Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 24

This is an archive of past discussions on Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

→

José Bautista redux

When I was adding the Hank Aaron Award template to José Bautista's page, I had a thought on how we can handle that unresolved issue of where the page should be located. The page José Bautista exists only as a disambiguator for two individuals, José Bautista (utility player) and José Bautista (pitcher). In cases where there are only two people to distinguish between, we don't need a separate disambiguation page. I think we should move the active player to José Bautista, and keep the journeyman reliever at José Bautista (pitcher). --Muboshgu (talk) 04:23, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Given the current prominence of the active player, I would wholeheartedly support this. -Dewelar (talk) 04:37, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I support this move as well. I thought Jose Bautista (pitcher) was active, but he retired in 1997 with a 32-42 record. Vodello (talk) 04:49, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree with that notion. Jntg4Games (talk) 11:57, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

Without objection, I'll put in the requested move. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:07, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Sparky Anderson

As I'm sure you guys know, Hall of Famer Sparky Anderson has been placed under hospice care, and could be near death. I propose that we undergo a collaborative effort and try and get his article at least to GA status. We've done this successfully before, and since he's in the Hall it would certainly be worthy of our time. If nothing else, at least watchlist his article to make sure people aren't trying to add in fase death info. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

He has since passed on, so let's keep an eye on the article to make sure the death isn't listed in five places throughout the article, and let's try and make it one of our best ones on a manager. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:04, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I think this should be an interesting project, I will lend a hand with this as well.Neonblak ^talk - 18:08, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Possible collaboration for a Giants fan

I know that, if there are any Giants fans here, they are probably all elated by the World Series, and that's all they want to think about. However, I'm working on an (relatively) old-timer article in my userspace, and if there's a Giants fan who might be interested in helping out (especially a New York Baseball Giants fan, since it's that era), let me know on my talk page. Thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 17:37, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Negro league baseball articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Negro league baseball articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

Old-time Base Ball articles have been selected for the Wikipedia 0.8 release

Version 0.8 is a collection of Wikipedia articles selected by the Wikipedia 1.0 team for offline release on USB key, DVD and mobile phone. Articles were selected based on their assessed importance and quality, then article versions (revisionIDs) were chosen for trustworthiness (freedom from vandalism) using an adaptation of the WikiTrust algorithm.

We would like to ask you to review the Old-time Base Ball articles and revisionIDs we have chosen. Selected articles are marked with a diamond symbol (♦) to the right of each article, and this symbol links to the selected version of each article. If you believe we have included or excluded articles inappropriately, please contact us at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8 with the details. You may wish to look at your WikiProject's articles with cleanup tags and try to improve any that need work; if you do, please give us the new revisionID at Wikipedia talk:Version 0.8. We would like to complete this consultation period by midnight UTC on Sunday, November 14th.

We have greatly streamlined the process since the Version 0.7 release, so we aim to have the collection ready for distribution by the end of November, 2010. As a result, we are planning to distribute the collection much more widely, while continuing to work with groups such as One Laptop per Child and Wikipedia for Schools to extend the reach of Wikipedia worldwide. Please help us, with your WikiProject's feedback!

If you have already provided feedback, we deeply appreciate it. For the Wikipedia 1.0 editorial team, SelectionBot 16:35, 6 November 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject cleanup listing

I have created together with Smallman12q a toolserver tool that shows a weekly-updated list of cleanup categories for WikiProjects, that can be used as a replacement for WolterBot and this WikiProject is among those that are already included (because it is a member of Category:WolterBot cleanup listing subscriptions). See the tool's wiki page, this project's listing in one big table or by categories and the index of WikiProjects. Svick (talk) 20:56, 7 November 2010 (UTC)

Outline of cricket

Sports-related outlines currently under development include:

and...

Outline of cricket

But there is no Outline of baseball.

Can you guys beat the other Sports WikiProjects to completion?

To create an outline on baseball, click on the redlink above and add this line:

{{subst:BLT|baseball|Baseball}}

Then press Save page and start adding relevant subheadings and links.

For the whole set of outlines on Wikipedia, see Portal:Contents/Outlines.

Here are some examples of developed outlines:

The Transhumanist 23:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Shot Heard 'Round the World (baseball)

Could one of our more intrepid, history-minded members take a crack at cleaning this article up? As it stands only this, the 59 tie-breaker (which I've almost finished in my sandbox), the 46 tie-breaker (which Wizardman is nearly done with), and 2 other series are left on our tie-breaker special project. Thanks so much if you can! Staxringold _talk^contribs 01:46, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

MLB Draft articles are all missing intros

I visited the 1978 Major League Baseball Draft article, and found that it had no intro, and that it wasn't mentioned where or when the draft was held. Same with 1979, 1980, etc. I started to tag these with {{intromissing}}, but I figured I'd just come here to let the appropriate people know. Instead of tagging every single year. — Timneu22 · talk 15:09, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Hot Stove season

As we get into the thick of free agency, I wonder aloud if it might be worth it for the project to create a page of Hot Stove season recommendations or guidelines - a page to which to direct new editors and IPs who add team information to players before deals are finalized and announced. Thoughts? — KV5 • Talk • 21:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

P.S. This came about because of Joaquin Benoit, so eyes if you have them. Cheers. — KV5 • Talk • 21:21, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Good idea, though I wonder how effective it will be. Every time we redirect one, five more will come out of nowhere.

I think we should compile a list of free agents (as well as the most speculated trade targets like Uggla) and put them all on our watch lists. I've got the most obvious ones watched (Lee, Werth, Crawford, etc.) but some guys like Benoit easily fall off my radar. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:27, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Actually no need to compile the list of free agents when MLBTR has done the work already. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:29, 17 November 2010 (UTC)

Baseball player inforbox policy

Is there a policy of when to add a player's team for next season in the infobox? Kingjeff (talk) 17:03, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I don't know if its written down anywhere. But I believe the team goes in the infobox immediately, but the player doesn't go in the category until he plays a game. -DJSasso (talk) 17:04, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Correct, If the player is signed to a major league contract, add the team in the infobox, and leave the category asside until the player debuts, if he doesn't play for his new club that season, take the team out of the infobox and set that asside with the category. – Michael (talk) 17:18, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember bringing this up last off-season. I'm sure the discussion is in the archives somewhere for more specifics. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:20, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

You are probably thinking of this. -DJSasso (talk) 19:24, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I remember this not being the case. Consider players who are only members of a team during the offseason. Omar Infante is one example I recently worked on a little. He was a member of the Cubs only in the offseason, therefore the team is not included in the infobox. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I think in those cases the teams were later removed. Atleast from what I have seen. Again don't know if it was something written down and codefied. -DJSasso (talk) 19:44, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I never saw the reason to add the team until the player appeared in a game. But it was a fair compromise to add the team to the infobox and not add the category. I would also like to ask, why does this project focus so much on infoboxes? We currently have 16,597 stub articles and 7,013 start class articles. I have never seen any concern over this. But week after week we discuss what position someone should be, or the proper terminology for stats, or what stats should be included. How about working on the articles? I'm just saying. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. That isn't just an issue with this project and infoboxes. That's a systemic issue all over wikipedia. People always just want to work on the low hanging fruit and to do things that make them feel they are helping. (ie drive by maintenance tagging etc). Not something likely to ever change. -DJSasso (talk) 00:14, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. It was just a suggestion. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Oh I wasn't assuming bad faith. Or saying it was a bad idea. I was just point out it happens on wikipedia alot. I happen to agree with you. -DJSasso (talk) 00:26, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

And I didn't mean that to be directed at you, I'm sorry. I was just clarifying that it was a serious suggestion, not just rude complaining. I didn't want someone who is not a "regular" around here to think I was taking a bite out of them. I think that throwing the idea out there is the best I can do. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:33, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

NRIs in roster navboxes?

We have a section in Template:MLB Spring Training roster for NRIs, should we also add them to the roster navboxes in place of the inactive section for the duration of the offseason? --Muboshgu (talk) 19:42, 19 November 2010 (UTC)

I would say no... that would be way too much adding and then removing the navboxes... if they aren't on the 40 man roster.. they shouldnt be in the nav box. Spanneraol (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

I think you may be underestimating the demand to edit roster templates. They do get high IP traffic when it comes to editing. I would support it. I think it's something that would be maintained and not neglected. It also serves a useful purpose. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:11, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Well those have always been only for 40-man players before, dont see any reason to change that? Spanneraol (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Consensus can change, that's all I'm saying. I don't think either way is wrong, but I think one way is more useful. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 05:54, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Mariners' Wiki Project

Hey everybody, just a heads-up, I revamped WikiProject Seattle Mariners. It was inactive as far as I could tell so I'll send out a notice to users who were around for the creation of it that I re-did it and if they would like to continue to work on it, it would be wonderful, but it seemed most had lost interest in it. If you would like to join, please do. --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 03:56, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

FYI

I just played around with Template:MLB roster, Template:MLB Spring Training roster and Template:MiLB roster such that we no longer need to include

as a workaround. They can be removed without affecting appearance. Something similar might work for the teams and awards input lines on Template:Infobox MLB player, but it is locked to non-admins. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:50, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

Put the fixed version in your sandbox and let me know and I can copy it over. -DJSasso (talk) 01:15, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

I'll let you know if I figure it out, but so far I'm having trouble with it. The issue is the damn html coding. I took it out of those other templates easily, but this one is trickier. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:34, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Baseball-Reference

This is a notification to the project about an ongoing discussion: see Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster (B)/archive1. An editor, who has previously contested the reliability of Baseball-Reference.com as a source, is now contesting that it does not qualify as a secondary source. Input from project members would be appreciated. Thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 19:22, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

Víctor Martínez (baseball)

There was a minor revert war with one editor who thinks that the free agent signing wasn't official yet, and even removed any part of the signing. Now the article is protected, can an admin unprotect the page please. Thanks Secret ^account 01:03, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

World Series summary table

There is a discussion going on regarding the sort order of the table in the World Series article that summarizes the team totals. I would welcome additional feedback. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Lefty Grove

I was finishing uploading the 1933 Goudey cards, when I encountered that article, probably our worst article on a highly important player. I just bought the biography on Amazon 10 min ago and going to start working on it as soon as I get it (I have two projects on my own). But I'm a poor prose writer and I would need help on this. Anyone willing to help me as a group project. Thanks Secret ^account 05:51, 11 November 2010 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist and will help as I can. --Muboshgu (talk) 02:00, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Added as well, will contribute what I can. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:11, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Thanks Secret ^account 22:05, 13 November 2010 (UTC)

Got the book two days ago, a little dissapointed it's a SABR work which I don't trust as a reliable source Secret ^account 01:04, 25 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd trust SABR far more than a typical biography as far as actually having done research. I've added a few sources for existing material in the article, and will try and expand it when I get a chance. -Dewelar (talk) 00:09, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Secret, I'm curious as to why you don't trust SABR as a reliable source? (Not complaining, just seeing if I can learn something.)--Fabrictramp | talk to me 01:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Adam Dunn

Can someone help? I don't want to get cited for 3RR. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:14, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Done 3-day semi-pro. — KV5 • Talk • 23:20, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Always nice to have an admin in the house. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:22, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

Category:Major League Baseball pinch hitters

I recently created a page for Ray Cosey whose 9 game major league career consisted of 9 plate appearances as a pinch hitter. Both MLB.com and Baseball-Reference.com list his "position" as pinch hitter. I was surprised to find that the Major League Baseball pinch hitters category was recently deleted here. It was nominated on November 7 with the rationale that "Being a pinch hitter is not really a position". A week later someone voted delete "per nom" with no further explanation and two days after that it was deleted. As far as I could tell, this nomination was never brought to the attention of this WikiProject. In my opinion (and the opinion of MLB and B-R.com), pinch hitter is a position just as much as designated hitter which has its own category. I recreated the category, but I have no way of knowing the pages that used to be in the category before it was deleted. Is there any way to find this out? Kinston eagle (talk) 02:00, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

The only thing I can suggest is to look at the change log for that date and look for a bunch of bot edits removing the category. Along this line, I do have a couple question for the project: assuming this category doesn't get deleted again should we use this solely for players who didn't play a position in the majors, or should we also use it for players who are known as pinch hitters (e.g. Manny Mota, Lenny Harris, Smoky Burgess, etc.)? Also, do we want a category for pinch runners as well? -Dewelar (talk) 02:42, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

My main concern is categorizing players who had no field position at all but only appeared as pinch hitters such as Cosey and George Tomer. This would go for pinch runners as well. I know the A's had a couple of these in the 70's. It wouldn't seem right to me to use the generic Major League players category for such people since they had a primary position - it just wasn't a defensive one. As far as the others, I would have no objection to having players such as the ones you mentioned added to the category as long as they were primarily used in that role during a significant part of their career. Kinston eagle (talk) 03:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

So far, I have found ten players who were used exclusively as pinch hitters during their short major league careers. This was confirmed by looking at their game logs on B-R.com. I think that that's enough to at least make a case that the category shouldn't be deleted for lack of members. Kinston eagle (talk) 04:05, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

You should be able to find a fair number more going through the List of Major League Baseball players letter by letter and looking for anyone with the disambiguator "(pinch hitter)". -Dewelar (talk) 04:39, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

What about players who were known for pinch hitting? For example, Bill Stein set the American League record for consecutive pinch hits and was seen as one of the best pinch hitters of his time. Would he get added to the category or is exclusively for players who made no appearances in the field? --Brian Halvorsen (talk) 00:32, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This seems to be a problematic deletion. The rationale was that this category mapped to Category:Major League Baseball players by position and pinch hitting is not really a position - even if that is true, that is an argument for moving pinch hitting outside the position Major League Baseball players by position category, not for deleting it. And the only editor who agreed with deleting did so on the basis that most players pinch hit at some point in their careers, missing the point that some players have only pinch hit in their career. Rlendog (talk) 18:11, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

This would be totaly over-categorization. Categorizing by action performed in a game is definitely overkill. This would be like having a category for players who hit 4th in the batting order. -DJSasso (talk) 18:43, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

But, if the player has only ever pinch hit, "pinch hitter" is his position. That's why this category is needed.oknazevad (talk) 20:13, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Not really, his position would be whatever position the player he was replacing was. The action he performed was pinch hitting. But that was not his position. -DJSasso (talk) 20:20, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I would tend to agree.. players really were never on a roster under the designation "pinch hitter." They were outfielders or infielders or something else.. They may have never actually gotten into a game at those positions but still... perhaps some research as to what positions they played in the minor leagues?Spanneraol (talk) 20:24, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Exactly, if they replaced an outfielder, officially for that at-bat they were considered an outfielder. The equivalent of what people are suggesting would be if someone only ever bunted in their one game in the majors, and we then called them a bunter and put them in a category for people called bunters. A pinch hit like a bunt is just an action in a game, it is not a position or really a defining characteristic of a player. -DJSasso (talk) 20:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah I agree too. Pinch hitter is a role, not a position, much like closer is a role and relief pitcher is the appropriate position. But I'm not sure about listing a player with a fielding position if they never took the field. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:34, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Even if "officially for that at-bat they were considered an outfielder," that doesn't mean they were an outfielder. Most pinch hitters bat for the pitcher, but if someone has one major league at bat in which they bat for the pitcher, they shouldn't be categorized as a Major League pitcher. I don't think it really matters whether pinch hitting is a "position" or not; I think it is close enough to suffice for categorization purposes for players who never played in the Major Leagues in the field, and even if not the category could be placed under "Major League Baseball players" instead of "Major League baseball players by position." Rlendog (talk) 21:53, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I left a note for the closing administrator asking to reconsider the deletion. Rlendog (talk) 18:54, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Acting on advice this is now at DRV. Rambo's Revenge (talk) 19:28, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

I would be interested in sseing support for the statement above by DJSasso that the position of a pinch hitter is that of the player the pinch hitter replaced. I'm not quite sure that is correct. Also, as a second point, of course we have DHs, which are not "in the field" positions. And, similar to PHs, only bat. The notion that all players must have field positions doesn't seem accurate to me, in light of that.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:42, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
- Each player in a baseball lineup has a designated position; when you replace someone, that person is assuming the position of the original player (barring other positional shifts with the rest of the lineup). A pinch hitter is a replacement for that position who was in turn replaced, without getting the chance to play in the position. DH is a special case as a "hitting-only" substitute for the pitcher. If a DH is moved to the field, the pitcher is essentially inserted into the lineup as a replacement for the fielder, and then moved to the pitcher position, while the DH is moved to the fielder's position. Isaac Lin (talk) 21:15, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
  - I understand that is the proposition made. Can you supply a diff to support it? Another possibility is that the PH replaced the "player" only in the role of hitting, and not in fielding. A DH is not considered a "pitcher", even though as you point out his role is to bat when the pitcher would have batted. I note, btw, that Cosey's "position" is listed by Baseball-Reference as ... pinch hitter. The answer is not yet clear to me.--Epeefleche (talk) 21:19, 29 November 2010 (UTC)
    - The rulebook doesn't require any positional distinctions in the lineup order other than DH. It comes down to what is the most useful definition of "position". Typically players on an MLB roster, other than DHs, must have sufficient skills to play a fielding position; they don't earn a permanent roster spot as a pinch-hitter. Isaac Lin (talk) 21:35, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

A pinch hitter doesn't assume the fielding position of the player he pinch hit for until he actually takes the field in the following half inning. That's why you'll see two different ways of noting pinch hitters in a box score:

The pinch hitter takes the field after his at bat...

John Smith RF - Smith was the original player in the lineup.

a Fred Jones PH-RF - Jones pinch hit for Smith, then took the field.

The pinch hitter doesn't take the field after his at bat...

John Smith RF - Smith was the original player in the lineup.

a Fred Jones PH - Jones pinch hit for Smith.

Bill Brown RF - Brown took the field for Smith: Jones didn't play RF (or any other fielding position).

So DJSasso was actually incorrect: when a player pinch hits, for that first at bat they are officially considered a pinch hitter. The same applies when a player pinch hits for the designated hitter; though he doesn't actually take the field as DH the pinch hitter isn't recognised as the DH until the next half inning. All of this applies in the same way to pinch runners as well:

John Smith RF - Smith was the original player in the lineup.

a Fred Jones PH - Jones pinch hit for Smith.

1 Jack Taylor PR - Taylor pinch ran for Jones.

Bill Brown RF - Brown took the field for Smith: neither Jones nor Taylor played RF.

You can take a look at this box score and the associated play-by-play from a recent Australian Baseball League game that illustrates how these types of substitutions are handled and recorded.

With all of this, I'd have to say that PH and PR are both positions in the same way that DH is, and I think that a player that has played a significant proportion of their games either exclusively as a PH/PR or entered the game as a PH/PR should be recognised as such. Afaber012 (talk) 21:46, 29 November 2010 (UTC)

Depends on who is doing the box score perhaps. But I know in Canadian papers when you see the boxscore it always lists them as the position of the player they replaced. Because officially there are always a set number/type of positions that must be active in the game. So for that one at bat (barring other shifts of the roster) they are the position they are replacing. DH is a completely different animal because in the leagues that have one, the DH is an official position itself. -DJSasso (talk) 01:11, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Djasso, he is correct about the box scores... a pinch hitter is not replacing a position... especially since most pinch hitters are batting for the pitcher... not an outfielder... However, that still doesnt make it a position itself.. It's just an act.. Fred Jones was probably listed on the roster as an outfielder... not as a pinch hitter... he just appeared in that role in this particular game. Spanneraol (talk) 01:16, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that is my main point anyways. It's what they are listed on the roster as, that is their position in the end. -DJSasso (talk) 01:19, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Well, except if Fred Jones (Shaggy, you and Scooby go that way...) never played a position, how he's listed on the roster doesn't matter -- we can't put Fred Jones in the MLB outfielders category, because he doesn't get credited with a game played in the outfield in the official stats in this circumstance. He may not even be an outfielder -- he could have been a third baseman his whole minor league career who happened to get his one PA PH'ing for an outfielder. He either gets put in a PH-specific category, or he gets tossed in the general MLB players category with no position. I have no real preference for which way to do it, but putting him in the outfielders category would be unacceptable. -Dewelar (talk) 01:30, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

My preference would be to put him in the general category with no position.Spanneraol (talk) 01:33, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Tx Afab -- that was instructive. Well, mlb.com is the official source, so the way that mlb.com does boxscores should be instructive. Also, I would think that if Wade Boggs had only pitched in the majors, he would be listed as a pitcher. Even if on the roster they had him listed as a third baseman. So I'm not sure that how one appears on a roster is dispositive, or even if it is an official designation -- I tend to think not. Rosters sometimes list people as utilitymen or infielders, for example.--Epeefleche (talk) 02:00, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

How often do rosters list infielders or outfielders broken down by position? IME, they're generally grouped together for the sake of presentation. -Dewelar (talk) 02:54, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Not only that, but there have been occasions when players are listed at a specific position (say SS), but because of trades/injuries/etc have wound up spending most of their time at a different position (say 3B). Though generally they may be useful, I don't think that how a player is listed on a roster - which may or may not reflect the team management's view on how a player is likely to be used - should be the be all and end all. A guy could be an outfielder but only ever play left field: we'd list him as a left fielder, not an outfielder, right? Likewise, if a guy only ever acts as a pinch hitter in the Majors, surely he'd be classed as a Major League pinch hitter, rather than a Major League <insert-other-position-here>-er. Even if he only ever pinch hits for a right fielder, that could just as easily say something about the team's starting right fielder(s) rather than the guy himself.

Also to Epeefleche, that ABL example I linked to uses MLB's (or perhaps more accurately MiLB's) content management system for its website, box scores, etc. Though I can't give you a link to an example right now, I would accept wagers on large amounts of money that MLB uses the same notation for substitutions that I used and linked to above. Afaber012 (talk) 11:46, 30 November 2010 (UTC)

Are these categories exclusive? What about Bill French who played two games at 1B, two at RF, one at P, and one at 3B? or Walter Mueller who played 41 left, 5 center, and 41 right? Baseball-reference uses an algorithm to assign descriptive classes that are not exclusive.

What is the purpose of putting the 16000 pages for MLB players into such categories? Wikipedia purpose should govern wikipedia practice, and that purpose is not to be found at the MLB office. Box scores report games and the duties of baseball official scoring are at that level of aggregation. Players, and player-seasons or player-careers, are not members of official occupational classes by position or role. "Major League Baseball players" as used here are not officially Major League Baseball Players, either. --P64 (talk) 04:55, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

"So far, I have found ten players who were used exclusively as pinch hitters during their short major league careers."--Kinston

Relying on a database that is now a few years out of date, there were 186 such players 1871 to 2006, more than 1% of all major leaguers. Two-thirds played only one or two games. Only one played at least 10% of one season or the equivalent in multiple seasons, Joe Brovia. Kinston's example Ray Cosey was one of fifteen who played nine games or equivalent, more than 5% of one season. Some may be mistakes: missing values in the database.

"This would go for pinch runners as well. I know the A's had a couple of these in the 70's."--Kinston

Herb Washington never completed a "plate appearance" as a batter, but he was used in a way that made him officially a designated hitter in 31 of 105 career games. I suppose the pinch-runner for a DH is officially a DH, whereas the pinch-runner for a shortstop becomes officially a shortstop only if he plays that position in the next half-inning. --P64 (talk) 05:09, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Ongoing problem at Template:Atlanta Braves roster

We've got anonymous IP's changing lots of numbers with no sourcing. I revert to the numbers provided by MLB.com, which is what we consider the only official source of rosters. Should I try to put it up for semi-protection? --Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Would be a content dispute, so wouldn't really be elligible for semi-pro. -DJSasso (talk) 20:27, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually, I'd call that persistent vandalism, if they're intentionally changing sourced information without citation or explanation, despite the reversions. I am not an admin, but I'd think that'd be eligible for a day or two of semi just to end the persistence. oknazevad (talk) 02:59, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Has anyone asked them if they have a source for their information? Spanneraol (talk) 03:06, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

Having been down this road before, when its multiple different IPs doing it, its usually considered a content dispute. If it was one IP then I would just block the IP for vandalizing. -DJSasso (talk) 13:33, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

misc field in Template:MLB yearly infobox

Can someone explain what the misc field in Template:MLB yearly infobox is intended to be used for? Isaac Lin (talk) 03:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Championship seasons... world series... that sort of thing. 03:39, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

So to summarize the ultimate team accomplishment for the season? I've just gone through the Expos seasons (in order to fix something that was messing up the next/previous season links), and there were some individual accomplishments: Dennis Martinez's perfect game, Pedro Martinez's Cy Young, Pete Rose playing in Montreal, and Mark McGwire hitting his 70th home run. I removed the note on Mark McGwire as it didn't seem appropriate to highlight an opponent accomplishment, but are any individual accomplishments appropriate? Isaac Lin (talk) 04:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion it should be for team accomplishments rather than individual ones but I know a few people have added individual things and I dont feel strongly enough about it to remove them... Thanks for fixing the season links.. I couldn't figure out why a few of the pages were wonky.. I added the code from one of the sandbox versions to the infobox today and it seemed to mess up a few of them but most were fine.Spanneraol (talk) 04:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

For the Montreal season pages, nearly all of the seasons had the team name as a wiki-link instead of just plain text. This resulted in nested square brackets in the previous/next season links, so they didn't render as intended. Isaac Lin (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree that any field in the season infobox should be reserved for information about the team. On a separate note, there's something else that has been nagging at me about this infobox: the lack of the team's record and final placement during the season. Is there some reason we don't include these data? All three of the other "big four" team sports include them. -Dewelar (talk) 04:59, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Probably just cause whomever originated this thing didnt think to add the information. Would you put it at the top where the "misc" field is or under the season information section? Our info box is already larger than the other sports boxes cause we have all the tv/radio information which takes up a lot of space. Spanneraol (talk) 14:19, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest replacing the misc field with something like "3rd in division; W–L 82–80", and a second line below it to show any final playoff results: "Wildcard; lost in ALCS"; "Lost in NLDS"; "World Series Champions". Isaac Lin (talk) 15:01, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with Isaac. A team's record/placement is typically the most important piece of information about the season, so it should go very close to the top. If we want to keep the miscellaneous field, I would suggest tacking it on at the bottom (above the new navigational section) and use it like we do the highlights section of the player infobox. -Dewelar (talk) 15:06, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Dewelar. -DJSasso (talk) 15:08, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Do you have any examples of highlights that you are thinking the misc field could hold? Just trying to determine if the field is really necessary. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:45, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

A player breaking a franchise record? Or a team playing a milestone game like the 5000th or whatever. Those are some of the things I could think of. -DJSasso (talk) 15:52, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Players breaking franchise records should be covered in prose and in the player articles, not the team's infobox. Since it's about the team, it should be restricted to team accomplishments. — KV5 • Talk • 15:53, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Breaking a franchise record is about the team...its the teams record. But yeah...was just examples. I would remove the thing personally...already too much stuff in infoboxes in general. -DJSasso (talk) 16:04, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

(ec) I can see both arguments, in that sometimes the highlight of a season is an individual accomplishment. For instance, much of the 1995 Orioles season was centered on Ripken breaking Gehrig's record. However, it might be best not to have it at all for that very reason, in that it would wind up as a repository for subjectivity. -Dewelar (talk) 16:11, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

It might be easier to just use the current misc field to type in the team record information that is suggested above.... it can be renamed if necessary, though that might mess up the existing articles. We could just go through and add the information to the articles as we go through them... The problem with baseball articles as opposed to hockey or football is that a change like that affects quite a large number of articles since we have season articles for every Major team dating back to 1871... unless someone can figure out how to fix it with a bot or something... Spanneraol (talk) 16:17, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

If you create a new field instead of use the old one. And then just remove the old one from the template. It won't damage any of the articles using the old field because the infobox will just ignore the information. So there will be no effect to the end user. And over time as you come across the old parameters you can just remove them. (or someone could maybe write a bot to do it). This is how we have deprecated params in the hockey player infobox in the past. However, if you try to just change the use of the parameter then you would have issues because it would still display whatever is in the param. -DJSasso (talk) 16:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Luke Scott

There is an ongoing discussion at Talk:Luke Scott concerning whether his recent controversial statements to the press about Barack Obama and guns are relevant to his article. They were included and sourced and since removed. Kinston eagle (talk) 22:29, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Template:Ivy League MLB All-Stars

Template:Ivy League MLB All-Stars is up for discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2010 December 10.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 23:19, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

My bad, I nominated it for deletion and should've posted it here. Thank you Tony. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:24, 11 December 2010 (UTC)

Owners and executives

Over the weekend, I noticed that some teams had pages for owners and executives, with all sorts of differing names. I decided to standardize them all, and create new ones for the franchises that didn't have them. They are all here: Category:Lists of Major League Baseball owners and executives. As I was doing this, I noticed that some of the manager pages (maybe 5-10) had info on GMs (but not owners or other executives), and I went ahead boldly and moved the info to those owner and executive pages. This included removing some content from pages that had featured list status. I felt it was for the best, though, to keep our coverage of the thirty franchises uniform, and because field managers and front office personnel should be treated differently. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

If we are going to have separate lists on owners and executives for every team, we need to have a clear established consensus on the criteria for inclusion in those lists, so that everyone and their brother who ever worked in a baseball team's front office ~~ends up on them~~ doesn't end up on them. — KV5 • Talk • 20:26, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. I believe it should be owners, general managers, team presidents and anyone else considered notable enough to have their own article (e.g., someone who worked as a farm director or scouting director prior to become a GM elsewhere). Do we consider former star players a la Don Newcombe and Reggie Jackson, who are listed as special advisers, to be members of the front office? I think yes. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

One worry I have is that if, for example, an assistant GM who used to be a full-time GM, he will likely have his own article, but assistant GMs aren't generally being included in these lists. I happen to think that an "other notable personnel" section would be bordering on trivial and indiscriminate. — KV5 • Talk • 20:59, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I wonder how you handle a situation like the Cubs of the 20s and 30s, in which William Wrigley was the owner, but William Veeck Sr was the President. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 21:16, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Owners and Team Presidents are listed separately. Spanneraol (talk) 21:19, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

For ownership groups, should all owners be listed, or just the managing partner? For example, should the Boston Red Sox list show all of the owners currently listed in the Boston Red Sox infobox? Isaac Lin (talk) 23:14, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I honestly believe that it should just be the majority owner or managing partner, as most minority owners will be nearly impossible to reference. — KV5 • Talk • 23:25, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You could avoid the issue just by listing the owning corporation/partnership as opposed to the individual partners in the corp/partnership. -DJSasso (talk) 23:31, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

It's not always a corporation or partnership that owns it, plus those corporations in most cases aren't notable enough for their own articles. — KV5 • Talk • 00:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Unless its a single person owning the team (in which case this discussion would be moot), there is always at least a limited partnership (LLP) that owns it. Also, things in lists don't have to be individually notable, just the list itself. -DJSasso (talk) 00:48, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Maybe in some situations, but what about the cases where the other owners are known? Regarding listing the legal entity, though it can be listed as well, I don't see why any known shareholders/partners should be omitted. Isaac Lin (talk) 01:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

Bid McPhee

Bid Mcphee's page states, "To date, McPhee remains the only member of the American Association (major league, 1882–1891, and the first competitor of the National League) to be elected to Cooperstown." Yet, Tommy McCarthy, elected to the Hall in 1946, played for the St. Louis Browns for 4 seasons in the American Association. (Somewhat interestingly, McCarthy is still the only player in the Hall from the Union Association). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.43.48.149 (talk) 23:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

That is clearly wrong. John McGraw and Wilbert Robinson, to name two, both played for Baltimore of the AA before it moved to the NL. In fact, Robby played for the AL Orioles as well. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:53, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

I could understand an argument that McGraw and Wilbert Robinson do not count, since they were both inducted as managers. Yet, McCarthy was inducted as a player.199.43.48.149 (talk) 17:34, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The original statement made no such qualification, it merely says "member". But as you say, McCarthy alone renders it incorrect, and besides which, it was unsourced. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 18:00, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

The original statement was actually the leadoff sentence of a paragraph-long editorial which an IP from the University of Kentucky posted on June 9, 2009,[1] and may well have been lifted from a book. It was reverted a couple of weeks later, but the unattributed (and false) assertion was left in. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 02:37, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Game log templates

There's a discussion about various game log templates over at Wikipedia:Templates_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_15#Baseball_game_logs. Thanks! Mhiji (talk) 11:21, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Red Sox no-hitters

Somebody needs to spend some time going over the page on Red Sox no-hitters and fixing all of the bizarre non-facts included there: Jim Fregosi is listed as being the Red Sox manager in 1965, Hideo Nomo and Derek Lowe are described as southpaws, Deacon McGuire (among many other typos) has become McQuire and the grammar and spelling suggest that a young child is responsible for much of the writing and fact-checking. I started to fix things, but the number of errors requires much more time than I have free. 67.172.80.110 (talk) 15:54, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Kerry Wood - help

If anyone is around, I could use some help in stopping an editor from removing the picture of Kerry Wood as a Cleveland Indian. The article between 20-25k and has two pictures (counting the Indians pic), so this isn't a clutter issue. --Muboshgu (talk) 18:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

It seems as though the Indians picture should be used in the infobox, as it clearly shows the subject, unlike the current one. Just because it is his current team (which it's not really because the image was taken in 2008 and he hasn't played with them since then, so who are we fooling?) doesn't mean it should get a higher priority for use in the infobox. I'm sure we've all talked about this before. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:51, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I was okay with keeping the Cubs pic in the infobox, but you make a good point on moving the Indians pic back up. --Muboshgu (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

Per prior consensus, the image in the infobox should always be the one that shows the player best. If that's the current team, so be it. If not, also so be it. I've been having the same problem with Roy Halladay and, more recently, Cliff Lee, where a team-neutral HQ picture is in the infobox and continues to be replaced with a picture of him of moderate quality with the Phillies in 2009. — KV5 • Talk • 22:22, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

An idea

There still seems to be a problem with newly signed player's teams being listed as 2011-present. 2011 sounds weird as we are still in 2010. I have an idea that may help the problem. Instead of writing a year, just write "present" under the team. If the player leaves the team without playing a game, then delete it. When a player finally does play, add the year as "2011-present". I think it is better this way because people will keep trying to add in the season even though the player hasn't played for the new team. As long the player is currently signed but hasn't played, leave team listed with only "present" in the info box.TL565 (talk) 03:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. "2011-present" not only looks funny, but until he plays a game, it's crystal-ball stuff. Players have been known to be traded twice during the off-season, but their stats don't show them as playing "0 games" for their new team; they don't show in the stats at all. And no player has any stats for the 2011 season yet. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:39, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Might work. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

So far it's not working, and I'm running out of patience. Most IP's cannot be reasoned with, and they won't read this thread. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

I already changed all the players I could find that had the "2011-present" info. It still could work, just keep changing it it until the article cools down. We should also let other users know about the compromise so there is more control. TL565 (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Give it a day or so. :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Testcase

If anyone wants a place to direct IP editors who keep updating deals early this offseason, here it is:

On December 8, and again on December 9, Dennys Reyes was changed to reflect his pending (un-official) deal before his physical was passed.
Today (December 18), that deal fell through due to an unforeseen snag.

THIS is why we don't update player pages before physicals are completed and contracts are officially announced by teams. A perfect example for anyone who insists on updating early. — KV5 • Talk • 23:56, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I have never heard that suggestion through anyone in the project. It's not clear what you mean by updating early. I do believe and do encourage editing a player's article if there is a pending deal to represent the facts at the current time. In my history, this clears up confusion for many IP editors if you put "On MONTH DAY, YEAR PLAYER agreed to a one-year $ contract with the TEAM. The deal is pending a physical, and is not yet official." Or something along those lines. After the deal has gone through (or not), the article could be changed to reflect that. —Brian Halvorsen (talk) 19:59, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

You haven't heard what suggestion? Every sports project follows the same general guideline, and that is that teams shouldn't be added until the contract is finalized and all the physicals are passed. Usually this waits until the team's press conference or immediately before. Writing in prose that the player has agreed in principle is fine (amounts were deemed unnecessary by prior consensus at this talkpage), but it needs a reliable reference, and the infobox, categories, and lead shouldn't be changed until the contract is finalized. — KV5 • Talk • 01:00, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

All-American Girls Professional Baseball League

Someone has been conferring Hall of Fame status on each and every member of the the league. Their infoboxes read that they were "inducted" in 1988. It is my understanding that the league was honored with a display, but they weren't all actually inducted. Kinston eagle (talk) 01:10, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Yeah that sounds like an error. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Concur. — KV5 • Talk • 02:07, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

There have been no individual players from the All-American Girls league inducted into Cooperstown. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:59, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Jamie Moyer: Starting pitcher or just pitcher?

I recently changed the intro to Jamie Moyer to say he is a starting pitcher, not a pitcher. I have had this reverted twice and the other editor said I should discuss it here. Of Moyer's 600+ MLB appearances, 91.5% have been as a starter. It seems rather silly to say that because a player has occasionally appeared as a reliever, he can't simply be called a starter.--TM 14:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Personally I think all pitchers should just be listed as pitcher in the lead. You can describe what sort of pitcher they are down in the prose of the article. -DJSasso (talk) 14:47, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Moyer has been primarily a starter.[2] Since closers are often listed as "closer", it might be fair to list guys who are starters also. However, it starts to become a slippery slope. Dennis Eckersley, though thought of as a closer, was primarily a starter earlier in his career before the role of the closer expanded towards its current level of importance. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:51, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Your example is why I suggest just listing pitcher in the intro which is just a summary, and then in a section below about his playing career where you can dedicate more space to the specifics you can describe each individuals situation better. I am always wary of trying to get too specific in intro's where some POV might creep in. -DJSasso (talk) 14:53, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes. And in checking some of the Hall-of-Fame relief specialists, I see they are now just shown as "pitcher". Consistency is good. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:55, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

if you mean the first sentence, I agree. However since the rest of the lead section is supposed to summarize the entire article, then mentioning that the player was a starting pitcher for such-and-such a team is appropriate. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:00, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Yes that is what I meant. -DJSasso (talk) 15:29, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

MLB Rivalry Articles

I have been working hard on all the rivalry articles. Some of them warrant templates due to key matchups (World Series, LCS) and the multiple articles that are associated with the respective rivalries. I've made them for the Yankees interleague rivalries, but the other ones require more. The articles themselves need severe workup. They are very notable, but have no content in them that show how powerful the rivalries are. The Cardinals-Cubs article comes to mind as well as Dodgers-Giants. We need to get to work on it. Arnabdas (talk) 15:01, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I think we need to have templates due to matchups on each of the rivalries so that we have an idea about how powerful the rivalries are. I created a template Major League Baseball rivalries, as I felt rivalry articles need to be linked each other. -- SNIyer12, (talk), 22:50, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I have proposed a merger of Interleague rivalries in Major League Baseball and National League rivalries in Major League Baseball to Major League Baseball rivalries. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:36, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Team template question

Hi all. I'm in the process of moving the Philadelphia Phillies all-time roster through FLC. At the third FLC, a comment was made by an FL director that perhaps the articles should be linked together by a Phillies template. Although the TOC does link the articles together, I believe the director was looking more along the lines of one of our team templates. Would it be appropriate to add links to the sub-lists to {{Philadelphia Phillies}}, or is it appropriate the way it is, with the linked main article in the template and the rest linked from the main? — KV5 • Talk • 18:30, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

I would just link the main page, doing each page would likely get overwhelming. But I am a minimalist. -DJSasso (talk) 18:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)

Introductions

On another note, I have been changing the introductions of both major and minor league baseball biographies and removing "Major League Baseball X". It seems ridiculous to me that someone can be called a free agent (i.e. not on a team) and still a major league baseball player; moreover, doing so places undue emphasis on Major League Baseball, when essentially every player has played in other leagues. Thoughts?--TM 14:45, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can't really say "former" major league pitcher until it's certain that he's not coming back. The "other leagues" that others have played in were either minor leagues or places like Latin America and Japan, which are essentially high-AAA minors, from the MLB perspective. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:57, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Playing for MLB is a defining characteristic for a player, and it deserves additional weight. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:03, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Right, MLB-centrism is the problem. Calling Daisuke Matsuzaka is Major League Baseball player in the intro, while technically accurate at the moment, doesn't reflect a worldview. I think Japanese fans would not identify him with MLB but moreso as the best pitcher in their league. Placing the MLB tag prior to the position indicates to me that there are pitchers and then there are MLB pitchers. MLB pitchers play the position no differently than those in any other league. Lets also look at other leagues. Tom Brady (and no other professional football player I have seen) is identified as a NFL quarterback: "Thomas Edward Patrick "Tom" Brady, Jr. (born August 3, 1977) is an American football quarterback for the New England Patriots of the National Football League (NFL)." Sidney Crosby "Sidney Patrick Crosby ONS (born August 7, 1987) is a Canadian professional ice hockey player and captain of the Pittsburgh Penguins of the National Hockey League (NHL)." isn't either. So why do it for baseball? I'd really like help in addressing this problem.--TM 15:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

MLB is a large part of what makes a player "notable". MLB is the highest level of baseball in the world, and that's just the way it is. Celebrated stars of other countries such as Sadaharu Oh, or old-time career minor-leaguers such as Frank Shellenback, are exceptional cases. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Agree with baseball here. Plus, I like the fact that it is shorter than the alternative.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I would have to agree with TM here. This is pretty much the reason it's not done in hockey. He is notable for being a professional baseball player. Does the fact that its the MLB add to that? Of course it does, but the direct reason he is in the encyclopedia is that he is a professional baseball player. The MLB part just cemented it. We are afterall supposed to try and be as international as possible. -DJSasso (talk) 15:18, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Being a professional baseball player does not confer notability. Being an MLB player does. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:20, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually that is incorrect, being an MLB player does not confer any more notability than being a professional baseball player. What confers notability is being written about in news papers and the like. Being a MLB player just increases the chance of that happening but doesn't automatically make one notable. -DJSasso (talk) 15:22, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

The last I had heard here, ALL major league players are AUTOMATICALLY considered notable, and of course they would appear in newspapers, since all box scores are published. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:46, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

That is how a number of people treat WP:NSPORTS yes, but it does say at the top of that page that meeting any of the conditions does not automatically make one notable. Boxscores are considered routine coverage which doesn't meet notability either. Anyways thats besides the point and off topic. :) -DJSasso (talk) 17:42, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Whether as an adjective or as a trailing sub-clause, I believe it is appropriate to note the highest-level league a player played in. In the case of players who played both in NPL and MLB, it may be appropriate to note both. Isaac Lin (talk) 15:25, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

As with the section above, I agree it should be mentioned further in the lead paragraph, but not in the lead sentence unless done in a way similar to the Sidney Crosby & Tom Brady examples above. -DJSasso (talk) 15:26, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I would agree with Bugs above.. it should be the lead mention... the Crosby and Brady examples listed arent comparable because the NFL and NHL are not the same as MLB... the NL and AL would be more comparable in that situation. As in Tom Jones was a Major League Baseball pitcher for the St. Louis Cardinals of the National League. Spanneraol (talk) 23:43, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Not really, though. The NFL is perfectly analogous to MLB, while the AL and the NL are equivalent to the AFC and NFC respectively; the AL and NL have no independent structure or operations anymore. The use of separate league names, as opposed to calling them "confrences" is merely a historical curiosity. Structurally, there's little difference between MLB and the other major sports leagues.

What that means for the leads of articles, is that we should call the player a baseball player, and identify the leagues later in the lead.oknazevad (talk) 00:44, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

If you are referring to a player from the early 20th or late 19th centuries then the AL, NL, AA etc. were all top level leagues and it's only recently that they became more merged and since we have articles about these players back to the 1870s we should stay consistent with this.. Spanneraol (talk) 01:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

My two cents: I don't think there is any problem identifying a baseball player as a "Major League Baseball" player in the leadin. It immediately identifies him with having attained a certain level of play ... that is MLB is not just a sports/business organization, it means something, internationally (just like playing for whatever the top European/South American soccer leagues). There is very much a reason (beyond just pay) why some top prospects from Japan, Korea, etc come to play in MLB, and only fairly mediocre American players go play elsewhere ...

I could see an issue when players who have played in multiple leagues are noted. In that case you can say do something like "X is a professional baseball player. He played in NPL (1901-09) and then later played in Major League Baseball (1910-15). If the issue is "they have played in minor leagues also" ... once you have reached the majors, minor leagues generally shouldn't be mentioned in the leadin. They should only be mentioned in the leadin if that is as high as they ever got.

Given that a leadin should give a general summary of an article, I would have a hard time defending why I was writing a leadin about a MLB player, and never included "MLB" in the lead in. This would be akin to reading about an Olympic athlete and never seeing anywhere in the leadin an indication as to what country he represented. Kind of going with Bugs: being a professional baseball player is not notable. Having reached that highest league is what ultimately makes someone newsworthy and grants the notability.

Just my two cents.LonelyBeacon (talk) 07:09, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

A couple of things: my suggestion, which I have implemented in a few places, is to format it as such: Sean Green is an American professional baseball relief pitcher. He played in Major League Baseball with the Toronto Blue Jays (2004-06) and the New York Mets (2007-2010). It is of course necesscary and best practices to list the league they played in the most during their career. However, what I have the biggest problem with, is what happens when he becomes a free agent: Sean Green is a Major League Baseball pitcher who is currently a free agent; not only is this time-sensitive (i.e. currently) but you cannot be a free agent in Major League Baseball because MLB is made-up of teams. If you aren't on a team, you aren't in the league. By changing the standard, we eliminate this issue. We can mention the highest leagues they played in if they played in the distant past or overseas. If a player plays in the highest professional league in a country, it needs to be mentioned in the intro to reflect an international view. In the case of Daisuke Matsuzaka, the new intro should read "Daisuke Matsuzaka (born September 13, 1980) is a Japanese professional baseball pitcher with the Boston Red Sox of Major League Baseball. He previously played for the Seibu Lions in Japan's Pacific League from 1999-2006. He was selected the MVP of the inaugural and the second World Baseball Classic, and is an Olympic bronze medalist".--TM 16:11, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I think this is nearly spot-on as to how it should be handled. The only tweak I'd make to your Sean Green example would be in the second sentence, which I would construct as follows: Sean Green is an American professional baseball relief pitcher. He has played in Major League Baseball with the Toronto Blue Jays (2004-06) and the New York Mets (2007-2010), and is currently a free agent. Without mentioning an active player's free agent status, the information in the lead paragraph is, IMO, incomplete. Additionally, your construction could lead to the misconception that the player might no longer be active. -Dewelar (talk) 17:52, 1 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm late to this debate...just my two cents. As encyclopedia articles, I believe the articles should be clinical in nature (I.E. Albert Einstein was a scientist). Therefore, I believe that, "Player X was a professional baseball player" is the most direct and to the point description. The second sentence can then delve into whether he played in major league baseball or Japanese baseball.Orsoni (talk) 05:28, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

List of baseball nicknames

This page is in SERIOUS need of attention. I decided I would try to sort these people into one table, but as I took the names to my userspace to play with, I realized just how big a problem this is. This page lists well over 1500 individuals (actually some of these are duplicates, but there's still a shitload). Many of these nicknames are cruft, like Chris Berman-isms (I tried removing those already but there are still more). Sourcing each and every one of these is going to be a bitch. Should we limit this page to only well known nicknames? Or only those listed on BR? How do we do this? --Muboshgu (talk) 03:29, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Yes, that page is one of the largest messes in our purview. Also note that there's a separate List of baseball player nicknames page that will have to be merged into this. -Dewelar (talk) 04:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Two pages on the same subject. Great. "Members of the faculty; faculty members; students of Huxley; and Huxley students... I guess that covers everything!" ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:49, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Fantastic, I didn't know about the second page. At least it has some sourcing. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:10, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

I know that baseball-reference.com lists nicknames on the ballplayer's pages; those can be used as source material. However, so many players have nicknames listed, where do you make the cutoff?Neonblak ^talk - 14:41, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Isn't that kind of info based on "user input", making it as unreliable as IMDB, for example? ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:43, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Collaboration ideas

Since it's the offseason and free agency's dying down, I'm wondering if we could use this time to find an article to collaborate on and bring to GA status. We've been successful at this in the past, so it could work. My thought is we can work on a recent Hall of Hamer to get it to FA by the time they're inaugurated (Alomar, Blyleven, or even Dawson works if we want to go a bit further back). Thoughts? Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:53, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

Any one of those players are a good option, should have plenty of material to make a comprehensive article. If I going to make one suggestion, I think it is kind of sad that Babe Ruth is not GA let alone a FA. Even Babe Ruth's called shot could be interesting.Neonblak ^talk - 14:52, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I been working on several HOF articles, one is almost finished, while one I did about a quarter of the article before stopping, I have plenty of books of Hall of Fame subjects. I think any Hall of Fame article is vitable, we only have one Stan Musial that didn't appear on the main page yet. Secret ^account 15:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

I do agree that we should work on the major players; I simply suggest the more recent ones since older players will require renting/buying books, which could make things difficult or time-sensitive. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 23:18, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

If we are talking recent, Blyleven interests me, I could assist with his.Neonblak ^talk - 03:19, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

GA review of Byron McLaughlin

I've conducted a GA review of Byron McLaughlin and left it on hold. However, the nominator has not edited in more than two weeks. Are there any other members of the project who might be in a position to address the queries? Brad78 (talk) 23:55, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm picking it up and will do what I can. --Muboshgu (talk) 00:15, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I have the same issue with Dan Meyer (first baseman); i'd fix it but can't as the reviewer. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 03:04, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

I did a little work on this one just now. -Dewelar (talk) 04:36, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Ryne Duren

Hard telling who plagiarized who, but the current article and the Sports Illustrated obit are nearly word-for-word the same. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 14:20, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm going to go with SI being the plagiarists. The main text of our article hasn't changed significantly since well before Duren's death. -Dewelar (talk) 16:13, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

If a national publication is citing wikipedia as a source, verbatim, that's a bit unsettling. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:21, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

That would indeed be a problem. Do you have a link? I could take a look or ask one of the copyright experts if there's anything to do in this situation. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 16:34, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

This is the obit I found on SI's website [3] and it seems much different than the wikipedia article... are you referring to some other article? Spanneraol (talk) 18:32, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm talking about the newsstand edition of SI dated January 17, page 18, the segment called "For the Record". Here is the exact contents of the obit. It's not as word-for-word as I thought, but much of the content is suspiciously similar or a close paraphrasing:

Died, at age 81, former major league pitcher Ryne Duren, whose poor vision and 100-mph fastball once led manager Casey Stengel to quip, "I would not admire hitting against Ryne Duren, because if he ever hit you in the head, you might be in the past tense." Pitching mostly in relief over 10 seasons with seven teams, Duren made two World Series appearances with the Yankees, against the Braves in 1958, and against the Pirates in 1960. Fans knew the thick-spectacled hurler (after whom Hall of Famer Ryne Sandberg was named) as a showman: He typically hopped Yankee Stadium's bullpen fence rather than use the gate, and he often hurled his first warmup pitch far over his catcher's head as a warning. Lesser known was Duren's dark side. In 1965, after he was shelled by the Yankees, a drunken Duren climbed a Potomac River bridge and threatened to jump before his Senators manager, Gil Hodges, talked him down. Duren was released a week later, marking the end of his MLB career. He later worked as an alcohol-addiction counselor.

The quote from Stengel and the comment about the "showman" were what caught my attention. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 22:02, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Mike Napoli's tenure with Toronto

So that was that for Mike Napoli's stay with the Blue Jays. It's my understanding his infobox should not include the Blue Jays, but another editor questioned me on that since he was on the Jays' active roster at one point. I think we had this discussion a long time ago, but maybe it's good to have a refresher. --Muboshgu (talk) 01:25, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

He never played a game for them so it doesnt go in the infobox.--Yankees10 01:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Agreed. Spanneraol (talk) 02:12, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

If he didn't play, it doesn't stay. — KV5 • Talk • 02:31, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Pile-on agree. By all means add a sentence in the prose, but nothing in the infobox. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 02:45, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

1800's Team Names (esp. Cubs)

I think we need to analyze which names were used more often in the 1800's. For example, the Chicago Cubs here are listed as the Chicago White Stockings from 1870-1871, then 1874-1889. However, the VERY accurate book, Cubs Journal, a long, Cubs encyclopedia says that for the 1888 season, the team switched to new uniforms, and Black socks, and became known as the Chicago Black Stockings, or the Chicago Black Sox, from 1888-1889, and the White Stockings nickname died out almost immediately. I propose that we change the Cubs article and seasons pages to reflect this, listing them at the Chicago Black Stockings during these years. I also propose that we put some investigation as to what other teams were primarily called during the time period and into the early 1900's. Jntg4Games (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Also, the alternative name, "Remnants", noted in the Cubs article is listed as the alternate name from 1898-1901, while it was actually coined in 1901 when several players jumped to the AL and lasted as an alternative name in 1902 as well. Same source. Jntg4Games (talk) 00:36, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I could agree with that, if multiple sources refer to the Cubs in this manner. I am sure someone in this project has access to old Chicago newspapers online and can verify that these team names were used.Neonblak ^talk - 01:05, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=byb0zp0uuZIC&pg=PA16&lpg=PA16&dq=Chicago+%22Black+Stockings%22+1888&source=bl&ots=Rd7Px_uKrM&sig=lweKfilSFc_bNkl8AZreDG3VQ3Y&hl=en&ei=p3Y_Tfq3L8G78gbL4emPBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=2&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=Chicago%20%22Black%20Stockings%22%201888&f=false Jntg4Games (talk) 01:20, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=BOkY72OPMZIC&pg=PA248&lpg=PA248&dq=Chicago+%22Black+Stockings%22+1888&source=bl&ots=TgJWi_C4_4&sig=8oh9WzX-euUImFA2wFBWrG5l11k&hl=en&ei=p3Y_Tfq3L8G78gbL4emPBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CDIQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=Chicago%20%22Black%20Stockings%22%201888&f=false Jntg4Games (talk) 01:21, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

http://books.google.com/books?id=wzQDAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA56&lpg=PA56&dq=Chicago+%22Black+Stockings%22+1888&source=bl&ots=gTq3_JjoNb&sig=a7rqY8pX5H2g84s2jy9YMn4tCB4&hl=en&ei=p3Y_Tfq3L8G78gbL4emPBA&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=8&ved=0CEQQ6AEwBw#v=onepage&q=Chicago%20%22Black%20Stockings%22%201888&f=false Jntg4Games (talk) 01:22, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you should be making changes to the pages based on this one source... should stick with the standards established by baseball reference, baseball almanac and other contemporary sources. Spanneraol (talk) 01:56, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
- It was multiple sources though. And why should BR get to decide what teams were named? If we have this evidence, that I've found repeated in other books and explains the situation, shouldn't that get consideration? Jntg4Games (talk) 02:00, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
  - Are you going to start adding the "Rainmakers", "panamas" and the other nicknames that that book also lists? We should stay consistent with contemporary sites... perhaps these other nicknames could be listed under "other nicknames" on the main site.. but no need to change standings lists from what most people would expect to find. Spanneraol (talk) 02:03, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
    - No, i didn't intend to add the Rainmakers or Panamas, just this one, as it became the primary nickname of the club. Jntg4Games (talk) 02:06, 27 January 2011 (UTC)
If multiple independent sources use a given nickname I see nothing wrong with a general sentence, something like "They have also been known as the New Haven Ravens, New Haven Best-City-On-Earths" etc followed by the references that point to that nicname. But if it's a single text (or other works that merely cite that text) then I would leave it out (as the set names are pretty heavily established, other names shouldn't be put on equal footing unless they have the sourcing to back it up). Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

In this particular case 2 books and Baseball Digest seem like a pretty solid starting point for this particular nickname. And the "Touching base" book points to another book (How the clubs got their names) that seems to cite this as well (if someone can dig it up). Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:24, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

I did post multiple sources. Jntg4Games (talk) 02:25, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

As I pointed out above, I wouldn't have a problem incorporating a new nickname, but I just have to ask seriously, after all the intense research done on 19th century baseball over the last 30 years, it is only now coming out that the Chicago team was nicknamed the Black Stockings for two seasons? If that was truely their nickname, surely all major Chicago newspaper sports' columns would have referred to them by this name... right? I would assume that these book references source the nickname.Neonblak ^talk - 04:46, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Frank Thomas naming redux

So you all know, there's another attempt to move the Frank Thomases, at Talk:Frank Thomas (1990s–2000s baseball)#Requested move_2. --Muboshgu (talk) 05:26, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Outstanding projects

Would anyone like to help make a final strike at one or more of our outstanding Special Projects? I just finally went live with the '59 tie-breaker article so we just have 3 articles left on that (51, Short Heard Round the World, and 78). We also need just 8 more managers lists, 7 more draft pick lists, and 7 more Opening Day pitcher lists (the seasons project is still a ways off). Anybody interested? I may take a shot at a draft pick or managerial list in the next couple days, if so I'll note here which one, anyone else want to lay claim to something they'll work on? Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:17, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I might take on the Shot article, since it's in decent shape and has the info; it just needs some TLC. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:16, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

If you do that I'll do the 51 article. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:21, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Did List of Pittsburgh Pirates first-round draft picks in the meantime. Staxringold _talk^contribs 07:44, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Special Projects

I have a question. Why are all the Special Projects about Major League Baseball in America? This is WikiProject Baseball not MLB. I know that the MLB is like the most famous league and well known but maybe we should have atleast one special project about something else in baseball like Little League or the Japanese League maybe even Australian baseball. Spongie555 (talk) 04:38, 28 January 2011 (UTC)

Then discuss and create one. The majority of editors on this project consider MLB to be their expertise, whether it's a specific team, geographic area, time period, etc. There's nothing prohibiting a special project on another baseball-related topic. — KV5 • Talk • 13:47, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

"There's nothing prohibiting a special project on another baseball-related topic." Except the notability guidelines which are geared towards Major League Baseball to the exclusion of all other leagues in America. Kinston eagle (talk) 14:54, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Kinston eagle, if you have a problem with the notability guidelines, then you should undertake a discussion at the appropriate talk page regarding the guideline instead of making backhanded comments here. — KV5 • Talk • 17:15, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

The project-specific guidelines do not override the general notability guideline; if other leagues have notable, neutral coverage in reliable sources, then there is no issue in having articles on them. isaacl (talk) 14:59, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Exactly. Part of the problem is the language barrier. To properly do something on NPB (or the CPBL or KBO, for that matter), you have to be able to translate the appropriate language into English, because reliable translations in the quantity needed to do such articles properly are rare or nonexistent.

As for other "leagues in America", I presume Kinston Eagle is thinking purely in terms of the modern U.S. minor leagues, which typically don't meet WP:GNG in my experience. The various youth leagues (including Little League) would have even more limited notability (not really extending much beyond the LLWS, I would think). However, I'd love to see some kind of project for the Mexican League (really, our articles on it are generally pitiful), or for one of the other Latin American leagues (Cuba would probably be the easiest, as there seems to be the most available material for it). -Dewelar (talk) 17:10, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Major Leagues

I'm having the book "Major Leagues: The Formation, Sometimes Absorption and Mostly Inevitable Demise of 18 Professional Baseball Organizations, 1871 to Present" delivered this week, and it evaluates 18 successes and attempts at major leagues and has a lot of info that could be added here. How should we accommodate these? they include the NA, NL, International Association (1877-1878, usually considered minor, but actually directly competed with the NL), AA, UA, PL, AL, FL, Continental League (1921), Mexican League (1946-1947?), Continental League (1961), the Global League (1969), and others (need to get the book before I have the full list). So, how should we include and/or list these. This book was written when the United Baseball League was looking to become the 3rd Major League BTW, but it isn't included. Jntg4Games (talk) 21:56, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Old-time Base Ball project page

I spent the last couple days revamping the Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Old-time Base Ball task force project page. Not too original, as I used the Cardinals template... which was based off other templates. I am curious to what the Main project thinks about this change, and will welcome any comments regarding how this can be improved.Neonblak ^talk - 13:51, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

NABBP and More

Wow, we have super inaccurate team listings. The book I mentioned two sections up has several newspaper and book sources, and well, it's NAABP Professional Teams list defers greatly from ours. Should I change them? Jntg4Games (talk) 22:45, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

1869

Atlantic of Brooklyn
Excelsior of Chicago
Red Stockings of Cincinnati
Mutual of New York
Union of Lansingburgh
Athletic of Philadelphia
National of Washington
- It also acknowledges that another report mention that there were professional clubs in Fort Wayne, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Columbus. However, that report never mentioned which club or clubs from each city were professional.

1870 and Payment Methods

SOG = Share of Gate Money; SAL = Salary; APO = Appointed to Office;
Maryland of Baltimore - SAL
Olympic of Baltimore - SOG
Tri-Mountain of Boston - SAL
Atlantic of Brooklyn - SOG
Eckford of Brooklyn - SOG
White Stockings of Chicago - SAL
Red Stockings of Cincinnati - SAL
Irvington of Irvington - SOG
Union of Lansingburgh - SOG
Kentucky of Louisville - SAL
Union of Morrisania - SOG
Mutual of New York - SAL
Athletic of Philadelphia - SAL
Keystone of Philadelphia - SOG
Olympic of Philadelphia - SOG
Forest City of Rockford - SOG
National of Washington - APO
Olympic of Washington - APO
- It lists all of the 1870 professional teams in a table with club name, city, and form payment. As reported by the New York Times. Jntg4Games (talk) 00:23, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

NAPBBP

1871, Brooklyn Eckfords joined mid-season, but were not allowed a chance for the pennant, but they replaced Fort Wayne when they joined. Jntg4Games (talk) 23:03, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
1872-1873: Remnants of Chicago White Stockings (many joined the Philadelphia White Stockings) created an independent team with both professionals and amateurs known as the "Phoenix Base Ball Club", or the Chicago Phoenixes. Re-joined the national Association as the Chicago White Stockings in 1874. Jntg4Games (talk) 23:23, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
1876: Met once in March, and once in April, disbanding thereafter. The only remaining teams were minor clubs from Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Maryland.

- How are the listings inaccurate? The only thing you mention is the Eckfords playing in 71 instead of just 72 as we have now.. Spanneraol (talk) 23:58, 5 February 2011 (UTC)
  - I was talking about the NABBP listings there, the Eckfords were NAPBBP. I'll add the listings the book has above right now. Jntg4Games (talk) 00:13, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
    - Listings up above Jntg4Games (talk) 03:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

International Association and Independents

I have a list of 1876 Independent Teams if anyone wants them.
International Association was most certainly a major league and served as a big rival to the National League. Jntg4Games (talk) 04:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
Renamed National Base-Ball Association for 1879-1880. Jntg4Games (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I've been intrigued by the IA from reading discussions on various boards (especially Baseball Primer), but it seems like they didn't play too many games. Their talent level was pretty close to the NL, but some of the other circumstances of their existence seem to fall short of what I'd call "major league". We should definitely have more info on them than we do, though. -Dewelar (talk) 19:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Their talent level was often considered greater than that of many NL teams, according to the book. Though many of its cities may have been inferior population-wise, it wasn't a huge difference, based upon the population figures of the time. The league also had the National League declare war on it, not the other way around. I would like to further point out that Wikipedia's Professional Baseball League template lists the National Association of Base Ball Players as major league (while the IA operated in a somewhat similar similar fashion), as well as the All-American Girls' Professional Baseball League (who had just as poor markets in many cases), the Cuban League (which had great player quality, but does anybody even have standings or team listings for each year, and it started as an amateur league), and the Negro Leagues (which head great talent like the Cuban league, but team listings and standings are scarce for many of these, and had quite modest intentions, far from the intentions of the AL and NL), as major leagues. I would also argue that the IA was more of a major league than the UA, as major leagues are really dependent on how the league is organized. I don't think we need to set a clear line, but mention that it was dubiously major or minor. However, at the time, it was seen as a competitor to the National League, and some of its team even ended up in the National League. At the time, there was really no such distinction between major or minor either. I propose a Major League template including all accepted or disputed Major Leagues as well, including this and leagues that never began play. Jntg4Games (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I can't really argue with any of this. I will say that I personally believe, based on what I've read, that the IA has a better claim to being a major league than either the UA or the AAGPBL. However, at this point, calling the IA a major league probably amounts to nothing more than WP:POV. The UA's status as a major league was proclaimed at some point (not recalling the circumstances), so we're stuck with it. If there's something out there that isn't original research that says the IA could be considered a major league, I'd have no objection whatsoever to its inclusion. -Dewelar (talk) 21:45, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I am not suggesting officially recognizing the IA as a major league. What I am suggesting is a template listing leagues that have been deemed major leagues, including the official major leagues, and ones deemed major leagues by certain respectable sources such as Pietrusza. Maybe bolding official major leagues, and italicizing the dubious ones? Jntg4Games (talk) 22:11, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd be in support of this as a concept. -Dewelar (talk) 22:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I'll be making a formal proposal and doing some sandboxing when I've read the whole book to cover everything at once. I'm also gathering info onto my private wiki I host. I do need to know how to cite a book on wiki though. Jntg4Games (talk) 23:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

I am all for expanding and legitimizing the IA more here on WP. Several conversations have taken place here on how to address early baseball. It seemed to me that we agree in priciple that the organization "Major League Baseball" is the result of the National Agreement in 1903. However, MLB recognizes the NL, AL, AA, PL, UA, and FL as "major" leagues, I'm sure with the help from prominent historians. Maybe in the near future, the IA, and IL may be elevated (and hopefully UA dropped), until then, I don't think we can treat them in that fashion, or you will have to allow each and every player who ever played in the league a wikipage. Although, I can understand where you are coming from with the NAPBBP, which is not a "major" league, but it was the top professional league during time of operation.Neonblak ^talk - 04:17, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

We have to go by the conventions of what are considered "major" leagues, but the short-lived IA could certainly have an article about it, as an "early professional baseball league" (not "major" league) if it doesn't already. Which it does: International Association for Professional Base Ball Players ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 10:23, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Union Association Notes

1883: Organized as a minor league?
1885: St. Louis, Cincinnati, Milwaukee, Kansas City, to return; new clubs in Indianapolis, Columbus, and perhaps Detroit and Cleveland
- Disbanded January 15, 1885 with just Kansas City and Milwaukee represented Jntg4Games (talk) 18:38, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

American Association Notes

~1890: Louisville known as the Cyclones. Jntg4Games (talk) 21:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)
December 15, 1891: Four AA teams joined the NL with a pact that banned disenfranchisement of any of the 4 AA clubs as the "National Association and American Association of Professional Baseball Clubs". Jntg4Games (talk) 22:29, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Players' League Notes

1890: Original Plan: Boston, New York, Washington, Philadelphia, Indianapolis, Pittsburgh, Cleveland, Chicago.
- Buffalo and Brooklyn replaced Washington and Indianapolis in the later stages of planning
- NL Cincinnati Club bought by PL at the end of the 1890 season and it was to play as a PL franchise before the merger of the PL into the NL and AA
- November 5, 1890 meeting: Only Boston, Chicago, and Philadelphia were against consolidation into the AA and NL, no other clubs were invited to the meeting. Threatened to sue Brooklyn and New York if they seceded from the league, but were advised otherwise.
- November 10, 1890: McAlpin resigned as PL president
- November 12, 1890 meeting: New York and Brooklyn officially announced their merger into their NL counterparts. Pittsburgh was consolidating on a "50-50 basis". Chicago was on the block.
- November 13, 1890 meeting: Chicago sold to Spalding for $10,000 and a $15,000 interest in the White Stockings, whom they merged with.Jntg4Games (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Attempts Part 1

An Un-named League convened in December, 1880, but never organized. (This can be ignored as it was never organized).
In Fall 1883, an "American League of Professional Baseball Clubs" was proposed by Al Pratt, who ended up involved in the UA instead. Jntg4Games (talk) 21:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

American Association (1894) - Did Not Play

October 17, 1894: Preliminary meeting of organizers
October 18, 1894 meeting: League formally organized
- Franchises awarded to New York, Brooklyn, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Washington.
Collapsed shortly after Pfeffer was re-instated to the Nl on February 25, 1895 Jntg4Games (talk) 00:26, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

American Association (1900) - Did Not Play

Announced September 17-18, 1899
- Franchises in New York, St. Louis, Milwaukee, Detroit, Chicago, Baltimore, Philadelphia, and Washington.
January 30-February 2, 1900 meeting: Renamed "New American Base Ball Association" as the NL claimed rights to the AA name and announced plans to start its own American Association, a complementary major league that would play games at home when their NL counterpart was on the road and vice-versa.
- Boston and Providence replaced franchises in New York and Washington.
February 12, 1900 meeting: Boston and Detroit did not attend and were dropped from the league.
- Providence was replaced by a Louisville franchise.
Opening Day was set for April 16, 1900
- Teams were now in St. Louis, Chicago, Louisville, Milwaukee, Boston, Baltimore, and Philadelphia.
  - Detroit was ready to comply, but the telegram reached the league an hour after Louisville was admitted, and it was too late.
  - Applicants for the 8th franchise included Providence, Washington, Worcester, and Syracuse.
February 14, 1900: Association purchased the Providence franchise as the 8th team.
- McCarthy stopped in Buffalo to sign players before this, including Jimmy Collins.
League ceased operations when Philadelphia ownership refused to commit to the league. Jntg4Games (talk) 01:39, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don't you go ahead and put the information in the various league articles rather than listing it all here? Spanneraol (talk) 04:10, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Because I need to know how to source the book, and I know someone will delete it until I do that. Jntg4Games (talk) 12:13, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Move this to your sandbox. Kinston eagle (talk) 13:02, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

How do I make a sandbox? I just make an article called User:Jntg4Games/topic right? Jntg4Games (talk) 18:50, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

User:Jntg4Games/sandbox. -Spanneraol (talk) 19:14, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Question

Are the Louisville Colonels a MLB team? I am interested because according to ESPN the 1889 Louisville Colonels has the longest MLB losing streak record. But our losing streak article lists the Philadelphia Phillies.—Chris!_c/t 03:54, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

They are an MLB team, but were part of the American Association; our article was probably just including AL/NL teams. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 04:11, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

World Series

There is a discussion in progress about the lead sentence for the World Series article (after the discussion on the disambiguation note). Any comments or feedback is welcome. isaacl (talk) 17:48, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

Andy Kosco

The editor Johnandmitchy (talk · contribs) added File:Andykoscoyankees (2).jpg to Andy Kosco. Since the player is living, and WP:BASEBALL seems to indicate that free images should be sought out for living person, it seems that John's uploaded image does not belong. Should the image be removed? Let me know what the proper approach here is. Erik (talk | contribs) 04:39, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Charles Radbourn

Looks like a couple of vandals quick added Charles Radbourn to GA, which needs reversing. I guess I could nominate for delist, but if there is a quicker way.........Neonblak ^talk - 05:01, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I would think if it never actually got properly nominated and then reviewed, that it could just be removed. Might be best to check over at the WP:GAN. Afaber012 (talk) 11:32, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Delisted. Luckily we have opportunities to get our 100th GA properly. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:39, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

If Bill Stein isn't the one, I have Dave Sisler nearly ready, just needs a good copyedit.Neonblak ^talk - 20:16, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

The 1959 tie-breaker is currently under review and almost done, also. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:15, 15 February 2011 (UTC)

...or that one.Neonblak ^talk - 01:18, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Boom, tis done. #100. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:13, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

Unlinking birthplaces in text

An anonymous editor (User:64.180.212.125) is unlinking the birthplace of baseball players from the main text, claiming that "standard use is to link in infobox only". I reverted a change to Roberto Alomar on Feb 6, stating that "not all mirrors or other users of WP use the infobox material; this needs to be in the text too". This editor has been removing birthplace info from the text nonetheless. Can someone keep an eye on this? Mind matrix 14:54, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Per WP:OPENPARA, this anonymous IP is right. Birthplace shouldn't be mentioned in the lead. --Muboshgu (talk) 15:10, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

Sure, but it should be included somewhere in the text. Simply removing it from the intro without replacing the content elsewhere in the text is inappropriate. Mind matrix 15:49, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

I guess it could go in the body, as the opening of an "Early life" or similarly named section. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:00, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

A proposal for a change to the roster templates

I did some playing around with roster templates for the NFL project and I'd like to bring some of that here. You can see at Template:NFLplayer that there are additional inputs for status, and I think we should incorporate that into Template:MLBplayer for things like DL stints and suspensions. So for instance, typing in something like {{MLBplayer|36|Nick Johnson|DL15}} might produce...36 Nick Johnson 15 day DL

There's also the possibility of building in wikilinks to the template, so that all names are automatically linked, with the |d= parameter an optional disambiguator. This could produce a roster that looks like this...

Active roster

Inactive roster

Coaches/Other

Pitchers
Starting rotation 34 A. J. Burnett

65 Phil Hughes

46 Andy Pettitte

52 CC Sabathia

31 Javier Vázquez

Bullpen 62 Joba Chamberlain

48 Boone Logan

43 Dámaso Marté

39 Mark Melancon

45 Sergio Mitre

61 Chan Ho Park

30 David Robertson

Closer 42 Mariano Rivera

Catchers 29 Francisco Cervelli

20 Jorge Posada

Infielders 24 Robinson Canó

2 Derek Jeter

53 Juan Miranda

19 Ramiro Peña

13 Alex Rodriguez

25 Mark Teixeira

Outfielders 11 Brett Gardner

33 Nick Swisher

38 Marcus Thames

22 Randy Winn

Designated hitters

None

Pitchers 91 Alfredo Aceves 15 day DL

63 Jonathan Albaladejo

64 Andrew Brackman

68 Wilkin De La Rosa

(Susp.)

-- Shane Lindsay

74 Héctor Noesi

41 Iván Nova

47 Rómulo Sánchez

Catchers

None

Infielders 76 Reegie Corona

36 Nick Johnson 15 day DL

94 Eduardo Núñez

27 Kevin Russo

Outfielders 26 Greg Golson

14 Curtis Granderson 15 day DL

-- Chad Huffman

Manager 28 Joe Girardi

Coaches 58 Dave Eiland

(pitching)

57 Mike Harkey

(bullpen)

50 Mick Kelleher

(first base)

54 Kevin Long

(hitting)

56 Tony Peña

(bench)

59 Rob Thomson

(third base)

15-day disabled list
(Susp.) - Suspended list
(Ber.) - Bereavement list
Roster updated May 18, 2010
Transactions • Depth Chart
→ More rosters

Thoughts? --Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Don't we already have the DL and suspended list symbols on the roster pages? Seems you are just suggesting to change the symbols we are using? Spanneraol (talk) 22:26, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

We currently use †, *, and #, which are meaningless symbols, while the injury icon is a universal symbol that stands out with less ambiguity about its meaning, so yes I am suggesting we change that. I'm also suggesting embedding these things in Template:MLBplayer to keep them out of Template:MLB roster, which is a little cleaner. And I'm also suggesting putting the wikilinks in Template:MLBplayer, because they don't need to be entered manually every time.

This isn't a major change, and it's not majorly important, but I think any little bit of change that improves functionality and utility, even a little bit, is a good thing. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm fine with the changes to the DL symbols.. not sure about the wikilinks.. would that change mess up the existing uses of MLBplayer? Cause it is used on all the historical season rosters also and making that change would be a real time consumer.. Also.. on some of the minor league rosters it would create red links where we are currently not linking non notable A ball players. Spanneraol (talk) 23:30, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Also on the topic of wikilinks, the way it's coded it doesn't appear that it would work on links that would take you to a completely different page name (i.e., Vic Power->Victor Pellot). That would need to be addressed, because not all of those will have been set up as redirects. -Dewelar (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure if there's a parameter that would allow that. That doesn't seem like an issue that would come up often. It wasn't a problem in the NFL this season. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:46, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

No, it doesn't come up often (if at all) in current seasons, but it does come up occasionally in past seasons. As another example, former Pirates GM Pete Peterson was known as Hardy Peterson during his playing days, and as such his name should display as Hardy. I'm not sure how to do it either. I thought using the "!" pipe-substitution might do the trick but no dice. -Dewelar (talk) 01:54, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Okay, I can leave that be for the time being and play around in my sandbox to see if there's a way around it. — Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

The wikilink idea may be out for now but if there's no objection, I'll make the change to add the DL symbol to the MLBplayer template at some point during Spring Training. --— Muboshgu (talk) 23:57, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Barry Bonds' 73 home runs during the 2001 season

I just happened upon this list today, what do we think about notability? Already have List of milestone home runs by Barry Bonds which covers his 500 home run club shot, #70, #71, and #73 from that year. Beyond those 4 already covered does the list really merit it's own article? Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:26, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd say no. I think it's cruft. Does anyone really care about Bonds' 15th home run of 2001? The milestone article is less dubious, but could still use discussion or an AfD to determine notability as well. — Muboshgu (talk) 23:54, 17 February 2011 (UTC)

naming conventions - nationlity

Tavix moved the Francisco Rodriguez articles to Francisco Rodríguez (Venezuelan pitcher) and Francisco Rodríguez (Mexican pitcher) and tried to alter the WP:NC-BASE naming guidelines to back up his move.. Our last discussion on this subject was the nationality was not to be used. I reverted his changes to the guidelines but wanted to bring it up here in case something changed, I agree with not using nationality. Spanneraol (talk) 02:05, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

He did the same thing with the different Ramon Ramirez players also. Spanneraol (talk) 02:07, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Definitely not cool to try to change WP:NC-BASE without any discussion. — Muboshgu (talk) 04:26, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I restored the Rodriguez's and Ramirez's to their original names. Now how do we proceed with the editor? — Muboshgu (talk) 04:39, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Has he been warned? — KV5 • Talk • 12:10, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

On further review, he has not been. I'll drop a note on his talk page about the issue. — KV5 • Talk • 12:13, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

I figured someone like you would craft the warning better than I would, and I was right. — Muboshgu (talk) 12:21, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Fireballer

I've come across another article which I thought the cabal might be interested in. To wit, Fireballer. Some of the material is unsourced (though I expect sources could be found for much of it). Some has copious sourcing -- specifically, that relating to Korean pitchers. I'm not quite sure whether there is an issue here as to whether all the pitchers mentioned are called "fireballers", or are what we would commonly consider fireballers, but thought that I would raise the article here as well for the views of others. Many thanks.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:51, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's certainly a notable slang term. Dunno if it warrants a separate article, particularly with articles like Power pitcher already. Staxringold _talk^contribs 02:30, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- An adjective doesn't merit an separate article in my opinion. I also think fireballer may not even be a word. It may be two words. The same might be said about the article Baserunning.Orsoni (talk) 04:55, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Win Remmerswaal / nl:Win Remmerswaal

Hello all, I hope to get help here. I have expanded the article on this Dutch baseball Major League player on nl-wiki a lot and another editor nominated it for review and elections. How ever - there is no picture available on commons so I hope some one here can help me. Thank you in advance for any help. Kind regards, MoiraMoira (talk) 18:32, 16 February 2011 (UTC)

Please? Any hints or contact adresses also welcome. MoiraMoira (talk) 10:12, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Is there no one in the USA who made a picture of him inbetween 1975 - 1981 and willing to upload it? Many of us would be very grateful for it. Here is where he played in those years: nl:Win_Remmerswaal#Clubcompetities MoiraMoira (talk) 18:29, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

It is very difficult to find free images of players who played outside the public domain years and before the internet era (1963~2000), which Remmerswaal falls in. If you know of any Red Sox fans during that time, then they would be the best people to ask. Wizardman _{Operation Big Bear} 18:39, 21 February 2011 (UTC)

Unfortunately I live in The Netherlands so do not know Red Sox fans other than my own 11 year old son who plays baseball himself. If any of you in the US have any clues how to find them (perhaps forums or society pages?) I'd be grateful. MoiraMoira (talk) 09:40, 22 February 2011 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable

Just came across this -- List of Major League Baseball records considered unbreakable. Thoughts? If sourced, it would be interesting (to me), but I can't tell for the most part what is sourced and what is OR (and the articles screams out at me "by whom?"). Thought I would run it by the cabal.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:28, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

That was my thought, "by whome?" I think it's too vague and subject just may be considered by many to be trivial.Neonblak ^talk - 04:51, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

In reality, there are only records that are highly unlikely to be broken given today's conditions. However, conditions have changed throughout baseball history, and so virtually all records could be broken. (Both Bill James and Baseball Prospectus, as I recall, have written about this in the past year.) So I don't believe the article is well-founded and ought to be deleted. isaacl (talk) 04:58, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, my thought is that this article could be brilliant if its written in the perspective of how we have some records considered unlikely to be broken (batting .400 in a season, Joe DiMaggio's hit streak), and show how other records that were believed to be unbreakable were broken (Ruth's 60 home runs in a season, Lou Gehrig's consecutive games played streak). More of a "lore of baseball" page than a statistics page. I apologize in advance for Yankee-centrism out there to all those who are sensitive to that, but those are some examples that came to mind quickly. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd go a little further and say that based on the page being sourced by "Baseball's Most Unbreakable Feats", a DVD produced by MLB in 2006, this whole page needs a complete overhaul or deletion based on WP:PROMOTION – Muboshgu (talk) 05:15, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Obviously there's no technical reason the records couldn't be broken, other than the way the game is played. What's needed is better sourcing, as it appears to contain a number of built-in assumptions. Some records are obviously impossible to break unless someone develops a bionic arm. Cy Young's career wins and losses come to mind (and the article only lists the wins). Although a 56 game hitting streak is certainly possible, studies have been done to demonstrate the extremely low probability of such a streak. On the other hand, the two consecutive no-hitters, while statistically of low probability, could certainly be accomplished by any good pitcher if things happened to break right, so it doesn't belong. Each item needs to be scrutinized. And for some perspective, how about a section on records that were once thought to be unbreakable? The most obvious is Gehrig's consecutive game streak. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:19, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

One record that absolutely never will be broken was set on July 22, 1884, when Charley Sweeney was ejected and Providence Grays were forced to finish the game with just 8 players on the field.[4] That can never happen now, because the rules require a forfeit if a team cannot field 9 players. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 05:39, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I see this page as problematic. Just a few years ago, George Sisler's single season hits record would likely have been on this list, but it fell. Some people talk about the .400 barrier never being broken, but it has been approached in the past 20 years or so. Since it would seem to me that the definition of a record being classified as unbreakable would be how many times it has been approached, it seems somewhat arbitrary to set the point at which someone has approached a record. Does Pete Rose's hitting streak come close enough to demonstrate the DiMaggio streak is unbreakable? How about Gwynn's and Brett's batting averages ... close enough to .400 to claim .400 is not unreachable? I might agree on some of these, but it seems an indiscriminate list, and I think that is specifically forbidden. LonelyBeacon (talk) 05:38, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

At least in the case of batting .400; that in itself is not a record but a "plateau", .426 would be the record to break. Furthermore, I'm not so sure that .426 is definitive yet, some still say .424, or even .422 depending on the source. Baseball historians are still finding hits, earned runs, and other stats that change "established" records, like Cy Young's 511 wins for instance... when I was growing up, it was 510, and before that 508 I believe. Ty Cobb's lifetime batting average has changed, Hack Wilson's RBI total for 1930 has changed, etc.Neonblak ^talk - 06:04, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Any even moderately lengthy discussion of MLB history is going to eventually mention the "unbreakable records" (or unachievable feats, to be technically correct); it's part of baseball lore. Wikipedia definitely needs to document the idea in some fashion. The current article simply reiterates the conventional wisdom onthe subject, but definitely needs more sourcing and attribution. So, cleanup, but don't delete. oknazevad (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

As the original creator of the aforementioned page, I thought I might take a second to weigh in on this. Granted the sources are not its strong suit, and background information is certainly lacking. However my intentions were to set the framework for a potentially substantial article. I see many pages related to sports on Wikipedia and it seemed like there there was room for a page about baseball records that have may stand the test of time. I always found the rich history of the game to be fascinating and over the years have heard/read about various records that we will "never" see broken. If someone put in the time to do some serious upgrades, this would be a very involved and interesting article. I highly recommend keeping the page and encourage its expansion. If I was talented enough and had the time I would give it a shot, until then I hope others will carry the torch. - RoadView (talk) 14:02, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
- As of now, this seems to be a collection of indiscriminate information. There are too many examples of "unbreakable records" being broken for this to be a viable article topic. In football, they say "any given Sunday"; with 162 games per year, anything can happen at any time. If a player is involved in a potentially "unbreakable" record, it can be discussed in that player's article (or another appropriate article, as was done at Commissioner's Historic Achievement Award) with proper sourcing. As is, this article doesn't have enough reliable sources to stay as a properly referenced part of an encyclopedia. — KV5 • Talk • 14:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
I guess where I come out is that if there can be proper sourcing for any of the material in the article, it should remain. The fact that it is speculative is not a bar, if it is speculation from a reputable source/expert, and advanced as such (rather than as fact). But anything advanced as "fact" is not appropriate in this sphere. And material not appropriately sourced is not appropriate.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
- In addition to avoiding making speculative predictions about the future, care has to be taken to avoid giving undue weight to any single view. There should be a clear majority or significant minority holding a given view, not just a single source. (And for a list article, I don't think a significant minority will do, as it would overly-expand the scope of the list; it could suffice for the article specifically about the record in question.) isaacl (talk) 04:57, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
  - True, care should be taken. But there is no prohibition on using "a single source". If it is an expert, that's fine -- care can be taken by proper attribution. Same holds for "significant minority" -- just reflect the facts; a significant minority of experts saying x is perfectly fine to reflect.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:43, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
    - Perhaps I should have said "a single opinion". If a source documents a majority view, then it is not undue weight to present that view. But if it is just one expert proclaiming a personal view, without reliable sources to document the view as a majority view, then that view should not be given undue weight. isaacl (talk) 06:56, 20 February 2011 (UTC)
A number of the rationales in the article have to do with how long a record has stood. Maybe the article's focus could shift a bit in that direction, coupled with SABR-metric style analysis of possible reasons why it has stood for so long, e.g Young's 500 wins and 300 losses. There could perhaps then also be a section about records that stood for a long time and were eventually broken, e.g. Gehrig's streak. Certainly changing conditions have to do with some of it. Like the reason why drop-kick records in the NFL will stand forever. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:29, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Watch yourself there, BB -- given that everyone knows that you are an expert, your pronouncement on drop-kick records will no doubt make its way into the parallel football article. That is, of course, unless the "one expert is not enough" editor is drafting it ... --Epeefleche (talk) 06:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

It's not there already??? There's been ONE successful drop-kick score since the start of World War II or thereabouts, and that was done as a stunt, by Doug Flutie in 2006. If the NFL were to fatten the ball up again and maybe abolish the forward pass, it might see a comeback. Just like if they were to start constructing baseballs to pre-World-War-I standards, we would see a return to the dead ball era and the home run records would be put on ice. I think I'm much more likely to see a pitcher throw consecutive no-hitters in my lifetime, than to see those other things. P.S. Is there actually such an article for the NFL, or you would just pullin' my lariat? :) ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:59, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps Bugs has hinted as a potential solution. Perhaps a better direction would be to rework the article into something like (this is merely a random suggestion): "List of Major League Baseball records which have stood for 50 years". The amount of time is going to be somewhat arbitrary, but it could represent records which currently have not been broken for that time (Young's victory record), but also records which stood for that long and were eventually broken (Sisler's single season hit record). All of this could be very easily referenced, and it removes the aspects of indiscimenency (?), original research, and out-and-out opinion, while still preserving the overall substance of the article. It's just a thought, and I'm not sure that this still doesn't stand in violation of policy. LonelyBeacon (talk) 16:48, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The problem there is what makes that subsection notable enough for an independent article? The only arbitrary qualifier articles I know of are purely for ACCESS reasons where the general list is too big (KV5's alphabetical Phillies' roster, the soccer lists by games played, my .400 OBP list with a PA cutoff, etc). The closest list I can think of to what you're describing is List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters and it's ilk, which have always bothered my from a notability standpoint. Staxringold _talk^contribs 17:08, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

The future of Template:Current sport-related on sports team articles

A discussion has been recently initiated regarding the future persistent use of {{Current MLB season}}, {{Current sport-related}}, and other similar templates on sports team articles. Please join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Current event templates#Premature deprecation of the template for sports team articles. Thanks. Zzyzx11 (talk) 07:44, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Doosan Bears colors

I was thinking about working on an article about a player with the Doosan Bears, and I noticed that the Bears' team colors that appear in the infobox are apparently left over from an old uniform that is not used anymore. Yellow and blue currently appear in infoboxes on players' articles (see Dustin Nippert, Ko Young-Min, and Son Si-hyun), but the colors are apparently blue and red (see Doosan Bears, Template:Doosan Bears roster). How can that be adjusted? Sanfranciscogiants17 (talk) 13:20, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Minor League teams in infoboxes

Most other major league sports include minor league and second rate league teams in infoboxes. Why is WP:MLB different?--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 22:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Thats an interesting observation. You say, "other sports". Could you link some examples so that we can compare how the information is linked with how this project is currently doing it.--Jojhutton (talk) 23:19, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

Part of the answer is that baseball players often play for many different minor league teams over the course of their career, and listing them in the infobox would just be a bunch of clutter. This is especially true for pre-WWII players, who often played in the minor leagues for 15-20 years, and often for a dozen or more teams.

For instance, among current players, last year's NL MVP, Joey Votto, has played for seven different minor league teams. Last year's AL MVP, Josh Hamilton, has played for eight. Cy Young Award winners Roy Halladay and Félix Hernández have played for a somewhat more manageable four and five MiLB teams, respectively. Even Albert Pujols, who spent just one season in the minors, still played for three different teams that year. Other major sports don't work that way. In the NBA or the NFL, how many of their stars ever played even one game in the minors?

As for "second rate league" teams, we do include teams from Japan (NPB), Korea (KBO) and Taiwan (CPBL and TML), which some might consider to be "second rate", in the infoboxes when we know them. I'm not sure what our policy is on listing teams in Italy (Serie A1), for instance, or Australia (ABL), but it appears we generally don't. We don't list Mexican League teams because they are officially considered minor league teams. What other "second rate leagues" am I missing? Maybe some of the Latin American leagues, but official data for those is pretty hard to come by. -Dewelar (talk) 23:59, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

The above comments basically hit the nail on the head. Minor leagues are different from (for example) college ball where you play for just one team and your performance there is often also quite notable (as compared to minor league baseball) and different from the likes of the NBDL (which I don't think is listed anyways). Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:29, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Infobox height & weight

Discussion at Template talk:Infobox MLB player#Height and weight about adding height and weight fields to the MLB player infobox, if others would like to weigh in on it. Spanneraol (talk) 03:56, 9 March 2011 (UTC)