Talk:2011 Major League Baseball season

Counting years

2011 will be the 111th common season between the national and american leagues. 1901 was the first, 1910 was the tenth season. count on your fingers if you doubt it. thus, 2000 was the 100th season, 2011 will be the 111th. BUT, 2011 marks 110 years. Number of seasons are counted differently than number of years of age. Funny but true.Donutcity (talk) 07:35, 8 March 2011 (UTC)

Merge discussion

As far as I can tell, the expression "Wildcard Wednesday" was used only briefly immediately after the final day of the season, and it has no notability. Any information on the finish of the season belongs in this article. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:22, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I made it into it's own event because of the historical nature of the event. The wildcard has never been decided upon the last day for both leagues and neither have both leagues have teams that had huge leads in the last month only to see them both dwindle away. Many sources have listed the day as an amazing occurrence. With multiple sources, many analysts and commentators being amazed by the excitement and the huge impression it has on the lore of the teams who got in, I think it is highly notable. It also is far more notable IMO than other baseball articles such as a brief 5 year Braves-Mets rivalry or a Grand slam single. Arnabdas (talk) 15:43, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:EVENT is applicable here. WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE does not seem to be met yet, and existing coverage seems WP:ROUTINE, i.e. the games were going to get an article no matter what. Merge and redirect the article for now, with no prejudice to spin out later if sources put the games in historical context.—Bagumba (talk) 16:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be fair. I would hope that the general format of the Wildcard Wednesday article be maintained in the season article, namely the sections of the individual games and the backgrounds. Each of those games had memorable performances according to multiple sources including most of MLB Network. The team templates can have a redirect to this section in their "Culture and Lore" sections. If it keeps going, we can split it out. Arnabdas (talk) 18:38, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with keeping the format, in general. However, I don't think this should be included in team navboxes since it doesn't seem to have the kind of impact that would belong in the "Culture and Lore" sections. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I would agree about not including it in the navboxes to an extent, as it doesn't play an important role in the Astros' or Orioles' history, but if not for all eight teams involved, only for the Rays and Cardinals? Tampabay721 (talk) 20:58, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Team navboxes (presumably) already have links to all their playoff seasons. It should be sufficient to mention the respective games in the teams' season articles.—Bagumba (talk) 21:33, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

I believe it should be included in navboxes of the teams involved. Articles are already linked to different events that are far less notable than this. Something like this has never happened before and MLB Network historians are already championing its signficance. Arnabdas (talk) 15:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Support merge - no lasting notability; this could happen any given year and should be discussed in the season. Besides which, it's "wild card", not "wildcard". — KV5 • Talk • 12:22, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Shall I consider this a unanimous agreement to merge, save the unconstructive intrusion of SNIyer12? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Yes. I dont see any dissenters, unexplained removal of merge tag excluded.—Bagumba (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2012 (UTC)

Let's please assume good faith for SNIyer12. The user has been a very good editor IMO and dedicated to making wikipedia baseball articles better with citations and formatting. I truly think it was just an honest mistake on his part with no harm intended. As for the process of merging, where would this be merged to? I would think prior to the post-season sections. I would hope most of the work SNIyer12 did for the formatting, box scores and citations would be included somehow. Maybe title the section "Game 162: Wild card Wednesday" or the like? Arnabdas (talk) 17:02, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

SNIyer12 has been around long enough, and been in enough situations, to know better than to remove templates like that. This would go prior to the postseason section, as makes sense. We should talk about how much of it to keep and how much may be over the top. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I wasnt assuming bad faith. Just the opposite, I was also assuming a mistake since the merge issues wasnt addressed or commented but the tag was removed.—Bagumba (talk) 18:20, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

I also was wondering if we should have the navboxes of different teams to commemorate this event. Some have already objected to this, but I have already seen less notable events depicted under navboxes of "culture and lore" sections. I think all of the teams that helped bring this about should have this section linked in their navboxes. Arnabdas (talk) 17:06, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a good argument. I want to go through team navboxes and pare down items that shouldn't be included. I just pared the Mets navbox this morning. The question is: does this really have major impact specific to each team? I would say not, since this can be referenced in the regular season (and perhaps LDS) articles, which are already in the templates. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

Without any objections, I'll perform this merger by Monday. With all the sourcing that's been added to the "Wild Card Wednesday" article, maybe we can get 2011 MLB season up to GA standards. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I oppose this, despite my obvious personal biases, I feel this day will have long lasting notability. It is often billed by sports analysts such as Mitch Williams as the greatest day of baseball ever. I strongly believe that this will be a day remembered in history. CRRaysHead90 | ^{We Believe!} 04:53, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

• If it ever does, it can be split out again, but you'll have to demonstrate that it has notability, and a talking head on MLB Network isn't sufficient. – Muboshgu (talk) 14:54, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

• Support Merge - No obvious use of this term outside of this season.--JOJ ^Hutton 15:37, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

Re-split Game 162

I would like to propose the re-splitting of the section "Game 162" to Game 162. I propose this because of the historical nature of the day. At least one of the teams has even immortalized the events of the day (Rays with 162 Landing and the White Seat in right field marking where Dan Johnson's game tying HR "landed" (it's actually the seat behind where it landed, hitting someone in the testicles)). As I mentioned in my opposition, various writers and baseball analysts have called it one of, if the the best day of baseball of all-time. Fans are still talking about the day on twitter, nearly one year later (albeit some teams' fans more than others). I honestly don't see us having a problem with the technical part of splitting as the section appears to be well sourced and significant in length and it shouldn't be too hard to add a background section and a legacy section. Heck the events were documented in the opening of MLB 12: The Show. And the events leading up to and surrounding Game 162 are what lead to the Cardinals winning the World Series last year and a changing of the guard in Boston. For these reasons, I say split. These events have clearly shown their lasting notability to everyone except Wikipedia at this point. Time for that to change. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 17:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I'm not aware of anything that's changed to make a split necessary. Random comments of baseball writers and it's inclusion in a video game aren't going to cut it. There needs to be clear evidence of the historical nature of this, which I question. Please provide how they've "clearly shown their lasting notability". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:45, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

  Game 162 lead to the eventual world champions. Game 162 lead to a new manager and GM in Boston. Game 162 has been immortalized in their park by at least 1 team. Game 162 was the subject of an hour long documentary by one of the team's broadcasters. Game 162 is still being talked about by fans. Game 162 was the culmination of the worst collapses in baseball history. I don't see how these facts don't make the events of the day notable enough for a split article in your mind. They're clearly as much part of baseball culture as the bloody sock. And they have a more lasting effect than perfect games do. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 17:52, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• It wasn't the final game of the season that led to Epstein and Francona leaving, it was the overall collapse that lasted through the last month or so of the season, which can be adequately covered at 2011 Boston Red Sox season. I don't know of this hour long documentary, or whether or not it is notable. I don't know what team "immortalized" it in their park. I'm not aware that fans are talking about it to any great extent. Individual perfect games were decided to be notable by consensus (with me initially a dissenting voice). As for the bloody sock, you'll notice "bloody sock" doesn't have its own article, just a redirect. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I'm surprised with your dissenting opinion here considering. Also have you had your head in the sand?. And yeah your right, there was more to this game that resulted of a new GM and Manager in Boston, but this was the straw that broke the camel's back. Maybe the bloody sock was a bad example. And this is still the game that set up the Cardinals to go on their run to the World Series. And with this response I will wait for others to comment before chiming in again. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 18:21, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Have I had my head in the sand?? I think you should rethink the manner in which you engage other editors. It may surprise you given your Tampa Bay-centric perspective, but what happens at the Trop doesn't necessarily permeate the rest of baseball. You can try to sway me by providing info on this documentary you mentioned, which I've still heard nothing of. I also don't see how this specifically set the Cardinals on their World Series run. Yes, if the results were different, they wouldn't have made it to the postseason. But all of the regular season became moot, as it always does, once the postseason started, and the team that goes on the hot streak is the one that wins the World Series. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose I see no indication that the size is so big that a spinout is needed yet. Per the guideline WP:SUMMARY, "It is advisable to develop new material in a subtopic before summarizing it in the main article." Game 162 is already a redirect, and readers using that term are able to get to the specific information. Having it as a standalone article does not infer any additional notability on the topic, and in fact makes it cumbersome for readers of 2011 Major League Baseball season having to jump to another article, or readers of Game 162 not having the context of the regular season and playoffs in the same article.—Bagumba (talk) 19:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
• I Would Like It Because I'm A Rays Fan And It Was A Big Event For Them And Their Fans(Like Me) Not Just The Rays But The Cardnals They Must Feel The Same Way To. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanbrz (talk • contribs) 21:14, 23 September 2012‎ (UTC)
• Doesn't seem to be consensus to split at this point. I'll remove the tag from 2011 Major League Baseball season.—Bagumba (talk) 16:59, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

Looking back 4 months later

I just want to say it still boggles my mind how many well-respected baseball columnists and analysts can come to the consensus that Game 162 amounts to one of the best days in MLB history but some Wikipedians can't see the potential in a separate article. I mean there's so much to offer to the article. From the background, to the day of the events themselves and the aftermath. There's no shortage of viable information that I'm sure could be well sourced. Oh well, onward to 2013. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 07:47, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

On second thought I want to turn this is to my latest attempt to lobby for a second article. It just makes sense. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 01:30, 25 February 2013 (UTC)

• Support re–split. It just makes sense. AutomaticStrikeout (T • C) 05:34, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose You're not presenting any new evidence or reasoning to indicate any reason to change consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:40, 5 March 2013 (UTC)
• Support, qualified. To make Game 162 into its own event, as Muboshgu alludes to, evidence should surface to support this move. I qualify my support on the production of this evidence. For instance, if Game 162's standalone article contained a timeline of the night's events, it would recreate the series of events and in my view qualify as evidence or reasoning that justifies a standalone article. RefereeOrganist (talk) 08:24, 6 March 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Unnecessary splitting. The final day of the regular season in any sports league (NFL, NHL, NBA etc) often decides who is in and out of the playoffs. This information fits perfectly well where it is in the regular season article. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 09:22, March 6, 2013 (UTC)
• Support with Sources I initially created the article I believe, though I could be mistaken. At the time I did it because of the historical nature of both collapses of the Braves and Red Sox. I also supported my argument with the dramatic fashion at which the games were won too. RefereeOrganist makes a very valid point and I think it would be worthy to create it again. However, as any wiki article, it needs to be sourced properly and from multiple reliable sources and I think with the newness of it last year, that was the problem. This isn't just a mere final day, something like this never happened before. Similarly, I also support a separate article for the Last Pure Pennant Race. Both this and that had dramatic finishes in the playoff qualifying format of the era and support the argument for the evolution of the playoff race to what it is today. Arnabdas (talk) 19:39, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

That all said, I think an "aftermath" section should be incorporated somehow. A lot of the stars aligned that day to change the futures of dozens of people and teams...effects of which are still felt today to include, but not limited to Terry Francona's departure, the Bobby Valentine season and demise of the Red Sox last year and the rise in spending of the Dodgers. Arnabdas (talk) 20:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)

What about this timeline: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2011/writers/tom_verducci/09/29/game.162.drama/index.html It should be its own article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kmccook (talk • contribs) 02:31, 28 April 2013 (UTC)

• Support This is my first Wikipedia edit, so I hope I'm doing this right. I fully support splitting Game 162 into a new article. The magnitude of unpredictability and randomness in baseball has never in all of baseball history been depicted in such a mind-boggling fashion. At the beginning of September, the probability that both the Red Sox would make the postseason was over 99% http://mlbreports.com/2011/09/29/game-162-postseason/. However, that never happened. The Guardian newspaper effectively conveys the unfathomable day in baseball history in this article: http://www.guardian.co.uk/sport/blog/2011/sep/29/boston-red-sox-tampa-bay-rays. According to it, the probability the Red Sox would have made the postseason was indeed above 99% (99.4% to be precise), and the probability that the Braves would have made the playoffs was 97.7%. Furthermore, in the bottom of the 9th inning during the Red Sox vs. Orioles game, the probability that the Red Sox would win that game was 95.3% after Johnathan Papelbon struck out the first 2 batters. However, not even an inning later, that 4.7% was the game-changer and ultimately the season-changer. Additionally, it is true that teams for playoffs are sometimes decided on the last game. However, that is not the sole reason Game 162 is special. The fact that both the Red Sox and the Braves underwent historical collapses during September (http://www.foxnews.com/sports/2011/09/29/red-sox-and-braves-complete-historic-collapses-miss-playoffs/), the fact that managers were fired only because of this game, and the fact that a 0.6% chance of winning shined is why Game 162 is the most historical regular season day in baseball history. Therefore, Game 162 is worthy of a separate article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kullalok (talk • contribs) 18:47, 25 June 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose, still see no reason for doing it after reading both sides. Wizardman 14:22, 16 September 2013 (UTC)

  And that boggles my mind. You have multiple newspapers calling it historical. Analysts calling it historical. Blogs still talking about it. Fans still talking about it. Ballparks have memorialized it. And you still can't see it? CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 23:51, 17 September 2013 (UTC)

  As Muboshgu mentions below, the papers on questions are calling it historical right when it happened. That doesn't make it historical. For it to be historical it would have to continue to be talked about over and over for years. Basically their calling it historical was a case of recentism. -DJSasso (talk) 12:01, 19 September 2013 (UTC)

  Lost of articles are created based on recentism. Susan Boyle is one such article that comes to mind, doesn't make them any less important. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 19:41, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

  Actually it does. One significant part of notability is that it is supposed to have lasting historical importance. In otherwords are people talking about it years later/are they likely to talk about it years later. Susan Boyle is still talked about years later. This specific game is not. -DJSasso (talk) 14:36, 24 September 2013 (UTC)

  That's where you're wrong, I still see people talk about it. Quite frequently. The unfortunate thing there is that it's the fans I see talking about it. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 19:21, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

  Please drop the stick and back slowly away from the horse carcass. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:44, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

• Please source that there is "consensus that Game 162 amounts to one of the best days in MLB history". Nothing has changed to sway my opinion on this. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:56, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

  The links provided by both Kmccook and Kullalok aren't enough? What you're asking for is impossible to source through one link, however the links provided by the aforementioned people should be enough to establish that. Also, you already !voted. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 18:41, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

  • • I thought this was a new discussion. Why has this discussion been kept open so long? And no, those links don't establish that. They're all from September 2011, in fact the day of the games in question, meaning they don't have the benefit of historical context. Since New Years Day 2012, there are ZERO sources in Google News Archive search for "Wildcard Wednesday" and two for "Wild Card Wednesday" that don't relate to 2011 MLB season's Game 162. Searching for "Game 162" does produce some results, but more "in passing" comments. Yes, it was awesome, but this article is meant to house it. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:07, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose Don't at all see how this needs to be a separate article. This whole point of season articles is for information like this. There isn't enough for its own article and quite frankly it isn't that unusual that teams in a sports league find out if they are in the playoffs on the last day. That is very normal. -DJSasso (talk) 19:12, 18 September 2013 (UTC)

• Still no concensus to split Op47 (talk) 21:06, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
• Support: New to the discussion, but not at all new to WP. I have to agree with the original comment. It is rather curious to see the resistance for "Game 162" to be its own article. It is baseball lore that is not losing notoriety as time passes. The current section titled Game 162 is nearly enough content to be an article of it own already, and would reduce unorganized clutter on the main season article. If you research the Wikipedia article traffic statistics, one will see that the redirect page "Game 162" receives decent daily traffic, meaning that readers are actually typing in or searching with the term "Game 162" to find information about it....which hints at COMMONNAME. Doctorindy↔Talk 17:01, 25 September 2014 (UTC)
  • Please provide some proof that this is "baseball lore that is not losing notoriety as time passes". And also that the "Game 162" page views are specifically looking for Game 162 of the 2011 season. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:13, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on 2011 Major League Baseball season. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://newyork.mets.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101029&content_id=15899836&vkey=news_nym&c_id=nym
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nationalpastime.com/site/index.php?fact_day=24&fact_month=06
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131207015424/http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-braves-blog/2011/01/18/changes-at-ptv-end-turners-braves-broadcast-production/ to http://blogs.ajc.com/atlanta-braves-blog/2011/01/18/changes-at-ptv-end-turners-braves-broadcast-production/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:54, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Major League Baseball which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)