Talk:Mariano Rivera

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Mariano Rivera was a good article nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Reviewed version: September 22, 2006

Contents

[edit] Calling all stat boys (and girls)

"During that season, if the Yankees were leading after six innings, they were nearly assured of victory due to the stellar pitching of both relievers." I'm curious to know the Yankees' winning percentage in games when both Rivera and Wetteland pitched that year (or even just the games Rivera pitched). I think it would give more credibility to that declaration. Anyone know of a way to find that info? – flamurai (t) 04:13, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Someone with an account or access to Elias Stats Buearu could probably provide a bit of definitive information on that. However (and I say this as a yankee fan) that statement is incredibly subjective. Wetteland was not exactly a "stellar" pitcher, in fact it used to be a cynical joke about how "exciting" the game was when he pitched, and not exactly in a good way. i'm not going to edit the page (probably because this is my first comment, let alone an edit), but while there is some truth to that statement, it definately needs to be reworded.– lucidmatt (t)

I also notice that this article lacks a discussion of Rivera's 2004 performance, especially in the ALCS, when he blew two saves. It's absence is conspicuous. ber06122, March 2, 2006. - Added a part about the 2004 postseason since its definitely important. -lionelxhutz One of the blown saves came in when he was put into a situation Tom Gordon created.

I removed the 2004 reference because it clearly wasn't written in a neutral point of view. It was written in a way to glorify the rival Red Sox, not to state facts. If you want to write a blurb about 2004, that's fine. But you don't see glowing descriptions about 1998, 1999, 2000, etc. At least the 2001 reference is fairly written. 2004 should get the same treatment. - fixer

I edited the 2004 reference a bit, removing the references to the "near-impossible" situations in which MR was placed. In game 4, Rivera started with the bases empty in the 8th. In game 5, he came in with runners on first and third with no outs -- a tough situation, but hardly one which is "nearly impossible" to escape without allowing a run. A strikeout and a double play would do the trick nicely. Hopefully the section now reads neutrally.--Strabismic 02:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

If it were that easy.

Just my opinion, but it seems that an unproportional amount of Red Sox fans seem to edit this page with biased views.

[edit] Kidnapping

How come his page includes nothing of the kidnapping of his mother? It seemed to me this was a fairly significant event. ? Timmypees 10:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

That was Ugueth Urbina's mother.

LMAO. - 153.106.4.94 19:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 2004

What is wrong with that section that it was deleted? The Legendary Ranger 16:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly a case of Yankee Fanboy vandalism... I'll readd it. 24.60.248.142 02:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

I edited the 2004 reference because it clearly wasn't written in a neutral point of view. This isn't a Red Sox entry, just a Mariano Rivera. All Rivera really did was give up a walk and a single in game 4, and a sacrifice fly in game 5. He didn't lose either game. Stick to the facts. Take note of the 2001 reference - it is fairly written for a similar situation.

a walk, a stolen base and a game tying single, is more like it... actually. Lionelxhutz 15:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Early Career

Can someone tell me where you are getting your information from regarding the "early career"? Every article I have read (including the new ones about Philip Hughes) say that Mariano was throwing 95 since he was in the minors. His problem was that he was a two pitch pitcher, and people would "sit fastball" until he developed the cutter. I referenced 2 articles with this fact in my post, but yet someone still wrote that he was sent down and suddenly discovered a fastball. Please reference the article because I can't find it.

Added a reference to the article, and I would suggest watching Mariano's "Yankeeography" if you are still doubtful. -y2kcrazyjoker

[edit] Best closer ever ?

The sentence "... is arguably the best closer in baseball history" is biaised. For me, the best closer ever is Trevor Hoffman and for other people it could be Lee Smith, John Franco or another closer. "Arguably" is a weasel word, that's why I put the weasel tag. I suggest to replace this by mentioning for example that he is 4th on the all-time saves list and that his ERA is the best among pitchers with at least 300 saves or something like that. This would be more neutral. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.246.231.201 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

"Arguably" means something is debatable, you are right. But don't you think the rest of the article presents the facts in a way that show why he could be considered one of the greatest? The accomplishments section should be more than enough to do that. Furthermore, I think baseball experts, journalists, players, etc from the baseball world have unanimously agreed and firmly established he is "arguably the greatest", which is why I included 3 sources that echo this opinion. I think this is more than enough to justify the use of the word "arguably" (note how arguably, by definition, is not definitive and leaves things open to interpretation). For that reason, I don't think the weasel word tag is needed. 68.192.191.122 22:15, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

How is Trevor Hoffman better? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamhungey (talk • contribs) 10:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Hoffman is better because he played almost his entire career for the Padres, a team that didn't win as much as the Yankees then gave Hoffman less save opportunities, and even with that, Hoffman has approximately 60 more saves than Rivera. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.246.231.201 (talk • contribs) 08:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
You could argue, then, that since he played for the Padre's, a lower-scoring team than the Yankees, he had more save opportunities. --andrew leahey 07:15, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

When he closed 2 years longer and had a WHIP and ERA slightly higher as well. :How is Trevor Hoffman better? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iamhungey (talk • contribs) 17:39, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Saying Hoffman is better because he played for a worse team is one of the more inane arguments I've heard in his favor. You are very much incorrect in saying because the Padres were not as good, he got fewer save opportunities. As of the end of 2005, Rivera notched 374 saves/427 opportunities as a closer in 9 full years as a closer, meaning he averaged 41.5 saves/47.4 opportunities per year. As of the end of 2005, Hoffman notched 431 saves/484 opportunities in 11 full years as a closer (if you exempt his injury shortened 2003 year in which he did not enter in save situation), meaning he averaged 39.2 saves/44 opportunities per year. The difference of 3 save opportunities per year is pretty negligible, if you ask me, and thus, your argument is flawed. Y2kcrazyjoker4 18:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Mariano Rivera is one of the best closers ever, but anyway I still prefer Hoffman because he does almost has good without having an overpowering fastball and a top-notch breaking pitch like Mariano's cutter. Hoffman fools hitters with less raw stuff and that's the type of player I like. I also don't like the Yankees, so my preference for Trevor Hoffman may be biaised by that. I won't modify the introduction paragraph as long as it stays the way it is now because it is neutral enough for me. Canjth, 3 August 2006 12:39

dude, using a little of this ":" would help make the talk page a little more organized. I don't know know who said what in here because it is not well organized. I'm gonna do the best i can to try to change that by adding the ":" (which adds a space before starting the new paragraph) Also, please sign your comments especially if it's a two paragraph comment. Ok now, Rivera is arguably the best closer ever because of the fact that he help the yankees in so many post-season games. Hoffman hasn't done that. Rivera's stats in the season are good enough to make him a hall of famer but it's what he has done in the post season that makes him "the best closer ever" You saw what happened in the All-Star game, Hoffman blew the save in a pressure situation (i know all saves have pressure but i mean All-Star pressure) yet Rivera did get the save. That's just an example, one, Rivera has done the same in the post season many times. That's what makes him "arguably the best closer in baseball" Now, because of the way this organized i can't read what you guys said but i read something about Hoffman playing for the Padres and "worst team" and "saves" or something. Well, if a pitcher plays for a "not so good" team he actually gets more chances than one who plays for a "good team" why?? because a good team wins games like 6-2, or 11-0, or scores like that (not all the time) well, if you play for a not so good team then that team does have to win games that are 4-3, 11-10, etc. When a closer for a bad team doesn't pitch is most likely because they are losing. When Rivera doesn't get to pitch is either because they are losing or they are winning a blowout. --CesarCossio 08:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, now you know who said what. Again, please, sign your comments look at all those unsigned comments. And well, if someone doesn't change the "arguably the best closer" back then i would do it because he is arguably the best closer ever. Canjth, if you think Hoffman is better because of "I also don't like the Yankees, so my preference for Trevor Hoffman may be biaised by that." then go ahead, that's your opinion says a lot about you. "Rivera is not the best closer ever because i don't like the yankees" wow, i loved that. Umm, and whoever said this: "a team that didn't win as much as the Yankees then gave Hoffman less save opportunities" well, i guess you forgot to count all the blowout games the yankees win right? 'cause yeah, because they are a good team they win more blowout games than the Padres do and that means Rivera doesn't get those save opportunities right?? If a bad team wins 50 games then their closer could easily get all those 50 saves because all those games are "save opportunies" when when the yankees win 98 games not all of the 98 games are save opportunies for Rivera or are they??? You should think about those things before saying that Rivera gets more save opportunies because he plays for the yankees, and Canjth, are you kidding me?? "Rivera is not 'arguably' the best ever because i don't like the yankees??" come on.--CesarCossio 08:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
umm, okay all Hoffman lovers, this is what he said about Rivera:
"San Diego’s Trevor Hoffman, perhaps the game’s second-best active closer (366 career saves) takes the hosannas a step further: Rivera, he says, 'will go down as the best reliever in the game in history. His presence in the postseason is so strong that the other team knows that if they’re losing in the eighth inning, they are going to lose.'" CesarCossio

Let's stop this! I'm a Hoffman fan, and I am going to defend him. All right! Mariano Rivera is one of the greatest pitchers in history. But it is not Hoffman's fault if the Padres didn't make the playoffs every year. If Hoffman had played for a team which made the playoffs every year, perhaps he would have done as well as Rivera. It is useless to keep arguing about this because there will always be Hoffman fans and Rivera fans, and their positions are impossible to reconciliate. Nobody has the right answer, it is just a question of differences. When I added the very first comment that startled this argument, it was the first time I added something to a talk page and I ahd seen in the wikipedia project page about weasel words that "arguably" was not supposed to be used in articles. Being a Hoffman fan, I noticed that the word "arguably" was used and I signaled it on the talk page because I saw a bias in it and there are not supposed to be bias in articles. Also notice that I didn't edit the Trevor Hoffman page to say that he was the best closer in history. I have not vandalized or used weasel words in articles. And I respect Rivera fans, so please respect Hoffman fans, including me, for their preference. Canjth 18:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[1]

ok, tell me when did i not respect Hoffman?? all i did was quote something he said, where even him called Mariano Rivera the best reliever ever. If he can accept that, why can't his fans accept that?? i don't know. And yeah, he might have been as good as Rivera in the postseason but he isn't and that makes Rivera better than Hoffman. Maybe it is unfair but that's the way it is. Yeah, Hoffman is good, i never said he wasn't or did I? and well, i don't know if it was you who took the "arguably the best..." out of the article but if you did then that was wrong if you didn't then whoever did it was wrong. You just don't go and say "i think we should remove this, any comments??" and then before anyone answers you go ahead and change it, it doesn't work that way (maybe in other articles it does work that way 'cause no cares really but a lot of people read this article and a lot of people do care so yeah, that was wrong whoever changed it without anyone agreeing to change it.--CesarCossio 20:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
It was not me who removed the "arguably the best...". I signaled on the talk page that I thought it was a bias and a few hours later someone had answered me on the talk page and removed it on the article. A few days later, someone put the words "arguably the best..." back on the article and I didn't remove them even though the formulation still is debatable. Canjth
yeah, i was the one who put it back in there 'cause nobody agreed to remove that. --CesarCossio 23:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Finally, someone has managed to find a suitable formulation to say that Rivera is "often considered the best closer". Please leave it the way it is. Canjth 7 September 2006 17:54


I think a more accurate phrase would be "amost universally thought of as the best closer" or "the best post-season closer". Hoffman is just not considered a better closer by the sports writers and the majority of fans. Call it a NY bias, call it whatever you want.

You also have to consider the fact that Hoffman has not done well in pressure situations. Remember the All-Star game? Mariano pitches in a pressure situation every time he comes in to a game at Yankee stadium, and even more so in the post season. You can argue all day about what Hoffman WOULD do if he had more post-season opportunities, but judging any future performances by his past outings....has Trevor coming up short. --andrew leahey 07:14, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's an opinion to call somebody the best anything. You could make the argument that Joe Shmoe is the best baseball player ever. In this case I think putting something to the effect of "generally regarded as.." is appropriate.

Hoffman is better because hes the only player ever with 500+ saves. --HPJoker 22:00, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Inclusion of nicknames never used

Can someone explain how these nicknames keep getting put back into the article? Their inclusion is nothing less than asinine. "Mo" is the only thing he is ever called on a regular basis. You will 99.9% of the time never hear Rivera referred to as "Sandman" or "The Hammer of God." "The Sandman" is only referenced when "Enter Sandman" plays and as for the "The Hammer of God"... I've never heard anyone actually call him this with the exception of 2 articles. And when a nickname is used that little, it's not a nickname by nature, at all! Just exclude it....

You have a precedence for this on Wikipedia articles of every professional athelete. Johnny Damon's article doesn't have a comprehensive list of everything he's ever been called in his career, such as "Jesus", "Caveman", "Unfrozen Caveman Lawyer", etc. Derek Jeter doesn't have a ridiculous list of "Mr. November", "The Captain", "Captain Clutch", "Jetes", etc. in his introduction! Why is an exception being made for this article for 2 things you will NEVER hear on a regular basis? There is a precedent that has been set and I would expect that this article should follow it.

Remember this is an encyclopedia article, not a fanboy website. Y2kcrazyjoker4 05:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

When I was blocked for 24 hrs, my instructions were to talk about this issue on the talk page instead of just reverting edits. Well, I HAVE brought this up on the talk page, but I still am yet to hear any opinions. I've done my part. I'm still waiting to hear from the users who are making these edits. So until you actually bother to come here and talk about this, your edits are gonna continue to be reverted... Y2kcrazyjoker4 00:53, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Heh...and your reversions are gonna be reverted... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:68.163.220.9 (talk • contribs) (UTC)

[edit] Failed GA

As I'm a Yankees fan myself, I feel bad about failing this (especially since no one even put notice of the nomination here until I did just now), but here goes.

  • Erratic sourcing There are no less than five footnotes to back up "greatest closer in baseball history" but very few through the section on his career, where these things could easily be found online. There is a {{citation needed}} that hasn't been dealt with ... a no-no for any GA or FA. There are quotes of things Rivera told named reporters, with their outlets ... but no sources for these. There is no excuse for that.
  • Not comprehensive enough The article jumps right into his pro baseball career. Where was he for the 20 years before that? Where in Panama was he born? What was his family like? His youth? He is a person, after all, not just a baseball player.

    And what of his life off the field? I seem to remember some while back a lawsuit by one of the Yankees' assistant clubbies in which he alleged that other employees and some players, Rivera included, did some nasty things to him that constituted sexual harassment. What happened with that?

This would be good, perhaps, for a baseball wiki. But we are a general-interest encyclopedia, and we need to be more than just fans. Daniel Case 22:29, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Uhhhh, you would be sorely mistaken on the issue of a sexual harrassment lawsuit. I'm fairly certain you are all mixed up. As for his life before baseball: if anyone had enough information to make this a section, I'm sure it would have been added already. But not that much info is available. Not many professional athlete articles have "Early life" sections, anyways. Y2kcrazyjoker4 00:13, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
Nope, I'm not. See here. Apparently it was dismissed.
And as for his earlier life, do any Spanish-language media have it? Daniel Case 03:54, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Also I'll give you a serious pat on the back if you can find any sports GA's or FA's with Trivia sections. Incorporate the relevant info into the article and delete the section, if you can't incorporate the material remember: A trivia section is often a way of saying, "here's a section I made to put in nonsense that isn't of encyclopedic value and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia" and delete the junk. Quadzilla99 16:28, 21 January 2007 (UTC)"

[edit] Is the birthday (1969) true

Many claim that this birthday is not his true birthday. Has anyone else come accross debates on this issue? --131.194.226.12

Not really. I saw his birthday misprinted once on a baseball card, but that's it. He observes his own birthday as the one listed in this article. Y2kcrazyjoker4 03:56, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
You may be thinking of Orlando Hernandez? He pitched for the Yankees for a time and had a disputed birthday. He's somewhere between 36 and 75, now, and plays for the Mets. --andrew leahey 07:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Please discuss instead of revert warring

Maybe both anon and registered users want to discuss about the content dispute in this talk page? If this revert warring continues I may use protection to force everyone to use this talk page. --WinHunter (talk) 04:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

What do you think I've been trying to do in the "Inclusion of nicknames never used" section of this talk page? The anonymous user(s) simply refuse to come to the talk page to discuss this issue. Furthermore, the user(s) become aggressive whenever it is suggested in the edit summary that they do so. Y2kcrazyjoker4 20:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I've placed legitimate, referenced content concerning nicknames on the page. The name of this site is "Wikipedia - The Free Encyclopedia"...with the operative word being "Encyclopedia", which should contain as much substantiated content as possible to give the best possible experience to the reader and be as expansive as possible. A certain user seems to believe that this page is their own personal forum and exclude many instances of valid content - depriving all of us of an expansive, entry rich in content. I've even offered to demote my content to the bottom of the page (the Trivia Section), but that was also reverted by this user. I also offer the fact that no one else seems to take issue with my referenced content. I can only conclude that the majority of the readers find the content beneficial to the page. Winhunter, what do we stand for here? Expansive, rich content, or an atmosphere of totalitarianism in which the voices of many are suppressed by the few? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:68.163.140.87 (talk • contribs) (UTC)

Expansive and rich? What dream world are you living in? Just because you edited the article doesn't mean you improved it. There's a huge difference. You must be delusional and delirious if you actually think these are nicknames of Rivera's. Since when do Wikipedia articles document every nickname someone has ever been called? Since when does Wikipedia document in detail obscure and speaker-exclusive nicknames? Please show me a precedent for this. I beg you too. Furthermore, I hope you'll take notice that plenty of other users have removed your senseless edits so I'm not the only one agrees you need to stop. Y2kcrazyjoker4 03:59, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Expansive and rich is correct. I am completely accurate in my assessment. The nicknames are provided are "actual" nicknames since I've provided references as such. Period. End of discussion. Also, the "plenty of other users reverting my content" consist of 1. You and 2. Canjth. Two is not a-plenty. Although I do not have proof, I strongly suspect 1 = 2, or there is some relationship between both. I believe we will not reach common ground, even though I attempted to demote my content to the bottom of the article. So, unfortunately, the reversion war will continue. I have no choice but to fight E-tyranny. Oh, one more thing...... stop harassing me and calling me delusional, delirious, and senseness. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:68.163.140.87 (talk • contribs) (UTC)

E-tyranny? Yeah, that's what it is. We're trying to do deny your civil rights by suppressing your opinion. Or it could be that your opinion is wrong and your intent is malicious (especially considering I know your identity now)? Y2kcrazyjoker4 06:09, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
I am not a sockpuppet of Y2kcrazyjoker4. There is no relationship between us either. We are just two different Wikipedians who are fed up with your edits. Wikipedia isn't a place to put every nickname people have been called. Your suspicions of sock puppetry are not founded. At least you said you don't have proof.Canjth 13:11, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I apologize for the suspicion of sockpuppetry, but nothing else. What you're failing to understand is that a deal will need to be cut here. (I'm guessing you're teenagers and haven't figured that one out yet.) Gentlemen, deals, like money, make the world go around. They have for thousands of years, and will continue to forever (and the internet won't change this). That said, gentlemen, I'll offer to demote my content to the Trivia section (which I already have done, in good faith). Then I'll disappear, and you'll both be rid of me. Oh, and banning won't work, I'll manage to resurface. Count on it.

It's okay for me if it remains in the trivia section, but it was not okay at all in the introduction. I will not remove it as long as it remains only in the trivia section. I think it's a good conmpromise. I'm a teenager, you're right. Now we'll see what Y2kcrazyjoker4 thinks of this, and if he doesn't agree, I'll try to convince him to leave it in the trivia section. Canjth 15:23, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Canjth, your willingness to compromise is sincerely appreciated. (So apparently you know Y2k in such a capacity to be influential? Heh.)

No, but I'll try anyway. Canjth 16:54, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm for keeping the Sandman nickname in the trivia section, but not the Hammer of God. I've never heard anyone but Tony Kornheiser use that nickname and in that capacity, it's nothing more than a pet name. In keeping the Sandman nickname, it would likely make sense to mention it in the same piece of trivia that discusses "Enter Sandman" as his entrance music. Y2kcrazyjoker4 19:13, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

I put my prior Triva note back in. I see where you're going, but I really want "Hammer of God". You have to admit I've provided references. "So throw me a friggin bone here, Scott." It's a small price to pay to be rid of me :)

I still have never heard anyone actually call him that. I think if you have to cite a nickname in the first place, it's not a good indication of how often it is used. Y2kcrazyjoker4 21:44, 18 December 2006 (UTC)
Most nicknames have to be cited on Wikipedia. Just because you didn't hear of it doesn't mean it doesn't count. I put in a legitimate baseball resource for the reference, and you removed it before discussing. The anon was making good faith edits, but you kept reverting. You had the equal responsibility of going to the talk page and discussing it, so please don't pin the blame on anyone. You're lucky I didn't block both of you guys for violating 3RR multiple times. See [2]. Although I haven't heard Rivera being referenced as "Hammer of God" myself, the fact that other people do call him that and a major baseball resource is acknowledging that deserves mentioning in the article. Nishkid64 02:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Type in "Hammer of God" + Rivera into Google and you'll see more than enough referrences to see this is a legitimate nickname, and therefore a perfectly legitimate edit. I hope all this stops now. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:Googie man (talk • contribs) (UTC) 03:04, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
To be fair Nish, I insisted for months that the anon user(s) bring this issue to the talk page and only now did that actually happen. Y2kcrazyjoker4 04:08, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
Still, if he wasn't willing to bring ithere, maybe you should have at least contacted him. All the communication was by the edit summaries of your revertions. Nishkid64 15:16, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] From article:

"This remains a unique show of respect for a set-up man; only two other middle relievers (Keith Foulke and Francisco Rodriguez) have ever received so much as a single third-place vote."

Is there a source for this stat? I poked around a bit but could not find a source for this. Mahalo. --Ali'i 18:08, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 42

he's #42 whean #42 is retired by all major leuge teams...SO WHY THE CRAP IS HE #42 !!!??? (p.s.- am i the only one to notice this ???!!!)--Sonicobbsessed 19:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe your reading comprehension skills need some work?
“ On April 15, 2007, players around the league wore #42 in honor of the 60th Anniversary of Jackie Robinson breaking the color barrier. Rivera took part in the festivities by wearing the number as usual. For his entire career, Rivera has worn #42, which has been retired by all Major League Baseball teams since 1997 in honor of Robinson. Rivera is permitted to use the number due to a grandfather clause allowing active players to retain it if they had worn the number prior to its league-wide retirement. As the only remaining player covered by the clause, Rivera will be the last Major League player to wear the number full-time. ”
Y2kcrazyjoker4 19:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Palmeiro's homerun in 1996

Rivera yielded only one home run in 1996 in 107 2/3 innings - to Rafael Palmeiro of Baltimore (see home run logs) --LaserLubin 15:33, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

What "home run logs" are you talking about? And bear in mind that banned-user Ron Liebman socks are subject to reversion on-sight, even if they happen to post correct information. Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? 16:52, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
Not to mention it adds nothing to the article. If you're writing an article for ESPN or a statistician, maybe this is important. But for an encyclopedia article on Mariano Rivera's 1996 season, who cares? Y2kcrazyjoker4 20:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Rivera is set to remain a Yankee

According to MLB.com, Rivera will accept a 3-year $45M offer from the Yankees. A reference to this news story has been posted to Mariano's page accordingly. New York Dreams (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 04:03, 20 November 2007 (UTC)