Jump to content

Talk:Heath Bell

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

Miami Marlins

[edit]

Heath HAS passed his physcial so his deal is now official. http://twitter.com/#!/Ken_Rosenthal/status/143523159134572544 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Metfan722 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Saves Champion in infobox

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Listing_saves_leader_in_infobox. —Bagumba (talk) 21:12, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Miami and Arizona in the lead

[edit]

A recent edit removed from the lead Bell's leaving San Diego, his stint with Miami, and his trade to Arizona. Per WP:LEAD, "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points—including any prominent controversies." Why should his leaving San Diego as a free agent and his stint in Miami not be mentioned as an overview of his career, and why should it not be mentioned how he ended up in Arizona? Also, disputing that he struggled in Miami seems to give WP:UNDUE weight that he had a good year. In fact, is there a source that even says he had a good year? Please propose alternative wording for his leaving San Diego, stint in Miami and explanation for how he got to Arizona.—Bagumba (talk) 05:36, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with the current version. Transactions are usually not included in the lead and his problems in Miami are talked about in the Miami section below. Not sure how you suggest that not mentioning Miami suggests he had a good year? The key points to be summarized are his success in San Diego and the fact that he is now with Arizona. You could add something that he also briefly played with Miami but I don't think thats necessary. Spanneraol (talk) 12:46, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The transactions themselves shouldn't be mentioned, unless we're talking about the Herschel Walker trade or something similar, but I do agree that the lead should mention the teams he's played for at a minimum. It mentions he was traded to San Diego, and that's good. It should mention that he signed with Miami and was traded to Arizona after a down year. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:37, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The later part of your response seems to support mentioning the transactions.—Bagumba (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can see if a player is a journeyman that the lead might be trimmed to not mention every transaction. However, Bell has only played for four teams, and readers would want a preview in the lead why he left SD after 3 All-Star years, and why he left Miami after one year. Remember, many will not read an article past its lead, and those that do should have a roadmap of what lies ahead. Other GA bios with more transactions than Bell like Joe Nathan, Aubrey Huff, and Jim Thome detail the teams in their career in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 15:03, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well you could simply say he signed with Miami as a free agent and was then traded to Arizona... I would not go into it being a down year or a poor year in that section because you dont want to spend too much time on it when his time in Miami was so short. The main section on Miami can explain the details of why he was traded. Spanneraol (talk) 15:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Re: Bagumba, I meant not mentioning the players traded or contract values agreed upon. I was inartful as I drink my morning coffee. I agree saying he was signed by Miami and then traded to Arizona after one year. As to what we say about the one year in Miami... it shouldn't be too extensive, sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:22, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Spannerol, Muboshgu: The text deleted was "A free agent after the 2011 season, he signed with the Miami Marlins. He struggled in his only season in Miami before being traded to Arizona." The one word "struggles" seems neither to "spend too much time on it" nor "too extensive". It seems to say "struggled" after he was demoted from closer twice in a season, did not get along with his manager, and blew 9 of 27 saves with an ERA over 5.00. I think it would be overkill to require WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV to say that he "struggled", but certainly many sources can be found that support this assessment. This is not the case where he had a borderline off-year.—Bagumba (talk) 16:14, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just don't really like using a POV word like "struggled" without any context. Why is that even necessary? Spanneraol (talk) 16:56, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is plenty of context in the body on the struggles. I can see how it might appear to be POV since it is an opinion, but it is a WP:NPOV overview of his season based on weight of sources.—Bagumba (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(ec) As noted, the struggle part isn't needed in the lead. Obviously he did, but it's not for us to note. The teams he played for should be in the lead, so I added a small sentence for that. Simply saying he spent one season in miami before being traded to arizona should suffice for the second para of the lead though. Wizardman 16:58, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When would it be ok to discuss struggles in the lead? Is the concern that it seems negative?—Bagumba (talk) 17:12, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To put aside the question of negative versus positive commentary, how about if a player had done well for a year and then got traded? Does it seem sufficiently essential to note in the lead paragraph that "Player X excelled in his only season in city Y, before being traded to city Z."? I think the issue of the trade is a bit of a red herring, as (leaving aside obvious inciting incidents) there are many potential factors underlying trades, which are often not revealed publicly. I think the focus should be on the performance itself: if it is sufficiently noteworthy (for better or worse) in context of the player's career, then it may be worth worth mentioning. isaacl (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think both positive and negative points can be mentioned in the lead. I'm not sure why a reader is forced to read the entire article to get a high level detail about his Miami stint. For a three-time All-Star who gets signed as a free agent, getting traded after one just one year is notable. A long-time closer losing their job twice in a year with that many blown saves and an uncharacteristic 5.00+ ERA is notable, and I'm at a loss to see why a single word "struggled" is seen as non-neutral or long-winded.—Bagumba (talk) 23:01, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The trade is a significant event and so I think everyone agrees in including this information. Since it would be unwieldy to include a high-level detail of each season in a player's career, an editorial decision needs to be made on which seasons should be called out, to give them appropriate weight. So what is everyone's view on the 2012 season: is this performance significantly noteworthy, compared with the other seasons? Personally, I agree his performance was considerably worse, and so warrants mentioning. isaacl (talk) 23:27, 29 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Assessment comment

[edit]

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Heath Bell/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Gives a broad outline of Bell's life, though more backstory needs to be added, as well as some more detail on his time with the Mets/Norfolk. Edofedinburgh 04:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 04:41, 19 March 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 17:21, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 38 external links on Heath Bell. 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) 11:20, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Heath_Bell&oldid=1199803618"