Talk:Ryan Braun

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Ryan Braun has been listed as one of the Everyday life good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a reassessment.

December 24, 2007

Good article nominee

Listed

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Baseball / Players (Rated A-Class)

Portal

Baseball Portal

Ryan Braun is within the scope of 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 been rated as A-class on the quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This article is supported by Players task force.

Assessment comments

This 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 Biography (Rated GA-Class)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.

Biography Portal

This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

This article is supported by the Sports and games work group.

WikiProject California (Rated A-Class)
	This article is part of WikiProject California, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to California 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.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

WikiProject Wisconsin (Rated A-Class)
	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Wisconsin, a WikiProject related to the U.S. state of Wisconsin. For more information, or to get involved, visit the project page. If you give this article a rating or change a previous rating, please leave a short summary in the comments to explain the rating and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
A	This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.
Low	This article has been rated as low-importance on the importance scale.

WikiProject Judaism (Rated A-Class)

Judaism Portal

Ryan Braun is part of WikiProject Judaism, a project to improve all articles related to Judaism. If you would like to help improve this and other articles related to the subject, consider joining the project. All interested editors are welcome. This template adds articles to Category:WikiProject Judaism articles.

Project Judaism To-do:

This article has been rated as A-Class on the quality scale.

Mid

This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

This is a candidate for the Baseball Article Creation and Improvement Drive.
Please see the project page to find this article's entry to support or comment on the nomination.

To-do list for Ryan Braun:

edit · history · watch · refresh

Here are some tasks you can do:

1 Comments
2 "Herculean" stats
3 Jewish
4 Philosophy
5 Ballplayers at age 23
6 Granada Hills as birthplace
7 Left Field
8 1st & 2nd Half sections necessary?
9 Disambiguate
10 Tools Section?
11 NPOV
12 Slugging %
13 Citation tags / A-Class Review
14 Viewing
15 GA Review - Why article is on hold
16 Jewish home run hitters
17 GA passed
18 This article referred to in ESPN article

[edit] Comments

Braun's father is certainly jewish, but his mother is catholic, and he was raised in an irreligious household. Whether he considers himself jewish is certainly an interesting question, but according to jewish religious law, he's not a jew until he makes a specific commitment to convert. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.24.95.95 (talk) 15:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Braun was the 5th overall pick in the 2005 MLB draft! That should be enough. Plus he's the highest drafted Jew ever! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphie90 (talk • contribs) 29 January 2006

I've removed the speedy request :-) --HappyCamper 13:01, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

User:67.121.107.59, you seem to have a problem with my editing of this article, which you call delightfully call one of "[your] articles" on my talk page. Why is this? I certainly don't appreciate the death threats that you made on my talk page. Refrain from making personal attacks and using unwarranted profanity. Remember that one of Wikipedia's guidelines is to be bold in improving articles. If you disagree with an edit that I or anyone else made, let's discuss it, but we have to remain civil. What exactly do you object to in my edits? My contention is that words like "Herculean" require justification to remain neutral claims. Remember that this is an encyclopedia to which we are contributing; your own opinion is not fact. If you have a credible source that backs up a word like "Herculean", fine; then cite it. Also, please sign your messages. To do so is easy: simply use the wikicode ~~~~. Phoenixrod 04:19, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Herculean" stats

I have a problem with calling Braun's stats "Herculean", as I pointed out above. User:68.120.225.229 on my talk page believes that such stats are "pretty super-human". While I agree that such stats are quite good, I think they fall in the realm of human capability. A recent example, well within the last 20 years and even within the same Brewers organization, of a player with better stats and at least as many stolen bases, is Rickie Weeks. I suggest looking, for example, at [1] to see how Weeks's numbers were in fact significantly better in college.

I want to this article to maintain Wikipedia's standards for neutrality. It is one thing to give the stats; it is another to venture your opinion on how good the numbers are. We cannot include original research in an encyclopedia.

Also, I am curious why Braun's Jewishness was highlighted in a recent edit. The article makes no mention of it again until the end (which makes a significant claim about being a high Jewish draft pick). It seems to me that what is of primary importance for Braun is that he is a baseball player. I am going to revert the recent edits. If you disagree, please respond here and explain why. Phoenixrod 21:24, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I wrote the article originally, and I agree with the removal of the Herculean part so as to maintain neutrality, what I don't understand, is who would be saying it is their article, when I was the one who wrote it originally? I don't disagree with the revisions you made, it makes it seem much more professional and I applaud you for it. However, in the history of professional sports and the yearly routine of drafting players, that Braun being the highest Jewish athlete ever taken at number 5 overall, in the year 2005 no less, makes his jewishness a source of significance, at leat in my opinion. Thanks, and all the best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ralphie90 (talk • contribs) 5 April 2006

Ralphie90, I don't know who would claim ownership over this (or any!) Wikipedia article. (S)he hasn't been back since to explain that position. Thank you for the kind words on the article's edits. I don't have a problem with highlighting Braun's Jewishness in the article; I was simply reverting the edits by the anonymous IP who insisted on the POV word "Herculean", pending discussion.

My contention is that a Wikipedia user coming to this page will probably be coming for baseball information first and Jewishness secondarily. If the article's first fact about Braun is that he is Jewish, that seems to me to be putting the lesser information first. Certainly the end of the article addresses Braun's high draft position in connection with being a Jew. It is without question significant enough to be included in the article. I guess my question is this: What is more important to address at the start of the article and what is relevant but less critical to an understanding of Ryan Braun? Phoenixrod 08:05, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow this guy was one year ahead of me in high school, I never even knew he was famous until now.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 10:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jewish

In response to "three after three's" question as to whether it is notable that Braun is Jewish, in which he goes on to question as well "Do we do this for Catholics? Protestants? ect?," I would point out that notability is measured by whether there are independent articles, etc., that focus on a fact -- see Wiki policy for that. Clearly, as reflected by the links in the Braun article, that is the case. If there are articles that focus on Catholics in the same manner, or lists of top Catholic home run hitters in major league baseball over their careers that are maintained, or a set of hall of fame Catholice baseball players -- as there are with Jewish players -- then the answer would be the same. Tom -- as to your moving the mention down to the Miscellaneous section, that is fine with me. In other cases, where you have instead deleted the mention of a players being Jewish, rather than done what you did hear, I would ask that you either revert or make a revision parallel to the one that you made here. Thanks.--Epeefleche 19:15, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding to the above mention of notability, there is the issue of the Notability Exception. Even with ethnicity, Wiki policy calls for its mention in the opening if it is relevant to the subjects's "notability."

To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."

Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to include that fact in the opening paragraph of their bio. (Query, btw, as well whether one might argue that where a person is included in an ethnicity list on Wiki, as under "Black Jews," their ethnicity is notable.)

Some commentators seem to confuse what is meant by "notable" with their own, non-Wiki definition. Notability does not mean that they are famous for being of that group.

There are a number of Halls of Fame and list and articles relating to Jewish athletes, for example, I do not think that we have the same for Catholics or Protestants.

"Jewish Sports Legends" is a book that one can find at [2]. The International Jewish Sports Hall of Fame Jewishsports.net bios can be found at [3]. Jews in Sports bios can be found at [4]. National Jewish Sports Hall of Fame bios can be found at [5]. Jews in the Olympics can be found at [6] and medalists can be found at [7]. The Baltimore Jewish Times runs articles on Jewish athletes: [8]. The Holocaust Museum runs articles on Jewish athletes in the Holocaust: [9] and [10]. "From the Ghetto To The Games: Jewish Athletes in Hungary" focuses on certain Jewish athletes [11]. It is mentions such as these, which are typically reflected in the bios in question, that reflect that the Jewish nature of the person has been noted in articles, etc ... which is what Wiki policy focuses on.

Finally, "categories" are not sufficient. They are not part of the article. If the article is quoted in full, they are not quoted. And, I might add, it is I expect typical for every other "category" information to be reflected in the text of the bio -- It would be highly unusual, if not unique, to only reflect the fact in a category, but not in the text. --Epeefleche 19:21, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

First of all, there are very few Jewish players in MLB, which makes it notable. Also, I'm sure if any non-Jewish player is very religious, their religion is noted in their Wiki article. Miles Blues 22:58, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philosophy

I see no need at all to mention his favorite class in college was philosophy. This has nothing to do with the article and is just a trivial fact that clutters up the page.--Brewcrew07 18:36, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ballplayers at age 23

With regard to the comment, that accompanied the deletion of my addition, that it is not appropriate to compare ballplayers aged 23 where others had been in the major leagues for longer periods of time -- I see no basis for that comment other than POV. It is perfectly acceptable to look at ballplayers by age, and compare them -- see [12], which is the basis for the entry in the article. I will RV the reversion, if it is not restored, but wanted to post this comment here before I do so. Tx.--Epeefleche 18:55, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I have to take exception. It is not acceptable because it is original research. Nowhere is Ryan Braun on the page you cite. In fact, all the pre-23 statistics on that page are for players that appeared in at least 375 games. The year 23 statisitcs are all for complete seasons with at least 75 games. Braun won't appear on that list until the season is over. Thus, to compare Braun's numbers for 40 games with Pujols's numbers for a full season is original research. It is the synthesis of facts in order to advance a particular opinion: that Braun is comparable or even better than Pujols and Mays. Find a reliable source that compares Bruan to Pujols and Mays and we can discuss this. Otherwise it has to go. Cite the numbers. Cite articles that talk about how impressive the numbers are. But that's as far as we can go. It has nothing to do with POV and everything to do with original research. Please assume good faith. --Beaker342 19:18, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I believe that you are confusing what original research means. See [13]. Rather, it refers to two published facts by reliable sources. One, the published list of 23-year-old statistics. The other, the published Ryan Braun statistics. The result is not a " "novel narrative or historical interpretation." Rather, it is a reflection of where Braun stands, at this point in the season, relative others who were 23. It completely satisfies [WP:V]. I don't believe that footnotes are required here, as the links are in the EL. But if you prefer them to demonstrate the above, I have no objection. Here, A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source -- and all that we are doing is presenting the information from the two sources together. We are not saying that A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C, for example, that 23 year old third baseman named Ryan hit for high slugging percentage relative to other ballplayers. Just what A is, and where that places Braun at this point in C. If it were the other example, that would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research--but that is not the case here. The prohibition against original research does not proscribe this presentation at all.

Wikipedia's co-founder, Jimbo Wales, described the origin of the original research policy as follows: "The phrase 'original research' originated primarily as a practical means to deal with physics cranks.... The basic concept is as follows: It can be quite difficult for us to make any valid judgment as to whether a particular thing is true or not. It isn't appropriate for us to try to determine whether someone's novel theory of physics is valid; we aren't really equipped to do that. But what we can do is check whether or not it actually has been published in reputable journals or by reputable publishers. ...." The focus is on verifiability. The A and B here are eminently verifiable. And there is no non-verfiable theory spawned by coupling the two. It is simply the fact that A exists and B exists. This is no more "independent research" that it would be to say that a person with 58 home runs fell 2 short of a record-holder with 60 home runs.

As to the pre-23 statistics, you are not looking at the correct column. The correct column references how ballplayers performed in the year in which they were 23. It has nothing to do with how many games they played in prior years. As to the fact that he is on a pace to hit at that slugging percentage, you could simply look at the ESPN projected over a season stats. But I really don't think that is necessary. All we need is full disclosure as to the number of games he has played to date. ESPN and CBS and other major sites all have those projected statistics. Disclosure as to number of games is what is key. If you want that to be highlighted more, fine with me. But that is not a reason to exclude it.

Also, your explanation for deleting this information, at the time you did so, was "Pujols and Mays are not acceptable comparisons b/c both had been in the league for years by age 23." But, that makes no sense to me. We are not comparing anything here other than how 23 year olds performed in their age 23 season. Whether or not they competed in earlier seasons is not at all relevant. So the reason you used to delete the information is to my mind not supportable.

And we don't have to wait until the season is over. Baseball bios are replete with in-season information. Noted as such.

Nor is it being advanced to suggest that "Braun is comparable or even better than Pujols and Mays," as you suggest. Were I to say that, yes -- that would be original research. That is not at all what is said. It is what it is. The information is simply being advanced to suggest that in the first half of his age 23 year, over the course of 40 games, he is hitting at SP x, which to put it in perspective would -- if he continued at the same pace over the second half of the season over a similar number of games -- place him in postion y of all 23 year olds historically, after those 2 players. That is all that it says.

If you don't see it my way, I suggest that we call in one of the Wiki Baseball page admins, or one of the statisticians who write on that page ... but I do think that if you look at what I wrote and the policy with an open mind you may see the distinction that I am making between original research (as defined by Wiki policy) and this.--Epeefleche 03:22, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The reason I deleted the phrase was because I thought it was irresponsible to compare statistics for someone with 40 games under his belt with statistics for more established players. The phrase read was "at age 23". What does that mean? Up to age 23? During age 23? Fortunately, you have clarified what you meant and provided a source for the statistics, but at the time I edited it, the phrase was ambiguous, so I don't think my reasoning at the time was disengenuous. I interpreted it to mean up to age 23. Now we have clarified the matter so that the comparsion is for the age 23 season.

That said, I still object to the comparison. The statistics you cite are those for "during age 23 season" with at least 75 game appearances. Braun would not qualify because he has not played a full season, so the comparsion is apples to oranges. An apples to apples comparison is important because everyone knows that statistics change over the course of a season. Lots of people have been on paces to do all sorts of insane stuff. Most of it doesn't belong in articles.

The reason it doesn't belong is because I don't know how the assembling of these statistics could be interepreted any other way than to say "Braun is comparable or even better than Pujols and Mays." It doesn't say that explicitly, but it most certianly says it implicitly. As I read the policy and based on my experiences at other articles, WP:OR forbids the assemblage of facts to implictly promote a specific point of view, regardless of whether that point of view is stated or not. If someone edited the George W. Bush to say "Bush caused X number of war dead," and then in the next sentence wrote "Hitler caused Y number of war dead," we would all object to the edit, even assuming for the sake of argument that the facts were true, because it unmistakably promotes a point of view, without actually saying "Bush is as bad as Hitler." That's a bad example, but it's the best I can think of right now that conveys policy as I understand it. We can ask someone else for advice, but I'm a little surprised that there has been so much discussion over the edit. Regardless of whether it stays or not it is almost sure to become obsolete when Braun completes the full season. If he does keep up this pace, that in itself would be noteworthy, and it would undoubtedly produce far more articles in the press to cite. Why not just cite the many articles that praise Bruan's current accomplishments? Why bother assembling obscure statistics? --Beaker342 05:09, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your clarifications. I believe it does belong. This is tantamount to saying: A) in the first half of 2007, people were killed in NYC at the rate of 40 per month (supported fact), and B) the highest rates of people killed in NYC ever were at the rate of 42 per month (supported fact). It is permissible under the above guidelines. The jump that you make as to the implication, beyond the presented facts, is simply not there. At the end of the day, we will have full year stats of course, and as you point out can update that. For now, it is appropriate as is IMHO.

Again, it does not say "Braun is comparable or even better than Pujols and Mays." It simply says that his performance in the first half his age 23 year is at rate x, and the only players with greater performance during their full age 23 years were P and M at rate y. Its simply the facts, with full disclosure. And, as with the above example of killings, should be fine. As to your assertion that this is an obscure fact, I would suggest that it is of greater interest than the identity, for example, of the date on which he scored his first run. And many other items. It provides perspective as to his performance, to date, at this age, relative to others in the past. As to it being over the first half of the season, and not the full season, we need only clarify that that is the case. This and other articles of current ballplayers are replete with references to how they have performed thus far this season. Surely, you would not suggest that we delete all of those references.

How about working with me to clarify this in a manner that you like as well. Here is a revision in which I have attempted to add greater clarification for your benefit. "After his first 40 games (mostly batting 3rd), at the All Star Break he was leading the team in ... slugging percentage (.663; the all-time leaders during the season in which they were 23 years old, over a minimum of 75 games, are Willie Mays and Albert Pujols at .667)[14] ...."

I'm not that crazy about it because it's still not an honest comparison. In the example you cite above, it would be like comparing monthly statistics with yearly statistics. It's not a fair comparison. Yearly statistics are almost inevitably smoother and less dramatic. As I said above, people have been on paces to do all sorts of thing. Dmitiri Young was on pace to hit 500 HRs at the start of the 2005 season. I think we would all agree that it would not have been appropriate to compare his HR pace or slugging percentage after that one game, or even after one month, to slugging percentages for players who played entire seasons. As I read it, the stats being compared are for entire seasons of at least 75 games, not just at least 75 games. Thus, the comparison would be inaccurate at the end of the season because Braun would have played a full season of at least 75 games and his statistics at that point would supercede whaterver fantastic pace he had set by June. I like to avoid edits that will date quickly WP:RECENT simply because it is easy to forget that you made them. --Beaker342 15:16, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand that you are not that crazy about it. I do believe it is "honest," however -- precisely because we clarify that this is his SP for 1/2 of the ongoing season. The reader is therefore in a position to assess the weight to give this. We also do have all sorts of information over Wikipedia and elsewhere of this sort. Especially in baseball. ESPN provides projected SP for Braun of a .663 SP over 114 games, at [15]. If we wished to, we could mention that, and say his projected SP over 114 games is x (and source it), but I don't believe we even have to go that far. Every baseball player whose batting average we indicate, in-season, we are necessarily thinking of as compared to other full season batting averages. That is the context. We simply clarify that the stats are through date x. It's fine. We all understand that one stat is for half a season, and that things can change -- that does not preclude us from stating the pace at which someone is hitting. And its not like comparing monthly with yearly stats -- monthly being 1/12th of the year. And Young's stats after 1 game would be his stats after 1/162nd of the season. This is an all-star break stat, a full 1/2 of the year, and more than halfway towards the 75-game marker. As with all of the others stats in his and other active ballplayers bios -- they are replete with in-season stats -- we operate under the assumption that editors will update them appropriately. We even have templates that call for in-season stats -- the protection is that the template calls for the info to indicate that it is good as of date x. We also have all sorts of baseball bios with players' stats -- up to the date indicated. Obviously, with active players, that changes each day or so during the season. Its not a reason to delete such references. If the article is not appropriately updated, the article, by indicating the date as of which the stat was good, is still not incorrect -- but of course of lesser interest. Look -- for example, there is mention of Barry Bonds pursuit of the home run record, even though he has yet to break it. I have also reviewed WP:RECENT, and see nothing there to suggest that this is inappropriate. I will update this one, have no fear. While I understand that you are not a fan of this approach, and would not have chosen to add it yourself, I would simply ask that you allow me to re-add it, as I think I have now cleared up the confusion that you highlighted (correctly) with regard to what was meant by age 23, and I have even gone so far as to add the citation to the age 23 chart .... as well as responded to your Wiki policy comments. Thanks much. I always think it best when matters such as this can be discussed, rather than be the subjet of an edit war.--Epeefleche 18:48, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not fully satisfied by your defense of comparing monthly to yearly stats. But as long as it is clear that the comparison is not apples to apples, I'm not going to kick and scream about it. Unfortunately, I've gotten really busy recently, and don't have much time to devote to the article right now. The point is a minor one, as I think more constructive work could be done to clean up the general readability of the article. The entire Tools section, for example, would probably be best collapsed into a single paragraph. --Beaker342 20:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I much appreciate your working along with me. I think it is better now than it was. Will look at tools as well if I get a chance. Just got busy as well. Have a great evening.--Epeefleche 20:28, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Beaker--I liked your last improvement. Tx.--Epeefleche 01:27, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, sometimes it's easy to get bogged down in details. I simply tried to make it easier to read. --Beaker342 03:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Just as an update: 1) a newspaper has picked up on this precise comparison, and in fact devoted more to it than we do here (see [16]; and 2) Braun has now played in more than 75 games, so while the season is not yet over that aspect of the comparison is now apples to apples. Cheers.--Epeefleche 15:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Granada Hills as birthplace

Braun was born and resides in Granada Hills, Ca. When he was born in 1983 at Holy Cross Hospital in what was then designated Granada Hills, that is what is on the birth certificate. Only recently has this area of Granada Hills been renamed Mission Hills and it is really considered a part of Granada Hills. The Mission Hills mentioned as Braun's birthplace refers to the Mission Hills in Santa Barbara County, which is clearly not where he is from. That is why I believe it to be more accurate, regardless of what the MLB puts as his place of birth, to state Granada Hills as his place of birth and residence.

The MLB site is the official site of major league baseball, and is therefor what we have to go with, whatever your personal knowledge may be, in the absence of citations to a better source than MLB (and I note you have not mentioned any citations).--Epeefleche 18:06, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

http://www.covers.com/pageLoader/pageLoader.aspx?page=/data/mlb/players/player43144.html&t=0

Hey Epeefleche, are you from LA? Ryan Braun, I am 100% certain, was not born in Santa Barbara County. The name of the Hospital he was born at was Mission Hills Hospital. It is an area located within, you guessed it, Granada Hills. Mission Hills is a undesignated area within Granada Hills.

Hey. Not sure who the above comment is from, as it is unsigned. But since this is not a blog, buy an encylopedia, we have to source the material. Especially material where are two points of view. The Granada Hills reference is sourced. Moreover, from the official source -- mlb.com. I don't see how we can replace that reference with an opposing reference, where you don't provide any source, let alone one that trumps the official source, other than the fact that you are 100% certain (see Wikipedia:No original research, which states that without more we are prohibited from drawing on our personal knowledge as the source of a statement we included here) and an unofficial source (a sports betting and gambling odds site). Perhaps you might want to contact the Brewers, and tell them that they have the wrong info on their official website as to their player, and might want to fix it. Then we could fix it here. Some Wikipedia guidelines that you might look at, in this regard, are [17], Wikipedia:Verifiability, and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. I did clarify the reference to the correct Mission Hills, though.--Epeefleche 16:55, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is the proof of Granada Hills as the place of both birth and residence. http://youtube.com/watch?v=HFCu_OTw7O0 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.9.154.28 (talk) 01:18, August 25, 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Left Field

I removed the sentence about Braun moving to left field, possibly. The article was from January, and stated that Counsell/Graffanino would play 3B and Braun would move to left. This season, though, when both are in the lineup and one is playing third and one is playing left field, Braun has been at third.

So far this season, Braun has played 53 games at 3B, and one as a pinch hitter. Graffanino has played in a total of 76 games so far this season, only 23 at 3B, and he's played LF when Jenkins and Mench are both absent from the lineup recently. Counsell has played 3B in 31 of his 78 games. Since Braun was called up in May, he's had only 2 off days, and he's played 3B in every single game. All stats/info from ESPN. Miles Blues 20:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, and will take a look at what else has been written. But my first instinct is to take a look at his defensive performance at third since the article was written. If we do, I don't think that the number will support the notion that the possiblity of him moving to left at some point in the future -- the thrust of the article -- has been negated by his defense thus far.--Epeefleche 21:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, his defense has improved quite a bit since he was called up, and the Brewers have given no reason why they'd move him elsewhere. Miles Blues 22:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Not a big issue with me, and I can see both sides, so let's stick with your delete. On the one hand, it is a true statement. And his .902 fielding percentage and .210 RF are both lower than any starting 3B in MLB, supporting the fact that it could still be an accurate statement -- as to a possible future move. And he has committed 9 errors in the last 30 days -- nearly twice the rate of the second most error prone third baseman, so I'm not sure I see his fielding percentage of late reflecting an improvement.[18] But if it bothers you because it is a few months old and he has played all of his games at 3B and there has been no recent chatter, I'm OK with it being deleted.--Epeefleche 17:37, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1st & 2nd Half sections necessary?

I think that the sections for the 2007 season ought to be merged. No other baseball player has their seasons split into halves. Miles Blues 21:01, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, I like it for the moment, but agree that at season end it should be merged. The section as it stands is longer than that of most other ballplayers. The headings just help break it up, and allow the reader to find the part that interests them most easily. Lets be bold ... I don't see much harm coming from keeping the subsections for 3 more months.--Epeefleche 21:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm good with that. Since he only has played the one major league season, it's appropriate to divide it. Once he racks up a couple more (and who knows how many triple crowns and all star appearances... I hope), we won't have it divided by halves. Miles Blues 22:50, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Cool. Totally agree!--Epeefleche 17:23, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I figured that the article at this point finally lent itself to following up on your suggestion, so I've done so.--Epeefleche 23:47, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Disambiguate

Since we have two Ryan Brauns in the majors, I propose that this page be moved to Ryan Braun (baseball infielder) and that the other page be moved to Ryan Braun (baseball pitcher). The other page is presently at 'Ryan Braun (baseball)' which is a fairly ambiguous disambiguation (!) (and there's a redirect from Ryan Braun (pitcher) - which is at least less ambiguous to me). What say you all?--AndrewHowse 14:31, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

IMHO, I would support the move of the other page to Ryan Braun (baseball pitcher) as suggested. But would leave this one as is.--Epeefleche 15:05, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

That would be simpler, of course, although I wonder if that implies some sort of hierarchy? This Ryan B is perhaps more notable at present than the other... --AndrewHowse 16:13, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

A reasonable implication, to be sure. A google search supports that notion, let alone a glance at their bios.--Epeefleche 17:04, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I moved the pitcher to Ryan Braun (baseball pitcher).--AndrewHowse 18:31, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Tx. I cleaned up his bio a bit as well, including putting in a line at the top to allow readers who arrived at his page by accident to jump to this pg. Looks as though he is struggling mightily to get big league hitters out....--Epeefleche 21:33, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Tools Section?

Is the tools section really necessary? It's not included on the pages of more prominent players like Albert Pujols or Alex Rodriguez. Mickeyg13 07:11, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea ... one of us should put one together when we get a chance. Not a question of necessary ... it's helpful. It's also probably something that we see more with young players. Analyses of prospects often refer to their tools, and to 5-tool players, more than analyses of established players. But it makes sense for all if you have the material. IMHO.--Epeefleche 07:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV

In general, this article seems quite POV, biased toward the subject... ugen64 03:48, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That view seems to be POV, given the unususally high level of citations in the article.--Epeefleche 04:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Citations can still be POV. -Phoenixrod 09:20, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

No evidence have been proferred that these are. Compare this to the mlb article on him winnning the ROY award. They are parallel in how fact based they are. There is no evidence that this is POV.--Epeefleche 11:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

All the apologies for his defense need to go. The comparisons to Wright and Beltre stand out as particuarly POV. Let's just call a spade a spade and end it with that. His offense is spectacular and defense atrocious. The numbers show this. The commentaries show this. If he becomes a Gold Glove thirdbaseman in a few years, good for him. --Beaker342 21:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

From WP:NPOV: "In these types of disputes, it is important to note that verifiability lives alongside neutrality, it does not override it. A matter that is both verifiable and supported by reliable sources might nonetheless be proposed to make a point or cited selectively; painted by words more favorably or negatively than is appropriate; made to look more important or more dubious than a neutral view would present; marginalized or given undue standing; described in slanted terms which favor or weaken it; or subject to other factors suggestive of bias." There is no evidence that any major commentator has compared Braun to those other third basemen you mentioned (Beltre and Wright), in order to defend his defensive problems. In addition, you are essentially trying to say that "he's mediocre on defense right now, but it's possible that he will improve and he might even win a Gold Glove later" - that's a violation of our WP:Crystal Ball policy. ugen64 21:59, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Don't have time to address the other points, but just to address one -- your last point misses the point, as to Beltre. Beltre won the gold glove award the same year (this year) that he led the league in errors and had the lowest fielding percentage. Nothing crystal ball about that. It simply puts those stats in perspective.--Epeefleche 22:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

That's all well and good, but fielding percentage can be a bad indicator of defensive talent. When he was great, Jim Edmonds had a terrible fielding percentage because he made more plays on balls than anyone else. I don't know anything specific about Beltre, but I really doubt the Gold Glove was given to him on accident. No one denies that Braun's defense is horrible. Not even Braun. Comparing Braun and Beltre isn't putting anything in perspective, it's advancing the opinion that Braun's defense isn't really as bad as it seems and is in fact comparable to Beltre's when he won the Gold Glove. That's POV. --Beaker342 00:19, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Beaker, I agree with your first two sentences.

As to your third sentence, there are those who point to webgem plays that Braun makes, and his athletic defense, and the fact that he moved just recently to a new position, and that his errors per game have improved markedly over the short time he has played third. But the point here is not to say whether he is good or bad. Just to present both sides of the debate (rather than report one, and quash the other); especially objective information and sourced information. Also, the language at issue reflects on whether fielding percentage, for example, which as the article points out was terribly low for Braun, is the be-all and end-all in evaluating the defensive performance of a third baseman as a general matter. The fact that his was so low is presented, and is just that -- a fact. Deductions from that that he is a terrible fielder are just that, deductions. The fact that third basemen have led the league in errors and been considered the best fielder in the league are just that -- facts. One can deduce from that what one will (I, for one, would deduce that fielding percentage is not the be-all and end-all in evaluating performance of a third baseman, though without this insert one wouldn't know that).

Just so it is clear what we are talking about, the para at issue says:

Furthermore, notably, while David Wright tied for the major league lead in errors by a third baseman in 2005 (his second in the league),[19] just two years later he won the NL Gold Glove at third base. The 2007 AL gold glove winner, Adrian Beltre, won it while leading the AL in errors and sporting the lowest fielding percentage in the league.[20][21][22]

BTW, since (while we are discussing it) it is for the moment deleted, I'll remove the POV notice at the top of the article. If it goes back in after our discussion, and does not reflect consensus, people can feel free to reinsert the disclaimer. Makes no sense for the disclaimer to come out, and the language asserted to be POV to come out (unless people think it is too POV because it has all the negative language in it, not balanced by this).--69.38.172.94 14:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

Until you produce some commentaries in reliable sources who think his defense is actually pretty good and that his fielding percentage is a poor indicator of how good he actually is, it has to stay out. Otherwise it's the kind of claim best kept to a fan blog. --Beaker342 15:40, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

As to commentary in reliable sources as to his defense actually being pretty good, you mean, such as Baseball America's rating of him as having the best arm in the Brewers' minor league system 9 months ago?[23] I personally see there as being facts that support different truths ... and have no problem with different facts being presented that reflect both the positive and negative aspects of his defense. As long as they are accurate. I would not have formerly guessed myself that a third baseman could lead the league in fielding percentage and be considered the top defensive third baseman, so I find that illuminating for purposes of considering Braun's historically low FP.--Epeefleche 23:55, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

You know as well as everyone else that the article you cite says nothing about his total defense. Rick Ankiel had a great arm until he couldn't find the strike zone. Moreover, it is an assessment from the minor leagues, which has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on his defensive performance in the majors in 2007. Seriously, what's so bad about saying he's terrible at defense and leaving it at that? --Beaker342 00:25, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

You're getting at my point. Defense isn't merely one thing -- fielding percentage, or infield arm for example. Each of those is, however, an aspect of defense. That is why someone can have the lowest fielding percentage at third base this year, but still win the gold glove. The NPOV approach is to reveal all relevant factors to the reader. The POV approach is to seek to block out a relevant factor, and just stamp the fielder as terrible based on incomplete consideration. Life is more complicated.--Epeefleche 14:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The problem is that you don't seem to realize that what you are talking about is POV. Every publication out there, and I wish you could cite a publication that doesn't do this instead of just falling back on appeals to "the facts", every publication out there says he's a terrible fielder. By assembling the data to apparently contradict this plain truth (in your eyes an "incomplete consideration"), you are promoting a particular opinion (that he's actually a pretty good at defense) that isn't shared by any, and I mean any, reputable source. NPOV dictates that our assessments of Braun, as well as whatever assessments our presentation of the facts advance, need to follow what beat writers say about him, not what we think the facts say. --Beaker342 (talk) 22:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Beaker342 is right. Spin it how you want, it's still POV. -Phoenixrod (talk) 17:34, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Baseball America, a reputable source, just 9 months ago, as indicated above.--Epeefleche (talk) 07:19, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

Now we are just talking in circles. What does a minor league scouting report have to do with his performance this season?--Beaker342 (talk) 21:15, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Slugging %

Braun's season SLG% doesn't qualify him as the NL Leader, based on the 3.1 PA/Team Game rule. I know someone is quoting baseball reference as an exception being granted giving Braun the required # of hitless PA to qualify, but mlb.com is a more reliable source and there they have Prince Fielder as the NL Leader with .618.[24] unsigned —Precedingcomment added by 198.169.189.226 (talk) 21:25, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, the record for rookies by McGwire quoted as .618 was based on the fact that McGwire QUALIFIED for the SLG% title, whereas Braun did not. The highest SLG% by a rookie who didn't qualify, but played in 100+ games is .621 by George Watkins in 1930. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.189.226 (talk) 21:35, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To an extent, everyone is correct here. It is true that Braun does not qualify as the NL Leader "based on the 3.1 PA/Team Game rule." And that the above MLB.com url does not include him on that list, given that. It is also true that mlb.com is an official site. What the above discussion does not mention, however, is that there is an exception to the qualification rule. Under that exception, if by adding hypothetical hitless at bats the batter would still qualify as the leader ... then he is the leader. That is the case with Braun. It is for that reason that MLB.com -- the official site -- in the indicated article (and others) states directly that Braun was the NL leader in slugging percentage for the year. And set a new rookie record for slugging percentage. See [25].--Epeefleche (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

In the article you cite, the direct quote is "He batted .324 and led NL rookies with 34 home runs and a .634 slugging percentage, breaking the Major League rookie record set by Mark McGwire, who slugged .618 for Oakland in 1987". The article never directly states that Braun lead the NL in slugging %, but rather that he lead NL rookies with...a .634 slugging %. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.169.189.226 (talk) 22:01, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually Rudy York should hold the rookie SLG% record with .651 in 1937. York played in 104 games and did qualify for the title under the rules of his time. He did play in 3 games in 1934, so I don't know if under the rules of his time he would have been considered a rookie in 1937. Someone needs to hire better researchers at mlb.com

To lead rookies in slugging percentage, breaking the major league record, he had to meet the criteria for sufficient at bats to break a major league slugging percentage record. The only way he could do that would be under the exception to the qualification rule, since he fell 10 at bats short.--Epeefleche (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

But if he did indeed lead the NL in slugging (you are using personal research to make the inference you just did), then his slugging percentage should not be listed at .634, as this number is without the number of hitless plate appearances taken into account. Where is it stated (from a reputable source) that Ryan Braun lead the NL in slugging percentage? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.131.17.31 (talk) 03:10, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Citation tags / A-Class Review

I just added a bundle of citation needed tags to the article. I also rearranged a few citations so that they would cover more facts and I wouldn't need to add the tags. I have an article under A-Class review myself and I know they really emphasize properly sourcing all of your information. This is especially true for an article such as this which is chock full of facts that are easily referenced. You could probably remove many of the tags by simply re-using sources you already included in the article and placing them in those places. Hopefully, this helps you increase the chances of getting the article promoted. Other than that, the article is incredibly well-written. You all did a great job here. Good luck in your review! --Jdcaust (talk) 19:26, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I added citations in most places. A couple didn't require citations, as the in-line citation served that purpose. Tx.--Epeefleche (talk) 06:41, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Viewing

There is no v/d/e navigational bar for any of the brewers, and the athletics ones are incomplete/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dshibshm (talk • contribs) 23:41, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] GA Review - Why article is on hold

A lot of work had been put into this article, and it shows. I especially like the numerous quotes in the article, particularly the insight from Brewers’ coaches; it really adds a lot to the article. The stats and info in the article are also very detailed. Overall the article is well written, and broad in its coverage; great work. However, it does need some clean up before I pass it. Here’s my review:

GA review (see here for criteria)

It is reasonably well written.

a (prose): b (MoS):
It is factually accurate and verifiable.

a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
It is broad in its coverage.

a (major aspects): b (focused):
It follows the neutral point of view policy.

Fair representation without bias:
It is stable.

No edit wars etc.:
It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall:

Pass/Fail: