Talk:San Francisco Giants

Recent Deletion

In the interest of keeping baseball articles of "high" importance uniform (and using the Yankees entry as a guide), I deleted the following sections from the SF Giants page: Quick Facts, Spring Training (??), Broadcasters (????), and Baseball Hall of Famers (...). I don't think any of these sections are directly relevant to the specific topic or encyclopedic in general. I also deleted the "All-Star Games" section because there's already an entry for it elsewhere. Oh, and I got rid of a section entitled "Bay Area Sports Hall of Fame." I don't think it belongs there, and most MLB entries don't have a section devoted to a regional hall of famers list. If anyone cares enough, they can create a separate page for it. Please refer to the ongoing Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball discussion here - Smuglife 07:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

SF Giants v LA Dodgers

I've been writing the San Francisco Giants v. Los Angeles Dodgers section and ask for a peer review from contributors and readers of the SF Giants page (This section is also mirrored on the LA Dodgers page). It eventually will become it's own page, linked to both club's pages.

JamesMadison 06:56, 28 July 2005 (UTC)

• I think it's a good idea to break it out as its own article. That way NPOV can be properly beaten into it. (Just kidding -- it looks pretty fair to me right now.) Jsnell 05:59, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• It definitely belongs in its own article, as with White Sox-Cubs rivalry for example. The Giants-Dodgers rivalry is the oldest in professional sports. It goes back to at least the 1880s, and was unique (in baseball, anyway) in that it was two teams in the same league in the same city, as opposed to White Sox-Cubs, Yankees-Mets, etc. which until interleague play began were mostly a "war of words". During much of the first half of the 20th century, the Giants and Dodgers played 22 games each year against each other, all in Manhattan and Brooklyn. Decades ago, baseball historian Lee Allen wrote an entire book on the subject. If enough of these articles appear, they could be further categorized as "Sports Rivalries", fertile ground for American pop culture, as there are plenty of them to be written about. Wahkeenah 12:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

• If I were you, JamesMadison, I'd go ahead and break it out now. Then you won't have any version-control problems and it'll be in "neutral territory" between the two sites. Jsnell 22:16, 16 August 2005 (UTC)

Moved SF v LA section to San Francisco Giants v Los Angeles Dodgers page. I fvk'ed up and missed transferring maybe 2 sentences from recent additions; hopefully they will be readded with minimal fuss. Please add to this article as you see fit. JamesMadison 09:18, 19 August 2005 (UTC)

• Someone added some linking to the Bay Bridge Series, so I've modified the Dodgers section into a Rivalry section, featuring the Giants' storied in-division rival and their geographical rival. Jsnell 19:30, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Stu Miller

This article mentions that Stu Miller was blown off the mound at Candlestick as though it were fact. However, as a long-time Giants fan, it's my understanding that Miller actually tripped, and the whole "blown off the mound" thing is more legend than fact. However, I don't have a citation handy for this, and it was before my time. If someone who knows more about it can confirm that Miller tripped, I think this bit of the article should be edited.

It's my vague recollection that Miller was in the middle of the stretch position during the 1961 All-Star Game at San Fran, and a sudden gust of wind threw him off balance and he stutter-stepped, thus a balk was called. I don't think he was literally "blown off the mound", just blown off-balance. But you know how the media like to exaggerate things. :) 65.54.155.58 02:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

• • Agreed, that's my understanding of the Miller situation. Jsnell 05:24, 16 August 2005 (UTC)+

• Most sites state that Miller was blown off the rubber, resulting in the balk, and that fans at the game did not know why the balk had been called.--Buckboard 22:16, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

• • Yet most sites are wrong. Miller has repeatedly stated that he was not blown off the mound, but that the wind just made him sway, not trip. The legend that Miller was blown off the mound comes from a headline in a newspaper the following morning, which read MILLER BLOWN OFF MOUND. I have sources to back this up; if you need them, just ask. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 06:39, 17 December 2006 (UTC)

Roster Changes

I'm tempted to revert the changes Veronique made to the roster. It's really ugly in my opinion and I don't see why we care what nationality our players are. Also, those images are huge and make the page much slower to load. Thoughts? --Vik Reykja ♬ 16:21, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I got the idea from seeing it done on the soccer/football pages. As a lover of international flags, I find it aesthetically appealing, but that's a matter of personal taste. I don't notice a slower load time myself. Is that something dialup users are experiencing? As for why anyone would care, baseball is a very international sport today, much more so than in the past. With the upcoming first true World Cup of baseball coming next year, I think it's interesting for people to note which players might appear on their national teams in the competition. I also think it's interesting to see how some teams have many international players while others have relatively few. It's all part of the game. Veronique 17:01, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I like the international flags however I believe Bruce Bochy's flag should be changed to the American flag. While he was born in France, he was born to a US Army Officer which I believe makes him a United States Citizen. Thoughts? --Welpe 04:47, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

I saw on your user page that this is a little project of yours, and it's true that the æsthetics of it are a matter of personal taste – which is why I brought it up on the talk page instead of just killing it :-) As for the load time, I don't really notice a difference either since I have professional connections, it was just something I try to keep in mind. It would be interesting to know if people do in fact notice the load time. Unlike association football, major league baseball is not international (except for Toronto). The World Series is a ghastly name and we'll have to see what level of competition we get at the World Cup. If it's anything like the Olympics, it'll be a big joke. Personally, I'm not interested in going to all the team pages to see the nationality make up of the roster. Perhaps a page dedicated to this where I could easily compare them would be more appropriate. But finally, I don't really have any objection to this apart from "I don't like it" so if no one else speaks, I will not remove it. Especially since you're making the effort to have all of the pages look the same. --Vik Reykja ♬ 17:35, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The Hawk

If LaTroy Hawkins does for the Giants' bullpen what he did for that of my Twins and my Cubs, they are doomed for this year. No quantity of Barry Bonds home runs, no matter when he returns to the lineup, can rescue the "Jints". There is currently no major league park large enough to contain the rockets that opposing batters launch off Hawk's pitches. 65.54.155.58 02:49, 31 May 2005 (UTC)

The Hawk is gone. Let us never speak of him again. Jsnell 20:47, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

New articles

In my quest to avoid doing my reading for grad school, I've been doing a bit of work on Giants-related pages the last couple of days. I've started a few new Giants-related articles - Hank Greenwald, Mark Davis (baseball), and Peter Magowan - and I've added a new section to San Francisco Giants: Broadcasters. If anyone wants to contribute to those articles, I'm sure they could all use some work!

"The at-bat"

I think the addition of "the at-bat" (which I have never, ever, ever heard called that) into the history section seems a little odd to me. Maybe there should be a "memorable plays in Giants history?" section that could contain Mays' catch, the Shot Heard 'Round the World, Clark's hit, Brian Johnson's hit, etc.? Jsnell 22:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

History articles

The Giants article is getting quite large. Does anyone have an opinion of splitting off the NY Giants and SF Giants history sections into their own articles? Jsnell 22:25, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Reeks of Bias

This article needs a major overhaul. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Too Human (talk • contribs) .

Could you be more specific? I'm not necessarily disagreeing with you, but it would be helpful for you to outline the particular sections you feel are in need of changes so this can be debated. Thanks, Gwernol 17:22, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't see bias. (Of course, you could accuse me of bias myself.) ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 00:35, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I don't see any bias... and I loathe the Giants. Gateman1997 06:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Lines like this... "Unfortunately, the Florida Marlins ended the Giants' season with a 3-0 sweep in the first round of playoffs" and claiming that Saban is a good GM while not even mentioning the horrendous trade he made for the Giants by trading Joe Nathan (all-star closer), Boof Bonser (solid prospect), and Francisco Liriano (one of the best young pitchers in the game) for AJ Pierzynski. And that's all in just one paragraph. I also find it odd that their is no mention of Barry Bonds and his connection to steroids AT ALL. Not even a line. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Too Human (talk • contribs) .

The "unfortunately" line is indeed poor wording, and I'll change it, but it's one line among many. It's a bad line, not a bad article. The article never,a s you say, "(claims) Saban (sic) is a good GM." It says that the first trade he made turned out well for the Giants, and that's about it. As for Bonds, well, there's nothing about that controversy because nobody's added anything. While I think that issue mostly belongs in the Barry Bonds article itself, not here, a mention certainly wouldn't hurt. FWIW, though, the word "steroids" doesn't appear as far as I can tell on the New York Yankees (Giambi) article, the Texas Rangers (Palmeiro, Canseco), or the Oakland Athletics (Giambi, McGwire, Canseco) either. If you want to add something to the article about the Bonds/steroids controversy, that would be a lot more helpful than just complaining about it on the talk page. Signing your posts would also be helpful. Jcb9 05:58, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't you think that AJ Pierzynski trade should be mentioned? It was a pretty major move. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Too Human (talk • contribs) .

• The Bonds controversy should be included by a succinct description (as with Marichal-Roseboro) with a link to his page or an article page. Brian Sabean has been a better-than-averge GM to the extent that he's put together a club that contends for its division and has gone to a WS in the last 5 years--check out the current GMs of both leagues and see how many haven't--but on the whole there have been as many duds as hits in dealings. Nathan was a definite miss (despite his rookie showing, the verdict is out on Liriano) and Pierzynski like Sydney Ponson simply took the money and ran. As you can see, I am not unbiased enough to write that one.--Buckboard 21:00, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

On the basis of put up or shut up I cleaned up the Sabean paragraph. Anyone interested will see that that all has not been sweetness and light to fans, and by checking the Sabean link, can see the "names named".--Buckboard 21:22, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Player Name Update

Could the current roster updater please spell Kevin Frandsen's name correctly ... it's FranDSen not FranSDen. Thank you. The article for Kevin Frandsen has already been created. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rbifan (talk • contribs) .

I've gone ahead and made the change, and thanks for pointing out the error. In the future, however, feel free to make these edits yourself. The roster page, like any other roster page, can be edited by anyone, and if you can figure out how to create an article and edit a talk page, you're clearly capable of correcting a spelling error yourself as well. Jcb9 06:08, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Jcb9. Lesson learned for next time. Rbifan 00:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Brian Cooper

Why does Brian Cooper direct here? Can we separate it out?

Yes it can. There's a little blue link at the top of the page that would say redirect: Brian Cooper. Kingjeff 04:02, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Barry Bonds

Bonds started his career on the Pirates.He has one of the longest careers(20 years) in this season. Bonds broke the record with 715 home runs passing the great Babe Ruth.He is now chasing Hank Aaron who hit 755. He was acused of taking stariods.I personaly think he did but his trail continues.

How come hes no longer on the roster?--64.121.1.55 07:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

As a free agent, he was technically not on any team, but now that he has signed with the Giants, he is back on the roster. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 03:20, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Rivals?

I think that some of the rivals listed are pretty far-fetched. Colorado? San Diego? Just sharing a division with a team does not instantly bestow upon that team rival status.

The rivals should be Dodgers (main and historic), Oakland (geographic), and NYY (historic, geographic, etc.) --Satyricrash 08:48, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the A's and Giants play every year, but every three or so.

No, the A's and Giants are one of those special interleague rivalries—they play every year. ςפקιДИτς ☺ ☻ 04:20, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The Giants and the A's play several times a year. During preseason and during each interleague session. Personally, I think the rivalry is a bit overrated since many bay area fans will root mainly for one, but still like to see the other one win. It's not nearly as heated and bitter as the Dodgers - Giants rivalry, where each team takes delight in the other's failures nearly as much as their own team's successes. MonkBirdDuke 18:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

The Gaints and A's should be considered rivals. Look back at the rivalry in New York and Philadelphia. Thye were always meeting up in the Series and that resulted in a rivalry which only intensified when they both moved so close together. Also every Padre and Giant fan knows that the two are rivals. --Kblavie 21:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As a Giants fan, I can vouch for the fact that the Giants are Padres are most certainly not rivals, unless you mean divisional rivals, which is the very loosest sense of the term. As for Giants and A's, while I agree that there is some sense of a rivalry in the Bay Area, it is not intense. About the World Series, very few rivalries carry after one of the teams moves (The only example I could think of is Giants-Dodgers, and that is only because both teams moved at the same time to cities that were already rivals), and I would be hard-pressed to talk about a New York/San Fransisco Giants-Philadelphia/Kansas City A's rivalry, at least after 1913. Looking at a much more recent example, the Dodgers and Yankees (who were historic rivals) should be rivals by this definition because of the times they hooked horns in the 1970s and '80s, but I would not say that they are rivals any more than the Giants and Yankees are rivals (which is not much). I seriously doubt that 1960s Giants fans were bred with an innate hate of the Kansas City A's. The only time I can imagine the Giants and A's were seriously rivals between 1913 and 1967 would be the 1950s, when they were the farm club of the Yankees, one of the Giants' biggest rivals. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 02:30, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Why is the Oalkand A's article taken off the rivalry list? It is indeed an geographical interleague rivalry just like the Mets-Yankees and Cubs-White Sox.

Ball Dudes, anyone?

The Ball Dudes, the volunteer retirees who shag fouls down the sideline, are a beloved and unique part of the Giants tradition, no? anyone know? SH24.13.96.37 04:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Barry Zito

I have removed the section regarding his signing because I don't think it warrants a whole section, and its title ("Barry Good") was unencyclopedic. If someone wants to include that in the history, that's fine, but I don't think it warrants its own section. ¿ςפקιДИτς! ☺ ☻ 03:14, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

whole lotta wiggle words goin' on!

I gotta say, I see ALOT of wiggle words in this article. "some say" this, "many have said" that. The best way to fight the wiggle is to cite your references! This is an encyclopedia, not a column in the sports section of your local Sunday paper. --Bill W. Smith, Jr. 04:43, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Wine and Cheese Stereotype?

Does that section need to exist? It might be true, but it doesn't look very encyclopedic. DandyDan2007 22:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Nickname

One of the things that have become a major part of the baseball articles has been the nicknames. They've ben added to the leads as well as the infoboxes. However, the Giants are one of the notables not to have one, at least not one mentioned in the article. What nicknames do the Giants go by? I'm sure that such a historic team is not known only as "The Giants". - Silent Wind of Doom 18:59, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

The Giants were the nickname for the Gothams in the 1880s. The only other nickname I can think of is the Jints, but I think it stayed in New York. mtmont 16:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't know about "Jints," but does "Gigantes" really warrant inclusion? Apart from the Hispanic Appreciation Days, do they ever market themselves as the Dodgers? --Chancemichaels 20:39, 3 July 2007 (UTC)Chancemichaels

other nickname

The Gints!! HA HA!! Go LA!!!

Current season article

I'm not convinced that any of the current content will survive when the dust settles on the season; is it worth keeping it updated on a game-by-game basis (especially considering the existence of 2007 San Francisco Giants season)? Js farrar 18:16, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the best of it (the writing, not the season--best of it does not apply to this team) will survive in edits and trims and give a true flavor of the year. Besides, if Sabean is fired it will give an understandable context.--Buckboard 22:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that it's way too long and tedious. There is no need for a game-by-game or even series-by-series recap.

Length

This article is already far too long, and adding more intricate details of past seasons isn't helping. Is it worth moving all the history to a seperate article? Js farrar 22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

The Dodgers article is even worse! (It's over 80kb long last I checked) I think it's time for the two articles to be split. Dknights411 04:40, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Rivalries

I'm deleting Giants-Braves rivalry, because it isn't considered one any longer. There is a limit to how many teams can be considered a team's rivals. Js farrar 22:29, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

=== The Giants vs. Braves rivalry is more a rivalry than the Giants vs. Diamondbacks, and potentially more than the Giants vs. Padres. I even added stats and related information, dating back to the 60's and 70's. What makes a rivalry, anyway? Simply being in the same division doesn't ,or we would have to do that for every team. I think things important to a rivalry are: historical perspective, classic games, series or finishes, hatred amongst players (and fans, or fans towards certain opposing team players), playoff and late season battlings - knocking the other out of the playoffs (such as the "last great penant race" of 1993), these are all things that make rivalries. Granted, Braves vs. Giants is not on par with Dodgers vs. Giants, but it is equal to or better than some others listed here.

If anyone else agrees - we can open for debate. Otherwise, I won't add this back in just for my own opinion. Entirelybs 16:19, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I think the D-backs one is probably out of place, too. The recent battles with the Padres keep that one qualified, in my opinion, but should one or other team suffer an extended period away from the top of the division, it will fall off - the two clubs' fans, certainly, are more held together by hatred of Dodger blue than kept apart by rivalry Js farrar 17:02, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

I definitely think the Diamondbacks should go, and I'm on the fence about the Padres. However, I think the Padres are bigger rivals than the A's are. Regardless, I think that the rivalries section is too long. I propose deleting the D-Backs, and scaling back the Dodgers, Pads, and A's sections. If you look at the other teams' pages their rivalries sections aren't nearly as long or as varied. mtmont 19:01, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

All of these rivalries, save the Dodger-Giant rivalry, should be deleted. --Satyricrash 00:59, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Whichever anon deleted the A's section is absurd. It's a fairly asymmetric rivalry, admittedly, but to say it's not a rivalry at all is ridiculous. Js farrar 03:24, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I have restored A's in the Rivals section. Welpe 08:33, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

What rivalry? Going 1-5 for the season and scoring zero runs for the last 21 innings is NOT a rivalry.--Buckboard 22:45, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I removed the last sentence from the Giants-Dodgers Rivalry section. "Since the introduction of the free-agency system in the 1970s, many rivalries kept alive by famous players, now face a lack of rivalry competition, owing to the fact the teams are required to release high-profile players to the free-agency pool. Many baseball experts note that with the introduction of the free-agency system, the great era of baseball rivalries may soon come to an end." This is a statement on rivalries in general, and is not specific to the Giants-Dodgers rivalry. Welpe 08:39, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm deleting the Giants-Padres rivalry section. I have written why above. ¿SFGiДnts! ^{¿Complain! ¿Analyze! ¿Review!} 00:32, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

celebrity fan section?

Can someone shed light on why we have this section anyway? This seems more appropriate for People or Us magazines, than an encyclopedia style article. I mean, who really cares? Also, note that its not apparently part of the standard baseball template. Most other teams don't have this section (in fact, only 3 or 4 team sites have this).

I vote to eliminate this section, or at least make it its own page. Entirelybs 19:46, 12 July 2007 (UTC)