Talk:Rubén Rivera

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 04:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Baserunning incident

Just curious...I don't want to get involved with the normal elitist Wikipedia politics garbage, but why was the section regarding his baserunning incident removed? Most people that are coming here are probably looking for that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.205.224.216 (talk) 00:51, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Because all of it is unsourced and judgmental, avoiding any neutral point of view or encyclopedic value. I'm sorry that striving for unbiased accuracy is too "elitist policial garbage" for you. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:31, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm with the previous guy -- the baserunning incident is key to this guy's bio. Figure out a way to say it nonbiased, I guess. It's that and stealing Jete's glove -- that's this guy's entire life. He's pretty noteworthy for those two reasons, compared to similarly bad ex-MLBers of the same years. Vegaswiki (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

To include it, it would need a reliable source that establishes it as a notable incident. I'm unconvinced. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

Didn't he get cut from the Giants shortly after the incident? Doesn't that make it relevant to his career? What would it take to put it back in, a link to a news article? That's not hard to find.

Seriously, though, the only two things anyone remembers about Rivera are stealing Derek Jeter's glove, and that weird baserunning play. Why are you so determined to keep deleting something that everyone else wants to see? Hatster301 (talk) 22:54, 26 October 2011 (UTC)

We have policies at Wikipedia, specifically regarding the need for reliable sources and ensuring no undue weight for any event. If you can provide references that suggest any importance for this event, it can be included. I've said that from the start. Nobody has produced that. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:11, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

There are plenty of websites, articles, and videos that detail the incident and it's noteworthiness. This guy is only noteworthy for those 2 incidents, otherwise his bio should be two sentences. Stuff like this causes people to distrust Wikipedia -- actually important information is excluded because it doesn't fit a literal defition [from a nonexpert user]according to some 21-year old living in his mom's basement who spends 14 hours a day editing Wikipedia, but actually knows nothing about the topic. Vegaswiki (talk) 18:27, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, now what's the problem? I provided no less than four reliable sources establishing the notability of the baserunning incident, including being #9 on Bleacher Report's 25 Biggest Screw-ups in Baseball History (Bill Buckner was #1). You now have the "references that suggest any importance for this event" that you asked for, so why are you still trying to keep it out of the article? -- Hatster301 (talk) 06:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

So Bleacher Report ranks it as the 9th biggest "screw-up"? What does that mean? Bleacher Report as a source is pretty suspect on its best days, so there's that. Why focus on this when you could pick up on #'s 2 through 8? How notable could this be if the best evidence you can point to is Bleacher Report ranking it 9th, as opposed to the Bill Buckner situation, which would cause millions of Google hits? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Bleacher Report gets 13 million unique visitors per month, and is the 4th most popular sports website behind ESPN, Yahoo Sports, and CBS Sports. Why don't I focus on #'s 2 through 8? Because each and every one of them is already included the associated Wikipedia article. The only play in the top 10 that's not in Wikipedia is the Ruben Rivera play, and that's only because you keep removing it. And finally, a Google search for "bill buckner world series error" returns 71,600 results, not "millions". FYI, a search for "ruben rivera baserunning error" returns 91,300. -- Hatster301 (talk) 07:24, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Bleacher Report is not a reliable source, because they accept content from its readers. Also, WP:GHITS is not a valid argument. If Buckner does indeed get that few hits, it's because it was before the internet age. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The baserunning incident absolutely defines Ruben Rivera's career. Omitting the incident is like excluding Watergate from the Richard Nixon article. It may not be incredibly important on a global scale, but there is nothing more significant in the scope of this player's history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicklegends (talk • contribs) 21:34, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Not this again. Prove to the community that this is Rivera's Watergate. I would think stealing Jeter's glove was his Watergate, but whatever. That was significant because it resulted in his release. What did his baserunning mistake result in other than an out? – Muboshgu (talk) 14:18, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

It was the last major league game he ever played. The Giants released him in disgust and he never made it back to the majors. Nicklegends (talk) 10:21, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Not true. The gaffe was May 27, and he played on May 28. Demonstrate that that's why he was released, and then we have something. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:56, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

He played for one inning on May 28, and was released less than a week later on June 3, without a single at-bat during that span. The Baltimore Sun would seem to agree that the baserunning play was part of the reason for his release:

"He appeared in 31 games with the Giants this year, batting .180 with two homers and four RBIs and gaining unwanted attention for a base-running snafu that was replayed many times on SportsCenter." Hatster301 (talk) 21:51, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Since you've apparently run out of excuses to keep deleting the baserunning incident, and every one of your excuses has been shown to be either baseless, dubious, or outright false, I'm going ahead and restoring it. The excuses you have provided so far are listed below:

"It's not notable"

This is ridiculous. Numerous reliable sources have been provided, including ESPN, USA Today, San Francisco Chronicle, and Deadspin.com, referencing the play days, months, even years after it happened. The incident's notability isn't even remotely in question; removing it on the basis of lack of notability is absurd.

"It's not relevant, because it didn't affect his career"

This is silly. He was released from the team only a week after the play, with no at-bats in between, just two months into the season. The source I provided (which you seem to be ignoring) from the Baltimore Sun concurs that the incident was part of the reason he lost his job (although his .180 batting average obviously didn't help).

"There's no consensus to keep it in"

27 different editors have revised or added onto the baserunning section over the years, including 7 who have tried to restore it after you deleted it. Compared to only two editors that have removed it, it's plainly clear that the WP community overwhelmingly wants the incident to be included in the article. Moreover, 4 out of 4 people on this talk page not named Muboshgu take exception to your efforts to keep it out. I don't know what planet you live on, but here on Earth, when 93% of the article editors and 100% of the talk page editors agree on something, then that's a consensus if there ever was one.

"The consensus is for me to keep deleting it, so that it stays out of the article"

How is there is a consensus for you to remove it, when you have zero support on the talk page? Your logic is truly baffling.

"It's not as notable as Bill Buckner's error, because a Google search for the Buckner play would return millions of hits"

When I pointed out to you that a Google search for Bill Buckner's error returned thousands, not "millions" of hits, and that the number of hits was comparable to Rivera's miscue, you suddenly reversed course and claimed that Google hits was "not a valid argument." If it wasn't a valid argument, then why did you bring it up in the first place?

In summary, the following are reasons to include the baserunning incident in the article:

1) It's notable, as evidenced by the plethora of reliable sources

2) It's relevant, as evidenced by the fact that he was fired not long afterwards

3) It's supported by an overwhelming consensus of the Wikipedia community

And the list of reasons against including it are as follows:

1) Muboshgu doesn't want to

Thus, I'm putting in back in. I'll kindly ask you to refrain from deleting it again if you have not established a consensus on this talk page, and especially if you cannot get one single editor to voice their agreement. Thank you for your cooperation. --Hatster301 (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Nobody has demonstrated that this belongs. All I see are reasons debunked by WP:NOTNEWS. Demonstrate that this was the reason he was released. And maintain WP:NPOV, WP:UNDUE, and other policies, including WP:V. You wrote that that was his last MLB game: it wasn't. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:24, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Did you read one word I said? Demonstrate that was the reason he was released? I did that already. Twice. The second time, I even complained that you ignored it the first time, and here you are ignoring it again. Don't try to pretend it doesn't exist because you didn't bother to read it.

You also failed to address, among other things, why you think the plethora of WP editors who disagree with you doesn't count as a consensus, but when zero people agree with you, somehow that qualifies as a consensus. You also tried to claim I was mistaken about it being Riveras last MLB game. Not only is that entirely beside the point (does it really matter if it was his last game or his second to last game?), but I didn't even say that; that was someone else. You apparently haven't put much attention into getting your information straight.

Please don't waste people's time by asking for evidence if you're just going to ignore it. Every single argument you've made has either been contradicted by evidence, ignorant of the facts, or flat-out untrue. If you can't support your point of view, then just give up and move along; don't try to ignore the evidence that proves you wrong and talk in circles by recycling the same discredited arguments over and over. And if you can't legitimately justify removing a large section of an article, then you have no business doing so. Wikipedia is a community effort; show some respect for the community. Thank you for understanding. --Hatster301 (talk) 07:38, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

You haven't read a word I've written. I've asked for evidence that hasn't been provided. There are news stories about the baserunning gaffe, but nothing to suggest it's the reason he was released. Even the article about his release, written one week later, doesn't mention the baserunning, but mention his .180 batting average. My last edit included the baserunning gaffe and Miller's interpretation of it in one sentence, which is what I consider due weight for the incident. That massive section is undue weight; it's as much text as the rest of his career, including the glove stealing, which is much more integral to this bio because that was the reason the Yankees released him in 2002. I know other editors support my position; they just aren't actively watching this page. I'm going to seek outside input from WT:BASEBALL to settle this. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Muboshgu asked for other opinions. I just watched a video[2] of it and read an article[3] describing Rivera's baserunning blunder. If its to be put in the article, describe it maintaining a NPOV(Preferrably lifting the description from the article I supplied a link from, or any other describing the play) and put in a reference. While Rivera's baserunning was funny, its notability is questionable. It didn't happen in a big game. George Bell trying to go 1st to 3rd on a single to left field in Game 5 of the 1985 ALCS makes this play look trivial. How about Jerry Dybzinski's blunder in the Game 4 of the 1983 ALCS? Bell's blunder is barely mentioned at WP.

Put the Rivera play in the article as I advised, read Bob Anderson's article so as to have a good laugh over a 1959 baseball play, and brush up on your baseball history. That's what I prescribe....William 14:53, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

My two cents on this... the article needs a bit more information on this "base running gaffe" than is currently in the article.. a brief description of what exactly happened for instance... I would not give it its own section or add the quotes like in the original version of the article.. but it does need enough so that casual readers would understand what Jon Miller was talking about. Spanneraol (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree. It is a notable event, reported over a vast array of resources, and helped define his career. It should be included in the article. A mention during his time with the Giants seems appropriate.Neonblak ^talk - 15:41, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the event doesn't seem notable; because of the back-and-forth it looks funny, but in the end it's just a missed base at second (and a poor decision to run home during the second half of the play). To be included in this article, there should be notable, reliable, independent sources given to describe how the event affected the player's career. isaacl (talk) 16:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• The play does not need to meet our notability standards for a standalone article in order to be included within an article of a subject that meets notability. And the reference already in the article makes it clear that this was more than a routine baserunning play that should be entirely ignored, whether or not it affected Rivera's career (and the fact that he was released a week later raises the possibility that it might have). That said, it does need to meet verifiability, BLP and other standards, such as undue weight. And I think the long section describing the play ran afoul of undue weight. On the other hand the one line description currently in the article is probably too little, for example it begs the question of the nature of the gaffe. So at least the gaffe should be described, e.g., "In extra innings, Rivera missed 2nd base and ended up running back and forth between the bases and getting thrown out at home despite an errant throw to third base." This is one source that could be used as a reference. Rlendog (talk) 16:10, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • I'm not sure what reference you are thinking of; is it this one? To me, that one isn't a real editorial judgment on the relative importance of the event in baseball history, but an announcer effectively entertaining his audience, which naturally includes the use of hyperbole. All the same, I think we are in agreement in one respect: I do not believe standalone article notability is required (my use of "notable" was as an adjective for the word "sources"), just sufficient evidence that this event is a significant one in the person's life. For example, if sources can be given that he is indeed best remembered for this sequence of missteps, then it may be appropriate to include this info in the article. isaacl (talk) 17:06, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
  • Regarding the SI.com reference you provided, it's basic routine coverage; I don't think any of the events described in it warrant inclusion in a Wikipedia article, solely based on that citation. isaacl (talk) 17:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• • Right, and I'm still not fully convinced any of the coverage goes beyond routine. The 2010 article on Miller references his call, but again, that might speak more to Miller's career than Rivera's. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, the SI article is not much more than routine coverage (although the fact that a national weekly magazine saw fit to discuss this play makes it a bit more than the routine coverage from a daily newspaper the day after the game). I was just suggesting that as a source for a neutral description of the play without undue weight. Rlendog (talk) 13:49, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad I sought input. I was sure that the full section Hatster has tried to include is a BLP violation for all the reasons confirmed by you all. In the spirit of compromise I for the first time agreed to let it remain in as a single sentence, after a year plus of trying to keep it out of this article entirely. I'm wondering how it should be worded if it were to stay; that might help people form their judgments on whether it should be mentioned at all or excluded completely. I can agree with Spanneraol that the sentence I wrote isn't quite enough context if it is to stay, but I'm wary of giving it too much weight. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:13, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you guys for your input. Just in case some of it was overlooked, I'd like to review the evidence that has so far been provided for the noteworthiness and relevance of the incident. The Associated Press, via ESPN.com (which was actually the same article as in the SI.com link posted earlier) recalled the play a week later, as one of the "crazy plays" that had taken place at Pacific Bell Park that season (being a week later, I believe it qualifies as more than just "basic routine coverage"). The San Francisco Chronicle recalled the "bonehead play" a year and a half later, in an interview with Jon Miller. USA Today recalled the "hilarious baserunning gaffes" after Jon Miller was inducted into the hall of fame in 2010. The Pinstriped Bible, the official blog of the Yankees' YES Network, summarized Rivera's career, in part, by saying "Most notably, the outfielder will live on in infamy for [the baserunning play]." (emphasis added). Deadspin.com listed Rivera as part of the "100 Worst Baseball Players Of All Time" citing the "least coherent act of base running in history" as a career lowlight, in addition to the Jeter theft and his .216 career batting average. And, as mentioned earlier in this page Bleacher Report lists the play as the 9th biggest "screw-up" in baseball history, with Bill Buckner's error coming it at #1.

As for evidence that it affected his career, the fact that he was released shortly after the play (as soon as the Giants had someone to fill the roster spot) speaks for itself, as does the fact that it was just 2 months into the season. To put it in comparison, in 2011, the Giants waited until nearly the end of the year to release Miguel Tejada and Aaron Rowand, who had struggled at the plate most of the year. Thus, the baserunning play was likely a factor in Rivera's release. Moreover, I previously provided a reference to a Baltimore Sun article from August 2003 (2 1/2 months after his release), summarizing his stint with the Giants as "...batting .180 with two homers and four RBIs and gaining unwanted attention for a base-running snafu...", which supports the contention that the baserunning gaffe was part of the reason for his release. I called Muboshgu's attention to this not once, but twice, and both times he ignored it, and repeated his request to "Demonstrate that this was the reason he was released.", conveniently ignoring the fact that I had just done exactly that. This is why I feel Muboshgu is deliberately being stubborn and hypocritical. Every time I provide what he asks for, he ignores it and either asks for the exact same thing again, or switches gears and starts asking for something else entirely. For him to claim that he keeps asking for evidence that "hasn't been provided" shows that he either isn't reading a word anyone else says, or is just lying to avoid admitting he was wrong. I find that both unconstructive and disrespectful.

As for the "undue weight" argument, I would point out that, although the baserunning incident isn't much more important than the Jeter theft, it needs more explanation simply because it's a more complicated play to explain. The Jeter theft can be summarized in just a couple of sentences: "He stole Jeter's stuff. He got kicked off the team. The end". The baserunning play, however, needs much more detail to give the reader a good idea of exactly how and why it happened, and thus warrants a larger portion of the article because of its complexity, not because of its relevance.

Finally, if the multitude of references above aren't enough to establish the notability and relevance of the play, I've dug up a few more to further reinforce its significance. Then-Giants Manager Felipe Alou, in an interview with the San Francisco Chronicle two weeks after the play, quipped "That's the only new thing I've seen in 25 years." Henry Schulman of the Chronicle, after Rivera's release, stated "He will be remembered for his wacky dash around the bases against Arizona on May 27." And the San Mateo Daily Journal, also following his release, stated "He will most be remembered as a Giant for his embarrassing baserunning blunder last week."

I believe I've now satisfied all the requirements for notability, relevance, and neutrality. Muboshgu probably still thinks that there isn't any evidence of anything at all whatsoever. What does everyone else think? - Hatster301 (talk) 22:59, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Rivera's release is a a matter of opinion. Remember WP:NPOV. Just put the play in, and save the commentary....William 23:12, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that. I don't believe the article ever stated that the play was the reason for his release - only that he was released one week afterwards, and never played another MLB game, both of which are undisputed facts. The reader is free to draw their own conclusions. - Hatster301 (talk) 23:57, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

Much of what you're implying is synthesis and original research. He played in one game after the gaffe, and was then released: that much we know. You say it took an extra week for them to find a replacement. How do you know this? Comparing Rivera to Rowand and Tejada is apples and oranges (since they held onto those players longer due to their salaries, no team likes to release an expensive veteran). "...batting .180 with two homers and four RBIs and gaining unwanted attention for a base-running snafu..." provides zero evidence that the gaffe was a factor in his being released. Other sources show the average to be the reason. Meanwhile, the Jeter theft is beyond any doubt the single reason the Yankees released him, so that to me seems to be the career defining moment. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:26, 20 July 2012 (UTC)

We know it took a week for them to find a replacement, because according to the Chronice article posted earlier (which you apparently didn't read), he was replaced by Jason Christiansen, who was making his return from Tommy John surgery the year before. As for Rowand and Tejada, their contracts were guaranteed, so the Giants had to pay them whether or not they kept them. Or in other words, it wouldn't have cost them any money to release them, thus their releases are comparable to Rivera's. And finally, the Baltimore Sun article mentions the baserunning gaffe in the same sentence as the .180 average, which you even admit was a cause of his release. Even so, as mentioned above, the article never directly said that the baserunning gaffe was the reason for his release. It just stated the facts as they occured, and let the reader reach their own conclusions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hatster301 (talk • contribs) 00:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

According to that article (which I had read, you're not assuming good faith, says Rivera "was deemed expendable after third baseman Pedro Feliz proved he could play the outfield" and says nothing about the baserunning mistake. Christiansen is a relief pitcher, so not a replacement for Rivera on the depth chart. Rowand and Tejada absolutely would cost them money, the money they guaranteed him. Teams don't want to pay players to play for other teams. The Baltimore Sun article mentions the baserunning gaffe in the same sentence as his batting average, but that article doesn't say why he was released. It only says "He appeared in 31 games with the Giants this year, batting .180 with two homers and four RBIs and gaining unwanted attention for a base-running snafu that was replayed many times on SportsCenter." Your section tries to imply that this is the reason he was released, which is unverified, and therefore synthesis. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:46, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

How do you figure the article "says nothing" about the baserunning mistake? Are you blind? It says just that in the sentence right before the one you cited. Here is the exact quote from the article: "RIVERA OUT: Rivera's short tenure with the Giants was flavorful. 'He will be remembered for his wacky dash around the bases against Arizona on May 27'. He hit just .180 in 50 at-bats and was deemed expendable after third baseman Pedro Feliz proved he could play the outfield. If Rivera is not claimed on waivers over the next three days, he will become a free agent." (emphasis added

The references within a few weeks of the incident, to my mind, fall in the category of routine coverage and crystal ball gazing: when the writer says Rivera will be best known for his blunder, it's just a guess. The references in later years are better for showing that Rivera is known for this incident, as well as Alou's quote. I do believe there is a problem with placing undue weight on recent events even with these quotes, as it's human nature to forget about the many blunders of the past, particularly when there isn't Internet video available for them—I'm pretty sure there have been much more egregious examples of poor base running. Nonetheless, if this event is what frequently turns up in references to Rivera, then it may be appropriate for inclusion. I agree with William that any connection to his release is speculative without sources, and does not warrant inclusion. isaacl (talk) 00:00, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

This discussion has gotten off track. I think consensus is that the incident should be mentioned.. so let's just write a brief description about what happened, a few sentences at most, mention Jon Miller's comment and then end it with something along the lines of "he was released a week later with his batting average at .180" and then everyone can move on to more interesting disputes.Spanneraol (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. Someone who is not me should draft something. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

In 2003, Rivera joined the Giants, who had briefly owned his rights in 2001, as a free agent. However, Rivera struggled early on in the season, hitting only .180 in 50 at bats, and was released on June 3. Shortly before his release, Rivera was involved in a bizarre baserunning play against the Arizona Diamondbacks on May 27, 2003. The game was a 2-2 tie, with one out in the bottom of the 9th inning, and Rivera was on first base. When a fly ball was hit to deep right-center field, Rivera ran to second and started to run to third, turned around and went back to first (thinking the fly ball would be caught), turned around again and went back to third (missing second base this time) turned around to go retouch second, then turned around again and went back to third. The throw to third, though in time to get Rivera out, was mishandled, and Rivera was safe at third. Rivera then made an ill-advised attempt to advance to home, and was easily thrown out. The Giants would end up winning in the game in 12 innings. Giants broadcaster Jon Miller famously described the play as "the worst baserunning in the history of the game!"

How's that look? (links and refs to be added later)Hatster301

• I tweaked your version a bit... taking out some pov comments and supositions about what he was thinking... also a few things arent needed... the article already mentioned him being on the Giants in 2001 so it doesnt need to be repeated here and I changed some of the uses of "Rivera" to "he" to make the writing flow better. Dont really need the final score of the game as it isnt that important here. Not wild about the term "bizarre" but cant think of a better term right now.. hopefully someone else can.

In 2003, Rivera joined the Giants as a free agent. However, he struggled early on in the season, hitting only .180 in 50 at bats, and was released on June 3. Shortly before his release, Rivera was involved in a bizarre baserunning play against the Arizona Diamondbacks on May 27, 2003. Rivera was on first base with the game tied in the bottom of the ninth. When a fly ball was hit to deep right-center field, he ran to second and started to run to third, turned around and went back to first when the ball was caught, turned around again and went back to third (missing second base this time) turned around to go retouch second, then turned around again and went back to third. The throw to third was mishandled, and Rivera was safe at third. He then made an attempt to advance to home, and was easily thrown out. Giants broadcaster Jon Miller described the play as "the worst baserunning in the history of the game!" Spanneraol (talk) 02:33, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

• For starters, you missed "famous", which is a word to watch and the exclamation point. More importantly, that's too long. I don't think we need a blow-by-blow description of every direction he ran. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:37, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Yea, i caught famous after the original post and re-edited my comment, but i guess you posted first.. Anyway it probably would have helped if i had watched the video of the play before getting involved.. but here is another attempt, taking out much of the detail.

In 2003, Rivera joined the Giants as a free agent. On May 27, 2003 he was involved in an unusual baserunning play. He was on first base with the game tied in the bottom of the ninth when a fly ball was hit to deep right-center field and missed by the outfielder. Rivera got confused on the basepaths, running back and forth and missing second base entirely at one point. He was eventually thrown out trying to score. Giants broadcaster Jon Miller described the play as "the worst baserunning in the history of the game." Rivera was released a week later, after hitting only .180 in 50 at bats with the Giants.Spanneraol (talk) 02:52, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

I suggest the following, more concise wording:

In 2003, Rivera joined the Giants as a free agent. On May 27, he was involved in what Giants broadcaster Jon Miller described as "the worst baserunning in the history of the game": while running from first to third on a fly ball hit to deep right-center field, Rivera retreated to second twice—once because he thought the ball was caught, and a second time when he missed second base while advancing—and was subsequently thrown out trying to score. Rivera was released a week later, after hitting only .180 in 50 at bats.

isaacl (talk) 07:18, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

That works fine for me. Spanneraol (talk) 17:07, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Okay. That's about the right length and weight. Anything more would be undue. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:22, 21 July 2012 (UTC)

Looks good to me. Rlendog (talk) 15:15, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

That also works for me. It reads well, addresses the incident accurately, and does so without undue emphasis. Nicklegends (talk) 21:27, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

References

Protection

If you guys have come to a mutually acceptable conclusion, drop me a line and I'll unprotect the page. Deryck C. 13:04, 25 July 2012 (UTC)