Jump to content

Talk:Greg Maddux

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

Reverted Edit

[edit]

I changed the line "some consider him one of the greatest pitchers in major league baseball, but some consider him to be highly overrated" back to "generally thought as being one of the greatest pitchers in the history of Major League Baseball" because there are very few people who consider him overrated, especially from achieving 300 wins all in an era of a 5 man rotation staff and increased relieve pitching.04:58, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Is it just me, or is the main body of the text very unorganized? It seems to jump around a lot.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Cinquad (talk • contribs)

I would agree - I have added sections as well as an info-box - please feel free to add any extra info you can find to the box, as well as moving text around and adding/changing the name of sections. Mrmaroon25

This is a nice page, though, it is indeed a bit unorganized. The info is fine, it just needs a bit of restructuring. However, It does lack a section on Maddux's career with the Cubs. I'll work on it. Yadin twelve 20:57, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, whoever editted the stats section needs to get their facts right. Even if Roger Clemens was still pitching, Greg Maddux would have a lower career ERA. And besides, Pedro Martinez has a lower career ERA than both of them. And John Franco is a relief pitcher. Many relief pitchers have a lower ERA than 3.00, so comparing starting pitchers and relief pitchers is not significant.--ScipioAfricans 02:01, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, I am Greg Maddux's biggest fan. I have closely followed just about every game he has pitched since 1990. Given the fact that he pitched during an offensive era and still had a historically low era and whip, 4 Cy Youngs, and 300 + wins in a 5 man rotation, I believe he is one of the 5 to 7 greatest pitchers of all time. But to compare his ERA to Clemens and say it is better is unfair. Clemens pitched a large percentage of his career in the American leage with the DH. This means two things. His ERA will be higher. At the same time though, it gives Clemens a better chance to pick up wins {with no pitching switch needed for a pinch hitter}. {Michael}

I'd like to contribute to this page. I agree that we cannot compare ERA's of relief pitchers' and starting pitchers. I have a different question: I remember watching Maddux's first game pitched in the ML. He threw a complete game, but lost. I cannot remember who he faced (or any other detail, other than it was late in the seaons and he was called up from AAA Iowa). Does anyone have any info on this (I am currently searching). Em-jay-es 06:18, 8 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked up the box scores for 1986, and Maddux's first pitching appearance was on September 2nd. He gave up one run on one hit, getting the loss in the 18th inning. box score His first major league start was on September 7 where he pitched a complete game and picked up the win. box score. Petedoane 05:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Current Statistics

[edit]

I removed the part of the "Statistics" section that referred to Maddux's 2006 stats. Aside from that section not being updated in a month, it would have to be updated after every start to remain accurate. In addition, the content is not particularly encyclopedic- knowing what Maddux's season ERA as of some date ix X.XX means nothing five days later. -- Kicking222 20:38, 26 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

John Franco

[edit]

I'm no John Franco fan, and never have been. I'm a Cubs fan, so my bias (if any) is actually for Greg Maddux. But ERA has the same meaning whether SP or RP, and John Franco and Pedro Martinez are the only "active" pitchers with a significant number of IP (1000 is the cutoff on MLB.com) that have an ERA lower than that of Maddux. For example, Trevor Hoffman and Mariano Rivera both have just over 800 IP; Armando Benitez has under 700; Troy Percival has just over 600; and Brad Lidge, Felix Rodriguez, and Chad Cordero all have under 300 IP. Jpers36 06:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll take your word for it.--12.218.83.242 21:00, 30 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, ERA doesn't mean the exact same thing for starters and relivers. Everything else being equal you can expect a reliver's ERA to be about a full point lower. One reason is that inherited runners count against the pitcher they got on base against. Another being that relivers only pitch an inning or two at a time, so they don't have to pace themselves to go 6-9 innings. So while Franco has a lower ERA for the qualifier, it doesn't mean the same thing.

Um...

[edit]

A baseball traditionalist, Maddux insists that the Cubs wear their white home jersey on the days that he is their starting pitcher.

And yet the pic shows him wearing blue? Tromboneguy0186 15:29, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The pic comes from Spring Training, when the team wears batting practice jereseys on the road.

umm..no pic?

[edit]

Why isnt there a picture of Greg Maddux? Patbaseball2221 21:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't delete the picture, but the previous picture showed Maddux in a Cubs uniform. I'm sure that a new picture will be posted as soon as he has one taken in a Dodgers uniform. --Mrquizzical 22:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've uploaded a picture I took last night. It's grainy and a little blurry but -- at least, I thought -- better than nothing. I didn't know what size or shape it should be or where it should go in the article... I didn't find any consistency in other baseball articles. Any suggestions? VermillionBird 03:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Or, MLB has a new publicity pic: [[1]] which seems kind of dodgy but it seems is widely used. VermillionBird 04:14, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added a free use Cubs pic the pic in the infobox is used to identifuy what he looks like. A pic with a player on his current team is best but any pic is preferable. Pics should not be removed or deleted if a player changes teams. Quadzilla99 19:38, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

starts missed?

[edit]

does anyone have any numbers on how many starts Maddux has missed in his career? Kingturtle 14:30, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know of anywhere that keeps track of missed starts. Though from looking at his stats I would say he has probably never missed a start. At most, he could have only missed a handful. Since 1988 (his third season in the majors) he has started at least 33 games (except the shortented seasons of 1994 and 1995) and pitched at least 200 innings (expect 2002 when he pitched 199 1/3 innings). Petedoane 23:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not entirely sure. Can only be 1 or 2 since he has been on the disabled list only once in his career, and I assume it's of the 15 day variety.--ScipioAfricans 09:52, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Maddux missed one start... it was while on the DL... He has had some scares while in spring training which has caused him to start the second game of the season... maddux31holytrinity sep 2, 2006

No Reference Tag

[edit]

I removed the no reference tag in the team tenure section. None of the statistics list their references either. The tenures listed are accurate and can be easily checked through three of the external links. Petedoane 18:15, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Braves Years

[edit]

The section called "The Braves Years" has one paragraph dealing with Maddux's time with the Braves, and four paragraphs that have nothing to do with the Braves at all. Any objections to just eliminating the heading and moving the info to the Teams or Accomplishments sections as appropriate? Mrquizzical 06:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd actually like to see the section rewritten, not necessary deleated. The teams section delt with his Cub years.--Maddux31holytrinity 02:00, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I took a look at the Roger Clemens page, and since many fans consider the two to be close, i figured the pages should be somewhat alike. I've used to clemenes page as a model for this one. i've also moved some of the information that has nothing to do with the Braves. this whole article is still quite messy to me.--Maddux31holytrinity 02:18, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nicknames

[edit]

Where could we find a place to mention his nicknames "Mad Dog" and "The Professor"? 216.246.231.112 13:37, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Somone already put it in his Trivia or Personal life section. --  ShadowJester07  ►Talk  15:21, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You're also missing "Clark Kent" and "Superman" that he used to get, because of his resemblance to Clark Kent with the glasses in the dugout, and Superman when he was on the mound without them.2602:304:CFD3:2EE0:B945:7212:117E:313D (talk) 22:15, 14 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Too many quotes

[edit]

The quotes in the Carlos Zambrano article that you cited seem very different than the deleted Greg Maddux quotes. (Frankly, the Zambrano pullquotes-- "I made one mistake"; "I felt good today"; "I threw strikes and made my pitches"-- are all boilerplate drivel that could apply to any pitcher ever.) The Maddux quotes under discussion are longer, true, but not at all generic. Consequently, they are far more illustrative of his character, savvy, and style of pitching.

I would ask you to compare the disputed internal quotes and pullquotes for Maddux NOT to Zambrano's-- where the quotes are barely worthwhile-- but instead, to the various quotes in the Wiki articles for Lou Gehrig, Rickey Henderson, Pete Rose, Phil Rizzuto, Alex Rodriguez, Albert Belle, Satchel Paige, Ty Cobb, Barry Bonds, Pedro Martinez, Stan Musial, and numerous others. For many athletes, supplemental material (including quotes by and about the subject) has been requested by editors and admins, to keep articles from focusing too much on the bland recitation of statistics. (i.e. "In 1995, he scored 15 touchdowns. In 1996, he scored 22 touchdowns. In 1996, he was injured. In 1997...")

I have not re-reinserted the quotes, because their relevance and value should be discussed here first. However, I hope you will reconsider your edits in this light. Thanks!208.120.227.69 04:48, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]


While I agree with you simply regurgitating statistics would make the article bland and repetitive, adding quotes all over the article seems rather unorthodox for Wikipedia articles. However, The Michael Jordan article uses two unique and defining quotes from notable sources to explain his legacy and reputation See Michael Jordan#Legacy. His other quotes are kept on his Wikiquote page. Quotable people George Washington, Franklin D. Roosevelt, or Mahatma Gandhi, only use quotes when addressing specific issues about the person, ei concepts they introduced or very important things they said, verses the Maddux quotes (though substantial) which are in essence are being used decoration.
I do not think you need quotes. Look at the Chris Young (pitcher) article. The authors did a fine job at writing the article, keeping it informative while also non-repetitive. I guess the ability to make a page more interesting relies on the artistry or creativity of an author. Maddux has led an interesting career, perhaps it would be best to go into detail as to what made it so interesting - the article (in its current) seemingly basically outlines his life, and seemingly spliced various statistics into the article. Surely, there are biographies, gamelogs, and articles which go into further depth about Maddux and his playing career. Also, please be sure to cite where you got your information from, see WP:Cite and WP:CITET. Thanks for your time --►ShadowJester07  14:32, 9 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LA Trade

[edit]

For note, Until either SD, LA, or the MLB releases an official statement that confirms the trade went through, this article is best left stating Maddux is still with the Padres. Please see WP:Crystal Ball for further reference. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  02:39, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, see WP:VERIFY for why this article should say he's a Dodger. There is no requirement for an official statement when it can be sources from reputable news sources.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:47, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Forget official statement - team even said after the LA Times report that no trade has been made. [2] "According to ESPN.com's Jayson Stark, no deal has been reached, but conversations are ongoing. Dodgers spokesman Josh Rawitch and general manager Ned Colletti would not confirm the deal to the Times either." This does not fall within WP:VERIFY when the team denies it.JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 02:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And from the latest LA Times report that is the only source of this rumor: "Dodger spokesman Josh Rawitch and General Manager Ned Colletti said no deal was in place, and declined to say whether the club was even in discussions about Maddux. Major League Baseball forbids club officials from discussing possible trades involving players who have been placed on waivers." JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 02:55, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well if there's a denial from the team, then yes, it shouldn't be added here. I was only arguing that the absence of a confirmation isn't enough, not a denial. A denial obviously voids the news report, but the absence of an official confirmation would not.►Chris NelsonHolla! 02:58, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've semi-protected the article. Mackensen (talk) 03:04, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last year mlb.com and some news sources reported that the White Sox had released Scott Podsednik, and the Cubs had claimed him off waivers. Minutes after reading the story I started to watch the Sox play on TV, and saw Podsednik playing left field. I do not think either team denied the claim, Andrew Seligman, who had reported the story for AP, probably made a mistake or something. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  03:13, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
That does not mean edits should not have been made at the time. If it was reported as fact by reliable sources that Podsednik was a Cub, then it was verifiable and should have been added to the encyclopedia accordingly. Whether or not it turned out to be true is irrelevant. That violates no policy, including WP:CRYSTAL.►Chris NelsonHolla! 04:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
By your logic any rumor reported by a legit source is grounds for an update. That's where you are obviously wrong and confirmation is needed. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 04:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No, because I'm not talking about rumors at all. A rumor from anywhere should not be added as fact because it is not. A report from ESPN stating Greg Maddux is a Dodger as fact (assuming there are no reports from sources saying it has NOT happened) should without question be added. Obviously, if you have the Dodgers' GM saying "we have not yet acquired Maddux" that would void the ESPN report's verifiability. But if all you had was an ESPN article stating it as fact, then it would pass WP:VERIFY and need to be included. Whether or not the report turned out to be incorrect is irrelevant.►Chris NelsonHolla! 04:50, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Actually I agree with Chris to that extent. Even if it does not pan out, it's still worth mentioning per WP:NNC as long as its appropriate and correct. --  StarScream1007  ►Talk  05:46, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Posednik/Cubs deal was different. The Cubs did claim him off waivers, as reported, but the Sox had the right to (and exercised the right to) pull him back off waivers. So the news reports were correct, and it should have been noted on his page. MLB.com is reporting the trade is all but done, and asking players for both teams for their reaction to the trade; It's highly unlikely that it won't be a done deal.Barryap (talk) 17:44, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Retirement

[edit]
Greg Maddux has yet to retire, he's expected to in a couple days. Until things are fact, I'd say you wiki's shouldnt state almost certain speculation as fact. So I changed it, but someone will be anal, and change it back. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.184.1.153 (talk) 02:59, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not speculation... Scott Boras confirmed that Maddux will announce his retirement on Monday. JustSomeRandomGuy32 (talk) 03:17, 6 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Last MLB appearance

[edit]

Maddux last MLB appearance should be listed as October 15, 2008. It was the NLCS game against the Phillies. http://mlb.mlb.com/news/wrap.jsp?ymd=20081015&content_id=3623499&vkey=wrapup2005&fext=.jsp&team=home Hunnydaisy (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Chicks dig the long ball

[edit]

I'm kind of surprised not to see a reference to these commercials with Glavine, featuring Maddux's immortal tag line. At the time, it was referenced incessantly by the media and fans. Even now, sportswriters still sometimes use a "chicks dig the long ball" reference when discussing the steroid controversy. Would anybody consider adding this?BeRose (talk) 16:11, 31 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Organization and mythos of Maddux

[edit]

I think the "Talent and accomplishments section" lacks focus and really has several parts to it that don't necessarily mix.

1. At the beginning it talk about the stories of his 'preternatural abilities' and being perceived as a super intelligent pitcher. I like this part but I think it should be in a different section. Either the pitching style section or a legacy/mythology (or something along those lines) section that could be added somewhere around there. There are several more stories that I think are pretty interesting/valuable that could be added. What do people think of this?

2. The two paragraphs with Koufax, Gibson, and Seaver don't seem to be applicable at all in that section. I'm inclined just to remove them (maybe leave the "People think I'm smart" quote with the mythology). Thoughts?

3. The rest of this section actually seem to fit the "Talent and Accomplishments" billing. This should be the entire section I think.


I didn't want to make this moves without getting feedback first but if there are no responses or objections I'll probably just make the changes in a week or so. TommyALong (talk) 15:42, 7 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

season by season table?

[edit]

Seems like a table that shows wins, losses, ERA, errors, etc. season by season would be very good and helpful content. TCO (talk) 17:07, 9 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

statistics notes

[edit]
Resolved
 – No consensus to keep. Request sources that refer to stats in prose as opposed to a user query into a stats database.—Bagumba (talk) 05:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

While I don't doubt that the recently added statistics notes are correct, I wonder if they are notable or trivial. I'd feel more comfortable if they were mentioned in a reliable source other than a stats site. Thoughts?—Bagumba (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A side note is that urls should be provided for the references if these do stay.—Bagumba (talk) 09:04, 26 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think the four statistical notes I've added to the article are significant. I'll discuss each one individually. But overall, these four statistical notes add weight to the conclusion of the article that Maddux is highly underrated. I have many more Maddux statistics that are compelling, but the four I included stand out for this reason. Now I'll discuss each of the four statistical notes.
Statistical note 1 - He is also the only pitcher in MLB history to win over 300 games, strikeout over 3000 batters and walk fewer than 1000:
Before I edited the article, the introduction had the following note: "He is one of only 10 pitchers ever to achieve both 300 wins and 3000 strikeouts". It is more notable that Maddux is the only player in MLB history to win 300 games, fan over 3000 hitters and walk fewer than 1000. It's one sentence that statistically introduces the reader on how Maddux was as a pitcher. As a result, I removed the older statistical note and added this one.
Statistical note 2 - His career K/BB of 3.37 is the highest among all 300 game winners:
There are baseball analysts that believe judging a pitcher on strikeouts alone is flawed. Strikeouts can't be viewed in a "vacuum". While not perfect, strikeout to walk ratio is a better method of judging pitchers on pitching ability. With this statistical note, I am pointing out that Maddux K/BB is superior among MLB's greatest.
Statistical note 3 - Maddux's 19-2 record is the highest single season winning percentage for a MLB pitcher with at least 20 decisions since Al Spalding went 54-5 in 1875:
The paragraph this note was added is explaining how superb his '95 season was. This stat is amazing in describing how dominant Maddux was in '95.
Statistical note 4 - He and Christy Mathewson are the only two MLB pitchers in history to have a 10 season stretch with at least 180 wins, an ERA of 2.5 or lower, WHIP of 1.05 or lower and a Won/Loss percentage greater than .680. Maddux is the only MLB pitcher to accomplish this in the live ball era:
This statistical note was added to "Talents and Accomplishments" section, specifically in the paragraph that covers career statistical notes. This paragraph describes how dominant Maddux was during his prime. As a result, I wanted to see which pitchers have had the most dominant 10 year stretch (ie prime) using the three most common stats used to evaluate starting pitchers: Wins, ERA and WHIP. However, the dead-ball era poses a problem. Too many pitchers from the dead-ball era have low ERAs and WHIPs compared to modern day pitchers. Add in the fact that dead-ball era pitchers pitched every 2-3 days, these three stats don't translate well across eras. In comes W/L %. These dead-ball era pitchers had to pitch against one another. Over the long haul, the better pitchers of this era would have higher W/L % as would the better pitchers of the live-ball era. Granted, using W/L % as an equalizer across eras isn't perfect but it does a good job for a simple statistic. As a result, it is notable that Maddux had one of the most dominant 10-year stretches using this simple methodology.
On Bagumba's concern on using information sourced from baseball-reference.com: If we can't reference information from this site, we have a lot of baseball player Wikipedia pages to clean up. This URL details the completeness of the baseball-reference.com data: http://www.baseball-reference.com/about/coverage.shtml. However, I welcome someone from MLBs office verifying/auditing these stats.
I agree with Bagumba's statement that the URL for the baseball-reference.com pitching season finder page should be included in the source. I will read up on how to do this and do it by the weekend. This page is a form that allows one to query the baseball-reference.com database. It is a very intuitive form - not complicated. However, to see the full results of the query requires a subscription. Cidgrad89 (talk) 04:21, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
On Bagumba's concern on using information sourced from baseball-reference.com: If we can't reference information from this site, we have a lot of baseball player Wikipedia pages to clean up.: Let me try to clarify my original point. There are lots of statistics on b-r.com, esp. any number of combinations of queries one can make (e.g. number of players with player with X wins and Y FB/GO ratio and Z quality starts, etc). They would all be correct, but are they notable or even original research if another non-stat source (e.g. Elias) is not also reporting it.—Bagumba (talk) 06:51, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that plugging a set of criteria into a statistics database to generate a list of players meeting that criteria is research. Therefore, an editor adding this information is conducting original research. It does not even need to reach a question of notability (which appears to be non-existent not because the statistics fail to reveal something interesting about the player, but because notability requires reliable sources using these statistics to evaluate Maddux and that is not happening here). Indrian (talk) 07:23, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Another part that suggests WP:OR is that for the grouped stats - the "only player with x *insert stat here*, y *insert other stat here groupings - is why the particular numbers are significant. The big round numbers are reasonably clear and aren't too big a concern, but setting a limit of 1.05 WHIP looks... manufactured.
If any of the stats sites published a list of top players based on the stats, or list of players that met certain criteria - separate from being able to sort or search on those criteria - that would seem reasonable to list as a reference for the claims. In that case by publishing it themselves, it would be reasonable to presume, even without an accompanying blurb about its significance, that the site thinks its of some notability.  Afaber012  (talk)  07:14, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greg Maddux. 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) 20:42, 23 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Greg Maddux. 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) 04:04, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Greg_Maddux&oldid=1252195070"