Talk:Ryan Braun/Archive 1

Archive 1

Comments

Braun's father is certainly Jewish, but his mother is a Catholic, and he was raised in an irreligious household. Whether he considers himself Jewish is certainly an interesting question, but according to Jewish religious law, he's not a Jew until he makes a specific commitment to convert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.95.95 (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Braun was the 5th overall pick in the 2005 MLB draft! That should be enough. Plus he's the highest drafted Jew ever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphie90 (talk • contribs) 29 January 2006

I've removed the speedy request :-) --HappyCamper 13:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User:67.121.107.59, you seem to have a problem with my editing of this article, which you call delightfully call one of "[your] articles" on my talk page. Why is this? I certainly don't appreciate the death threats that you made on my talk page. Refrain from making personal attacks and using unwarranted profanity. Remember that one of Wikipedia's guidelines is to be bold in improving articles. If you disagree with an edit that I or anyone else made, let's discuss it, but we have to remain civil. What exactly do you object to in my edits? My contention is that words like "Herculean" require justification to remain neutral claims. Remember that this is an encyclopedia to which we are contributing; your own opinion is not fact. If you have a credible source that backs up a word like "Herculean", fine; then cite it. Also, please sign your messages. To do so is easy: simply use the wikicode ~~~~. Phoenixrod 04:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

"Herculean" stats

I have a problem with calling Braun's stats "Herculean", as I pointed out above. User:68.120.225.229 on my talk page believes that such stats are "pretty super-human". While I agree that such stats are quite good, I think they fall in the realm of human capability. A recent example, well within the last 20 years and even within the same Brewers organization, of a player with better stats and at least as many stolen bases, is Rickie Weeks. I suggest looking, for example, at [1] to see how Weeks's numbers were in fact significantly better in college.

I want to this article to maintain Wikipedia's standards for neutrality. It is one thing to give the stats; it is another to venture your opinion on how good the numbers are. We cannot include original research in an encyclopedia.

Also, I am curious why Braun's Jewishness was highlighted in a recent edit. The article makes no mention of it again until the end (which makes a significant claim about being a high Jewish draft pick). It seems to me that what is of primary importance for Braun is that he is a baseball player. I am going to revert the recent edits. If you disagree, please respond here and explain why. Phoenixrod 21:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I wrote the article originally, and I agree with the removal of the Herculean part so as to maintain neutrality, what I don't understand, is who would be saying it is their article, when I was the one who wrote it originally? I don't disagree with the revisions you made, it makes it seem much more professional and I applaud you for it. However, in the history of professional sports and the yearly routine of drafting players, that Braun being the highest Jewish athlete ever taken at number 5 overall, in the year 2005 no less, makes his jewishness a source of significance, at leat in my opinion. Thanks, and all the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphie90 (talk • contribs) 5 April 2006

Ralphie90, I don't know who would claim ownership over this (or any!) Wikipedia article. (S)he hasn't been back since to explain that position. Thank you for the kind words on the article's edits. I don't have a problem with highlighting Braun's Jewishness in the article; I was simply reverting the edits by the anonymous IP who insisted on the POV word "Herculean", pending discussion.

My contention is that a Wikipedia user coming to this page will probably be coming for baseball information first and Jewishness secondarily. If the article's first fact about Braun is that he is Jewish, that seems to me to be putting the lesser information first. Certainly the end of the article addresses Braun's high draft position in connection with being a Jew. It is without question significant enough to be included in the article. I guess my question is this: What is more important to address at the start of the article and what is relevant but less critical to an understanding of Ryan Braun? Phoenixrod 08:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow this guy was one year ahead of me in high school, I never even knew he was famous until now.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

Jewish

In response to "three after three's" question as to whether it is notable that Braun is Jewish, in which he goes on to question as well "Do we do this for Catholics? Protestants? ect?," I would point out that notability is measured by whether there are independent articles, etc., that focus on a fact -- see Wiki policy for that. Clearly, as reflected by the links in the Braun article, that is the case. If there are articles that focus on Catholics in the same manner, or lists of top Catholic home run hitters in major league baseball over their careers that are maintained, or a set of hall of fame Catholice baseball players -- as there are with Jewish players -- then the answer would be the same. Tom -- as to your moving the mention down to the Miscellaneous section, that is fine with me. In other cases, where you have instead deleted the mention of a players being Jewish, rather than done what you did hear, I would ask that you either revert or make a revision parallel to the one that you made here. Thanks.--Epeefleche 19:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding to the above mention of notability, there is the issue of the Notability Exception. Even with ethnicity, Wiki policy calls for its mention in the opening if it is relevant to the subjects's "notability."

To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."

Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to include that fact in the opening paragraph of their bio. (Query, btw, as well whether one might argue that where a person is included in an ethnicity list on Wiki, as under "Black Jews," their ethnicity is notable.)

Some commentators seem to confuse what is meant by "notable" with their own, non-Wiki definition. Notability does not mean that they are famous for being of that group.

There are a number of Halls of Fame and list and articles relating to Jewish athletes, for example, I do not think that we have the same for Catholics or Protestants.

"Jewish Sports Legends" is a book that one can find at [2]. The International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame Jewishsports.net bios can be found at [3]. Jews in Sports bios can be found at [4]. National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame bios can be found at [5]. Jews in the Olympics can be found at [6] and medalists can be found at [7]. The Baltimore Jewish Times runs articles on Jewish athletes: [8]. The Holocaust Museum runs articles on Jewish athletes in the Holocaust: [9] and [10]. "From the Ghetto To The Games: Jewish Athletes in Hungary" focuses on certain Jewish athletes [11]. It is mentions such as these, which are typically reflected in the bios in question, that reflect that the Jewish nature of the person has been noted in articles, etc ... which is what Wiki policy focuses on.

Finally, "categories" are not sufficient. They are not part of the article. If the article is quoted in full, they are not quoted. And, I might add, it is I expect typical for every other "category" information to be reflected in the text of the bio -- It would be highly unusual, if not unique, to only reflect the fact in a category, but not in the text. --Epeefleche 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there are very few Jewish players in MLB, which makes it notable. Also, I'm sure if any non-Jewish player is very religious, their religion is noted in their Wiki article. Miles Blues 22:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Philosophy

I see no need at all to mention his favorite class in college was philosophy. This has nothing to do with the article and is just a trivial fact that clutters up the page.--Brewcrew07 18:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Ballplayers at age 23

With regard to the comment, that accompanied the deletion of my addition, that it is not appropriate to compare ballplayers aged 23 where others had been in the major leagues for longer periods of time -- I see no basis for that comment other than POV. It is perfectly acceptable to look at ballplayers by age, and compare them -- see [12], which is the basis for the entry in the article. I will RV the reversion, if it is not restored, but wanted to post this comment here before I do so. Tx.--Epeefleche 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to take exception. It is not acceptable because it is original research. Nowhere is Ryan Braun on the page you cite. In fact, all the pre-23 statistics on that page are for players that appeared in at least 375 games. The year 23 statistics are all for complete seasons with at least 75 games. Braun won't appear on that list until the season is over. Thus, to compare Braun's numbers for 40 games with Pujols's numbers for a full season is original research. It is the synthesis of facts in order to advance a particular opinion: that Braun is comparable or even better than Pujols and Mays. Find a reliable source that compares Bruan to Pujols and Mays and we can discuss this. Otherwise it has to go. Cite the numbers. Cite articles that talk about how impressive the numbers are. But that's as far as we can go. It has nothing to do with POV and everything to do with original research. Please assume good faith. --Beaker342 19:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you are confusing what original research means. See [13]. Rather, it refers to two published facts by reliable sources. One, the published list of 23-year-old statistics. The other, the published Ryan Braun statistics. The result is not a " "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Rather, it is a reflection of where Braun stands, at this point in the season, relative others who were 23. It completely satisfies [WP:V]. I don't believe that footnotes are required here, as the links are in the EL. But if you prefer them to demonstrate the above, I have no objection. Here, A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source -- and all that we are doing is presenting the information from the two sources together. We are not saying that A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C, for example, that 23 year old third baseman named Ryan hit for high slugging percentage relative to other ballplayers. Just what A is, and where that places Braun at this point in C. If it were the other example, that would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research--but that is not the case here. The prohibition against original research does not proscribe this presentation at all.

Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimbo Wales, described the origin of the original research policy as follows: "The phrase 'original research' originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks.... The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. ...." The focus is on verifiability. The A and B here are eminently verifiable. And there is no non-verfiable theory spawned by coupling the two. It is simply the fact that A exists and B exists. This is no more "independent research" that it would be to say that a person with 58 home runs fell 2 short of a record-holder with 60 home runs.

As to the pre-23 statistics, you are not looking at the correct column. The correct column references how ballplayers performed in the year in which they were 23. It has nothing to do with how many games they played in prior years. As to the fact that he is on a pace to hit at that slugging percentage, you could simply look at the ESPN projected over a season stats. But I really don't think that is necessary. All we need is full disclosure as to the number of games he has played to date. ESPN and CBS and other major sites all have those projected statistics. Disclosure as to number of games is what is key. If you want that to be highlighted more, fine with me. But that is not a reason to exclude it.

Also, your explanation for deleting this information, at the time you did so, was "Pujols and Mays are not acceptable comparisons b/c both had been in the league for years by age 23." But, that makes no sense to me. We are not comparing anything here other than how 23 year olds performed in their age 23 season. Whether or not they competed in earlier seasons is not at all relevant. So the reason you used to delete the information is to my mind not supportable.

And we don't have to wait until the season is over. Baseball bios are replete with in-season information. Noted as such.

Nor is it being advanced to suggest that "Braun is comparable or even better than Pujols and Mays," as you suggest. Were I to say that, yes -- that would be original research. That is not at all what is said. It is what it is. The information is simply being advanced to suggest that in the first half of his age 23 year, over the course of 40 games, he is hitting at SP x, which to put it in perspective would -- if he continued at the same pace over the second half of the season over a similar number of games -- place him in postion y of all 23 year olds historically, after those 2 players. That is all that it says.

If you don't see it my way, I suggest that we call in one of the Wiki Baseball page admins, or one of the statisticians who write on that page ... but I do think that if you look at what I wrote and the policy with an open mind you may see the distinction that I am making between original research (as defined by Wiki policy) and this.--Epeefleche 03:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason I deleted the phrase was because I thought it was irresponsible to compare statistics for someone with 40 games under his belt with statistics for more established players. The phrase read was "at age 23". What does that mean? Up to age 23? During age 23? Fortunately, you have clarified what you meant and provided a source for the statistics, but at the time I edited it, the phrase was ambiguous, so I don't think my reasoning at the time was disengenuous. I interpreted it to mean up to age 23. Now we have clarified the matter so that the comparsion is for the age 23 season.

That said, I still object to the comparison. The statistics you cite are those for "during age 23 season" with at least 75 game appearances. Braun would not qualify because he has not played a full season, so the comparsion is apples to oranges. An apples to apples comparison is important because everyone knows that statistics change over the course of a season. Lots of people have been on paces to do all sorts of insane stuff. Most of it doesn't belong in articles.

The reason it doesn't belong is because I don't know how the assembling of these statistics could be interepreted any other way than to say "Braun is comparable or even better than Pujols and Mays." It doesn't say that explicitly, but it most certianly says it implicitly. As I read the policy and based on my experiences at other articles, WP:OR forbids the assemblage of facts to implictly promote a specific point of view, regardless of whether that point of view is stated or not. If someone edited the George W. Bush to say "Bush caused X number of war dead," and then in the next sentence wrote "Hitler caused Y number of war dead," we would all object to the edit, even assuming for the sake of argument that the facts were true, because it unmistakably promotes a point of view, without actually saying "Bush is as bad as Hitler." That's a bad example, but it's the best I can think of right now that conveys policy as I understand it. We can ask someone else for advice, but I'm a little surprised that there has been so much discussion over the edit. Regardless of whether it stays or not it is almost sure to become obsolete when Braun completes the full season. If he does keep up this pace, that in itself would be noteworthy, and it would undoubtedly produce far more articles in the press to cite. Why not just cite the many articles that praise Bruan's current accomplishments? Why bother assembling obscure statistics? --Beaker342 05:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarifications. I believe it does belong. This is tantamount to saying: A) in the first half of 2007, people were killed in NYC at the rate of 40 per month (supported fact), and B) the highest rates of people killed in NYC ever were at the rate of 42 per month (supported fact). It is permissible under the above guidelines. The jump that you make as to the implication, beyond the presented facts, is simply not there. At the end of the day, we will have full year stats of course, and as you point out can update that. For now, it is appropriate as is IMHO.

Again, it does not say "Braun is comparable or even better than Pujols and Mays." It simply says that his performance in the first half his age 23 year is at rate x, and the only players with greater performance during their full age 23 years were P and M at rate y. Its simply the facts, with full disclosure. And, as with the above example of killings, should be fine. As to your assertion that this is an obscure fact, I would suggest that it is of greater interest than the identity, for example, of the date on which he scored his first run. And many other items. It provides perspective as to his performance, to date, at this age, relative to others in the past. As to it being over the first half of the season, and not the full season, we need only clarify that that is the case. This and other articles of current ballplayers are replete with references to how they have performed thus far this season. Surely, you would not suggest that we delete all of those references.

How about working with me to clarify this in a manner that you like as well. Here is a revision in which I have attempted to add greater clarification for your benefit. "After his first 40 games (mostly batting 3rd), at the All Star Break he was leading the team in ... slugging percentage (.663; the all-time leaders during the season in which they were 23 years old, over a minimum of 75 games, are Willie Mays and Albert Pujols at .667)[14] ...."

I'm not that crazy about it because it's still not an honest comparison. In the example you cite above, it would be like comparing monthly statistics with yearly statistics. It's not a fair comparison. Yearly statistics are almost inevitably smoother and less dramatic. As I said above, people have been on paces to do all sorts of thing. Dmitiri Young was on pace to hit 500 HRs at the start of the 2005 season. I think we would all agree that it would not have been appropriate to compare his HR pace or slugging percentage after that one game, or even after one month, to slugging percentages for players who played entire seasons. As I read it, the stats being compared are for entire seasons of at least 75 games, not just at least 75 games. Thus, the comparison would be inaccurate at the end of the season because Braun would have played a full season of at least 75 games and his statistics at that point would supercede whaterver fantastic pace he had set by June. I like to avoid edits that will date quickly WP:RECENT simply because it is easy to forget that you made them. --Beaker342 15:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you are not that crazy about it. I do believe it is "honest," however -- precisely because we clarify that this is his SP for 1/2 of the ongoing season. The reader is therefore in a position to assess the weight to give this. We also do have all sorts of information over Wikipedia and elsewhere of this sort. Especially in baseball. ESPN provides projected SP for Braun of a .663 SP over 114 games, at [15]. If we wished to, we could mention that, and say his projected SP over 114 games is x (and source it), but I don't believe we even have to go that far. Every baseball player whose batting average we indicate, in-season, we are necessarily thinking of as compared to other full season batting averages. That is the context. We simply clarify that the stats are through date x. It's fine. We all understand that one stat is for half a season, and that things can change -- that does not preclude us from stating the pace at which someone is hitting. And its not like comparing monthly with yearly stats -- monthly being 1/12th of the year. And Young's stats after 1 game would be his stats after 1/162nd of the season. This is an all-star break stat, a full 1/2 of the year, and more than halfway towards the 75-game marker. As with all of the others stats in his and other active ballplayers bios -- they are replete with in-season stats -- we operate under the assumption that editors will update them appropriately. We even have templates that call for in-season stats -- the protection is that the template calls for the info to indicate that it is good as of date x. We also have all sorts of baseball bios with players' stats -- up to the date indicated. Obviously, with active players, that changes each day or so during the season. Its not a reason to delete such references. If the article is not appropriately updated, the article, by indicating the date as of which the stat was good, is still not incorrect -- but of course of lesser interest. Look -- for example, there is mention of Barry Bonds pursuit of the home run record, even though he has yet to break it. I have also reviewed WP:RECENT, and see nothing there to suggest that this is inappropriate. I will update this one, have no fear. While I understand that you are not a fan of this approach, and would not have chosen to add it yourself, I would simply ask that you allow me to re-add it, as I think I have now cleared up the confusion that you highlighted (correctly) with regard to what was meant by age 23, and I have even gone so far as to add the citation to the age 23 chart .... as well as responded to your Wiki policy comments. Thanks much. I always think it best when matters such as this can be discussed, rather than be the subjet of an edit war.--Epeefleche 18:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fully satisfied by your defense of comparing monthly to yearly stats. But as long as it is clear that the comparison is not apples to apples, I'm not going to kick and scream about it. Unfortunately, I've gotten really busy recently, and don't have much time to devote to the article right now. The point is a minor one, as I think more constructive work could be done to clean up the general readability of the article. The entire Tools section, for example, would probably be best collapsed into a single paragraph. --Beaker342 20:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I much appreciate your working along with me. I think it is better now than it was. Will look at tools as well if I get a chance. Just got busy as well. Have a great evening.--Epeefleche 20:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Beaker--I liked your last improvement. Tx.--Epeefleche 01:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sometimes it's easy to get bogged down in details. I simply tried to make it easier to read. --Beaker342 03:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as an update: 1) a newspaper has picked up on this precise comparison, and in fact devoted more to it than we do here (see [16]; and 2) Braun has now played in more than 75 games, so while the season is not yet over that aspect of the comparison is now apples to apples. Cheers.--Epeefleche 15:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Granada Hills as birthplace

Braun was born and resides in Granada Hills, Calif. When he was born in 1983 at Holy Cross Hospital in what was then designated Granada Hills, that is what is on the birth certificate. Only recently has this area of Granada Hills been renamed Mission Hills and it is really considered a part of Granada Hills. The Mission Hills mentioned as Braun's birthplace refers to the Mission Hills in Santa Barbara County, which is clearly not where he is from. That is why I believe it to be more accurate, regardless of what the MLB puts as his place of birth, to state Granada Hills as his place of birth and residence.

The MLB site is the official site of Major League Naseball, and is therefore what we have to go with, whatever your personal knowledge may be, in the absence of citations to a better source than MLB (and I note you have not mentioned any citations).--Epeefleche 18:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/players/player43144.html&t=0

Hey, Epeefleche, are you from LA? Ryan Braun, I am 100% certain, was not born in Santa Barbara County. The name of the hospital he was born at was Mission Hills Hospital. It is an area located within, you guessed it, Granada Hills. Mission Hills is a undesignated area within Granada Hills.

Hey. Not sure who the above comment is from, as it is unsigned. But since this is not a blog, buy an encylopedia, we have to source the material. Especially material where are two points of view. The Granada Hills reference is sourced. Moreover, from the official source -- mlb.com. I don't see how we can replace that reference with an opposing reference, where you don't provide any source, let alone one that trumps the official source, other than the fact that you are 100% certain (see Wikipedia:No original research, which states that without more we are prohibited from drawing on our personal knowledge as the source of a statement we included here) and an unofficial source (a sports betting and gambling odds site). Perhaps you might want to contact the Brewers, and tell them that they have the wrong info on their official website as to their player, and might want to fix it. Then we could fix it here. Some Wikipedia guidelines that you might look at, in this regard, are [17], Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I did clarify the reference to the correct Mission Hills, though.--Epeefleche 16:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the proof of Granada Hills as the place of both birth and residence. http://youtube.com/watch?v=HFCu_OTw7O0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.154.28 (talk) 01:18, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

Left Field

I removed the sentence about Braun moving to left field, possibly. The article was from January, and stated that Counsell/Graffanino would play 3B and Braun would move to left. This season, though, when both are in the lineup and one is playing third and one is playing left field, Braun has been at third.

So far this season, Braun has played 53 games at 3B, and one as a pinch hitter. Graffanino has played in a total of 76 games so far this season, only 23 at 3B, and he's played LF when Jenkins and Mench are both absent from the lineup recently. Counsell has played 3B in 31 of his 78 games. Since Braun was called up in May, he's had only 2 off days, and he's played 3B in every single game. All stats/info from ESPN. Miles Blues 20:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, and will take a look at what else has been written. But my first instinct is to take a look at his defensive performance at third since the article was written. If we do, I don't think that the number will support the notion that the possiblity of him moving to left at some point in the future -- the thrust of the article -- has been negated by his defense thus far.--Epeefleche 21:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, his defense has improved quite a bit since he was called up, and the Brewers have given no reason why they'd move him elsewhere. Miles Blues 22:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a big issue with me, and I can see both sides, so let's stick with your delete. On the one hand, it is a true statement. And his .902 fielding percentage and .210 RF are both lower than any starting 3B in MLB, supporting the fact that it could still be an accurate statement -- as to a possible future move. And he has committed 9 errors in the last 30 days -- nearly twice the rate of the second most error prone third baseman, so I'm not sure I see his fielding percentage of late reflecting an improvement.[18] But if it bothers you because it is a few months old and he has played all of his games at 3B and there has been no recent chatter, I'm OK with it being deleted.--Epeefleche 17:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

1st & 2nd Half sections necessary?

I think that the sections for the 2007 season ought to be merged. No other baseball player has their seasons split into halves. Miles Blues 21:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, I like it for the moment, but agree that at season end it should be merged. The section as it stands is longer than that of most other ballplayers. The headings just help break it up, and allow the reader to find the part that interests them most easily. Lets be bold ... I don't see much harm coming from keeping the subsections for 3 more months.--Epeefleche 21:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm good with that. Since he only has played the one major league season, it's appropriate to divide it. Once he racks up a couple more (and who knows how many triple crowns and all star appearances... I hope), we won't have it divided by halves. Miles Blues 22:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Totally agree!--Epeefleche 17:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I figured that the article at this point finally lent itself to following up on your suggestion, so I've done so.--Epeefleche 23:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Disambiguate

Since we have two Ryan Brauns in the majors, I propose that this page be moved to Ryan Braun (baseball infielder) and that the other page be moved to Ryan Braun (baseball pitcher). The other page is presently at 'Ryan Braun (baseball)' which is a fairly ambiguous disambiguation (!) (and there's a redirect from Ryan Braun (pitcher) - which is at least less ambiguous to me). What say you all?--AndrewHowse 14:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, I would support the move of the other page to Ryan Braun (baseball pitcher) as suggested. But would leave this one as is.--Epeefleche 15:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be simpler, of course, although I wonder if that implies some sort of hierarchy? This Ryan B is perhaps more notable at present than the other... --AndrewHowse 16:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable implication, to be sure. A google search supports that notion, let alone a glance at their bios.--Epeefleche 17:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved the pitcher to Ryan Braun (baseball pitcher).--AndrewHowse 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tx. I cleaned up his bio a bit as well, including putting in a line at the top to allow readers who arrived at his page by accident to jump to this pg. Looks as though he is struggling mightily to get big league hitters out....--Epeefleche 21:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tools Section?

Is the tools section really necessary? It's not included on the pages of more prominent players like Albert Pujols or Alex Rodriguez. Mickeyg13 07:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea ... one of us should put one together when we get a chance. Not a question of necessary ... it's helpful. It's also probably something that we see more with young players. Analyses of prospects often refer to their tools, and to 5-tool players, more than analyses of established players. But it makes sense for all if you have the material. IMHO.--Epeefleche 07:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

In general, this article seems quite POV, biased toward the subject... ugen64 03:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

• That view seems to be POV, given the unususally high level of citations in the article.--Epeefleche 04:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations can still be POV. -Phoenixrod 09:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No evidence have been proferred that these are. Compare this to the mlb article on him winnning the ROY award. They are parallel in how fact based they are. There is no evidence that this is POV.--Epeefleche 11:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

All the apologies for his defense need to go. The comparisons to Wright and Beltre stand out as particuarly POV. Let's just call a spade a spade and end it with that. His offense is spectacular and defense atrocious. The numbers show this. The commentaries show this. If he becomes a Gold Glove thirdbaseman in a few years, good for him. --Beaker342 21:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: "In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias." There is no evidence that any major commentator has compared Braun to those other third basemen you mentioned (Beltre and Wright), in order to defend his defensive problems. In addition, you are essentially trying to say that "he's mediocre on defense right now, but it's possible that he will improve and he might even win a Gold Glove later" - that's a violation of our WP:Crystal Ball policy. ugen64 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't have time to address the other points, but just to address one -- your last point misses the point, as to Beltre. Beltre won the gold glove award the same year (this year) that he led the league in errors and had the lowest fielding percentage. Nothing crystal ball about that. It simply puts those stats in perspective.--Epeefleche 22:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but fielding percentage can be a bad indicator of defensive talent. When he was great, Jim Edmonds had a terrible fielding percentage because he made more plays on balls than anyone else. I don't know anything specific about Beltre, but I really doubt the Gold Glove was given to him on accident. No one denies that Braun's defense is horrible. Not even Braun. Comparing Braun and Beltre isn't putting anything in perspective, it's advancing the opinion that Braun's defense isn't really as bad as it seems and is in fact comparable to Beltre's when he won the Gold Glove. That's POV. --Beaker342 00:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Beaker, I agree with your first two sentences.

As to your third sentence, there are those who point to webgem plays that Braun makes, and his athletic defense, and the fact that he moved just recently to a new position, and that his errors per game have improved markedly over the short time he has played third. But the point here is not to say whether he is good or bad. Just to present both sides of the debate (rather than report one, and quash the other); especially objective information and sourced information. Also, the language at issue reflects on whether fielding percentage, for example, which as the article points out was terribly low for Braun, is the be-all and end-all in evaluating the defensive performance of a third baseman as a general matter. The fact that his was so low is presented, and is just that -- a fact. Deductions from that that he is a terrible fielder are just that, deductions. The fact that third basemen have led the league in errors and been considered the best fielder in the league are just that -- facts. One can deduce from that what one will (I, for one, would deduce that fielding percentage is not the be-all and end-all in evaluating performance of a third baseman, though without this insert one wouldn't know that).

Just so it is clear what we are talking about, the para at issue says:

Furthermore, notably, while David Wright tied for the major league lead in errors by a third baseman in 2005 (his second in the league),[19] just two years later he won the NL Gold Glove at third base. The 2007 AL gold glove winner, Adrian Beltre, won it while leading the AL in errors and sporting the lowest fielding percentage in the league.[20][21][22]

BTW, since (while we are discussing it) it is for the moment deleted, I'll remove the POV notice at the top of the article. If it goes back in after our discussion, and does not reflect consensus, people can feel free to reinsert the disclaimer. Makes no sense for the disclaimer to come out, and the language asserted to be POV to come out (unless people think it is too POV because it has all the negative language in it, not balanced by this).--69.38.172.94 14:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Until you produce some commentaries in reliable sources who think his defense is actually pretty good and that his fielding percentage is a poor indicator of how good he actually is, it has to stay out. Otherwise it's the kind of claim best kept to a fan blog. --Beaker342 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As to commentary in reliable sources as to his defense actually being pretty good, you mean, such as Baseball America's rating of him as having the best arm in the Brewers' minor league system 9 months ago?[23] I personally see there as being facts that support different truths ... and have no problem with different facts being presented that reflect both the positive and negative aspects of his defense. As long as they are accurate. I would not have formerly guessed myself that a third baseman could lead the league in fielding percentage and be considered the top defensive third baseman, so I find that illuminating for purposes of considering Braun's historically low FP.--Epeefleche 23:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You know as well as everyone else that the article you cite says nothing about his total defense. Rick Ankiel had a great arm until he couldn't find the strike zone. Moreover, it is an assessment from the minor leagues, which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on his defensive performance in the majors in 2007. Seriously, what's so bad about saying he's terrible at defense and leaving it at that? --Beaker342 00:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You're getting at my point. Defense isn't merely one thing -- fielding percentage, or infield arm for example. Each of those is, however, an aspect of defense. That is why someone can have the lowest fielding percentage at third base this year, but still win the gold glove. The NPOV approach is to reveal all relevant factors to the reader. The POV approach is to seek to block out a relevant factor, and just stamp the fielder as terrible based on incomplete consideration. Life is more complicated.--Epeefleche 14:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't seem to realize that what you are talking about is POV. Every publication out there, and I wish you could cite a publication that doesn't do this instead of just falling back on appeals to "the facts", every publication out there says he's a terrible fielder. By assembling the data to apparently contradict this plain truth (in your eyes an "incomplete consideration"), you are promoting a particular opinion (that he's actually a pretty good at defense) that isn't shared by any, and I mean any, reputable source. NPOV dictates that our assessments of Braun, as well as whatever assessments our presentation of the facts advance, need to follow what beat writers say about him, not what we think the facts say. --Beaker342 (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Beaker342 is right. Spin it how you want, it's still POV. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Baseball America, a reputable source, just 9 months ago, as indicated above.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Now we are just talking in circles. What does a minor league scouting report have to do with his performance this season?--Beaker342 (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Slugging %

Braun's season SLG% doesn't qualify him as the NL Leader, based on the 3.1 PA/Team Game rule. I know someone is quoting baseball reference as an exception being granted giving Braun the required # of hitless PA to qualify, but www.MLB.com is a more reliable source and there they have Prince Fielder as the NL Leader with .618.[24] unsigned —Precedingcomment added by 198.169.189.226 (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the record for rookies by McGwire quoted as .618 was based on the fact that McGwire QUALIFIED for the SLG% title, whereas Braun did not. The highest SLG% by a rookie who didn't qualify, but played in 100+ games is .621 by George Watkins in 1930. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.189.226 (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To an extent, everyone is correct here. It is true that Braun does not qualify as the NL Leader "based on the 3.1 PA/Team Game rule." And that the above www.MLB.com URL does not include him on that list, given that. It is also true that mlb.com is an official site. What the above discussion does not mention, however, is that there is an exception to the qualification rule. Under that exception, if by adding hypothetical hitless at bats the batter would still qualify as the leader ... then he is the leader. That is the case with Braun. It is for that reason that www.MLB.com -- the official site -- in the indicated article (and others) states directly that Braun was the NL leader in slugging percentage for the year. And set a new rookie record for slugging percentage. See [25].--Epeefleche (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In the article you cite, the direct quote is "He batted .324 and led NL rookies with 34 home runs and a .634 slugging percentage, breaking the Major League rookie record set by Mark McGwire, who slugged .618 for Oakland in 1987". The article never directly states that Braun lead the NL in slugging %, but rather that he lead NL rookies with...a .634 slugging %. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.189.226 (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually Rudy York should hold the rookie SLG% record with .651 in 1937. York played in 104 games and did qualify for the title under the rules of his time. He did play in three games in 1934, so I don't know if under the rules of his time he would have been considered a rookie in 1937. Someone needs to hire better researchers at www.MLB.com

To lead rookies in slugging percentage, breaking the Major League record, he had to meet the criteria for sufficient at bats to break a major league slugging percentage record. The only way he could do that would be under the exception to the qualification rule, since he fell 10 at-bats short.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But if he did indeed lead the NL in slugging (you are using personal research to make the inference you just did), then his slugging percentage should not be listed at .634, as this number is without the number of hitless plate appearances taken into account. Where is it stated (from a reputable source) that Ryan Braun lead the NL in slugging percentage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.17.31 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation tags / A-Class Review

I just added a bundle of citation needed tags to the article. I also rearranged a few citations so that they would cover more facts and I wouldn't need to add the tags. I have an article under A-Class review myself and I know they really emphasize properly sourcing all of your information. This is especially true for an article such as this which is chock full of facts that are easily referenced. You could probably remove many of the tags by simply re-using sources you already included in the article and placing them in those places. Hopefully, this helps you increase the chances of getting the article promoted. Other than that, the article is incredibly well-written. You all did a great job here. Good luck in your review! --Jdcaust (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I added citations in most places. A couple didn't require citations, as the in-line citation served that purpose. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Viewing

There is no v/d/e navigational bar for any of the brewers, and the athletics ones are incomplete/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshibshm (talk • contribs) 23:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

GA Review - Why article is on hold

A lot of work had been put into this article, and it shows. I especially like the numerous quotes in the article, particularly the insight from Brewers’ coaches; it really adds a lot to the article. The stats and info in the article are also very detailed. Overall the article is well written, and broad in its coverage; great work. However, it does need some clean up before I pass it. Here’s my review:

GA review (see here for criteria)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

My Requirements for GA passage:

1. Please add the Persondata template

 Done--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

2. remove the Bold type from “The Hebrew Hammer” in the introduction paragraph, and instead place quotations around it.

• My understanding from the closest example I can find, under WP:NAMES, is that -- as with Slim Pickens -- bolding is appropriate here. If you have a better source for a closer analogy, I will be happy to change from bold to quotes as you suggest.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

• I was able to find a quote from the Manual of Style page that addresses this. The first two sentences under the "First Sentences" section read, "If possible, an article title is the subject of the first sentence of the article; for example, "The Manual of Style is a style guide" instead of "This style guide is known as ...". If the article title is an important term, it appears as early as possible. The first (and only the first) appearance of the title is in boldface, including its abbreviation in parentheses, if given." I too originally bolded Ozzie Smith's nickname until a GA reviewer pointed out it wasn't necessary. It's a not an issue I'd deny the article GA status over, but I do think his nickname is secondary to drawing attention to his name with bold type at the article's start. Monowi (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

3. The first paragraph under the high school section is repetitive: “As a sophomore…as a junior…as a senior….” Please change the first words in at least two of these sentences; for example, “During his junior he hit…,” and consider combining the last two sentences into something like, “Braun capped off his high school career by breaking the school’s career home run record (with 25), and hitting .451 with a .675 OPS.”

 Done--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

4. In the second paragraph of the high school section, instead of 2-time, please write out the numbers “two” and “three.” In general, writing out any number ten and under is the way to go.

 Done--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

5. Wikilink both “SS” & “DH” in the first paragraph of the college section

 Done--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

6. Combine the first sentence of the “minor leagues” section with the paragraph immediately following it.

 Done--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

7. Add citations wherever the “citation needed” tag appears; I counted six instantces beginning with two in the minor leagues section. As one person has already mentioned on the talk page, you might be able to simply re-cite articles already referenced to fill in these holes.

 Done in 4 appropriate instances. In two indicated instances the in-line citation provides the requested information, so there was no need to encumber the article with an additional citation.--Epeefleche (talk) 00:36, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

8. Replaced the dashed line in the second sentence of the spring training section with “;”.

 Done--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

9. Under the “regular season” section, combine the two sentences where he wins the June & July rookie of the month awards into one paragraph, rewriting the start of the July award sentence so the new paragraph flows better.

 Done--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

10. Please consolidate the “Rookie of the Year,” “Other Awards,” and “NL MVP vote” sections into one section titled something along the lines of “2007 awards.” Try to avoid level 4 headings as it really jams up the contents box. Making a list of the “other awards” he received would be a good way to avoid having to write a useful sentence for each individual award. For example, “Braun also garnered many other rookie-related honors, including;…..”

 Done Combined into one section. Called it "Season awards," rather than "2007 awards," as it does not include some awards (such as player of the month) that he received during 2007 which were not awards for the entire season. Avoided level 4 headings by replacing them with bolded para headings. Felt it was important to at least keep those, as it allows the reader to skim easily (still) to see what awards he received, and then where an award interests the reader to read further about it. Further combining than that would degrade the ability of reader's to find this material within the section. --Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

11. The Jewish Heritage section is important, but unfortunately it reads like a trivia section in its current state. Please format the information included in this section as a regular paragraph without bullet points. I recommend creating a level 2 section called “Early Life,” with the High School & Jewish Heritage subsections listed under it.

 Done Reformatted information in the section as regular paras without bullet points. Created a level 2 section entitled "Heritage and early life." To have called it early life only would not have been appropriate, given that some of the material (his father's heritage, etc.) are specific to his heritage but not to his early years. Listed Jewish heritage section, high school, and college beneath it, as it seemed appropriate not to break college from high school.--Epeefleche (talk) 22:49, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

12. This article is unbelievably well referenced; excellent work!! However, now that the references are in place, an effort should be made to format them with as much information as possible. Ideally, each web article now references should be formatted like reference number 3. I recommend using the cite web template to make the reference’s information more organized. If I see at least 35 properly formatted references by the end of the hold period, I will consider this criteria met. The rest of the references should be promptly formatted after the GA review ends in that case.

• Thanks for your kind words. As far as adding more information to the citations, which missing information do you feel is necessary, and what is your source for that view in the Manual of Style? I note that under "References," the MOS writes as follows: "You may use a generic citation template; this practice is neither encouraged nor discouraged." Given that, I do not think that we need to use a template here to improve the article, and my view is that templates are more difficult to work with, overly busy, and do not necessarily add information of moment. I would be happy to add more information as appropriate without templates if you can point me to a directive or encouragement by the MOS to include the further, missing, information.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:59, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• I feel that the biggest thing being left out of the citations in the References section right now are the authors of the various articles/webpages (even though I realize some webpages won't have authors listed). Providing as much info as possible about a reference is the key. And yes, the use of citation templates is by no means a requirement, just a suggestion. In regards to adding more citation info, please review the Citing sources style guide at your convenience. I found this quote under the Full references section;

"All citation techniques require detailed full references to be provided for each source used. Full references must contain enough information for other editors to identify the specific published work you used."

After all, with so much great work already invested in the article, why not go the extra mile and really put it over the top? Feature Articles like Lee Smith (baseball player) have to have full references to reach their status. The other revisions to the article for this GA review have been outstanding and spot on, so if this task is completed, I'd been more than happy to pass the article. If you need extra time to finish this (considering it's the holidays and all), I'd be more than happy to extend the hold for this great article. Monowi (talk) 09:00, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks. And thanks for the link to the baseball article on Lee Smith. What confuses me is that, even though that is a featured article, while it has the author names for books, it is not consistent about putting them in for articles. See for example footnotes 22, 40, 41, 45, and 56. Still, I'll follow your suggestion and start adding them. Best!--Epeefleche (talk) 17:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

 Done (added the author to over 60 references ... so far). Taking a break, but I think this meets the criteria that you set.----Epeefleche (talk) 20:29, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Suggestions for future improvement:

• Try and get a free-use picture during the 2008 season where you can see Braun’s face for the infobox, and maybe use the current infobox pic to illustrate the body of the text
• Please use at least two columns for the “References” section (if not three), by typing the text {{reflist|2}}
• Quote boxes might help break up the text a little more (especially in the “defense” section)

 Done--Epeefleche (talk) 07:40, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

• If you could find more info about his life before he entered high school, that would be cool.
• Consider integrating the “home run pace” section into the “regular season” section. It would be fun to read along and follow his home run pace, and the subsequent accomplishments he achieved, as the season recap unfolds.

I will place the article on hold for seven days, after which time all requirements need to be met in order for me to consider passing it. When/if all the requirements are met, please notify me on my talk page, & I will review the changes. Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia thus far, and good luck with the article in the future! Monowi (talk) 08:34, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Jewish home run hitters

The Jewish Heritage section states, "In 2007, Braun hit more home runs (34) than all but 4 of the top 10 career Jewish home run hitters had hit in their best seasons. Only Hank Greenberg (58), Shawn Green (49), and Al Rosen (43) hit more in a single year." If Braun hit more homers than all but four such players, why are only three names listed? I don't know which part needs to be changed, but the facts don't align. -Phoenixrod (talk) 19:34, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Lieberthal was previously 4th, with 31 home runs, so I changed the above to reflect that Braun hit more home runs that all but 3 of the top 10.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:22, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

GA passed

Congratulations; the changes to the article for the GA review have been great, & the article has reached Good Article status. Keep up the good work, and thanks again for your contributions to Wikipedia. Happy Holidays, Monowi (talk) 02:57, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Tx! Happy holidays to you as well. Can you perhaps point me to the way to seek A or FA status? Tx much.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:24, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

This article referred to in ESPN article

See http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/spring2008/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=3260725 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethelh (talk • contribs) 02:03, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Overkill

Hasn't this article gotten out of hand? It even talks about his spring training. I think it's overkill. He's been in the majors two years, and I don't think the article should be longer than someone like Paul Molitor's, who played about 20 or whatever. 69.215.145.185 (talk) 02:34, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

Yeah this article is out of control. Obviously written by his parents or something. And did you know that Ryan Braun is Jewish??? 207.15.63.4 (talk) 19:24, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

Time to work on the Molitor article, it would seem.--Ethelh (talk) 01:18, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Please do!--Epeefleche (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Personal Cheerleaders!!

This article is pathetic, and it reads as someone's personal "ga-ga" cheerleader sheet about his/her "superhero". It is sickening.
Besides that, the history of baseball is full of players who looked hot by the time they were 23, but after that, their careers fizzled for one reason or another. They never came anywhere near Hall-of-Fame quality careers, either as hitters or as pitchers. The laws of probability alone predict this well, too: some players will come into the league with two to three well-above-average baseball seasons, but after that, they will regress to average or below average.
I could name some specific players who had hot starts onto mundane careers, but that would be cruel. Only years more of such performance would rate such glowing praise.72.146.52.143 (talk) 07:35, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Interesting. Seems somewhat subjective, though. The article is full of objective stats and awards, and subjective statements by managers and coaches who are in a special position to comment. This article isn't an argument as to whether Braun is Hall of Fame caliber or not. It simply reports rather well his accomplishments, including Rookie of the Year Award, league-leading slugging percentage, All Star Selection, Silver Slugger Award, etc.--Ethelh (talk) 01:23, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Sure, it's subjective. I tend to agree with the IP user, although I wouldn't go to such rhetorical extremes. I do think that while the article is incredibly detailed and well referenced, it places an undue weight on really, really minor things like injuries that led Braun to miss a few games or ephemeral things that happened in spring training. There's a difference between a fact that is merely true and a fact that is useful. -Phoenixrod (talk) 05:02, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, his 2008 injury deserves amplification. It was followed by a significant decline in performance (look at his steep drop in BA after the injury) -- despite which he came in third in voting in the MVP race. And is something to keep in mind in the future -- ie, will it be a recurring problem that impacts his performance, a la Mattingly, or not.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Ryan Braun/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Okay, I went through this article, seeing as it was A-class, and this article actually needs a good deal of help.

• All references needs to be properly handled (use the citation templates, add the title and publisher).

I put the few remaining footnotes into references. Note -- there is more than one acceptable means of referece. Templates need not be used, and in fact are not in most of the article. I would suggest that the entire article be put into the acceptable form that as suggested adds the title and the publication, but would suggest that we use the prevalent non-template format rather than change 100 footnotes needlessly. There is still work to be done to reflect this, however, as a number of references do not currently reflect the publication or writer.

• We have a 71kb article for a guy who played two seasons. Some cuts and rewording will need to be made.

Made some cuts, and will give it another go-through. But the measure should of course be his number of accomplishments (that is what leads to article material), not his number of years playing. Another player with a 15-year career but fewer accomplishments should have a shorter article.

• The random bolding throughout the seasons is an eyesore, agh.

I respectfully disagree. As with headings, it helps the reader find and digest material.

• The 2008 season especially, is just a slew of one-sentence paragraphs with no real stucture.

Worked on that and will give it another look.

• The season awards need to be blended in with the season itself, no need for little subsections for each season.

Again, I respectfully disagree. They follow the season, and again for the reader who wants to find them or digest them this format works well.

I can barely due a truly in-depth review because of the format of this article. I'll give you 2 weeks or so to at least show progress to fixing this article. Hopefully it'll be deserving of its GA spot in time for the 2009 season. Wizardman 19:23, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Some good points above. Comments inserted there, indented, directly following each of Wizardman's 5 points.--Ethelh (talk) 02:17, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tried to help out here on the footnotes, per the above combined comments. Probably moved them 90% of the way, but they could still use a little work. I think the sections/headings are fine, given the article length.--Epeefleche (talk) 04:35, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Most of the changes seem good so far. By the bolding issue, I mean that bolding every single season award that the guy ever won is just distracting and a pain, it makes it so that i can't tell what are section and what it just bolding. Wizardman 22:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Wizardman, they're too much emphasis that are distracting from section headings. Let the paragraphs speak for themself. Found at WP:WISCONSIN. Royalbroil 16:20, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I'll shrug it off for now since the 2009 season's beginning, but in the off-season I'll likely look at this article again in hopes that it will improve. Wizardman 04:29, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Suggestions

Saw this was up for GA review, and took a look. I don't care for the heavy header structure. Here's what it looks like:

• 3 Major leagues

   * 3.1 Milwaukee Brewers (2007–present)
         o 3.1.1 General
         o 3.1.2 2007
               + 3.1.2.1 Spring training
               + 3.1.2.2 Regular season
               + 3.1.2.3 Season awards
         o 3.1.3 2008
               + 3.1.3.1 Spring training
               + 3.1.3.2 Regular season
               + 3.1.3.3 Season awards
         o 3.1.4 2009
               + 3.1.4.1 World Baseball Classic
               + 3.1.4.2 Regular season

Holy cow, that's a fourth level header. Notice that a fourth level header is actually smaller than the text of that section. I don't recommend using them. Second, Notice your second level, "Milwaukee Brewers" only has one entry. Since all his major league career, at this point, is with the Brewers, leave it out. Even if there were other teams, you add them behind the years, like "2007 - Milwaukee Brewers". So that makes it only three levels of headers.

In the Regular Season sections, there are a lot of paragraphs headed by bold phrases. I suggest either removing them (and letting the paragraph explain what its subject is) or setting them above the paragraph.

For the Season Awards, each has its own paragraph, with the award bolded, at the beginning. I don't think this looks very good. Bolding is generally used as section headers, so it looks confusing. Personally, I think it would look better as a simple paragraph, but if you want a list, that's probably okay too. I do, however, suggest that you don't bold, but try italicizing. And possibly a bulleted list, too. -Freekee (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Reassessment

Per my comments in the Youkilis GA review, I will keep this at GA/Mid, since we don't really use the A-class unless it's coming from another project. (i.e. milhist, films) Wizardman 14:11, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Restaurants

Braun is dabbling in the restaurant business. Some sources: [26] [27] [28]. The Milwaukee one has a website, Ryan Braun's Waterfront. I don't know how much detail the article should have, but I thought I'd drop some information here for the page watchers to consider adding. -Phoenixrod (talk) 04:09, 12 August 2010 (UTC)

Dead link

"In 2007 Braun had one of the most dominant rookie seasons in the history of the game." That statement had a citation, but the link is broken.[29] It's been tagged as broken for almost a year now, and in reality it may have been broken for much longer. I think it's safe to say it's not coming back. Since such an opinionated statement requires an inline citation (See: Wikipedia:MINREF#When you must use inline citations), I'm giving it a tag. If it's not backed up soon, I'll remove the statement.

1) Can you tell who added it? 2) It is an inline citation. Albeit a dead one. No? 3) It hardly seems "such an opinionated statement". Let's be serous -- how many rookie season were ones in which the rookie had the highest slugging percentage in the league?--Epeefleche (talk) 07:16, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

1) I don't know how to find who added it without painstakingly searching every single entry in the changelog over a year old. That seems like a monumental waste of effort. 2) The point of having an inline citation (or any citation) is to reference the source for a quote/fact. If the link is dead, the fact cannot be verified. Without a source to back it up, the statement bears no more weight than original research, which is to be avoided. So, my interpretation says an inline citation is useless unless it's verifiable. 3) Granted he had a very strong rookie year offensively, but that's not to say others weren't just as, if not more, dominant. Mike Piazza and Albert Pujols were also sensational, and neither brought the same defensive liabilities as Braun (who led the majors in errors his rookie year, among other abysmal stats). I'm not trying to start a debate, I'm just showing how it's something that's "likely to be challenged," in keeping with Wikipedia:MINREF#When you must use inline citations. --Foolishgrunt (talk) 07:47, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, the policy on deadlinks is not as you describe. A dead, unarchived source URL may still be useful. It indicates that information was (probably) verifiable in the past, and the link might provide another user with greater resources or expertise with enough information to find the reference. It could also return from the dead. With a dead link, it is possible to determine if it has been cited elsewhere, or to contact the person originally responsible for the source. As to the last point -- note that the statement is not that he had the best rookies season in the history of the game, but rather that he "had one of the most dominant rookie seasons in the history of the game", which -- as I said -- is supported by the fact that he led the league (not just rookies) in slugging percentage; clearly, quite a rare feat for a rookie, and one that is supportive of that statement. And again -- this is a dead inline citation.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:00, 3 April 2011 (UTC)

I understand that nobody is claiming that he had THE most dominant season, but the fact remains that even the phrase "one of the most dominant" can stir very strong negative feelings. Take, for instance, the Troy Tulowitski supporters. Tulowitski lost the Baseball Writers Association Roookie of the Year award to Braun by the slimmest margin in history, and I'd bet most of the panelists who voted for Tulowitski still feel Tulo had a stronger year overall, taking both offense and defense into account. The fact that very nearly half of the RoY voters didn't even think Braun was the best rookie that year almost certainly means they wouldn't agree with the statement that he had "one of the most dominant rookie seasons in the history of the game." I stand by my assertion that the statement is "likely to be challenged." The statement is not nearly as universally accepted as "Michael Jordan was one of the best basketball players in history" or "Wayne Gretzky was one of the best hockey players."

Regarding the dead link, I did find the section of Wikipedia policy you cited. With that in mind I guess I have no choice but to leave the statement. But for the reasons I just mentioned, I think it would be best to add another qualifier to the statement, such as "Ryan Braun had what some have called one of the most dominant rookie seasons in the history of the game."--Foolishgrunt (talk) 01:44, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Deletion of RS info

AHW has here, as elsewhere, deleted RS-sourced info about the subject, to instead include information in its place about people other than the subject. First, it is a clear wp guidelines violation to delete material notable info about the public. AHW has been warned as to that before, and is warned again. Furthermore, info as to people other than the subject being introduced by AHW in its place reflects a keen POINTyness on AHW's part, that is not appropriate. This is about the subject, not others.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I've added more accurate RS info that has been covered in multiple sources. If you're going to have a section titled "Jewish heritage", I can't stress how painfully obvious it is that this section should point out that Braun isn't entirely Jewish. If he self-identifies as Jewish, you can add that, too. The fact is, Braun's father is Jewish and his mother is Catholic. He was raised in no faith. He appears to identify as Jewish in a cultural and/or ethnic sense, if not a religious one. I know this information because it has been covered in a multitude of sources. Can you give me one reason - one - why we would not share this information with Wikipedia readers in a section that's supposed to directly address it? Why the secret? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 23:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

There are two issues that you are confusing. I'll address the first one. As you have done elsewhere, you have here deleted the RS-supported reference to the subject of the article being Jewish. That is, under wp guidelines, considered a form of vandalism and disruptive editing. You've been warned multiple times, have received a final warning, and continue to edit war disruptively.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Cut the vandalism/warning nonsense. I'm not even reading it. Answer the question. Why do you not want factual information to be in the article in the section to which it is critically relevant? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:09, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Issue No. 1 is what you don't want to read about. You have now repeatedly deleted RS-supported text about the subject of this article, and made similar edits to other articles. That is a serious matter. You simply can't go around deleting the fact that ballplayers are Jewish, just because you don't like it, when that has been robustly reported by many RSs -- and, importantly -- the ballplayer is the subject of the article. You've been warned to stop multiple times. You've continued. That's the number one issue here.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:15, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Actually, I'm not deleting, I'm replacing with more accurate information that is often better sourced. Like, say, with Sam Fuld - a source from his own words rather than random people writing articles about baseball players. Why do I have to explain this? You know this. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:31, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Untrue. You have now multiple times deleted the reference to the fact that he is Jewish, which is eminently sourced to RSs. That is vandalism. You've done it after a final warning.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:35, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Do I not get a cookie if I do it after the "final warning"? P.S. Braun is described as "Jewish" about a dozen times (okay, maybe just ten) in the course of that section. I suspect one less reference isn't going to hurt. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 07:54, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

If you delete RS-supported relevant text after a final warning, you get reported to the relevant noticeboard. Which is what I have done. Bizarrely, at that noticeboard you attacked the sources used to support the text you deleted. Even though you had used them yourself to support text relating to the same type of information of people other than the subject. In any event, as I've pointed out at the vandalism noticeboard, I'm willing to close the complaint if you restore the deleted RS-supported information. If that issue is addressed, we can then move on the the second, less significant, issue of the information that you would like to add, which relates not to the subject but to his parents.--Epeefleche (talk) 08:06, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

Will you stop talking about warnings? I'm not paying attention, and you're in no position to issue them. The question is simple, why do you feel reliably sourced information should be removed from the section it's very relevant to? And what is so wrong about the deleting one of a dozen statements that Braun is "Jewish"? All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 08:33, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• Per this discussion at the vandal noticeboard at which AHW was reported, I take AHW's comment as an admission that the material that he deleted is supported by the RSs and is verifiable, and have added it back in. If he reverts again, I will raise the matter at the appropriate noticeboard, requesting appropriate sanctions in accordance with wp:van. As to issue # 2, while I see that it is notable what Braun's religion is (he gets awards and props for being a religion x major leaguer), I don't see a Baseball America list of "Baseball players whose mother is religion x".

While it floats AHW's boat, it is not as though we have books called "Major Leaguers whose mother is religion x", or that major league baseball has a symposium on "Major leaguers whose fathers are religion y". It simply is not notable.--Epeefleche (talk) 09:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

• • What does religion have to do with anything? Braun has said he wasn't raised in the Jewish religion. Anyway, while that section now suffers from over-quotization, at least the relevant information is there. Kudos. All Hallow's Wraith (talk) 10:07, 19 April 2011 (UTC)

I'm confused. Is Braun considered Jewish because his father is of Jewish ETHNIC descent or because he was born an Israeli and practices Judaism? If Braun has stated he doesn't practice Judaism, and his mother practices Catholicism, then how is Braun considered Jewish? Doesn't Jewish-ness pass from the mother? Just asking since this topic seems to be a really big issue for this article. jrn0074 11:51, 25 April 2011 (UTC).

Headers; Deletion of RS-supported material

The explanatory language at headers is standard for GA articles, and has been requested in GA reviews of baseball articles (a number of which I've undergone in bringing a number of articles to GA level). Also, we do little to help the reader by adding needless words, as in changing "College" to "Collegiate career". (last undo was intended to have an edit summary pointing to this).--Epeefleche (talk) 19:37, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I don't disagree with having header/section titles to split up article content, but in this case, this article is so needlessly detailed, that was likely the reason for such a request. As it stands, if you look at the Table of Contents in your preferred version, it looks like a mess. You have headers splitting out information like "home run pace", "hitting against LHP/RHP", etc, information that frankly could be summarized in two sentences. At some point, it becomes excessive to see 5-6 headers for a single season. One of the section titles has "Milwaukee Brewers" in it - why? Has he played for another major league team that requires us to make the distinction? Further, "Personal life" is a common section for biography articles, I see no reason why "Jewish heritage" can't be put under that.

I could go into more detail but the gist of what I'm trying to say is that the section organization is flawed and needs modifications if this article is to be improved. It's been 4 years since the article was promoted to GA and 2 sincei t was re-assessed. Pointing back to those discussions at this stage might not be particularly relevant, since the article has advanced so much and assessment guidelines have gotten stricter since then. I'm not so sure it would pass another reassessment. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 19:48, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss. But, as I said, the approach I discuss above is the result of GA review, and review by multiple editors in the community. If you think there is a better approach, let's discuss it, and change it if there is agreement or consensus. But in the interim, I think edit warring is a bad approach -- and especially inappropriate where we have a GA-reviewed article, and your reasons for change are subjective (if that is the case). The aspect of the GA review I discuss is one I have seen in many GA reviews over the years of baseball articles. It was not my idea when it was first put in GA articles -- it was the GA reviewer(s) of baseball articles who called for it. It has been the approach called for or used in every GA article I have worked on since.--Epeefleche (talk) 19:55, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You just now deleted RS-supported information, because you felt it did not belong in the lede. First of all, the better course if you are correct as to a formatting issue such as that is not to delete such RS-supported info. But to move it. Second, it is relevant to his notability, as by virtue of being born in the US he can play for the US in the WBC.--Epeefleche (talk) 20:23, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

First, just because something is "RS-supported" doesn't mean it necessarily needs to be included in the article. Rather, if something is supported by reliable sources, it is eligible or appropriate. I suspect that is why the article currently is 104 KB - some trimming is needed and some judgment needed to determine if every piece of info, sourced or not, is important enough to include. But back to my point... secondly, the lead sentence already states he is American. Does it matter that he was really born in California? If it says he's American, I think it is safe to assume he can play for the American WBC team, don't you? His home state is not particularly revelatory to his American citizenship/nationality. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 20:34, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

You may not have noticed, but this is the convention across most baseball articles. It is also the convention in most encyclopedias. The rule that you are pointing to has waffled -- in the past it existed, then it was deleted (because it did not make sense, as it failed to follow what most encyclopedias do -- place of birth and date of birth are virtually always reflected together, for obvious reasons, in Britannica et al), and then it slipped back. The point was made in past discussions of the rule that led to it being undone that with sports athletes who can participate for a country, it makes even more sense to keep place of birth adjacent to date of birth. It is illogical to split them. But some thought that would not be a problem, because it would fall within the exception to the rule, and that editors would understand that.Epeefleche (talk) 20:41, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

OK, well getting to the crux of the matter - I think this article is teeming with relatively insignificant and less notable statistical achievements. It does not appear to practice summary style very well and I'd like to do some pruning to make it read better. For example - spring training results are pretty unimportant, unless they brought about some huge concern about how he would perform during the year. The only time I would mention anything about spring training is if something happened during that period that is inherently notable (e.g. contract negotiations, injury). There is a lot of other cases of information that needs to be removed to help the article observe summary style, but I don't know if it is practical to discuss every change. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk • contributions) 13:24, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

I'm happy to discuss changes. It is what the talk page is here for, and helps avoid edit warring. I'll take a look at the spring training info. As you say, injury or contract highlights at that time may be notable, and usually (unless the player is leading the league) stats are much less likely to be important -- the exception being if a) it is the most significant high-level exposure a player had to that point, or b) it relates to him making or not making a team.--Epeefleche (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

-Why was the statement about ryan braun denouncing his nickname, "Hebrew Hammer", removed. I proved a source, Dan LeBatard interview. He has publicly said he does not like the nickname. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marklkrueger (talk • contribs) 15:58, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

Jewish heritage

Hello. I edited the first part of the Jewish heritage-section, putting it into an English that makes sense also to people who are familiar with the subtleties of Jewish law, but my edits were reverted. The point is: Children of non-Jewish mothers who were not raised as Jews, as is the case with Braun, are not considered/accepted as Jews by most Jewish denominations. That is why Braun's declaring himself a Jew is worth mentioning at all, as his mother is a Roman Catholic, and his father, an Israeli born Jew of European descent who came to the US at age 7, doesn't attend Jewish religious services and has not raised his son Jewish. (“I didn't have a Bar Mitzvah. I don't want to pretend that I did. I didn't celebrate the holidays”). The paragraph beginning with “Braun's father Joe, most of whose side of the family was murdered by the Nazis in the Holocaust, was born in Israel” ist misleading, and a bit of a joke, if correct English at all. I'm eventually going to correct it once more, if there are no objections. Ajnem (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

As I see no objections, I'm going to make the necessary corrections. Ajnem (talk) 13:29, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I object. We reflect RSs. We don't apply our OR. The article as it stood reflected the RSs, and his statements and self-identification.--Epeefleche (talk) 16:26, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I agree with the objection. It is wholly inappropriate to edit the article to show that some people may disagree with his self-identification. ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹^Speak 16:52, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I also agree with Epeefleche and Surie. It'll be necessary to find some specific sources questioning Braun's self-identification to include them in the article--and enough sources to demonstrate that out of the mountain of material written on Braun, this is a significant enough issue to include. -- Khazar (talk) 17:44, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

Hello, you have completly misunderstood my point. The section, as it is now, needs cleaning up. There are repetitions and wordings that are wrong. I have no intention to put any doubt on Braun's identifying himself as Jewish. But he is quoted as saying: “It's a touchy subject because I don't want to offend anybody, and I don't want groups claiming me now because I'm having success. But I do consider myself definitely Jewish. And I'm extremely proud to be a role model for young Jewish kids.” [30] So, if he says that he “considers” himself Jewish, the article should say the same thing, particularly as he stresses the point that he doesn't want to offend anybody, therefore the article about him imo shouldn't offend anybody either. Im going to make the corrections, please read it, before you revert. It's not the last word, and we can discuss any amount of changes. But as it is now, it's a bit of nonsense. Why mention that his mother is Catholic, if it has no bearing on the issue? Every article cited does mention that his mother is Christian, why do you think they mention it? Cheers, Ajnem (talk) 17:48, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

At first glance, your edit looks like a definite improvement. I did indeed misunderstand your point and thought you wanted to add text to the article making the point above (that he's not technically Jewish by many definitions). As you say, though, your current edit is a good way to straddle that line, unless there's a subtlety I'm missing here. Cheers, Khazar (talk) 18:14, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you think my edit is an improvement. The problem imo is, that every article quotes or refers to this interview Braun gave to the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel in 2007, but I can't find the interview. I'm sure, if we had it, the “subtlety” of his statements would become clear. Ajnem (talk) 17:57, 25 January 2012 (UTC)

PED

http://espn.go.com/espn/otl/story/_/id/7338271/ryan-braun-milwaukee-brewers-tests-positive-performance-enhancing-drug Is this enough to add to his article? 184.100.184.253 (talk) 00:58, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

It's already in the article in the proper place after the 2011 season. Spanneraol (talk) 01:01, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Should we add the official statement his agent has made? http://content.usatoday.com/communities/dailypitch/post/2011/12/ryan-braun-steroids-50-game-suspension-appeal/1 "There are highly unusual circumstances surrounding this case which will support Ryan's complete innocence and demonstrate there was absolutely no intentional violation of the program. While Ryan has impeccable character and no previous history, unfortunately, because of the process we have to maintain confidentiality and are not able to discuss it any further, but we are confident he will ultimately be exonerated." — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bromanw (talk • contribs) 07:46, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

The PED story belongs in the Intro. He got off on a loophole, and this story is not going away. He is officially in the club of players who many people believe did use PEDs. When Braun retires, it will be in the first 2 paragraphs of the story of his career. When he dies, it will be in the first 2 paragraphs of his obit. If Braun builds an HOF-worthy resume, his BBWAA vote will be an uphill climb. Prideful contributors here can pretend that Braun was exonerated, but he is now tainted, and as everyone knows, it is extremely difficult to prove a negative. Jrgilb (talk) 02:45, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Agree, the lead should mention the controversy. El duderino (talk) 00:02, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Lock the page?

Vandalism is starting to grow, so I suggest we lock this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by De132Wiki (talk • contribs) 22:56, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

Overturned suspension

If the article is going to mention Braun's charge of tampering, it should be balanced with opponent who say there was no proof and no motive to tamper. Opposing text was removed. There is also a view by multiple sources that Braun got off on a technicality, and the sample was intact. This should be presented neutrally.—Bagumba (talk) 17:00, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to include his allegation, especially if there's nothing to back it up. I feel fishy about citing a Mike Lupica column here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:28, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

There is nothing to back up Braun claim of tampering either. Here is ESPN article which raises similar questions surrounding the case.[31]—Bagumba (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is an article in LA Times that says "By all accounts, the seal on the sample was intact and the delay did not change the sample." Hope this addresses comment in edit summary by 99.57.181.46 that "espn doesnt have good sources when it comes to baseball". There's plenty of other sources in Google News ... —Bagumba (talk) 18:11, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Collector released a statement that he followed protocol.[32] Leaving text in the article that the sample sat in the collector's basement, was not refrigerated, etc. seems to be slanted to add question to the process, when all sources say the suspension was overturned only because the sample was not FedExed until Monday. Fair presentation of all sides is missing here.—Bagumba (talk) 23:46, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

The following is the transcript from an interview on the Dan Patrick Show that was aired Monday, Feb. 27, 2012, between Dan Patrick and SI senior writer David Epstein: Patrick: Let's bring in David Epstein. He's Sports Illustrated's senior writer. David, give the audience a backdrop of what you do for the magazine. Epstein: I tend to report on kind of science and medicine issues, which dove tails with doping and investigative stuff. And then just sports generally, otherwise, lots of Olympics sports type stuff. Patrick: What was the technicality that was raised here that helped Ryan Braun get off? Epstein: Well, according to the drug testing agreement between Major League Baseball and the Union, the samples, the urine samples, are supposed to get to the WADA-acredited lab in Montreal within 24 hours of collection. And this particular sample was taken later in the day on a Saturday and apparently there was no FedEx available so it was stored in the refrigerator of the doping control officer until the following Monday, when it was sent to the lab. So it didn't get there within the proscribed 24 hours. Patrick: OK, what's that do a sample if it's been sitting for 48 hours? Esptein: Well, I mean, nothing much. That's actually pretty standard practice for World Anti-Doping Agency protocol since there are so many world sporting events on weekends or even sometimes over holidays. So when the sample gets to the lab they test it for degradation and in this case, based on my sources, the sample was not degraded. It was pretty standard. Patrick: But if you're looking at this sample was the seal broken when they got it to see if it had been tampered with? Epstein: No, no it wasn't. And as far as I know, that wasn't something that had been challenged. What seems to have been sealed to stay, to basically have stayed in the doping control officer's refrigerator as opposed to kind of a Kinko's box over the weekend. That's the issue, 24 hours was what was agreed upon in that drug testing agreement. Patrick: From what I've been told, 3 times the testosterone level, that I guess one in a urine test you found that with Ryan Bruan. What was leaked first of all, aside from the testing positives, was that he had herpes and that he was taking medicine for that condition. Could any medicine like that spike your urine sample to have it 3 times the synthetic levels? Epstein: As I reported, as ESPN reported, the sample tested positive for synthetic testosterone so you wouldn't expect that from a medication unless the medication was synthetic testosterone. And he'd have a therapeutic use-exemption for any approved medications so that would be approved understood by the testers. And they aren't actually testing the absolute levels of testosterone. They test what's called your T/E ratio, so that's the ratio of testosterone to another hormone called epitestosterone in your body. So the fluctuations of your absolute level aren't as important as the ratio and that shouldn't be particularly upset by a medication like that. Patrick: Why do you think the arbitrator ruled in favor of Ryan Braun? Epstein: Of course it was a split 2-1 vote, and by the agreement, the joint drug testing agreement, it says barring extreme circumstances, the sample is supposed to get to the lab within 24 hours and that didn't happen. Patrick,: You think it just came down to that technicality? You don't think there was anything nefarious going on here? Epstein: Well, so we know there were some other things discussed in arbitration, like the fact Braun hasn't undergone massive physical, he didn't appear to have side effects and things like that. But from everything that I've reported that seems to be what it hinged on. And that's not to say that he did or didn't ingest synthetic testosterone on purpose or not. But that seems to be the issue that held sway here. (end) I think I will add the names to the article of the arbitrators in the 2-1 ruling. Zepppep (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Zepppep (talk) 17:12, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

There is no reference to who Epstein is. 71.82.235.166 (talk) 20:36, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

(from above) Let's bring in David Epstein. He's Sports Illustrated's senior writer. Jrgilb (talk) 02:50, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

section 'Overturned suspension' tagged POV

If this dispute is or is not resolved, where is the continued discussion about the section POV tag? Also the one about 'excessive detail'? These tags are not to be used as 'badges of shame' or permanent alerts to editorial disagreement. El duderino (talk) 23:54, 13 April 2012 (UTC). And maybe I'm too polite as well as weary of BLP violations of privacy, but doesn't the medical condition mentioned in the transcript above fall under the TMI umbrella? El duderino (talk) 00:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It's possible the tags were added with good reason but the editor(s) who added the tags did not list specific reasons. That being said, I don't see how this article can maintain its GA status with the current issues with this section as it fails #2 and #3 of the Quick fails at Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Zepppep (talk) 02:47, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

Agree w/removal of the tag. Looks like tag-bombing, pure and simple.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:19, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

I have tended to some of the POV issues in the section. It's still not as good as it needs to be, however, especially for a GA article. (I don't think the editor who added the tag could be found guilty of tag-bagging considering the issues the section has (which have been discussed in the thread above this one). For example, the panel overturned the suspension in Feb. and Das wasn't fired until mid-May, yet the last sentence of the section "Das was fired..." make it sound as if Das did something wrong during the arbitration process which resulted in his being fired. No where in the source that is cited does it state Das was fired for any sort of mishandling of the Braun case, but this is the perception given to the reader. Zepppep (talk) 06:22, 16 September 2012 (UTC)

The discussion is above at #Overturned_suspension.—Bagumba (talk) 00:16, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

I happen to think those tags are justified from my read of that section. Surely the speculation can be removed or updated and the dates are all over the place. The Jewish heritage section also seems close to running foul of the focus criteria (he had a name that was the same as someone elses, but there was no family connection). Lots of citation needed tags and the prose could do with a copy edit (single sentence paragraphs, external links in text and the like). I am considering a WP:GAR, but will allow a chance for the regular editors of this article to tidy it up. AIRcorn (talk) 07:47, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

The disputed test has been tagged for neutrality since February, which seems sufficient warning for a GA article to have been cleaned up. GAR seems perfectly reasonable.—Bagumba (talk) 00:10, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

Notification left at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Ryan_Braun_GA_status.—Bagumba (talk) 00:15, 26 October 2012 (UTC)

This should be a semi-protected article in wake of the suspension

Very controversial topic at this point. Should be monitored for vandalism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Spaluch1 (talk • contribs) 02:08, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

Homerism

Ugh, what's up with the fanboy-like praise of Braun in the lead? "considered one of the best active players"? "excellent fielding and arm strength"? "greatest current players"? Every single minor and trivial award he has ever won, and every single obscure statistic he's led a league (MLB/minors/college)? Did Ryan's mom write this gushy intro? And of course, the elephant in the room here, his suspension and his highly controversial career the past 3 years, only get mentioned in a tiny paragraph at the end of the lead, reduced to only the skeletal facts? I mean, Braun is one of the most publicly criticized American athletes in the entire past decade. The lead needs revamping to reflect that. Any little edit I make is being reverted with no explanation, so how about some discussion here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankeesfan10023 (talk • contribs) 21:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)

• • • Ok, so it may be gushy. But "most publicly criticized American athlete" in the "entire past decade"? That's a bit over the top.Mfribbs ^Talk 00:20, Saturday May 24, 2014 (UTC) 00:20, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

It seems all that is in the article is referenced, either in the lede or in the body. Personal editor opinions, on the other hand, have no place here. Epeefleche (talk) 05:34, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

2014 season?

Would adding a new subsection entitled 2014 season be appropriate? I think something about his criticism leading up to the season and how he handled it during the season with statistics being mentioned. Mfribbs ^Talk 00:22, Saturday May 24, 2014 (UTC) 00:22, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Is there anything newsorthy in that, yet? I'm not sure. --Epeefleche (talk) 05:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Well, he did get injured and was on the DL for a while. Mfribbs ^Talk 12:36, Saturday May 24, 2014 (UTC) 12:36, 24 May 2014 (UTC)

Excessive praise of defense

Out of curiosity, isn't the player profile section slanted too much toward defense? It also seems to praise his defense more than it should. Prior to his suspension, Braun was regarded as an elite hitter. His defense was nowhere near as relevant.

The performance at 3B was exceptionally bad - a sub .900 FA at 3B and a -3.0 dWAR in just 113 games is unheard of in the modern MLB of the last 20 years! (Even so, this article still finds room for a couple praiseworthy statements.) His time in the outfield has been better, but his dWAR on Baseball Reference is nothing to write home about - slightly below average.

LF could use more balanced coverage. Perhaps keeping the couple times he's appeared on leader boards makes sense, but his mediocre dWAR should also be mentioned. I'm hesitant to make any big changes at the moment, because a lot of information was cited from legitimate sources, and the section is already so darned long.

My first question is, does anyone agree that this section is not balanced, and if so, what should be done? Tidewater 2014 (talk) 16:40, 24 November 2014 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. I think it's fine and reality (and RS-based). As with most baseball player articles, other than those of pitchers, coverage is primarily about offense rather than defense. For whatever reason. He was very bad at 3B; small sample size, especially compared with his time in the OF, but very, very bad. And he was very good in the outfield. Consistently, over a number of years. Mention of both are appropriate. --Epeefleche (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2014 (UTC)

Nickname

I approved a pending change that added the nickname "Hebrew Hammer" and found a so-so reference for the name. However, I'm not 100% comfortable with the validity of that reference given that it is a blog entry at MLB.com rather than some traditional news source. There are many google hits for the nickname but none of them are really excellent sources (I'm not so excited about The Huffington Post or some cheesy looking unauthorized autobiography). If you can find a better source please add it... or maybe we should remove the nickname altogether? —Noah 21:58, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't think it should be right at the start of the article as its not a common enough nickname to be worthy of such inclusion. Perhaps relegate it to a small mention in the jewish heritage section.. "some call him the Hebrew Hammer"... Spanneraol (talk) 22:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

A logical suggestion. And, even then, I think it still needs a better ref if we can find one. —Noah 22:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Spanneraol. It definitely does not belong in the lead. Unless a better source can be found, it probably best to leave it out altogether.--JayJasper (talk) 22:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that it is already in the Jewish heritage section... probably should just leave that mention as is and take it out of the lead.Spanneraol (talk) 22:46, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Silly of me not to notice that! Ok, I went ahead and removed it from the lede. —Noah 00:11, 22 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Ryan Braun. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20120503212339/http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-15/sports/29778514_1_brewers-fall-yovani-gallardo-brewers-manager-ron-roenicke/2 to http://articles.boston.com/2011-07-15/sports/29778514_1_brewers-fall-yovani-gallardo-brewers-manager-ron-roenicke/2

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 II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:18, 14 January 2016 (UTC)