![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There is a lot of research going on at the moment that tends to show that the Boston Americans were never actually called the "Pilgrims" at the time -- that it was a name that baseball writers later stuck onto the team's history. I belong to the Sabremetric baseball research group and will research this issue a little, then, if necessary, make any changes. Hayford Peirce 03:32, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Interesting fact- Mr. Young also holds the record for losingest pitcher. -- cuiusquemodi 04:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Accord to my early research, Young holds a lot of hitting records. I've searched the MLB.com stats database for players who have pitched 5000 innings or more and he's the leader in ABs, hits, RBI, runs and total bases.
I can't say it officially though - but there are only two pitchers close to him in at bats; Pud Galvin and Walter Johnson. There's also no record of how many at bats he got as a position player, and it's debatable whether than even matters. If a guy get's 98% of his at bats as a pitcher, that's surely enough? Mglovesfun 17:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This has to be the worst Wikipedia article I've ever read. I'll take out the most obvious crap, but this article needs a lot of work. Good grief.
Praetorian42
01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The article ought to say what the pitchers' mound was moved from. StaticElectric 22:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is the Cy Young "Career Statistics" section empty? Either show the stats, or remove the section. Of course, the former is preferred. Usuallylogical 21:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the work by Tecmobowl as well as others is improving this article. The info about Young's rookie season with Canton and the $500 contract is great. I've reworked and tightened the intro to emphasize what I think are the most salient bulletpoints: the Award, 511 wins, Hall of Fame, no-hitters. 208.120.227.250 16:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I've reinserted some of the "color" into the early part of the article (i.e. fastest pitcher, steak in glove, battery with Zimmer, mound distance moved) because it gives more of an individual sense than simple statistical info.
The reversion reinstated a handful of typos and grammatical errors, which I've fixed. As for the arrangement of the introduction, the 511 wins are paramount. I feel that 511 must be mentioned before the number of teams Young played for, or his 20-win seasons, which were commonplace during that era of baseball.
Without an explanation being offered, I'm unsure why the narrative descriptions of Young's pitching style, or the era he played in, are being deleted. The first half of Young's career is disposed of in two paragraphs, or half the space given to Fernando Valenzuela and Denny McLain not knowing much about him. There's about as much information about the Cleveland Spiders' shifting organizational status as there is about how Cy Young pitched for the team. I've replaced the narrative information, with citations.
I hope this clarifies the reasoning behind the edits, and that upcoming revisions will also be explained. Thanks! 208.120.227.250 21:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
208.120.227.250 02:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)The edits and revisions have hurt the introduction. Each of the first two sentences establishes that Young played professional baseball; surely one is sufficient. Young's sizeable IP totals (etc.) are also invoked twice. But his 511 wins are now less prominent than his having played for 5 teams, an accomplishment that also applies to Damion Easley or Ted Lilly. Young's all-time win total is also tucked behind his 20-win seasons, a benchmark which was not as highly valued or rare during Young's era. For example, in Cy Young's first 20-win season, just twenty pitchers started 30+ games, and a dozen of them topped 20 wins. The information belongs in the piece, of course, but not ahead of 511 wins.
As it stands, for the 1891-1900 time period, there is almost as much information in the article about the Cleveland Spiders' business practices as there is about a person named Cy Young.
The autoreversion has, once again, reinstated a number of typographical/grammatical errors to the piece. I have seen this habit introduce a lack of delicacy or precision to other Wikipages, and I hope it will be avoided here. Young is now listed as starting his professional career twice-- first in 1889, and again in 1890. The article claims he was given his "Cy" nickname in 1915. It claims that one of four errors cost Young a perfect game. It states that 1930 is "the beginning of the modern era" in baseball. A description of the 1899 Spiders ends in mid-sentence. All of these have been corrected, along with others. I request that future edits and reversions be more specifically applied, rather than be swept under the wholesale "last previous version" approach.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.227.250 ( talk • contribs)
208.120.227.250 08:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC) WP:LEAD says the following: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." Please note the above comment, particularly as it relates to the relative importance of Young's five professional teams vs. his 511 wins. The 511 wins are more important to the topic, and according to WP:LEAD, should take precedence. I sincerely believe the intro's emphasis must be on Cy Young's singular achievements, rather than ones that he shares with many players, including those of little note.
Again, some of the latest edits are still reinstating errors that have been removed multiple times from the text (i.e. "88-years after"; "won at least 20-games"; "Young's had 76 shutouts"). 208.120.227.250 08:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the following text from an edit i'm about to finish up: "Subsequent research has shown that Young was credited with an extra win in 1907. He entered a game in relief, with the Red Sox already holding a 6-4 lead, but was awarded the victory by the scorer. An appeal to baseball's rules committee many decades later failed to correct the decision. "If I hadn't been dealing with an immortal like Cy Young," said SABR's Frank Williams, "I think I probably would have gotten the switchover to [Ralph] Glaze," the pitcher who'd preceded Young. Young also went 3-3 as an interim player/manager for the Boston team, a role he did not relish." Anyone have a citation for this? // Tecmobowl 14:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Where is it? I'm not seeing it. Unless you're talking about the item you removed. And this "major rewrite" looks like you simply put one of your versions back, complete with typos and other mistakes. Baseball Bugs 16:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
What has MLB's 1991 decision got to do with Cy Young's perfect game? It has no bearing on it, and his perfect game was called a perfect game at least as far back as Ernie Lonigan's 1922 encyclopedia. All the 1991 ruling did was make it "official". So what? Baseball Bugs 16:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Although listed as a perfect game in record books as early 1922 [1], Major League Baseball did not classify a "perfect game" (a pitcher facing and retiring at least 27 batters) until 1991, after Young's death.
It would be interesting to see a citation that suggests it is possible for a pitcher to win 511 games (along with losing over 300) sometime in the future. Maybe if they legalize steroids and/or develop artificial ligaments. Baseball Bugs 11:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
208.120.224.97 20:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)I'm "the IP address who's putting his tupence in." I've been contributing to Wikipedia for several years now, but I prefer not to register an ID. The fact that two of the editors here seem to have some kind of "history" is an example of why I haven't done so. My IP address changes every one to three weeks, which keeps me out of longterm Wikifeuds. I have no interest in building a Wiki history or reputation, or exerting power; I just want to improve the website. Anyway, on to the article.
The all-purpose reversions by Tecmobowl keep reinserting errors, wordiness, and repetition, while silmultaneously deleting worthwhile content. I'm going to go edit by edit here to explain the reasoning for my own edit today; forgive me for the length.
The intro that Tecmobowl keeps reinserting mentions that Cy Young played "professional" "major league" baseball four times in the first two sentences, which is overkill. It contains a run-on sentence with a grammatical error. Young won 20 games fifteen times, not sixteen; that feat is less notable than his 30-win seasons, but the importance is reversed. "As a result of his consistent performance over an extended period of time" is filler. So is the repeated "in Major League history"-type clarification; it's been established that Young played 22 MLB years, and that these are MLB records. More filler and repetition occurs with paragraph 4 and Young's rankings; we may safely assume that editors at the Sporting News made the call, as opposed to shoemaking elves or the office furniture. We can also assume that Young was being ranked as a player on a list entitled "Baseball's 100 Greatest Players."
Specific details about Young's life, career, and especially his particular style of pitching, have been repeatedly deleted. These include his physical build, his alternate "Farmer" nickname, his fastball and changeup, his reliance on control which outlasted his speed, the conditions of play at the beginning of his career, his catcher's steak tactic, and so forth. This is detrimental to the article, and not in keeping with Wikipedia policy on biographies.
More wordiness keeps reappearing in the article-- "a 15-15 record" beats "he won 15 games and lost 15 games"; also, "one-year" is NOT hyphenated. We can also be confident that the catcher who nicknamed Young "Cy" did so after his tryout; these words needn't be there.
"In games Young started while with the Spiders, Chief Zimmer was the catcher more times than any other player" is clunky writing. Why the account of the 1892 championship was deleted is unexplained; without an explanation, it will appear to be because of the editor's lack of precision when reverting.
The emphasis on the Cleveland Spiders' organizational saga would be most useful in the Cleveland Spiders article. Why it keeps being reinserted at length, at the same time that Cy Young information is being removed, is perplexing. Also, what befell the Spiders following the departure of Young & Co. (worst record ever) is more germane, historic and compelling than what league the Spiders used to be in before Young's career began.
Young's career was revived by his move to the AL, and he was highly-paid for doing so. This is more pertinent than a laborious account of what a pitching triple crown constitutes, especially as this info is already available on its own Wikipedia page. The Young/Carlton winning % record also captures the weakness of Young's '01 Boston team. The Boston press reaction to "Farmer" Young at Harvard also adds contemporary color.
The new version of Young's perfect game vs. Waddell is jumbled and overwritten. Many other faceoffs between future Hall of Famers were played at that time, before then, and since. The "perfect game" description drops all details of Young's actual perfect game, in favor of what amounts to a sidebar primer on perfect game history and terminology. These edits render the phrase "Waddell got a measure of revenge..." confusing and out of place... revenge for WHAT? That information was clipped.
The deletion of Young's scoreless/hitless/perfect streak is a poor editing choice. So is the deletion of Young as the oldest no-hit pitcher.
The paragraphs about Young's walks per 9IP and innings pitched totals are a strange end to the section about his playing days; they more appropriately lead off his "Legacy" section. Details about changes to baseball's playing conditions are also highly appropriate to that section, and should remain. The statistic about Young's 400-inning seasons not leading the league (added, I believe, by Tecmobowl) is a good one, but a few conextual words link it even more strongly to the stat about his low ERA totals. The description of Young's physical regimen, and his eventual exit from the game, is a vivid portrait of the actual human being Cy Young and should also be kept.
Lastly, Roger Clemens did NOT surpass Young's Boston record for wins; he tied it, as the original text accurately described. The edit made this fact incorrect.
Before yet another mass "last version by" reversion, please consider the premises and explanations in the above. If you disagree, please explain why, beyond blanket "POV"/"passive voice" wipeouts. And apologies again for the lengthy edit-by-edit explanation, but watching these changes zap back and forth is getting a bit tendentious. I do look forward to more thoughtful contributions from Tecmobowl; he/she has made good edits and added good information here. Early baseball clearly energizes him/her. And so, I hope that Tecmobowl will see that editors working together will improve this article more quickly and effectively than what's been going on lately. 208.120.224.97 20:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
208.120.224.97 21:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Tecmobowl: Your complete reversion occurred 2 minutes after my last edit. Your speed in reading the above comment, weighing the versions of each of more than two dozen edits large and small, and coming to the conclusion that your preferred version was correct in every case, is remarkable.
It is impractical to complain about "unsourced information" at the same time that you remove "unnecessary citation." Moreover, most of the information you've deleted is NOT unsourced.
It is inconsistent for you to overexplain a 15-15 record for the benefit of a reader who might have no knowledge, and then delete the "Farmer Young" reference because you have no knowledge of it. Again, that reference is sourced.
My edits deleted none of your content, and very little of your text. They are quite different from your edits in that respect.
The criticism that I should "spend as much time fixing the problems as [I] do talking about them" also seems misplaced, considering that the problems I've fixed (to the extent that they're problems, of course) have been reverted by you many times.
I mentioned the username/IP issue only because another poster referred to it. I assume we all know that "anonymous edits" are considered equally valid by Wikipedia policy (if not practice). 208.120.224.97 21:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
208.120.224.97 22:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Tecmo: I've kept your "five different teams" preference in the first sentence. The intro still contains 4 references to Young's "professional/major league" accomplishments in the first paragraph alone; is this enough for your tastes? "1890 to 1911" is more precise than the "1890s and 1900s" reference, so I've made the switch. I've reinserted the "considered unreachable" characterization because this is almost universally accepted, and because it provides a context for Young's status, in accordance with Wikipedia policy regarding introductions. It is not a POV claim, and could easily be reinforced by a dozen ref's; I've stopped at two sources, including a past Commissioner of Baseball. The "30 wins"/"20 wins" totals have been flipped in the text, to reflect the comparative rarity and significance of the first. I dropped the "consistent performance over an extended period of time" phraseology because it repeats exactly what we've just established in paragraphs #1 and #2-- most wins ever, 15 seasons of 20 wins. I also lost the "third pitcher elected" HoF mention, as that seems to be a distinction not worthy of the intro and we can use the space. I restored the links for the various stat categories, to reinforce that these are professional records without stating such for the 6th or 7th time. I dropped the "fewest walks per 9IP" info as it's a comparatively esoteric stat alongside wins, losses, innings, etc., particularly for an intro. I have the intention of restoring BB per 9IP later in the article, during the discussion of Young's control ability where it will be more illuminating and relevant. I've tightened the perfect game mention while retaining your linked info about the 1991 codification date, etc. I've tightened the Sporting News/All-Century paragraph along the lines described above; there's no need to say Young was a player on a list of players. I've kept your reference to "editors." What now? 208.120.224.97 22:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
let me know if you do not understand where i am going with this. This of course is factually inaccurate as he played for six professional teams (the minor league team was professional). I'm just trying to explain why i'm being such a stickler for this type of information right now.// Tecmobowl 23:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
208.120.224.97 23:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)I've edited the intro to your first set of specifications.
Regarding your last issue, I get what you're saying, but Young's Tri-State season would be a nuisance to wrap the first sentence around. The American League of 1901-1902 also predates the formulation of an "MLB" entity, but those years are counted; Young wouldn't have 511 wins if they weren't. However, they DON'T credit his first pro year, or else Young would have 526 career wins.
Perhaps this semi-discrepancy could find a place in the body of the article, either with Young's first pro experience, or with the changes in baseball (mound distance, no glove, etc.) What do you think? 208.120.224.97 23:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
208.120.224.97 23:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Check out my latest edit. It's in the article's sixth paragraph and not the first, but that also allows us to "spread out" a little better. I'm a big believer in keeping intros as tightly written as possible; you can always elaborate after that. I think we're safe sticking with MLB's sense of what Young's career dimensions were, with the addenda coming right at the top of the "Professional career" section. Does this work for you, including the wording of the edit? 208.120.224.97 23:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
All that is just fine-- the only thing I want to lose is "nearly." For his era, Young got the all-time wins record as of #364 (Pud Galvin + 1). And even now, win #418 (Walter Johnson + 1) gave Young the all-time record. Since Young had 418 wins before 1907, we can stick to the century mark.
Onwards to Early Life and Pro Career. Let's drop the weight citation, since Young's weight varied over his career, which is even noted later on the page. But since he was 6-foot-2 according to various sources including Baseball-Reference, I've stuck that in... painlessly, I hope. I've mostly kept your tryout wording, and added a Young quote I found (with a source). I also left the "15 wins and 15 losses" per your above reasoning. I've reinserted the "Farmer Young" sentence with two sources; let me know how you like it.
I tightened the Spiders/AA/NL info slightly; take a look there. I've changed the paragraph that begins with Young's debut shutout. I've retained some of your phrasing, inserted some from past edits, and I've even added some additional info that wasn't in any of the previous edits. And I've reordered some of the details. Compare the two versions and see how they shake out. I'll freeze the edit at this point until we're caught up. 208.120.224.97 03:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we're heading in the right direction. Dropping nearly is fine as he set the record well before 1911. I'll fix some of the citations so that the dugout reference is merged with the other references to that article. I've adjusted the farmboy statement in the early life. I can't remember where the guideline is regarding how to describe a person is, but i think the adjustment will work with you (as in - you don't use their first name..etc...etc...). I removed the height reference for several reasons. First, I just can't seem to justify its' importance. Without using it as a comparative to other people of that time, it just doesn't seem to fit. I went and looked at a number of other biographies and didn't see any references to the persons height. Plus, it does change over time, so does it really benefit the article to say at somepoint in his life he stood 6'2". It seems fairly ambiguous as to when he got the farming nickname, so i moved it to the early life section and see what you think. I removed the pdf, not because it could not be used, but because it was difficult to tell what the work was and it didn't seem to offer anything different than the dugout reference. I have also adjusted the introduction portion of the professional career. I think the new version is much more inline with a factual "recounting" than an interpretive construction of the circumstances. I'm making a few other adjustments as we speak and let me know what you think. // Tecmobowl 11:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
6-foot-2 was atypically tall when Young began-- for instance, the other two pitchers on the 1891 Spiders with Young were 5-foot-9 and 5-foot-4. The 1891 NL leader in wins was 5-foot-9. Pud Galvin, the eventual #2 man in wins, was 5-foot-8. Maybe Young's height could help supplement the NL's reaction to Young, Rusie (6'1") and Meekin (6'1").
Also, there's no need to hedge on Young being "one of" the Spiders' best pitchers by 1891... the 1890-91 Spiders pages on baseball-reference.com make it pretty clear that he was, especially after Ed Beatin's career stopped on a dime.
Everything else looks just fine. I've made some slight text adjustments, so look at those. Round 3 to come. 208.120.224.97 18:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I put in a paragraph about the 1892 championship and Young's disappointing performance. I've fleshed out the 1895 championship-- leaving in the "rough and rowdy" characterization for the Baltimore team, and adding a Wikilink to "changeup." I rewrote the Browns/Spiders paragraph-- we had to lose "vice versa," since the transfer was uneven and the best St. Louis players stayed in St. Louis. I also added a sentence about how the 1899-1900 St. Louis team fared. Take a look at this part. Then I put in a short paragraph about Young, St. Louis, and Lou Criger. And that's where I've left off. 208.120.224.97 08:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I made some changes to the text to remove passive voice and somethings that just seem to push the article to far toward POV. I'm trying not to remove any reference to "best" and such, but I think they need to be kept at a minimum. I have made a section below for a particular point of interest. In the meantime, what do you think? // Tecmobowl 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is some text i wanted to place in the section that discusses the 1892 Spiders: This despite the fact that, one of the games ended in an 11-inning 0-0 tie.<ref name=1892spiders/>. According to B-R, young pitched a complete game shutout and in 3 starts pitched 27 innings. As he did not win any games, it seems that the above statement has some problems. Anyone else find something to the contrary? // Tecmobowl 14:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I was just skimming my copy of Glory Fades Away. Young pitched pretty well in his first and second starts. In his final start, the final game of the series, his arm was sore and the weather was cold, and he got hit fairly hard. Baseball Bugs 00:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I've altered some of your alterations. I shortened the paragraph about Young's 1892 achievements, and combined it with the next paragraph. I've tightened and clarified that paragraph, too. Slight changes to the 1895 Temple Cup-- it said "Young won three games" twice, so I deleted one of them; I also took out "consequently" because Young's 3 wins technically didn't clinch the series.
I moved ahead, adding a quick description of the AL raiding the NL. I slipped in Criger's move, left in your "stayed with Boston until 1909" text, and provided a citation for the Young/Carlton stat. And I restored the Boston reaction to Young at Harvard, albeit in rewritten form. More later. 208.120.224.97 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the item only works as an amusing sidebar, and if it isn't worth making the punchline clear, we may as well drop the whole thing. I like it as a small, subsidiary bit of biographical color. But if your concerns outweigh the Harvard anecdote's slight significance, just delete the whole thing. Your call. 208.120.224.97 23:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's unfortunate. I guess I'll finish now, and he can make changes in a week. I've tightened Baseball Bugs' recent edit. Then we jump to 1903. I made slight text changes, corrected a typo, and dropped the "Young's two wins helped..." since it's not a stop-the-presses observation that wins can help a team win.
I did more on Young/Waddell. I replaced some of the deleted text about the buildup. But I eliminated some of the text about future HoF'ers, since this was one of many such games. Most importantly, I reintroduced some of the contemporary braggadocio, which is what set their "feud" apart. Then I replaced the paragraph about all of Young's 1904 scoreless and hitless innings, which is a must for this article; I included a ref. I kept Tecmo's account of perfect game history to that point, while tightening the text a bit. I fixed a couple of typos in the 1905 rematch, and merged two sentences. I added one more Waddell-Young game of note. I added info about Young's 1908 no-hitter, and added a source. I also emphasized his age with a pair of facts. The "Cy Young Day" paragraph remains, as does his 1909 trade. And I made a small change to the "final games" paragraph. If Tecmo wants to post suggestions or edits here on the talk page, they can be put in by proxy. Just one more leg left in this marathon... 208.120.224.97 10:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
One item I've been trying to find, without success so far, although I think I have it somewhere, is a photo of Cy warming up in his Red Sox uniform, the first year they were "The Red Sox", 1908 or so, with the red-stocking logo on their chests. It's not only a nice photo, it also served as the basis for an oil painting that hangs, or used to hang, in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Baseball Bugs 10:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Bugs, I dropped your edits to the intro because they seem like overkill. Once we've said that Young has the most wins and the most losses, the fact that he has the most career decisions is a little anticlimactic. As for the workhorse part, it just seems like padding the introduction, though it might be a profitable addition for the "Young's legacy" section. I made a slight change to the "Cyrus-Silas" addition, because the colloquialism you describe was surely not "coincidental."
I added a paragraph about Cap Anson for 1890. I moved the paragraphs about Young's BB per 9IP and innings totals below the "Young's legacy" heading. They're a better fit for an overall discussion of Young's style and career than as an unexpected sabermetric conclusion to his playing biography. I added Bugs' "workhorse" observation to the innings one; see how that looks. I've also restored the "underhand/fouls/mound distance" info to the paragraph about Young as a bridge between eras. I think it works best there, though a case could be made for jumping some of it up to his 1890 debut with the Spiders. If anyone wants to move it higher, let us know. I made two slight changes to the paragraph beginning "Young led his leagues in wins...": the first to reinforce the contextual nature of the info, the second because "over 40" is technically inaccurate for the three seasons when Young had exactly 40 complete games.
I rewrote the part about Young's subdued warmup approach, and added quotes and the ref. I also added a Young quote about control pitching, from the same source-- both quotes are also available elsewhere. Tecmo's rewrite about Clemens/Young remains as is. And that's just about it! 208.120.224.97 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Two extra edits added. In the "Legacy" section, to organize and unite the "Young's control" text. And in the "perfect game" discussion, to reflect Young's NY Times obituary. 208.120.224.97 22:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Note to self - found a black-and-white rendering of the painting, which should be good enough for a compare with the photo, once I get to it. Baseball Bugs 04:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are four links that allow comparison of the rosters. It's possible someone already put this info together, but if not, I'll be back with a roster comparison later:
One factor lost in the discussion of the 1899 Spiders and how they got squashed like a bug (20-134) is how terrible the 1898 Browns were (39-111). Robison apparently hoped to win a pennant, but his revitalized Browns team, or Pefectos, or not-quite-Cardinals only improved to 84-67, for a fifth-place finish... which is exactly where Cleveland had finished in 1989, and with nearly the same record. There's only so much you can do with what you've got. Baseball Bugs 01:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cy Young/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hello. I will be doing the GA review for this article. I've just skimmed the article for now, so here are my initial concerns/suggestions:
That's it for now. I'll allow seven days for these initial improvements, and then I will make more specific ones (if everything is addressed). Nikki 311 01:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, OK, here are some citations. This group includes baseball-reference.com; retrosheet.org; The SABR Baseball List and Record Book, by SABR, 2007; and the 2008 edition of The Elias Book of Baseball Records, by the Elias Sports Bureau, the official statistician of MLB and several other sports. Here's what I've got so far:
Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I got the note on my talk page saying that everything has been finished. I'll do a second look later and copyedit where needed. Nikki 311 17:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I've done the copyedit. Here are some things I noticed while I was doing it:
Don't give up, the article is getting much closer to passing. Nikki 311 20:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Great work guys! I've cleaned up the new additions because they were a little wordy, and I combined the personal life and after baseball sections as they were relatively short. The article looks much better, and I've decided to pass the article. Congratulations on a GA! Nikki 311 19:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
"Robba Young died in 1933, 25 years before Cy Young died." He died in 1955, not 1958. But I don't which of the first two facts is wrong. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
There is a lot of research going on at the moment that tends to show that the Boston Americans were never actually called the "Pilgrims" at the time -- that it was a name that baseball writers later stuck onto the team's history. I belong to the Sabremetric baseball research group and will research this issue a little, then, if necessary, make any changes. Hayford Peirce 03:32, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
Interesting fact- Mr. Young also holds the record for losingest pitcher. -- cuiusquemodi 04:18, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Accord to my early research, Young holds a lot of hitting records. I've searched the MLB.com stats database for players who have pitched 5000 innings or more and he's the leader in ABs, hits, RBI, runs and total bases.
I can't say it officially though - but there are only two pitchers close to him in at bats; Pud Galvin and Walter Johnson. There's also no record of how many at bats he got as a position player, and it's debatable whether than even matters. If a guy get's 98% of his at bats as a pitcher, that's surely enough? Mglovesfun 17:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
This has to be the worst Wikipedia article I've ever read. I'll take out the most obvious crap, but this article needs a lot of work. Good grief.
Praetorian42
01:02, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
The article ought to say what the pitchers' mound was moved from. StaticElectric 22:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)
Why is the Cy Young "Career Statistics" section empty? Either show the stats, or remove the section. Of course, the former is preferred. Usuallylogical 21:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the work by Tecmobowl as well as others is improving this article. The info about Young's rookie season with Canton and the $500 contract is great. I've reworked and tightened the intro to emphasize what I think are the most salient bulletpoints: the Award, 511 wins, Hall of Fame, no-hitters. 208.120.227.250 16:51, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
I've reinserted some of the "color" into the early part of the article (i.e. fastest pitcher, steak in glove, battery with Zimmer, mound distance moved) because it gives more of an individual sense than simple statistical info.
The reversion reinstated a handful of typos and grammatical errors, which I've fixed. As for the arrangement of the introduction, the 511 wins are paramount. I feel that 511 must be mentioned before the number of teams Young played for, or his 20-win seasons, which were commonplace during that era of baseball.
Without an explanation being offered, I'm unsure why the narrative descriptions of Young's pitching style, or the era he played in, are being deleted. The first half of Young's career is disposed of in two paragraphs, or half the space given to Fernando Valenzuela and Denny McLain not knowing much about him. There's about as much information about the Cleveland Spiders' shifting organizational status as there is about how Cy Young pitched for the team. I've replaced the narrative information, with citations.
I hope this clarifies the reasoning behind the edits, and that upcoming revisions will also be explained. Thanks! 208.120.227.250 21:00, 18 June 2007 (UTC)
208.120.227.250 02:29, 20 June 2007 (UTC)The edits and revisions have hurt the introduction. Each of the first two sentences establishes that Young played professional baseball; surely one is sufficient. Young's sizeable IP totals (etc.) are also invoked twice. But his 511 wins are now less prominent than his having played for 5 teams, an accomplishment that also applies to Damion Easley or Ted Lilly. Young's all-time win total is also tucked behind his 20-win seasons, a benchmark which was not as highly valued or rare during Young's era. For example, in Cy Young's first 20-win season, just twenty pitchers started 30+ games, and a dozen of them topped 20 wins. The information belongs in the piece, of course, but not ahead of 511 wins.
As it stands, for the 1891-1900 time period, there is almost as much information in the article about the Cleveland Spiders' business practices as there is about a person named Cy Young.
The autoreversion has, once again, reinstated a number of typographical/grammatical errors to the piece. I have seen this habit introduce a lack of delicacy or precision to other Wikipages, and I hope it will be avoided here. Young is now listed as starting his professional career twice-- first in 1889, and again in 1890. The article claims he was given his "Cy" nickname in 1915. It claims that one of four errors cost Young a perfect game. It states that 1930 is "the beginning of the modern era" in baseball. A description of the 1899 Spiders ends in mid-sentence. All of these have been corrected, along with others. I request that future edits and reversions be more specifically applied, rather than be swept under the wholesale "last previous version" approach.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.120.227.250 ( talk • contribs)
208.120.227.250 08:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC) WP:LEAD says the following: "The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources." Please note the above comment, particularly as it relates to the relative importance of Young's five professional teams vs. his 511 wins. The 511 wins are more important to the topic, and according to WP:LEAD, should take precedence. I sincerely believe the intro's emphasis must be on Cy Young's singular achievements, rather than ones that he shares with many players, including those of little note.
Again, some of the latest edits are still reinstating errors that have been removed multiple times from the text (i.e. "88-years after"; "won at least 20-games"; "Young's had 76 shutouts"). 208.120.227.250 08:16, 21 June 2007 (UTC)
I've removed the following text from an edit i'm about to finish up: "Subsequent research has shown that Young was credited with an extra win in 1907. He entered a game in relief, with the Red Sox already holding a 6-4 lead, but was awarded the victory by the scorer. An appeal to baseball's rules committee many decades later failed to correct the decision. "If I hadn't been dealing with an immortal like Cy Young," said SABR's Frank Williams, "I think I probably would have gotten the switchover to [Ralph] Glaze," the pitcher who'd preceded Young. Young also went 3-3 as an interim player/manager for the Boston team, a role he did not relish." Anyone have a citation for this? // Tecmobowl 14:57, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
Where is it? I'm not seeing it. Unless you're talking about the item you removed. And this "major rewrite" looks like you simply put one of your versions back, complete with typos and other mistakes. Baseball Bugs 16:31, 23 June 2007 (UTC)
What has MLB's 1991 decision got to do with Cy Young's perfect game? It has no bearing on it, and his perfect game was called a perfect game at least as far back as Ernie Lonigan's 1922 encyclopedia. All the 1991 ruling did was make it "official". So what? Baseball Bugs 16:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
Although listed as a perfect game in record books as early 1922 [1], Major League Baseball did not classify a "perfect game" (a pitcher facing and retiring at least 27 batters) until 1991, after Young's death.
It would be interesting to see a citation that suggests it is possible for a pitcher to win 511 games (along with losing over 300) sometime in the future. Maybe if they legalize steroids and/or develop artificial ligaments. Baseball Bugs 11:11, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
208.120.224.97 20:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)I'm "the IP address who's putting his tupence in." I've been contributing to Wikipedia for several years now, but I prefer not to register an ID. The fact that two of the editors here seem to have some kind of "history" is an example of why I haven't done so. My IP address changes every one to three weeks, which keeps me out of longterm Wikifeuds. I have no interest in building a Wiki history or reputation, or exerting power; I just want to improve the website. Anyway, on to the article.
The all-purpose reversions by Tecmobowl keep reinserting errors, wordiness, and repetition, while silmultaneously deleting worthwhile content. I'm going to go edit by edit here to explain the reasoning for my own edit today; forgive me for the length.
The intro that Tecmobowl keeps reinserting mentions that Cy Young played "professional" "major league" baseball four times in the first two sentences, which is overkill. It contains a run-on sentence with a grammatical error. Young won 20 games fifteen times, not sixteen; that feat is less notable than his 30-win seasons, but the importance is reversed. "As a result of his consistent performance over an extended period of time" is filler. So is the repeated "in Major League history"-type clarification; it's been established that Young played 22 MLB years, and that these are MLB records. More filler and repetition occurs with paragraph 4 and Young's rankings; we may safely assume that editors at the Sporting News made the call, as opposed to shoemaking elves or the office furniture. We can also assume that Young was being ranked as a player on a list entitled "Baseball's 100 Greatest Players."
Specific details about Young's life, career, and especially his particular style of pitching, have been repeatedly deleted. These include his physical build, his alternate "Farmer" nickname, his fastball and changeup, his reliance on control which outlasted his speed, the conditions of play at the beginning of his career, his catcher's steak tactic, and so forth. This is detrimental to the article, and not in keeping with Wikipedia policy on biographies.
More wordiness keeps reappearing in the article-- "a 15-15 record" beats "he won 15 games and lost 15 games"; also, "one-year" is NOT hyphenated. We can also be confident that the catcher who nicknamed Young "Cy" did so after his tryout; these words needn't be there.
"In games Young started while with the Spiders, Chief Zimmer was the catcher more times than any other player" is clunky writing. Why the account of the 1892 championship was deleted is unexplained; without an explanation, it will appear to be because of the editor's lack of precision when reverting.
The emphasis on the Cleveland Spiders' organizational saga would be most useful in the Cleveland Spiders article. Why it keeps being reinserted at length, at the same time that Cy Young information is being removed, is perplexing. Also, what befell the Spiders following the departure of Young & Co. (worst record ever) is more germane, historic and compelling than what league the Spiders used to be in before Young's career began.
Young's career was revived by his move to the AL, and he was highly-paid for doing so. This is more pertinent than a laborious account of what a pitching triple crown constitutes, especially as this info is already available on its own Wikipedia page. The Young/Carlton winning % record also captures the weakness of Young's '01 Boston team. The Boston press reaction to "Farmer" Young at Harvard also adds contemporary color.
The new version of Young's perfect game vs. Waddell is jumbled and overwritten. Many other faceoffs between future Hall of Famers were played at that time, before then, and since. The "perfect game" description drops all details of Young's actual perfect game, in favor of what amounts to a sidebar primer on perfect game history and terminology. These edits render the phrase "Waddell got a measure of revenge..." confusing and out of place... revenge for WHAT? That information was clipped.
The deletion of Young's scoreless/hitless/perfect streak is a poor editing choice. So is the deletion of Young as the oldest no-hit pitcher.
The paragraphs about Young's walks per 9IP and innings pitched totals are a strange end to the section about his playing days; they more appropriately lead off his "Legacy" section. Details about changes to baseball's playing conditions are also highly appropriate to that section, and should remain. The statistic about Young's 400-inning seasons not leading the league (added, I believe, by Tecmobowl) is a good one, but a few conextual words link it even more strongly to the stat about his low ERA totals. The description of Young's physical regimen, and his eventual exit from the game, is a vivid portrait of the actual human being Cy Young and should also be kept.
Lastly, Roger Clemens did NOT surpass Young's Boston record for wins; he tied it, as the original text accurately described. The edit made this fact incorrect.
Before yet another mass "last version by" reversion, please consider the premises and explanations in the above. If you disagree, please explain why, beyond blanket "POV"/"passive voice" wipeouts. And apologies again for the lengthy edit-by-edit explanation, but watching these changes zap back and forth is getting a bit tendentious. I do look forward to more thoughtful contributions from Tecmobowl; he/she has made good edits and added good information here. Early baseball clearly energizes him/her. And so, I hope that Tecmobowl will see that editors working together will improve this article more quickly and effectively than what's been going on lately. 208.120.224.97 20:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
208.120.224.97 21:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Tecmobowl: Your complete reversion occurred 2 minutes after my last edit. Your speed in reading the above comment, weighing the versions of each of more than two dozen edits large and small, and coming to the conclusion that your preferred version was correct in every case, is remarkable.
It is impractical to complain about "unsourced information" at the same time that you remove "unnecessary citation." Moreover, most of the information you've deleted is NOT unsourced.
It is inconsistent for you to overexplain a 15-15 record for the benefit of a reader who might have no knowledge, and then delete the "Farmer Young" reference because you have no knowledge of it. Again, that reference is sourced.
My edits deleted none of your content, and very little of your text. They are quite different from your edits in that respect.
The criticism that I should "spend as much time fixing the problems as [I] do talking about them" also seems misplaced, considering that the problems I've fixed (to the extent that they're problems, of course) have been reverted by you many times.
I mentioned the username/IP issue only because another poster referred to it. I assume we all know that "anonymous edits" are considered equally valid by Wikipedia policy (if not practice). 208.120.224.97 21:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
208.120.224.97 22:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Tecmo: I've kept your "five different teams" preference in the first sentence. The intro still contains 4 references to Young's "professional/major league" accomplishments in the first paragraph alone; is this enough for your tastes? "1890 to 1911" is more precise than the "1890s and 1900s" reference, so I've made the switch. I've reinserted the "considered unreachable" characterization because this is almost universally accepted, and because it provides a context for Young's status, in accordance with Wikipedia policy regarding introductions. It is not a POV claim, and could easily be reinforced by a dozen ref's; I've stopped at two sources, including a past Commissioner of Baseball. The "30 wins"/"20 wins" totals have been flipped in the text, to reflect the comparative rarity and significance of the first. I dropped the "consistent performance over an extended period of time" phraseology because it repeats exactly what we've just established in paragraphs #1 and #2-- most wins ever, 15 seasons of 20 wins. I also lost the "third pitcher elected" HoF mention, as that seems to be a distinction not worthy of the intro and we can use the space. I restored the links for the various stat categories, to reinforce that these are professional records without stating such for the 6th or 7th time. I dropped the "fewest walks per 9IP" info as it's a comparatively esoteric stat alongside wins, losses, innings, etc., particularly for an intro. I have the intention of restoring BB per 9IP later in the article, during the discussion of Young's control ability where it will be more illuminating and relevant. I've tightened the perfect game mention while retaining your linked info about the 1991 codification date, etc. I've tightened the Sporting News/All-Century paragraph along the lines described above; there's no need to say Young was a player on a list of players. I've kept your reference to "editors." What now? 208.120.224.97 22:34, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
let me know if you do not understand where i am going with this. This of course is factually inaccurate as he played for six professional teams (the minor league team was professional). I'm just trying to explain why i'm being such a stickler for this type of information right now.// Tecmobowl 23:06, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
208.120.224.97 23:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)I've edited the intro to your first set of specifications.
Regarding your last issue, I get what you're saying, but Young's Tri-State season would be a nuisance to wrap the first sentence around. The American League of 1901-1902 also predates the formulation of an "MLB" entity, but those years are counted; Young wouldn't have 511 wins if they weren't. However, they DON'T credit his first pro year, or else Young would have 526 career wins.
Perhaps this semi-discrepancy could find a place in the body of the article, either with Young's first pro experience, or with the changes in baseball (mound distance, no glove, etc.) What do you think? 208.120.224.97 23:18, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
208.120.224.97 23:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)Check out my latest edit. It's in the article's sixth paragraph and not the first, but that also allows us to "spread out" a little better. I'm a big believer in keeping intros as tightly written as possible; you can always elaborate after that. I think we're safe sticking with MLB's sense of what Young's career dimensions were, with the addenda coming right at the top of the "Professional career" section. Does this work for you, including the wording of the edit? 208.120.224.97 23:35, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
All that is just fine-- the only thing I want to lose is "nearly." For his era, Young got the all-time wins record as of #364 (Pud Galvin + 1). And even now, win #418 (Walter Johnson + 1) gave Young the all-time record. Since Young had 418 wins before 1907, we can stick to the century mark.
Onwards to Early Life and Pro Career. Let's drop the weight citation, since Young's weight varied over his career, which is even noted later on the page. But since he was 6-foot-2 according to various sources including Baseball-Reference, I've stuck that in... painlessly, I hope. I've mostly kept your tryout wording, and added a Young quote I found (with a source). I also left the "15 wins and 15 losses" per your above reasoning. I've reinserted the "Farmer Young" sentence with two sources; let me know how you like it.
I tightened the Spiders/AA/NL info slightly; take a look there. I've changed the paragraph that begins with Young's debut shutout. I've retained some of your phrasing, inserted some from past edits, and I've even added some additional info that wasn't in any of the previous edits. And I've reordered some of the details. Compare the two versions and see how they shake out. I'll freeze the edit at this point until we're caught up. 208.120.224.97 03:39, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I think we're heading in the right direction. Dropping nearly is fine as he set the record well before 1911. I'll fix some of the citations so that the dugout reference is merged with the other references to that article. I've adjusted the farmboy statement in the early life. I can't remember where the guideline is regarding how to describe a person is, but i think the adjustment will work with you (as in - you don't use their first name..etc...etc...). I removed the height reference for several reasons. First, I just can't seem to justify its' importance. Without using it as a comparative to other people of that time, it just doesn't seem to fit. I went and looked at a number of other biographies and didn't see any references to the persons height. Plus, it does change over time, so does it really benefit the article to say at somepoint in his life he stood 6'2". It seems fairly ambiguous as to when he got the farming nickname, so i moved it to the early life section and see what you think. I removed the pdf, not because it could not be used, but because it was difficult to tell what the work was and it didn't seem to offer anything different than the dugout reference. I have also adjusted the introduction portion of the professional career. I think the new version is much more inline with a factual "recounting" than an interpretive construction of the circumstances. I'm making a few other adjustments as we speak and let me know what you think. // Tecmobowl 11:11, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
6-foot-2 was atypically tall when Young began-- for instance, the other two pitchers on the 1891 Spiders with Young were 5-foot-9 and 5-foot-4. The 1891 NL leader in wins was 5-foot-9. Pud Galvin, the eventual #2 man in wins, was 5-foot-8. Maybe Young's height could help supplement the NL's reaction to Young, Rusie (6'1") and Meekin (6'1").
Also, there's no need to hedge on Young being "one of" the Spiders' best pitchers by 1891... the 1890-91 Spiders pages on baseball-reference.com make it pretty clear that he was, especially after Ed Beatin's career stopped on a dime.
Everything else looks just fine. I've made some slight text adjustments, so look at those. Round 3 to come. 208.120.224.97 18:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
I put in a paragraph about the 1892 championship and Young's disappointing performance. I've fleshed out the 1895 championship-- leaving in the "rough and rowdy" characterization for the Baltimore team, and adding a Wikilink to "changeup." I rewrote the Browns/Spiders paragraph-- we had to lose "vice versa," since the transfer was uneven and the best St. Louis players stayed in St. Louis. I also added a sentence about how the 1899-1900 St. Louis team fared. Take a look at this part. Then I put in a short paragraph about Young, St. Louis, and Lou Criger. And that's where I've left off. 208.120.224.97 08:59, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I made some changes to the text to remove passive voice and somethings that just seem to push the article to far toward POV. I'm trying not to remove any reference to "best" and such, but I think they need to be kept at a minimum. I have made a section below for a particular point of interest. In the meantime, what do you think? // Tecmobowl 14:37, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Here is some text i wanted to place in the section that discusses the 1892 Spiders: This despite the fact that, one of the games ended in an 11-inning 0-0 tie.<ref name=1892spiders/>. According to B-R, young pitched a complete game shutout and in 3 starts pitched 27 innings. As he did not win any games, it seems that the above statement has some problems. Anyone else find something to the contrary? // Tecmobowl 14:33, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I was just skimming my copy of Glory Fades Away. Young pitched pretty well in his first and second starts. In his final start, the final game of the series, his arm was sore and the weather was cold, and he got hit fairly hard. Baseball Bugs 00:34, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I've altered some of your alterations. I shortened the paragraph about Young's 1892 achievements, and combined it with the next paragraph. I've tightened and clarified that paragraph, too. Slight changes to the 1895 Temple Cup-- it said "Young won three games" twice, so I deleted one of them; I also took out "consequently" because Young's 3 wins technically didn't clinch the series.
I moved ahead, adding a quick description of the AL raiding the NL. I slipped in Criger's move, left in your "stayed with Boston until 1909" text, and provided a citation for the Young/Carlton stat. And I restored the Boston reaction to Young at Harvard, albeit in rewritten form. More later. 208.120.224.97 20:32, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
I think the item only works as an amusing sidebar, and if it isn't worth making the punchline clear, we may as well drop the whole thing. I like it as a small, subsidiary bit of biographical color. But if your concerns outweigh the Harvard anecdote's slight significance, just delete the whole thing. Your call. 208.120.224.97 23:47, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Well, that's unfortunate. I guess I'll finish now, and he can make changes in a week. I've tightened Baseball Bugs' recent edit. Then we jump to 1903. I made slight text changes, corrected a typo, and dropped the "Young's two wins helped..." since it's not a stop-the-presses observation that wins can help a team win.
I did more on Young/Waddell. I replaced some of the deleted text about the buildup. But I eliminated some of the text about future HoF'ers, since this was one of many such games. Most importantly, I reintroduced some of the contemporary braggadocio, which is what set their "feud" apart. Then I replaced the paragraph about all of Young's 1904 scoreless and hitless innings, which is a must for this article; I included a ref. I kept Tecmo's account of perfect game history to that point, while tightening the text a bit. I fixed a couple of typos in the 1905 rematch, and merged two sentences. I added one more Waddell-Young game of note. I added info about Young's 1908 no-hitter, and added a source. I also emphasized his age with a pair of facts. The "Cy Young Day" paragraph remains, as does his 1909 trade. And I made a small change to the "final games" paragraph. If Tecmo wants to post suggestions or edits here on the talk page, they can be put in by proxy. Just one more leg left in this marathon... 208.120.224.97 10:00, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
One item I've been trying to find, without success so far, although I think I have it somewhere, is a photo of Cy warming up in his Red Sox uniform, the first year they were "The Red Sox", 1908 or so, with the red-stocking logo on their chests. It's not only a nice photo, it also served as the basis for an oil painting that hangs, or used to hang, in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Baseball Bugs 10:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Bugs, I dropped your edits to the intro because they seem like overkill. Once we've said that Young has the most wins and the most losses, the fact that he has the most career decisions is a little anticlimactic. As for the workhorse part, it just seems like padding the introduction, though it might be a profitable addition for the "Young's legacy" section. I made a slight change to the "Cyrus-Silas" addition, because the colloquialism you describe was surely not "coincidental."
I added a paragraph about Cap Anson for 1890. I moved the paragraphs about Young's BB per 9IP and innings totals below the "Young's legacy" heading. They're a better fit for an overall discussion of Young's style and career than as an unexpected sabermetric conclusion to his playing biography. I added Bugs' "workhorse" observation to the innings one; see how that looks. I've also restored the "underhand/fouls/mound distance" info to the paragraph about Young as a bridge between eras. I think it works best there, though a case could be made for jumping some of it up to his 1890 debut with the Spiders. If anyone wants to move it higher, let us know. I made two slight changes to the paragraph beginning "Young led his leagues in wins...": the first to reinforce the contextual nature of the info, the second because "over 40" is technically inaccurate for the three seasons when Young had exactly 40 complete games.
I rewrote the part about Young's subdued warmup approach, and added quotes and the ref. I also added a Young quote about control pitching, from the same source-- both quotes are also available elsewhere. Tecmo's rewrite about Clemens/Young remains as is. And that's just about it! 208.120.224.97 22:39, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Two extra edits added. In the "Legacy" section, to organize and unite the "Young's control" text. And in the "perfect game" discussion, to reflect Young's NY Times obituary. 208.120.224.97 22:47, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
Note to self - found a black-and-white rendering of the painting, which should be good enough for a compare with the photo, once I get to it. Baseball Bugs 04:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
Here are four links that allow comparison of the rosters. It's possible someone already put this info together, but if not, I'll be back with a roster comparison later:
One factor lost in the discussion of the 1899 Spiders and how they got squashed like a bug (20-134) is how terrible the 1898 Browns were (39-111). Robison apparently hoped to win a pennant, but his revitalized Browns team, or Pefectos, or not-quite-Cardinals only improved to 84-67, for a fifth-place finish... which is exactly where Cleveland had finished in 1989, and with nearly the same record. There's only so much you can do with what you've got. Baseball Bugs 01:24, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cy Young/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hello. I will be doing the GA review for this article. I've just skimmed the article for now, so here are my initial concerns/suggestions:
That's it for now. I'll allow seven days for these initial improvements, and then I will make more specific ones (if everything is addressed). Nikki 311 01:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, OK, here are some citations. This group includes baseball-reference.com; retrosheet.org; The SABR Baseball List and Record Book, by SABR, 2007; and the 2008 edition of The Elias Book of Baseball Records, by the Elias Sports Bureau, the official statistician of MLB and several other sports. Here's what I've got so far:
Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 07:41, 29 July 2008 (UTC)
I got the note on my talk page saying that everything has been finished. I'll do a second look later and copyedit where needed. Nikki 311 17:28, 3 August 2008 (UTC)
I've done the copyedit. Here are some things I noticed while I was doing it:
Don't give up, the article is getting much closer to passing. Nikki 311 20:07, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Great work guys! I've cleaned up the new additions because they were a little wordy, and I combined the personal life and after baseball sections as they were relatively short. The article looks much better, and I've decided to pass the article. Congratulations on a GA! Nikki 311 19:47, 7 August 2008 (UTC)
"Robba Young died in 1933, 25 years before Cy Young died." He died in 1955, not 1958. But I don't which of the first two facts is wrong. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 01:46, 7 August 2008 (UTC)