Talk:Baseball Prospectus

Untitled

I changed the importance to Mid-importance. BP is becoming increasingly well-known, with writers' articles appearing in major mass media, and writers now in Major League front offices. It is widely-known as the chief representative of the sabermetrics movement. -- Amazins490 04:20, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I also changed the class level to start... I'd say it may even be a B class, but I'm not sure -- Amazins490 21:43, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

I think subsequent addition of material raises it to B class. Thank you. Would like to see more; also it's important to embellish the references on those topics.--Mack2 16:59, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Just wondering, what do you mean by "those topics"? Sabermetrics in general, or you think this article needs more references? -- Amazins490 (talk) 21:07, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

For example, where you talk about RBI and (pitcher's) wins, it's not just BP but other sabermetricians who have been making the points that some stats are very context-dependent. Individual RBI, R, ERA, pitchers' W-L depend on their teammates, among other things. Not to mention that there is a whole lot of luck involved in individual performance.--Mack2 20:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

List of staff writers

The article now lists all of BP's writers and their corresponding columns twice, once in the "Development" section, once in the "Regular writers" section. They definitely only need to be listed once -- I'm thinking we can basically remove the third paragraph in the "Development" section and just fix up the "Regular writers section. Any objections / other suggestions? -- Amazins490 (talk) 23:33, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Good suggestion, which I've implemented. Also added David Laurila, John Perrotto, and Bryan Smith to the list of Regular writers. Not always sure of their backgrounds but not much is needed for this listing. Have looked into BP archive to see what they've written on and when they appear to have joined the regular staff. --Mack2 20:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Given the turnover in the core of regular writers, I thought it helpful not just to list current regular writers (feature writers) but also those who were regulars in the past and have moved to other pursuits. So I created a second category, and found some of the former short bios of these individuals. BP's own archiving is not very helpful, in the sense that if you use the web page's "Search" function for "Authors," only the relatively current set of author names appears. So it's difficult to find the complete writings of many of the past ones, even such well-known ones as Woolner.~~Mack2~~ 18:53, 20 January 2010 (UTC)

Changing header from Oakland/Moneyball to Boston/Cleveland

Partially based on this: http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=7202 I changed the header of the article. Oakland really does not follow the more advanced BP techniques very closely (BP != OBP above all else, as was written by Michael Lewis), but both boston and cleveland have hired BP staffers in either a consulting or full-time role —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.168.215 (talk) 15:47, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Pete Rose reinstatement incident

I removed the final sentence from this section, which read: "Neither Carroll nor Zumsteg ever published a retraction or an explanation." Zumsteg did, in fact, publish an explanation a year later on USS Mariner [1]. Rather than note this and cite the explanation, I thought it better to just remove the sentence and post this here in case someone thinks it's important. --walkie (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baseball Prospectus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070928064958/http://www.stathead.com/bbeng/woolner/vorpdescnew.htm to http://www.stathead.com/bbeng/woolner/vorpdescnew.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:35, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Baseball Prospectus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090327063757/http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8653 to http://baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=8653

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Edit requests from BP

As discussed on WikiProject Baseball's talk page, I'm working with other staff at BP to suggest some changes to the article. We want to work collaboratively with the community, so we'll be proposing changes here. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 23:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

There are substantial edits we'd like made to the article, so rather than detailing every single suggestion here I've set up a mirror of the article in my sandbox. At this point all I'm requesting is the revamp of the "BP products" section as I have it in the sandbox. In a nutshell, we'd drop the SiriusXM show, which is long defunct, and add the BP annual and Futures Guide, as well as adding the other site podcasts. Happy to discuss any of these revisions here. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)

Pinging Muboshgu. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 21:38, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Jprg1966, sorry, saw the post in July but not the followup one. I'll take a look soon. Ping me again in a few days if I haven't. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:49, 18 August 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, re-ping. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 00:57, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Jprg1966, yeah I forgot about this. I'm looking at your sandbox now, and doing it this way, tt's tough to see what is changed from the live version to your sandbox. You said above that the SiriusXM show is defunct, and in this article it has only a primary source, so it's fine to drop it. The BP annual and Futures Guide I am aware of. It should be added here too. Adding mention of the other podcasts is fine too. Do you have any secondary sources for any of that? Was there anything else I missed? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:46, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, I think that's pretty much all the changes in that section. Sorry that it's hard to read. For the future edits I request in the sandbox I will look at ways to do make that easier, like highlighting new text maybe. (Although it gets kind of messy because I'm trying to reorganize things in a more logical way.) I don't think we really have great secondary sources for things like podcasts—there are news articles that mention Effectively Wild, e.g., but probably not anything that describes the basic information. Likewise, with the Annual, there are news articles that talk about it as a great resource, but again not "this is what the Annual is" kind of stuff. But if it helps to bolster the notability of those things, I could add secondary refs. Something like this, e.g. Thanks. --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 02:09, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Jprg1966, I have an idea.... I hope you don't mind my editing your sandbox.... – Muboshgu (talk) 15:32, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

This is the diff of the current version to your sandbox. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:33, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Muboshgu, good idea! I forgot just how much rejiggering of the content I did, but at least that diff enables a good framework to describe the major edits. So how do you feel about the products section? (I presume you're the one who's supposed to make the edit, not me?) --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 22:27, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Jprg1966, there was more rejiggering than I thought, but it all seems to be okay. It's mostly primary sources, but the content you wrote appears NPOV to me. I think you can go ahead and make the changes. You know them better than I do, I don't think it should be me that makes the updates. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:50, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Closing edit request, checked the edits done. While there are more changes as compared to the diff, they look okay to me. --Justanothersgwikieditor (talk) 05:15, 21 September 2020 (UTC)