Jump to content

Talk:Stephen Strasburg

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Vodello (talk | contribs) at 16:57, 7 July 2010 (B-Class). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Nickname

"The Anchorman" is not a valid nickname for Strasburg. Being mentioned in an ESPN podcast is not a notable enough event to coin a nickname. It may eventually catch on, but as of now it shouldn't be added to the article. — X96lee15 (talk) 04:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:46, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respectfully disagree, as long as it's noted as such. I don't see any problem with noting the context in which this name was suggested, and providing the direct link to the actual audio which it was mentioned (which is available). Bill Simmons himself can also be linked internally to wikipedia, and his readers/followers are in the millions, make this is a very creditable source. Would appreciate it if this is re-evaluated, I believe now that he is pitching in pro leagues, this nick name will be mentioned more frequently. Cbirckhead (talk) 03:56, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Nationals

Strasburg has yet to sign as of July 30, 2009. Until he does, please do not alter his infobox to read "Washington Nationals."--Johnny Spasm (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. He's not in the Nationals organization. They control his rights and that's quite temporary. I remember reading some talk that he might go to Japan for a year and wait to be drafted again next year. Is it a bluff? We don't know. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Moot point now, isn't it? Nonpoint74 (talk) 15:29, 18 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Jersey number

Okay everybody, since nobody was willing to resolve the content dispute, I had to request protection for this page. Now, can you just come here and discuss this so the page doesn't have to be fully protected for 7 days just because of two characters!? Ksy92003 (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we cross-posted. See my comment right above yours. BTW, I should add that from looking at the history page for THIS article that there doesn't appear to be any sort of "consensus." 1995hoo (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, we sent our post at nearly the same time. With your permission, I'll copy/paste that comment here because we don't need two sections about this on the same talk page. Ksy92003 (talk) 18:08, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think that's fine. I'll delete the prior section. Looking at the history of this article, I see another user (X96lee15) was emphatic that the article should not list him as #37 when the current status is that the team doesn't regard him as wearing that. As I say on the page linked below, my preference would be to see some format indicating that the Nationals have said that he will be assigned this number when the time comes. 1995hoo (talk) 18:11, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking about this further while sorting the laundry and I wonder if it would be a reasonable compromise to leave the dash and to drop a footnote explaining that Strasburg was given a #37 jersey at his introductory press conference but that he is not presently listed on the team's roster that way. Note that at the time of the presser, third-base coach Pat Listach was assigned #37 and he continued to wear it until the first game of the Cubs series on August 25. I think that fact clearly indicates that in the eyes of the team, the presentation of the jersey at the press conference didn't constitute assigning Strasburg that number. (The footnote solution doesn't work for the roster template, which is why I raise it here. I'll post a version of this comment on that talk page too.) 1995hoo (talk) 18:30, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A further comment (yes, I suppose I'm talking to myself here). I was trying to find any news about Pat Listach's number change. See this entry from the Washington Post Nationals beat writer's blog ([1]). Listach was given the opportunity of waiting until next year to change numbers, meaning he could have kept wearing #37 for the remainder of this year. I believe this is further confirmation that Strasburg isn't yet "officially" #37. The team couldn't very well have had TWO #37s at the same time, could they? 1995hoo (talk) 18:49, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(Cut from previous post) I've raised the same issue at Template talk:Washington Nationals roster navbox and so I shan't repeat it here, as trying to track the same thing in two places seems counterproductive. 1995hoo (talk) 18:01, 29 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page had to have editing disabled because of a debate over a jersey number? Yikes. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:55, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting that, halfway through the week, nobody who felt that Strasburg has already been assigned #37 has had anything to say in support of that position, isn't it? 1995hoo (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
WP:VERIFY, Strasburg was given #37 at the press conference and Litash took #4, remember it is verifiabilty and not truth. Ositadinma (talk) 20:31, 8 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

start by start?

Why are we posting start by start summaries of his performance in the Arizona Fall League? That really is not appropriate.Spanneraol (talk) 14:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you. It's impractical to include a start-by-start chronology, especially if a pitcher has a long career, and it's unnecessary because that sort of thing is recorded in all sorts of other places. It seems silly to try to make Wikipedia into a stats database when other sources already do that. I'm deleting the game-by-game thing, but someone can always restore it in the future if it's found to be appropriate. 1995hoo (talk) 17:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly, I'm wondering why, at this point (after his first start in the majors), anything at all is mentioned about his play in the Arizona league. Conversely, I'm wondering why the name of the batter who hit a home run in Strasburg's debut was deleted. Thoughts? Sholom (talk) 04:16, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
His first professional appearance should be noted... the batter who hit a home run against him really is not historically notable. Spanneraol (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Two responses: (1) Do other players have their Arizona League appearances noted? (2) Why is his first strikeout victim historically notable, but not the first guy to get a hit/home run off of him? Sholom (talk) 03:18, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Some of them do.. depends on how much minor league info is included on the players... just his very first would be notable.. Strikeouts are more notable for pitchers than hits.. would you note the first player to hit a double off him? Spanneraol (talk) 03:20, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but doubles are not as noteworthy. How many people know off the top of their head who the "double king" is? But fans know the "home run king", and know the single-season record for HR's. I'm just thinking that if Strasburg goes on to have a HoF-like career, it might be Delwyn Young's claim to fame. (Not to put Young down). Similar to Mike Bacsik's claim to fame is that he surrendered Bond's 756th. (OK, not exactly comparable, but I think you get the jist). In fact, in Bond's article, the pitcher who surrendered 754, which was one short of the record at the time, is even listed. Sholom (talk) 03:48, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Does Roger Clemens article mention who hit the first home run off of him? Does Randy Johnson? The home run simply isnt notable to the pitcher, the way strikeouts are... It MAY be notable to Young IF Strasberg becomes a hall of famer... but it would not be notable to the pitcher. Spanneraol (talk) 04:05, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

bob feller

you might want to mention that bob feller had 15 k's in his first start —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.197.107.101 (talk) 21:04, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I just put it in. Sholom (talk) 03:36, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Other records

It should be added to the page that in Strasburg's first game, he set a very noteworthy record: Lowest amount of pitches thrown in a 14K performance. I believe the previous record holder was J.R. Richards, who threw 96 in his third game. Strasburg has also set the record for the most strike-outs records in his first three games (32Ks). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.231.246.242 (talk) 09:39, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stephen_Strasburg&oldid=372239771"