Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Gold Glove Award winners at pitcher/archive1

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 The Rambling Man 12:08, 29 August 2009 [1].

List of Gold Glove Award winners at pitcher edit

Nominator(s): KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Featured list candidates/List of Gold Glove Award winners at pitcher/archive1

I am nominating this for featured list because I've finally finished it. The last few weeks have been so busy that I've fallen severely behind on this list, but now it's done. It should meet all the requirements, and is the final list in the proposed Gold Glove Award featured topic, which will be a subtopic of the MLB awards FT. Cheers. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:45, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The lead is unusually short. Did you forget to write a paragraph summarizing the list? Dabomb87 (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Ack! Yes! Hold, please.~~ KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Lead is there now; refs forthcoming.~~ KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

All right, done. Hit it! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support I somewhat wish full SB/CS data was listed and not just the %age (since 50% CS means something very different over 10 attempts versus 100), but definitely enough. Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly would like to put it in, but this table is at its maximum width without screwing up the visual aspects of the top row in a 1024x768 by squishing the table more. I appreciate your comments and support. Can I have a nap now? I will fire the missiles afterward... KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:36, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

AHH MOTHERLAND! Staxringold _talk^contribs 00:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resloved comments from Staxringold

Two minors comments though. First, have you considered including balks? Baseball-Reference tracks them (BK), and while they may be rare (so maybe don't need to list all the winning pichers who threw none in the lead, though the most in a winning season would be interesting) they are still significant given the limited number of ways a pitcher provides fielding value. Second, any consideration of mentioning how many GG winners also win the CYA that year? Doesn't matter as much with the pitcher GG, since the voters seem to like giving them to the same player for a long stretch, but often times you see a player having a good year get a random GG even if there's no particularly amazing fielding. Staxringold _talk^contribs 16:44, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't given any consideration to Cy Young/Gold Glove correlation, probably because it happens to be pretty commonplace. It isn't really rare enough to discuss. I could include balks; I can't believe I didn't think of that ahead of time. I try to cover all the standard bases with fielding here. I will look at putting them in as we go along here. It may take some time to get it together though, because it's not a copy and paste insert, and I can't do it all at once. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:19, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the GG/CY thing was just a suggestion, but I really do think the article needs balks. Staxringold _talk^contribs 19:33, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually feel bad doing this, I want the list to get featured to finish the topic, but changed to conditional support. Balk is necessary, and what about pickoff or any mention of the running game? It's a pretty heavily documented fact that pitchers are a big part of the running game (The Fielding Bible II showed how, for example, while Kenny Rogers and Greg Maddux were close in range-based-value from fielding Maddux gave almost all of it back from shoddy running game control). Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Caught stealing is included with catchers because it's obviously necessary, but I don't think it's necessary to document something that Baseball-Reference doesn't even consider important enough to put on the main statistical page for each player per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:23, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Balks are done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:28, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neat! Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's hardly indiscriminate. By citing caught stealing data only for catchers you are building in systemic bias to the project. I quote from The Fielding Bible:

"Who has greater control of the running game in baseball, the pitcher or the catcher? Obviously the strength of the catcher's arm is a key, as is the quickness of his release and the accuracy of his throws. But the pitcher comes into play as well. How well does he hold the runner? How often does he make throws to first? How quick is his release to the plate? How good is his pickoff move and how often does he nab runners with that move? Do more or fewer runners run against him than other pitchers? Are more (or less) caught?"

And later:

"If you look at stolen base frequency, you see an even stronger control of the running game by pitchers. Fewer runners run on Pudge Rodriguez than other catchers. But the magnitude of the difference compared to pitchers is far smaller. Let's compare Pudge to Mike Piazza, who was known for his lack of arm strength. In their most extreme seasons Pudge allowed about half the number of SBA as Piazza. The difference between the most extreme pitchers is much larger. In 2008, for example, in about the same # of innings, Cliff Lee only allowed 3 SBA while Gavin Floyd allowed 42."

The data is almost MORE necessary for Ps than it is for Cs. Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:30, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And since when does the Fielding Bible determine our criteria for inclusion? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:39, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't but it's far and away not the only place to note the impact of pitchers on the running game. [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], etc, etc. I understand it's annoying and tedious work, but why the resistance to two more columns of numbers? Again, that 2nd Fielding Bible quote really sums it up nicely. The most extremely successful catcher at preventing SBA in his best season compared to one of the most extremely bad in his worst season was only about 2x more successful. The most extremely successful pitcher in one, random season compared to the most extremely bad was 14x more successful (42 vs. 3). Staxringold _talk^contribs 20:46, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why the resistance? Because I'm fed up with this project and I'm tired of seeing it sitting in my sandbox. Because it is horribly tedious and I don't think it's at all necessary. Because it's NOT just two more columns of numbers; it's additional references for every single year! Because I see no reason to include even more excess in this table. Because I think it IS indiscriminate. Because we are NOT Baseball-Reference. That's why. And yes, I'm angry about it. I'm taking a break, so don't expect a response from me for a couple of hours. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:49, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize, I did not mean to make anyone angry. But the list, as it stands now, tells anyone who reads it that pitchers influence fielding in the following ways: putouts, assists, double plays, errors, wild pitches, and balks. That's simply fundamentally untrue. Greg Maddux, the winningest GGer, is one of the worst pitchers in terms of controlling the running game for example. He has had 547 SB on 717 SB attempts, a very bad 76% success rate. Jim Kaat, #2 on the GG list, had 168/255 (68% success, not great but better). But of particular important is that Kaat allowed fewer attempts, even taking into account the innings difference. Well over a stolen base attempt per 9 innings for Maddux (1.3, roughly) versus less than half that many for Kaat (.51 per 9, roughly). And Maddux played in a higher-power-lower-running era to boot (so you'd expect FEWER steals on him if pitchers had no impact). That's hundreds upon hundreds of stolen bases that are completely unmentioned in this article about pitcher fielding. For what it's worth, I don't think you'd need to add more refs, the stats are simply deeper within the same player pages you already have cited, the existing refs are fine to me. Staxringold _talk^contribs 21:01, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point, I really do; however, the referencing issue won't suffice. If you absolutely insist, and other editors agree, that this has to be included, I have to re-reference everything. If you examine the references, the tables are not referenced to the player pages, where this info can be found on a subpage. They are referenced to the team season pages, which don't have any information about pickoffs. Additionally, WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT wouldn't allow me to put essentially unreferenced info up there anyway. If I have to do it, I have to do it, but it's likely that it's going to take so much time that this FLC will either fail or have to be withdrawn and I'll have to re-nominate it later. This is the first free day I've had in about five weeks and I was lucky to get as much work done today as I did. replyKV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Give it a couple days, see what other voters say. If they agree, however, I'm done w/ work for the summer on Thursday (and really Tuesday/Wednesday I'll be largely free). At that time I can go through and help w/ referencing. Luckily, given the tendency to giving one guy GGs for long stretches, there are far fewer people to ref up. Staxringold _talk^contribs 05:05, 16 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discovery. If we also include the team season pages from Retrosheet, they contain SB and CS (which can be used to calculate CS%) and pickoffs. So we can use those instead of the individual person pages at B-Ref, and Retrosheet is where the data is coming from anyway. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I'm panting. That was a chore. It's done now. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:29, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My edit to make this page more WP:ACCESSIBLE to visually impaired readers by replacing the math-mode image " ${\dfrac {CS}{SBA}}$ " with the text "CS÷SBA" was reverted by Killervogel5 with the edit summary "this was already discussed in the FLC for the catcher's award, which passed". There must be some confusion here, as I found no mention of how to display the equation at Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Gold Glove Award winners at catcher/archive1. I assume there's some better explanation for the revert? If not, I suggest that the edit be reinstalled. Eubulides (talk) 16:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe it wasn't this catcher list; it may have been in one of the other featured lists in this topic. Regardless, the topic has been discussed before, and the list has passed. "CS÷SBA" doesn't really help either, because it's much smaller than the other. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:58, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I looked through every Gold Glove FLC, and there was no discussion of the equation. Many of those lists were promoted before the alt text issue emerged, anyway. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I actually didn't mean the Gold Gloves, I meant the baseball awards as a whole. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:14, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since no other baseball award lists have passed FLC since the alt text requirement was instituted (or at least started being enforced), I think that's a moot point. Accessibility is important, and I would be happy to help amend the other lists as necessary. Dabomb87 (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's important, but I'm getting awfully tired of seeing WP:ACCESS superseding the rest of the MOS. Like MOS:MATH and other things in MOS:NUM regarding formulae. Seems like we're turning into WP:PAPER. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that most likely the older discussion is obsolete now. Unfortunately I don't know exactly where the "baseball awards as a whole" discussion was; do you have a wikilink? I could read the discussion and check.
As for MOS, I don't quite understand the importance of the style currently used. Currently, the article mentions CS and SBA one using unkerned texfont italics (which looks horrible) and once using kerned texfont roman (which looks OK, but why is it so important to use a font that differs from both the main text and the math-mode fraction?). Perhaps if I understand the style issues better I could suggest a better solution that is also accessible to the visually impaired.

Eubulides (talk) 17:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There have been quite a few baseball awards lists promoted. There is not one discussion. Honestly, I'm not going to argue with it. I'm so tired of looking at the Gold Glove lists. I don't want to see them anymore. I hate the use of the Unicode division sign, and I think it looks ugly, plus it's too small to read. And I am a sighted person who doesn't find the current usage ugly. But whatever. What about using {{frac}} or {{frac2}}? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the reluctance to not re-discuss a topic that's been beaten to death, but from my point of view it's a bit frustrating to be told that the subject has been discussed, without being given any pointer to any part of that discussion. Anyway, if "÷" seems ugly to you, "/" is also fine, so I did that. Or if you'd prefer to use {{frac}} that'd be fine too, as far as WP:ACCESSIBILITY goes. There are many other solutions as well. We could even bring back the math mode picture so long as it has alt text (but we'd have to fix that ugly unkerned layout :-). Eubulides (talk) 18:39, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem putting alt text on the image; I just had no idea how. I viewed it with the {frac} template, and I like it, so I'll put that in the catcher's list too. Pleasure doing business with you! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 19:31, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support – Only minor issue I saw is a couple instances of out-of-order references in the lead. That aside, it's another great entry in the series, and I'm sure this and the math formatting will be taken care of. Giants2008 (17–14) 00:27, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a note to Giants2008's comment about reference order, I place the references in the order they are in because they verify facts in the order they are listed; this is so the references don't break up the prose any more than is necessary. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Giants2008 (17–14) 20:05, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment

CS% column needs fixing on first table. When sorted to find largest Kenny Rogers 100% is second bottom not top. --Jpeeling (talk) 20:19, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 20:33, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, all issues resolved, and barring any sudden issues on this list, congrats on your second baseball awards FT. Dabomb87 (talk) 23:17, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved issues, Dabomb87 (talk)

Comments from Dabomb87 (talk · contribs)

"Greg Maddux has won the most Gold Glove Awards among pitchers and among all players in Major League Baseball history." It seems redundant to say "among pitchers" and then "among all players". A pitcher is a player, yes?

Yes, but I thought it better to be specific and general here. I can go either way. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In many cases, omitting redundancy ("many ~~different~~ options", "~~in order~~ to") can make a sentence stronger. If you really want to retain the emphasis though, here's a less repetitive suggestion: "Greg Maddux has won the most Gold Glove Awards among all players, including pitchers, in Major League Baseball history." Dabomb87 (talk) 23:08, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:12, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Maddux won five more awards from 2004 to 2008,[6] upon which he retired." Seems kind of clunky. Maybe "Maddux won five more awards from 2004 to 2008,[6] after which he retired." or "Maddux won Gold Gloves in his last five seasons (2004–08)."

Much better, thanks. Done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Gold Glove-winning batterymates", in the See also section, redirects

Fixed to a direct link. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The image in the navbox needs alt text; otherwise alt text looks good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alt text done. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:51, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sources look good. Dabomb87 (talk) 22:38, 26 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.