Talk:Brad Ausmus

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

↓    Skip to table of contents    ↓
This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Avon Old Farms?

Brad Ausmus attended Cheshire High School, not Avon Old Farms. This is misinformation apparently copied over from an assumption about his having played baseball with Brian Leetch, who did attend Cheshire High School and later Avon Old Farms. I'm sitting here looking at the goofy pictures of the boys' baseball team in our high school yearbook, showing Brad wearing #29 (in the supplement, not the main volume). Hey, he used to strike me out in little league when we were kids. He was also notable as most athletic and best body. Now he's a three time Gold Glove winner and I'm the lawyer for Wikipedia. Go figure.--Brad Patrick 19:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Defensive range

Where is it verfiable in external links that Ausmus has better than average range? It matches with my perception, but defensive statistics for catchers A) don't measure range, for the most part, and B) are notoriously unreliable. All else is essentially perception; the Gold Gloves aren't a positive argument, since they have more to do with throwing ability than range. I'll leave it in for now, but anything related to definitive proof should be cited as well as "verifiable in external links". Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 08:24, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi. http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/ausmubr01.shtml, which is the third link down in the external links, sets forth his range (RF9 - Range Factor per nine innings 9 * (A + PO)/ Inn) and the league's average catcher range (lgRF9 - Major League Average Range Factor at that position that year per nine innings) for each year that Ausmus has played. I don't see any reason to cite this other than in external links, but if you differ feel free to do so.--Epeefleche 02:41, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

"Range" means how much ground a fielder covers. For an infielder or outfielder, putouts, assists, and range factor are indicative of range. But for catchers, these statistics do not capture "range". Any extra marginal ability a catcher has to chase down a foul popup or pounce on a bunt will be dwarfed by the other chances that have nothing do with range, such as strikeouts and throwing out base stealers. It does not make sense to say a catcher has great range just because he has a staff of strikeout pitchers rather than ground-ball pitchers. Wiki279 02:19, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] the Link debate

I could have sworn this was resolved at least a week ago. Let me tell you, it's gotten to be an extremely tired pissing match. I see User:Tecmobowl has removed a bunch of links again, some of which it seems he was correct to take out, and some of which were actually useful and contained something unique. I'm hesitant to put any of them back in again, because this has clearly become a pissing match between Tecmobowl and User:Epeefleche, and I'm not interested in getting in the middle of a fight. It seems to me that you're both behaving badly at this point. Brad Ausmus used to be a peaceful page. Nobody was hurt by a superfluity of links to places that offered similar but not identical information, but nobody is really hurt by their absence, either. I wish you guys would just cut this out, because it's getting old. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 19:17, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

Which ones do you feel provided unique information? //Tecmobowl 20:12, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
  • This is part of a larger issue. Conversation on this is being engaged in at [1], a mediation case with 17 parties (far more than the two you mention -- and including Wizardman and Alansohn, who have also RVd Tecmo's deletions on this page) was opened at [2], and at the mediator's suggestion a request to have Tecmo blocked indefinitely for persistent disruption is being considered at [3]. To discuss the matter here would further fragment the discussion -- something curiously Tecmo has sought to do repeatedly, while at the same time he has criticized the ongoing discussion for being too fragmented. I might point out, as well, that Tecmo is sitting out his 5th block of the month for deletions of ELs such as the ones in this article. See [4] And that when he was found this month to be a sockpuppet, the admin wrote: ""It is ... clear that Tecmobowl has used sockpuppets disruptively, and any further use of sockpuppets (or any other disruptive behavior) should result in a lengthy block."--Epeefleche 05:57, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
I've followed but not participated in that discussion, partially because I find the whole thing fairly ridiculous. To be frank, when Tecmo deleted the links that were on the Brad Ausmus page, I didn't realize they'd even been put back in. I thought the issue had been resolved already, and the decision taken that Baseball Reference, Baseball Cube, and a couple of others were all that was neccessary. Your point that this is a fragmentation of the discussion is taken, and I won't persue it here. As to whether there are seventeen parties involved, that may be true, but here at Brad Ausmus the majority of the action for a while has been between the two of you. I see that Alansohn has done a revert since my initial comment, and that's fine. It's still a pointless pissing match, no matter who is involved. Where Anne hath a will, Anne Hathaway. 18:58, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Understood. The links in on the Ausmus page were some of the 100s on many pages that Tecmo deleted in a short period of time. As to "whether" there were 17 people involved in the discussion of the propriety of such deletions or not (you write "that may be true"), it is true -- you can verify that by checking [[5]. All 17 are listed. Wisely, most of those editors provided their input at [6], rather than on the Ausmus page. Only Wizardman, Alansohn, and I RVd Tecmo's deletions on this page. Their views, and the views of the other 14 editors, are captured at the above url. Many of us involved in that discussion thought as you did that the issue had been resolved (at least in part). As to what the decision was -- actually, you misunderstood it. The decision was to address 4 urls first, achieve consensus, and then move on to other urls. During the pendency of the discussion, deletions are disruptive. This is because one can more easily go back and delete urls, if they are later found to be redundant, than find what was once there and reinsert them. Tecmo deleted all sorts of urls, including a great number of ELs from those 4 urls. So we already know that his view as to what urls should be deleted is not sound enough to warrant their wholesale deletion in the 100s. While consensus appeared to be reached on those 4 urls, though, Tecmo has not agreed to follow it. Tecmo's attitude is captured in his edit in which he wrote: "I'm fucking done with trying to follow due process. I'm just going back to ingoring all rules." [7] IMHO, it is detrimental to delete 100s of good ELs. While this may be of little interest to you, some others do think that there is a benefit to keeping Tecmo from engaging in unfettered deletions of good urls. But you need not get involved in an issue that does not interest you. Hopefully the above Community sanction action will relieve us of further activity of that sort on this page. I share these observations with you here not to fragment the substantive discussion, but only to bring you up to speed.--Epeefleche 21:17, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • FYI--An indefinite block on Tecmobowl has been imposed at the above community sanction noticeboard. The decision, which can be found in full at the above url, read in main part as follows: "Per the discussion, and especially the mediator's closing comments, User:Tecmobowl is indefinitely blocked. I've read his points, and I do agree with some of them, but there is no excuse at all for sockpuppetry and continued violations of 3RR."--Epeefleche 17:51, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Intentional walks?

I'm inclined to remove the clutter about Ausmus being in the top 10 in intentional walks in various seasons. Guess what that proves? That he bats 8th in the batting order! If you're batting 3rd or 4th and leading the league in IBB, that's one thing--but plenty of number 8 hitters are walked with two outs to bring up the pitcher.Wiki279 17:24, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish stats and rankings

I do not believe that statistical rankings with respect to particular religions or ethnicities belong in a player's introductory paragraph or section. I thought moving that information down to the section on the National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame was appropriate. Wiki279 02:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

  • I agree with you as to the introductory paragraph, and believe that there is support for the notion that absent unusual circumstances that is the case. However, I think it is fine later than the introductory paragraph, and given how high his rankings are in that category I think it is especially acceptable.--Epeefleche 03:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
    • Would anyone else like to weigh in on this? Are rankings among other religions or ethnicities mentioned elsewhere? I think it would be fair to argue that it doesn't belong at all. Does baseball-reference.com chart this? Is this a regular topic of discussion during baseball broadcasts? No. So one can ask why it belongs here. I won't go as far as to say that it can't be included but in my opinion it does not warrant introductory section treatment. Wiki279 03:16, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
        • There is support for your view as to the introductory paragraph -- depending on whether one views the Jewish people as a people or solely as a religion. I am not aware of any support as to the introductory para. Notability on Wikipedia turns on whether there are mentions of Jewish ballplayers by appropriate sources. There are. The Major League Baseball set of Jewish baseball player cards, see [8], the books on Jewish major league baseball players, see e.g. [9], [10], [11], and [12], the listings on Baseball Almanac, see [13], etc., of Jewish baseball players, the Jewish Halls of Fame that included Jewish baseball players, the lists of top career performances by Jewish major leaguers (see Ausmus article), the articles in papers on the best Jewish baseball players (see Ryan Braun and Shawn Green bios), etc., etc., all point to this.--Epeefleche 06:09, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
          • Obviously, there are compilations about Jewish players. Let me put my point this way: if the Jewish record for wins or hits were to fall, would the ESPN anchor to lead the account of that game with "Shawn Green set a new all-time record for hits by a Jewish player as the Mets beat the Cubs"? I doubt it. That factoid falls in the category of trivia or miscellany, which does not rate first section treatment--regardless of which paragraph it's in. Should Roy Campanella's intro list his rankings among Italian-Americans, among African-Americans, among Afro-Italians, and among Baptists? I'd rather stick to on-the-field attributes. I think we've both made our points and I'd invite others to join the discussion. Wiki279 05:34, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Well, Baseball Almanac and other respectable publications can be expected to do so when Shawn Green breaks Hank Greenberg's home run record next season ... as he has a fair chance of doing. And there is nothing in Wiki that suggests that ESPN is the arbiter. And for all I know they will as well. Major league baseball endorsed the baseball cards for Jewish players. The wiki criteria for notability suggest that what I point to above makes it notable. Anyway, ESPN is unlikely to lead their article with the fact that Ausmus's middle name is David, or that he was born on the 14th of April, or that he was born in New Haven -- and all of those are mentioned in the first section. The distinction of course between Jewish ballplayers and Afro-Italians and Baptists is that the latter categories don't have the above indicia of notability. You seem to gloss over that. If they were to have those indicia -- of course they should be treated the same way. I think you are creating criteria as you go along, rather than focusing on the Wiki criteria for notability, which this satisfies.--Epeefleche 06:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

  • I can't locate the criteria for notability you cite. I'll accept that it's noteworthy--but it's not what any objective expert would include if asked to give a brief summary of who Brad Ausmus is. (I wonder what Ausmus himself would say, given that I can't find any indication he identifies himself as Jewish.) I mentioned ESPN as a for instance--I don't expect any mainstream media outlet to track the Shawn Green chase. I could find respectable publications that list Ausmus's rankings among Ivy Leaguers. While that might be of great interest to some people, it doesn't mean it belongs in the intro. Wiki279 13:20, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 14:55, 9 November 2007 (UTC) Raised assessment to B, but:

  • Fix the references. Give article title, author, name of publication, date of publication, and date retrieved from Web. See Template:Cite news.
  • Fix the play/manage quotes, they seem to be in the wrong order. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 20:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Manythanks. actually, the quotes are in the correct order!--Ethelh (talk) 05:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)