Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball home run champions/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured list candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 13:58, 20 March 2010 [1].

List of Major League Baseball home run champions edit

List of Major League Baseball home run champions (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 00:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Toolbox

As per KV5's new nomination below, here's my first piece of a planned MLB FT. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
  • You use the phrase "home run" before you link it...
  • "Hall hit 5 home runs" why not "five home runs"?
  • "22 season" would hyphenate.
  • "mark of 60 stood for over thirty years until Roger Maris hit 61 " that thirty could be 30?
  • " Finally Barry Bonds, who also has " - Not keen on "Finally..."
  • " lead a major league was 4, "
    • Four
  • You have "player" and "runner-up"
    • Why not "winner"?
    • In both cases there appears to be multiple winners, so surely "runner(s)-up" for instance.
  • Babe Ruth's caption:
    • En dash not hyphen.
    • Four not 4
    • Same for Pike & Hines caption.
  • Schmidt's caption - home runs 8 times - eight times.

The Rambling Man (talk) 18:13, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • What constitutes a "major league" in this context?
  • A league with major-league-level records recognized by Major League Baseball, as sourced by the inclusion in the Major League sections of Baseball-Reference. The Texas League and the Grapefruit League are parts of MLB but not "major" (in the sense of highest level of professional sport, they are minor/training leagues) and Nippon Professional Baseball is the highest level of Japanese baseball but is not a part of MLB. And I fixed the 4. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:57, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a note with a reference or a link you can use to stop me asking the question again? The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's definitely a good start. I think my basic question is "how do you define what you consider to be a "major league" when most of us non-experts just associate that with "Major League" if you get my drift..." Anything based on RS which supports your choice is fine by me. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know zero re:baseball but wasn't there a huge kerfuffle over the fact that Barry Bonds should (or even does) have an asterisk next to his records for various reasons?
  • This is the one thing I was uncertain about with this list. Should any (and if so to what degree) mention be made of Banned substances in baseball and their relation to this list. Many players on this list have connections to performance enhancing drugs ranging from being blatently caught by the testing program (Palmeiro, Manny), to admission (ARod, McGwire), to federal cases (Bonds, Tejada), to heavy suspicions (Sosa). The so-called "asterisk" (a favorite of vandalism on baseball articles like this) is the notion that "cheater" records should be marked to separate "pure" numbers of the past from these. But, for example, Tom House, a 1960s/70s pitcher (far before the usually discussed late-80s start for this drug use) openly admits to steroid use and says many were already using. Heck he was Hank Aaron's teammate and caught one of his famous home runs over the wall! And Roger Maris drew criticism at the time for breaking the-then heralded record of Babe Ruth, because he played on a 162 game schedule (and needed them all to break the mark by 1) while Ruth only had 154. This is the subject of the film 61*. I just don't know how much, if any, of this stuff should be included. Perhaps a general statement after noting the recent rash of 50+ HR seasons like "Some have pointed to the rise of performance enhancing drugs in baseball in the so-called "Steroid era" as the cause of this rise in home runs" followed by many sources? I just don't know if that belongs here, plus then why is that more notable than 162 vs. 154 games, or live vs. Deadball era? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said, I know nothing. But it would be interesting to hear from others. I think there may need to be something but as of yet, I'm not sure exactly what. The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly, I can't think of a way to resolve the drug question in this list. However, I do think a nice addition to this this would be some stats like number of games played that season, or home runs per game or home run every # at bats.—NMajdan•talk 16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It would just come down to arbitrary choices, though, and doesn't pertain to the simple thing this list models which is "Who hit the most home runs?" Why games and not at-bats? Why at-bats and not plate appearances? And adding much more would make the table a bit too big, IMO. I discussed this back when we started with KV5 and my suggestion was that largely no other stats are really directly connected enough to be clearly needed. Maybe losses on the wins list, or caught stealing on a stolen bases list, but for the most part the inclusion of other numbers would be an arbitrary choice. My earlier work on .400 OBPers has just OBP and plate appearances (the unit of measurement for OBP and the standard for inclusion on the "career" list). Not batting average, or walks, or other kinda-related-but-not-directly stats. As for drugs, yeah... Like I said, maybe a generic sentence? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • While I don't think its absolutely required, I think noting the number of games played in that season is appropriate. It gives context to the information: it doesn't state that any particular performance is more or less remarkable, but gives the reader an opportunity to decide for themselves. I know that it's a different sport so different things might be right or wrong for it, but when cricketing record lists are displayed (both in the wider community on websites and TV coverage, and on Wikipedia such as List of Australia Test cricket records) that sort of context is given: lists of most runs scored in a career/season/tournament/etc are generally displayed with the number of innings/matches played in that time frame. (Given the numbers involved they also show the average for the player, but I don't think that part applies quite as well here.)
  • And on the drugs question: given that the records are recognised (or not) by MLB, until or unless they start denoting records with asterisks, sad faces or anything else, I would think that any such notation by an editor here would likely be a case of WP:ORIGINAL, and if it wasn't that because the notation was sourced from who knows where, then I'd think that would be in breach of WP:VERIFY and probably also WP:NPOV.  Afaber012  (talk)  23:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mkay, I'll add the games column later tonight. As for drugs, I completely agree on no markings (since there is no official marking). The real question, IMO, is if steroids should be mentioned at all, even in a boilerplate statement not mentioning names like "Some have suggested that the use of performance enhancing drugs have affected the performance of some hitters on this list." Staxringold talkcontribs 00:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said earlier, I know nothing about baseball so I wasn't sure if Bonds' records were officially marked or not. I would agree that if they're not, it would be incorrect to note it here. The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pike & Hines double image is showing very strangely on FF 3.6, a large amount of whitespace to the right of the pair of images before the frame. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Goodraise 16:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments from Goodraise (talk · contribs)
Alt text
  • You should not describe things that aren't actually shown in the image, like the writing on Barry Bonds' uniform.
  • Same goes for the writing on Babe Ruth's cap. (The characters are so small that I had to open the file's page in order to read them.)
  • "he is holding a baseball upward." - This is supposed to be a baseball bat, right?
  • Yeah, fixed, many of these alt issues come because I largely just grabbed the image code from other FLCs and stuck on new captions. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, the character on Jimmie Foxx's cap is really hard to read. If a detail is not prominent on the picture, it should not be prominent in the alt text.
  • "looks out having taken a left-handed baseball swing." - This is more of an interpretation than a description.
  • In what way? He's a left-handed batter in the clear stance which follows a left-handed swing. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:41, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • That he is "a left-handed batter" and that he is standing "in the clear stance which follows a left-handed swing" are two pieces of information that I wouldn't have derived from that picture even if I had stared at it for hours. The alt text goes even a step further by stating that the man "ha[s just] taken a left-handed baseball swing". Could he not have stood there for half a minute, posing for photographers? Is there no other way he could have gotten into that stance? Goodraise 00:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A Hispanic man walking while shouting at someone out of the picture." - Misses a comma after walking. What follows after that comma is, again, too interpretative.
  • "holding both hands up preparing to catch a ball." - Missing a comma after up. Suggest adding "as if" after the comma to avoid interpreting the image.
  • On his picture, Mike Schmidt is wearing a cap. Whether or not he has a "receding hairline" is not visible.
  • "The bat is behind him over his right shoulder." - From what I can tell, it's above his left shoulder.
  • "the back of his jersey reads 'McGwire'" - See above.
  • "His white uniform reads "Orioles" across the chest (obscured)." - See above. Adding "(obscured)" doesn't make the alt text any better.
  • "Baseball card of a man in a white baseball uniform, black socks, and black shoes holding a baseball bat against his chest." - The picture is monochrome. What if the actual uniform was gray and dark-blue?
  • "Text on the bottom reads 'CONNOR, N.Y's.'" - This sentence leaves the reader who has to rely on the alt text with the false impression that there is no other writing on the bottom of the card than this.

(I strongly suggest and ask that you read WP:ALT before fixing these issues.)

  • Several alt texts suggest that the person shown is African American. That is something that cannot be seen on a picture. Goodraise 00:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
General
  • There are several links to disambiguation pages.
  • "Links to the corresponding "year in baseball" or "Major League Baseball season" article" - This strikes me as very awkward. I think you should describe what is in the column, not where the text links to.
  • In "Philadelphia Athletics (NL)", what is the "(NL)" denoting? Whatever it is, if it is worth noting, is it not worth noting in prose form?
  • I see, but why use this cryptic form over an explanation in prose form? Goodraise 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The American League was established in 1901, and Hall of Fame second baseman Nap Lajoie led that league with 14 home runs for the American League Philadelphia Athletics." - No comma. Suggest changing the sentence to "In 1901, the American League was established and led by Hall of Fame second baseman Nap Lajoie with 14 home runs for the American League Philadelphia Athletics."
  • "The most recent champions are Albert Pujols in the National League with Carlos Peña and Mark Teixeira sharing the title in the American League." - Suggest changing to to "The most recent champions are Carlos Peña and Mark Teixeira, sharing the title in the American League, and Albert Pujols in the National League."
  • "29 (1919) then 54" - Missing a comma before the then.
  • "Most recently Barry Bonds" - Misses a comma after recently. Also, "Most recently" is somewhat redundant to the "current", which appears later in the sentence.
  • "more home runs-Greg Vaughn" - Use an unspaced em dash or a spaced en dash instead of the hyphen.
  • Hate to be overly pedantic, but you used an unspaced en dash. Goodraise 16:30, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem. Giving it another go, the various dashes are one thing that still tend to trip me up. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:39, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A player has hit 50 or more home runs 41 times, with 24 of these seasons occuring since 1990." - Suggest changing this to "A player has hit 50 or more home runs 41 times. Of these seasons, 24 occurred since 1990."

No concerns on image licensing and the sources are looking good too. However, I'll oppose for now. Goodraise 17:21, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to neutral. Going to give the article another pass before supporting. Goodraise 13:48, 28 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Goodraise 02:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
*"A man looks on after swinging at a golf ball with a club." - Again, this is too interpretative. I see no ball and no club. Even if I did, I couldn't tell that he had just swung.

Weak support. Though the alt texts have room for improvement, the list as a whole meets the criteria. Goodraise 16:38, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • I honestly have no idea how to meet that alt text suggestion. I mean, look at the first example of improved alt text, "serious and dignified woman in her forties". How is that not interpretive? You don't know her age, and serious and dignified are 100% interpretations. Plus about 90% of these photos are just guys in baseball jerseys, not sure how to delineate based on things you can see in a thumbnail. Fixed your other comment. Staxringold talkcontribs 17:03, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, that just doesn't make any sense to me. The so-called "flawed" alt text is a far more NPOV statement of the image than the "improved" one. Stating it's the artist isn't something you see in the picture, nor is his youth, nor the "ill-kempt" nature of his hair, nor the nature of his expression. The so-called better alt text is filled to the rafters with the exact problems you just had me remove of interpreting the image. If you can provide specific examples of pictures you want fixed, great, but this is just making the whole thing more confusing to me, not less. Staxringold talkcontribs 23:03, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I ask you something? Have you actually read WP:ALT? I mean, have you read it from top to bottom? Goodraise 02:00, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've read lots of it, but not all. I'm happy to fix up alts, but this is how I've always written them so more specific pics you take issue with would help. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi Goodraise. I don't consider myself an alt text expert by any stretch of imagination, but I think I've mastered it to a pretty good extent. I looked at the alt text of each of the images, and found only one glaring error, which I've fixed (see WP:ALT#Provenance). I too think that at this point it would be helpful if you could offer advice for specific alt texts. Dabomb87 (talk) 03:34, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry guys. If my EPD (edits per day) was as high as it used to be, I'd be happy to indulge you, but seeing as it's not and considering that I'm already in support of this nomination, I'll only say this: Go and study WP:ALT. Unlike some other guidelines, ALT is actually worth reading. Regards, Goodraise 04:21, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Last remaining issue has disappeared after recent changes to WP:ALT. Goodraise 02:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Several pics show "modern pics" such as Mike Schmidt's. Get what I'm saying: The "modern" pic of Mike Schmidt -- playing golf -- is not pertinent, I repear, NOT PERTINENT to the article. Please post pics of players AS PLAYERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.123.49 (talk • contribs)

  • Obviously if we had a period picture I would use it. But until then this does at least show something about what he looks like, which is certainly pertinent. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments –

  • To comment on the hot-button issue here, I don't think there's a good way of incorporating the steriods mess. MLB hasn't issued any kind of asterisk on any of the totals and has shown no inclination that it will do so. As long as MLB lists their totals as valid, we pretty much have to go with them.
  • "that the batter is able to circle all the bases, ending at home plate scoring himself and each runner who was already on base". Something seems off with the punctuation. Try moving the comma before" ending" to after "at home plate", and see if that looks better.
  • The Players League is listed with an apostrophe in the Roger Connor card caption, but not in the table. Should be made consistent, whichever way it is. Giants2008 (27 and counting) 22:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Staxringold talkcontribs 03:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note I have not added the playing time as KV5 has not added it to ERA champions, and style should be consistent. I really don't think it belongs or is necessary, particularly for a counting statistic like this that does not even have a playing time qualifications. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:13, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still think having another column indicating the number of games played would complement this list nicely. I don't think it would apply to the ERA column since ERA is already an average of sorts. If other editors disagree, then I'll support but I'd like to see a broader discussion.—NMajdan•talk 22:40, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • But what does it tell you? If anything it's more pertinent to ERA because you have no idea what time period that ERA is over (is a 2.99 ERA over 150 innings more impressive than a 3.00 over 250?). What does playing time tell you about who hit the most home runs in a season? That is the only question asked, and thus the only question addressed by the list. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:57, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I could go either way with the ERA list, but that's for there not here. Something to indicate the frequency that the player in question hit home runs at (so showing games played or at bats/plate appearances) would be very useful. Having the runners-up listed seems to me to make it even more important: it either offers further proof to the winner's dominance by having the same or fewer games to reach his total, or (like with comparing winners from different seasons with differing schedule lengths) raises the possibility that had the runner-up had the same number of opportunities perhaps they would have been the winner. If at bats instead of (or in addition to) games, differences in schedule lengths might be counteracted by the reduction of at bats a guy got because he was hitting with so much power that he got walked more often. It establishes context, and provides a more meaningful basis for comparison.
  • Without adding that extra column there would be room for interpretation such as "Player X hit 50 homers when he won, but Player Y only hit 25, so X was twice as good as Y", when the number of games for the respective players was not the same; X might have been three or four times as good because he had fewer games, or he might have been only slightly better or perhaps even worse because he had many more games. (Obviously I'm using "better" and "worse" as very simplistic judgments here.) I've generally found the difference between data and information to be context.  Afaber012  (talk)  00:13, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • There's also the difficulty of implementing this, though. There are numerous ties, for example, but not tied in playing time. It seems like all of this would be complex, time-draining, and ultimately only tell you something related to the list, not anything about the subject (who hit the most home runs). Staxringold talkcontribs 00:25, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would think the simplest way of implementing it would be to have the numbers listed as "HR (GP)" or "HR (AB)". That way where there are ties, the extra context can still be supplied without a major overhaul of the entire table structure, just an extra row to the key at the top. By your argument, excluding the info because its related to the list and not about the subject, the team they played for, the runners-up and how many they hit should be removed as well. We're talking about this potentially being a featured list, and in my opinion without the context of the number of games played or at bats faced, the list would not truly meet WP:FL? 3A: "where appropriate, it has annotations that provide useful and appropriate information about the items".
  • So are you saying put the data in parenthetically in the HR column, or a new column? Staxringold talkcontribs 03:26, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Parenthetically. That way there isn't as much hard work in adding two extra columns of data to each table, and keeps the format simple for when there are ties in leaders or runners-up. So it would look something like this:
Year Winner(s) Total Team Runner(s)-up Runner(s)-up total Ref
Year Player A 45 (140) Team A Player B 38 (139) [1]
Year Player B 42 (140) Team B Player A
Player C 		35 (119)
35 (140) 		[2]
  • And I've been thinking about the possibility of using at bats, plate appearances, or even something like their batting or slugging average as alternatives to games played: I think games played would be the best to use because it provides a way of comparing the results that doesn't itself introduce another concept that would need to be explained for non-baseball people. If someone doesn't understand the concept of a game played by a sports-person, then they will likely have difficulty with a lot of other concepts, whereas an at bat is something that even some baseball players need to have explained. (The number of guys and girls I've played with who didn't understand why their batting average didn't go up when they walked all three times they went to the plate in a game is pretty big.)  Afaber012  (talk)  03:59, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, but games played are wildly inaccurate. You appear as a defensive replacement and you get a full game played even if you never bat. Plate appearances are perfect, but AB are the traditional measure and the requirement for other batting stats, so I'll use AB. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:04, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then I'd make sure that in the key when you add in that part, you explain what an at bat is: "every time you go to bat, but don't walk or sac". (Obviously a slightly better prose form would be needed.)  Afaber012  (talk)  04:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, walks and sacrifices are excluded from at bat counts? I didn't know that. Well, that kinda changes things for me. With that, I think the proportion of home runs to at bats will be more disproportionate than it actually was. Even more so that counting games. Obviously, most home run leaders aren't usually just coming in for a defensive series.—NMajdan•talk 17:19, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved comments from Truco

Comments from Truco

General
  • Everything checks out fine from the tools in the toolbox.
Lead
  • A home run is scored when the ball is hit in such a way that the batter is able to circle all the bases ending at home plate, scoring himself and each runner who was already on base, with no errors by the defensive team on the play.-- that last part of the sentence is confusing, what is trying to be said?
  • If you, for example, get safely to third base (a triple), but someone then starts bobbling the ball or whatever in a way that allows you to score that is scored as a triple and an error, not a home run, even though you round all the bases. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most recent champions are Carlos Peña and Mark Teixeira, sharing the title in the American League, and Albert Pujols in the National League. -- their stats should be noted, ie. home runs.
  • A player has hit 50 or more home runs 41 times. Of these seasons, 24 occurred since 1990. -- would you mean 'of these feats' instead?
  • Inconsistency with acronym usage in lead, you have one instance of the National League as NL while the others are spelled out.
  • Yes. Because constant repetition makes for bad prose. Varied slightly to make it more readable. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Babe Ruth set the Major League Baseball single-season home run record four times, first at 29 (1919), then 54 (1920), 59 (1921), and finally 60 (1927). -- you mentioned him already before, so like the others, the sentence should be started with his last name instead of his full name.--Truco 503 03:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • What's the status on the remaining unresolved issues? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only unresolved issue is adding AB to the NL and other league results. I was actually going to do that right now! :) I'll cap my discussion on it and notify those involved when it's done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]


The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_list_candidates/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_home_run_champions/archive1&oldid=1207850756"