Talk:Atlanta Braves

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Portal:Georgia (U.S. state)
 Georgia (U.S. state) Portal
This article is part of WikiProject Georgia (U.S. state), an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Georgia (U.S. state) on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit this article, or visit the project page to join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.
Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.


Flag
Portal
 Atlanta Braves is maintained by WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Article Grading:
The article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
WikiProject Baseball To-do:
edit 

Contents

[edit] Records

Should the records be a seperate page? CJC47 04:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know about a separate page, but at least a table would be nice.--Attitude2000 21:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Braves' Ownership

I heard that the Braves got a new owner. Or partial stake owner. Is this true? --CanesOL79 03:17, 10 December 2005 (UTC) Not yet. They MIGHT be getting a new owner because they could be up for sale. -- 06:05pm, 19 December 2005

-Right now they (along with Turner South) are up for sale by Time Warner, but nobody has bought them yet, but they will definitely be getting a new owner in the near future. --Ratwar 5:16 9 March 2006

[edit] Never Losing? "team"

"The Braves were somewhat mediocre as the 1960s began, but fattened up on the expansion New York Mets and Houston Colt .45s. To this day, they are the only major league team who played more than one season and never had a losing record." They have had losing records in Boston and Atlanta, do you mean that they never had a losing record in Milwaukee?

Look closely and you will find other inconsistencies grounded in the city & nickname variety for this club --popularly, team. See also Boston Red Stockings, disambiguation in the making. (I moved the article from Category:1876 establishments to 1871, reducing the number by one.) --P64 00:50, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Logo

It could use a current Braves logo.

[edit] Uniform

The uniform needs to be updated... One of the Braves uniforms (not sure which) is a bright red color now. ~ Booya Bazooka 15:44, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Done Let me know what you thinkCJC47 03:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
    • Just so you know, the red one is their Sunday home uniform. LiveFyre 23:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] club history in Boston

There is too much Boston club history here. For a few major league clubs including this one --probably a number growing over time as more 'pedia history gets written-- there should probably be something like a main article on the club ("Atlanta Braves") with balanced history only a few screens long, plus articles such as "Atlanta NL history" and "Boston NL history" or even "Boston (NA, NL) history" as needed.

Titles of such "Main" articles may be technical rather than fan-friendly (are all these nicknames really fan friendly?) because traffic will not depend on intuitive searching but on internal links. A tag in the more balanced much shorter history section of "Atlanta Braves" would generate essentially the following. --P64 03:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

 I propose to have "The Boston Braves History" as a sperate article. This will prevent confusion when being redirected to the Atantla Braves article.
Main article: Boston (NA, NL) history
I propose to have "The Boston Braves History" as a sperate article. This will prevent confusion when being redirected to the Atantla Braves article.
  • It is a single franchise across multiple cities. Sears is still Sears, whether it's in Chicago or Schaumburg. Aside from that, the other sports teams with multiple cities are in single articles. It is perhaps interesting to note, however, that even now, the Braves spent much more time in Boston (82 years) than in Milwaukee and Atlanta combined (56, including the coming season). Speaking of which, what do you do about Milwaukee? A third article? I don't think so. It's clear from the article what the club's history is; there should be no confusion. Wahkeenah 01:14, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] TBS advantage?

Is there any truth to the idea that the Braves were such a force for 15 years because TBS broadcasted many of it games nationally? -Amit

last i checked tv appearances dont help make a team do good, but i do think TBS was named after the braves (the braves station)
Nope, TBS is the Turner Broadcasting System LiveFyre 23:47, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

When the Braves were purchased by Ted Turner their games were carried locally on WSB, Channel 2, in Atlanta. Ted Turner moved the Braves to WTCG and in 1981 WTCG changed their call-letters to WTBS to reflect that it was the flagship of the Turner Broadcasting System. Interestingly, if you go back and look there was a huge uproar when the games were moved from WSB channel 2 to WTCG Channel 17 because at that time not all televisions were capable of receiving UHF signals. The WTCG signal was also very weak.208.45.230.190 17:13, 11 December 2006 (UTC)ReverieHikes 17:14, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Current Team Roster

  1. 29 RHP John Smoltz is missing from the 40-man roster on this page. Could someone who knows how please add him in?

Tamyrlin 22:21, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


done --68.158.42.157 01:36, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Division championships

Recently, at least two anon IPs have "14 straight division championships" to "11" in several places in the text. It is well known that the Braves have won 14 consecutive division titles, 3 in the NL West, and 11 in the NL East. This is over a 15-year period due to the strike year in which no championships were awarded.

If you disagree with this interpretation of events, you are welcome to discuss them here. However, any further changes made to this info in the text without having achieved a consensus first will be treated as "disruptive edits" (vandalism). Thanks for your co-operation. - BillCJ 23:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well. another anon IP has struck again, making the same changes. If someone wishes to post brief material stating that some count the 1994 strike year as a break in the Braves' consecutive division wins record, that would acceptable, provided it is from a credible, verifiable source (meaning a sports site/magazine article, a baseball writer's book, etc.; NOT a blog, editorial or opinion piece). Other than that, please stop making these changes. Thanks. - BillCJ 21:11, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Content disputes are not vandalism. Describing them as such is improper. The essential disagreement here is over whether something can be described as 'consecutive' when there was a one year gap. Perhaps unambiguous wording like, 'have won division championships in each of the last 14 seasons that they were awarded'. --CBD 23:22, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Describing the changes being made as a "content dispute" is also improper, as the various IP users have refused to enter duscussion on the issue at any point. I have no problem discussing this issue, but constant reverting without discussion is disruptive, and is usually treated as vandalism. The last IP address has been blocked by an admin for being disruptive. - BillCJ 04:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

While it is true the Braves did not win in 14 consecutive years, they did win 14 consecutive championships. That is all the text stated. The Atlanta Braves organization treats the championships as consecutive, and MLB may also. If we need to quote sources supporting this, fine. Again, I have no problem quoting a verifiable source which presents the alternate view, but the anon user would not even leave in any qualifing statements regarding the strike year at all. THe user certainly was not editing in good faith. - BillCJ 23:52, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BillCJ here. I think the wording is fair in that there in the last 14 consecutive opportunities there have been to win a division championship, the Braves have won all 14. As a compromise, I would suggest adding an "asterisk" note about the 94 strike year. AgneCheese/Wine 04:07, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for you help on this. I've been considering something similar to an asterisk, possibly a reference note which shows up in the References section, that we could place each time the consecutive wins is mentioned. The note would tell about the strike year, and that some don't consider the wins consecutive because of it.

I'd like to find a definitve MLB statement on the issue of whether or not they consider the 14 wins to be consecutive . Whatever way they rule, I am for putting that in the article, whether it "goes my way" or not. We could then put the competing view in the reference note; would be good to have a source on this too. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by BillCJ (talk • contribs).

  • A quick Google survey of "mlb" and "division titles" indicates mlb.com considers the Braves to have won 14 consecutive. That stands to reason, as there was no title to be had in 1994. I think the recent switches to the contrary were posted by someone who either resents the Braves or doesn't understand. Wahkeenah 10:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
In my opinion, all fourteen championships were consecutive because at no point in that span did another team hold the title of division champion. For what it's worth, Baseball Reference doesn't credit the Expos with winning the division that year. The Nationals' official website credits the Expos with having the best record in baseball, but not with winning the division crown. [1] The Braves' official site credits them with fourteen consecutive division championships. [2] The anon's edits may be in good faith, but they're not correct. --Djrobgordon 18:27, 13 February 2007 (UTC) (Copied from Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball by - BillCJ 19:05, 13 February 2007 (UTC))

[edit] Response

I sent an e-mail to the user who was changing the text to '11 consecutive' and received a response asking about talk page procedures and indicating that they would like to add the following response;

The 1994 season was played. All the stats from that season counted to the player totals. The players all got credit for a full season played. Yet, according to MLB, no team won the division that year. Because of this, any streak in progress was halted as they did not win in 1994. The streak began anew in 1995. This would be very similar to a consecutive game hitting streak coming to an end after a rain shortened 6 inning game. The game was cut short, but the streak comes to an end even though there were still three more innings to play. It was still an official game and all player stats count. 1994 was still an official season and all stats counted.

I have no personal bias against the Braves. I honestly don't care one way or the other about them. I just saw a mistake while cruising around the site and saw that I could correct it. 11 consecutive division titles is a HUGE accomplishment. But I have yet to find any official comment from MLB regarding the streak. I can only guess a ruling will not be official until some other team approaches 11 consecutive wins. The Yankees might do it. They have won 9.

I sent a return note explaining some basics of Wikipedia talk page discussion. --CBD 00:45, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

That user is applying his own personal research and personal opinion, contrary to the way MLB, the Braves, and the press in general see it. It has to be set back to 14. His analogy with the hitting streak is flawed. In the rain-shortened legal game described, if the batter in question had no official at-bats, i.e. if he had been walked every time, then the game would be ignored in the streak. That would be the case for a full 9-inning game also, obviously. It's as if the game didn't happen, as far as the streak is concerned. But his batting stats (0-for-0, with whatever-number-of-walks) still count, it's just that the game is not part of the streak. Wahkeenah 07:35, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I do not see where a personal opinion comes into play here. I have physically counted back the number of consecutive division titles they have won. And it comes up as 11. From 1995 through 2005. The consecutive number must be 11. At the very least, call it 14 of the last 15. As that is factually accurate. The analogy to the rain shortened game is not flawed. Assuming the player had grounded out 3 times prior to the rain dealy that became a game ending event, the streak would have ended as he had his three at bats. The Braves streak ended because MLB determined that all the games counted and the season be known as an official season. The fact that MLB made the unusual determination that no division title be awarded only supports this. An offical season was played where the Braves did not win. The fact that nobody won is inmaterial. For a winning streak to continue, something had to be won durring a recognized event. The streak could have only continued if MLB decided to annul the 1994 season. Not cuunt the stats. Give no credit to players for time played. But MLB did not do that. The games counted. The season counted. The streak had to end. PS: Apologies if I am not following protocals. I am simply not familiar with them. I am happy to follow all standards. I just need to be made aware of them.

  • The MLB consensus is 14, because there was no title to be awarded in 1994. To use your rainout analogy, think of the situation where a game is rained out and it's tied. The game does not count in the standings, but all the stats do. You might argue the teams weren't tied in the standings. But the season was never finished, so their relative positions in the standings means nothing except as an interesting bit of trivia. Wahkeenah 19:02, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
If the Braves won 14 divison championships out of 15 between 1991 and 2005, who was awarded the 15th?? You are using MLB's rules to prove that the MLB's own rules are wrong. If MLB considers the 14-win streak to be consecutive, you can't use game statistic rules to proves it's wrong. You may disagree with MLB's decision not to award division winners in 1994, but the fact is that is what happened. We also aren't saying that the Braves finished first for 15 consecutive years, because they obviously did not. The point is, in a 15-year period, the Braves won all the championships that were awarded.
I have no problem presenting both views in the text. But I certainly have a problem presenting your view as the only correct one, when both the Braves organization and MLB appear to support the 14-streak being consecutive. ALso, 1994 was a stike-shortend season, and there is no reason to remove all references to that FACT from the text, especially in the Season Records chart, which was done on several occasions. - BillCJ 19:00, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

You write that the MLB consensus is 14. But I have found no evidence of that. It is mentioned on the Braves website, but that very same site, in the Braves history section, it shows that the streak is indeed 11. Personally, I have found no consensus from MLB themselves on the matter. The tie game ananlogy is a good one, but the game would indeed be picked up at the time of dealay, IF the game would make a difference in the outcome of the season. If you are asking who won the year the Braves didn't durring that 14 out of 15 run, the answer is no one. But that does not mean the streak remains intact. There was indeed a division title in play for the 1994 season. And after the season was cut short, MLB made a decision. They could have just as easilly declared the teams in first place as division champions. But they didn't do that. Wether or not I personally agree or disagree with the decision doesn't matter. What matters is what MLB declared. But to say that the teams in 1994 were not playing for anything is dead wrong. I have no problem saying that some consider the streak to be consecutive, if you as editors feel you must to be fair. But it is kind of like saying that some still consider the Earth to be flat in an entry about this planet. (and I don't know if that disclaimer appears) But I do feel that the wording for the streak must not infer that it was 14 consecutive seasons. You could claim they won 3 in the western division. Then came the strike year, and then won 11 in the east. With no mention of anything consecutive between the two, as that would give the invalid impression that the streak remained intact when the team did not win anything durring an offical season played.

I have never advocated saying 14 consecutive seasons, just 14 consecutive titles in a 15-year period. - BillCJ 18:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Precisely. They had 14 consecutive titles, covering all the years in which there was a title to be won. The 1994 season had no winner. However, the other editor points out that there seems to be some inconsistency or lack of information from the official sources. That's what needs to be investigated. Our opinion on the matter does not count. Wahkeenah 19:01, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
I agree on that also. Whatever the official sources say, that should get precedence in the article. If the official sources say the 14 title-streak is consecutive, then we say that, and present the alternate view. If the official sources do not accept the streak as consecutive, then we state that as official, and mention that some consider the streak consecutive in a footnote. But if there is no official ruling on the strike, or sources don't agree, (these appear to be the case as of now) then we present both views equally.
To sum this all up: The Braves did win 11 consecutive NL East division titles. They did win 3 NL West division titles. These are undisputed facts. THe hard part is what to do with the strike year in between the two. SOme look at it as a break in the streak, while others consider it consecutive because no titles were awarded in the strike year. Did the Braves have 14 consecutive first place finishes? Absoulutely not! But the strike year is a unique situation (hopefully it won't happen agian), and this makes the division title streak unigue. If another team goes on to win 14 straight division titles in 14 seasons, then that record would stand by itself. But it doesn't change the uniqueness of the Braves 14-title streak either, and this deserves mention in the article. - BillCJ 19:24, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Junked the WSB bias

Also, longtime radio flagship station 750 WSB was junked after the 2004 season in favor of WGST 640AM and a lucrative financial commitment from WGST's owner, Clear Channel Communications. Braves games are no longer heard across 38 states and Canada at night on the WSB signal, as it once was.

I have junked the above paragraph in favor of a more neutral, if less-informative statement. First, there were no sources mentioned at all in the paragraph. Second, it implies that WSB has always been the flagship station, which is certainly false. WGST was the flagship for several years in the 1990s (before the ClearChannel purchase), and there may have been other stations before that. Third, it implies there is something wrong with lucrative contracts, especially if people in Canada can't hear the broadcast. While it is sad if fans cna't hear the broadcasts for free as they used to, again, this has happened before when WGST was the flagship, and as such is not uniqie to the current contract. Fourth, the term "junked" is hardly encyclopedic, and certainly reveals the editor's bias. - BillCJ 02:07, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../a/t/l/Talk%7EAtlanta_Braves_5370.html"