Talk:Albert Pujols/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Vandalism

There has been a string of vandalism on this article. It's getting so bad, that one vandal edited another's vandalism attempts. I suggest we need to probably lock the page soon.--Lancelot 01:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

POV?

That comment about Pujols being one of the best hitters in the game today is not POV...anyone with basic knowledge of baseball can look at his stats and easily see that is one of baseball's best current players.

Not to split hairs, but the POV comment I made was mostly about the 'momentous record' phrase. People can easilly draw their own conclusions about that record. Calling him one of the greatest active players twice in one paragraph was more redundant than a POV problem. Just my opinion though. --W.marsh 02:12, 12 August 2005 (UTC)

"Born in poverty..."

"Born in poverty in the Dominican Republic"? Pujols himself has been quoted as saying that his roots were middle-class, that he didn't have to make do with the improvised gloves, etc., that feature in some other Dominican success stories. Please document.

Bill-on-the-Hill 03:54, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

I'm finding a few references to the "born in poverty" thing, not all that great. [1] [2]. Seems like they might just be working on the assumption that "born in the DR" = "born in poverty". If you have a source for the quote you mentioned, I'd say go ahead and delete the poverty reference in the article. --W.marsh 02:51, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

Removing the poverty bit. --Booch 17:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Personal

Cleaned up the personal section a bit. They are not working for a "cure for Downs Syndrome" and do not regard their daughter as "afflicted" with it. Fan1967 02:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

Picture

It would be nice to get a picture of Albert in one of the regular jerseys, instead of the retro jersey. The retro jersey kind of gives an incorrect impression that this is what he normally looks like when he's playing day to day. --Booch 17:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Picture II

How often do you see Albert wearing a retro jersey? Everyone knows what his regular jersey looks like. If you can find a fan picture with a GFDL license, then cool. Otherwise more than likely you'll have to put in a copyrighted image, and no copyrighted images should ever be on Wikipedia, and Fair Use should never be assumed. Furthermore, a little etiquette here. If you want the community credibility to make such a request as this, fill out your user page. Googie man 13:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Age

An anonymous user is persistantly adding the claim that Pujols' age is disputed. His sources are A) a message board and B) A work of humor. Because he persistantly added it, he's been briefly blocked for WP:3RR, but I'd like any opinions about the issue in the hopes of working out a long-term solution, should one be needed. This is a potentially libelous claim, so you never know. --W.marsh 15:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I've protected the article so that the disputed addition can be properly discussed. --Tony Sidaway 15:58, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Speculation about his age as certainly occurred - a few years ago, there was a rash of Latin American players revealed as older than they claimed. But Pujols came to the US at age 16 (younger than most Latin players) and went to high school then. The speculation has only to do with Pujols being so good so soon and so consistently. It has no basis in fact and doesn't belong in the article. zafiroblue05 | Talk 22:12, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

The Albert Pujols page on the MLB site [3]states his date of birth to be January 16th, 1980. I'd suggest this is an accurate source. Tomtyke 01:11, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Pujols has been dogged with questions about his age since high school. It is a very common practice in DR to lie about age of young children, especially if they are baseball prospects. The majority of DR players had their ages changed by 2+ years after 9/11 when stricter visa requirements were enforced. Pujols skipped this because he was already a resident of the US. But most people agree Pujols is definitely older than he claims to be. Pictures of him in his late teens, early 20s (allegedly) seem to confirm this best. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.48.8.173 (talk • contribs) 06:36, 5 May 2006.

68.48.8.173, thank you for posting on the talk page rather than reverting the article. It may well be a common practice for players from the Dominican Republic to misrepresent their ages; I don't know enough either way on such a claim. Certainly it has happened, but claiming that it is "common" is pushing an unencyclopedic claim; you have to provide a credible source if you want such a claim included in the article. Please read about original research to understand what Wikipedia is striving for. The point is that we don't know for certain that Pujols, or anyone else, has misrepresented his age unless we can prove it. At the very least we need a credible third-party who reports a controversy over disputed ages. Can you find such a source? Claiming that "most people" agree or that pictures "seem" to confirm your opinion simply isn't factual enough for Wikipedia. On another note, please sign your posts using the wikicode ~~~~ so we know whom to respond to! -Phoenixrod 17:07, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Would it be fair to put in the article that many in the media have doubted the validity of his age? Jim Rome for one always makes a comment about his age in a joking manner. I'm sure there's a newspaper article about this somewhere.

It apparently was mentioned in sports illustrated. [4] ENDelt260 17:45, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

When the page gets unlocked...

Can someone correct the link to J. D. Drew? Right now it's linked to the redirect page. Thanks. AriGold 16:39, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Done! -Phoenixrod 03:03, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Injuries

The article refers to Pujols's "hamstring" and "nagging leg" injuries. I don't have enough knowledge, but I kept reading about plantar fasciitis in connection with his injuries of the last couple years. Plantar fasciitis certainly should be mentioned as a foot injury, but I don't know enough to say where. Is that what the article should include instead of these other injuries? Did Pujols actually have hamstring and leg injuries, or are these simply inaccurate terms for plantar fasciitis? -Phoenixrod 04:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

No response, so I've gone ahead and made the change myself.[5] -Phoenixrod 04:57, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

On-Field Incidents

What do people think about this section? It's all true as far as I know, and I've added two citations, but I worry that the length given to it is a bit excessive. 2 incidents in 800+ games seems par for the course for one of the best known players in the game. I'm not saying we shouldn't mention it, but if we give too much attention to it, we might present a skewed picture of Pujols, suggesting he's a walking timebomb or something. --W.marsh 12:57, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The section seems to reflect actual events, but its intent appears to be to skewer Pujols, so I worry about NPOV. Perhaps it would help if we put in another side to the story and/or shortened the section. Pujols comments on the Perez incident here: [6]. He talks about regretting flipping his bat, but from his perspective he was trying to respect the game and let Perez know (in an admittedly immature way) that he shouldn't show up other players. From memory, the incident with Bennett got out of hand in part because Bennett wouldn't let it go -- not that Pujols's behavior is excused, but if he was provoked, that seems relevant. The addition's phrasing ("Pujols has been involved in a number of altercations with other major league players in his career, mostly because of his tendency to admire his particularly well-struck home runs.") implies that Pujols does this homer-and-watch routine more than other players, but that simply doesn't jibe with my observations. Lots of players admire their moonshots. -Phoenixrod 13:53, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

I guess I should have checked your changes more carefully, W.marsh. :) Your citations seem useful, and mine above is extraneous. In any case, the section does need work. If Pujols has been involved in "a number of altercations," that phrasing makes me think of a long string of serious run-ins, while there is, as far as I know, one punch and one minor bat-flip. Pujols has a good reputation in baseball and among fans; Peter Gammons, in a March 12, 2005 article here [7] writes about how baseball should market players like Pujols for having good character on and off the field. That was well after the Bennett incident, which ought to be more seriously considered that the Perez one. -Phoenixrod 14:04, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I added the section on on-field incidents, mostly because they happen to be true. I didn't mean to imply that he was Milton Bradley, but I suppose devoting any text to his run-ins with other pitchers is more than you're likely to see with most players' Wikipedia pages. If you think the information is irrelevant, I suppose I wouldn't be too upset if you deleted it. However, Pujols does have a history of treating the confrontation with the pitcher a bit personally, and sometimes reacting in a way that, if nothing else, people notice. I assure you, though, that my intent was not to skewer Pujols. Being from St. Louis, I love the guy. I just wrote up some stuff on him because it was true, and I figured the more information available, the better. This year, Pujols has done the homer-step-toss bat-step-watch routine way more than he used to, which is why it occured to me that his on-field attitude might be noticable, at least.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Johnbish (talk • contribs).

No, I don't think anyone wants to just remove it, largely because it's written in a neutral tone (no "some fans believe Pujols is a worthless jerk" kind of stuff that creeps into other articles). Criticism certainly has its place in Wikipedia articles, and thanks for adding it. What might be best is to shorten it to a summary of the two incidents, and find a quote from a well-known sportswriter about Pujols' reputation or behavior, to kind of sum it up. But what's there will do for now, in my opinion. --W.marsh 19:10, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the first sentence of the on-field incidents section might be misleading. Pujols has "only" been involved in two on-field incidents... I think "only" is meant to imply that two incidents with opposing players that received some publicity is not so many. I admit, my knowledge of the game is fairly narrow, but I can't think of many other players that have been involved in more than one incident in the press regarding on-field conduct, showboating, etc. I know Milton Bradley caught some flak a few years ago when he started unstrapping his batting gloves as he watched his homers. I know Bonds is frequently accused of admiring his homers... every player, it seems, has his own little homer quirk, so to speak (the Boone bat flip comes to mind). But I think Pujols is par for the course where it concerns the homer-strut, not somehow a shining example of humility as the phrase "only two on field incidents" seems to imply. [07:09, 10 May 2006 (UTC)] - Johnbish

Stat Comparison

I think that the stat comparison presented in the article is illuminating, and a great feature that should be placed on the pages of a lot of current players. However, I dispute its selection of "first five years". Pujols had the great fortune that his first five major league seasons were full seasons. Alex Rodriguez was called up for three weeks in 1994, and then was a "September Call-Up" (actually in August) in 1995. His first full season wasn't until 1996. I bring this up because in this chart, his 5-year average game total (103) makes it look like he got hurt a lot, when in fact the LEAST amount of games he's played when he spent the whole season in the big leagues was 129, in 1999.

Long story short, I believe that the chart should use the first five full seasons for all players. If that calculus is used, A-Rod is the only player whose stats change, to: G (145), BA (.315), HR (37), RBI (115), SB (25), R (122). Note that Pujols still comes out looking better in every category but stolen bases. I think this is just a little more accurate of a comparison.--Eirishis 15:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Picture III

I added a picture from www.flickr.com of Albert Pujols wearing a regular jersey.--MP123 18:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Why is the pronunciation not needed? Not many people know how to pronounce it. It's included on such things as ESPN profiles.

Moving some comments from "Major Leagues" to "Accomplishments"

Towards the bottom of the major league section there are three different statements that are really just accomplishments. I think these need to be deleted or moved to the accomplishments section, preferably deleted and just keep the current "Fastest to X amount of Home Runs under the accomplishments section. The rest of the Major League section consists of year-by-year synopses. I understand this can't be written right now, but it should be formatted differently. I'm going to change it, but post any problems you might have with that. Djarnum1 17:07, 1 June 2006 (UTC)

Made some new additions

I'm new here, so sorry if I made a few mistakes but I updated Albert's statistics through tonight, added a citation for his opening of Pujols 5 and the bat flip incident between Oliver Perez and himself and a citation for his 7 RBI night on Tuesday. Hope everything looks okay, feel free to fix it if it doesn't. NaturalDisaster

Pronunciation

Not sure why the anonymous edit from 24.171.27.52 deleted the pronunciation of his name, but I think it's pretty important. I've heard a couple broadcasters (early on) and several people mispronounce his name (such as IPA:/pudʒolz/). So I threw it back in.

The ironic part is that "pooJAWLZ" is the actual correct pronunciation. "Pujols" roughly means "Hills" in the Catalan language (of which I am a native speaker) and I swear each time I hear "pooHOWLZ" I feel like murdering whoever said it. If you don't believe this, check the "Catalan phonology" article and also the "Jordi Pujol" article (he was the president of Catalonia for some years.) The complete history is that since Catalan is not spoken in the DR it's no wonder that Albert Pujols doesn't know how to pronounce his own name, but the fact is that he doesn't know how to pronounce it right. It's kind of like all the German-Americans and Italian-Americans who pronounce their names in totally bizarre ways; or like Don DeLillo who can't even spell his own name right (it should be "De Lillo", with a space) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.43.178.137 (talk) 19:09, 7 February 2007 (UTC).

If he pronounces it "Puhols" then that is indeed the correct pronunciation, regardless of whether or not the name is of Catalan origin. Since the local announcers in St. Louis consistently pronounce it in the Spanish manner, I'd be almost certain that how Albert pronounces it. Kind of like the county seat of Morgan County here in Missouri, Versailles, the correct pronunciation is "Versales" not "Versigh", which is the correct pronunciation for the place in France. Wschart (talk) 23:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Former MLB player and manager Luis Pujols

Is he any relation to former MLB player and manager Luis Pujols?

No. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:24, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Game Winning RBIs

An anonymous user is persistantly changing the fact that he had 20 game winning runs batted in to 20 game winning home runs. The fact is, that he broke Willie Mays recored for RBIs, not home runs. 20 game winning home runs is virtually impossible, even for Pujols, in one season. This gives a false impression of Albert. He is the greatest hitter in the game today, but we don't want people getting the idea that he can do the impossible.

Is a combination of both: 20 of his home runs accounted for the game-winning RBI.[8]--Rafelito 19:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The article states 19 of his home runs accounted for the game winning RBI, tying Willie Mays. He had an additional RBI to break the record, but this was not a home run.

It was a home run.[9]--Rafelito 18:31, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

No it wasn't. That second article you posted stated that it was Preston Wilson that put the Cardinals ahead for good. Pujols' 48th homer made it eight to one. It wasn't the game winner.

Yes it was. Go-ahead RBI is not the same as game-winning RBI. Pujols HR made it 6-1, the game ended 10-5.--Rafelito 20:18, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

No mention made of Pujols original position

Mlb.com claims that Pujols moved to 1B from another position. What was that position and why did he move? Also, should that information be in the article? Will (Talk - contribs) 05:59, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

He came up from the minor leagues as a third baseman and mainly played left field his first two seasons. In his rookie season, he played every position except pitcher and catcher.

• No, according to ESPN's fielding statistics, he has never played Center Field. He has also never played Second Base (although those stats ignore the All-Star game, and he did play 2B in the 2001 game). He's logged a total of two innings at Shortstop (I can't find any more info on that game, but I presume it was probably a late-inning shift, the sort of thing that occasionally happens when you pinch hit for your shortstop and then realize your backup's already been used, is injured, or whatnot). 76.21.181.110 16:47, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

Although it doesn't count towards official stats and may be irrelevant here, Pujols has played every position except CF, C, and P in spring training.75.16.242.32 20:14, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference problems in this article

While this article does list at least some of its sources, it does not do so in a way that allows a reader to know which reference applies to the part of the article they are reading. I think we need to switch to use <ref> tags. Will (Talk - contribs) 04:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

More/most and better/best

User:Cardinals10WS keeps changing most to more and best to better with edits like this one: [10]. I have tried to engage the user on his/her talk page to explain why such edits are not helpful, but I am not getting a response. This shouldn't be a big deal, but I'd like to bring it to the attention of other users. Perhaps someone else could step in? It would be ridiculous if this became a three-revert situation. -Phoenixrod (talk) 21:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I read the edits on this page: [11]

The changes made by User:Cardinals10WS are right. Hope that helps. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MarcLane (talk • contribs) 23:41, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Considering that you may well be Cardinals10WS, I'm not terribly convinced by a lack of reasoning. -Phoenixrod (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

Ummm, I am me. I was only trying to help your dispute. MarcLane (talk) 00:34, 23 July 2008 (UTC)MarcLane

That may be, but you have not given any reasoning. And you must admit it's suspicious that you just made your account and this happens to be the first thing you edit. -Phoenixrod (talk) 01:28, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

All right, per Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution#Ask_about_the_subject, I've gotten some feedback on this issue over at WikiProject Grammar. While either "He is widely regarded as one of the better players in the game today" or "He is widely regarded as one of the best players in the game today" is grammatically correct (and thus changing best to better is not a "grammar correction" as claimed in recent edit summaries by User:Cardinals10WS), the use of best indicates that Pujols is in the group of elite players rather than the merely good. There is not much question that Pujols stands out, so best is the relevant word to use. -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:59, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Using last name

WP policy is to use last names, except in cases where disambiguation is necessary. Stop referring to him constantly in the text as "Albert". Irregulargalaxies (talk) 02:20, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Albert Pujols/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

After reading through this article, I am unfortunately finding a lot of problems. There's enough here that I don't think it's worth it to put it on hold, it's gonna take a while to fix all this. I did what I could, here's everything else (I'm not even adding in nitpicks at this stage, just moderate or major problems):

• A lead shouldn't need that many references. A tweaking of it would be nice, since it doesn't give a summary of his career, but rather just says how great he is.
• "In the U.S., Pujols displayed his love for baseball, batting over .500 in his first season of baseball at Fort Osage High School in Independence, Missouri. He hit .660 with eight home runs his final year of high school. At Fort Osage, Pujols earned all-state honors in baseball twice." Cite needed.
• "A Colorado Rockies scout reported favorably about the young hitter, but the club took no action." Cite needed.
• Nothing in the minor leagues is cited either.
• 2002 season needs expanding. If he was second in MVP voting then there should be more information.
• Same on the 2003 season.
• There's a lot of subjectivity in terms of language. A lot of "one of the best individual offensive seasons in Cardinals history," etc. If true, cite. If opinion, reword.
• "Pujols started his major league career playing primarily as a third baseman. During his rookie season, he started at four different positions (1B, 3B, LF, and RF), and has also appeared at 2B (late in the 2001 All-Star game as well as a regular season game in April 2008) and SS (late in one 2002 regular season game). When Scott Rolen joined the team in 2002, Pujols was moved to left field. Following an injury scare in 2003, Pujols was moved to his current position at first base." Not sure why this is in the 2004 season section, it should be split and put in the appropriate seasons.
• "In 2005, John Dewan noted in The Fielding Bible that no first baseman was better at digging balls out of the dirt than Pujols." Cite needed.
• In general, the seasons are light, though not dangerously so, on citations. If a sentence sounds iffy, cite it.
• "Pujols had a slower start in the spring than in previous years due to several injuries in his right elbow." Cite needed. (Note that I'm not touching on every sentence i think needs a cite, just some)
• The 2008 season, 2009 season, and personal life are all "on __, he __. on Setember __, he __." Proseline is not acceptable in a GA, these sections will need a complete rewrite.
• Dates that have no meaning or significance shouldn't be linked.
• I'm a lil iffy about the Misc. stats section being there. Some are fine to have, others seem like adding them for the sake of adding them.
• Having fielding, postseason batting, and all-star batting tables is, personally, tablecruft. At most I'd keep the main batting table, any more just weighs down the article. That kb could be replaced with prose and make for a better article.
• Make sure all references use the citation templates and aren't just bare links.
• Combine duplicate references.
• Are those last 4 references in that section General ones or external links? Mark whichever.
• Make sure any dead links are replaced (I didn't check for any, but there's always the possibility).

Phew. Needless to say, there's a lot to do yet. The article has potential, but I'm not gonna sprinkle sugar on it, there is a lot of work left to do. I hope I'm not coming across too harshly. Wizardman 20:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

That's a good start. The article is currently bloated beyond belief with uncited, unencyclopedic minutiae. I cut out some of the tablecruft, but User:Katydidit reverted "for completeness". I'm inclined to massively cut the article down, since the idea that the article on Albert Pujols isn't even a GA is silly. It deserves to be featured. -Phoenixrod (talk) 22:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Too many tables

I agree on many points with the failed GA review above this section. I recently tried to remove what Wizardman called "tablecruft". The removal was undone both times. While Wikipedia is not paper, it already takes ages to load even simple changes to the article. Quite a few kilobytes can be saved by not including elaborate tables for fielding, postseason batting, and All-Star Game batting. That's exactly the kind of information that we should link to, and reserve this article for prose. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I unfortunately have to agree. I see daily updates from User:Katydidit on the stats, which I have to think aren't really needed. (Same with the proseline.) Somehow we need to communicate this with him/her... Also, on a "random" note to one of Wizardman's points, I don't happen to have any cites handy, but I'm sure there's GOTTA be at least one source somewhere that mentions the, I dunno, three or four times he came in second to Bonds in the MVP voting (I remember the gist of St. Louis Post-Dispatch articles after the first time being "second to Bonds AGAIN"). umrguy42 01:26, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not getting into the daily updates right now, although I agree that they are unnecessary. I've invited Katydidit to join this discussion. The article's prose needs to be more compact and less of the "on this date, Pujols was 2 for 4" variety. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi, guys. I decided to join in the discussion on why I believe his page is much better now as edited down. I did much of the editing down myself on unnecessary prose, uncited (minor) points that could be deleted, and a massive table that even I didn't want to update that often. Therefore, I think the best course of action is to periodically monitor any additions for unnecessary prose or unsubstantiated points, while keeping the main tables as is. I've also been disgusted by the numerous hacks on it from those who get a cheap thrill on doing their vandalism.

If you really believe it is too weighty at present, then I don't know what you would do if a Honus Wagner or Babe Ruth was playing and how much you would want to delete from their record. How many guys with his resume are there in baseball anyway that you *could* try to document on how well he plays? Less than five, I'm sure, such as Manny Ramirez for one. If you merely want to cut the prose down some more, I don't have a real problem with that if you can leave the highlights of what he did in each year with the more recent years getting most of the ink, presently 2008 and 2009. Let me know what you think, since I do want to be reasonable but not just cutting just because it is longer than most other players' pages. Of course, you know he isn't just another average player.

Another point someone brought up: his stats are at Baseball-Reference.com. Yes, but the casual fan looking for basic information on him isn't going to look first at the stats-laden Baseball-Reference page, if he knows about that great reference source even exists in the first place. He's more likely to look him up on Wikipedia, and the relatively small space for his fielding, post-season, and all-star batting isn't a real problem to cut down. You might as well cut down the whole Career statistics tables and just have a note with his page-link at B-R.com saying: "For his statistics, click on the link." That goes against the whole idea of Wikipedia in the first place: it's to list the basic person's career in whatever profession he is in while summarizing it accurately.

As I said previously, I can understand the prose going way too verbose and could (and I did precisely that) cut out some of it, plus deleted an entire table. Why should the small tables be cut? Katydidit (talk) 01:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

BTW, I don't know all the jargon on Wikipedia. Can one of you explain what 'GA' stands for? Thanks. Katydidit (talk) 01:21, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

One point I forgot to make in my first post: these smaller tables don't just sit there and get out-of-date. I've been updating the fielding one now after almost every game, so that has to count in keeping them. If they were never updated, I would agree they could be deleted with a note to look at B-R.com. Katydidit (talk) 01:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Katydidit, one quick answer: GA is short for Good Article. See the header at the top of the talk page? That should explain further. The best Wikipedia articles are FAs (featured articles); GAs are a step below FAs, although that step is awfully large. Ideally, an article on someone like Pujols would reach FA status. The failed GA review is in the section above this one, Talk:Albert_Pujols/GA1. -Phoenixrod (talk) 02:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and here are the Good article criteria we should strive to meet. -Phoenixrod (talk) 02:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

And eventually, meeting the Featured article criteria is the goal. -Phoenixrod (talk) 02:25, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Katydidit, speaking of updating the tables, is it really necessary to do it daily? Do you think weekly might be sufficient? umrguy42 03:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I thought encyclopedias are ideally supposed to be up-to-date and as current as possible. He is so consistent, that I usually feel compelled to show his latest numbers. If he goes 0-for-4, I might skip that game update and wait for the next game. <g> Katydidit (talk) 02:00, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm not gonna push too much on it, although I think it might not be bad to ping WP:BASEBALL on the preferred update rate. I would say that being as there's no WP:DEADLINE, there's no rush for a daily update, either. (I think anybody who HAS to know his up-to-the-minute stats WOULD use the previously mentioned Baseball Reference...) umrguy42 02:09, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Have to say in response to Katydidit's comment above, that seems to me to scream POV. If you're not going to update after a bad game and the whole bit about feeling compelled to show his numbers because he's so consistent etc, maybe someone a bit more detached should be in charge of that issue or remove the 2009 stat line all together. Tjrover (talk) 02:12, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Okay, so, looking back over things, I think we need to take a BIG cut out of the 2008 & 2009 sections, they're trending towards undue weight. I think the sections on his earlier years seem to be a better template - general trends, major milestones ("1500 hits; 8th year of 30HR, 100RBI, 100R; ..." etc.,) without all the specific dates, and what kind of hit each was. I think the awards should probably be pared significantly down - "He won Players' Choice NL Outstanding Player and (overall) Player of the Year, TSN Player of the Year, and the Roberto Clemente Award". Career highlights not otherwise covered - i.e., if he set a personal best for RBI/hits/HR/whatever in a game; significant injuries. I would say each of those sections should probably be about HALF the size they currently are at maximum. I've taken a stab below at 2008, see what you think. Feel free to edit it, we can use it as kind of a sandbox-y workup before putting back out to the main page. I think it could stand more cutting, personally, but it's quarter to midnight here, so I'll let fresher eyes take a crack. Anyway, let's discuss what I've done below, see how we all think, to try and get some consensus going umrguy42 03:53, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

I like it. I'm not that good at trying to decide what to cut from his record, but I think you did a good job on doing so for 2008 so far, and maybe you should leave it as is to copy. It's going to be a harder time with 2009 on editing him, since he was named 'NL Player of the Month' (June) for the 5th time, and tonight hit his 4th grand slam of the year. LOL Katydidit (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. Well, I'll leave it another day or so, let Phoenixrod take a gander if s/he wishes, then I'll see about putting it in. Remind me around the All Star break, and I'll come back here and take a crack at the first half of this season... umrguy42 02:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

---

2008 season: Second MVP and Roberto Clemente Award

Pujols reached another milestone in the season when he hit his 300th career double in April 2008. In April and May, he reached base safely (via hit, walk, or hit-by-pitch) for 42 consecutive games. On June 10th, Pujols strained his left-calf muscle and went on the 15-day disabled list for the second time in his career. He was re-activated on June 26, after missing 13 games. Pujols won his seventh career NL Player of the Week award for Aug. 18–24 after batting .579 (11-for-19) with a .652 on-base percentage, a 1.105 slugging percentage, and 10 RBIs. He got his 1,500th career hit on August 30, against the Houston Astros. His 30th homerun on September 1, and his 100th RBI on September 11th, made him the first player in MLB history to start his career with eight seasons of at least 30 HR, 100 RBIs, a .300 BA, and 99 runs. He also finished with a league-leading .296 Isolated Power (ISO) average.

On October 13, Pujols elected to have surgery on his troubled right elbow, "a procedure that included decompression and transposition of the ulnar nerve" but not the more invasive Tommy John surgery to relieve persistent pain.

Pujols won a number of awards for the year, including the Players Choice National League Outstanding Player of the Year, and Players Choice Player of the Year (his second Player of the Year Award, having also won in 2003; he joined Alex Rodriguez and Barry Bonds as two-time winners). Pujols was also named The Sporting News Player of the Year for the second time in his career. On October 25, Pujols was named the 2008 winner of the Roberto Clemente Award for the player who best exemplifies the game of baseball, sportsmanship, community involvement, and the individual's contribution to his team.

Pujols won the Fielding Bible Award for defensive excellence at first base for the third consecutive year. For the third time in four years, Pujols was named NL Most Valuable Player in the annual Internet Baseball Awards, a poll conducted by Baseball Prospectus. Pujols also won his fourth Silver Slugger award, having previously won one at 3B in 2001, OF in 2003, and 1B in 2004.

On November 17, Pujols won his second NL MVP Award. The MVP award continues his streak of finishing in the top nine in the BBWAA voting every year of the first 8 years of his career. He ended the year by winning TYIB's 'Hitter of the Year' Award. SALARY: $13,870,949

---

Season summary tables

I see no legitimate reason to have a statistical table that needs to be updated every day for a player's full line of statistics. Wikipedia is not ESPN, we're not the MLB websites, we're not Baseball Reference, and we're not a statistics site. I see no problem with the career stats table, but it should be rolled back to a stable point (the end of the 2008 season or, when we get there, the All-Star break. There's no reason for a table of averages either. The outer two tables should be removed; the inner one should be stabilized and kept. Also, a consensus exists that the salary isn't notable, so it should be removed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:49, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

In my second attempt to initiate a discussion with no response, I direct folks again to the consensus at WT:MLB regarding statistical tables in player articles. This issue has been discussed several times. We are all here trying to improve and create a comprehensive encyclopedia according to a set of guidelines. Many editors have expressed concerns that these tables do not meet those guidelines. Yet, discussion is not engaged by several editors involved except through edit summaries and reversions. Please, let's have some civil talk here rather than an edit war. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 22:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

For what it is worth, I'm not sure boxes requiring daily updating are a good idea, however statistical career boxes may not be a bad idea (frankly, I cannot imagine looking at a biography of a sports figure in an encyclopedia without a good concise stats box, and considering it complete. I will agree that I counted 6-7 people who seemed to be against inclusion of stat boxes, and maybe 2-3 in favor of keeping them; however there was a strong argument for keeping career boxes. Further, from what I can see, the discussion has been open since some time on July 6. I cannot think that 4 days is enough time to discuss making changes like this.

My two cents: keep the discussion going for a while more, get more members of the baseball project involved, and keep the stats boxes (for now). Otherwise, I suspect it will only be a short time before some admin arrives and starts considering this edit warring. AFD's go at least a week ... IMO, the discussion should stay open at least that long before deletions begin. Cheers, fellow baseball fans! LonelyBeacon (talk) 00:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

LonelyBeacon, did you also read the discussion at the WikiProject talk page? I wasn't sure if your comments were in reference to this or to the discussions (or lack thereof) here. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 00:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I was referring to the talk over on the talk page. From what I can gather, there was a little talk here, and then on July 6 (I think this is when it opened?) the conversation started over there. I'm not really telling anyone what to do, and I'm certainly not making any accusations .... just an outside opinion. LonelyBeacon (talk) 01:15, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The recent discussion is just a reopening of an old discussion that took place some time ago, and came to the consensus to delete these boxes. This re-visitation was just to confirm that the consensus still existed now that they were popping up again. I counted the responses - 9 against, 2 in favor, 1 neutral. Granted, straw polls are generally not good, but if consensus has changed, I'd have expected at least a closer result. -Dewelar (talk) 02:22, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I have tagged the statistical table in the article in an attempt to draw readers to this discussion. I'm bumping the discussion as well because it seems that consensus had been achieved to remove the table, but it continues to be re-inserted. This needs to be resolved. I don't know of many, if any, other articles that still have these tables, and consistency would dictate that they should all be alike if possible. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Consensus has *not* been achieved since another poster re-inserted the table. Besides, "consensus" doesn't necessarily trump everything to go willy-nilly wild in deleting important summary information not found in the text. And this so-called "consensus" is only from six or seven people who hate it. Hardly a "consensus" of the hundreds who see and/or comment on the page over the last year. Quit harping on Pujols only already, in the hundreds of other players on Wikipedia who have their statistics tables go untouched or cared about, and move on to something more important in Wikipedia to update constructively, and this point will then be resolved. If you don't like the Pujols' page, nobody is forcing you to go there! Or is there? Katydidit (talk) 17:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There is nothing forcing me to come here; I am trying to improve the encyclopedia, which is what this is. Consensus is achieved through discussion. We have tried to have discussions here on this topic several times; however, now I am being told to just go away, because me ignoring what I believe to be a problem will resolve the issue. If I just went away, it would seem obvious that I just don't care about this. But I do. I care, because this is part of the encyclopedia, and nearly everyone who has commented above has said that the tables are extraneous.

Additionally, consensus cannot be misconstrued as "what every single person on Wikipedia or who ever uses, views, or is otherwise involved with this site thinks". That is not what it means at all. Consensus, as defined by the five pillars of Wikipedia conduct, is a discussion that attempts to achieve the final goal of a neutral, well-thought-out, content-based solution. "Consensus discussions should always be attempts to convince others, using reasons. When a discussion breaks down to a mere polarized shouting match, there is no possibility of consensus, and the quality of the article will suffer. That said, consensus is not simple agreement; a handful of editors agreeing on something does not constitute a consensus, except in the thinnest sense. Consensus is a broader process where specific points of article content are considered in terms of the article as a whole, and in terms of the article's place in the encyclopedia, in the hope that editors will negotiate a reasonable balance between competing views, as well as with the practical necessities of writing an encyclopedia and legal restrictions" (from WP:CONSENSUS). KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:20, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

'Level of consensus'

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages. In either case, silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community.

'Consensus can change'

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action.

Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things.

A representative group might make a decision on behalf of the community as a whole. More often, people document changes to existing procedures at some arbitrary time after the fact. But in all these cases, nothing is permanently fixed. The world changes, and the wiki must change with it. It is reasonable and indeed often desirable to make further changes to things at a later date, even if the last change was years ago." Katydidit (talk) 17:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And yet, though "consensus can change", when the vast majority of editors consulted stated their belief that the statistical table should be removed, or at worst trimmed, the material was still re-inserted, re-formatted, and continually expanded. It has continued to grow and make the article bulkier, and when I have attempted to draw readers to discuss the issue on the talk page, the maintenance templates have been removed. I used the maintenance templates in good faith rather than deleting them in line with the beliefs of myself and other editors because it helps to develop a wider consensus. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:25, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You admitted on my Talk Page: "Please stop removing the template until a consensus is reached. It has not yet been completed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)" Therefore, you just admitted there is no consensus, so stop using that untrue phrase. I will not remove your template, but there is *no* consensus reached on this point and continued using it is perpetuating a falsehood and false rationale for removing only Pujols' table while ignoring the hundreds of other players' tables (in all sports) that are much worse and longer than his. I'm also trying to improve his page, and I have deleted other objectionable and excessive wordings and tables that I agreed on. So, I'm not inflexible as some have accused me when I have deleted items and words. BTW, I'm a 'he', not a 'she'. Katydidit (talk) 17:44, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I apologize for any gender confusion; your username is ambiguous to me. A consensus has not yet been reached because the discussion is ongoing; however, the straw poll indicated above by User:Dewelar showed that the current consensus (which is "no stat tables") still has considerable support (nine out of eleven contributing users who chose to voice their opinion equates to 82% for deletion of the table). Consensus can still be achieved, and I don't doubt that you are trying to improve this article. However, we obviously differ on this particular issue. Please don't accuse me of spreading falsehood; I only said that it "seems like consensus has been achieved" by means of the straw poll. At no time did I unequivocally state that this is the way things have to be. I think that the opinions of all editors who have contributed to this discussion have to be considered, and the majority, by a large margin, have !voted against the tables. We are not here to destroy; we are here to build up. Sometimes a subtraction is the best addition. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

TO ALL WHO FAVOR DELETION OF HIS TABLES ONLY: Why this recent, sudden emphasis only on Pujols' page? What is it now that makes all of you relentless tables' deleters concentrate only on his page, at the exclusion of all the other similar baseball (and other sports) pages on any statistics table you just have to delete, or the world will come to an end? Please tell us why this mania concentration only on his page now after many, many months showing his statistics tables, after it has already been pruned numerous times already? Please? Explain why you haven't gone after all the other players that surely are much worse now than his page after so much has been deleted. I'd like to know why this special emphasis only on Pujols' page. This sounds strange and possibly discriminatory to me. Are you (and others) doing the same thing with other players' pages, in any sport, relentlessly and constantly? Who, specificially are these other players' names/pages you are constantly and relentlessly deleting any tables? If not, why only on Pujols' page? Thanks to any of those nine people who vociferously want Pujols' tables deleted (at the virtual exclusion of deleting anybody else's tables), who may respond. Katydidit (talk) 22:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

My response is simple. The emphasis is not only on this page. There were statistical tables all over Phillies' players pages. However, after discussion was had and the straw poll indicated that removal was preferred, I removed them all. When I went to other articles, found them, and removed them, I directed people to read the discussion at WT:MLB if they had any questions regarding deletion. There were no issues until I arrived here. I wasn't the first to attempt deleting these tables, and the reviewers who worked this article over for a good article nomination noted that the tables were a huge roadblock in getting this to GA status. As an erstwhile good article reviewer myself, I agree with them, and would not consider promoting this article to GA with such a table. As a regular featured list reviewer, I know the value of lists. I also know that a list is not always the best way to present information. Wikipedia always, always, always favors prose over lists and tables unless they can only present the information by meeting the criteria for stand-alone lists. Lists and tables are an efficient way of presenting some information; however, the information in this article is being over-presented. There is simply too much of it; Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Those are the extent of my comments at the moment. On another note, please use Wikicode (like ''' for bold text) rather than HTML code (like tags) in your writing. Also, please don't try to limit discussion to only a few users. These users have made their views eminently clear above and on the WP:BASEBALL talk page. Both limiting discussion and using HTML are contrary to the collective Wiki philosophy. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:59, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

That's a long comment with which I entirely agree. -Phoenixrod (talk) 20:10, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Katydidit, do you, or any other users, have a comment on the above? I would hate to see this discussion stagnate in the middle. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 13:32, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Bumping this discussion again so that it does not stagnate, and in hopes that we can come to a mutual resolution with all parties. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:31, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there hasn't been a response by User:Katydidit to this discussion in approximately 48 hours, I've asked for a third opinion from an outside editor. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:44, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I didn't get any notice about this discussed again until just a few minutes ago. I still believe and have the feeling a very tiny minority number of editors (less than 8) are trying to dictate their view in deleting every statistical table on only a relatively few number of players while hundreds of other players' pages are left alone. I also believe there could be exceptions to this blanket proposal that smothers information that is more easily gleaned from looking at a short table than by having to go to the trouble of scrolling down to the very bottom of the page (if he knows about the 'External links' section in the first place), clicking on an outside link and again search there. IOW, so many more people are likely to look now at Wikipedia for information than specific web sites under the interested subject matter that has a huge glut of information, such as Baseball-Reference.com which also makes it that much harder to read. Katydidit (talk) 23:23, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

This discussion is the notification. Editors are not required to notify you on your talk page; I did so as a courtesy. If you look below, in the "third opinion" offered by an outside editor who is uninvolved, not only have I left several messages for you asking for a response, but the outside editor agrees with the WP:NOTSTATS part of this. As to your concerns about the issue, no searching is necessary when going to external sites because of the {{Baseballstats}} template. The stats table isn't that far from the bottom of the page either; I really don't see how these concerns are cause to establish an exception to WP:What Wikipedia is not. As I have said previously, a group of editors making their opinion known through discussion is the way that consensus is established. You cannot, and should not, assume that "a very tiny minority number of editors" is comparable on the scale of all Wikipedians. Only editors who are concerned will comment on an issue. Do you not believe that more editors, if they were concerned about the deletion of the tables, would have spoken out in support thereof? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

I did not see it on my talk page. I saw it as a "message" at the top of a Wiki page. If it wasn't for that, I would have been left out of this newer discussion completely. That sounds unfair. About other editors lack of involvement: doesn't it work the other way as well? If they wanted so badly for all tables to be deleted, wouldn't they have inundated this discussion with their desire to delete all, without exception? Strangely, I don't see a bunch of editors so concerned about this issue except a very tiny number who post on it here. If I am wrong about that, please specify exactly how many editors are in the delete side now. Thank you. Katydidit (talk) 00:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe that all editors who have commented here support what you call the "delete side", as well as a majority on the Baseball WikiProject talk page. Open question: does anyone else believe as Katydidit does? -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion - season summary tables

I am responding to a request for a third opinion. The disputes about how many and what kind of tables should be included have involved six or more editors, which (although there may be only two "sides") places it outside the WP:3O purview. I very strongly recommend posting a request on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Players for specific advice on this matter. — Athaenara ✉ 06:00, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

We have tried talking on WT:MLB; the players talk subpage is barely watched. That is why I've asked for a third opinion from an outside source. Would mediation be a more appropriate venue? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Players. — Athaenara ✉ 13:17, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. I saw. As I said above, "the players talk subpage is barely watched". It is much more difficult for discussion with multiple editors to take place there because very few editors look at that page on a regular basis. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:05, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. It seems to me that those in the best position to assess the dispute here are not the random volunteers at WP:3O but those who are particularly interested in baseball player articles, have written them, and have collaborated on improving them. More than fifty editors are listed as active participants on the WikiProject Baseball/Players page.

That said, I'll state my own view anyway: the position explained above by you, LonelyBeacon, and Dewelar (and supported by Phoenixrod as well) with regard to statistical tables is the most reasonable. The most obvious and all-encompassing point (to me) is in what Wikipedia is not: this encyclopedia isn't a substitute for or a mirror of every other source of such statistics. It is not reasonable to expect or demand daily updates: that's for the sources (which are surely linked in the article).

If the disagreement has gone beyond a mere dispute to becoming a self-perpetuating thing that feeds on itself, other means of dispute resolution are available. — Athaenara ✉ 16:33, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

OK. I will leave a note on the talk subpage as well as you suggested in case an interested editor hasn't yet participated. Thanks for your input. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome. — Athaenara ✉ 17:34, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

• Katydidit, do you have any comment on this? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:18, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

• Katydidit, if you don't have a further response on the issue, I really don't have any choice but to assume that silence equals consensus and act in accordance with the results of the aforementioned discussions. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:55, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

My "silence" was not a silence at all, but a lack of notice about the renewal of this talk again until within the last hour. That seems suspicious to me I only got a notice of a discussion on this again after a spurious claim about silence from others who want to ban all tables from every page. First, I have a comment about the expectation or demand for daily updates. Nothing before have I read anywhere on Wikipedia about that option by us editors to arbitrarily limiting how often a page, *any page*, on Wiki could or should be updated. I find that new-fangled idea repugnant to the purpose of keeping Wikipedia as up-to-date as possible, and defeats its purpose in being an on-line encyclopedia with the newest possible information from the news. Now, on the point of the tables, I still see them on a large number of present and retired players without a peep from anyone on how "horrible" they are or how it makes it time-consuming to load. This whole thing started in the first place, IIRC, because a few editors had problems with loading Tim Lincecum's page which had a number of tables. Why there couldn't naturally be a compromise to limit a table on a player's page to only one is beyond me, and has now gone in the opposite direction of no tables on any players ever, and banning existing ones that have stood for years without a peep of protest from editors on those pages. As for that idea on 'consensus', it is difficult to sincerely prove that with so little input from so few editors in favor of removal of all tables, and certainly not when they exist on hundreds of other pages besides Albert Pujols. Doesn't the minority have any rights any more? Furthermore, is the present revamped Albert Pujols page, now shortened both in the text and removal of the other tables easy enough to load? I've never had any trouble with any perceived long time it takes to load, and question those who say *now* they still do. Maybe there was a problem before, but the problem has been fixed with the removal of three other tables and shortening of the text, which also wasn't worded well enough. Why isn't that good enough now to finally end this desire to ban every statistical table--with one being the maximum allowed? I would certainly go along with a maximum of one allowed per player page. Katydidit (talk) 23:59, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Consensus

" 'Level of consensus'

"Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale. In the case of policies and guidelines, Wikipedia expects a higher standard of participation and consensus than on other pages. In either case, silence can imply consent only if there is adequate exposure to the community.

'Consensus can change'

Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action.

Wikipedia remains flexible because new people may bring fresh ideas, growing may evolve new needs, people may change their minds over time when new things come up, and we may find a better way to do things." Katydidit (talk) 00:16, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

And you have said as such above, but the straw polls seem to confirm that the current consensus, no statistical tables, is still in place. To your above comment, I cannot enumerate "how many editors" are on the delete "side", as you say, because there has been no vote. There is no voting on Wikipedia. For information on how many editors support deletion, see the prior discussion at WT:MLB#Stat Boxes, which is related to this issue, though it began on July 11 (one month is way too long for this issue to have persisted). The notice which you reference as a "note at the top of a talk page" was indeed me leaving a message on your talk page; you can view it to confirm. The time of load issue to which you refer was not broached due to the Tim Lincecum page; if you refer to the original discussion (above), the time of load was an issue on this page. I am not denying that consensus can change, but according to all other editors in this discussion other than yourself, the majority of the editors in the original discussion, and according to the outside editor who was asked to give an opinion, it has not. If you feel that this preponderance of evidence is not enough to delete these tables, please say so here, and I will open a request for mediation on this issue forthwith. Additionally, if you can point to a policy which would demand, request, or suggest that these statistical tables remain, I would ask that you please reference it, because I have not seen anything in the MOS or any other Wikipedia policy that would contradict WP:NOTSTATS on this point. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 01:08, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I have not seen *this*: {{Remove-section}} on any baseball player's page--except on Albert Pujols. Why is he the ONLY ONE with that note while other players' pages have tables and NOT that notation?

Possibly because this is the only page thus far on which anyone has lodged an objection. I myself have removed similar stat blocks from several dozen articles over the last few months (i.e., whenever I run across an article that has one) without issue. You should feel honored at the uniqueness of your intransigence ;-) . -Dewelar (talk) 15:21, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

As have I. On no other pages have I encountered any resistance to the removal of statistical tables because we provide links to the relevant discussion on WT:MLB. No one else seems to have an issue with that, which looks like consensus to me. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

You (Killervogel) ignored Phoenixrod's, Neonblak's and Ethelh's agreement of allowing a table. At least be honest about this dispute when you cite others only on your side. As I mentioned in another point, this whole thing started with the numerous tables, including the minor leagues on Tim Lincecum's page: Wikipedia_talk:MLB#Stat_Boxes, that includes Neonblak's and Ethelh's agreement with me on allowing a table. Somehow, it morphed to only Albert Pujols' page while *ignoring every baseball page*, such as: Alex Rodriguez (3 tables), Babe Ruth (2 tables), and Ted Williams (1 table). How fair is that? That is one reason why I'm contesting this so strongly. It's unfair to only concentrate on one (or two) players while ignoring all the others ignored by the table-banners. Katydidit (talk) 02:00, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

You (Katydidit) are comparing apples to oranges. What the majority of us (nearly everyone else!) are contesting is the presence of the stats table. None of the other tables that you cite are tables of stats for an entire career by season. Williams shows full career statistics ONLY. Complete statistics, not averages, and only for the entire career, never broken down by season.

This is stable because Williams is gone, retired, and passed on. Ruth's tables show the same, as a pitcher and a batter, because both are important elements of his game. Rodriguez' tables are for AWARDS, not statistics, and I have tagged the award section of this article because it would be better presented as a table. I am NOT in any way, shape, or form saying that all tables should be eliminated, and have NEVER said so. If I didn't believe in tables, why would I have written 28 featured lists!? I am saying that the original research of the career averages should be eliminated, and that the season-by-season statistics should be eliminated. They are two completely separate issues. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:06, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

But on the stats table, you *still* will NOT acknowledge I am NOT the only one saying it should be retained. Why do you keep ignoring Phoenixrod, Neonblak, and Ethelh in siding with me of those I know came out in favor of retention? Can you *ever* acknowledge the truth instead of saying I am the only one? When are you going to FINALLY be honest about this point, when you keep prattling "almost everyone else?" THAT ISN'T TRUE, and never was! Is that too much to ask? Now, why are there still many other players with tables for their full seasons? Don't tell me Pujols is *the only one in the entire Wikipedia* and I and my three cohorts are holding up this last player, but that is the only one you are complaining about! Inconsistency, anyone? PLEASE, tell me NOW why this picking only on Albert Pujols page? I want the truth, and I want it now! Stop this picking only on him, and maybe you will get more respect for your point of view, although I don't see how you can whitewash all stat tables from all players in the entire Wikipedia, when you only care about Albert Pujols stat table. I don't see this kind of concentration on any other player in baseball, football, basketball, ice hockey, soccer, or whatever sport in whitewashing them clean of any and all stat tables. What is your real motive in only concentrating on Albert Pujols. Be honest now! I'm listening.

About your 28 featured lists point: what does that have to do with a stat table? Is a list now a (stat) table and vice versa? I don't get the connection, or why you mentioned it if you want to delete all stat tables if they are somehow the same thing as lists and you use the terms interchangeably.

Now, what *is* this "original research" you keep blabbering about? There is no "original research." I never used any source for doing any original research period, only a simple mathematical division of his totals by the 162 team games in a season past 2008, to get a Yearly Average. You object to that? Why? And don't keep saying *original research* when I haven't done anything, not even close to something to what that implies to mean depth of studying a subject; more than just a division of a total by his years.

What is it you want to show on Albert Pujols' page regarding the statistical area? The entire season-by-season table gone? The Yearly Average table gone? Both gone, so nothing there remains? What will that accomplish? Will it make the page more informative, or less? What is the intent of an encylopedia, any type such as this online version, except to convey information about a subject? Is less somehow more? What makes it better to eliminate the both the stat tables and the Yearly Averages table? Why is this so darn important to you to concentrate only on eliminating this particular set of information about this particular person to the extent you want to delete it at all costs? As long as the stat table isn't "excessively long" or "sprawling" as Wikipedia specifically says about the rules on a page, it can be shown. BTW, another poster (Phoenixrod) mentioned the possibility of changing it to a collapsed table so it only shows if a reader wants it to show. Would you be in favor of that compromise? I would. How about you and the others on your side? I'd do it myself, but it isn't set-up that way, as I have seen other tables set-up to "show" or "hide" and have changed it, such as in a team's month-by-month schedule after that month has passed I have 'hid' that month, but it always can be shown by a simple 'click'; but I don't know how to change it to that option the way it is presently constructed. Katydidit (talk) 15:51, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Before I go any further in commenting, I must say that I find your language uncivil. Construing honest and open discussion as "blabbering" and "prattling" is contrary to that policy and I would ask you to please refrain from mischaracterizing my comments and viewpoints. It's disparaging and rude. You are acting like I have some kind of secret agenda, or like I am out to get you. Neither is true. Please refrain from making comments of this nature in the future; discussion can and should be had in a mature manner.

You are right, I shouldn't have used those particular words, and I do regret using those words. Katydidit (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Now. As to your points above, I have not said that you are the only one who supports retaining this table. My comment "almost everyone else" is valid–approximately 80% of the users who participated were in favor of deleting this table. You may also wish to review some of the comments that the members you call your "cohorts" have made. Neonblak conceded that he could see how they could annoy some people. Ethelh made comments, which Dewelar addressed and disproved, and didn't make further response. Phoenixrod has said that he would support tables, but not in the current format (i.e., removal of non-mainstream statistics). As to the inclusion of those statistics, you claim that they may be relevant or mainstream in the future. Projecting future events in that way is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. The inclusion of these statistics is a large part of my concern in relation to the "excessive listing" and "long and sprawling" qualifiers in WP:NOTSTATS.

The original research to which I refer has also been questioned by Phoenixrod. Pro-rating statistics does not, in my opinion and apparently in Phoenixrod's, fall under the "Routine calculations" that are allowed per WP:NOR. Whether you regard it as simple or not does not mean that it's allowed under Wikipedia policy. As a jazz musician, a short improvisational solo is easy to me, but that doesn't mean that I can put it on Wikipedia.

To your last comment, this discussion is not at all about what I want; this is about what's best for the encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not a collection of indiscriminate information, and that is what this list has turned into. Additionally, I think it's just plain ugly. The colors are completely unnecessary and shouldn't be used per WP:COLOR. The season-by-season stats are unnecessary; a single-row career statistics table a la Ted Williams would be completely fine! I would have no issue at all with that. However, the table needs to be stable, meaning that it's at a single point in history, whether that's after a day of play, an All-Star break, the end of the season, whatever. The featured list criteria would dictate, for stability, that you should use the end of the season, but I wouldn't go so far as to require that, especially when you do an admirable job of keeping up with the statistics. However, the "Yearly averages", which no other player has, and per the concerns raised regarding original research, should be deleted. I don't think that making the table collapsible is the best option, because WP:ACCESS discourages the use of hidden tables and boxes. I know we use them in game logs, but I found out that they can't be used in featured content when I tried to take 2008 Philadelphia Phillies season through the FA process. So I settled for a good article and moved on. This article wouldn't pass FA with them either, and it legitimately should be featured once the necessary work is completed. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 17:02, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I had a feeling the desire to have an FA on his page is behind the reasoning for the desire for deleting these stat tables. I've done more cutting to only leave his current year and his Totals, while deleting the entire Yearly Averages section. Would that meet with your approval, and possibly allow an FA approval? I hope my compromise offer is sufficient, but I'm willing to let an impartial mediator make the final decision if it meets with a Wiki standard, or not. I'll abide by whatever the mediator decides. Katydidit (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Speaking only for myself, I think career totals are sufficient, but I will not argue about leaving the current year as well. The only problem now is the black-on-red color scheme. Trying to read the career totals is headache-inducing, and it's probably a violation of WP:ACCESS. -Dewelar (talk) 07:21, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I also have seen *this* on your own WP:NOTSTATS reference, which I actually quoted from before, but it has been **ignored**: "EXCESSIVE listing of statistics. LONG AND SPRAWLING lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), CONSIDER USING TABLES to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." Can you explain why this one table is somehow, all-of-a-sudden "excessive," or "long and sprawling" that would violate that rule you pointed to yourself? As I mentioned, I've quoted from it previously as it does NOT bar ALL, EXCEPT *excessive* tables. That has been conveniently ignored by the other editors and yourslf, who insist *every* table must go, regardless of the plain language giving importance to a table, instead of reams of text in its place--which *anyone* could do instead of one simple table that is NOT excessive or sprawling. Thank you. Katydidit (talk) 04:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Maybe there's some common ground. I agree that there is no need to remove every table from every baseball article. One table is fine with me, but that table shouldn't list every conceivable stat (VORP, for instance—that's not yet a mainstream stat). And a pro-rated table seems like original research to me. But one table with some of the most common stats seems reasonable. Perhaps the fundamental disagreement stems from the fact that the infobox on the top right of the article already serves this purpose, so the table is somewhat redundant. -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:04, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you on one key point: no need to remove every table from every baseball article. But, I have to disagree with your wrongful analysis of "original research." There has been none. Unless you consider a simple numerical average of his totals by his exact years played per games in the current season is somehow "original." Which obviously isn't. As for VORP, it may not be as mainstream as OPS and OPS+ were previously, but now they are. Things, and baseball stats evolve and we aren't in 1980 or 1990 nowadays before more inventive ways were made to show how good (or bad) a player is compared to his contemporaries or from other baseball eras as is now done with OPS+. The only possible redundancy is comparing the Infobox stat list (can be as few as ZERO, maximum of only six), and that is only an incomplete summary of his totals when it comes to showing the depth of talent as Pujols has in many categories that only a table can show. If I (or anyone) deleted five of those Infobox stat lines and showed only his BA (or only HR, or RBI), would that truly be enough to show how good he is? Obviously, not, so you can't say a table is completely redundant. Only in very small areas of the stats in an Infobox (and it varies per player in what is posted there) is a table redundant. Katydidit (talk) 01:05, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

With respect, I don't agree: the pro-rated table is original research. Regarding your statement Unless you consider a simple numerical average of his totals by his exact years played per games in the current season is somehow "original.": that is exactly right. Unless you can find Pujols's stats pro-rated in a reliable source, extrapolations from the data are by definition original research. On another point, you seem to be arguing that baseball should use stats like VORP; while I agree they are useful, Wikipedia is descriptive, not prescriptive, so we must reflect mainstream stats, which VORP certainly is not. VORP can and should be covered as a concept in its own article, but it doesn't need to be in every player's page. The infobox argument is a straw man. And to address one other matter, while I think one table of stats would be fine with me, it should be career totals, updated maybe at the end of each season or a few significant times during the year. The current stats table is too much. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:50, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've come to see your point, and have now deleted VORP, his 2001-2008 seasons, and the entire Yearly Averages section. Do you think leaving the current 2009 season and his Totals can possibly pass scrutiny of those who wanted all of it gone? I hope we can reach a compromise in this remaining configuration, but I'm willing to let a Wiki mediator make a final decision on whether it meets a standard Wiki would allow. I certainly will abide by it. Katydidit (talk) 06:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The only things that I would recommend for the table that's left is (a) the removal of the "Runs created" stat (I'd only heard of that once or twice before viewing this page); and (b) the removal of colors in the table per WP:COLOR. The color in the table doesn't convey any information that the colors in the infobox can't cover, and those update automatically. None of the other award or stat tables use color; they should just be simple tables. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:59, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Done now on both changes mentioned. Katydidit (talk) 16:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It looks so much better now. I do have a concern about MOS:BOLD though, you may want to have a look at that. I have a question about the spaces in the table, though: why are all of the non-breaking spaces necessary? KV5 (Talk • Phils) 16:20, 14 August 2009 (UTC)\

I was trying to line-up the smaller numbers, right-adjusted to the Totals. Katydidit (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It does look better now. I am fine with the 2009 stat line as is, and the career stats are fine with me too. I hope this compromise is acceptable to everyone. One thing, though, Katydidit: thank you for deleting VORP from the table, but it can certainly be mentioned in the prose somewhere—after all, you say Pujols is leading the league by far in it. A brief note somewhere might be appropriate. -Phoenixrod (talk) 16:29, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

You're welcome, Phoenixrod. I/you can verify the current VORP rankings (sorted in descending order, through August 13) for the NL at the link below. You won't have to look far down the list to see where he is. Of course, his numbers will change after each game played. http://baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=465866 Katydidit (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree that it does look much better now. Thanks for removing the background color -- it's much easier on the eyes now. I think some background color might be acceptable, but it should probably be something less bright (pale pink, perhaps). I would also suggest that since this is now a one-line table, the "Age" column is probably superfluous and should be removed. -Dewelar (talk) 01:36, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I see your point now on the averages. However, Baseball-reference.com *does* the same thing, but it comes up with different numbers in its using an 162-game average on a player, instead of a Yearly average. Which isn't the same thing, but it is in the same general area of seeing an average on how a player performs in his career.

See: http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/p/pujolal01.shtml at the bottom of the 'Standard Batting' section in the blue link with the number-averages following.

About VORP, who said it has to be in every player's page? I only added that because he is #1 in the NL by a huge margin. If he wasn't #1, I wouldn't have bothered with it. If I delete VORP, would that help save the stat table, or is it just a point you make that it isn't mainstream so Wikipedia can't cover it (yet)? Isn't there a lot of things in Wikipedia already that aren't considered mainstream, and maybe only on the fringe, in whatever subject matter you might look up? What's the difference?

I thought a table is a table, whether it shows only a career summary or season-by-season. As mentioned before, I've seen other year-by-year tables on many other players, not counting the ones I mentioned (I previously deleted M. Ramirez and B. Bonds stat tables awhile ago, as nobody cared how sprawling and huge those were while only looking at AP's tables and complaining so vociferously about only his) and just wondered why this concentration by those (less than 8) editors on so strongly wanting to rid them on Pujols' page while ignoring all the others who had them. Katydidit (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

If Baseball Reference does a similar thing, it can be used as a reference, I suppose. Or the problem could be avoided by using prose instead of stats—which would also address your VORP concern. Since Pujols is so fantastic in VORP, that should be in prose instead of a stats table; it needs more explaining than a number for a general reader to understand why it is an important measure of Pujols's skill. -Phoenixrod (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I've now deleted VORP, his 2001-2008 years and the Yearly Averages section, leaving only 2009, and his Totals. Katydidit (talk) 06:44, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(I'm not sure if this is the right place for this comment, but I have the impression that there's confusion over what should be covered in tables.) No one is advocating removing all tables from baseball articles. As far as I can tell, it is the stats tables only that are in question. Certainly a table for awards makes sense. I wouldn't be sorry to see all stats tables go, since stats either can be found through links or are original research. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:16, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

About the awards tables, why are they so special to be saved? Can't you find the same information anywhere else on the entire Internet? Katydidit (talk) 16:14, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Awards tables are a different issue entirely. Let's keep to the discussion at hand: stats tables. As a brief digression, however: is there a reliable source that aggregates all the awards in one place? If not, one link wouldn't cut the mustard as it would with a stat source like Baseball Reference. -Phoenixrod (talk) 18:18, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Katydidit, please don't accuse me or other editors of ignoring policy. I have read and am extremely familiar with NOTSTATS, as all members of a sports project should be. I consider this table to be in violation of the first part of the policy. You seem to be under the impression, if I am understanding you correctly, that because these statistics are in a table, they are perfectly fine. However, I believe that you may be missing an important element of NOTSTATS, namely "In cases where this may be necessary". This table is unnecessarily redundant and therefore can be removed. There are statistics in the infobox for this purpose, and there are a maximum of six available slots for a variety of important statistics that should rightfully be covered in the early stages of this article. Many of the non-mainstream statistics, like VORP and runs created, can be easily removed, as pointed out above by Phoenixrod. The remainder can easily be covered by prose, and according to NOTSTATS, "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader". This article does not accomplish that goal. Prose is preferred over embedded lists in nearly all cases; please see WP:EMBED for more information on this topic. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:59, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Killervogel, I again have to reply to the charge of a table as redundant because of the Infobox *options* to list up to six (but there could just as easily be ZERO) stats on a player. But, that could be cut to only ONE, and you certainly couldn't complain a table is redundant with only his BA (for example) listed. The fact that six (maximum allowed) are listed in no way proves a table is always redundant with many other basic stats such as the exact years played, his G and AB and H (etc.) shown that are not listed in the Infobox options. That seems so obvious to anyone, it's amazing you would mention that, as it is a shallow attempt to convey almost total redundancy in a table and therefore all tables should be eliminated. Katydidit (talk) 01:29, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

The Infobox stat options are completely up to any editor's particular whims on how many to list, and which ones, so it shouldn't be considered in complete competition with a table. Katydidit (talk) 01:35, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I have opened a mediation request regarding this issue, per the suggestion by Athaenara. This discussion has not concluded; rather, this is an attempt to bring outside eyes and ears into the situation. Users who wish to comment can visit the case page by clicking the above link. Thank you. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Summary

I saw a note about this discussion and mediation. If one were to remove the "Please don't accuse me of..." and "Sir, I in no way said that..." drama from the above, is there anything left? Can someone give a summary? Otherwise, frankly, tl;dr. Thanks. Wknight94 ^talk 16:57, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Most of what's left is the summary that I wrote up on the mediation page. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 18:08, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure I'm oversimplifying things, but here's my summary: The GA review above found, among other problems, too many tables in the article. A majority of editors here and at the WikiProject Baseball talk page (maybe 80%?) want to remove stats tables from baseball articles, relying on WP:NOTSTATS. User:Katydidit in particular objects for Albert Pujols on the grounds that 1) this article is being singled out, and 2) it is better to be more complete by including lots of statistics, especially given how great a player Pujols is. -Phoenixrod (talk) 18:24, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

To eliminate the idea that Pujols's article is being singled out, should discussion be moved to WT:MLB? Mixed into the melodrama above, I see various claims of majority - would it be good to conduct a straw poll to clear up that issue? Wknight94 ^talk 10:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The discussion was also going on at WT:MLB, where an informal straw poll was already conducted. That's part of the claims that were being made. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

This whole thing with the running stat table is ridiculous. If you look at the history page it's pretty much monopolized with DAILY updates to the statistics. That makes it impossible to sift through edits etc, for starters. I have never seen a WP article for a baseball player with stats for the current season updated DAILY. If anything a fair compromise would be states up until the start of the 2009 season, or stats up until the all-star break. Any opinions on that? Tjrover (talk) 04:02, 17 August 2009 (UTC)tjrover

Try looking at the link at the end for another example of a baseball page with DAILY updates: frequently more than one per day, and try to stop that page (and other related pages) from updating by *numerous* baseball-updating editors as the information changes. All-Time HR Hitters Katydidit (talk) 04:54, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Again, apples and oranges, the comparison doesn't hold up that is a statistically based article and the table/list is pretty much the essence of what the article is about. You seem very defensive and terse in your comments, we're all trying to make this article into the best product we can. Furthermore, if you want to compare, find an article about a PLAYER that has a current seasonal statistics table that's updated on a near daily basis, and when you do, the same rules should apply so nobody is simply picking on this article. It's even more important since it's for one of the most prominent and best players in the game. Cheers. Tjrover (talk) 05:02, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm also trying to make this article into the best product possible, rebutting your assertion I'm not. BTW, don't brag about my defensiveness when you used an outright obscenity! About the updating on a near-daily basis: what is the reasoning on NOT updating a page when the information changes? Does it make any difference if the changes are in numeric form instead of prose? I never did understand that distinction in (not) updating an encylopedia, and Wiki is terrific in allowing instant updating when events (and stats are merely events in numeric form)! And, nobody seems to mind if *other* baseball players are updated on a regular [daily?] basis as *their* information may change. Do you *really* believe that pages should *not* be updated, even if they are in numeric form? What's the difference? Katydidit (talk) 05:20, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Once again, defensiveness: I said "we're all trying to" make this the best article possible, the very nature of that pronoun includes you, so that very first sentence in your reply projects a 'me against the world' mentality'. Other/most articles have career stats but there is also a footnote/caveat that says something along the lines of 'current through 2 May 2009' etc or whatever. Up to date and most current info re: achievements, milestones, siginificant info in prose is what we all want but the very nature of statistics and category totals changes daily especially a stat line on a current season, we want the best and current info but WP is also NOT ESPN. it becomes cumbersome and makes reviewing edit history cumbersome and again it's just not standard on WP - player pages don't typically have an stat line/table for the current season that is updated on a near daily basis and I would propose deletion/significant modification for any that do.Tjrover (talk) 05:32, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I have seen that in other places too - although that doesn't make it good. The inconsistency makes it worse. A new person perusing baseball bio articles would have no idea which were up to date and which weren't. To me, if people insist on the up-to-date stats, a bot should keep them up to date, not people. Who goes through and verifies them? Probably no one. Wknight94 ^talk 12:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Those lists of baseball stats almost always have DATES listed to show when they were last updated, so your complaint isn't accurate. There is also a reference to either BB-Ref.com and/or MLB.com to address your other complaint about verification. Katydidit (talk) 04:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

yeah but does WP really have to be the end all for EVERY BIT OF INFORMATION to include constantly changing bits like baseball statistics? this is what ESPN, MLB, and Yahoo!Sports websites are for. trying to keep up to date stats is overkill. and to the daily editors of the stat table - do you really not have a life that you are updating mundane statistics on a nightly basis? this pretty much kills the whole history page and makes editing/edit review unnecessarily more burdensome. This article seems to beyond most in that it's not just career totals, but seasonal totals too. not to mention the 2009 section reads like twitter. the fanboys really did a number on this article. Tjrover (talk) 22:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

We did just have this entire discussion above. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 23:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

and a lot of good that fucking did! ;) Tjrover (talk) 02:20, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow... sarcastic or not, completely un-funny. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 12:02, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree, KV5. Tjrover is out-of-line, especially with his cursing. Katydidit (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wasted time and discussion that goes nowhere (in partic that farce 'mediation' sham) never really is.... Tjrover (talk) 21:13, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

First time I've seen that mediation option used, and whether it is used in this case or not, I'm glad it's there. Why do you say it's necessarily a 'sham'? Any hard evidence to back-up your outrageous claim? Katydidit (talk) 05:03, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Regardless of the above, I still question whether OPS+ is necessary. I'm a stathead when it comes to baseball, and I didn't even know what OPS+ was until I looked it up for the purposes of this article. When it comes to things that are "league-adjusted", I really don't think it's important enough to be included in this stat table to begin with, if we are to keep it. I know that Katydidit mentioned that it's "mainstream", but I don't know how that can be if someone like me, who works a lot on baseball articles, spends a lot of time on B-Ref, and spends an awful lot of time staring at statistics, has never heard of it. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 14:38, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm shocked, shocked at your admission of not knowing about OPS+ !!! Never before? Ever? I'm amazed! Katydidit (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Wow. A stathead who's doesn't know what OPS+ is? Have you spent any time at, say, Baseball Think Factory? Baseball Prospectus? The Hardball Times? If not, I highly recommend them all (much of Prospectus requires a subscription, but their free stuff is worth perusing). -Dewelar (talk) 00:55, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I read the free parts of Prospectus rather regularly, never been to Think Factory, and was aware of Hardball Times but never perused. Now I have more things to read and less time to do them in... THANKS! KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:59, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Baseball Prospectus also has the VORP information I used to show on Pujols, but deleted because these baseball junkies didn't seem to like the (relatively) 'new' stat. Katydidit (talk) 05:10, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

True, but VORP is a bit esoteric, and would require a bit too much explaining to the uninitiated, so I understand why it was removed. OPS+ is, at least, based on a couple of well-established stats and requires only a couple of baby steps to get there. Don't even get me started on PECOTA ;-) . -Dewelar (talk) 08:41, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Suggested additions to 2009 Season and/or Accomplishments

Hello all, I do not have editorial privilges for this page, but would like to suggest a couple of additions to the 2009 Season and/or Accomplishments sections:

---

On April 8, he set the St. Louis Cardinals franchise record for most assists by a first baseman in a single game. His seven assists were the most since the National League record of eight assists was set in 1971. (1) (2)

On April 8, he became only the third Cardinals player in the last 55 years to reach base four times in each of the first two games of the season. (1)

Sources:

(1) http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/gameflash/2009/04/08/27704_recap.html

(2) http://www.baseball-almanac.com/recbooks/rb_1bas.shtml

---

Thank you, keep up the good work!

Baseballwiki (talk) 18:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Career batting average

In his infobox it says he has the highest batting average of active players, but he is tied with Ichiro both at .333. Someone should clarify that. 69.136.60.6 (talk) 17:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Pujols is now just a little ahead of Ichiro, through July 29, so it is still accurate. Pujols at .3336 (rounded to .334) and Ichiro at .3332. http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/batting_avg_active.shtml I'll definitely keep an eye on it, but it may go back-and-forth a few times. Katydidit (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Correct. That's why ephemeral notes like that should be avoided. Wknight94 ^talk 16:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Career Highlights and Awards versus Accomplishments Tables

There is some redundancy and same info mentioned in both tables. Does someone else want to take a stab at tweaking that? I've done a lot of edits removing and consolidating extraneous, superfluous, or tedious information from the Accomplishments section but this could benefit from the fresh eyes and perspective of another user.  :) Tjrover (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Furthermore the Career Highlights and Awards table near the top of the page and to the right, had IDENTICAL information in a table at the bottom of the page dubbed "Awards and Honors", hence the reason for deleting that table near the end of the article.Tjrover (talk) 02:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

If you're talking about what's in the infobox, the infobox is part of the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the article. This article is very much a work in progress at the moment, so I've restored the table, and the "other feats" list will eventually be converted to prose. I hope. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

All-time rankings

The all-time rankings section removes any semblance of stability from the statistics section of this article. It's totally unnecessary, as many elements are covered, or should be covered, in the "Other feats" section as prose. It's also completely pointless for an active player whose all-time rank in everything is currently changing. Additionally, it's not present in baseball featured articles. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:50, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

agree. Tjrover (talk) 04:00, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

It's been removed and incorporated. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 11:47, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Hits tables

It's obvious that this table was just copied from Ichiro's article, because the colors are Mariners colors, not Cardinals colors. See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS regarding this point. As to the necessity of this table, it's completely extraneous. Career hit totals, career BA by season – all of these are accessible by clicking the link to his statistics at Baseball-Reference. This is why ALL of these statistical tables are irrelevant, not to mention WP:NOT#STATS. This section, which is Wikipedia policy, states (again) "Long and sprawling lists of statistics may be confusing to readers and reduce the readability and neatness of our articles. In addition, articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader. In cases where this may be necessary, (e.g. Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2008), consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists." The first and second sentences are the parts that apply to this article. The third sentence ("In cases where this may be necessary... consider using tables to enhance the readability of lengthy data lists") does not apply. This is not a list. This should not be a list. Tables should only be used to enhance the readability of data lists when the article itself is a data list. The majority of commenters on this subject are still in agreement – statistical tables should not be part of player articles. Per the discussions above, consensus was reached to keep a limited table in this article; however, anything more is redundant to Baseball-Reference. See baseball biographical featured articles for more details. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 15:29, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Seconded. Not to mention I don't think it is fair to the thousands of other players who would not get their own hit tables.--Phil5329 (talk) 17:45, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Thirded(?). -Phoenixrod (talk) 01:58, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

• Quartet-ed. Staxringold _talk^contribs 23:43, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Albert Pujols/GA2. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

1. Has reliable sources
2. Is written neutrally
3. No valid cleanup tags
4. Is relatively stable with no edit wars
5. Not specifically concerned with a rapidly unfolding current event with a definite endpoint

This article doesn't pass the quick-fail criteria. Thus it is obviously being quick-failed.--Giants27 (c|s) 16:12, 7 September 2009 (UTC)