Jump to content

Talk:Cliff Lee

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kinston Indians category?

[edit]

In my opinion, it doesn't make sense to count rehab starts when deciding which minor league team categories to add to a player's article. Technically speaking, I'm not sure that these players even go on the minor league team's roster. I think I'll post a question about this on the Baseball Project and Baseball Player Project discussion pages to see if we can reach some consensus. If you have an opinion about this topic, please post your comments here. --Sanfranman59 18:17, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Personally, I don't think the category should exist at all, but if it does exist it should be as complete as possible and he is listed on their roster at the official site [1]69.68.238.142 20:30, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Draft

[edit]

Lee is not drafted by the Florida Marlins in the 8th round.--KANESUE 19:50, 22 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He was. http://www.thebaseballcube.com/draft/1997/June-Reg/8.shtml And he appears in the first link you posted as "Clifton Lee". --Muboshgu (talk) 12:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Phillies?

[edit]

Multiple sites are reporting that Cliff Lee has been traded to the Phillies (boo for me). Should we change this so it's now updated or has it yet to be confirmed?

They are reporting that a trade has been agreed upon - its not final yet. Pending physicals. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 18:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How many sites that say 'done deal', including the Phillies and Indians sites do you want to see? EVERY trade is not final until physicals. The trade is done. The trade is final. If someone fails the physical the trade is canceled. It is not dependent on the physical. The trade is complete. If the physical is failed, then the trade is nullified, but the trade did happen. Sorry to burst your bubble, Indians fans.

"EVERY trade is not final until physicals." Exactly. Which is why no baseball Wiki page/roster is ever updated until then. This isn't something new. This happens for every major trade and free agent signing. Teams don't announce anything until its is a done deal. This has nothing to do with any team allegiances. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're just being silly. He's been traded. He's on the Phillies. The comment someone (maybe you, I forget) made about Obama does not apply. Obama was elected in November, but he did not become president until January. Lee was traded today and is a Phillie today. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Richjenkins (talk • contribs) 20:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That was me, and analogy holds. Obama was elected, and virtually guaranteed to become president once he took the oath, but he wasn't president until he went through that formality. Lee is virtually guaranteed to become a Phillie, but that doesn't actually happen until both teams give the agreement their final OK. Until that happens, he is on the Indians' roster. ShaleZero (talk) 20:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Mariners

[edit]

Lee's a Mariner now. You all can stop the bidding war.

He's not a Mariner until the trade actually happens. Blahblah32blahblah (talk) 21:38, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(ec)No he's not, the deal is still pending physicals. Show me one report where it says the deal's done and I'll stop until then it's not done.--Giants27(Contribs|WP:CFL) 21:39, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A message to every wanna be journalist trying to break news on Wikipedia

[edit]

This morning we saw quite a flurry of editing on this page, as there was a report that a deal was close to send Lee to the Yankees. Many wanted to be the one to change Lee's team affiliation. Now, reports are suggesting the Mariners are backing away from the deal. As of now, it looks like it's off. Maybe it'll happen, maybe it won't.

Let this be a lesson to everyone: wait until there's an official deal in place before making changes. It just creates a huge mess, and sometimes doesn't come to pass. --Muboshgu (talk) 19:58, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, now it's supposed to be the Rangers. Remember, the Rangers have a pending sale, and are not able to take on much salary. There are financial issues that could easily see this deal fall through. Nothing is official until it's official. I will consider continued changing of his team status as vandalism. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:34, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to go ahead and argue he still isn't a Ranger and we should go back to this mornings version. Why? He's still on the MLB roster for Seattle. Also, Wikipedia is not a news source, so we don't need up to the week stuff on the page. However, for pragmatic reasons, I say we leave the page as is (that is other editors will come edit it every 5 minutes no matter how many warnings we put up). 018 (talk) 22:44, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I used that same reasoning when I tried to keep Nick Adenhart listed as one of the 25 men on the active roster after his death, before the Angels replaced him. You can imagine that argument did not sit well with others. I'd say that in this case, with the GM's openly talking about how the trade is done, and with Lee and Smoak taken out of tonight's lineups (and as a Yankee fan, can I say how happy I am he got traded before he was scheduled to pitch against us tonight?) so they can presumably meet with their new teams, the website is likely lagging behind the news, and the paperwork has probably been finalized in the commissioner's office. --Muboshgu (talk) 22:48, 9 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fucking Wiki nazis. Get a life. Shit was confirmed through multiple sources before the MLB.com article (and MLB.com has been wrong before), but you high-horse dipshits just had to get your rocks off by claiming it wasn't official yet. Hell, look at Mushu's edit history on this one...trying to claim that it could be undone even after it was made official. What a tool. 24.225.104.123 (talk) 21:44, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, how dare we adhere to the facts, nothing more and nothing less. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:20, 10 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a site to bitch and whine or to get info?

Kristen Lee's experience in the visitng wives section of Yankee Stadium

[edit]

I just took it out, because we don't know if this will have an impact. CC Sabathia's wife was said to strongly prefer San Francisco this time two years ago, remember. If Lee signs with the Yankees, this is all about nothing. If he cites it as a reason for signing with a different team, then that's a different story. --Muboshgu (talk) 23:22, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know i have a vested interest in this, but why would this be removed since the topic never said it could/would decide Lee's choice about signing next year?Red3biggs (talk) 00:03, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This falls under WP:NOTNEWS as it isn't of lasting notability regarding the subject, unless of course he comes out and says it's the reason he chose not to sign with the Yankees. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:18, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from 71.71.251.140, 14 December 2010

[edit]

{{edit protected}} Cliff Lee is now a member of the Philadelphia Phillies.

71.71.251.140 (talk) 06:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit protected}} Revert the addition of the info that he has signed with the Phillies which was added without providing a source. Corvus cornixtalk 07:47, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{edit protected}} Revert team info and Phillies template. He is still technically a free agent. He hasn't officially signed yet. That's why this was protected in the first place. TL565 (talk) 08:08, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Do you want me to start linking to all the news articles that say he has joined the Phillies? If an extremely large amount of news articles say the same thing on a simple fact, does it make it true? If a tree falls in a forest with no one to hear it, does it make a sound? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 08:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're still not getting it. Until he officially signs, then add the information. The sources say he will sign, not has signed. The article was protected for two days for this reason. See here, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_page_protection#Cliff_Lee_.28edit.7Ctalk.7Chistory.7Clinks.7Cwatch.7Clogs.29 TL565 (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Admin_User:The_ed17_and_BLP Corvus cornixtalk 08:25, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

arrow Reverted It is inappropriate for an administator to edit an article through protection without gaining consensus for the change. And if opposed, the edit should be quickly self-reverted. I am sad to see that this has not happened on this instance. The ed17: please discuss all changes on the talk page; your status of administator does not give you any increased editorial influence. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:13, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Those edits were unfortunate. I wondered if the page had been unprotected that quickly. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely foolish to continue to list Cliff Lee as a free agent. This kind of ignorance makes Wikipedia look bad.99.245.37.46 (talk) 14:56, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Show me on the roster where Cliff Lee is and then he's a Phillie. --Muboshgu (talk) 14:57, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is the same thing that happens every time. We don't change the lead and the infobox until the deal is official. Enigmamsg 16:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is a widely known fact that he has signed a deal which will be official when he has passed a physical. This could EASILY be added to his page RIGHT NOW - that he has signed a deal with the Phillies, pending physical. It is SILLY to cling to this notion that Wikipedia shouldn't reflect these deals until the physicals are passed, considering how rarely they are failed. Anyway, feel free to continue looking foolish.99.245.37.46 (talk) 16:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's already on the page that he reached an agreement. As you said, agreements fall through from time to time. Therefore it's a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to say this one won't fall through. --Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's absurd. I'm curious as to what level of "official" people are waiting for. The LA Times says "the free-agent left-hander...agreed to a five-year, $120-million deal with the Philadelphia Phillies Monday night". SI has "Almost a year after they traded him, Cliff Lee is headed back to the Philadelphia Phillies". "Agreed" and "is headed back" are not rumor or speculation; reliable sources report his return to Philadelphia, so the infobox and such should reflect that he is, once again, a Philly Tarc (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He is not a Phillie until the contract is completed. The contract is not completed until the physical is passed. We won't know that until a team press release or press conference. Simple, cut-and-dried, end of story. — KV5 • Talk • 17:17, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Absurd nitpickiness. The contract is signed, he is a member of the team. Period. Tarc (talk) 17:19, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not going to argue this with you. I've made my point, and I'll tell you flat-out that your assertions are wrong, but I won't comment further. Suffice it to say that the editors maintaining that he's not a team member yet are correct. — KV5 • Talk • 17:22, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand where this is coming from now. There's a long-established policy with sports articles to wait until the player is a member of the team. The furor this is causing, one would think Cliff Lee was the first free agent ever to sign.
RE: 99.245.37.46 "This could EASILY be added to his page RIGHT NOW - that he has signed a deal with the Phillies, pending physical." Yeah, well you could easily read the article first, before loudly carping on the talk page. Enigmamsg 20:37, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The tentative deal was covered in the page, but the admin who added it also incorrectly reinstated the assertion that he was a Phillie, so the whole thing was zapped. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:14, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, my original text about the deal being agreed to is still in the article. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're right. The more elaborate explanation was reverted, while the bare-bones reference is still there, and that should be sufficient until or if he signs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, that's what I was referring to. Anyone who scrolls down can see that there's a line about Lee reportedly signing with the Phillies. Enigmamsg 21:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Terms "agreed" and "heading back" suggest that the deal in fact is not signed, or else they would say "signed", and MLB.com would list him on the Phillies' roster page. We go through this all the time. Deals that are supposedly completed fall through. We just went through this with Jason Bartlett a week or two ago. He's still with Tampa Bay even though everyone was sure he was a Padre. Same thing happens with free agent signings. --Muboshgu (talk) 21:16, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, those are definitely "hedging" terms being used by the media. It's not a fully-done deal. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 21:20, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In the intro would changing it from 'is a free agent' to 'has agreed to terms with the Phillies for the 2011 season' ? That would still let someone seeing the article know what the current status of the pitcher is without going beyond what has happened.Red3biggs (talk) 13:31, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

He's been signed, FFS

[edit]

I hate how moronic this place gets any time a player changes teams. He's a Philadelphia Phillie. He plays for the Phillies. He is NOT a free agent. The ONLY thing it is pending is a physical. A deal this far into it has only not happened like 0.0000000001% of the time. He picked out a number, for God's sake. If he wasn't on the team, why the hell would he have a number? All this does is make Wikipedia inaccurate for a day. What the hell's the harm in updating it now? If his leg falls off when he takes his physical, then you can edit it and say he's a free agent again.Richjenkins (talk) 20:49, 14 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand the random IP's trying to break news, but I don't get how people make reasoned arguments that he's not a free agent when a deal is only agreed to, and therefore not finalized. It's not finalized. "0.0000000001% of the time" is enough to invoke WP:CRYSTAL. That's all I'll say on the matter. --Muboshgu (talk) 04:20, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Find a source stating that he has signed a contract. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 04:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Article seems accurate to me. FFS, what's wrong with it the way it is? It mentions the deal with the Phillies, but it doesn't change from "free agent" to "member of Phillies" because he's not officially on the team yet. Try the official roster on mlb.com if you don't believe us. Enigmamsg 07:27, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"All this does is make Wikipedia inaccurate for a day." is in direct contradiction of WP:V: "Wikipedia must never be a first publisher.". If we are the first to say that he has officially signed a contract and passed a physical, we become a secondary source, which "rely on primary sources for their material, often making analytic or evaluative claims about them". This falls outside the bounds of "no original research", because Wikipedia, as an encyclopedia, is by definition a tertiary source. — KV5 • Talk • 13:06, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just as ridiculous today as you were yesterday. "The Phillies strayed from their general guideline for pitchers Monday when they reached agreement with Lee on a five-year, guaranteed $120 million contract with a vesting option for a sixth year." As of now, Cliff Lee is a member of the Philadelphia Phillies, the edit warring and need for page protection by those removing this info one some bizarre grounds of waiting to see a name on a dotted line is bound for the WP:LAME Hall of Fame. Tarc (talk) 13:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so, as it's not an edit war, and you're still wrong. — KV5 • Talk • 13:48, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is quite so, it is a shame that you have duped people into protecting this page for you. A contract has been agreed to, that makes one a part of the team. No amount of your "2+2==5" style of argumentation changes that reality. Tarc (talk) 13:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Protecting it for me? I didn't request the protection, and I'm an administrator, so I could have protected it myself if I saw fit. That being said, I'll reiterate to you that Cliff Lee is not on the Phillies roster and ask you to take your personal attacks elsewhere. — KV5 • Talk • 13:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a particular team webpage has not yet been updated is not proof that he isn't now a member of a team, that's some serious logic fail there. We go by what reliable sources say, and I'd expect an administrator to understand that. Tarc (talk) 13:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, we do go by what reliable sources say. Reliable sources say that the final contract agreement is pending a physical. And for the record, even ESPN's roster acknowledges that he's not on the team yet, regardless of what the article says. Re-read the notes in the above sections about hedging terms in the media. Thanks. — KV5 • Talk • 14:00, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Tarc, I honestly don't know where you've been the last few years, but the policy has always been to wait until the deal is official to declare the player part of the team. There's nothing new here, and KV5 or anyone else didn't need to "dupe" anybody. Did you miss the LeBron James, CC Sabathia signings, as well as every other recent major signing in sports? Enigmamsg 15:12, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm the one who requested page protection and I can honestly say KV5 has not duped me. --Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Adding a sentence to the lead

[edit]

As Red3Biggs suggested before, and as has been done in some past cases, I think it would make sense to add a sentence to the end of the lead mentioning that Lee has agreed to terms with the Phillies. Enigmamsg 15:19, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that. Referenced, of course. — KV5 • Talk • 15:39, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going to add it soon if there are no objections. Enigmamsg 16:44, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That should be fine. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 16:52, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, as long as it says "agreed to" or something else that makes it clear it isn't finalized.--Muboshgu (talk) 17:08, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This transaction has been finalized, according to the Phillies official website [1]. Lee's uniform number will be 33. Please unprotect this article, as those who are keeping tabs on the deal can update the article. Bill S. (talk) 17:24, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are right. [2] Can an admin unlock? --Muboshgu (talk) 17:25, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let Enigmaman do the unlocking so I don't get into a wheel war, but I updated it at least. — KV5 • Talk • 17:29, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we can also put the Phillies pic back in the infobox. And with this saga finished, I can always bookmark those vandalized versions of the page as I long for what could have been.[3][4] --Muboshgu (talk) 17:34, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Enigmamsg 18:02, 15 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

2011 season

[edit]

On the players page the list of teams we keep removing the 2011-present, and using crystal ball as the explanation. However, Lee does have a contracted signed for the team, for the 2011 season, and the 2011 season already includes multiple articles regarding the baseball season and individual teams and the player is listed on the teams 2011 roster. Would that also not fall under the same crystal ball example?

Why can we not list the player for the 2011 season but can do these other things?Red3biggs (talk) 17:40, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The player is listed on the 2011 season page as having signed a contract, which he did. The player is listed on the roster, because he currently is. That being said, he has not played a minute for the team in 2011 (because it's still 2010!) and we shouldn't be adding that until it's so. Otherwise, it is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL, which states in part: "Individual scheduled or expected future events should only be included if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place" and "Avoid predicted sports team line-ups, which are inherently unverifiable and speculative."
We have no way of knowing whether Lee will throw a single pitch for the Phillies this season; we only know that he is under contract to do so and won't pitch for another team unless traded or released. Suppose, for argument's sake that he needs Tommy John surgery, and they find out before Spring Training. Then we will have been reporting falsely all along. — KV5 • Talk • 17:42, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just moving the discussion along, IF he were to have tommy john surgery he still would be a member of the 2011 Phillies team during 2011, UNLESS the phillies were to release him. The only examples where 2011 could be incorrect would be for him tobe traded OR for him to retire. Why would (present) not be usable in this instance?Red3biggs (talk) 17:47, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
He would be on the roster (the inactive roster), and if he's not active, then he doesn't play, and shouldn't be listed. For example, a player who has Tommy John surgery and misses the entire 2008 season, for example, should be listed as "New York Yankees (2006–2007, 2009–present)". — KV5 • Talk • 17:52, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

[edit]
  1. ^ Phillies.com page confirming finalization of deal Retrieved 2010-12-15

File:Cliff Lee With The Indians.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

[edit]
An image used in this article, File:Cliff Lee With The Indians.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 18:55, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cliff Lee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 12:49, 10 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Cliff Lee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:10, 26 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Cliff Lee. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cliff Lee/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Usernameunique (talk · contribs) 19:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]


Lead

  • "intentionally pitching at his opponents' heads" — Seems to be stated more authoritatively here, whereas the body makes it unclear as to whether it was intentional.
    • Clarified the ambiguity.
  • "during which he led the American League in earned run average and all of MLB in wins." — Maybe add the ERA/wins in parenthesis.
    • Added, but not in parentheses.
  • He was the starting pitcher for both of the Phillies' 2009 World Series wins, correct? Maybe worth adding here or later.
    • Reworded accordingly.
  • "with whom he reached another" — another what?
    • Added with link to the appropriate WS.
  • "as well as by his poise and level-headedness on the mound" — A bit surprising to see this, after just reading about him throwing at the level of batters' heads.
    • Clarified.

Infobox

  • Somewhat odd that his left-handedness is hardly mentioned in the article.
    • Added a quote to the early life section.

Early life and college career

  • "a shoulder injury forced him off of the pitcher's mound and into the outfield." — For how long?
    • Source does not specify.
  • In what rounds was he drafted?
    • Specified.
  • Is "signed a contract" the correct terminology for a college commitment?
    • Source said "signed" but did not specify a contract, so I changed to "committed".
  • Can you signpost his college years (freshman, sophomore, etc.)?
    • Done to the best of my ability.
  • What exactly did DeBriyn say? Why is his attribution needed?
    • Rephrased to specify that it was below expectations.

Montreal Expos organization (2000–02)

  • "the scout who saw Lee pitch at Arkansas" — "the scout" or "a scout"?
    • Source says It turns out Jordan was the area scout who signed Phillies lefthander Cliff Lee after the Montreal Expos selected him in the fourth round of the 2000 draft.
  • "he had been moved to the bullpen in college" — Perhaps should be mentioned in the college section.
    • Done.
  • Jupiter Hammerheads — Single A?
    • Clarified.
  • Does "placed him on rest" mean replaced him, or does it mean gave him an off day?
    • Clarified.

Early years: 2002–2004

  • What was his ERA at Akron?
    • Added.
  • I'm assuming he left runners on base in the sixth, and they scored after he left?
    • Clarified
  • Helped clinch, or clinched?
    • Clinched
  • Was the stint with Buffalo at the beginning of the season on a rehab assignment, or was he actually sent down?
    • Added two sources that say he was reassigned
  • Were all his MiLB appearances starts?
    • Yes
  • "While recovering from surgery" — I.e., at the hospital?
    • Yes, added
  • What was his record going into the June 3 game?
    • Added
  • Was there an alleged reason for throwing at Griffey? E.g., had Griffey homered earlier?
    • Griffey had homered the inning prior, but Lee is the only one to make that connection. Clarified to the best of my ability
  • "Lee intended" is technically better as "Lee said he intended", since we can know only what he said, not what he thought.
    • Fixed
  • "falling into a six-game slump and carrying an ERA of 10.51 between July 21 and September 2." — Correct to say "falling into a six-game slump between July 21 and September 2, during which he carried an ERA of 10.51"?
    • Changed
  • How many (earned) runs in the September 8 game?
    • Added

Breakout seasons: 2005–2006

  • Who took the wild card instead? Was Cleveland second?
    • Until 2011, there was only one wild card per league. Included that this year it was Boston who took it.
  • Who were second and third in Cy Young voting?
    • Added as a note.
  • In 2006, who were starters four and five?
    • Added.
  • Anything MLB-specific to link "contract arbitration" to?

Minor-league setback: 2007

  • "appeared not to suffer any lingering physical difficulties" — How do we know this?
    • Clarified based on source.
  • "Catcher Victor Martinez approached the mound to begin a verbal altercation with Lee after the pitch" — Where does the source say this?
    • Rephrased in accordance with the source.
  • Any evidence the demotion was linked to the Sosa HBP, or just his performance?
    • Article does not mention. Reordered paragraph.
  • Cleveland dropped four games, not three, to Boston in the 2007 ALCS.
    • Fixed.

Cy Young Award and aftermath: 2008–2009

  • Lee's offseason home? Willis's offseason home?
    • Clarified.
  • Did he allow any runs in his first game?
    • Added: one, unearned
  • "His wins with Cleveland came on roughly a monthly basis" — An apt, and brutal, observation.
    • And then he went to the Phillies where he got great run support and lived happily ever... wait.

Philadelphia Phillies (2009)

  • "he was pulled in favor of Ryan Madson" — What was the score at this point? Why was he pulled?
    • Added more details.
  • How many hits did he give up in Game 3?
    • Added courtesy of another source

2009 World Series

  • Maybe add that he was in a taxi.
    • Added.
  • How many hits allowed in Game 1?
    • Added
  • No decision or win in Game 5?
    • He got the win, added a source that clarified

Seattle Mariners (2010)

  • "but understood why Philadelphia opted to take Halladay instead" — "said he understood" would be more accurate. And what was the reason?
    • Added a full quote
  • "Lee's trademark temper" — Could it really be considered trademark?
    • Changed to "notorious short"
  • "intended to appeal the decision" — Again, this speaks to what was going on in their heads, which we can't know. We can know, however, whether they said they intended to appeal the decision.
    • Clarified with wording from the source, which specifies that this is what the GM told reporters.
  • "The suspension was rescinded on April 21" — Then the previous sentence should say they did appeal it.
    • The previous sentence is from before the suspension was appealed.
  • "from colliding with Snyder" — So he hit the guy he previously collided with? Any more info about that collision (and is it something that might have angered Lee)?
    • Added an additional source to clarify that the injuries resulted in a wild pitch.
  • What date was that spring training game?
    • Added.
  • "posting an 8–3 record" — How many starts?
    • Added.

Texas Rangers (2010)

  • You variously term it the "trade deadline" and "trading deadline".
    • It should be "trading", per our article. Uniform now.
  • "Shortly afterwards" — What day was the ASG?
    • Added.
  • "the Rangers appreciated Lee's clubhouse presence" — According to whom?
    • The team themselves. Clarified.
  • with teammate Colby Lewis referring to the back half of the Rangers season as "relaxed fun" — Was this in reference to Lee?
    • Added longer quote.
  • "Ron Washington opted not to let Lee pitch on short rest, instead starting Tommy Hunter for Game 4. Instead, Game 5 proved a rematch between Lee and Price" — Looks like both managers made the same decision? Might be worth mentioning.
    • Not particularly, it relates to a statement Washington had made earlier about using a three-man rotation. Added.
  • "Lee pitched 7+1⁄3 innings" — How many runs?
    • I do not see this phrase in this section.

2010 World Series

  • "the first time that Lee's team had lost a postseason game that he had started" — In how many starts?
    • Added.
  • "Game 5 proved to be a rematch" — This could use some signposting so the reader knows what's at stake before getting to the final sentence. Something like "With the Rangers down 3–1 in the series, Game 5 proved to be a rematch..."
    • Added.

"Four Aces" lineup: 2011

  • "Despite being offered a seven-year, $150 million contract with the New York Yankees, Lee opted to sign with the Phillies on December 14, 2010, taking their smaller offer of five years and $120 million" — Unclear that it's actually a "smaller" contract. He was offered $21.4 million/year with one team, $24 million/year with the other. One could argue he was gambling on making more money in the end.
    • Most sources stress that he was making less money overall.
  • Any word on why he chose the Phillies over the Yankees?
    • Added, after some digging.
  • who took his exclusion from the "Four Aces" lineup with humor — How so?
    • Added quote from the Inquirer.
  • Did Hamels or Oswalt get any Cy Young votes? How far behind was Lee?
    • Added.
  • "They were eliminated, however, in an upset series win from the St. Louis Cardinals" — Should be something like "They were upset, however, by the St. Louis Cardinals in the [NAME OF SERIES/LINK]".
    • Done.
  • Might want to add a sentence at the end about how the series concluded. We know the winner, but in what game?
    • Added in the sentence about the upset.

2012–2013

  • "mired in a slump, beginning with his first start, when he pitched 10 innings but took the loss in a 1–0 defeat to the San Francisco Giants" — Hard to call a one-run, ten-inning outing the start of a slump!
    • I rephrased to something more accurate: that he personally did well but couldn't seem to get a win.
  • "(H/9)" — You never use this again, and it's something that I don't recall as something I've commonly seen. WHIP (which you define above, then never use again) is different, in that I hear people say "WHIP" much more than I hear them say "walks plus hits per inning pitched". But I rarely (if ever) hear/see someone say/write "H/9" instead of "hits per nine innings."
    • Removed H/9.
  • "His run of 13 starts without a win" — What was his record at this point? ERA?
    • Took some hunting, but added.
  • Overall, I think the first paragraph overstates his struggles. If he had a 3.16 ERA, then by a lot of standards he crushed it, run support or no.
    • I'm not sure how to remedy this. Most of the Phillies coverage during the 2012 season was about "what more could Cliff Lee possibly be doing to get better?" It wasn't necessarily flattering despite the circumstances but seemed to highlight the frustration he and the fans were feeling.
  • "the Phillies missed the playoffs in 2012 with a 2–1 loss to the Miami Marlins on September 29" — What game #?
    • Added.

Injury and end of career: 2014–2015

  • "the eighth pitcher since 1914 to be credited with a win despite giving up eight or more earned runs" — Definitely not necessary, but what about adding a footnote adding the other seven?
    • Done, and changed "since 1914" to "of the live-ball era", since that's what was more or less implied.
  • "a career-high 12 hits" — Well, he tied his career high.
    • Rephrased
  • "of his age" — Which was?
    • Added

Retirement

  • May as well mention somewhere, and perhaps here, his BBHOF results.
    • Excellent catch, thank you.

Pitching style

  • "he considered" — he said?
    • I prefer the original wording, as changing to "said that his curveball was his" seems a little more mealy-mouthed
  • "he rarely discussed that pitch in interviews" — Why not?
    • Unclear, but I found an article that used the slider interchangeably with the cutter
  • "he intentionally hit Sammy Sosa with a pitch" — It's only hinted above, and not expressly said, that this plunking was intentional.
    • Rephrased
  • "Lee preferred playing" — according to whom?
    • From the man himself; clarified.

Personal life

  • "Lee met his future wife Kristen when they were in middle school, but they did not start dating until Lee was in college" — Did they actually know each other between middle school/college (e.g., as friends), or just generally known to each other?
    • Added that they were high school acquaintances.
  • "Cliff and Kristen" — sounds informal. "The Lees"?
    • Changed.
  • "known for his" — Suggest "known for having an"
    • Changed.
  • "personality, with an article ... saying" — "Suggest "personality; an article ... wrote"
    • Changed.
  • Any further word on what he's done since retiring?
    • Absolutely no clue. The last interview with him was in 2020 (and is linked in the article), and he talks primarily about how we shouldn't institute a universal DH.

Status query

[edit]

Usernameunique, GhostRiver, where does this review stand? It's been a while since anything has been posted here. Thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 03:19, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I am chipping away. I have had various health issues throughout the month of February, and when I edit, it is easier to do the "less social" parts of Wikipedia. — GhostRiver 15:51, 24 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry to hear that, GhostRiver. I've also been busy; please feel free to take your time, and just give me a heads up when you're finished so I can take a look at all your responses as one. --Usernameunique (talk) 18:43, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Usernameunique Excellent timing, as I believe I've finished the last response. As an aside, if there are additional comments that need to be addressed, I would prefer that you group them together down here rather than responding in kind to the bullet points above, as that will help me keep track of them with such a long article (which I should thank you for taking on, by the way). — GhostRiver 18:54, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
GhostRiver, this looks great. Four follow-up comments below. In the meantime, they're nothing to hold the article up over, so I'm passing it now.
  • Was Cleveland second in the wild card standings in 2005? I know there was only one wild card at that point, just wondering if other teams were between Boston and Cleveland.
  • "with the score 2–1 after a walk and an error" — "down 2–1" or "leading 2–1"?
  • Ref #28 doesn't have an archived URL in the archive-url parameter, so is giving an error message.
  • "Of these, he considered his curveball to be his most effective pitch" — What about "Of these, he claimed his curveball as his most effective pitch"? --Usernameunique (talk) 20:09, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cliff_Lee&oldid=1206165991"