Talk:Major League Baseball

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Flag
Portal
 Major League Baseball 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
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.

Article Grading:
The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need.
WikiProject Baseball To-do:
edit 

Contents

[edit] Page Composition

If you were writing this page as an outline based on topic headings, it would read:

Clubs; Teams and Schedules; Race and Origin; Team Names; Uniforms; All-Star Game; Postseason; Steroid Policy; Blackout policy; References; National Broadcasts; History

Imagine you were someone who actually didn't know anything about Major League Baseball, and how confused you would be by this article. ParvatiBai 18:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Race

Whoever did the race and origin for MLB. Where did you get your info?

  • Whoever it is, it ought to simply be deleted. I'm absolutely certain that the information is incorrect. Look at the totals for Latin American players: the total of Dominicans and Venezuelans given exactly adds to the number of Latin Americans he gives. Yet off the top of my head I can think of Cubans, Mexicans, and Panamanians who were on opening day rosters. (Jose Contreras was the opening-day starting pitcher for the White Sox last year, just as one example.) And there may be other inaccuracies as well. 69.209.230.127 06:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
    • The original questioner is hinting at what I suspect, that much of it is "original research". Wahkeenah 10:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Will the author of this section explain how race is even relevant in the context of this topic? And how is "Japanese" different from "Asian"? The entire section seems wholly gratuitous and sophomoric. Deletion is strongly suggested.

  • It's relevent in talking about the ethnic diversity of baseball. Surely there must be a source on the internet that presents this info without someone here having to do "original research". That latter point seems to be the core problem with the data here. Wahkeenah 17:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The question remains, WHY is it relevant to discuss ethnic diversity of baseball? Without necessary preface, as is presented here in its current form, one must assume that ethnic diversity is a relevant discussion in sports. If such were the case, then suggest inserting demographics breakdown in all sports related topics, as there are currently no similar discussions in such articles as soccer, sailing, horseracing, etc.

It would be nice if the original questioner would sign his/her posts. Ethnic diversity is mentioned whenever it is an important component of the sociological reality of the sport, including in the NFL article. Since Major League Baseball has even considered running its all-star game along ethnic lines, I'd say the MLB thinks it is relevant on a lot of levels, including growing its fan base. While the current contributions are OR and silly, the issue itself deserves comment. Cheers, ParvatiBai 21:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
Regarding horseracing... as far as I know, thoroughbred horses of all colors and creeds run in the Triple Crown races. d: Wahkeenah 21:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Re ParvatiBai: Thank you for the well reasoned explanation, which helps to clarify why ethnic diversity is a relevant discussion in this article. I come from a background in which ethnic diversity is simply accepted as a matter of course in one's daily life, hence I was somewhat perplexed when I initially read this section.

The point remains, though, that the data is obviously original research, and also obviously wrong. If it stays, can it at least be given one of those spiffy "original research or unverified claims" banners? I'd do it myself if I knew how. 69.7.203.153 21:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] MLB template

Each individual team page has a template that lists (in this order):

  • Wild Card titles won
  • Division titles won
  • League pennants won
  • World Series championships won

I think the order should be switched. We should read of their most important victories first:

  • World Series championships won
  • League pennants won
  • Division titles won
  • Wild Card titles won

What do you all think? Kingturtle 03:13, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Asterisks

For how long should the asterisks on the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and the Washington Nationals names be kept on? A lot of teams have experienced name changes and moves, and have their previous history and name acknowledged in the the team page history section. How long before it is not required to immediately inform readers of the previous names of the nats and angels? After all, we have more important uses for asterisks; 71* :-p Da 'Sco Mon 05:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The asterisks on teams such as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and the Washington Nationals should be kept on for a period of time for different reasons. The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim have just recently won a World Series and it is important for people to know that the championship was won under the old name of the Anaheim Angels. People who do not know a lot about baseball would not know such facts and it is important for baseball that people do know. Also, the Washington Nationals are a brand new franchise in baseball that has moved from the Montreal Expos franchise. The Montreal Expos have their own history that should not be shadowed by the new Washington Nationals franchise. The asterisk lets people know that their was a different franchise with different history before the Nationals had arrived in Washington.J8J3B

Actually, the Nationals really aren't a new team,just a team in transition, almost all the same players they had in Montreal are still there for now. Your connotation of newness would probably be more appropriate in the context of an Expansion Team, rather than a relocated team.Karmafist 20:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)
The Nationals aren't a new franchise - they are the Montreal Expos, relocated to Washington. Previous examples of this sort of franchise move (accompanied by a team name change) are the first Washington Senators, who became the Minnesota Twins, and the second Washington Senators, who became the Texas Rangers. Cruzich 13:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] antitrust exemption

any good sources about MLBs antitrust exemption? I'd like to read more on the issue. Thanks, Cacophony 23:45, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Flag template usage

The rosters include flag icons. These can now be produced with {{flag}}, {{flagicon}}, and {{country}}. If a text label is produced it is linked to the country's article. (SEWilco 01:11, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC))

The rosters are using {{flagicon}}, which produces the icon without any label. Many country names and all ISO 3166-1 country codes are recognized.

Template call Result Effect
{{flag|BRA}} Flag of Brazil BRA Displays flag icon and abbreviation.
{{flagicon|ARG}} Flag of Argentina Displays only icon, no text label. Mouseover hover shows name of country.
{{flagcountry|ITA}} Flag of Italy Italy Displays icon with common name of country.
Updated...
...to reflect proposed changes to {{flag}}. It will no longer "translate" from a full country name back to the three letter country code. Instead, it will display the same output format as input format (i.e. "DEU" → "DEU", "Germany" → "Germany") Andrwsc 20:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball players

Howdy. I'm attempting to revive the baseball players WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of MLB players. Come on over and leave a note on the project's talk page if you're interested. android79 04:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Main Rivals

I think that the "Main Rivals" list should be taken out of all of the MLB team articles. People can't seem to agree on which are "main rivals." Others question a team's "main rivals." The following are examples of what people have thought of this "rivals" issue: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10].

I think we are fine with a List of Major League Rivalries and individual articles, like Bay Bridge Series, on individual rivalries. -- Win777 16:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought only the NBA pages had this problem. It got so bad at one point, that all the teams had 13 "Main Rivals"!!! Where's the logic in THAT?!? Dknights411 00:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I saw a team page where one "rival" was added to the "main rivals" section. That can easily build up into a truckload of POV. There are names for some rivalries, like the Subway Series, but fans can have different viewpoints on a team's "main rivals" (see the 7 talk page examples in my previous message). Win777 13:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

  • Several articles have taken a better stance on the issue such as the Oakland Athletics, listing Divisional Rivals and Geographic Rivals. Both of these are NPOV and acceptable as they are both well documented, advertised, and endorsed by both teams, fans and circumstance in divisional races.Gateman1997 17:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "Year" vs. "Year in sports"

What is the consensus on linking 2005 to the year in review, as opposed to linking 2005 to the sports year in review? It seems more appropriate to link it to the sports year on a sports page, but maybe it's just a wiki thing. Is there any reason for not linking it to the sports year? --CrazyTalk 06:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Another question is, why link to a year at all? It seems like overkill. But I wasn't there at the inception of that "standard". Wahkeenah 06:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Table listing minor league squads

Got another one for ya. On all of the team pages there is a table listing the minor league affililates the is predominantly displayed as if it is the most important aspect of the team. Would it not be better to utilize that space with what a team is actually judged by: world championships, league pennants, division championships? THAT information seems like it should be singled out in the table and the minor league squads can be delegated to elsewhere in the page as apppropriate. What say you?--CrazyTalk 06:17, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

That box shows the current year team and its affiliates. It's important to what's happening now and in the future. Maybe what's needed is another template that shows team history. Look at the Oakland Athletics as an example for "almost" setting up a history box: Team Origin, Nicknames, Ballparks, Uniforms, World Series wins, league pennants, division titles, wild card qualifiers, etc. Wahkeenah 07:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
I think you're taking objection to the various incarnations of the {{MLB franchise}} template. I created these because I think they're useful. They don't have all of the pennant etc info because all of that is nicely displayed in the intro of the articles themselves. If you'd like to create an infobox for the teams instead, then I would suggest putting that in the upper right, and my franchise box directly below it. Personally, I like it the way it is because there isn't really much to say in the intro paragraph(s) of the article besides this information; and all of the MiLB affiliates have the same franchise box on their pages so leaving it there on the main page is more consistent. I'm open to debate on this, obviously. →Vik Reykja 07:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball

Hello, I was wanting to get the baseball Wikiproject back up and running. It has currently be inactive and it looks like no action has been taken on it for a few months. Any takers? Please sign up on the [Project] page.--CrazyTalk 20:08, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Left-hander & Right-hander

Has there ever been a MLB pitcher who could throw left hand & right hand? Mightberight/wrong 14:01, 27 October 2005

Yep. 19th century player Tony Mullane was one. And there was one as recently as 1995, according to this article. [11] Wahkeenah 17:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)


[edit] MLB logo question

Is there any reason why the MLB logo is very similar to the NBA logo? User:130.179.6.1 18:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

  • Are you sure it isn't the other way around? Wahkeenah 23:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Regular season final standings

I've read that each player on the 2nd place team in a division earns a cash award whether their team makes the playoffs or not (perhaps as an incentive to play out the season). I assume that 1st place teams also get an award, most likely larger. Can anyone confirm this and, if so, should this info be included on this page?

[edit] Postseason matchups

The section describing the way playoff teams are matched up currently says:

The matchup for the first round of the playoffs is usually 1 seed vs. 4 seed, and 2 seed vs. 3 seed, unless the 1 seed and the 4 seed are from the same division, in which case the matchup is 1 seed vs. 3 seed and 2 seed vs. 4 seed.

This doesn't correctly account for the possibility of the #2 and #3 teams being from the same division, so I've reworded the sentence:

The matchup for the first round of the playoffs is usually 1 seed vs. 4 seed, and 2 seed vs. 3 seed, unless this would result in a matchup of two teams from the same division, in which case the matchup is 1 seed vs. 3 seed and 2 seed vs. 4 seed.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, or reword it if you think there's a better way. All in 02:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible for the 2 and 3 seeds to be from the same division, as there are three divisions and even if the wild card team finishes with a better record than one of the division winners, the WC team would still be seeded 4th. (case in point, the 2005 National League postseason). Floydspinky71 19:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The article says "The 2002 contest ended in an 11-inning tie because both teams were out of pitchers, a result which proved highly unpopular with the fans. As a result, for a two-year trial in 2003 and 2004, the league which won the game received the benefit of home-field advantage ". Is the World Series home field advantage really the result of the tie in the 2002 All-star game? (That's the way it reads to me.) Bubba73 (talk), 03:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

  • Precisely. There was such an outcry over the lame way that game ended that Selig decided to actually make the game meaningful (unique among all the sports' all-star games), and thus give the teams some incentive to win and to hopefully use their rosters a little more carefully. That's why the plan was introduced the very next year. What the plan is, in case of a legitimate tie (such as a rainout) I have no idea. Wahkeenah 11:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


[edit] You know what this page could use?

Something like what they have on the NHL page, where they break down representation in the league by country. 24.199.113.126 03:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

  • So, what's stopping you? Wahkeenah 04:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Devil Rays

Don't they play in St. Petersburg, Florida? User:172.148.22.121 04:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

  • No, they're so bad nowadays that they play at an undisclosed location. Just like the Witness Protection Program, or Dick Cheney. Wahkeenah 06:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Major League Baseball (MLB) is . . ."

How can it be justified that MLB is the "highest" level of baseball play in the world if only two MLB players were present at the finals of the World Baseball Classics? I find professional baseball in other countries such as in Korea and Japan to be equally high level play as in the MLB. User:58.87.205.68 07:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The WBC was a collection of all-star teams. MLB is where everyone wants to go. It pays the highest salaries and attracts the world-class talent. By contrast, Japan is a place that major leaguers go to finish out their careers once they are no longer considered to be at major-league levels in the USA. Wahkeenah 07:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you for replying to my questions but...

Although I agree that MLB pays very high salaries to attract world-class talents, I highly disagree with the statement that MLB is where everyone wants to go, and that making it the reason why MLB is the highest level baseball. I know this not only because I am NPB (Japan Professional Baseball) fan, but also because I've been watching it for more that fifteen years now. Many baseball players from the NPB, including players like Ichiro Suzuki thinks that MLB baseball and NPB baseball are very different in style, and don't necessarily belive that it is the "higher class". The difference in style being that NPB including more "small baseball" using more sacrifice bunts, squeeze and hit and runs while the MLB not using much "small baseball" but depending more on big hits and homeruns. The two baseball have slight difference in how they bring about their game.

There are many great players in NPB who have great talents but do not wish to go to the MLB becuase of this difference in style, thinking that there talents will be wasted in the MLB. Also, the fact that many major leaguers come to Japan to finish off their does not justify the difference in the level of baseball, even though this belief is why many come.

From what I say on is some what my opinion, but I believe that the reason why people think that MLB plays higher level baseball than NPB is because of the fact that in the past, it was obvious that MLB had higher levels than NPB, but people are refusing to accept that over time, the difference in level between MLB and NPB baseball has diminished, and that the two are now closely equaled. This hard fixed belief is whats causing many baseball players to go the MLB believing it to be the highest level of baseball, and people going to NPB beliveing to be a more easier, lower level baseball.

IMHO, the NPB and MLB are like the CFL and NFL respectively. The NFL and MLB are considered the more popular league and is thought of as the better league, but they are different variations of the same sports that shouldnt be compared. Some MLB and NFL players use the other league as acareer ender becuase the games are not as physicaly demanding in the CFL as the NFL, and the season has fewer games more spread apart in the NPB than in MLBWikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 02:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How old is Major League Baseball as a proper noun and as a trademark? (I suppose it is now both.) What about MLB? I believe writers should use the full name heavily and they should capitalize "major(s)" and "major leagues" only in that context --if at all, where the preferred alternative for saving space is the abbreviation that is a trademark, MLB.
Note, only because the American League in baseball achieved radical equality and retained its nominal identity forever, we have this situation, different from the other professional team sports in North America. The official comprehensive name, interpreted as ordinary language, makes the status claim (major). --like the Premier League in Britain, but I understand that that P.L., like the N.L. and A.L. in American baseball, isn't really a league but a division of a league.
In North American pro hockey, basketball, and football we have the National Hockey League, N- Basketball Association, and N- Football League because each National incorporated or vanquished its rivals. Among all the rival major leagues, only(?) the second American rival in football survives in name, and that is the name of a division within the National, merely equal to a counterpart National division: American Conference and National Conferences within the National League.
Precisely because of their success, the three National sports leagues don't need to make any claims to major status. They don't need to engross "major" in any form, as by registering the MLB trademark (and they haven't done so, as far as I know). That leaves fans, writers, and historians relatively free to talk about major and minor hockey, basketball, and football, without any fuss about capital letters. --P64 05:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] American and National

replicating this here without deleting it from "New Topic". One aspect of Baseball in North America that Fascinates me is the independent nature between the American and National league. How independent are the leagues today from the entity known as Major League Baseball? FancyPants 12:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • The points you bring up are discussed here and there. The leagues are pretty much just a formality any more. Originally they were almost completely independent. But over time, that has become less so. Maybe the most notable difference now is the Designated Hitter rule. Wahkeenah 13:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)
  • Fancy, My comments on the proper nouns in section Major League Baseball (MLB) is . . . will interest you, perhaps without encyclopedic benefit. The NL and AL "leagues" are not at all independent of MLB and the time has passed when they should be considered sports "leagues" at all, except as proper nouns, or nominally. Some matters of government need majority in one league and supermajority in the other. For illustration, suppose the NL can rearrange in four four-team divisions by majority vote of the AL and 75% vote of the NL. But for all I know, "conferences" or "divisions" within other leagues have as much formal distinction as that. Does anyone know? --P64 06:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC); --P64 05:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
    • Technically speaking, the last year that the two major leagues were independent of each other was 1902. Once the "federation" known as the National Commission (and later the Commissioner's Office) was formed, there was one governing body. The only difference since then has been the degree of semi-autonomy between the leagues. I don't know for sure, but I would say any realignment plan would require approval of both leagues. But there does not appear to be any NFL-style realignment that would rub out the league boundaries and turn them into "conferences", at least not yet. Wahkeenah 06:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
But the autonomy of the two leagues, almost nil today, was vast in 1903 and for a while thereafter. The leagues controlled their membership (limited by territorial rights), scheduled their games, hired their umpires, selected their statistical categories (Earned Run Average and so on), introduced their awards (Most Valuable Player, separately introduced and separately abandoned in the 1920s).
The two leagues expanded competitively in 1960-1962. When they could no longer maintain uniform playing rules, in effect since 1903, they adopted a faux playing rule that any league may choose to use or not to use a designated hitter.
NL and AL today are nearly divisions or conferences as we know them in other leagues. Differences include such things as requiring 3/4 vote in one "league" and plurality vote in the other "league" when one realigns or one revises territorial rights that do not affect the other. --P64 05:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

MLB vs NPB history http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/japan_series/history.jsp?content=history_results

[edit] minor challenge

replicating this here without deleting it from "New Topic". The PCL was en-route to achieve that status until the New York teams relocated to California. Is there a article about this? FancyPants 12:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That should be covered seriously in the 'pedia history of the PCL or of minor leagues. In the article on Major League Baseball it is only one moderate challenge among several that might be mentioned, probably none at length. Consider an article on challenges. Or there should be an article about major or minor league baseball, lower case. See my comments about the proper nouns Major League Baseball and MLB just above.
In print there is Andy McCue, "Open Status Delusions: the PCL Attempt To Resist Major League Baseball", Nine 5.2 (1997). --P64 05:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
"Major League Baseball" as a term has been around for 100 years or more. The more generic term is "Organized Baseball", which means professional baseball operating under the "official" umbrella of the major and minor leagues, in the United States. The major leagues were always "understood" to be at the highest level, whether the MLB term was used or not. "Major League Baseball" as a trademark was established in the late 1960s by the Major League Baseball Promotion Corporation, the creators of the logo that is still used today. In fact, the term "major league" has two uses. One is to distinguish it from "minor league", which is a system of professional teams in smaller cities that "feed" the majors. The other is because it is unique in having two equal-level leagues, and it is more convenient to say "MLB" than to say "the NL and the AL". The NHL has a system it refers to it as minor league hockey. The NBA and NFL rely on colleges for their player development. But there is no need to call the NFL, NBA nor the NHL "major league", because there is only one league. The two major baseball leagues are approaching being an artificial construct rather than a reality, but until something drastic happens, they remain two leagues. On the other topic, the "Open" classification for the PCL was indeed a delusion, as those minor league clubs all had major league affiliations and were subject to MLB's rules. It is fair to say that before television and before the majors moved west, the PCL was effectively the "major" league for the west coast residents. But the bottom line is that the major leagues in any sport are where the money and the talent are. MLB is the premiere version of the game for two reasons: one, it is still largely an American game; and two, it's where the largest salaries are. A large number of players in the bigs still come from the USA. A significant number come from Latin America, and some from Asia. An exceptional player in the Dominican Republic or in Japan or Korea will likely (thought not necessarily) want to come to the USA, because its where the money is and thus where the preponderence of the most highly talented players are clustured. Wahkeenah 06:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
"The term major league has two uses." Yes but only one of two, or only some of the larger number if we slice and dice, is part of a proper noun, Major League Baseball. My questions concern the proper noun usage(s) because I urge 'pedians to use the proper noun wherever it pertains but no more broadly. The hundred year old term, I believe, is major league(s), not Major League Baseball. Of course, the point isn't merely when the proper noun came into use but what that organization with exclusive right to control use of the proper noun (Major League Baseball) claims as its historical scope. It is reasonable to use the proper noun and its proper abbreviation MLB (also registered) in ways that comply with that organizations mandates. But it isn't reasonable to turn the generic term "major league" over to MLB.
P.S. I know of "organized baseball" but not "major league baseball" from about one hundred years ago. --P64 05:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Here's an article from The Scrapbook History of Baseball, taken from a newspaper (it doesn't say which one) from April of 1914, discussing the opening game of the Federal League. The heading (with most of its words capitalized) starts "The Initial Championship Contest of the New Major League..." The article says "The first championship contest of the Federal League as a major organization was played this day between Baltimore and Buffalo..." And here's a headline from sometime in 1913, date not given, and obviously a ruse on the part of the FL, but it says, "The Federal League Does Not Propose to Interfere With Major League or Minor League Players Under Contract..." That makes me wonder if the FL's arrival brought the term to the fore. Anyway, that's over 90 years ago. The term "organized baseball" is also in evidence at that time. Wahkeenah 05:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Nope. It predates the FL. There's a headline from 1911 discussing a growing practice of companies awarding players with gifts for achieving feats of various kinds (such as giving a car to the batting champion). The headline is in all caps, and reads, "PLAYER PRIZES TO BE DISCOURAGED BY THE MAJOR LEAGUES". In the article, it refers to "major and minor leagues" in lower case, which used to be common practice, I would say, and probably still is. Major League Baseball as a term is a trademark garnered in the 1960s, effectively making the term their own. They didn't give all that much thought to licensing until then. For example, did you know that the Chicago Cubs well-known "circle C-UBS" logo did not carry the Trade Mark symbol until the mid-1970s? Wahkeenah 05:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
And here's one from 1908, urging the adoption of a two-umpire system (innovations-R-us) in which the all-caps heading has this slightly strange wording: "TWO UMPIRES WOULD BE THE PROPER MAJOR LEAGUE CAPER". And here's one from 1905, "BALTIMORE HOPES OF RE-ENTERING MAJOR LEAGUE COMPANY REVIVED." 1904 headline: Giant's owner John T. Brush says "There Will Be No World's Championship Series If The Two New York Clubs Win Major League Championships". 1903: In connection with a contract dispute, an article refers to "a renewal of strained relations between the two major leagues". Jan. 10, 1903, headline: "The Warring Major Leagues Reach An Agreement..." I'm thinking this term come to the fore in connection with the American League. In the 1880s the papers used to refer to "The League" and "The Association". With two organizations called "League", making peace in 1903 along with the lower-level professional leagues, the terms "major league" and "minor league" were a natural. I could look through the pre-1900 stuff, but I'm kinda tired now. Wahkeenah 06:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
The above might be overkill in answering a simple question, i.e. how long has the term "major league baseball" (lower case) been around. I'm not sure precisely when MLB became a trademark, but to find the answer, you might want to look for info about the entity known as "Major League Baseball Promotion Corporation", which began in the 1960s and is where that famous logo came from. My assumption would be that it was trademarked at that time. Wahkeenah 06:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New Topic

We need to make a new section on the 2006 season and update it as games go along. Check out 2006 FIFA World Cup. User:Bornagain4) 18:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Each MLB game is not that notable., If you're that obsessive go for it. One aspect of Baseball in North America that Fascinates me is the independent nature between the American and National league. The PCL was en-route to achieve that status until the New York teams relocated to California. Is there a article about this? How independent are the leagues today from the entity known as Major League Baseball? FancyPants 12:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

  • Game by game is not enough. It needs to be pitch-by-pitch. That will keep somebody busy. The points you bring up are discussed here and there. The leagues are pretty much just a formality any more. Originally they were almost completely independent. But over time, that has become less so. Maybe the most notable difference now is the Designated Hitter rule. Wahkeenah 13:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] '98 Home run chase

I am wondering if people think this it worhty of a Wikipedia article or not. All comments should be made here.

[edit] Express written consent

  • "...without the express written consent of Major League Baseball" is one of the most famous legal warnings in history. This article should at least mention it; possibly there should be a spin-off article that discusses the sentence, its legal meaning, history, and pop culture references. --M@rēino 19:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map of Locations

I am rather upset about the current map of the United States on where the teams are located. Coming from Canada, we have a Canadian Team still, and it is the Toronto Blue Jays. Can we get a North American map with the dots everywhere? Not everywhere, with a blue dot in white. --Aleeproject 23:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Let's show the entirety of Canada, including all the major league teams above the Arctic Circle. d:) Wahkeenah 00:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

But still, the Toronto Blue Jays are in Toronto, Ontario. When they visit an American park, they fly a Canadian flag and play "O Canada"...so I believe it to be only fair to put up at least the Province of Ontario... They have Alaska and Hawaii showing, and I dont believe they are going to have any teams. --Aleeproject 17:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Perhaps you could find an Ontario map and merge it with this one? Wahkeenah 19:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)'

I will look for one. :) --Aleeproject 15:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Race and origin

"19 (16% of MLB) Latin American (76 from the Dominican Republic, 43 from Venezuela)" No way that is right. I mean, the existance of Mariano Rivera alone disrupts that notion. Can someone find out what's right? Rab 02:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Feel free to research it and post your findings here. Wahkeenah 02:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Teams with baseballs on uniforms

As per my edit, it is my belief that in the '70s and 80's several teams WORE logos that had baseball images in them. I have added the Phillies logo (albeit somewhat sloppily) to the page and think there were a few others (Texas Rangers, Cincy Reds, etc.). I wasn't aware such a rule existed, but if so examples can be cited (or a table created) showing said logos that were/are in violation. Feel free to drop a line on my talk page. EnjoysButter 06:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

  • The Giants' logo has always had a baseball in it, and is worn on the sleve. Their secondary also has a baseball. The A's secondary has a baseball in it, also worn on the sleeve. The Philadelphia A's logo had a basebal las well. Also, when the Angels changed to Anaheim, their cap logo had something like a baseball in it. The Yankees' logo is mostly a baseball. An early White Sox logo has a baseball in it. This appears to prove that the rule is not enforced.
    • I think that rule is "passive" in some sense. Presumably, the league approves the uniform designs. If a manager were to cite that rule and file a protest, it would have to be considered. The purpose of the rule is to prevent a team from using such a logo to deceive the other team into thinking that they have the actual game ball in their possession. Last I knew, football has a similar rule, and for the same reason. Wahkeenah 22:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stadium and cities

I am not trying to start an edit war or pick a fight, but I am curious to know the logic behind listing Shea stadium in Flushing instead of NYC or Yankee Stad as Bronx instead of NY. The 28 other MLB teams listed just by the city that the ballpark is located, why are the NY teams treated different. I realize NY is a big city and has boroughs and neighborhoods. However other cities have "official neighborhoods". The Metrodome for example is in the Downtown East neighborhood of Minneapols, should that be changed in the chart?. Chicago has north side and south side and neighborhoods within the city as well. LA has sections, subdivision etc, San Francisco as well. I am just trying to understand why 2 teams/stadiums are listed differently than the other 28 thanks Smith03 19:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Flushing (for the Mets) and the Bronx (for the Yankees) are actual towns that are named by the U.S. Postal Service. Flushing is the "town" in which Shea Stadium is located, while Bronx is the designation for the "town" of the Yankees (although this actually seems less intuitive, for some reason...). Someone please feel free to correct me and elaborate on this. Theirishpianist 04:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
    • Precisely. Checking my Baseball America Directory 2006, the street addresses for the offices of the above-mentioned clubs are Minneapolis, Flushing and Bronx. New York City is different from most American cities. It's just the way it is. Wahkeenah 06:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] List of family relations in Major League Baseball

There's an article called List of family relations in the National Hockey League. How about having a MLB family relations list, eg: father-son(s)- Bobby & Barry Bonds, Ken Griffey Sr & JR. brothers- the Alous, DiMaggios, Weavers extc. What do you all (wiki community) think? GoodDay 22:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

  • If hockey has one, certainly baseball should also. The list could be substantial. Henry and Tommy Aaron; Christy Mathewson and what's-his-name, his brother; the Delahantys; the Coopers; the Perrys; the Niekros; the Alomars; Roy Smalley Sr. and Jr.; on and on it goes. Wahkeenah 22:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
I started a new article List of family relations in Major League Baseball. GoodDay 23:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The article I've started, should be wiped out. Theres already (I found out) an article for such a list list of second generation Major League Baseball players. My apologies for the mistakes & oversights. GoodDay 00:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that you issue a REDIRECT from your new one to that other one. Or, better yet, merge that article into this one, as they are not exactly the same idea. Wahkeenah 02:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last name vs. family name

"A league may provide that the uniforms of its member teams include the names of its players on their backs. Any name other than the last name of the player must be approved by the League President." (...) Currently, Ichiro Suzuki of the Seattle Mariners is the only player to have his given name rather than his family name displayed on the back his uniform.

Given that in traditional Japanese fashion family name comes first, it may be said that Suzuki Ichiro is in fact complying with the regulations by wearing his given name, which comes last. Us humans are adept at finding loopholes. – Tintazul msg 10:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

  • "Last name" is English slang for "surname" or "family name". Presumably his "surname" is Suzuki. Wahkeenah 15:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/j/Talk%7EMajor_League_Baseball_6bf2.html"