Talk:2012 Major League Baseball season

Baseball Mid‑importance

	Baseball portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BaseballWikipedia:WikiProject BaseballTemplate:WikiProject BaseballBaseball articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

2010s Low‑importance

	2010s portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Expanded Wild Cards

Personally, I think we should remove any mention of extra wild cards in MLB. There hasn't been any agreement as to how they will be scheduled and played. As of right now, the season is scheduled to end on October 3 with postseason play scheduled to start on October 5th.96.3.147.87 (talk) 03:50, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Well, they figured out how to schedule everything. 71.161.196.219 (talk) 12:47, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In the AL, I am seeing Baltimore and Texas both at 93-69 and taking the AL's wild-card berths. As is already the case in the NFL, the tie-breaking criterion should be noted somewhere (where?). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.20 (talk) 15:55, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Milestones"

That was WP:LISTCRUFT. There was no sourcing and no context for why any of those listed target figures are of any importance. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Baseball is about individual numbers and reaching certain milestones, it always has and always will be. Reaching certain numbers has always been one of the big things that an individual strives to, that and winning the World Series. Keeping the data up-to-date is not a problem and if you really want a source, I will list baseball-almanac.com as the source. I just think you are just trying to take the fun out of a baseball season for the dedicated baseball fan who loves the numbers of the game.posty (talk) 21:00, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We (not I, we) are following Wikipedia's core policies, which that section violates. This intricate editing with random numbers and no context does not help Wikipedia. A simple source showing the numbers does not fully address the problem. Most of those "milestones" are hardly of any importance. Perhaps they are to the individual players, but likely not to this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I can appreciate people's interest in stats, but I think most also realize that there are so many numbers out there that there is a need to be discriminate in which ones are listed. Notability can be gauged by its mention in multiple sources in prose in articles. Any other suggestions are welcome to determine whether a stat is notable for mention.—Bagumba (talk) 21:42, 6 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

IMO, the current list of milestones is still a bunch of trivia that is relevant to the individual player or team, but not for the MLB season article.

Can we cut this then? I'd do it, but since I did it last time, I feel that my intervention would be a distraction from the issue at hand. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong opinion either way on the question of including notable career milestones (that are actually reached during the season), but the list of "within reach" marks does seem a stretch. And, as it is in the current version, this section isn't even "milestones" at all; of the 15 items listed, there are only 5 that I would consider to be milestones (by that, I mean reaching a certain "round number" of hits, home runs, strike outs, etc. in one's career). Becoming the 3rd person ever, or the oldest ever, to accomplish a particular 1-time feat is not a milestone. --LarryJeff (talk) 20:10, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sure it is a milestone. A milestone is a significant event and becoming the third person ever to do something that over 17,500 players was not able to accomplish is noteworthy. – posty (talk) 14:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I don't dispute that the achievements listed are noteworthy events. We just seem to differ on the definition of "milestone" to determine inclusion in a section titled as such. The connotation of a milestone is something, given a sufficient combination of skill and longevity, toward which any player's career would naturally progress. As in the original meaning of the word, a stone used to mark the miles along a roadway. As such, any statistical feat achieved in a single game or even a single season, while possibly noteworthy, would not be considered a career milestone. Look at, for example, the achievements currently listed in the article for pitchers Neftali Feliz and Matt Cain:

second pitcher in Major League history to throw at least seven scoreless innings in his first career start after at least 150 relief appearances
first pitcher in the Giants' 130-year history to throw a one-hit shutout in the team's home opener

I'm not sure how either of these accomplishments could be considered a career milestone, even considering your comment above about doing something "over 17,500 players was not able to accomplish." In the case of Feliz, how many pitchers who started their careers exclusively as relievers even tried the switch to starting? And doing something specifically in one team's home opener, even a team that's been around for 130 years, that's a pretty small sample to make a big deal about doing something in a specific game that happens only once every year. I would argue that doesn't even belong on a page about all of MLB, maybe it would fit better in an article specific to the Giants. --LarryJeff (talk) 15:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't "career milestones", it is just "milestones"... BIG difference... --posty (talk) 13:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Criteria for inclusion

I think we should come up with objective criteria for what "milestones" should be included in this article:

MLB records set
Career milestones as defined here: Template:Major League Baseball records

I think we should remove:

Franchise records
Career individual milestones not listed in the above MLB record template
- Ex: Vernon Wells (LAA): Recorded his 250th career home run in the fifth inning against the New York Yankees on April 14. He became the 204th player to reach this mark. The 204th person to hit 250 HRs is not notable.
Xth instance of an event
- Ex: Frank Francisco (NYM): Became the third player in Major League history to record a save in every game of a season-opening series of three or more games. If we include this, where is the line drawn on where not to include events such as this.
Random trivia
- Ex: On April 24, the Mets drew four straight walks from four different pitchers to plate the tying run. This was the first time in Major League history that four different pitchers walked four straight batters in one inning of a game.

— X96lee15 (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support I couldn't agree more. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support The only change I propose to what you have listed above is for career milestones. I suggest including multiples of 1000 for hits, RBI, and strikeouts; multiples of 100 for anything else. --LarryJeff (talk) 15:10, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, I'm also in favor of keeping entries like the one currently in this article for Rodriguez catching Griffey for #5 in home-runs. I'd be ok with including when someone reaches a new spot on a career stat list once they are in the top 10. --LarryJeff (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd be okay with something like A-Rod passing Griffey, or Jeter passing Winfield, since those are entries on 500 home run club and 3,000 hit club respectively. I don't agree with the even multipliers, though. Maybe I could be convinced by 2,000 hits, but I don't think so. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - Isn't 2000 hits on the template you recommended? ;) --LarryJeff (talk) 16:14, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Right... I wanted that page deleted, though, as redundant to the 3000 hit list and not adding enough of importance (you can check the talk page for the AfD discussions). I'll drop my opposition to the 2000 hit thing. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sad sad state of affairs... So Wikipedia wants to be as accurate and detailed as possible and when someone enters things that help backs things up, you remove information because it doesn't follow some random template? And also, why the sudden "interest" in this now? I have been doing this for the past three years and there were no previous random removals of data yet this year you guys have a chip on your shoulder... There is a quote from "Ferris Bueller's Day Off" that is very appropriate here... --posty (talk) 17:03, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- Please read WP:LISTCRUFT, because that is the appropriate policy here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:05, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah yeah I read that before... Still don't know what "rule" is being "broke", but I know you will say that it is just numbers or few people only care about it and that is obvious a very weak argument... --posty (talk) 17:09, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    - No, that's not my argument. My argument (and that of the other editors) is that list has a nearly unlimited inclusion criteria and is impossible to properly maintain in its recent state and makes the page difficult to navigate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      - Okay fine... I will stop making updates so the page will be easier to navigate... --posty (talk) 17:18, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
- If we're going to literally "be as accurate and detailed as possible" then we'd have to include a pitch-by-pitch write up of every game played by every team. Obviously, that is absurd and can't happen. We're just trying to find the right balance of detail and brevity to let future readers be able to come here to see what happened during the 2012 season. As for following a "random template" I'm not the one who chose to use that template as a guide or starting point for this dicussion, but I assume it was chosen as an example of a prior consensus reached by editors concerned with the topic. Why does it matter how long any of us have been paying attention to the MLB articles? The only one who appears to have a chip on his or her shoulder is you. I think all of us (including you) really do just want to come up with the best structure we can for this article. But, continuing to re-add what 3 different editors have removed is not the way to go about it. --LarryJeff (talk) 17:38, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  - FYI, I have a text file that I cut-and-paste from, I rarely look at what others have removed (or added) in that particular section... --posty (talk) 17:56, 27 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're too trivial for such a template. –BuickCentury Driver 18:55, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Difference between 2012 MLB season milestones and 2012 in baseball events

A lot the milestones on this page are understandable as to why they are under "milestones". But there are others like the Phillip Humber perfect game and most of the entries under "Other accomplishments" and "Miscellaneous" that seem more like famous firsts or notable trivia. Then you go to 2012_in_baseball#Events and it seems like there are some entries there that could be moved as well. I am a fan of these lists, however it doesn't seem as clear as it could as to exactly what the specific criteria is for each list. If adding the same entry to both lists is allowed for certain occasions, that should be explained as well. RoadView (talk) 11:45, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Stat leaders: "Hitting" or "Offensive"?

Twice I have changed the section headings under League Leaders from either "Hitting Leaders" or "Batting Leaders" to "Offensive Leaders", and twice it's been changed back. (I know the last time was by user Eposty, but I'm not positive about the first time, and I don't care to search through the edit history to see who it was since that's not really important.) I'm not changing it now for 2 reasons: (1) I'd rather see what the rest of you think it should be instead of having an edit war and (2) Eposty has already admitted in another thread that he just copy-and-pastes his edits from a text file and doesn't pay attention to any changes other editors have done, so I'd probably just get reverted again anyway.

My reason for changing the title is pretty simple: Stolen bases is not a batting statistic, so doesn't belong under that title (in spite of how it may have "always been"). Rather than suggesting we remove stolen bases from the stat leaders, I just think we should have a title which accurately reflects the stats listed. As all of the stats involve players' performance on offense, thus "offensive".

Well, I just noticed that (1) I neglected to sign my previous post and (2) the bot didn't fix it for me. --LarryJeff (talk) 14:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As for "hitting" or "offensive", if one goes to the "stats" menu option on the mlb.com website, it has "Reg. Season Batting Leaders"... After clicking on that, under the statistics header, it has "hitting"... If one really wants to change it from "Hitting Leaders", I would think switching it to "Batting Leaders" instead of "Offensive Leaders" would be the better choice IMO... --posty (talk) 15:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Playoff Bracket

I am working on making a 2012 playoff bracket. The new wild card playoff has to be accomodated. I started with {{10TeamBracket}}, but the seeding needs to be reworked. –BuickCentury Driver 18:44, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See {{2012 MLB Playoffs bracket}} –BuickCentury Driver 18:53, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

{{10TeamBracket-MLB}} is born. –BuickCentury Driver 21:50, 2 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Assuming that the rule of "two teams from same DIV can't meat in the DS" is still in place, make sure that this template can be altered so that 4v5 winner can go to play 2 in the DS. 188.221.79.22 (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

That rule is no longer in place. - X96lee15 (talk) 13:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About the Wild Card games, should the scores of the game itself be listed (ie: Teams A 13- Team B 4) instead of "Team A" 1- "Team B" 0 or the series result? In a one game series, every knows that the series result will be 1-0, so why not put the actual score instead? Qazox (talk) 15:57, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible, but as all the other results are games and not runs, it could cause confusion. I think that "W" and "L" would be better than "1" and "0" in this case. WHPratt (talk) 14:17, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The TV coverage listing for the Division Series says "TBS and MLB net." However, TNT has covered many partial games (when there was overlap in TBS-scheduled games) plus a couple of games in their entirety. For the record, this should be indicated. WHPratt (talk) 14:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removal of redundant publisher information

A number of citations in this article unnecessarily include the publisher for periodicals and websites that have their own Wikipedia article. This information has no value to anyone wanting to check or track down references. For example, publisher=Washington Post Company for references to The Washington Post, or publisher=MLB Advanced Media for references to MLB.com, only make the article longer - significantly longer when repeated many times - without adding anything useful. Therefore I plan to upgrade the article's citations to remove all such redundant publisher info, bringing them into line with the recommended use of the cite template (see Template:Citation#Publisher). I'll also remove redundant 'location' parameters (e.g. work=New York Times|location=New York), as suggested by the template's usage guidelines. Please raise any questions here or on my talk page. Colonies Chris (talk) 15:15, 26 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2012 Major League Baseball season. 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:

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: 5 June 2024).

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) 22:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Major League Baseball which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]