Talk:Major League Baseball

General Discussion

I'm curious, what other types of things should go into this page here? For example, the comparable Wiki page has the league standings from the previous year. Is that the kind of thing we want to keep here on CZ? What about the sections about the rules re: players' uniforms or the MLB television blackout policy? Do we make sub-pages for this stuff? Or should we be ignoring it completely? What do others think? Joshua Knapp 18:36, 7 February 2008 (CST)

I think having a history of league standings would be something that we could fit onto the Catalogs subpage. I think there definately needs to be a section discussing the steroid/HGH scandal. --Todd Coles 09:41, 8 February 2008 (CST)

Those aren't bad, but for the catalogs subpage... I'm not sure how to do that, I'm not even sure I've seen one here yet, would you mind helping me get that started? Joshua Knapp 10:05, 8 February 2008 (CST)

I would also suggest content on expansion outside the US; the difference between the AL and NL on designated hitters; and the recent move towards regular season inter-league play. I think it's vital that the article talk about the color bar in the Majors and Jackie Robinson's historic role in breaking it. The history section should also contain at least a brief mention of the professional Negro League, which could then, like the Minor Leagues section, be split off into separate articles. I'll help however I can. Shawn Goldwater 10:13, 8 February 2008 (CST)

I like these ideas too. I very breifly touched on the interleague part in the season structure section, but now that I look back at it, I see that that really needs some expansion. I'll get on adding some more of these ideas. Todd, let me know what you think of the steroid portion so far.

James Perry has been doing a lot of Catalog work for the Olympics article Olympic Games/Catalogs. Steroids looks like a good start, I don't have time right now to delve too deep into it but will give it more attention when I can. --Todd Coles 11:07, 8 February 2008 (CST)

Ok, thanks for the direction, I figured it out. Do you or does anyone know, do charts like the one I started have to be hand coded? Or is there a more efficient way to create them? Joshua Knapp 12:01, 8 February 2008 (CST)

Also, another question, I'm planning on making pages for all the teams. Including catalogs for team stats, past records, etc. Should these be subpages of MLB, or separate, but linked pages. Personally, I think they should be separate pages because when done well, there then can be big enough to stand on their own, IMO. What do you guys think?Joshua Knapp 12:25, 8 February 2008 (CST)

Without question they should have their own pages. Subpages in general are more for catalogs, discographies, image galleries, and the like that will enhance the main article. Also, I'm not a master of the tables... the one that I made I got some help from Robert King, you might want to check with him. --Todd Coles 12:32, 8 February 2008 (CST)

More ideas?

Can anyone think of anything else to put in here? I thought that maybe the color bar section could probably be beefed up a little. Outside of that, are there any more idea for additions? I've been sitting on it a few days trying to think of something more, I'm out of ideas that I like.Joshua Knapp 13:27, 13 February 2008 (CST)

There should definitely be a section about Bill James and the Sabremetrics revolution that he started (or at least made famous -- Palmer and some others were around early also); baseball is in many ways merely an accumulation of statistics and James has helped make them truly meaningful. And *finally* accepted, even by the most moss-bound front-office and old-time operators. Look at Billy Beane at Oakland and James himself with the Bosox -- in the four or five years he's helped out, they have won two world championships! He and Marvin Miller are the two most important baseball figures since Jackie Robinson. Also, perhaps, a section about how baseball has promoted itself over the years (or NOT promoted itself, as the case may be) -- Bill Veeck is my particular hero. You might also mention that "Base ball" became "base-ball" became "baseball"....Hayford Peirce 13:45, 13 February 2008 (CST)

Would some this information not be better placed in the baseball article, while leaving this one to league specific topics?--Todd Coles 14:26, 13 February 2008 (CST)

Maybe the part about base ball, base-ball, baseball. But the rest of it I think IS league specific. For example, I don't know of any other leagues that use sabermetrics. Unless Im wrong about that.Joshua Knapp 14:33, 13 February 2008 (CST)

I can see your point. I guess I think of it as a general theory that can apply to baseball anywhere. --Todd Coles 14:47, 13 February 2008 (CST)

That's true, I don't see any reason why it couldn't be used elsewhere. I think, at the very least, it should be mentioned, along with Bill James, Billy Beane and the new stats' effect on MLB and the way that teams scout based on them. --Joshua Knapp 14:55, 13 February 2008 (CST)

The Labor relations section needs to discuss how these issues played out in the early history of the game. The key reference for this is:

Roger Abrams, Legal Bases: Baseball and the Law

James F. Perry 14:02, 13 February 2008 (CST)

Thank you both for your ideas, I'll get to work on some of that as soon as I am able. James, thanks for the reference, it appears that Google Books has most of that book available on-line.Joshua Knapp 14:08, 13 February 2008 (CST)

Defunct Teams

The Seattle Pilots relocated to Milwaukee and are now the Milwaukee Brewers. So, I don't think the Seattle Pilots would fit the definition of a "Defunct" team. Defunct, the way I always understood it, means dead, no longer existing. In the sports world, this would mean a franchise that no longer exists, but folded completely, instead of relocating. Stop me if im wrong. --Eric Clevinger 21:59, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I tend to agree with you. I'm not even sure defunct teams needs to be part of this article, but if it does, I'd say it should be something for the Catalogs subpage. --Todd Coles 22:06, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Moved this section to the bottom of the page -- please note, Eric, that CZ convention always, except in *very* rare cases, places new discussion sections at the bottom of the page, not the top. Thanks for following this precept! Hayford Peirce 22:11, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I fear, Eric and Todd, that no matter what you feel about it, and there *are* others who agree with you, that this is an old argument that baseball fans have been having in various forums for many years now and the general consensus is that old teams such as the *1900* Baltimore Orioles, the Boston Braves, the St. Louis Browns, etc. etc., actually are "defunct" teams, even though their physical entities did indeed move to other cities. Whether or not they should be mentioned in the article or not, and where, is another kettle of fish, however. Hayford Peirce 22:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I have deleted the "Defunct franchises" section, for a number of reasons. First and foremost, the listing of 4 teams is woefully incomplete, and I do not have the time to make it complete. Also, in my opinion, there are (1) cases where it is clear that a franchise relocated without going defunct, (2) cases where franchises clearly went defunct, and, more importantly, (3) gray areas in between. Mark Widmer (talk) 09:38, 26 February 2023 (CST)

Intro

I have re-written the Introductory part of the article to make it a better introduction to the topic for the reader. Please note, there were a few parts of the Intro that I moved down to other parts of the Article because they go beyond the scope of simply introducing the topic. For example: the "Senior Circuit" and "Junior Circuit" nicknames for the NL and AL. --Eric Clevinger 22:41, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that's a clear improvement. Hayford Peirce 22:29, 8 March 2009 (UTC)