Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

Liga Mexicana de Beisbol

I want to move this page to it's English name. Which the article says is "Mexican Baseball League", but the website, on milb.com says it's Mexican League. I don't know much about this league, which is why I'm asking what it should be named. If someone else knows better, feel free to make the move. --Borgarde^talk 10:19, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

After looking at it again, I think that the page should be moved to Mexican League, and the Mexican League page is basically just a disambig page, that can be removed completely by adding relative links like 'see also'. Anyone disagree? ----Borgarde^talk 10:44, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable to me. Quickly looking at the history of Mexican League, there may be some WP:CUTPASTE issues as well. Maybe a WP:RM is in order just in case. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:41, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Copied From WP:RM: The page Mexican League is an article with a significant history. This needs discussion first. PeterSymonds (talk) 15:34, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

This is the English wikipedia, so the article's title should be in English. The Spanish title can always be a redirect. And there's no harm in pointing out that (1) the Spanish name is Liga Mexicana de Beisbol and that (2) the formal name is Mexican Baseball League - just as the formal names of the American and National Leagues end in "of Professional Baseball Clubs". On MLB.com or MiLB.com, there's no reason to add "Baseball" to any of those titles, as its understood. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 03:58, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I hate to nitpick but technically Liga Mexicana de Béisbol is the league's "formal" name since its based in a Latin American country, "Mexican League" would be its "English name". - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:03, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Or "Mexican League of Baseball". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

A grammatical point: The proper spelling is Liga Mexicana de Béisbol. Without the accent mark, the stress would fall on the second syllable. Hence, the article's current title is not even its correct Spanish name. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:05, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

That's correct. - Caribbean~H.Q. 04:22, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Revisit discussion

This move got knocked back at requested moves because there was not enough discussion on an article with significant history. I'm inviting anyone with any objection to this move to comment so we can find out if everyone is in agreement. I believe it should be Mexican League because this is the English encyclopedia and the name should be in English. --Borgarde^talk 08:41, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Propose move to Mexican League (baseball) - "Mexican League" on its own is too vague as a title, so I suggest adding the "baseball" disambiguator. – PeeJay 00:07, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Standings Template

Per WP:DASH and the Manual of Style, en-dashes are used "[as] a substitute for some uses of and, to or versus for marking a relationship involving independent elements in certain compound expressions (Canada–US border, blood–brain barrier, time–altitude graph, 4–3 win in the opening game, male–female ratio, 3–2 majority verdict, Michelson–Morley experiment, diode–transistor logic." There used to be a short caveat in this paragraph about how the hyphen is most commonly misused in sports box scores. I've been trying to make sure that the standings templates (Template:2008 NL East Standings and the like) are using these en-dashes. I know that the standings templates weren't previously sized to handle en-dashes and were breaking lines, but this should all be fixed now. I would appreciate some support from the editors here at WP:BASEBALL in following the convention set down by MOS. In particular, there is one IP user who continues to replace all en-dashes with hyphens, very likely because it is simply easier to type. I did not know if that was another editor who just didn't log in or has been editing from their IP instead of a username. However, I've warned the IP address 3 times now to no avail. In fact, the user went back through the standings articles today and replaced the en-dashes for teams who didn't play games last night with hyphens.

Just wanted to make sure everyone had a heads-up on what was going on, and thanks in advance for your support. Questions can be left here or on my talk. Thanks. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 11:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Totally agree. Two questions:

1) Why do you use a "—" vs a "–" in the GB column? Seems the "–" is more appropriate, but that's just my opinion.

2) I've always wondered, what's Wikipedia's stance on using a "—" vs the unicode "–"? I could never find any MOS text related to the question. I prefer the unicode character as it is more WYSIWYG-ish in an article edit text box. — X96lee15 (talk) 13:31, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

1) I personally like the em-dash for the first-place teams for two reasons; a) because the MOS describes it as "visually striking" (and I agree); and b) because I think it makes sense to use a different symbol to signify first place (or 0 games back, which I would prefer) than to separate records. Either way, it's better than the hyphen.

2) The only reason I use the HTML markup version is because that's the way I learned it. Certainly I could use the one from the symbol box at the bottom of the edit box, but strangely enough, I have run across times when that edit box just wouldn't work (it doesn't really like my Opera browser for some reason, when I am at home).

I'm open to suggestions; if we can come to an actual consensus, then it will make my life easier because I won't feel so unilateral about it. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:19, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I have run across another problem with the standings templates and the IP editor who updates them every night. Again, I don't know who this editor is, or if it is a WP:BASEBALL regular editing from an anonymous computer; honestly, it really doesn't matter who it is. The problem is that the standings tables were standardized to a slightly larger width, so as to fix a problem with formatting where the particularly long name of the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim was not squished and split onto two lines. Originally, I was only fixing the width for one template, but it was continually reverted by the IP. Eventually, I went through yesterday and made the slightly larger width standard throughout all six templates; however, this particular editor may have a problem with WP:OWN, because he reverted all of the edits again. I am doing this to make the column width work on my browser, which is quite standard (I use Firefox on Windows XP with a 1024x768 resolution). It also splits to two lines on my laptop (which is Opera on Vista with, I believe, 1280x900 resolution or something like that). I'd like to generate consensus here, but I will need input from the community as always—apparently boldness and making the Internet not suck just isn't enough anymore. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:03, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Is it possible to shorten it to "Los Angeles Angels" with an underlying link to the full team name? If you look at scoreboards, they usually show LAA and LAD for the Angels and Dodgers, not LAAA or LAAoA or some such nonsense. And there is no ambiguity in shortening it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 13:30, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It used to be that way, but every other team has their full name on there, and it seems wrong to me to exclude Anaheim because it is part of the name. Personally, I dislike the name change to begin with, but that's beside the point and doesn't have any bearing in the discussion. The reason they use LAA in abbreviations is because two and three letter abbreviations are standard. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:44, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

It's just marketing hype on their part, and there is no ambiguity. Even their own uniforms don't have that name. There's no harm shortening it, and no reason to screw up the template just because of this goofy name. The official name of Rhode Island includes "Providence Plantations", but you don't normally see that on lists of states because it skews the table. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 14:15, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Los Angeles is the marketing hype of the name. The team is in Anaheim. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:20, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, OK. But my point is, why screw up the template to accommodate one extra-long team name? Just go with Los Angeles Angels. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:26, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

The table isn't screwed up. It's fine now. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 23:39, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Let's just hope they don't rename themselves again, as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim, Azusa and Cuc.......amonga. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 04:38, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Articles flagged for cleanup

Currently, 1759 articles assigned to this project, or 10.2%, are flagged for cleanup of some sort. (Data as of 18 June 2008.) Are you interested in finding out more? I am offering to generate cleanup to-do lists on a project or work group level. See User:B. Wolterding/Cleanup listings for details. If you want to respond to this canned message, please do so at my user talk page. --B. Wolterding (talk) 12:08, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks like a good idea. I created a page at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Cleanup Listing. I noticed that each of the task forces can have their own pages, too. Would that be helpful to set up?--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:36, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Obviously User:Borgarde figured out the instructions better than I did. Off to fix my misplaced template.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:47, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

A further thought about this listing. If anyone uses it to clean up articles, it would help everyone if they get manually removed from the list. The list only regenerates when there's a data dump, so if we take completed stuff off the list we won't be spinning our wheels.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:40, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, it looks like a really nice idea. Will be a lot easier to sort through.--Borgarde^talk 14:33, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• It's at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Cleanup listing (just so we have a link here). Wizardman 20:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Coolness! Looks like we've got our work cut out for us. :) --Fabrictramp | talk to me 21:09, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

163 games in a season?

According to Baseball reference, Harmon Killebrew played 163 games throughout the regular season in 1967. I don't know if this is a typo, or something else. I thought maybe it could be a one game playoff or something, but I didn't think that they counted as regular season games. On this page (same season, same team as Killebrew) it says that Cesar Tovar played 164 games. Thoughts? Blackngold29 00:52, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Playoff games to decide division/league winners do count as regular season games. Tie games also count but have to be made up. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:54, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I've noticed that B-R shows that often, even as many as 165 games are counted for some players. I'm trying to figure it out myself. Wizardman 00:55, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

There weren't any playoff games in 1967, but there were some tied games, and they counted in the player stats, just not in the standings. Ties seldom happen nowadays, because of the more comprehensive rules about suspending games that don't go to completion. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:57, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's a modern example. Also, one year three teams tied and they played two or three games to decide the pennant winner. They all counted towards the regular season stats. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:59, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In 1967 several teams had extra games, and some came up short. The Twins had 164 games. Several teams had 163 or 161 instead of 162. The flip side of making up ties is that rainouts or ties might not be made up if they don't have any more meetings and if the lost games don't affect the first-place position in the standings. This all points out the folly of the 154-vs.-162 game stuff. Ruth's Yankees in 1927 played 155 games, and Maris' Yankees in 1961 played 163 games. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:01, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

(ec) In '67, the Twins tied here and here. —Wknight94 (talk) 01:03, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Cesar Tovar holds the AL record for most games played in one season, at the previously noted 164 in 1967. Maury Wills holds the NL and major league record with 165, in 1962 when they had a 3-game playoff with the Giants. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:06, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

As far as clubs go, the Dodgers and Giants obviously both played 165 games in 1962. The AL record is 164, held by Minnesota in 1967 of course, and also Cleveland in 1964, the Tigers in 1968, and the Yankees in both 1964 and 1968. The AL extra games were all due to ties. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:11, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Here's an even more recent (infamous) example from 2003 [1]. Yankees played 163 that year - the new rules that have basically eliminated ties came not long after this season. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 01:12, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That game was made up on 9/26/03, the Yanks winning the makeup game but then losing the second game of the doubleheader. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:19, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Now I'm wondering what the record was during the days of the 154-game season. Seems to me I've seen a figure as high as 157 or 158, but I'm not sure. Without lights prior to the 1930s, ties were more apt to happen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:14, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

In the 154-game era, the most games was 162 by the Tigers in 1904. The NL record is 160 by the Reds in 1915. The fewest games played was 147 by the Indians in 1945, the NL record being 149 by the Phillies in 1907 and again in 1934. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:27, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Those 1904 Tigers had TEN tied games [2] and finished with a record of 62-90-10. So of the 10 ties, only 8 were made up. And just look at that schedule. They tried desparately to make them up, finishing the season with 7 doubleheaders in 13 days, including 4 doubleheaders in their last 4 days... one of which had yet another tied game! They had to be asking themselves, Will this season ever end? Oy! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:47, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

That 1904 season really ran long. The Tigers were done (and done in) on October 8. But the Yanks and the not-yet-Bosox played two more, a doubleheader on the 10th (I'm guessing the 9th was a rainout), in which Boston clinched the pennant in the first game on an infamous wild pitch by Hilltopper Jack Chesbro. No World Series that year, but plenty of October baseball. Oh, and did I mention that the Highlanders had just FOUR ties that year? [3] 2 of them were against Boston. New York finished at 92-59-4, while Boston finished in first at 95-59-3.[4] If New York had been allowed to play a full 154 decisions instead of 151, they could have finished in a tie. Rules were different then. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 01:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Newsletter

I'm starting to think that it may be a good idea to begin creating a newsletter for this wikiproject. It would get the word out for the article improvement drive, would ideally bring back some users who haven't done much with the project, and would make us more solid. Just an idea I'm throwing out there. Wizardman 11:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I like the idea and would be willing to help. I mentioned it a few months ago but never really got any responses :/   jj137 (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I would also support the idea. Here's a few examples of what I was thinking: WP Films example - This one seems pretty big, I don't think we'll need to be this extravogant. I have helped with the WP Slipknot newsletter It's a little more simple, but basically still the same info. I was thinking: Articles that have reached GA, FA, or FL status, Big news within the Project, Major happenings around the MLB (or other notable baseball worldwide news), other suggestions? Blackngold29 04:08, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So are we doin' this? We could probably get the first one out by the All Star Break. Blackngold29 20:38, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

OK everyone, I've created a simple design here. But now I need your help: Any suggestions of what to include would be appreciated. I would like to add GAN, FAC, and FLN, but don't know if there's a centralized list of them somewhere. Also any FA, FL, or GA within the past month would be a good addition as well, these'll be easier to keep track of in the future. But for now, what does everyone want to see in it? Thank you! Blackngold29 05:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Are there any GAs or FAs from the past month that I missed? I'll keep track better in the future, but we need a little help for this one. I have Art Houtteman, 1926 World Series, and St. Louis Cardinals seasons so far. Thanks everyone! Blackngold29 16:09, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Do you have Philadelphia Phillies seasons? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:28, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

I was only planning on having stuff promoted in the past month, but as this is the first one I see no problem with the last two months. I'll add it. Blackngold29 16:59, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

To everyone who worked on the newsletter: It looks great, I love it, great job! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 04:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I was pretty impressed as well, great work guys! —Borgarde^talk 09:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Project talk banner

I've been looking at some things with the project banner. And if you look at projects like Wikipedia:WikiProject Africa (banner here), all of their subprojects use the same banner for convenience. Right now we have the new MLB subprojects like Wikipedia:WikiProject St. Louis Cardinals (template), and other subprojects like College baseball (template), etc that have popped up that have formed their own banners, essentially double-tagging the talk page, where the main WikiProject Baseball banner has been removed sometimes because of "double tagging". This is an easy problem to fix, we can simply format the banner to include the various subprojects. This will essentially include all the pages under the main projects scope, and any subproject can tag pages as they like. It may also help with keeping the centralised discussion on this page. --Borgarde^talk 09:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I like that idea, something similar was done with all the pages under the Canada WP, and the individual provinces were included under that. It makes the talk page look much cleaner. leafschik1967 (talk) 14:20, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, Biography WP does the same thing. I'd support the movement. Blackngold29 16:18, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

I have no problem with this, as long as it doesn't get used as an excuse to roll all the projects into one megaproject again. If this doesn't happen, we should really start thinking about shelling the banners, as has been done on some of the Phillies pages. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 17:03, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Well sure, team projects are good in a way because you can just work on that team, the banner in one will also help this project when a team project creates a new page, because it'll automatically get put into our scope, and then into the team's as well. Example {{WikiProject Baseball|class=Stub|importance=Low|phillies=yes|phillies-importance=High}}, and if the other projects get just want to assess there's, that's fine as well, they can assess like {{WikiProject Baseball|phillies=yes|phillies-importance=High}}, and eventually someone working through the unassessed backlog will assess the main projects ranking. --Borgarde^talk 08:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Pitchers who have defeated all 30 teams

I've been researching and compiling data to create a list of pitchers who have defeated all 30 major league teams. I knew who they were, but nothing else about their victories until I went through all the career game logs at Baseball Reference. I've compiled a table in my sandbox, but it doesn't meet the length requirements for an article. Where would be the most appropriate article to insert a table like this? I was thinking maybe here, but I don't know. Anywhere is fine, but I would rather work with consensus than unilaterally (unless no one responds, then I will be bold). Input, please! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 14:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Your statement "Since the advent of interleague play in 1997, the opportunity has existed for a pitcher to face, and defeat, all 30 teams in Major League Baseball." seems incorrect since interleague play is not required to face and defeat all the major league teams. Interleague trading/selling/jumping has existed for over 100 years. Of course, the real reason why it was impossible for earlier pitchers, like Nolan Ryan and others, to defeat all 30 teams was that there were less than 30 teams when they played. Are there any articles about this subject? Without them, this may be considered WP:OR. Kinston eagle (talk) 15:08, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

One more note. I wouldn't be surprised if someone like Jamie Moyer defeated 31 teams including the Montreal Expos. Kinston eagle (talk) 15:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Montreal Expos = Washington Nationals, in the MLB books. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Not here on wikipedia. Unlike the Washington Senators, the Expos have their own separate page and are treated as a separate team. Kinston eagle (talk) 15:29, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Which I personally disagree with... 1 franchise... 1 main article (this actually happens often with NHL teams for some reason...) JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 15:34, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The record applies only to franchises according to MLB. As you can see, 5 of the 6 pitchers completed their defeats before the Nationals existed. Whether we at Wikipedia say the Expos and Nationals should stay separate is irrelevant. As to the early statement, I will alter it. Regardless, I'm not looking to create a new article; I am looking for where this table should go. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:44, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Separate articles is just a wikipedia editorial decision (which I also don't agree with). They are still the same club. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:27, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

An even more interesting article attempt would be to figure out who defeated every team of his era (since we've had 30 teams only since 1998...). How about a list of pitchers who retired before 1960 who beat all 16 teams... go through each era of team additions... JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 15:53, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I have a feeling that it would take forever to find all the pitchers who defeated all 16 teams. What about pitchers who played across eras? Played through expansions? It could be an impossible task. In addition, as to the comment about this being original research, the event itself was covered by MLB's official website when Moyer became the sixth pitcher to do it. I just compiled the facts from sources that were already available. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:14, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There have been studies of players that hit home runs in all possible ballparks, and I think also homers against all major league teams, and such stuff as that, so someone should have done citable research on this subject. Here's the flip side question - What about pitchers who have lost to every team at least once? Kind of the Bubby Bristers of baseball. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:25, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dunno about that, but I haven't seen any independent coverage of that subject. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:30, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying it's worth looking into. There is no end of topics for figger filberts to explore, and this would seem like an obvious one. Maybe I should ask User:Ron liebman? On second thought, maybe NOT. :) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:35, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's worth pointing out that the Elias book actually lists all the franchises and locations separately. The no-longer-published Sporting News record book also took to listing clubs' locations separately in recent years. That was probably to accommodate those who were interested in, for example, New York Giants vs. San Francisco Giants achievements. The two lists can still be combined to get the overall franchise record. But I don't think that franchise shifts would affect the "record" the editor has proposed. However, that does raise a point - unless it's a semi-"official" record of some kind, even deciding whether to treat Montreal and Washington separately amounts to OR on our parts. However, if you have two separate lists, i.e. vs. a franchise vs. the franchise in a specific city, then you've got that base covered. That also makes things complicated and interesting - such as maybe a pitcher who was around long enough to have defeated the Boston, Milwaukee and Atlanta Braves. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 16:41, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Um... right....... haha. Going to reset this discussion to the left before it gets much longer. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 18:13, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

There are a lot of websites mentioning Moyer's accomplishment, but most are blogs or message boards. I did find this one though from a reliable source: [5]. I'm not sure you caught my meaning earlier about interleague play. The fact is that interleague play has absolutely nothing to do with the accomplishment. In order to complete the task, one would have to defeat the teams you were on, so you would have to be traded, sold, or picked up as a free agent by another team at some point. That has been taking place long before interleague play. The only reason that all the players accomplished the feat after interleague play started, is that interleague play started about the same time that the 29th and 30th teams were added. Had the 29th and 30th team been added back in 1965, I'm quite certain that there would have been pitchers who would have defeated all thirty teams without the benefit of interleague play. I'm sure that pitchers who played in both leagues such as Gaylord Perry and Nolan Ryan eventually defeated all the teams that were active during their tenures. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Here is a list of Moyer's 30 wins: [6]. Note that not one of them took place in an interleague game. The fact that all these men did this after interleague play is just a coincidence that interleague play started the same time that numbers 29 and 30 were added. Kinston eagle (talk) 19:15, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I did understand your comment about interleague, which is why I changed it. I'm aware that I make a mistake. The source that I placed with the table is also reliable and mentions the event, as well as the other five pitchers who accomplished it. Even doing a quick overview, I can see that you are right about Nolan Ryan; I just did it as a check. Addendum: I was incorrect; Ryan played in 1993 and did not defeat the Marlins or the Rockies. This could change things. Does look like Perry did it, though. Obviously this means that either we have to do one of three things:

1. Leave well enough alone and ignore it.
2. Do pitchers by era, which will take a lot more people than just me, because I certainly don't have time to do this myself not knowing which pitchers to look at.
3. Amend the mini-lead of this list to say that it's current franchises only and doesn't include pitchers from an era where there were less than thirty teams.

Comments certainly welcome. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 19:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Interleague play wouldn't necessarily help a pitcher achieve that goal, because it can be years before a particular matchup occurs. The best chance, I would say, is still the same situation that would have to have happened prior to interleague play: The pitcher would have to have appeared on at least 4 teams, at least 2 in each league, in order to be able to beat every other team at least once. The "record" for this kind of feat, if there is such a record tallied, would probably be something like "most clubs defeated, career". Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:04, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, statistically, in terms of pure numbers, interleague play gives any pitcher, even if he spends his entire career in the same league, a larger chance (i.e., a larger sample size from which to draw) to defeat any given team, because he has more opportunity to play them. That's why I picked that wording. Obviously your scenario gives a pitcher the greatest chance to accomplish the feat; however, it increases the possibility for every pitcher. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 03:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm just saying that interleague play doesn't help all that much, because so few combinations occur each year. Recently the Pirates and Yankees had interleague play for the first time since interleague play began, or so I heard. In interleague play the schedulers tend to gravitate towards "natural" rivalries, hence the Cubs and Sox play each other every year - twice yet - but it has been several years since the Cubs played the Twins, for example. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I should also point out that there is nothing about this topic at all in the Elias record book, so other sources would have to be found. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I do think the 30-team question is the most interesting, because it's obviously more difficult to have faced and defeated 30 than 16, or 20, or whatever. I was thinking that someone like Jim Bunning might have achieved it, having 100 wins in each league, but he only played for one team in the AL, so no dice. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:15, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The bottom line, though, is that if no valid source can be found that broaches this topic, then it might put wikipedia in the business of "originating information", which is obviously against the rules. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 07:55, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

This item [7] indicates that Al Leiter was the first to defeat all 30 teams. Maybe, rather than an exhaustive list (which might prove exhausting) it would be a good starting point to find out who was the first to defeat all the teams that were possible to defeat in one's era. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Which was probably taken from the wikipedia article on Leiter. "Duh." I get the feeling I'm talking to myself here. Oh yeh? Yeh! Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

In terms of defeating 16 teams, the most obvious candidate is Cy Young who had quite a few wins and pitched several years for different teams in both leagues. I would suspect he would also have lost to pretty much every team also. And as a bonus, probably would have beaten all 4 teams that were dropped by the NL in 1900. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 08:48, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I think what's being alluded to is that this "record" is actually more of a coincidence - so much so that even Elias doesn't track it. I'd personally leave it out entirely. —Wknight94 (talk) 09:32, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The source is here [8], as I've been saying all along. One from ESPN was also provided. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

"By beating the Rockies in his fifth attempt -- he had been 0-4 with a 5.54 ERA before Monday -- the lefty has now defeated every Major League team. He joined Kevin Brown, Al Leiter, Terry Mulholland, Curt Schilling and Woody Williams as the only six pitchers to accomplish that feat." Well, there's your list. The question I have is, what's their source? How are they keeping track of it? Maybe someone could write to them and find out. If Elias is keeping track of that kind of thing, despite it not being in the book, maybe they have lists from the "classic" years also. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 17:31, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I hate random lists like this but I'll bow out of this discussion since I seem to be in the minority. This and who homered in the most stadiums. Who cares? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't necessarily support it, I just find it interesting. However, the home-runs-all-parks record was actually in the TSN book, at least it was at one time. I don't recall ever seeing anything about defeated-all-teams. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 18:44, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I will table the discussion for now and see what I can find out. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:05, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

bold-facing leaders

I have edited a lot of the statistics pages like List of Major League Baseball players with 1000 runs. The introduction states that active players are bold-faced. I also noticed that the leader's total is often bold-faced. Is this vandalism? Fbdave (talk) 22:57, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Changes to the WP:1.0 assessment scheme

As you may have heard, we at the Wikipedia 1.0 Editorial Team recently made some changes to the assessment scale, including the addition of a new level. The new description is available at WP:ASSESS.

• The new C-Class represents articles that are beyond the basic Start-Class, but which need additional references or cleanup to meet the standards for B-Class.
• The criteria for B-Class have been tightened up with the addition of a rubric, and are now more in line with the stricter standards already used at some projects.
• A-Class article reviews will now need more than one person, as described here.

Each WikiProject should already have a new C-Class category at Category:C-Class_articles. If your project elects not to use the new level, you can simply delete your WikiProject's C-Class category and clarify any amendments on your project's assessment/discussion pages. The bot is already finding and listing C-Class articles.

Please leave a message with us if you have any queries regarding the introduction of the revised scheme. This scheme should allow the team to start producing offline selections for your project and the wider community within the next year. Thanks for using the Wikipedia 1.0 scheme! For the 1.0 Editorial Team, §hepBot (Disable) 22:16, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Shawn Riggans

See Shawn Riggans and [9][10][11][12][13][14][15]

I think this article is Copyright problems. so help at Shawn Riggans. My English may be inappropriate, because I am User en-1. --Kanesue (talk) 20:04, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

All the copyrighted text has now been removed. Thanks for catching that. Wizardman 20:13, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

Usually most sports-related profile sites list biographical information about players in similar formats. If you see similar bodies of the text written in the same format,chances are it has been directly lifted from another website. Just a heads up. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  18:05, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Records vs. opponents

Can someone please explain why all the American League teams have individual tables for records v. opponents for the 2008 seasons, but the National League teams have the large, unwieldy, and difficult-to-read grid template? It seems that all 30 teams should have a standard format. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 16:47, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

On top of that the NL grid hasn't been updated in almost a month. Blackngold29 19:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I think it was updated, but no one did the whole grid, just their teams, and no one updated the date. I would like to see it go back to the old way, template convenience be damned. I'd rather update it myself. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:00, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

I updated the Phillies season page, anyone is welcome to steal my code, color-coded table and all. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:44, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Troy Tulowitzki

I'm currently in a dispute with Pesposito7 (talk), as he claims that since Troy Tulowitzki is on the DL, that somehow warrants a change in Tulowitzki's infobox to "retired" status. I've tried to tell him that just because Tulowitzki is on the DL, that doesn't mean he's also retired. Since I don't want to be blocked for 3RR, I haven't made any more reversions to Tulowitzki's page. If he shouldn't be listed as "retired," then please change the status on the article and please join me in discussing this matter with Pesposito7 (talk) on his talk page. Thank you. -- Luke4545 (talk) 22:29, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

The guy's either an ignoranimous or a troll, or both. Being on the DL in no way equates to being retired. Favre announced his retirement. He's retired. He could still come back, but for now he's retired. Unless Tulo has announced his retirement, he's still active, just on the DL. I reverted it. We'll see what happens. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've turned him in to WP:ANI. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 22:44, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

He might not be a troll, just a newbie screwup. Issue marked resolved. Anyway, he'll be watched. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:03, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

AFD on Steve Bartman

Steve Bartman has been proposed for deletion. You may participate in the discussion here. Johntex\^talk 01:54, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Steve Bartman has been proposed for deletion." Hmmm... sounds like a request for a professional hit. >:) Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Something straight out of Terminator I may add. I recall one April's Fools Day, the AFD template featured a mugshot of Arnold from Terminator :p. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  02:10, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The Daleks would seem to be more fitting icons of the AFD process: "Ex-ter-mi-nate! Ex-ter-mi-nate!" Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:22, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is also an Afd on Jake Eisenhart. Is there a list somewhere for Afd's within the project? WP:HOCKEY has one on the main page, and I think it helps get the word out (without adding a new section to this page every for article); Thoughts? Blackngold29 06:34, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There is. You'll find it at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Baseball.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 13:41, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Philadelphia Phillies

Community, I come to you asking for consensus once again. This article, which recently passed to B-class, has gotten several extensive rewrites and reformattings. In the lead, the fact that the Phillies are the first franchise with 10,000 losses was mentioned. This is a notable and unique fact, used as a hook to draw the reader into the article. As a Phillies fan, I see nothing wrong with this wording, seen here. User:Thprfssnl seems to disagree, deleting the statement several times and claiming that it is derisive to the team. Now, after two warnings to cease deleting information, he deleted the warnings from his talk page (allowable, certainly), and replaced the referenced fact with a non-neutral statement, as seen here. He claims that this hook is "better" in his edit summary, where in reality, it may very well be a violation of NPOV. I come seeking opinions, and support if you wish, as I cannot revert his edits for fear of diving into an edit war. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 04:36, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The main article for any and every major league sports team is edited so much that it is very difficult to get it up to atleast a GA, let alone keeping it there for any period of time. In this case, I would side with you in that the fact is interesting and should be included. But obviously, you're gonna offend people who don't understand that WP is supposed to be NPOV and want to put forth everything positive about their team and dis-include (I just made that term up, (c) 2008 me) anything negative. So you kind have your hands tied. Blackngold29 04:44, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Right; the part that agitates me is that it's my team too. I wouldn't run the Phillies WikiProject if I weren't serious about the team. When I cut down the lead from its old form, it was one of the few things I kept because I felt it was important. Did you think it was disparaging? KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 04:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

I think it is stating a notable fact about a team that has obviously struggled at times. If were ever to write the Pirates article I would no doubt include something about this [insert negative adjective here] slump that they're in now, which is on track to tie them (with the Phillies coincidentally) for the longest streak of losing seasons in pro sports. Now, I would probably include more about the good teams of the 70's, but it has to be kept even for the most part, that's textbook WP NPOV policy. Blackngold29 04:56, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

OK, thanks, BnG. Your cool head helps. I took out some aggression by killing a spider that happened to be running around in my apartment, so that helped too. Comments from all others still welcome, please! KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 05:01, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh, that's why I'm here. I wish more people like you (and a lot of the people in this project) "got it", but I guess one of the biggest problems with WP that I've learned about in my time here is that there will always be people who push their POV in some way or another. That is one of the reasons why I advocate good sources for everything, but in this case it's kind of difficult to do anything about. I usually try to the majority of my time on less visited articles, but I understand your anger. Blackngold29 05:11, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

The sad fact is that the Phillies, for most of their century-and-a-quarter of existence, have been known as losers. Prior to the arrival of the Mets in 1962, who set a new standard for lowliness, the Phillies were considered the dregs of baseball. Seems to me that not mentioning anything about that in the introduction is a POV-push of its own. But you don't need a paragraph; a single line would cover it, something like "Although the Phillies have a history of being largely unsuccessful, and were the first major league team to lose 10,000 games, they have also had some winning stretches, including a World Series victory in 1980, and several post-season appearances at various times." That line could be broken into two if it's too long. But it tempers their losing with a degree of optimism. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

That's a good thought, Bugs. The World Series victory was also mentioned right before the "disputed" comment. I could maybe copy some of the wording from the lead of FL Philadelphia Phillies seasons. I worked hard on that, and it's been gone over with a fine-tooth comb. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 13:46, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Atlanta Braves

There's yet another POV-pusher trying to claim 11 instead of 14, and causing an edit war over it. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 19:37, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Outreach department

As part of starting up the new newsletter for WP Baseball (See above), I think we should also start an Outreach department. The department would organize the newsletter (hopefully monthly) to keep current members informed, recruit new members, and make sure all members are staying active in some way or another. If anyone would like to help or has thoughts about the department please don't be shy! Blackngold29 04:00, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Peer Review

A request for Peer review has been placed for Nashville Sounds. My goal is to have it promoted to Featured Article status. If you please, you may comment on the article here. I would have listed it for review within the project, but didn't realize we had one until after I listed it with the "official" PR area. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

BaseballAlmanac reliability?

(I just wrote this on someone's talk but figured I'd cross-post here)

I haven't found BaseballAlmanac to be the most reliable source. It's all hand-done and prone to mistakes. I just found an example yesterday on their 1963 All-Star Game page. Their notes at the bottom include "Did you know that Harmon Killebrew tied the record for singles hit during an All-Star Game with three?" Only Killebrew didn't hit three singles in the 1963 All-Star Game. He hit three singles in the 1964 All-Star Game! See Retrosheet's page here. In the 1963 All-Star Game, Killebrew only had one pinch-hit AB where he struck out. In general, I try to stick to Retrosheet and Baseball-Reference.com (the latter's box score info comes from the former's data).

Thoughts? —Wknight94 (talk) 19:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

No source is perfect. Baseball Reference, while a very thorough source, has some mistakes, and when contacted about them, the editor that I spoke with insisted that they were correct, although official team histories say otherwise. That's why I always cross-check Almanac with B-Ref and vice versa. If they don't agree, I usually use Baseball Cube or Retrosheet as a tiebreaker. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:07, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with you that it is not reliable. If you check out the biography section you can see that anyone can submit one, and sources are not required. I'm not sure if the rest of the site is the same way, but that's pretty comprable to IMDB which is also not a relible source. Blackngold29 20:12, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Biographies aside, their statistics tend to be generally fine, as far as I've seen. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 20:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

I believe BBRef is pretty tied-in with SABR and other hard-core data-gathering organizations, so there may be cases where they are technically more accurate than the official team sites! They - meaning BBRef/SABR/etc. - even present their findings to the official sites and have, at times, convinced the official sites to change their data. That's slightly different than what I'm referring to where BaseballAlmanac has simple easy-to-disprove hand-coded typos - like the one I referred to above. —Wknight94 (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Minor Leaguer Info Box

Any standard on how these are to be used? Do I just use the MLB one, or the generic baseball one? leafschik1967 (talk) 19:16, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I always use the MLB one for players who haven't had a major league debut yet. Just leave the debut date/team, stats, and teams fields blank. That way, when they do make their debut, the other fields can be filled in. -NatureBoyMD (talk) 20:58, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd just use the MLB one. It's not common for minor leaguers to be notable, so no need to make a new one. Wizardman 22:08, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Seeking support for Ozzie Smith's Featured-Article nom

I thought that other WP:Baseball members would be interested to know I have just nominated Ozzie Smith as a Featured article candidate. I would appreciate suggestions for improvement and comments about the article, in addition to support for its promotion to Featured-Article status, at this page here. Thanks, Monowi (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Cat:Baseball Hall of Fame restructure proposal

I have suggested the restructuring of Category:Baseball Hall of Fame, discussion can be found here. Otto4711 (talk) 23:07, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Template:WikiProject Baseball

See Wikipedia:Version 1.0 Editorial Team/Assessment

Template:WikiProject Baseball need C class. but this template is protected. --Kanesue (talk) 11:24, 23 July 2008 (UTC) (My English may be inappropriate, because I am a Japanese. )

Right. I've added C-class on a couple other project templates, but for the life of me I can't figure this one out. It's made very oddly. Wizardman 11:48, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

40-man rosters

Are players on the inactive roster but still in the roster boxes supposed to be listed as playing for a team that they do not actually play for? Example: Today, Jason Jaramillo was marked as playing for the Phillies, yet he has not played an inning in the majors. KV5 • Squawk box • Fight on! 15:16, 23 July 2008 (UTC)