Talk:Sandy Koufax

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Featured article star Sandy Koufax is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on September 12, 2005.
Peer review This Everydaylife article has been selected for Version 0.5 and subsequent release versions of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale (comments).

Contents

[edit] Great

This Story is Great! It is very inspirative! This is a thousand times better than to see a movie. Martin R. Rodriguez

[edit] First ML strikeout

The Koufax article says his first ML strikeout victim was Thompson. Hank Aaron's article says it was Aaron. I don't know so I cannot fix it. Koufaxfan

[edit] Deletion of fan site

Who keeps deleting my fan site http://www.sevastudio.com/sandy ?

I do. It's a site mostly of advertisments with no new content. The other sites listed here are from very reliable sources. No other sites are referenced in the body of the text like you seem to want to do in the opening paragraph. I will continue to delete the links to your site as long as you keep putting them up. Gorrister 20:59, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I thank you for coming forward, and upon inspection of your profile, I see you are a thoughtful member of the wiki community. However, I object to your deleting of my link in the external links section. Other sites have far more ads and more intrusive ones. I do agree that external links in the body are just bad; i must admit i did it to spite the person that was deleting my links.
If you must put your link in the external link section, then please put it at the bottom, after the official sites. Gorrister 22:48, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Spring training and pay dispute

In 1964 Koufax and fellow Dodger pitcher Don Drysdale refused to go to spring training in a dispute over pay. It may be the first successful attempt at bucking the so-called reserve clause, which was eventually struck down in the 1970s, leading to free agency for athletes.

It was 1966 actually, but its now included

[edit] Scholarship at UC

It says that Sandy received a scholarship to UC for basketball, but he was actually a walk-on who received a partial scholarship after he tried out.

The Baseball Hall Of Fame describe him as having "attended the University of Cincinnati on a basketball scholarship" : http://www.baseballhalloffame.org/hofers_and_honorees/hofer_bios/koufax_sandy.htm

I know it, but according to Jane Leavy's "Koufax: A Lefty's Legacy," he earned a partial scholarship after trying out. Interestingly UC lists as a famous Bearcat, but he never graduated and I think was only there a year.

Ken Burns' "Baseball" says Koufax did not actually like baseball and actually preferred basketball. Trekphiler 17:12, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Opening Change Suggestion

The opening states: "...is a former left-handed pitcher in Major League Baseball..." This to a grammer purist may indicate that he was once a left-handed pitcher, but is no longer (ambidextrous). Perhaps this should be reworded to say, "...is a left-handed pitcher who played in Major League Baseball..." which would preserve his left-handedness, as it's rather important--and one of the reasons he is considered "special."206.156.242.39 13:25, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

"Left-hand former pitcher" sounds weird and awkward. "Former left-hand pitcher" is just fine. Left-hand is modifying "pitcher", not "former". Sandy's still left-handed, but is no longer a pitcher, hence he is no longer a left-hand pitcher. However, that's the least of our worries. Since someone decided to make this a featured article, various morons have been "inspired" to screw around with the article. The "brains" behind this website (pardon the overstatement) should lock an article if they intend to feature it. Wahkeenah 17:26, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
I think "former left-handed pitcher" seems OK; if he was somehow no longer left-handed, I would think "formerly left-handed" might be the way to put it - although that might imply he was still an active pitcher. (If he was actually right-handed, yet only pitched left-handed, this might be even more awkward to phrase.) MisfitToys 19:06, September 12, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maybe Pop Culture Reference Section?

I recall reading/seeing his name crop up frequently in a variety of places. I believe he's also featured in some sports games, although I can't quite remember any specifically. Might be something interesting to add to the article, though.--Deridolus 22:09, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Yom Kipur

Is it really objective to say that Koufax was "rightly" criticized for refusing to play on Yom Kippur? If there are circumstances that would justify this (such as that he did not really sit out because of Yom Kipur, but for some other reason), then they should be mentioned. I hardly think that it is right for anyone to say that a man is rightly criticized if he put his religious obligations before his professional, even if those professional obligations are very great indeed.--Corbmobile

[edit] Version 0.5 Nominations

This article is considered to fall outside the scope of the Version 0.5 test release, since this version only includes a limited number of articles. It is now being held ready for renomination for a later version such as Version 1.0. Titoxd(?!? - help us) 05:58, 6 June 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Sandy Koufax: The Baseball Card

I was wondering would any of you know anything about this card and about how much it would be worth? There is no year on the card, but the last date mentioned on the card is 1961 (the year he struck out 269 men). If anyone knows anything let me know. I am User:rivkaRebecca (I'm not logged in). Thanks 209.136.211.32 18:06, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Scholarship at UC

I have found a source saying that he attended UC on a basketball scholarship. However, i'm pretty sure that what was previously there, is actually correct. Here is what i have removed:

Despite his athletic skill and versatility, Koufax started at the in the fall of 1953 without an athletic scholarship. He was a walk-on for the freshman basketball team, and a complete unknown to coach Ed Jucker. After watching him practice, Jucker got him awarded a work-study scholarship.

Since I didn't have a chance to veryify the list of sources now in place, i'm hoping someone can substantiate the above claim and put it back in the article. // Tecmobowl 02:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] State of the Article

I'm not really sure how this article ever reached featured status. I'm glad to see some continued work on it but more needs to be done. I also think it should have its' featured status revoked. I started the improvement with the Early life section but i do not think it is up to the standards at this point in time. I'm curious to hear more thoughts. // Tecmobowl 18:26, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I voted against this article becoming featured for a couple of reasons, most importantly because it was pretty much a precis of the (excellent) Jane Leavy bio. of Koufax. Much of her book comprised running accounts of several of his games, which is why this article has an inordinate number of specific play-by-play descriptions. The article has NOT improved with time, and I don't think it is FA-worthy.Sfahey 19:13, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree, I think it should be put of for WP:FAR. Vicarious 09:05, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
I also agree, I myself have be wondering how an article with so many unsourced statements could be a FA. Darwin's Bulldog 03:36, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
Look at Restoration Literature (featured today) and many others it appears inline citations are optional. I disagree but there is no one format for a featured article. If you think this one is bad look up Suzanne Lenglen which has a two sentence lead, no inline citations, and one reference listed. Quadzilla99 05:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
As I've starting looking through Leavy for references, I'm finding several examples where the wording has been lifted directly from Leavy. Cleaning up the article and eradicating the plagiarism is going to take more work than I had anticipated. BRMo 04:23, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Doesn't this alone justify this article being deleted from "featured". Anyone more experienced than me want to pick up the ball on this one? Sfahey 04:06, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
My comment above overstated the problem. I got really concerned when I ran across a couple of cases where wording was taken directly from Leavy, but I removed them and added in-line references throughout the article. The article subsequently passed the WP:FAR. I don't believe there are any plagiarism issues with the current version of the article. BRMo 05:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Separate article for Sandy's perfect game?

One of the criticisms raised in Wikipedia:Featured article review/Sandy Koufax is directed at the long play-by-play descriptions of a few notable games. This criticism seems especially relevant for the section Sandy Koufax#Perfection, which runs seven paragraphs and impedes the flow of the article.

When a subtopic becomes too large relative to its importance in the article, an article on the subtopic is often introduced, allowing the main article to touch on it briefly and refer the interested reader to other article. I'd like to suggest we create an article, "Sandy Koufax's perfect game," and move most of the "Perfection" section to that article.

It would be unusual to have an article on a single baseball game, but I'll note that several articles have been written on individual all-star games (for example 2006 Major League Baseball All-Star Game), and there are also articles on World Series that provide a lot of information on the individual games. Considering the rarity of perfect games and the interest in Koufax's perfect game, I think an article on this topic would pass the notability test. Is moving this information to a new article agreeable? BRMo 00:47, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I certainly think it's possible, but it's an uphill battle. It's going to have to be impeccably sourced, and from more than just Leavy. Plus, I'm sure there's somebody out there who will AfD the article on instinct, and argue that it opens up the door to articles on every marginally historic game, from Mark Whiten's four-homer day to the time that guy hit for the cycle (I'm not agreeing with the argument, just anticipating it). If you're serious about starting this article, I'd be happy to try and dig up some references proving that this game is notable beyond its perfectness, and doesn't justify an article on Tom Browning's game. Djrobgordon 16:57, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
I think we could even make a case for articles on all 17 perfect games. After all, Wikipedia has 398 articles on Simpsons episodes. BRMo 18:02, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
There are numerous sources that include boxscores, and game accounts can be retrieved from Sporting News stories, among other places. I don't think this would be problematic. One difference between perfect games and those such as Whiten's is that in Whiten's instance, only four at bats matter, while for a perfect game, all 27 plate appearances by the losing team are vital. It seems that we're now seeing articles started on every season by every pro and major college team (something else I don't favor; see Category:2007 in baseball and Category:2006 NCAA Division I FBS football season for examples), so 17 articles for major league perfect games doesn't seem unreasonable by comparison. MisfitToys 21:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reference for statistics

I requested a reference for the following sentence: "Among NL pitchers with at least 2,000 innings pitched who have debuted since 1913, he has both the highest career winning percentage (.655) and the lowest career ERA (2.76); his 2,396 career strikeouts ranked 7th in major league history upon his retirement, and trailed only Warren Spahn's total of 2,583 among left-handers." Misfit Toys deleted the tag with the following comment: "I don't think a reference is needed for this; it's an easily checkable statistical fact."

Just how is it "easily" checkable? I looked up the career leader boards on baseball-reference.com; Koufax is ranked 25th in winning percentage, 90th in ERA, and 38th in strikeouts. I'm not aware of any leaderboards that only show NL leaders. So, taking the example of ERA, I suppose I could go through all 89 names ahead of his and check whether each pitcher debuted before 1913, pitched fewer than 2,000 innings (since bbref uses a 1,000 inning cut-off), or pitched in the AL. Of course, some pitchers played in both leagues, and I'm not aware that they give their league-by-league career totals, but I could feed the data into a spreadsheet and calculate their NL ERAs based on the data that are available. So, yes it's checkable, but not what I'd call "easy." I'm requesting a reference because the statement doesn't seem easy to check. (I'm aware that there are database products available that can make checking these statements easy, but the products I'm aware of are not free, and asking the reader to check an assertation through a database inquiry seems contrary to the spirit of WP:NOR. — BRMo 23:22, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

First, I thought the tag was only seeking a reference for the Spahn remark. Second, I doubt there are any other sources that specifically mention this; I figured it out using by cross-checking the records as you indicated, which doesn't count as OR; see the section which reads: "Research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not "original research"; it is "source-based research", and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." The statement in the article is not a debatable one, although it might take an hour or so for someone to check if they wanted to. (BTW, 1913 was used as the cutoff because it eliminates pitchers of the dead ball era when ERAs were lower.) MisfitToys 23:43, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
If I've done the calculation right, Tom Seaver had a lower NL career ERA than Koufax (2.73 vs. 2.76). Seaver's overall MLB ERA was higher (2.86), but it was raised by his AL pitching during 1984-86. All of which just goes to show how hard it is to verify these kinds of statements. BRMo 03:40, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
Yes, I missed that; I double-checked against Seaver's listing in the 1984 Sporting News Baseball Register (not hard to verify, actually; took maybe 30 seconds). My mistake. I'll re-add a mention, however, in a corrected form, as Koufax did hold the record for several years. MisfitToys 21:09, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

In the last week or so, an anonymous editor (or editors?) has several times tried to change the following statement: "Among NL pitchers with at least 2,000 innings pitched who have debuted since 1913, he has the highest career winning percentage (.655), and had the lowest career ERA (2.76) until Tom Seaver ended 1974 with a 2.47 mark." The anon editor has changed it to say that Koufax still holds the record. The misunderstanding, as noted above, is because Seaver's MLB career ERA was 2.86 (that is, higher than Koufax's); the anonymous editor apparently is not aware that Seaver's NL career ERA was 2.73, and thus lower (better) than Koufax's. The statement in the article is correct, but it is tough to verify because the most readily available stats sources don't list career leaders in NL ERA, the cut-off of 1913 is somewhat arbitrary, and the fact that Seaver still holds the record may not be apparent.

I'd like to suggest that we simply drop the sentence. Koufax's career certainly includes enough other statistical accomplishments that there is no special need to highlight this one. The fact that this particular accomplishment is apparently not mentioned in other sources (thus, making it difficult for the typical reader to verify) and has been a source of confusion suggests to me that the article would be better off without it. IMO, this article, as part of an encyclopedia, should focus its statistical information on accomplishments that have been written about in other articles or books, rather than coming up with previously unknown statistical accomplishments. BRMo 22:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

I was making the changes for the reasons you listed above. In addition to the points you mentioned, what confused me was that the article mentions that he "ended 1974 with a 2.47 mark." Seaver pitched in the National League until 1983, so citing 1974 seemed to be just an arbitrary number. If Seaver is mentioned, I think it would be easier just to say that his ERA over his entire career in the National League was 2.73.69.208.154.132 18:20, 13 October 2007 (UTC)
1974 was the point at which Seaver passed 2,000 career innings. MisfitToys 00:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
You're right; I just think that mentioning Seaver's career National League ERA would be less confusing (it would be for me anyway...).70.236.26.249 22:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
I think the last revision was fine. MisfitToys 23:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, most descriptions of his accomplishments tend to focus on single-season things, as the brevity of his career ruled out high rankings in anything like wins or strikeouts. Noting his NL career records for both ERA and winning percentage (two principal gauges of quality) serves to clarify his full impact over his complete career. I've added a footnote which may help resolve any confusion. MisfitToys 22:53, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
I continue to have a problem with the verifiability of the sentence. As a featured article, we try to ensure that every statement in the article can be checked against a reliable source. For this record, an ideal source would be one that states the record in exactly the same terms as described in the sentence. However, no such source exists. A second-best source would be one that presents related information in a way that the reader can easily check to verify that the statement is true. For example, if we were able to cite a list of NL career ERA leaders from 1901 with at least 1,500 innings, Koufax and Seaver wouldn't be at the head of the list, but the reader could check the names that are listed ahead of them to verify that they either began their careers before 1913 or pitched fewer than 2,000 innings in the NL. Unfortunately, even this type of list doesn't appear to be available. Instead, we're in a situation where we must tell the reader to check the record book; look at lists of pitchers with good ERAs; if they pitched in both leagues, be sure to calculate their NL-only career ERA (which, as far as I'm aware, isn't readily available on most of the stats sites), and eventually you'll convince yourself that the statement is true. I've convinced myself, but in my mind this approach isn't really compatible with the ideals of Wikipedia's verifiability policy. BRMo 03:31, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Well, part of the problem (I've discussed this before) is that MLB maintains no official records for career ERA - in part, I suspect, because the lowest ERAs were compiled by pitchers like Ed Walsh who played before ERA was an official stat, and thus wouldn't be considered eligible. (I don't think anyone really wants to award the career record to Hoyt Wilhelm when there's 40 guys of the dead ball era with better ERAs.) The statement is verifiable if anyone cares to take the time to do all the math and check it, and various sources for stats are readily available. MisfitToys 21:52, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
Let's look at the verifiability policy, which says, "All quotations and any material challenged or likely to be challenged should be attributed to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The source should be cited clearly and precisely to enable readers to find the text that supports the article content in question." The first sentence isn't a problem—several Web sites provide comprehensive statistics that could be cited as a source. But I think we do have a problem with the second sentence. There isn't any single text or page on mlb.com or baseball-reference.com that specifically supports the content of this sentence. Thus, I think it's a stretch to say that the sentence meets Wikipedia's verifiability requirements. BRMo 22:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
On the other hand, Wikipedia:No original research#Origins of this policy gets into the reasons for the policy. stating that Wikipedia "aims to account for different, notable views of the truth" and that "Verifiability was also promoted as a way to ensure that notable views would be represented, under the assumption that the most notable views were easiest to document with sources. Notability is especially important because while NPOV encourages editors to add alternate and multiple points of view to an article, it does not claim that all views are equal. Although NPOV does not claim that some views are more truthful than others, it does acknowledge that some views are held by more people than others. Accurately representing a view therefore also means explaining who holds the view and whether it is a majority or minority view."
I think the emphasis is on situations where there are differing points of view as to the facts, and the question comes down to whether we think the statement in the article is likely to be challenged (i.e. does someone believe that Koufax did not have the best ERA in the NL since 1913, given the listed criteria). We could include in Roberto Clemente's article, for example, the fact that his 166 triples are the most by any player since 1945 (which is true), but I don't know if there are any sources that specifically state that fact; again, since most of the players ahead of him on the all-time list are players from the dead ball era (except Stan Musial, who had 133 of his 177 triples after 1945), the item helps to establish his impact in his era. It's certainly easier for someone to verify than the Koufax item, but the principle is the same. The NOR guidelines used to state (for quite some time) that "Original research that creates primary sources is not allowed. However, research that consists of collecting and organizing information from existing primary and/or secondary sources is, of course, strongly encouraged. All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources. This is not 'original research'; it is 'source-based research', and it is fundamental to writing an encyclopedia." In recent months there's been a lot of revision back and forth of the guidelines, it seems, and the current wording is a bit different; but the point is that we're to avoid advancing an unverifiable theory, which I can't see is the case here. There's a lot of variation in the records of MLB stats before 1913, but those more recent are generally agreed upon. MisfitToys 02:23, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1999 All-Star Game

Baseball Almanac states that he did appear at the game; perhaps he attended the game but didn't take the field for the formal ceremony? I couldn't find anything about it in the L.A. Times coverage from the next two days, though there was a special piece by Roger Kahn about Koufax in the July 15 edition. MisfitToys 23:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Salon.com says "Yogi Berra, Sandy Koufax or Mike Schmidt...were also on the field that night." With two sources saying he was there, I'm going to drop the sentence. BRMo 02:46, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] extremely poor rookie picture

I actually have looked at the real rookie card and it's far, far lighter than this. This actually looks like someone photo-edited this picture to be so dark.

[edit] Mention of Yom Kippur in lead section

User:Spanneraol has deleted a brief (one-sentence) paragraph in the lead section of the article that says that Koufax refused to pitch game 1 of the 1965 World Series because of Yom Kippur. The edit summary says, "I really don't think that remark belongs in the opening section, it is already mentioned in the discussion of the 65 world series, where it belongs." According to Wikipedia:Guide to layout, the lead section of a biographical article should summarize the best-known accomplishments of the subject. I suggest that Koufax's refusal to pitch on Yom Kippur is nearly as well known as his MVP Award, 4 no-hitters, and Cy Young Awards (For example, a Google search of "Sandy Koufax" and "Yom Kippur" yielded 11,100 hits, compared to 12,500 hits for "Sandy Koufax" and "Most Valuable Player.") His biographies—especially the one by Leavy—have emphasized the importance of his decision not to play on Yom Kippur. In view of the considerable attention that this decision has received, I think it would be appropriate to restore it to the lead section. BRMo 23:35, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I really don't think him not playing on "Yom Kippur" is what made him famous. I seriously disagree that it's "nearly as well known as" his baseball success. If he wasn't an exceptional pitcher, then no one would have cared if he did or did not play. The way the situation was on the page previous, it was written as a throw-away line that read "Koufax, a jew,..." which I actually found almost offensive. It also just seemed out of place.. Perhaps a bigger section in his career bio could be written about it.. but Koufax is known as a extremely talented baseball pitcher mostly... Spanneraol 23:46, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
If the sentence was offensive, certainly it needs to be changed. But as someone who is old enough to remember baseball during the 1960s, I can assure you that Koufax's decision not to pitch on Yom Kippur was one of the most discussed incidents of his career. Within the Jewish community, it was an example standing up for the religion and community in a very public way during an era when there was still considerable anti-Semitism. For many non-Jews, his decision also symbolized an athlete standing up for his personal beliefs in the face of public pressure. Koufax also had his detractors, however, which led to considerable public discussion and debate. If you peruse some of the sources cited in the article, I think you'll see that Koufax's decision not to pitch on Yom Kippur continues to have considerable impact to this day. BRMo 00:06, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Well if you want to put the incident back into the article, with some of that language then I'll be fine with it. The way it was written previously just seemed arbitrary. Definitely needs a better explanation of the incident than was in there previously. Spanneraol 00:11, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Are you ok with the discussion of Yom Kippur in the lead of Hank Greenberg? Maybe it could be written similarly. BRMo 00:15, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, the language on the Greenberg page is much better. Spanneraol 00:32, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
The modified language works well. Thanks. Spanneraol 00:51, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

hi —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.230.148.250 (talk) 18:25, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] "Best Game Ever Pitched"

When I was a kid I had a little book talking about how Koufax pitched a no-hitter for 12 innings and then eventually lost the game. They said that this was the best game ever pitched because it was the longest no-hitter ever recorded. Does this deserve mention even if we don't use their language of best game ever pitched...? gren グレン 02:15, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I think you may have him mixed up with Harvey Haddix. See List of Major League Baseball no-hitters#Broken up in extra innings. BRMo (talk) 03:34, 2 June 2008 (UTC)