Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball

WikiProject Baseball
Main project page + talk Special projects talk Resource Library talk Article Improvement Drive talk Requested articles and todo talk  → Articles needing attention talk  → Cleanup listing talk  → Nominations for deletion talk  → Article alerts talk Article assessment (Log) talk  → Featured articles (61) talk  → Featured lists (211) talk  → Good articles (561) talk Outreach talk  → Newsletter talk Portal talk Notability guidelines talk Style advice talk  → Naming conventions talk  → Player style advice talk  → Season article format talk Handling transactions talk Popular pages talk Active editors
Project organization Participants talk Large userbox talk Project userbox talk Project banner talk Project category talk
Major League Baseball Team specific Atlanta Braves talk Boston Red Sox talk Chicago Cubs talk Cincinnati Reds talk Los Angeles Angels talk Los Angeles Dodgers talk Minnesota Twins talk New York Mets talk New York Yankees talk Philadelphia Phillies talk San Diego Padres talk Seattle Mariners talk St. Louis Cardinals talk
General Subprojects Players talk College baseball talk Leagues and teams talk Little League talk Old-time Base Ball talk Negro league baseball talk Hall of Fame talk Umpires talk
Geographical Australia talk Japan talk Korea talk Taiwan talk
view · edit · changes

World Series champion in infobox

I notice that for many World Series-winning players, in their infobox where it says "World Series champion", there is a link to just the World Series itself. Wouldn't it make more sense if World Series champion linked to "List of World Series champions"? The NFL infobox does this with List of Super Bowl champions, and so does the NBA with List of NBA champions. Obviously this would be a massive undertaking to change every single player's page, so I recognize at this point it might be too difficult. Red0ctober22 (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2025 (UTC)

Wouldn't linking to the world series they won be a better option? Spanneraol (talk) 00:38, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

The actual WSs they won is typically linked in the parenthetical list of years. —Bagumba (talk) 01:17, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

• Whatever the consensus ends up being in terms of which page to point to, we should be careful to avoid an MOS:EGG situation. A link to the article World Series should simply be a direct link around the words "World Series", and a link to the article List of World Series champions should be a piped link around the words "World Series champion". FWIW, World Series champions redirects to the champions list page. Linking the words to the specific year they won would also be MOS:EGG, and in any case there's not an unambiguous target for multi-time champions (i.e. Derek Jeter, Madison Bumgarner). Left guide (talk) 02:08, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  ... there's not an unambiguous target for multi-time champions ...: FWIW, the NBA and NFL projs link both one-time and multi-time winners.—Bagumba (talk) 08:43, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think you may be misunderstanding the context. My comment was referring to the idea of linking the words "World Series champion" (and not the year number) to a specific year edition. For example, if Randy Johnson's infobox were to say "World Series champion" or in code [[2001 World Series|World Series champion]]. Left guide (talk) 10:00, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think I'm understanding what you are trying to say, but the NFL and NBA pages always link "Super Bowl champion" or "NBA champion" to "List of Super Bowl champions" or "List of NBA champions", respectively, no matter how many titles that player has won, they never link "NBA champion" to a specific NBA Finals, that is the point of the year number in parentheses. For example, if you see Jalen Hurts, he has only won one Super Bowl (Super Bowl LIX), but where it says "Super Bowl champion", it still redirects to List of Super Bowl champions, as is the same with Tom Brady, who has won seven. The one difference between these two players is that Tom Brady's page links to "Super Bowl champion", which is a redirect to "List of Super Bowl champions", which Hurts' page directly links to "List of Super Bowl champions", though that doesn't really matter since linking the redirect still displays a preview of the "List of Super Bowl champions" page.

  For example in the context of the MLB, to give an example of a winner of multiple World Series and a winner of one, it propose it would look like this:

  (Derek Jeter):

  5× World Series champion (1996, 1998–2000, 2009)

  (Kyle Schwarber):

  World Series champion (2016) Red0ctober22 (talk) 16:13, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

  ... though that doesn't really matter since linking the redirect still displays a preview of the "List of Super Bowl champions" page. MOS:NOPIPE says to link to the (shorter) redirect and avoid piping. —Bagumba (talk) 06:49, 5 April 2025 (UTC)

  Understand now, so "World Series champion" should link to "World Series champion", and the redirect will do the rest.

  Is this something that people would approve of doing? I am willing to update as many pages as I can, though I do realize it is a mammoth task. Red0ctober22 (talk) 01:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  I support, as it's consistent with NBA and NFL projs. —Bagumba (talk) 01:27, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  Alright, then I will get working on it. If anyone wants to help, just be sure to remember Bagumba's message above about WP:NOPIPE.

  The entry should be, for example:

  • 5× World Series champion (1996, 1998–2000, 2009)

  Red0ctober22 (talk) 14:09, 11 April 2025 (UTC)

  I agree with this style. Left guide (talk) 01:30, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

  Are you still working on this? I know it's volunteer based, I was just wondering as I see some players with the former and some with the new style. Also if you and @Bagumba and others could weigh in on my ["World Series champion" order in infobox] topic below, I think it would help with consistency between MLB, NBA, and NFL projs. as well. Wamalotpark (talk) 21:44, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

  I have been slowly working on it, mostly with Yankees and Phillies players, though I will try to ramp up on it in the coming weeks. I am open to whatever the decision ends up being in that discussion about the order, and I would be happy to assist with it if it is decided to change the ordering Red0ctober22 (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Babe Ruth

We had this similar discussion on the NBA page with Wilt Chamberlain and Michael Jordan and the consensus was it was too close to definitively label either player the Greatest of all Time. Therefore to be fair is there a consensus agreement to keep this title for Babe Ruth? Currently it's labelled on his page at the moment Never17 (talk) 02:43, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The page says that Ruth "is considered by many to be the greatest baseball player of all time," which is 1) not a definitive label and 2) true; I see no reason that language should be removed. Hatman31 (he/him · talk · contribs) 03:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

Just posing a question, i have no problem with it but lots of people i see argue for Bonds and Mays so i just wanted to see what people here stand on the subject Never17 (talk) 03:35, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

The problem is that "considered by many" is often not sourced. Moreover, it's a weak statement; If 7 say he's the greatest, and 15 don't, that's still arguably "many". I'd argue that such a statement should be limited to cases where it's sourceable that someone is "widely considered the greatest", with the MOS:WEASEL guideline caveat on using "widely considered" and the like:

Likewise, views that are properly attributed to a reliable source may use similar expressions, if those expressions accurately represent the opinions of the source. Reliable sources may analyze and interpret, but for editors to do so would violate the Wikipedia:No original research or Wikipedia:Neutral point of view policies.

It should also meet the WP:EXCEPTIONAL policy:

Any exceptional claim requires multiple high-quality sources ... Warnings (red flags) that should prompt extra caution include: Surprising or apparently important claims not covered by multiple mainstream sources

—Bagumba (talk) 06:28, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

That's an overgeneralization. The Chamberlain discussion decided:

1. Wikivoice should not call him the greatest.
2. It's a dated opinion that he's considered the greatest.

The more general RfC at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject National Basketball Association § Request for Comment on use of the term "one of the greatest" in player articles is still open. —Bagumba (talk) 06:16, 19 April 2025 (UTC)

• I can see "is considered by many to be the greatest baseball player of his time," but not "all" time; or maybe "is considered by many to be one of the greatest baseball player of all time." This needs to go away on every page it is on, even if it is some SABR poll or whatever, or even if Bill James comes up with an equalizer. It's all relative and not transcending. IMO. Why don't we just instill already existing policies as quoted by Bagumba and actually enforce them? Do we really need an RfC? Rgrds. --BX (talk) 04:09, 20 April 2025 (UTC)
• As I said in the NBA project RfC, the video game project has a pertinent interpretation of WP:NPOV policy that has been authorized by broader community consensus as an official Manual of Style guideline. The second paragraph of WP:VG/POV reads:

  Avoid vague statements (weasel words) that sound authoritative but offer no substance. Rephrase Many think the game is great as a verifiable statement: The game received five Game of the Year awards (only count reliable sources). When sources and interviews use flattering or promotional language, maintain your professional prose quality and instead provide more specific and referenced facts about the project so readers can decide for themselves. Rephrase puffery (peacock terms): The game is the console's best into IGN and GameSpot listed the game as among the console's best.

  That guideline can be translated into a baseball context as needed. Left guide (talk) 05:33, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

  I'll assume it's something specific with the nature of video games, because MOS:WEASEL is less dogmatic:

  The examples above are not automatically weasel words.

  Follow the sources. —Bagumba (talk) 07:46, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Leave as is. Not only is Babe Ruth the greatest ballplayer of all time but is the most underrated baseball player of all time. Everyone here who hasn't read it, please read the book The Year Babe Ruth Hit 104 Home Runs that highlights Ruth's dominance in the home run category. Nobody comes close, then or now. His career totals in RBI's, runs, batting average, slugging percentage, etc. etc. (not to mention his pitching career and where that could have led), in the era where less games were played yearly, were and are near or at the top of overall major league records. Again, read the book to understand Ruth's career and home run stats that were so far beyond anyone playing the game in his time (and after). Have any academic studies been done on why or how he was able to do what he did? Randy Kryn (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

Just as a suggestion, or perhaps more, when a discussion takes place that mainly affects a single page, it might be helpful to leave a note on its talk page. That way you get more opinions, and don't get people saying, as I do now, that I was not aware of the discussion, that there was no good reason not to leave such a note, and that that should be the first venue for a discussion affecting mostly one article. Also that way you don't run the risk of people not privy to the outcome questioning the validity of consensus, which I do not here, but I point out the danger.--Wehwalt (talk) 11:50, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

This spun off from Talk:Babe Ruth § Greatest of all time, so it seems the immediate participants there were at least aware. I have now left a general note there. —Bagumba (talk) 13:55, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

"World Series champion" order in infobox

"World Series champion" should be listed first in the infobox. It is the crown jewel of accomplishment for a player, and allows for achievements more likely to be repeated like All-Stars, All-MLBs, MVPs, (4x, 6x, 3x stuff) etc., to be grouped together more cohesively. It is listed first for NBA and NFL players, and FWIW it would make it easier to compare players between the leagues for a reader.

For example, Shohei Ohtani's infobox starts like this.

• 4× All-Star (2021–2024)
• World Series champion (2024)

But Jayson Tatum's starts like this.

• NBA champion (2024)
• 6× NBA All-Star (2020–2025)

I think the latter it is better overall. Wamalotpark (talk) 03:34, 20 April 2025 (UTC)

• Just leave it how it is, all articles are consistent right now with the AS first. Changing thousands of articles with a minor change like this is a waste of time and will for sure leave inconsistent formatting.-- Yankees10 22:27, 23 April 2025 (UTC)
  • My thinking is that personal honors trump team honors. Spanneraol (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2025 (UTC)

    That’s a pretty bold statement lol. I’m pretty sure if you ask any athlete, they’d rather a championship than an all star/all pro selection and probably even something as prestigious as an MVP. @Wamalotpark has a point, most/all other major sports list championships first, I don’t see why baseball was different, but @Yankees10 also has a point in that it will create many inconsistencies…. tough call. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 00:15, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

    I agree, and I think it is better more for consistency with NBA and NFL projects. I disagree with @Yankees10 statement that it is a waste of time, if someone is willing to help with it, we should do it. Wamalotpark (talk) 01:36, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

    Also @Spanneraol, strictly speaking, if personal honors trump team honors, Ohtani's "World Series champion" would be placed last in his achievements in his infobox. Wamalotpark (talk) 01:43, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

    Yeah it’s also strange that it is only All-Star selections which are appearing first. Like if personal honors trumped team honors, wouldn’t arguably the most important honor of all, the MVP, be first on the list? GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 03:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

    I also don't agree with how it goes as follows for Freddie Freeman for instance.

    • 8× All-Star (2013, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2021–2024)
    • 2× World Series champion (2021, 2024)
    • NL MVP (2020)
    • World Series MVP (2024)

    NBA and NFL order go Championship, Championship series MVP, League MVP, All Stars, for those with all those accomplishments. I think MLB should match. Having World Series and World Series MVP separated is not optimal. Wamalotpark (talk) 05:08, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

    Strongly agree, I’m up for a vote. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 05:55, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Agree that Word Series should be listed first. Nemov (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• I also concur that World Series should be listed first. oknazevad (talk) 12:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)
• In theory, I think it makes more sense to list World Series first. And I'm willing to help implement a change if consensus is reached. However, I share Yankees10's concerns about ending up with inconsistent formatting across hundreds of articles. If we are going to do this, I think we need to establish a clear hierarchy for all infobox honors, and we need to have volunteers lined up to implement the changes. Otherwise, I would be opposed to proceeding in a haphazard fashion. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 14:18, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  I would volunteer to make the changes in my spare time if that’s what we ultimately decide. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 15:17, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  In the case of Freddie Freeman, it would be as follows when matching NBA/NFL. Anything after seems to be in fine order to me.

  • 2× World Series champion (2021, 2024)
  • World Series MVP (2024)
  • NL MVP (2020)
  • 8× All-Star (2013, 2014, 2018, 2019, 2021–2024)

  Please note the topic "World Series champion in infobox" above in the WikiProject that will be changing the link from "5× World Series champion" to "5× World Series champion" to also better match. Wamalotpark (talk) 16:04, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  And for an example of a player who also played in NPB, Shohei Ohtani, from

  • 5× All-Star (2013–2017)
  • Japan Series champion (2016)
  • Pacific League MVP (2016)

  to

  • Japan Series champion (2016)
  • Pacific League MVP (2016)
  • 5× All-Star (2013–2017)

  Wamalotpark (talk) 16:06, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

• Noting here that consensus was reached 12 1/2 years ago here as to what to include in the infobox, then the conversation rather petered out as to the order here, but it was summarized as Some editors have expressed the desire to have some flexibility in the order, so that a key achievement can be placed at the start of the list. Others have expressed the desire to highlight individual accomplishments over team ones. The consensus was placed at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice#Infobox and I don't see where it has been disputed much, if at all, over the years. (I've been adhering to it blindly for years.)
  Regarding the implementation, I believe it would be straight forward enough for a bot to handle, and any unique situations can be flagged and done manually. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 16:57, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  In that discussion regarding the order, I said the following:

  In the interest of balancing these wishes, and to help the list crescendo to a satisfying conclusion, I suggest the following structure:

  • if appropriate, the one key signature achievement for which the player is known
  • individual accomplishments, roughly in order of descending importance and reliability as an indicator of skill
  • any remaining signature achievements: post-season, All-Star
  • post-career accomplishments: number retirement

  This way, the list will start with the deeds for which the player is best known and best summarize the player's skills, and will end with the ultimate events that mark a player's career: winning championships, and personal career recognition.

  As I also said back then, I think it would be helpful to consider categories of accomplishments and the relative order between them and within them, rather than trying to handcraft an order out of all the possible accomplishments. isaacl (talk) 17:35, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Alvaldi said something similar last year about categorizing awards into tiers for infoboxes at WikiProject NBA. I think it’s a good idea. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 18:21, 24 April 2025 (UTC)

  I think we have some consensus for the specific changes I mentioned above, with anything following in the infobox staying as is for now. I think categories could further complicate things and it might just be best to be specific, but it doesn't hurt to suggest them. Can someone with bot capabilities implement the specific change to the beginning few lines I suggested? Wamalotpark (talk) 02:16, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Agreed, first things first, WS/WS MVP should be moved up. After, I’m open to having a discussion regarding tier system and specific award categorization. Doesn’t seem like it’s going to be as big of a headache doing that here as opposed to say the NBA or NFL which have a boatload of different awards in the infobox. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 03:34, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  I see no consensus to touch the order of awards. WS above All-Star is one thing, but you're talking about hundreds of articles potentially being impacted. There is no way these infoxes are going to be consistent any longer. I'm not gonna lie as someone who has spent the past 15+ years editing and trying to keep these infoboxes consistent and clean this whole thing annoys and pisses me off. Nobody has had any issue with the ordering of the awards before.-- Yankees10 03:42, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Just because you see something as "annoying" doesn't mean other people want to improve the wiki. We use bots to update things on a macro level all the time... Wamalotpark (talk) 04:28, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Because it's not "improving" anything. It's trying to "fix" something that isn't broken. And a bot won't be able to do the things you are trying to accomplish.-- Yankees10 05:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Personally, I think it would be better to first figure out if there is consensus for any organizing principles. Otherwise, it's just an "I like it" discussion. Should individual-level accomplishments be listed before team-level accomplishments? Should accomplishments be sorted in decreasing order of importance/significance to illustrating a player's career? I'm not thinking about tiers in the popular sense these days, but just an ordering that roughly puts more significant accomplishments before lesser ones in a standard manner. A similar example is how batting average/on-base percentage/slugging percentage are listed in that standard order, even if there are good arguments that on-base percentage is more significant than batting average. It's just a rough order that everyone can accept. isaacl (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  A similar example is how batting average/on-base percentage/slugging percentage are listed in that standard order: That is the typical order in slash lines in reliable sources too. Inasmuch as possible, cite usage and styles in RSs (esp. over personal preferences). —Bagumba (talk) 04:37, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I was referring to usage in reliable sources, not Wikipedia usage. isaacl (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

• If nothing else, Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice § Infobox should definitively state whether or not there is a recommended order for All-Star, World Series and "the one key signature achievement for which the player is known". Those items come up often enough as a claimed consensus to be at (or near) the top that there should be an explicit statement, one way or another.—Bagumba (talk) 04:31, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Not that the existing list at Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball/Player style advice § Infobox was meant in any specific order, but World Series AND All Star appearances are almost dead last. I think we should come up with a definitive system for awards arrangements. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 04:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Is there any definitive list or guide for NBA/NFL? When I was starting this conversation, I really was just focused on moving World Series champion and MVP to the top, but if we're fleshing everything out, I think just following the order the other major leagues use would be best. The awards generally match each other, and exceptions could of course be discussed. But I'm also fine with solely moving the World Series related achievements up for now if there is consensus. Wamalotpark (talk) 05:19, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  @Wamalotpark please see WP:NBAHIGHLIGHTS and WP:NFLINFOBOX. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 05:32, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you. We should definitely implement something like this. @BX has done a great job at a rough draft of the ordering style guide. Wamalotpark (talk) 05:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  There is no consensus for a specific order, nor for a key signature achievement. I didn't include either of these on the style advice page as there are a lot of things that don't achieve consensus support, such as all of the highlights that aren't included. isaacl (talk) 06:12, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  The prior consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 41 § Infobox highlights order for Tony Gwynn was to list his batting titles ahead of ASGs. Since then, it was changed, with the claim that ASG's being first was the new project standard. I have no problem with NBA pages listing NBA titles and ASGs ahead of other highlights (WP:NBAHIGHLIGHTS). If a case like Gwynn doesn't merit superseding ASGs, then we might as well as accept that ASG should be first, instead of clinging to a pipe dream that editors might follow the weight of sources. —Bagumba (talk) 06:39, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Agree about the pipe dream. Getting crowd-sourced editors to collectively arrange each individual infobox according to the weight of sources is like herding cats lol (mainly because it requires a high level of competence), it simply doesn't work in practice. The only thing that people reasonably listen to or follow is consistency. Left guide (talk) 06:55, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, but that was a consensus for one player. I do not recall any discussion establishing a consensus to list all-star games first for all all-stars, but it's possible I've missed it. isaacl (talk) 07:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

  I was taking related edit summaries at face value.[1][2]. —Bagumba (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I am a little late to this, so I'll just offer this. I always am always a supporter of standardization across sports for infoboxes, but I will just add this context. Baseball is a little different in the sense where there are a good amount of legendary players that never won (or even came close) to winning a World Series, and this is really because baseball had so little playoff teams for so long, along with simply how baseball works. I think of someone like Roy Halladay, obviously a Hall of Fame pitcher with Cy Young and All-Star accolades, but never had a good team around him in Toronto, and thus never got close to a championship. Despite that, he is still considered one of the greatest pitchers of all time. Ted Williams is another example of that, one of the greatest hitters of all time, but people don't really give him any flak for never winning a championship. Meanwhile, in football for example, when you talk about Dan Marino, someone will always bring up the fact that he never won a Super Bowl.

But really, I am open to both sides in this case. Red0ctober22 (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

I think standardization is best, there will always be differing opinions when it comes to ordering. Wamalotpark (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2025 (UTC)

Arbitrary break

My personal opinion (rough draft at least) would be:

• Team accomplishments
  • World Series champion
  • World Series MVP
  • League Championship Series MVP
• Season awards
  • Most Valuable Player
  • Cy Young Award
  • Rolaids Relief Man
  • All-Star
  • All-Star MVP
  • Silver Slugger Award
  • Gold Glove Award
  • Comeback Player of the Year
  • Rookie of the Year
  • Manager of the Year
• Career leader in select categories
• Seasonal league leader
  • home run leader
  • batting average leader
  • RBI leader
  • ERA leader
  • strikeout leader
  • win leader
  • save leader
• Selected highlights
  • pitching/hitting triple crown
  • perfect game
  • no-hitter
  • retired number

This was taken from the current player style page and rearranged. Just throwing this out there for comments. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 05:40, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your efforts! This looks good at first glance. Wamalotpark (talk) 05:48, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

LCS MVP is not a more notable award than MVP or CY Young. Rolaids Relief Man hasn't been given out in years. AS Game MVP was determined years ago to not be included at all or are we now all the sudden changing that?-- Yankees10 06:01, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

All good points to consider. Wamalotpark (talk) 06:06, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Yeah, LCS MVP is not even taken into account in Hall of Fame Monitor —Bagumba (talk) 06:53, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Mariano Rivera Award and Trevor Hoffman Award are the modern-day reliever awards, but Rolaids was a big deal during its era. —Bagumba (talk) 06:56, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

My suggested order is the order from the player style page (unsurprisingly, as I wrote it). There are two particularly visible spots in a list: the start, and the end. I think there is value in ending with some of the most significant highlights for players fortunate to achieve them: post season play, and number retirement. isaacl (talk) 06:04, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

It seems like others dont agree with me... but I still feel players individual honors are more significant to their career than team awards... MVP, Cy Young, All-Star define a player more than winning a world series. Spanneraol (talk) 13:07, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Out of curiosity I checked the links in {{Baseballstats}} at the bottom of a World Series winning HoF MVP, Stan Musial. B-R lists in order: HoF, MVP, All Star, WS winner, Batting titles, player of the year. MLB lists in order: WS winner, All Star, MVP. Retrosheet lists HoF, MVPs, Player of the Year, All Star, but no WS mentions. ESPN and Fangraphs didn't highlight any. And the HoF plaque list in order career stats, batting titles, MVPs, All Stars, but no WS mention. Food for thought. Rgrds. --BX (talk) 14:44, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Star NBA players are measured by league titles because 1 player can make a large impact when there are only 5 on the court. Likewise, NFL QBs are measured by Super Bowls. It's conceivable that baseball, with 9 on the field and each player more or less batting on their own, that individual players are measured less by team success.—Bagumba (talk) 15:43, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

NFL team size is about double that of an MLB team, yet Super Bowls/Super Bowl MVP's are the leading accomplishments in all NFL player infoboxes, whether they’re a QB or not. Regardless, I still believe that in any sport, winning a Championship, World Series, Super Bowl, etc. is the pinnacle of any professional sports players career and should always be mentioned first. Given that they are competing in a team sport, their team accomplishments should take precedence. GOAT Bones231012 (talk) 16:09, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Sure, all NFL bios on WP have Super Bowls listed first, but it's mostly just QBs that are grilled now for not winning an SB, and only QBs have W–L stats associated with them. —Bagumba (talk) 16:29, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

For any star of a sport that gets introduced in an article, on the jumbotron at an event, etc., if they have won a title, that gets mentioned first. It's the most notable accomplishment and what the entire league is focused on winning. Every player in every league will say a championship means the most, no matter the position. It's clear to the NFL and NBA projects, and it should be implemented here. Wamalotpark (talk) 16:35, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I don't think "what's important to the player" is key here.. but what defines their career the most. Someone being MVP of the league says a lot more about them and their career than being 1/26th of a championship team. A seldom used relief pitcher or backup catcher gets to say they were a world series champion by being on the roster and that may be the most important thing for those players.. but for someone who is a star in the league their individual accomplishments define that far more than the WS. Spanneraol (talk) 22:25, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

A summary of one's highlights can also build up to the events that typically have some of the most memorable moments for a player. I think it's reasonable to start with individual highlights that help establish a profile of the player's attributes, and to end with team-level accomplishments. isaacl (talk) 17:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Notability should be prioritized. A profile is what the article is for. Wamalotpark (talk) 17:21, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean by notability in this context. My rule of thumb for what should be placed in an infobox is info that is essential for a concise summary of the key characteristics of the subject. isaacl (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Matt Cain

Matt Cain has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2025 (UTC)

Hits in infobox

I've noticed a trend recently in which hits are being included among the infobox stats for players who are well short of 1,000 career hits (see Mike Yastrzemski for an example). My imperfect recollection is that we had drawn an informal line at 1,000 hits as the minimum for infobox inclusion. Has that line of thinking changed? LEPRICAVARK (talk) 02:29, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

For stats outside of the Triple Crown, WP:BASESTYLEPL says:

If there is another statistic that is representative of the player's career, then it can be included as well. Examples: Rickey Henderson's total stolen bases, Mariano Rivera's total saves

A thousand hits is insufficient to meet that crieteria. —Bagumba (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

Muboshgu appears to have added the Triple Crown standard to WP:BASESTYLEPL in 2014 without citing any policy or guideline; was there a discussion consensus informing it? If there's no connection to policy, guideline, or discussion consensus, it's just one person's opinion on how content should look. Left guide (talk) 05:52, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

There was limited discussion in 2012 (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 33 § Stats to include in info box; hi there, AutomaticStrikeout). When the change was made in 2014, I raised the topic for discussion (see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 39 § Stats in player infobox). As I said then, if someone wants to establish consensus for a different guideline, we can have that conversation. I thought it was a fair representation then, but we can see if opinions have changed in eleven years. isaacl (talk) 06:05, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

As Muboshgu noted in the 2014 discussion that you linked, he made the change boldly. IMHO, the lack of reversion over more than a decade implies a silent consensus. Now that I've opened this thread, I'll state that I agree with Muboshgu's decision and that I also think that anything less than 1,000 hits should not be listed in the infobox. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 13:13, 11 May 2025 (UTC)

@Bagumba:If a thousand hits is insufficient to meet that criteria, then roughly speaking, how many hits do you believe is sufficient to meet that criteria? Left guide (talk) 21:33, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

The National Baseball Association's top 100 minor league teams

I just added a short description to The National Baseball Association's top 100 minor league teams and the fact that every single source was from the same website struck me as odd. I'm not in the baseball world in the slightest, so I don't know if this is okay or not, but you all may want take a look.
All the best,
I can do stuff! (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

@Icandostuff: Thanks for flagging this; your concerns are valid. MiLB.com (the website of Minor League Baseball) isn't an independent source for this purpose. Just like any other topic, it needs independent sources to show notability; baseball isn't exempt from that. If none can be found, it may merit merging, redirection, or deletion. Meanwhile, I'll tag it with {{Independent sources}} to encourage others more interested and willing to research. Left guide (talk) 21:51, 14 May 2025 (UTC)

Okay, thank you! I can do stuff! (talk) 13:29, 15 May 2025 (UTC)

Good article reassessment for Pop Warner

Pop Warner has been nominated for a good article reassessment. If you are interested in the discussion, please participate by adding your comments to the reassessment page. If concerns are not addressed during the review period, the good article status may be removed from the article. Z1720 (talk) 12:55, 17 May 2025 (UTC)