Talk:Five-tool player

Removal of Players

Barry Bonds doesn't count. He can't run nearly as well as any of the other player mentioned here.

I think you're focusing too much on recent events: when Barry Bonds broke into the majors, he was one of the fastest players in baseball. --M @r ē ino 13:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Bonds used to be fast but he has NEVER had a good arm. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.62.5.95 (talk) 10:05, 16 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Suzuki and Jeter do not possess POWER. TrulyTory 02:06, 25 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the current phenom David Wright. I am considering removing many names. I removed Wright because he is not an all-star. I think the minimum standard should be 2 all-star games. If I had created the page myself I would have limited the list to HOFers and players exceeding HOF standards by at least 2 of the 4 www.baseball-reference.com scales. I am considering some such limit. Please advise.

I think that might be a little harsh. However, certainly removal of players who have not been proven over time (such as Wright) is fine. Using the All-star election as a measuring stick is not as prudent as it sounds, which can be seen in the way the 2006 all-star voting is going so far. Many players are unjustly elected, as many others are snubbed.

This is an encyclopedia. An encyclopedia should have one or two examples. Limiting the list to Mays and Bonds or Mays only would be sufficient in truth. Look at the list now and when your girlfriend looks up 5 tool player on the internet so she can talk to you about something she will at least be guided towards elite all around players. Note that I did not really check the pre war players for all around skills if they were an all-star. Probably, a year or two from now someone will try to put Pujols and Vlad Guerrero back on the list. A player with less than 6 steals/ year is not a 5 tool player no matter how good his other tools are. In fact, I don't know of career first basemen who are considered five tool player. This does not mean Pujols is not the best player in the game. He could be the best player in the game, the MVP, a sure fire HOFer and yet not be a 4 or a 5 tool player. I believe Pujols is the best player in the game, yet only a 3 tool player. Vlad may rightly make the list in a few years (based on the current standards).TonyTheTiger

P.S. This list should be much shorter. People are confused about popular, elite players and 5 tool players. I had to look up the fact that Mike Schmidt once stole 29 bases and that Dave Parker twice stole 20. I will revisit this list if no one else wants to take a stand. Also, don't look at a gimpy 40something Bonds and say he can't run. He is tied for 30th all-time in SB's. Also, running the bases is more than stealing them. Runs scored is underrated. This statement is made with a Paul Molitor in mind.TonyTheTiger

Why was Vladimir Guerrero removed, but I-Rod kept? I don't care so much about the former, but when in conjunction with the latter, it's pretty insane. I-Rod averages what? 6 steals a year? Vladimir, by the way, does not steal "6 bases a year". He's stolen 15 a year for the last 3 years, and has 52 more in his considerably shorter career than I-Rod does. I-Rod is 4 tool, and having a link to one source, like was done with Vladimir, does not constitute proof. If time is a factor, Vlad has played virtually the same amount of time as A-Rod. He's not missing any tools (within obvious reason), he has an MVP award, etc. Nothing wrong with the guy for such a list in the least. Perhaps instead of a sentence with a run-on of names like that, we should instead create a subsection in the article in which to list a group of players who are less-than-debatable. The current selection kinda...sucks. President David Palmer 04:17, 24 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of the reasoning here seems rather flawed. While Bonds never had a Clemente canon, he has maintained his quick release and good footwork. Further, Jeter has had 2 20/20 seasons and 1 where he fell 1 stolen base short. While he isn't a fully fledged slugger, he has always been a threat to deposit a grooved fastball into the seats. If anything, it is his lack of fielding range that makes him a 4 tool player, not his power. Vladimir Guerrero is an absolute no brainer. He was 1 home run from a 40/40 year and doesn't steal huge numbers mostly because he is on orders not to. He still beats out infield hits all the time. Oh, and as far as Molitor goes, the guy did steal a ton, so I don't see where there is a question there either. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.239.55 (talk) 23:11, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

beltran

Carlos beltran is the most perfect example of a five tool player. How is he not listed, seriously?

See above "If I had created the page myself I would have limited the list to HOFers and players exceeding HOF standards by at least 2 of the 4 www.baseball-reference.com scales." Until he exceeds at least 2 of the 4 HOF Standards above I would oppose his inclusion. TonyTheTiger 17:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats not fair, seriously. A five-tool player is just just an athelete who incorporates each of the five tools into his game, period. Carlos Beltran is the quintessential five tooler.

I mean no ill toward Beltran (a great player). This page is not intended to be a complete enumeratiion of every player that has ever achieved 5 tool player status nor is it intended to be a complete enumeration of all players who are currently 5 tool players. It is an encyclopedic entry that happens to incorporate the most important 5 tool players in the annals of baseball. Carlos Beltran, although a great active 5 tool player does not meet the criterion that are very reasonable. If he continues at his current pace of performance, he will likely reach a level of accomplishment that is significant enough to be included in this page. A dozen years ago I would have removed the popular Ken Griffey, Jr. from this page for the same reasons. Let's keep the standards high. Imagine a physical encyclopedia. It might only list Mays if it mentioned the term at all. TonyTheTiger 14:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Needed?

I support the need for validation of facts, but tagging every player (including Willie Mays !) with CN is ridiculous. Willie Mays is the pentultimate FTP and everyone knows in Baseball knows this. If we are going to manage the article this way, then maybe the whole thing should be deleted. TrulyTory 13:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was tempted to run this article through an AfD, but the main problem is WP:NPOV and possibly WP:OR if this article is not supported by citation. If you'd prefer it go that way, anyone can feel free to start up the AfD. Erechtheus 23:48, 30 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is not an appropriate AfD. It is an important baseball topic. The list should really be about 3 or 4 players, but it is hard to make an objective statistical cutoff. The list is truly Mays, Bonds, & Dawson. After that any postwar player is truly a stretch, IMHO. There are players who for brief periods of time in their careers had 5 tools, but for extensive display of these skills the list should be limited. However, I can not really think of a good way to do it since defensive stats are not easy to track down on the web. Furthermore, people will put a guy on the list if he stole 20 bases once or hit 20 homers once and are a HOFer. However, requiring a citation is overburdoning. Let people have their fun adding people who are hard to contest until we agree on a statistical method. TonyTheTiger 17:22, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that we shouldn't be agreeing on any sort of statistical cutoff. That's original research. That's not what Wikipedia does. It seems to me that the fate of this article should be to list those players who are described as having the five tools by a credible source. Erechtheus 21:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I generally agree with Tony, but we have to keep in mind the different eras of the game. Almost everyone I know considers Mays, Mantle, and Snider premier examples of the FTP, but the 1950's was not really a base-stealing era, so relying on that stat as an indication of speed is misleading. Many experts consider that Snider was as good as Mays and Mantle throughout that era, and he had all these tools. To say the George Brett was not a FTP is grossly unfair as well. He certainly was - look at his 1979 season if you don't recall him. TrulyTory 23:56, 1 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Snider

This is a very tough inclusion for me to swallow. On his career he did not steal 100 and he never stole 20. However, he twice finished in the top 3 in SB's in the pre-Maury Wills era. What criteria are correct after the HOF cutoff. TonyTheTiger 15:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Footspeed is not just about Stolen Bases. Did HE run the bases well and quickly? Did he get to balls that others could not when on Defence? By all accounts Snider did this, and some say as well as Mays and Mantle - two players who were FTPs. TrulyTory 00:25, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Original Research

While I personally believe that nearly all the players included are actually five-tool players, there needs to be verifiable sources. Right now, the selection of most of the players is based on original research, since there isn't a primary source. This quote from the original research policy sums up the problem: "Wikipedia articles include material on the basis of verifiability, not truth."

The baseball-reference.com idea isn't a bad one, but it still doesn't verify that a player is five-tool. It only provides data that is being used by Wikipedia editors to make a decision. I'm not going to remove any of the players, but I do think it's very important to find actual cites that a player is five-tool, instead of using an arbitrary method. Aren't I Obscure? 16:11, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I support the removal of original research by [1] ] by User:Scm83x. The list of players will always exist in the history and as cites are found, they could be added back into the article. Aren't I Obscure? 00:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the removal as well. That is precisely what I was getting at above -- I was just waiting for additional comment before acting to remove items from the article. The Sporting News reference should support the inclusion of Bonds, Griffey, and Rodriguez. I have therefore added them back with that article as a citation. Erechtheus 03:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We have been looking for some means of reaching consensus. This is the most objective and procedurally correct. I still want to maintain the HOFer and expected HOFer standard so that we do not have flash in the pan 5 toolers on the list. TonyTheTiger 14:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it's a good idea to limit how may examples are provided. I know J.D. Drew was considered a five-tool player when he entered the majors, but I don't think he'd merit inclusion here. However, HOF standards should only be used to narrow down who should be included, not as a substitute for a source citing a player actually is five-tool. Aren't I Obscure? 14:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that this article needs to list non-HOF players who have been categorized as five tool players in addition to players who have been billed as five tool players but have failed to live up to that label. What it needs not be is simply a list of players -- somebody should probably start categories for five tool hall of famers and five tool major league players for those purposes. This article should eventually discuss what it is to be a five tool player and all the controversy that the label creates, using verifiable, credible sources. Does that make sense? Erechtheus 22:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

I have added this heading and have added just a little bit of the sort of discussion about five tool players I believe this article is lacking. Any thoughts? Erechtheus 08:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Removing OR "significant" note

I have rewritten the players listing to do a few things including removing the original research standard that was come up with by editors here to attempt to create a standard for significance. This rewrite also makes clear that both HOFers like Mays/Snider and non-HOFers like Dawson can be called five tool players. Erechtheus 18:17, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Beltran

Someone inserted Carlos Beltran into the middle of the players listed by the Sporting News article that is the fourth citation. He is not mentioned in that article.

I'm all for listing Beltran here if there is a decent citation that can support it, but I have removed Beltran until such a citation can be produced. Erechtheus 18:58, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good work. The citation that the inserter attempted to use was www.carlosbeltran.info -- which is the archetype of a suspicious source. We need sources like newspapers, ESPN, Canoe.ca -- in other words, journalists. --M @r ē ino 14:47, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rewrite

In my opinion this article needs to be completely rewritten. There is no way to qualify a five-tool player other than credible media references. But even then, that does not mean a player is a five-tool player, since that's purely subjective. Rather than naming specific players, we could

Put certain statistical leaders on here, such as stolen base leaders

Trace the etymology of the phrase, and uses throughout history

Delete the article entirely if nobody can think of anything better.

If you want to discuss the greatest all-round players of all time, that's fine. There are web forums and blogs for that. But this article needs to have some substances to it rather than personal opinions, I certainly wouldn't say one reference to each playing saying they are a 'five tool player' has any meaning whatsoever. We might as well start an article of "Sexually attractive baseball players" Mglovesfun 00:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see anything wrong with having names of specific players in this article when there are citations to back the names up because it isn't Wikipedia subjectivity but instead objective reporting of the subjectivity of others, but I certainly think that the article needs to take shape discussing mostly the controversial nature of the phrase and its usage since it was coined. I think this article does need to exist, but it has been problematic so far due to the desire to perform original research. Erechtheus 04:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Point taken; I wouldn't really want to see the article deleted as I think it is valid. My main point (with both the category and the article) is that citing the opinion of one journalist does not really consistute a verifiable source, does it? If anyone can show me a wikipedia file relating to this I'd be grateful. Mglovesfun 02:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: see Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms

There simply is no definition of a five-tool player. Saying Willie Mays is a five-tool player is purely and totally POV. There are over 27,000 hits for "five-tool player" on google, do we plan to add all 27,000 to this page? Do we include only major leaguers, minor leaguers, japanese and european leaguers? If anyone finds one citation that says one player is a "five-tool player", then that does not make the player a five-tooler. All you can say objectively is that one website described player X as a five-tooler. This basically means the entire article needs to be rewritten very very quickly, or else I'll submit it for speedy deletion under the avoid neologisms rule. Mglovesfun 17:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're all over the place -- and wrong. First of all, five-tool player isn't a neologism. Its usage dates back at least 50 years. Second, we're not saying Willie Mays is a five tool player. We're saying that people who are paid to know these things -- sports scouts and journalists -- have reported that he's a 5-tool player. It's not a violation of WP:NPOV to report on the opinions of people qualified to have them. If you want to find an expert who says Willie Mays was NOT a 5-tool player, go find one and we'll include it. Wikipedia has never, and will never, link to all the articles on google. That's google's job, and Wikipedia is not google. You ask "Do we include only major leaguers, minor leaguers, japanese and european leaguers?" Well, who else is there to include? Little Leaguers? You also seem to think that this page should be a list of all five-tool players. No, it should not. The title of the page would be List of all five-tool players if that were the case -- and that page would be up for deletion. This article is about the term, its use, its usefulness, and its history; the players are only listed as examples. Finally, if you were to put this page up for speedy deletion, that would be a severe violation of WP:POINT. This article meets none of the Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion. --M @r ē ino 19:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fine let's look at some quotations from avoid neologisms

"Generally speaking, neologisms should be avoided in articles because they may not be well understood, may not be clearly definable, and may even have different meanings to different people. Determining which meaning is the true meaning is original research — we don't do that here at Wikipedia."

The fact that the term is not new just makes it an ologism rather than a neologism.

Secondly, "In Major League Baseball, five tool players have included Hall of Famers Willie Mays[1] and Duke Snider[2]."

You're saying that doesn't say that Willie Mays is a five-tool player?

Finally to quote the above. " This article is about the term, its use, its usefulness, and its history; the players are only listed as examples."

Well go ahead and write the article then. When someone does write it I'll be the happiest of all of us.

"It's not a violation of WP:NPOV to report on the opinions of people qualified to have them." how come you're the only one that gets to decide who has a valid opinion or not? What qualifications do you have that I don't? Perhaps you should read WP:POINT Mglovesfun 19:54, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest that comments should discuss only at the merits of the argument and not be made toward those making the arguments. Please be civil to each other. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 21:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At no point did I say that I'm "the only one that gets to decide who has a valid opinion or not". I take offense to your suggestion that I did. I said the exact opposite: "If you want to find an expert who says Willie Mays was NOT a 5-tool player, go find one and we'll include it." I stand by that. If you make good contributions to the article, I will support them. --M @r ē ino 21:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Take for example the article on left-handed people that I work on. Every quote I find on the Internet gives a different percentage of people that are left-handed; from 30% to 5% with no consensus at all. Are you suggesting that because they are experts, every single opinion (even the ones that conflict each other severely) are right? That's just being silly. As in this case, stop arguing with me and read the actual article and tell me it meets wikipedia criteria. If you want to cite random authors on the basis of your own personal selection criteria, go start a blog, don't put it on wikipedia. Mglovesfun 22:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please sign your comments using ~~~~ and refrain from lashing out at other contributors. — Scm83x ^{hook 'em} 22:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's totally POV and you know it. Mglovesfun 23:00, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"If you want to find an expert who says Willie Mays was NOT a 5-tool player, go find one and we'll include it."

How do you define expert? Mglovesfun 23:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I already said how I define expert in this context: sports scouts and journalists. --M @r ē ino 23:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- well that's just your personal opinion, besides those two terms could be defined 100 different ways. See journalist for an example. Mglovesfun 23:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's clear that we have a difference of opinion. Either list this page in WP:AFD if you still oppose its very existence, or else get to work improving it. As I said before, if you make good contributions to the article (as I, IMHO, have), I will support them. --M @r ē ino 23:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Fair enough I apologize, I just wanted to demonstrate that anything can be point of view according to someone's point of view. I actually rewrote the entire article, then cleared it as I can't do anything with it. Mglovesfun 23:42, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Standards

I have been away. I am going to delete a lot of the stuff as WP:OR. See my comments above. We need to keep the list short and true.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/tcfkaWCDbwincowtchatlotpsoplrttaDCLaM) 01:36, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

2012 Carlos Beltran and Matt Kemp

In order to keep people from adding all their favorite players and having a uselessly long list this page should be reserved for players who are in the Hall of Fame and those already considered likely to be in the hall.

Currently at http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/k/kempma01.shtml the Hall of Fame Monitor says:

Black Ink Batting - 15 (152), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 52 (487), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 32 (578), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 21 (683), Average HOFer ≈ 50

None of his numbers are close to the avereage HOFer numbers

Currently at http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/b/beltrca01.shtml the Hall of Fame Monitor says:

Black Ink Batting - 5 (382), Average HOFer ≈ 27

Gray Ink Batting - 84 (281), Average HOFer ≈ 144

Hall of Fame Monitor Batting - 96 (169), Likely HOFer ≈ 100

Hall of Fame Standards Batting - 39 (166), Average HOFer ≈ 50

Possibly by the end of the season he will be likely by 2 of the 4 measures. Then, we can add him.

If you want to add a player, find a link that says Vladimir Guerrero, who passes 3 of the 4 tests according to http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/g/guerrvl01.shtml, was a 5-tool player in his prime.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 19:13, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guerrero had a hell of an arm, but he wasn't much of a fielder. His career fielding percentage is .963, well below the .983 average for his position over that time. He led the league in errors as a right fielder nine times! --Jprg1966 ^(talk) 16:12, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]