors
Project organization Participants talk Large userbox talk Project userbox talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Major League Baseball Team specific Atlanta Braves talk Boston Red Sox talk Chicago Cubs talk Cincinnati Reds talk Los Angeles Angels talk Los Angeles Dodgers talk Minnesota Twins talk New York Mets talk New York Yankees talk Philadelphia Phillies talk San Diego Padres talk Seattle Mariners talk St. Louis Cardinals talk
General Subprojects Players talk College baseball talk Leagues and teams talk Little League talk Old-time Base Ball talk Negro league baseball talk Hall of Fame talk Umpires talk
Geographical Australia talk Japan talk Korea talk Taiwan talk
view · edit · changes

Player Archives
1 2 3

Duplicate articles

Joe Kelly (pitcher) (created June 10th) and Joe Kelly (baseball) (created June 8th) are the exact same person. This project needs to figure out which one should stay and which one should be the redirect. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:29, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Joe Kelly (baseball) should probably be just re-directed to Joe Kelly. I didn't realize there was other Joe Kelly's when I created it.--Yankees10 00:33, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't it redirect to Joe Kelly (pitcher) until such time as there is another MLB player with that name? (That is, the only baseball player on that dab page is the pitcher.) Mindmatrix 00:39, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Redirect to Joe Kelly (Pitcher).--JOJ ^Hutton 00:41, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

There is also Joe Kelly (1910s outfielder) and Joe Kelly (1920s outfielder).--Yankees10 00:44, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, thus Joe Kelly (baseball) should redirect to the disambiguation page. -Dewelar (talk) 00:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm surprised Joe Kelly (baseball) wasn't already a redirect, considering there were two Joe Kelly's (plus Joe Kelley) before the new Joe Kelly debuted. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I'm surpised also. Probably why I made the mistake.--Yankees10 01:19, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking Joe Kelly (baseball) should be speedy deleted with CSD G6. Who would ever type it in? If they entered Joe Kelly, they would go to the individual Joe Kelly's and not to another dab. Unless we wanted to leave it solely as a placeholder so nobody uses it again.—Bagumba (talk) 01:48, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I grant you that no casual reader will type in "Joe Kelly (baseball)", and I doubt any of us would either, but I think it should serve as a redirect to the dab page. The fact that it wasn't a placeholder allowed this duplication to happen in the first place (although I see the baseball disambiguator article is older than the pitcher disambiguator article). – Muboshgu (talk) 02:00, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: Joe Kelly (baseball) should redirect to Joe Kelly. Since there are now three baseball-related Joe Kellys, the disambiguation is necessary. I agree with Muboshgu in that if "Joe Kelly (baseball)" had been a redirect already (like it should have been) then this entire issue would have never arisen in the first place. I'm going to be bold and redirect it to the disambiguation page. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:12, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I have only one cent but I spend it in pieces (ha'pennies?). It is valuable to be consistent about the use or non-use of "(baseball)" to disambig people, even their disambig pages. Is there a way to check how many biographies and how many disambig pages currently have "(baseball)" titles? --P64 (talk) 15:27, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

... [1] If baseball-related disambiguation pages are reliably claimed by WP:Baseball, there are none that use "(baseball)" in their own titles. I suggest continuing that practice. Any that do exist but have not been claimed should be claimed, and converted to redirects rather than deleted, as argued by Muboshgu. --P64 (talk) 15:35, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Joe Kelly (baseball) was created on June 8 but was not added to Joe Kelly dab. Joe Kelly (pitcher) was created on June 10, and added to Joe Kelly at the same time. It would seem more likely the duplicates were created because the first one was not added to the master dab page, not that we need to create a new rule about creating (IMO unnecessary) redirects for "XXXX (baseball)" articles.—Bagumba (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that there doesn't need to be a rule about creating "XXXX (baseball)" redirects, but if two or more baseball players share the same name then "XXXX (baseball)" should most definitely be a redirect to a disambiguation page. In basketball, there is a redirect established for Bob Duffy (basketball) because two different players by that name are notable. Hence, the (basketball) redirect is appropriate, and I think that the same logic equally carries over to baseball player articles. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Naming conventions for statistical ranking articles

I came across 2 articles that capture essentially the same information: 3,000 strikeout club and List of top 100 Major League Baseball strikeout pitchers. Can someone explain why we have both? "3,000 K's" is just a small subset of the info in "List of 100 K pitchers". Why should we duplicate a ranking for the same statistical category?

Similarly, I'm wondering why some of the statistical ranking articles are named the way they are. We have "List of top 100 Major League Baseball x category players", "List of Major League Baseball leaders in x category", "List of Major League Baseball players with y amount of x category", and "y club", all of which are essentially capturing historical statistical rankings. So why not have them named consistently?

Clubs

• 500 home run club
• 300 save club
• 3,000 strikeout club
• 300 win club
• 3,000 hit club

List of top

• List of top 100 Major League Baseball strikeout pitchers
• List of top 300 Major League Baseball home run hitters
• List of top 100 Major League Baseball hit batsmen leaders
• List of top 100 Major League Baseball leaders in bases on balls allowed
• List of top 100 Major League Baseball Leaders in innings pitched
• List of top 50 Major League Baseball hit by pitch leaders

List of MLB leaders in career stats

• List of Major League Baseball leaders in career stolen bases
• List of Major League Baseball leaders in games finished
• List of Major League Baseball leaders in career ERA
• List of Major League Baseball leaders in career WHIP
• List of Major League Baseball leaders in games started
• List of Major League Baseball leaders in bases on balls

List of players past stat threshold

• List of Major League Baseball players with 1,000 runs
• List of Major League Baseball players with 1,000 runs batted in
• List of Major League Baseball players with a career .330 batting average
• List of Major League Baseball players with a career .400 on-base percentage
• List of Major League Baseball players with a .500 slugging percentage
• List of Major League Baseball players with a .900 on-base plus slugging
• List of Major League Baseball players with 2,000 hits
• List of Major League Baseball players with 400 doubles
• List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples
• List of Major League Baseball players with 4,000 total bases
• List of Major League Baseball players with 2,500 games played
• List of Major League Baseball players with 10,000 at-bats

Wouldn't it make most sense to standardize each article name as "List of Major League Baseball leaders in x stat"? Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 05:30, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I've nominated a number of those articles for deletion personally. I think the clubs are notable as they are and would oppose renaming them. I think the other articles all violate WP:NOTSTATS. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:57, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

The clubs should all meet WP:LISTN. As for the other lists, if they exist, a name like ""List of Major League Baseball leaders in x stat" seems consistent with WP:LISTNAME: "Many lists are not intended to contain every possible member, but this does not need to be explained in the title itself ... the detailed criteria for inclusion should be described in the lead, and a reasonably concise title should be chosen for the list."—Bagumba (talk) 15:25, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

In groups two and three, I would name them all "List ... career leaders ..." in contrast to "List ... single-season leaders ..." for all-time and contrast to "league leaders" for annual season leaders. Bagumba cites LISTNAME on target, however, and one instance must be that "single-season" is unnecessary; "season" is good enough. Anyway, I wouldn't name any leaders lists ambiguously, without "career" or "season" or "league", etc.

Adding a few tidbits I have these suggestions

• Use "List of Major League Baseball term leaders in ..." where term is "career" for all-time career leaders, "season" for all-time single-season leaders, "league" for annual league leaders.

• Don't use "all-time" in list names concerning player achievements.

• For team (or ballclub, club, franchise, etc) achievements use "List of Major League Baseball [no term] leaders in team term ..." where term is "all-time" or "season". Thus "all-time" implies cumulative team/ballclub/etc achievements.

• Use ".300 batting average" rather than "a .300 batting average"; same for any player or team average or percentage.

• Don't use commas in numbers less than 10,000.

Should all existing lists should be renamed for consistency with the agreed naming convention, whatever it may become? I doubt it. --P64 (talk) 16:17, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Please accept my compliments on your proposal for long overdue standardization in the naming of these MLB list articles. I have only one small quibble, and that's with your proposal "Don't use commas in numbers less than 10,000." In American English, it is the standard convention to use a comma delimiter in any number greater than 999; IMO, it also makes them easier to read at a glance. It also consistently formats numbers when they are stacked in columns and tables. Please note that MOS:NUMBERS neither requires nor proscribes the use of comma delimiters in four-digit numbers. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 16:32, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I might also suggest shortening "Major League Baseball" to "MLB". While initials are generally not used due to disambiguation, the long titles with baseball terms makes it clear which MLB is being referred to.—Bagumba (talk) 16:38, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

Might I recommend a different alternative to ballclub/franchise achievements? I think "List of [team] leaders in [term] [stat]" is a better solution. For example, "List of New York Yankees leaders in career home runs" sounds better. Also, I would strongly argue to maintain the phrasing as "single-season" and move the term just before the statistic. Writing "List of Major League Baseball season (or single-season) leaders in home runs" makes me think the list will be about home run champions by year, whereas "List of Major League Baseball leaders in single-season home runs" makes it clearer the the list will be a ranking of the most home runs anyone has ever hit in a single season. If someone is a "single-season leader in home runs", then they led the league in home runs for a particular year. If someone is a "leader in single-season home runs", then they have the most home runs ever hit in one season. The placement of the time period affects the meaning of the phrase. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 17:56, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree about team-season and team-career achievements of players, which I intend to cover at all, and overlooked completely, and don't admire in my capacity as a fan ...

I meant the season and all-time achievements of teams:

- List of M.L.B. leaders in team season winning percentage

- List of M.L.B. leaders in team all-time winning percentage

Now I wonder why we don't say "... leading players in ..." and "... leading teams in ..." --for leadership other than (single season) "league leaders", which is too well established.

Here is one that I overlooked.

• Don't use "leader" in Top list names, "List of top 100 Major League Baseball ..."

Now I wonder whether all of the Top lists can be named simply "Top 100 Major League Baseball team season winning percentages" without "List of".

Offhand I prefer "MLB" but can any project get away with such a thing? Do I vaguely recall regular article, list, or WP:CATegory names where every "NABBP" has been spelled out in compliance? --P64 (talk) 19:21, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

I can see a problem with making "List of top 100" the standard. If we rename the threshold articles (e.g. "List of players with 300 hr"), then some people above that threshold could get squeezed out of the newly-renamed "List of top 100" article. I like the "List of MLB leaders" convention because you can determine what the appropriate threshold for inclusion is. If the article is about hits leaders, we can say the threshold for inclusion is 2,000 hits. If the article is about walks, we can decide to just make it the top 100. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:37, 13 June 2012 (UTC)

John D'Acquisto

I'm seeking out advice on his article.

After D'Acquisto's baseball career was over, he was twice sentenced to prison for financial crimes. There are news sources for this no problem. At the moment the article contains three of them.

The thing is, I just rewrote Mr. D'Acquisto's article. He is a wikipedia editor[2] whose worked on his own article, may also have a second account[3], and he has edited[4] into the article claims that he exonerated of the crimes he was convicted of.

I have access to High Beam Research and have conducted a search of Google news article. There is only one article[5] that makes any mention of D'Acquisto being exonerated. It's a interview from 2011 after D'Acquisto edited his article.

To me, and anyone tell me if you feel I'm wrong, would think if D'Acquisto had eventually been exonerated of his crimes he would gotten media attention at the time it happened. Was I right in editing out Mr. D'Acquisto's claims?(The article was a mess with links all over the place and at one time included a phone number for Mr. D'Acquisto's attorney) Please give me some input on what should be done with the article. I've put the article on my watchlist. It wouldn't surprise me if Mr. D'Acquisto tries editing back in the old material....William 02:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

You missed his third account, which he used back in 2009 when I had a conversation with him about this issue. Crazy to think this is still going on. -Dewelar (talk) 03:13, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Heh..."conversation" is a strong word...I posted to his talk page, and he responded nearly two years later. -Dewelar (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I saw your conversation with Mr. D'Acquisto but missed his third account.

The 2011 news article is dubious to me. Why- Mr. D'Acquisto made many claims about his baseball playing that don't match the facts. He didn't throw 3 complete games in Richmond, didn't allow no runs in 11 games while with Oakland, and a few other tall tales. The reporter was clearly reporting IMHO things Mr. D'Acquisto was saying as fact without doublechecking anything. That makes me think the part about Mr. D'Acquisto being exonerated is also based just on what Mr. D'Acquisto said and not on any other proof....William 11:03, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

If it were up to me, I wouldn't take anything he said at face value, and certainly someone interviewing him has an interest in presenting him in a positive light, so I think leaving any mention of exoneration out of the article is prudent. I guess we really need are court records from the case. The link Mr. D'Acquisto posted in 2010 that claimed to link to such documents is dead now, and I have no idea how to search for such records. Perhaps someone else can help here. -Dewelar (talk) 15:28, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Well, the charges and conviction are well-sourced, so there's no WP:BLP issue there. And a link to Google Docs for his information? That...doesn't look so good. As for his editing his own article, both the conflict of interest noticeboard and, given he's used three accounts, WP:SPI might be applicable... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:39, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Well i have no comment on the issue at hand, but the article could use a rewrite.. that middle paragraph is extremely long and hard to read... could also use some wikilinks. Spanneraol (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

$%#@. I was just working on cleaning this up and had made some major edits, but lost them in an edit conflict. Not worth it to do all that work again. -Dewelar (talk) 20:23, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

That's why anytime I'm ever working on an article that may take a while, I save and save often. That way if there is an edit conflict, I only lose a little bit of work, rather than the whole thing. Also you could hit backspace on your browser and bring up the changes you made, then cut and paste into an updated version of the article.--JOJ ^Hutton 20:29, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, my big problem was that I fumbled getting my text into the clipboard, and was left pasting nothing. *shrug* It's all information that someone else can get anyway, just annoyed at the lost work. Just a tip for others: if someone suggests improving an article, it might not be a good idea to jump right in and tag it for improvement. Give people a chance to actually, you know, do it first. -Dewelar (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - This is a situation best suited for Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard and/or Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboards than here. Yes it's a baseball related article, but you may get better feedback on those boards.--JOJ ^Hutton 18:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

I cleaned up the stuff about his playing career and added links... need to find sources for his playing in the "senior league" or his being asked to return in 1990... Spanneraol (talk) 00:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I did further cleanup to the article including the putting in of references, took out statements that didn't adhere to NPOV, took out claims of D'Acquisto getting a offer from the giants in 1990(Which I could find no verification for with either High Beam or Google News Archive searches) corrected the date on which he was released by the Richmond Braves etc. He did pitch in the Senior League, that's not in dispute.

For everyone's information, I did report[6] D'Acquisto's edits to the COI board....William 01:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

WikiProject Umpires Proposal

For those who are interested, there is currently a proposal to create a WikiProject specifically focused on umpires. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 16:38, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

James Bates

For what it's worth, I created the stub James Bates (baseball) today. If anyone wants to attack it to add to it please do so. Jrcla2 (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

For what it's worth, I just nominated the article for deletion. A- Minor League baseball players are almost always not notable and B- There is nothing at the baseball reference page you gave as a source other than a name. So the article is unsourced....William 23:23, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

The average minor leaguer is not going to be considered notable unless he did something extraordinary, like hitting 60 home runs in a season (as with Joe Bauman or winning nearly 300 games (as with Frank Shellenback). Shellenback was actually in the majors briefly, and is theoretically notable just on that basis; but he is far better known as an enduring minor league star. But for every Frank Shellenback, there are maybe a thousand guys whose cup of coffee was in the minors rather than the majors. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree, speedy delete. I did a quick Google look-see, and most of the hits involve a CBS announcer falling off his stool. So that, I guess that would be much more notable...if it were notable.Neonblak ^talk - 00:34, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Yup I was going to prod it when I saw this comment yesterday, but I wanted to wait to see what others said. -DJSasso (talk) 11:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

There's another problem with Jrcla2's edits. He's creating category pages for college baseball players and in the category pages he's putting in a link to the university as if the university has its own category page. Unfortunately, that's not always so and therefore the category pages have redlinks in them....William 11:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call my edits a "problem" considering all categories can and should eventually be created pertaining to colleges and universities. If there is a policy about not including red link categories within other subcategories, please show it to me because I will stop doing that if it's against policy. Otherwise there's nothing wrong with it and it encourages category creation. I also have no qualms with the baseball player being deleted because I was unaware that those minor league teams he played for did not bestow inherent notability (I'm mainly a college basketball and football editor who's been dabbling in college baseball lately for uniformity among our three WikiProjects). WilliamJE, perhaps you ought to rethink your approach to interaction with, or about, other editors. Judging by your ruthless attack on the WikiEtiquette moderators (as evidence on your userpage) and that you're currently embroiled in a WikiEtiquette assistance debate yourself, it's not always 'everyone else.' It was pretty contentious to call my edits "problems" even though I'm clearly one of the good guys on this website (related: since when has creating a semi-professional baseball biography, whose creator genuinely thought was notable, to be problematic? Because that is what was insinuated by lumping that and my redlink categories together). Jrcla2 (talk) 18:52, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You're clearly not familar with WP:REDNOT which states- Red links are generally not included in either See also sections nor in navigational boxes since these navigation aids are intended to help readers find existing articles. An exception is red links in navboxes where the red-linked articles are part of a series or a whole set, e.g. a navbox listing successive elections, referendums, presidents, sports league seasons, etc.

An article should never be left with a non-existent (red-linked) category in it. Either the category should be created, or else the nonexistent category link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist.

You didn't know that policy. That's why your edits are a problem....William 19:27, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

And I appreciate you pointing out the red link policy. But, it would have been a much more easily correctable issue if you had politely dropped me a note on my talk page with a "hey, noticed you creating categories with red links...here's a policy that says why they shouldn't be there" rather than this approach. But hey, it's your prerogative. Have a great day. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

You could have easily have learned REDNOT on your own by doing WP:REDLINK instead of going to my user page and then writing about it here. WP:CIVIL keeps me from saying more....William 20:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

The easiest way to avoid this, of course, is to immediately place the new school category in the appropriate parent category (in this case, Category:College baseball players in the United States), thus making it no longer a redlink. -Dewelar (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Two-seam fastball vs. sinker

One thing that's bothered me for a while is the ambiguous way Wikipedia (and other places) treat the two-seam fastball and the sinker. On the talk page of the sinker article, I opened up a discussion on this issue because the article says the sinker is "also known as the 2 seam fastball," which strikes me as strange since we have a page for that pitch as well. Do they overlap that much? If they do, should the pages be merged?

As Bill James and Rob Neyer write in their book, The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers: An Historical Compendium of Pitching, Pitchers, and Pitches:

Until (roughly) the 1920s, you would see only one term: “fast ball.” Gradually, though, players and writers started talking about different kinds of fastballs: sinking fastballs (commonly, the “sinker”), rising fastballs, tailing fastballs, sailing fastballs, even sliding fastballs. Most of those terms remained in standard use until the 1990s, when for some reason they were replaced by terms that described how the ball looked to the hitter (“two-seam” and “four-seam”) or how the pitch was thrown (“cut fastball” and “split-fingered fastball”), rather than how it seemed to behave.

If we go by that logic, the pages should be merged because the two-seamer is the modern incarnation of the sinker. Seeming to agree with this distinction is Dan Brooks, who groups two-seamers and sinkers together on his pitcher charts.

I'm more inclined to agree with a separation. As I understand them, two-seamers and sinkers serve different purposes -- which is why their actual movement, at least characterized by PITCHf/x, is somewhat different.[7] Two-seamers exist as a variant of the four-seam fastball, usually thrown as an alternative for pitchers facing hitters from the opposite side of the plate (the greater horizontal break away from the plate aiding the pitcher's cause, in theory). Sinkers tend to be utilized more by sinkerballers — people who use it as their primary pitch, like a knuckleballer would.

Therefore, I recommend keeping the pages separate and more clearly delineating the differences between the pitches in the articles. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 19:41, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Possible change to umpires infobox?

I've noticed that there seems to be a flaw with Template:Infobox Mlbumpire. The template is written so that all umpires' names are automatically wikilinked. While this may not seem like an important issue on the surface, it prevents umpires with disambiguated article names (example: Adrian Johnson (umpire)) from being included, and instead forces the infobox to link to the wrong page. While there are ways to avoid this, they are somewhat confusing and cumbersome, and it would be much easier if the wikilinks were simply removed from the template. Can anyone do this? Delaywaves • talk 23:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)

Also, it would be nice if a date and place of birth could be included in the infobox. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 03:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Umpires Task Force

Per Jorgath's suggestion at my proposal for an umpire WikiProject, I am coming here to ask for discussion/advice about starting an umpire task force instead as part of this WikiProject. I don't know how to start a task force, so I'll greatly appreciate any assistance. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 03:57, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I've never set one up, but you should be able to find everything you need at Wikipedia:Task force. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 04:41, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 13:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I assume that I have the consent of the parent project in creating this task force, correct? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 19:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't really see a reason why not. The only possible objection would be not needing the formality, but if this is going to happen formally or informally, why not make it formal? Go ahead and be bold, and if someone complains we'll talk about it then. Oh, and as a start, I'd advise recruiting the other two editors that were willing to join the original WikiProject idea. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I have taken your advice here. You'll have to excuse the overall appearance of the page, I've never created something like this before and it doesn't exactly look all that great yet. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:29, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposal for sabermetric statistics

I have run into a problem occasionally when I want to refer to a "non-traditional" or sabermetric statistic, such that an internal link would be most useful to ensure easy reading while also providing the opportunity to educate unfamiliar readers. I have also noticed that the sabermetrics page offers a list of sabermetric statistics, but that these are often very stubby articles. Wouldn't it be useful to have a list or glossary of sabermetric statistics? It could link to those articles, like PECOTA, that are long enough to stand on their own, but something like "whiff rate" would live only as a reference for clarification and basic education. (It would also be relatively easy to compile.) --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 05:48, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It certainly would be, so my suggestion would be to be bold and fix it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Point taken. I just wanted to get some feedback. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

All right, it seems to me that a list may or may not be appropriate. It would have to be sourced, for one thing. For another, it couldn't just be a list article links. Perhaps an article on the actual sabermetric statistics (distinct from their history) would be good, with "Main article" links for more commonly used ones? Or maybe make it a part of the Baseball statistics article? - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, having revisited Baseball statistics, I think your best bet is to expand that with more prose. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:32, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Winning percentage in infoboxes

A user, Iss246 (talk · contribs), has begun adding the winning percentage of pitchers to their won-loss record. I'm reverting these additions as unnecessary (anyone who really wants to know can do their own math) clutter in the infobox, which should be approved here first. If people support including it, I won't put up much of a fight. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Seems unnecessary to me. Spanneraol (talk) 16:47, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

It also seems unnecessary to me too. However, if it is included, it should use the {{winning percentage}} template to make it easier to verify the percentage is correct. — X96lee15 (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Pitchers' winning percentages are commonly reported. Baseball recognizes the pitchers with the all-time highest winning percentages. Granted that a winning percentage is not sabremetrics, but it is commonly used and easily understood by the general reader of Wikipedia. Let's have a discussion here without reversion.Iss246 (talk) 16:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Actually, if you read WP:BRD, what's happened is exactly what should happen. You were bold, someone reverted, and now we can discuss and establish a new consensus. I personally see it as a "why not?" per WP:NOTPAPER, but also non-urgent. Per X96lee15, though, I agree that if it is done the {{winning percentage}} template should be used, not just an input of the number. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 16:55, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree. You are right about the template. I'm pretty good with numbers but not immune to making an arithmetic error now and then.Iss246 (talk) 17:06, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Unnecessary clutter and not all that notable.--Yankees10 17:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Based on the size of the infobox, I would say that adding the percentage does not clutter it. Just looking at Nolan Ryan (all time number 2 in games started), the win percentage fits easily in the win loss record section, and the size of the text in that box is fixed (it is highly unlikely that there will be someone with either 1000 wins or losses, although there is still room should that occur). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 03:25, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the accusation of unnecessary clutter. My wife saw the second edition of Raudenbush and Bryk's Hierarchical Linear Modeling resting on our dining room table--which we rarely use because it has become part of my study--and said that it represents "unnecessary clutter." On the contrary, the book is a useful, and gets consulted often. One person's clutter is another person's valuable source of knowledge. For me, and more many other people, the book is not clutter. For many Wikipedia readers--let's put ourselves in their shoes--winning percentage is a helpful statistic. I am fairly sophisticated in statistics. I would still like to know Whitey Ford's lifetime winning percentage. It is terrific (so is his 1961 winning percentage) but I don't know it off the top of my head. I would like to bring up a Wikipedia page and view it.Iss246 (talk) 19:23, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I tried the winning percentage template on one player, Harry Kelley (baseball). It is workable.Iss246 (talk) 18:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Iss246, I did some indenting on your posts above (and one by Yankees10) to make the threading clearer. If there's a problem, please feel free to correct it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:46, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Jorgath. The comments now look more ordered.Iss246 (talk) 21:35, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

• Comment Wikipedia info boxes are not baseball cards. They don't need to include every stat possible. There's too many stats in the info box as it is. No need to add any more. Remember that Wikipedia articles are about a persons entire life and not only about their Major League playing career.--JOJ ^Hutton 03:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
  • True, but it's what they're known for, or what makes them "notable". Mickey Lolich ran a donut shop, but if that's all he had done in his career, he wouldn't likely have been in wikipedia. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:22, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
    • Per MOS:INFOBOX, they should contain as little information as possible. First we add win/loss, then percentage, then something else. Finally we're adding weight and height That information can go into its own section and doesn't serve any purpose in Te infobox.JOJ ^Hutton 03:34, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
      • Well, on the typical "infobox" for a site like Retrosheet or Baseball-Reference, it's mostly just personal info, like height and weight, first game, last game, and life data. That's not to say that we necessarily need to model ours after theirs. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:49, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You really can't compare the two things anyway. The "infoboxes" on those sites aren't summaries, but supplemental information, all (or at least most) of which is not found on the rest of the player page. -Dewelar (talk) 03:58, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The stat also seems unnecessary to me. While Steve Carlton's 300 victories might be notable, his winning percentage is of lesser importance and can be detailed in the text of the article.Orsoni (talk) 06:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I follow up on the Steve Carlton comment. One reason why the winning percentage is useful is because of interesting information it reveals. For example, Steve Carlton, a 300-game winner had a winning percentage of .574. Nolan Ryan, another 300-game winner, had a winning percentage of .526, a small margin above .500, and a 3.19 ERA. Differences like that suggest that the highly durable Ryan did not get the run-support that a pitcher like Carlton received. Here lies some interesting information. This is not to say the information could not be gotten elsewhere. I think it is good to provide the information to the average Wikipedia reader. That is who we are serving. It provokes thought among the readers who do not have to be the baseball aficionados many of the contributors to the baseball entries are. We are not writing for each other. We are writing for the general reader who has interest in baseball but the intensity of that interest may not equal ours.

I add that winning percentage does not clutter the info box. We have to consider one bit of information at a time. You could ask, do we need "batted right" or "batted left" in the info box for a pitcher. Such information is probably not that important for a pitcher. Does it clutter the info box? I don't think so. I would not delete such information.Iss246 (talk) 13:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, the number of people who can look at an infobox, and be able to surmise that Nolan Ryan did not get run support, is miniscule even among knowledgeable fans. I think it would be best to flesh out those details in the text of the article, and leave the infobox to the most basic stats.Orsoni (talk) 13:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

A benefit of the info box is that it provides useful information at a glance. I include the winning percentage as part of the useful information. The info box enables to the average reader to open a number of windows at the same time, and look up a number of different ballplayers for comparison purposes. It does not replace the text, but it can motivate a Wikipedia user to read further. But sometimes the reader only wants the information in the info box. We want to serve the average reader. The average baseball fan. That's why I advance the view that the winning percentage belongs in the info box.Iss246 (talk) 14:36, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You're not totally off base (pardon the pun), but consider two things: 1) There is a "slippery slope" if we are going to start including any and all "useful" information about a pitcher that would indicate his skill and performance. Should we include WHIP and strikeout to walk ratio? 2) Keep the ultimate purpose of infoboxes in mind — a simple collection of the basic facts surrounding a person or place; a snapshot. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 17:59, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

The infoboxes should only contain the most basic stats IMHO. Winning percentage can be very misleading. Lee Guetterman went 11-4 once. How did his career pan out?...William 18:07, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

That is a good point. When I entered winning percentages, I did so with the constraint that I enter the percentages for pitchers with more than 20 decisions. Because I did not complete all my entries on one occasion I may have varied the threshold a little from occasion to occasion. But 20 seems about the median I used. I think we could arrive at a consensus threshold for the number of decisions in which the pitcher was involved, at which point editors could enter a winning percentage.Iss246 (talk) 18:40, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

If I'm reading this discussion correctly, it seems like there's a developing consensus not to include winning percentage in anyone's infobox. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:02, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

You are correct, the consensus at the moment is not to include winning percentage....William 19:11, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I see absolutely no reason to include a derivative/redundant stat in the infobox if the information from which it is calculated is already available. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

My position on stats in the infobox is pretty much this: use the batting/pitching triple crown stats, unless the player is particularly well known for one particular stat (e.g., Maury Wills might have stolen bases listed, or high saves totals for relief pitchers) or if the stats are meaningless due to the player having only a cup-of-coffee career or, for some 19th century players, RBI totals are incomplete. Otherwise, I really don't see any other stats as being necessary -Dewelar (talk) 02:27, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the "cup of coffee" comment. I said earlier that we should have a threshold of, say, 20 decisions before entering a winning percentage. I advance the view that we should include the winning percentage. Here are my reasons:

1. The statistic is helpful to the average Wikipedia reader. We are not just writing for baseball aficionados. We are writing for everyone.

2. It is easily understood. It enables quick comparisons among pitchers. Earlier I gave an example of a Steve Carlton-Nolan Ryan comparison. Being able to quickly compare winning percentages of the two Hall-of-Fame pitchers suggests some hypotheses why Ryan's is much closer to .500 (the run-support hypothesis).

3. The statistic doesn't take up much space in the info box. It would be next to the won-lost numbers.

4. Adding it does not mean we are on a slippery slope to jamming lots of other metrics into the box. We can add or delete statistics as per the discussions found on this page.

I think the most important reason is the first, that the statistic is helpful to the average Wikipedia reader.Iss246 (talk) 18:59, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I think it's pretty uncontentious that including winning percentage in an article is a proper thing to do. The question is whether or not it should be included in the infobox. You address the point of whether it should be included in the article, and your arguments are good ones. But except for point 3, you have not made any argument for why it should be in the infobox rather than just in the main article. General consensus seems that it should not. If you would like to open a formal Request for comment, that's your perogative, but I don't think that consensus is going to change in the near future. I'd suggest instead visiting articles and making sure that ones that meet your threshhold (I like it, by the way) have it in the prose or stats lists/tables of the article, rather than focusing on the infobox. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 19:55, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Let me point out that just because something is WP:Useful does not mean it automatically worth including. There are plenty of baseball statistics that would be very useful in capturing the career performance of a player, but we have to draw the line somewhere. Win/loss is already available, and winning percentage is a derivative stat that one can easily calculate. There is no need to dedicate more space to pitching decisions, which already are not great indicators of skill. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:33, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind being a minority of one, and having the 200 changes I made reversed. I'm a college professor who has taught some very technical material for many years. The students in one's class are the students one has. Wikipedia readers include some very general readers. I think it is important to reach out, and help the readers where they are. I think it a good thing if a reader asks how does the winning percentage of Steve Carlton compare to that of Nolan Ryan because those pitchers' info boxes make it easy for the reader to come up with such questions. I want to make if easy for the general reader to start poking around, and to ask questions.

The individuals who are having this discussion on this page don't need the winning percentage to do that. Many of us can calculate winning percentages in our heads without the use of a calculator. What I am asking is that we put ourselves in the place of the general reader, someone who is not likely to contribute to this discussion and who has a less intense interest in baseball than we have. What we include in the Wikipedia page makes that person more informed about baseball, more curious about baseball, and more interested in baseball. It whets that reader's curiosity and sparks further interest in baseball. I don't claim winning percentage alone does that. What I am saying is that winning percentage helps attain those goals. That is why I want the winning percentage there in the entry.

Chances are that I'm going to lose this argument. I think I'm right. I want to include a statistic that will get general readers to start thinking about this pitcher and that pitcher, and how are they different and why.Iss246 (talk) 01:57, 23 June 2012 (UTC)01:53, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

What guides my thinking about what to include and what not to include is this: What is helpful to the general reader?Iss246 (talk) 02:00, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that your arguments are entirely insufficient for the purpose intended in this case. While winning percentage might be included in an article based on your reasoning, there is a much higher threshold for what belongs in an infobox, which is meant to be a summary, than for what belongs in an article. If you can present a cogent argument for why winning percentage meets that higher threshold, then we might have a basis for further discussing its inclusion. If not, then there is no need. -Dewelar (talk) 17:26, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

On the contrary, my argument is cogent. In fact, I advance that the view that winning percentage is better placed in the info box than in the article because winning percentage is, if anything, a summary. Moreover, it is helpful to the average reader, particularly the average reader who wants to compare different pitchers.

Wikipedia has educational value. I want to the goal of better educating the readers. Including winning percentage is consistent with that goal without being pedantic.Iss246 (talk) 18:22, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

You ignore my point (and, indeed, Wikipedia's policy) regarding the higher threshold for inclusion. You do not make any points about why placing it in the infobox of an article might perform your stated goal of educating the reader in a substantially better way than placing it in the article would. Also, the fact that the infobox is a summary is exactly the thing that argues against winning percentage, as the presence of winning percentage is redundant to the presence of win-loss record, which is the more pertinent statistic. Once you add redundant information to the infobox, it ceases to be a summary. -Dewelar (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Comment for Iss246 and an addendum to Deweler's comment: Yes, Wikipedia's goal is to educate the reader. Give them useful information and in turn identify the subject of the article. Yet you must read MOS:INFOBOX and understand that the stated purpose of the info box is not to educate, but to identify the subject of the article and only summarize key facts of the subject. It's important in this case that the winning percentage be in the article, but not a key enough fact that it has to have a prominent place in the info box. Less is more for info boxes.--JOJ ^Hutton 19:23, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the previous two comments. Casual readers far outnumber editors. I want to aid casual readers. The "less is more" quote from Ludwig Mies van der Rohe has become a cliché, and is not a defense of the status quo. My suggestion is within the purview of MOS:INFOBOX because it calls for minimal change; it is a clarifying addition that fosters page-to-page comparisons and thinking about baseball. It does not call for the creation of a new field. It works within an existing field.

I recognize that we have sort of a democracy here on this page. I lost the vote.Iss246 (talk) 22:13, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

I appreciate your recognition of the prevailing consensus. I appreciate how frustrating it can be to attempt to overcome what appears, from the outside, to be overwhelming inertia in order to make a change that, to one's mind, seems reasonable -- or, indeed, beneficial, as you obviously view this one. However, I would suggest that your proposal might have been better received if: 1) you'd made arguments based on something other than pure assertion or logical fallacy, and 2) you'd responded to the arguments against your proposal in any way beyond "I disagree" -- which, since some of the items with which you are disagreeing are policy and not just argument, are probably best addressed elsewhere anyway. Enjoy the rest of your weekend. -Dewelar (talk) 23:30, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, a casual reader would be better served with a written explanation in the text of the article as to why Nolan Ryan's won-loss percentage indicated less run support. I doubt that a casual reader would be able to reach such a conclusion based solely on the won-loss percentage.Orsoni (talk) 12:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Transwiki destination

hi, per some discussions at NSPORTS, I've been wondering if it might be useful to identify a place to transwiki articles that are deleted at AfD, but that contain useful content nonetheless. We could learn from the work the starwars project has done, building templates for links to wookipedia for example {{sww}} (star trek and futurama have also done this). The result might be a win-win, in that articles (perhaps on minor league players) deleted here could survive on a sister wiki, and then if the subject ever meets notability guidelines, the article could be brought back here. I've found a few candidates:

• Baseball ~5000 articles <- articles have been moved here before: [8]
• Armchair GM ~12000 articles
• Sabrpedia ~175,000 articles

I'm sure there are others. Are there any wikis now that you would recommend (or *not* recommend)? Any thoughts on this idea? Another idea would be to suggest wikisports as a wikimedia project - basically same infrastructure as wikipedia, but much more open content guidelines, so any game, any player, any statistic would be accepted. Not sure how to do this or whether it would be accepted - but given the interest in sports topics, it might be worth considering.--KarlB (talk) 23:48, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably the best place for non-WP-notable minor league baseball articles is the Baseball-Reference Bullpen. -Dewelar (talk) 20:20, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok thanks. Any reason to prefer that over Sabrpedia? Someone on another board said there were issues with Sabrpedia. Also, does anyone else have any thoughts? Would there be any opposition to making templates to help transwiki articles to the bullpen? --KarlB (talk) 20:24, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Be advised that Karl is forum-shopping to try and undercut the current standard of one-game notability for ML players. Some relevant discussion is at Wikipedia_talk:Notability_(sports)#New_AfD_and_additional_research_sources.2F_wikis. I mention this so that outside observers do not misconstrue an agreement here to transwiki articles on genuinely non-notable players as an agreement to go along with his larger plan. -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 13:18, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Please be advised that HBWS is making unfounded acccusations; this is not forum shopping, it was suggested that I come here to request input from this project, which I've done. I'd kindly ask HBWS to strike his comments, which are unfair and unfounded and do not assume good faith.--KarlB (talk) 13:49, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Having read the linked discussion, the original statement could easily be read that it might be preferable to delete stub MLB articles and link out to SABRpedia rather than make the effort to improve those articles. While it may not be "forum-shopping" per se, it stands in opposition to Wikipedia's stated goals and policies, not to mention those of our own project. It's one thing to suggest it for subject that are not inherently notable, such as minor league baseball players, but it's quite another for those who played in MLB. Put a link in the "External links" section? Sure. Replace existing articles on notable subjects? Over my dead body.

Regarding SABRpedia vs. BR Bullpen, I admit that I am unfamiliar with the posting guidelines of SABR's wiki. If, for instance, you are required to be a SABR member to post to SABRpedia, then I could see it being held in somewhat higher regard than other user-generated content, but otherwise no such resource is really preferable to any other. -Dewelar (talk) 15:43, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I don't think I ever suggested moving notable players to a different wiki. Now that that's cleared up, I'll create some sample templates so we can trial them within the context of existing articles.--KarlB (talk) 18:16, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Since "notable players" is accepted by consensus to mean "anyone who ever appeared in MLB, even in one game", that's exactly what you did. If you're now dropping your stated objection to that standard, then by all means proceed with any such templates. Additionally, I would highly suggest not start mucking with existing articles until they've been demonstrated in on a sandbox-type page and approved for use by the project at large. In other words, proceed with caution, because after reading more deeply into the issue (specifically, the Ed Carfrey deletion discussion), I think you might want to take measures to ensure that we can continue to assume your good faith. -Dewelar (talk) 18:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Recent Rogers Hornsby edits

A numerically named editor has made original research edits to the article. Perhaps someone who is familiar with the article can review the edits. Besides being original research, they also contain poor grammar.Orsoni (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Being original research on an FA is enough reason to revert, which I've done. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 15:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Jim Leyritz

Jim Leyritz's "attache" has admitted on my talk page that she's "appropriately edit[ing] the information that seems to cast a negative light on Jim's reputation". Help appreciated. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:00, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Attache is a public relations firm. She did seem to mess up the formatting of the page... perhaps ask her to contribute to a discussion on the talk page about what information she thinks is inaccurate.Spanneraol (talk) 18:52, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

First ejection

I have also posed this question at the umpires task force talk page: Should the first ejection of an umpire's career be considered notable enough to be included on his page? I think the answer is clearly yes in cases where the umpire only has a small amount in his career, but I would also argue that it is enough of a milestone to be added on any page. However, these kind of questions are what this page is for. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:09, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ejections are, unfortunately, not rare, and I believe that highlighting any routine ejection would be placing undue weight on the event. isaacl (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That is true but I would counter that home runs are not rare either. I think it would be hard to argue that a player's first home run doesn't belong on his Wiki page. I would say that the first ejection is a similar milestone for an umpire. I am not saying that it is something to celebrate, but at the same time, umpires don't have many statistics and ejections is one of the most significant, if not the most. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:30, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know, based on the articles I have seen, a player's first home run is not included in the person's article (assuming there are no notable circumstances surrounding the event). Umpires have ejected many people in the minors prior to reaching the majors and how they handle them and use their judgment in problematic situations is part of how they are evaluated for promotion. (I agree that personally they feel like they've passed a milestone by ringing up their first ejection in the majors, but it isn't notable in the overall scheme of things.) isaacl (talk) 17:39, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Okay. I'm quite surprised if first home runs really aren't being included but if they aren't then I guess first ejections shouldn't be either. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 17:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I partially retract my earlier statement; after I did a few more spot checks and found some references to first home runs (Alex Rodriguez, Gary Carter, but not for Barry Bonds), I looked at the Featured Articles for non-pitchers, and I counted two out of eleven articles that mention the player's first home run. Nonetheless, my view on including the first ejection for umpires is still the same. isaacl (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

A first home run, victory, strikeout, or whatever or a player is clearly a milestone, an accomplishment. An ejection is not the same - it is not an accomplishment for an umpire. It may be the umpires fault, it might be the offending party's fault. There is no inherent value to using ejections as a counting statistic for umps. If umpire A has 200 ejections vs. umpire B's 100 ejections, that doesn't make him a "better" umpire. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

That's a good argument. First game, first game as crew chief, first postseason game, first postseason game as crew chief. Those are the umpire milestones I can think of. Ejections are the equivalent of runway excursions - people generally don't want them to happen, they don't happen all the time, but they happen often enough that they aren't particularly notable unless something else happens as a result of it. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:14, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Oh, and number of seasons in majors, number of seasons as crew chief. Forgot those. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 20:36, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

One major difference between 1st home run, victory or even game, etc. versus first ejection is that home runs, victories and games are all official, highly visible stats. I don't think there is an official stat for ejections, and even if there is it is barely publicized if at all. Rlendog (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree with Isaacl that the guiding factor should be WP:WEIGHT. On that note, I know WP:BASEBALL/N presumes MLB umps are notable, but how much non-trivial independent coverage do they get outside of ejections. I randomly pulled out Hunter Wendelstedt, and that's all that is mentioned. Just curious, I have no interest in challenging any guidelines on this one.—Bagumba (talk) 20:53, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Jim Joyce. Joe West. Also, something like this. It happens, but usually it's something significant. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:00, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot of the bios end up as routine mentions of some bad call, and routine boxscores refs that he was the umps in XYZ game, and non-independent coverage from MLB.com. At the very least, looking at the articles you pointed out reminded me that websites like Hardballtimes might have some comprehensive evaluation of umps outside of mainstream trivial coverage.—Bagumba (talk) 21:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Page needing major referencing

Rubber match needs some major referencing and citation work. At present, it's pretty much all unsourced, and at least partially OR. That said, none of it is in the slightest bit controversial - it's just basically saying what "everybody" knows without having any real sources for that. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 21:58, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Just my opinion, and I could be wrong, but that might be a candidate for deletion due to Wikipedia is not a dictionary.Orsoni (talk) 06:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

List of top 100 Major League Baseball hit batsmen leaders

The List of top 100 Major League Baseball hit batsmen leaders has become messed up. Something seems wrong with the table and I don't know how to fix it. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 01:17, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I just reverted to the last good copy. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 01:21, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Um

Has anyone ever noticed that List of Major League Baseball perfect games and Perfect game are pretty much the same article? Except for the spots were they contradict each other:

Over the 135 years of Major League Baseball history, there have been only 22 official perfect games by the current definition.

That's from List of Major League Baseball perfect games. On perfect game we see:

Over the 143 years of Major League Baseball history, there have been only 22 official perfect games by the current definition.

The next sentence in both articles is:

More people have orbited the moon than have pitched a major league perfect game.

And it goes on like that. The prose is substantially similar on both articles. It appears that perfect game sees more regular editing attention as the correct statistic

During baseball's modern era, 20 pitchers have thrown perfect games.

appears there, while on "List" we see

During baseball's modern era, 18 pitchers have thrown perfect games.

Perfect game also has a lead section that "List" does not, but other than that, the two articles are nearly identical. And forgive me if this is controversial, but do we need two virtually identical articles? I would say redirect one to the other, but as perfect game is in better shape of the two and List of Major League Baseball perfect games is hardly a likely search term, the latter article should simply be deleted. Green-eyed girl (Talk · Contribs) 18:04, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Muboshgu had intended to split out the MLB-specific information from the "Perfect game" article into the list article. See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 27#Perfect game for the related discussion thread. isaacl (talk) 19:56, 4 July 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, the idea was to do it the way we did the hitting for the cycle and List of Major League Baseball players to hit for the cycle, and the no-hitter page and List of Major League Baseball no-hitters. I've gotten distracted with other things and haven't gotten to this one. Anyone else can step in. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Seems that after the split, the content was restored by the edit, hence the duplicate info.—Bagumba (talk) 08:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Carthage44

Carthage44 (talk · contribs)
This user has been known to us for his past behavior. Now, he's starting to edit war about the smallest of things: he wants us to wait until the All-Star break before the next stat update, and is rolling back valid edits. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:53, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking of coming here earlier. I have had my share of trouble with this user, and at some point his contributions are going to be outweighed by his disruptive conduct. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

He's definitely got serious ownership issues, and has now edited his user talk page to remove the entirety of the dispute. I believe the line has been crossed. -Dewelar (talk) 21:34, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, it's almost a step forward that he even discussed it with me this time. When you say the line has been crossed (or was a long time ago), does that mean something can finally be done? AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Heh...it just means that, to my way of thinking, the moment one starts hiding the evidence of one's misconduct, one has made a tacit admission that one recognizes that it is, in fact, misconduct, and therefore requires hiding. That's a line of a different sort, and not necessarily one recognized by TPTB. -Dewelar (talk) 21:45, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Undoing valid edits like this should be considered vandalism. Have you considered bringing this to ANI? Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:47, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I have previously been to the dispute resolution noticeboard awhile back, as can be seen somewhere in here. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 22:55, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't looked at what exactly is going on in "this" situation, but I can contest to the fact that I have seen people remove discussions or warnings from their own talk page. I'm saying that it is usually to hide behavior, but in some cases it certainly looks that way. I've had ip vandals give me "warnings" when I revert their edits and I usually remove it as nonsense, so not every talk page discussion removal is trying to hide bad behavior.JOJ ^Hutton 21:54, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

While your comment wasn't directed towards me, and may not have been affected by my comment at all, I would like to clarify that I did not mean undoing talk page comments was vandalism. His undoing of stats updates was vandalism. Ryan Vesey Review me! 21:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Gentlemen, here are the relevant talk page guidelines at WP:TPO: "Personal talk page cleanup: On your own user talk page, you may archive threads at your discretion. Simply deleting others' comments on your talk page is permitted, but most editors prefer archiving. Many new users believe they can hide critical comments by deleting them. This is not true: Such comments can always be retrieved from the page history. Removal of a comment is taken as proof that the user has read it." Now you can quote the guideline verbatim. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 22:14, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Please note that while talk page issues were mentioned, they aren't the real concern here. Ryan Vesey Review me! 22:38, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I know the Baseball project likes to update stats daily, but instead of 162 edits to a page, wouldn't simply updating the pages at the end of the season like WP:Hockey does make more sense? Just seems like a lot of work to update all players daily instead of once per season. I see no issue with being upset with the user for doing this since this project updates daily though. If a daily thing is the will, I wonder if there's a bot that could be created to do it automatically? Shootmaster 44 (talk) 23:02, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I will respect the viewpoint of the hockey project, however I disagree with it. If users want to take their own time to help keep one of the most widely-known websites in the world up-to-date, I don't believe they should be hindered. AutomaticStrikeout (talk) 23:07, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Whether or not any such policy was in place (to my knowledge, we don't have a policy on how often to update stats at all), and really whether the policy states that edits should be made annually, daily, or only at the full moon, our policy would not, nor should it, ever stand in the way of editors who wish to keep pages current. If the updates being made are accurate, then in addition to potentially biting newcomers, reverting them is a waste of time and energy that could be put to use in more constructive ways. If anything, I'd say the hockey project's policy is detrimental to Wikipedia as an entity, or certainly a great deal moreso than our lack thereof. -Dewelar (talk) 23:19, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

An additional note: the edit linked by Ryan Vesey wasn't reverting the stats to the beginning of the season, but to June 27, for no apparent reason -- other than that Carthage44 was the one who made that particular update, that is. -Dewelar (talk) 23:24, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Actually, from the hockey perspective, we are fortunate that our set up leads to few attempts at updating statistics. We're also a little different than the baseball project in that we utilize career statistics tables, and in many cases, editors who attempt to update the current season's stats fails to also update the career totals, so a mess has to be cleaned up either way. Now, as to the baseball project's viewpoint, since the infobox stats section includes an updated date, that only serves to encourage drive-by editors to come along and update. Consequently, setting an arbitrary limit on when updates should happen is counter-productive, so I'd agree with you guys that Carthage44 is wasting their, your and everybody's time by reverting. Resolute 23:31, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't really care who updates the stats or when, as long as they change the date when they do the update, User:Mnap25 tends to do a lot of updates and never changes the date and hasnt responded to my request that he do so. As for Carthage... I've had issues with him on the season pages.. and reverting valid edits cause he doesnt want them updated is a bit much. Spanneraol (talk) 23:59, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

• Comment I feel that Carthage44 should be notified of this discussion. I'll leave him a note now. Ryan Vesey Review me! 23:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)
• Comment My suggestion is to notify this project of any disputes that anyone feels is not being resolved. Editors can watch the page(s), and it may be eaier to reach consensus and hopefully avoid edit warring. If not, it should be easier to identify if there is a real culprit.—Bagumba (talk) 00:24, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Chipper Jones

Hey all. Someone nommed Jones for GAN. While it's not at that level yet, would anyone be willing to make changes and try to improve it if I provide a detailed review? Thought I'd ask here before adding too much detail if no one's going to fix it. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:03, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I am willing to help. Chipper is one of my "homeys." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:20, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Same thing with Yankees - Red Sox rivalry. Someone did a driveby nomination, and I'm too busy to wade into it. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:23, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

69kb of prose? Eek. Yeah I feel bad for whoever takes that on on both sides. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 21:51, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

I also like how there are TWO large sections on the 2004 ALCS and as much detail on the last three seasons as there is two entire decades between 1940 and 1960. That article doesn't need a GA nomination, it needs someone to take a weedwacker to it. Resolute 23:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

And that weedwhacker should be named WP:RECENTISM. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 01:14, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Really, though, as it pertains to this particular rivalry, that's probably a fair weighting of those two eras. The rivalry as such didn't really kick into gear until the mid-70s. -Dewelar (talk) 02:27, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes and no. I agree about the timing, but I still feel that '04, '09, '10, and '11 do not deserve as much weight as they're given compared to the '80s and '90s. - Jorgath (talk) ^(contribs) 03:50, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

I can agree with that. I was responding more to Resolute there. I also agree that it should be done by trimming the later years rather than expanding the earlier. -Dewelar (talk) 04:45, 8 July 2012 (UTC)

MLB attendance

I started a discussion on some recent edits to the introduction to the Major League Baseball article regarding MLB's attendance. Any input is welcome. isaacl (talk) 02:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I have made a suggestion to create a new section in the article, "Popularity", which can cover the relative popularity of MLB with other sports leagues, as well as the historical popularity of MLB. Feedback within the discussion thread is welcome, in order to help establish a consensus. isaacl (talk) 23:05, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Bobby Mathews

Pitcher Bobby Mathews is listed at 297 wins in the all-time wins article. He needs to be removed. Many of those wins came with the NAPBP and the AA. I would think that the lists should only have MLB stats, thus NL and AL. Arnabdas (talk) 23:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

The 19th-century American Association is considered a major league by official sources, so those stay. There's no clear consensus on the NAPBBP, of course, but that's a discussion that hasn't been resolved in a century of debate. If that's a fight you're willing to reopen at this time, more power to you :) . -Dewelar (talk) 23:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

I was just saying to be consistent and verifiable. MLB.com didn't have Mathews at 297 wins when I looked him up in the all-time wins list there. I really don't care, but think we should have some sort of standard. As for the AA, I am not sure who you refer to as "official sources?" The company/corporation known as MLB did not start until the American League was born. The AA was a "major league" but not apart of the organization known as Major League Baseball since it folded before MLB was established as an organization. Arnabdas (talk) 23:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Per the Major League Baseball article, the organization recognizes itself to date back to 1869. There's a section there which lists what leagues are officially recognized by MLB itself as major leagues (the AL, NL, AA, Federal League, Union Association and Players' League). -Dewelar (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Quick question Dewelar, as per the article, it states

"Several other defunct leagues are officially considered to be major, and their statistics and records are included with those of the two current major leagues. These include the Union Association (1884), the American Association (1882–1891, not to be confused with later minor leagues of the same name), the Players' League (1890) and the Federal League (1914–1915). In the late 1950s, a serious attempt was made to establish a third major league, the Continental League, but that league never played."

However, I do not see a source for that information. Do you have something that officially said by MLB ever that states those leagues are considered apart of Major League Baseball and were not simply major leagues? Arnabdas (talk) 14:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Understanding that this is semantics, technically the entity known as Major League Baseball actually did not come into existence until 1903, not 1901, so obviously nothing from before that time could be considered "part of" it. For that matter, the entity known as Major League Baseball did not even have jurisdiction over the AL and NL until 2000, so if one wished to be truly pedantic one could claim that any records before that date are not truly MLB records either.

However, since MLB's own web page claims that the organization dates back to 1869, the waters are a bit muddy. Trying to do a web search for "major league" in regard to baseball in a vacuum is nearly impossible. For better or for worse, the two terms "major league baseball" and "Major League Baseball" are used interchangeably in the press, and have been for decades. We must therefore look at what the source itself says. When the MLB website lists these other leagues on their player pages, which are marked as being those players' Major League Baseball records, they have de facto been accepted as Major League Baseball.

Admittedly, however, I believe the recognition has been never been officially announced, which makes precise citation difficult. MLB itself was a bit shaky on its own history for most of its...well, history, and most of what it recognizes today is based not on its own decisions, but decisions made by outside record-keepers (e.g., Elias Sports Bureau) over the decades.

All that said, I would not object to changing all of the pages to un-capitalize "major league baseball" if that winds up being the consensus. As I noted above, it's probably technically more accurate anyway. -Dewelar (talk) 15:24, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I have looked around again for an acknoweldgement from MLB on what it considers its actual date of origin, and again I have located nothing. Maybe it is time for "we the people of WikiPedia Baseball" to petition Bud Selig to answer this question once and for all? If we are to use MLB.com as the standard for all baseball statistics, then the NAPBBP, the UA, and the PL are out (since they are not included). Likewise, the NL, AA, AL, FL are in. In this case, the stats could be amended with an "*stats from NAPBBP, UA, or PL not included" for all players affected by this. Then, in the "Teams" section, you'd have make UA and PL sections, like what's been already done for the NABBP, example: Albert Spalding. Then, when that's done, are players that only played in the NAPBBP, UA and PL no longer inheritably notable? Or should we just stick with what we have been doing, using baseball-reference.com and retrosheet.org for all stats, since they have been recognized as "reliable" resources?Neonblak ^talk - 19:09, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I think we're jumping the gun a bit here. As it stands, there's no reason to believe that the issue with MLB.com isn't just an oversight or a temporary glitch. -Dewelar (talk) 21:27, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The statement of 1869 being the origin refers to the Reds being the first team to have all salaried players from what I understand. The NL didn't officially start until 1876 I believe. I think consensus should be that MLB started then. It isn't complete as it is now, but it started then. However, we can't simply go by opinion and we need verifiable sources. Therefore, I propose putting in footnotes for all players stating that the totals include all of the other major leagues for all of those early players. If the player only played in the AL and NL, then they don't need that footnote. The footnote could read something like "stats for this player include totals from the AA, NAPBBP, UA, and PL." Arnabdas (talk) 15:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

The lead should explain which leagues are included and why, with footnote of notables source that choose not to include the leagues. If it is clear which reliable sources we are getting the stats from, I dont think footnotes for indiv players are necessary.—Bagumba (talk) 17:38, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

It's not clear what List of Major League Baseball leaders in career wins is using as its source. Should this this list just be modern era? Charley Radbourn is listed with 309, but MLB.com has him with 282.—Bagumba (talk) 23:25, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Probably using either Retrosheet or Baseball-Reference. MLB left out the Players' League stats for some reason (although I have some theories). -Dewelar (talk) 23:35, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Further checking reveals the same issue with Tim Keefe, who is listed without his PL stats. The Hall of Fame bios for both players include those wins, though. I will write to the MLB website and see if I can get a response. -Dewelar (talk) 23:40, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

For what its worth, the NAPBBP stats are verifiable. MLB just has never recognized the league as a "major" league due the rampant corruption within it. Which is why the NL was created with teams having the power and not the players. I think the stats should be used for these players per vetted reliable sources like baseball-reference.com and retrosheet.org.Neonblak ^talk - 05:45, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

The name of the article has "Major League Baseball" in it. If the intention is any major league and not specifically MLB, it should be renamed and detailed in the lead. That being said, isnt MLB more notable.—Bagumba (talk) 07:48, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

If MLB does not recognize it, I don't think we can consider it apart of MLB records. All of these records articles should be edited to say which league stats are included and which aren't if we can't find a reliable source Arnabdas (talk) 14:21, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Cardinals-Cubs

Can people please contribute to this article. I have done my best by adding some of the matchups prior to the Cardinals joining the NL. The article before I got to it was mostly devoted towards the McGwire-Sosa HR chase, which is silly considering the 1.5 centuries these two teams have faced each other. This thing needs to be drastically improved. Arnabdas (talk) 23:22, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Can I put a statistics table in an article?

Is this allowed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by YuDarvishFan (talk • contribs) 19:37, 11 July 2012 (UTC)