Talk:Major League Baseball/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Closed Shop

While I can understand the need for explaining there is no promotion, relegation as such - the way its said is very uniformative.

European teams are club teams - anyone can basically start one. You can not do that in US Leagues - and "closed shop" does not explain that at all. Its also something that has to be very confusing to almost all American readers - as they would have no clue what that is talking about.

You also can not compare a Triple A team to a second division soccer team. You simply could not promote a Triple A team because then you would end up with multiple teams in MLB owned by the same people - which would be a bit of a problem. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.234.227.109 (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Page Composition

If you were writing this page as an outline based on topic headings, it would read:

Clubs; Teams and Schedules; Race and Origin; Team Names; Uniforms; All-Star Game; Postseason; Steroid Policy; Blackout policy; References; National Broadcasts; History

Imagine you were someone who actually didn't know anything about Major League Baseball, and how confused you would be by this article. ParvatiBai 18:02, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Good point.

My issue has to do with a different aspect of structure. The pages for all the other U.S. major league sports have the teams listed in neat, easy to read grids. Why is the MLB page the exception? You have to painstakingly extract the information from paragraph after long, windy paragraph.

Why am I not tackling the job myself? Reason #1: I'm not knowledgeable enough about baseball. This page doesn't need mistakes added to it.--Tygerbryght (talk) 04:32, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Ooops! I just discovered the grid I so ardently desired the other day. The fact that it's under a decidedly un-obvious header doesn't help the casual visitor (and that's what articles like this are most used by - me, for example). Even more so than before, I agree that this article needs a lot of clean-up. If it were better organized, it would be far more useful to the casual visitor. This is just the opinion of a non-sports person, but the NBA article seems to me to be structured in a way that really helps the visitor to find what he/she's looking for. --Tygerbryght (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Race

Whoever did the race and origin for MLB. Where did you get your info? —Preceding unsigned comment added by BAMJ6 (talk • contribs) 02:41, 29 April 2006

Whoever it is, it ought to simply be deleted. I'm absolutely certain that the information is incorrect. Look at the totals for Latin American players: the total of Dominicans and Venezuelans given exactly adds to the number of Latin Americans he gives. Yet off the top of my head I can think of Cubans, Mexicans, and Panamanians who were on opening day rosters. (José Contreras was the opening-day starting pitcher for the White Sox last year, just as one example.) And there may be other inaccuracies as well. 69.209.230.127 06:30, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The original questioner is hinting at what I suspect, that much of it is "original research". Wahkeenah 10:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Will the author of this section explain how race is even relevant in the context of this topic? And how is "Japanese" different from "Asian"? The entire section seems wholly gratuitous and sophomoric. Deletion is strongly suggested.

It's relevent in talking about the ethnic diversity of baseball. Surely there must be a source on the internet that presents this info without someone here having to do "original research". That latter point seems to be the core problem with the data here. Wahkeenah 17:44, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

The question remains, WHY is it relevant to discuss ethnic diversity of baseball? Without necessary preface, as is presented here in its current form, one must assume that ethnic diversity is a relevant discussion in sports. If such were the case, then suggest inserting demographics breakdown in all sports related topics, as there are currently no similar discussions in such articles as soccer, sailing, horseracing, etc.

It would be nice if the original questioner would sign his/her posts. Ethnic diversity is mentioned whenever it is an important component of the sociological reality of the sport, including in the NFL article. Since Major League Baseball has even considered running its all-star game along ethnic lines, I'd say the MLB thinks it is relevant on a lot of levels, including growing its fan base. While the current contributions are OR and silly, the issue itself deserves comment. Cheers, ParvatiBai 21:18, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Regarding horseracing... as far as I know, thoroughbred horses of all colors and creeds run in the Triple Crown races. d: Wahkeenah 21:23, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Re ParvatiBai: Thank you for the well reasoned explanation, which helps to clarify why ethnic diversity is a relevant discussion in this article. I come from a background in which ethnic diversity is simply accepted as a matter of course in one's daily life, hence I was somewhat perplexed when I initially read this section.

The point remains, though, that the data is obviously original research, and also obviously wrong. If it stays, can it at least be given one of those spiffy "original research or unverified claims" banners? I'd do it myself if I knew how. 69.7.203.153 21:47, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

How is this original research, assuming there's a source for the data concerning ethnicities of players? It's hardly research to say "out of X number of players, Y are of a certain ethnicity" - that's just simply math, and easily verifiable by anyone given the citation to the source data. Getting into theories on why some ethnicities are more represented than others would be original research, if there's no source, but calling basic math "original research" is just silly. PaulGS 05:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I got my research on national origin and race from each MLB homepage. Each homepage's roster shows the place of birth for each player. I checked each of the 750 players' birthplaces to conduct my research, then did simple math to calculate the percentages. Cal State Jeff 5:35, 10 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cal State Jeff (talk • contribs)

This may now be totally irrelevant, but just stumbling upon this discussion,

1. While this article has major identity problems — is it discussing the corporate entity that now calls itself MLB, baseball in the American & National Leagues since 1901/1876, or the general subject of full-time professional baseball in North America (however defined)? — race is definitely a significant issue in the Big Leagues' history (with the Gentlemen's Agreement, the Negro Leagues and Jackie Robinson); in fact some have interpreted Ken Burns' 9-part TV series on Baseball to be primarily about race. So if it's been a historical issue with the major leagues, then the existence or absence, the progress or stagnation, of racial diversity has to be significant today, if only as a matter of fairness. (Without facts on one side or the other, the racist attitudes of a century ago might otherwise just be assumed to have persisted in the current ownership and management.)
2. All that research into birthplaces is impressive, but it has to be assigned precisely. I created a table for foreign-born populations in The Bronx#Since 1914 in 1930 and 2000, but while I'd have loved to treat ethnicity more directly I was limited to what the easily-available census data said, rather than what they might have implied. (For example, most Russian-born Bronxites were almost certainly Jewish, but the Census didn't ask religion, while the 1930 census counted foreign-born whites only, said little about Negroes, and had no distinct category for Latinos, who are today a majority of the Bronx's people.) A similar listing of Major League players based on individual players' birthplaces is pretty safe in counting the number born in Cuba or Mexico or Japan, but can't necessarily draw conclusions as to their ethnicity without more sources. (Barack Obama is not ethnically Hawaiian, W. Michael Blumenthal is not Chinese, and John McCain is not Panamanian.)

I hope this isn't too preachy or irrelevant to the present form of this article (out in left field). —— Shakescene (talk) 19:56, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

MLB template

Each individual team page has a template that lists (in this order):

• Wild Card titles won
• Division titles won
• League pennants won
• World Series championships won

I think the order should be switched. We should read of their most important victories first:

• World Series championships won
• League pennants won
• Division titles won
• Wild Card titles won

What do you all think? Kingturtle 03:13, 19 Jan 2004 (UTC)

Asterisks

For how long should the asterisks on the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and the Washington Nationals names be kept on? A lot of teams have experienced name changes and moves, and have their previous history and name acknowledged in the the team page history section. How long before it is not required to immediately inform readers of the previous names of the nats and angels? After all, we have more important uses for asterisks; 71* :-p Da 'Sco Mon 05:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The asterisks on teams such as the Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim and the Washington Nationals should be kept on for a period of time for different reasons. The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim have just recently won a World Series and it is important for people to know that the championship was won under the old name of the Anaheim Angels. People who do not know a lot about baseball would not know such facts and it is important for baseball that people do know. Also, the Washington Nationals are a brand new franchise in baseball that has moved from the Montreal Expos franchise. The Montreal Expos have their own history that should not be shadowed by the new Washington Nationals franchise. The asterisk lets people know that their was a different franchise with different history before the Nationals had arrived in Washington.J8J3B

Actually, the Nationals really aren't a new team,just a team in transition, almost all the same players they had in Montreal are still there for now. Your connotation of newness would probably be more appropriate in the context of an Expansion Team, rather than a relocated team.Karmafist 20:23, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

The Nationals aren't a new franchise - they are the Montreal Expos, relocated to Washington. Previous examples of this sort of franchise move (accompanied by a team name change) are the first Washington Senators, who became the Minnesota Twins, and the second Washington Senators, who became the Texas Rangers. Cruzich 13:41, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

antitrust exemption

any good sources about MLBs antitrust exemption? I'd like to read more on the issue. Thanks, Cacophony 23:45, Mar 18, 2005 (UTC)

Flag template usage

The rosters include flag icons. These can now be produced with {{flag}}, {{flagicon}}, and {{country}}. If a text label is produced it is linked to the country's article. (SEWilco 01:11, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC))

The rosters are using {{flagicon}}, which produces the icon without any label. Many country names and all ISO 3166-1 country codes are recognized.

Template call	Result	Effect
{{flag|BRA}}	BRA	Displays flag icon and abbreviation.
{{flagicon|ARG}}		Displays only icon, no text label. Mouseover hover shows name of country.
{{flagcountry|ITA}}	Italy	Displays icon with common name of country.

Updated...

...to reflect proposed changes to {{flag}}. It will no longer "translate" from a full country name back to the three letter country code. Instead, it will display the same output format as input format (i.e. "DEU" → "DEU", "Germany" → "Germany") Andrwsc 20:53, 22 February 2007 (UTC)

why do the rosters no longer include the flag icons? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.38.131.92 (talk) 05:57, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball players

Howdy. I'm attempting to revive the baseball players WikiProject to improve Wikipedia's coverage of MLB players. Come on over and leave a note on the project's talk page if you're interested. android79 04:32, July 26, 2005 (UTC)

Main Rivals

I think that the "Main Rivals" list should be taken out of all of the MLB team articles. People can't seem to agree on which are "main rivals." Others question a team's "main rivals." The following are examples of what people have thought of this "rivals" issue: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], and [10].

I think we are fine with a List of Major League Rivalries and individual articles, like Bay Bridge Series, on individual rivalries. -- Win777 16:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I thought only the NBA pages had this problem. It got so bad at one point, that all the teams had 13 "Main Rivals"!!! Where's the logic in THAT?!? Dknights411 00:04, July 30, 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I saw a team page where one "rival" was added to the "main rivals" section. That can easily build up into a truckload of POV. There are names for some rivalries, like the Subway Series, but fans can have different viewpoints on a team's "main rivals" (see the 7 talk page examples in my previous message). Win777 13:16, 30 July 2005 (UTC)

Several articles have taken a better stance on the issue such as the Oakland Athletics, listing Divisional Rivals and Geographic Rivals. Both of these are NPOV and acceptable as they are both well documented, advertised, and endorsed by both teams, fans and circumstance in divisional races.Gateman1997 17:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

"Year" vs. "Year in sports"

What is the consensus on linking 2005 to the year in review, as opposed to linking 2005 to the sports year in review? It seems more appropriate to link it to the sports year on a sports page, but maybe it's just a wiki thing. Is there any reason for not linking it to the sports year? --CrazyTalk 06:04, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

Another question is, why link to a year at all? It seems like overkill. But I wasn't there at the inception of that "standard". Wahkeenah 06:57, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Table listing minor league squads

Got another one for ya. On all of the team pages there is a table listing the minor league affililates the is predominantly displayed as if it is the most important aspect of the team. Would it not be better to utilize that space with what a team is actually judged by: world championships, league pennants, division championships? THAT information seems like it should be singled out in the table and the minor league squads can be delegated to elsewhere in the page as apppropriate. What say you?--CrazyTalk 06:17, August 10, 2005 (UTC)

That box shows the current year team and its affiliates. It's important to what's happening now and in the future. Maybe what's needed is another template that shows team history. Look at the Oakland Athletics as an example for "almost" setting up a history box: Team Origin, Nicknames, Ballparks, Uniforms, World Series wins, league pennants, division titles, wild card qualifiers, etc. Wahkeenah 07:01, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I think you're taking objection to the various incarnations of the {{MLB franchise}} template. I created these because I think they're useful. They don't have all of the pennant etc info because all of that is nicely displayed in the intro of the articles themselves. If you'd like to create an infobox for the teams instead, then I would suggest putting that in the upper right, and my franchise box directly below it. Personally, I like it the way it is because there isn't really much to say in the intro paragraph(s) of the article besides this information; and all of the MiLB affiliates have the same franchise box on their pages so leaving it there on the main page is more consistent. I'm open to debate on this, obviously. →Vik Reykja 07:15, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Baseball

Hello, I was wanting to get the baseball Wikiproject back up and running. It has currently be inactive and it looks like no action has been taken on it for a few months. Any takers? Please sign up on the [Project] page.--CrazyTalk 20:08, August 31, 2005 (UTC)

Left-hander & Right-hander

Has there ever been a MLB pitcher who could throw left hand & right hand? Mightberight/wrong 14:01, 27 October 2005

Yep. 19th century player Tony Mullane was one. And there was one as recently as 1995, according to this article. [11] Wahkeenah 17:10, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Greg Harris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.127.162 (talk) 00:53, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

There actually is a rule in the MLB rule book about "switch-pitching." The pitcher can't change pitching hands for the same batter. Schoop (talk) 16:07, 9 January 2009 (UTC)

MLB logo question

Is there any reason why the MLB logo is very similar to the NBA logo? User:130.179.6.1 18:19, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure it isn't the other way around? Wahkeenah 23:51, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

The MLB logo was designed in 1969. See this article for more: [12]68.109.185.65 (talk) 23:24, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Regular season final standings

I've read that each player on the 2nd place team in a division earns a cash award whether their team makes the playoffs or not (perhaps as an incentive to play out the season). I assume that 1st place teams also get an award, most likely larger. Can anyone confirm this and, if so, should this info be included on this page?

Postseason matchups

The section describing the way playoff teams are matched up currently says:

The matchup for the first round of the playoffs is usually 1 seed vs. 4 seed, and 2 seed vs. 3 seed, unless the 1 seed and the 4 seed are from the same division, in which case the matchup is 1 seed vs. 3 seed and 2 seed vs. 4 seed.

This doesn't correctly account for the possibility of the #2 and #3 teams being from the same division, so I've reworded the sentence:

The matchup for the first round of the playoffs is usually 1 seed vs. 4 seed, and 2 seed vs. 3 seed, unless this would result in a matchup of two teams from the same division, in which case the matchup is 1 seed vs. 3 seed and 2 seed vs. 4 seed.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, or reword it if you think there's a better way. All in 02:13, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

It's impossible for the 2 and 3 seeds to be from the same division, as there are three divisions and even if the wild card team finishes with a better record than one of the division winners, the WC team would still be seeded 4th. (case in point, the 2005 National League postseason). Floydspinky71 19:28, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

The article says "The 2002 contest ended in an 11-inning tie because both teams were out of pitchers, a result which proved highly unpopular with the fans. As a result, for a two-year trial in 2003 and 2004, the league which won the game received the benefit of home-field advantage ". Is the World Series home field advantage really the result of the tie in the 2002 All-star game? (That's the way it reads to me.) Bubba73 (talk), 03:35, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

• Precisely. There was such an outcry over the lame way that game ended that Selig decided to actually make the game meaningful (unique among all the sports' all-star games), and thus give the teams some incentive to win and to hopefully use their rosters a little more carefully. That's why the plan was introduced the very next year. What the plan is, in case of a legitimate tie (such as a rainout) I have no idea. Wahkeenah 11:59, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

You know what this page could use?

Something like what they have on the NHL page, where they break down representation in the league by country. 24.199.113.126 03:09, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

So, what's stopping you? Wahkeenah 04:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Devil Rays

Don't they play in St. Petersburg, Florida?they play in tampa User:172.148.22.121 04:32, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

• No, they're so bad nowadays that they play at an undisclosed location. Just like the Witness Protection Program, or Dick Cheney. Wahkeenah 06:15, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Why make such a jack ass comment? Oh wait, the Rays are better than the Yankees and are very much likely going to get a wild card spot. --Reezy (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2008 (UTC)
    • Maybe because he made it two years ago, when the Rays were still really, really bad. 204.58.233.6 (talk) 20:43, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

"Major League Baseball (MLB) is . . ."

How can it be justified that MLB is the "highest" level of baseball play in the world if only two MLB players were present at the finals of the World Baseball Classics? I find professional baseball in other countries such as in Korea and Japan to be equally high level play as in the MLB. User:58.87.205.68 07:05, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

The WBC was a collection of all-star teams. MLB is where everyone wants to go. It pays the highest salaries and attracts the world-class talent. By contrast, Japan is a place that major leaguers go to finish out their careers once they are no longer considered to be at major-league levels in the USA. Wahkeenah 07:27, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thank-you for replying to my questions but...

Although I agree that MLB pays very high salaries to attract world-class talents, I highly disagree with the statement that MLB is where everyone wants to go, and that making it the reason why MLB is the highest level baseball. I know this not only because I am NPB (Japan Professional Baseball) fan, but also because I've been watching it for more that fifteen years now. Many baseball players from the NPB, including players like Ichiro Suzuki thinks that MLB baseball and NPB baseball are very different in style, and don't necessarily belive that it is the "higher class". The difference in style being that NPB including more "small baseball" using more sacrifice bunts, squeeze and hit and runs while the MLB not using much "small baseball" but depending more on big hits and homeruns. The two baseball have slight difference in how they bring about their game.

There are many great players in NPB who have great talents but do not wish to go to the MLB becuase of this difference in style, thinking that there talents will be wasted in the MLB. Also, the fact that many major leaguers come to Japan to finish off their does not justify the difference in the level of baseball, even though this belief is why many come.

From what I say on is some what my opinion, but I believe that the reason why people think that MLB plays higher level baseball than NPB is because of the fact that in the past, it was obvious that MLB had higher levels than NPB, but people are refusing to accept that over time, the difference in level between MLB and NPB baseball has diminished, and that the two are now closely equaled. This hard fixed belief is whats causing many baseball players to go the MLB believing it to be the highest level of baseball, and people going to NPB beliveing to be a more easier, lower level baseball.

IMHO, the NPB and MLB are like the CFL and NFL respectively. The NFL and MLB are considered the more popular league and is thought of as the better league, but they are different variations of the same sports that shouldnt be compared. Some MLB and NFL players use the other league as acareer ender becuase the games are not as physicaly demanding in the CFL as the NFL, and the season has fewer games more spread apart in the NPB than in MLBWikipedia's False Prophet holla at me petition 02:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

How old is Major League Baseball as a proper noun and as a trademark? (I suppose it is now both.) What about MLB? I believe writers should use the full name heavily and they should capitalize "major(s)" and "major leagues" only in that context --if at all, where the preferred alternative for saving space is the abbreviation that is a trademark, MLB.

Note, only because the American League in baseball achieved radical equality and retained its nominal identity forever, we have this situation, different from the other professional team sports in North America. The official comprehensive name, interpreted as ordinary language, makes the status claim (major). --like the Premier League in Britain, but I understand that that P.L., like the N.L. and A.L. in American baseball, isn't really a league but a division of a league.

In North American pro hockey, basketball, and football we have the National Hockey League, N- Basketball Association, and N- Football League because each National incorporated or vanquished its rivals. Among all the rival major leagues, only(?) the second American rival in football survives in name, and that is the name of a division within the National, merely equal to a counterpart National division: American Conference and National Conferences within the National League.

Precisely because of their success, the three National sports leagues don't need to make any claims to major status. They don't need to engross "major" in any form, as by registering the MLB trademark (and they haven't done so, as far as I know). That leaves fans, writers, and historians relatively free to talk about major and minor hockey, basketball, and football, without any fuss about capital letters. --P64 05:26, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

American and National

replicating this here without deleting it from "New Topic". One aspect of Baseball in North America that Fascinates me is the independent nature between the American and National league. How independent are the leagues today from the entity known as Major League Baseball? FancyPants 12:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The points you bring up are discussed here and there. The leagues are pretty much just a formality any more. Originally they were almost completely independent. But over time, that has become less so. Maybe the most notable difference now is the Designated Hitter rule. Wahkeenah 13:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Fancy, My comments on the proper nouns in section Major League Baseball (MLB) is . . . will interest you, perhaps without encyclopedic benefit. The NL and AL "leagues" are not at all independent of MLB and the time has passed when they should be considered sports "leagues" at all, except as proper nouns, or nominally. Some matters of government need majority in one league and supermajority in the other. For illustration, suppose the NL can rearrange in four four-team divisions by majority vote of the AL and 75% vote of the NL. But for all I know, "conferences" or "divisions" within other leagues have as much formal distinction as that. Does anyone know? --P64 06:07, 7 August 2006 (UTC); --P64 05:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the last year that the two major leagues were independent of each other was 1902. Once the "federation" known as the National Commission (and later the Commissioner's Office) was formed, there was one governing body. The only difference since then has been the degree of semi-autonomy between the leagues. I don't know for sure, but I would say any realignment plan would require approval of both leagues. But there does not appear to be any NFL-style realignment that would rub out the league boundaries and turn them into "conferences", at least not yet. Wahkeenah 06:23, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

But the autonomy of the two leagues, almost nil today, was vast in 1903 and for a while thereafter. The leagues controlled their membership (limited by territorial rights), scheduled their games, hired their umpires, selected their statistical categories (Earned Run Average and so on), introduced their awards (Most Valuable Player, separately introduced and separately abandoned in the 1920s).

The two leagues expanded competitively in 1960-1962. When they could no longer maintain uniform playing rules, in effect since 1903, they adopted a faux playing rule that any league may choose to use or not to use a designated hitter.

NL and AL today are nearly divisions or conferences as we know them in other leagues. Differences include such things as requiring 3/4 vote in one "league" and plurality vote in the other "league" when one realigns or one revises territorial rights that do not affect the other. --P64 05:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

MLB vs NPB history http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/events/japan_series/history.jsp?content=history_results

minor challenge

replicating this here without deleting it from "New Topic". The PCL was en-route to achieve that status until the New York teams relocated to California. Is there a article about this? FancyPants 12:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

That should be covered seriously in the 'pedia history of the PCL or of minor leagues. In the article on Major League Baseball it is only one moderate challenge among several that might be mentioned, probably none at length. Consider an article on challenges. Or there should be an article about major or minor league baseball, lower case. See my comments about the proper nouns Major League Baseball and MLB just above.

In print there is Andy McCue, "Open Status Delusions: the PCL Attempt To Resist Major League Baseball", Nine 5.2 (1997). --P64 05:45, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"Major League Baseball" as a term has been around for 100 years or more. The more generic term is "Organized Baseball", which means professional baseball operating under the "official" umbrella of the major and minor leagues, in the United States. The major leagues were always "understood" to be at the highest level, whether the MLB term was used or not. "Major League Baseball" as a trademark was established in the late 1960s by the Major League Baseball Promotion Corporation, the creators of the logo that is still used today. In fact, the term "major league" has two uses. One is to distinguish it from "minor league", which is a system of professional teams in smaller cities that "feed" the majors. The other is because it is unique in having two equal-level leagues, and it is more convenient to say "MLB" than to say "the NL and the AL". The NHL has a system it refers to it as minor league hockey. The NBA and NFL rely on colleges for their player development. But there is no need to call the NFL, NBA nor the NHL "major league", because there is only one league. The two major baseball leagues are approaching being an artificial construct rather than a reality, but until something drastic happens, they remain two leagues. On the other topic, the "Open" classification for the PCL was indeed a delusion, as those minor league clubs all had major league affiliations and were subject to MLB's rules. It is fair to say that before television and before the majors moved west, the PCL was effectively the "major" league for the west coast residents. But the bottom line is that the major leagues in any sport are where the money and the talent are. MLB is the premiere version of the game for two reasons: one, it is still largely an American game; and two, it's where the largest salaries are. A large number of players in the bigs still come from the USA. A significant number come from Latin America, and some from Asia. An exceptional player in the Dominican Republic or in Japan or Korea will likely (thought not necessarily) want to come to the USA, because its where the money is and thus where the preponderence of the most highly talented players are clustured. Wahkeenah 06:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

"The term major league has two uses." Yes but only one of two, or only some of the larger number if we slice and dice, is part of a proper noun, Major League Baseball. My questions concern the proper noun usage(s) because I urge 'pedians to use the proper noun wherever it pertains but no more broadly. The hundred year old term, I believe, is major league(s), not Major League Baseball. Of course, the point isn't merely when the proper noun came into use but what that organization with exclusive right to control use of the proper noun (Major League Baseball) claims as its historical scope. It is reasonable to use the proper noun and its proper abbreviation MLB (also registered) in ways that comply with that organizations mandates. But it isn't reasonable to turn the generic term "major league" over to MLB.

P.S. I know of "organized baseball" but not "major league baseball" from about one hundred years ago. --P64 05:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Here's an article from The Scrapbook History of Baseball, taken from a newspaper (it doesn't say which one) from April of 1914, discussing the opening game of the Federal League. The heading (with most of its words capitalized) starts "The Initial Championship Contest of the New Major League..." The article says "The first championship contest of the Federal League as a major organization was played this day between Baltimore and Buffalo..." And here's a headline from sometime in 1913, date not given, and obviously a ruse on the part of the FL, but it says, "The Federal League Does Not Propose to Interfere With Major League or Minor League Players Under Contract..." That makes me wonder if the FL's arrival brought the term to the fore. Anyway, that's over 90 years ago. The term "organized baseball" is also in evidence at that time. Wahkeenah 05:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Nope. It predates the FL. There's a headline from 1911 discussing a growing practice of companies awarding players with gifts for achieving feats of various kinds (such as giving a car to the batting champion). The headline is in all caps, and reads, "PLAYER PRIZES TO BE DISCOURAGED BY THE MAJOR LEAGUES". In the article, it refers to "major and minor leagues" in lower case, which used to be common practice, I would say, and probably still is. Major League Baseball as a term is a trademark garnered in the 1960s, effectively making the term their own. They didn't give all that much thought to licensing until then. For example, did you know that the Chicago Cubs well-known "circle C-UBS" logo did not carry the Trade Mark symbol until the mid-1970s? Wahkeenah 05:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

And here's one from 1908, urging the adoption of a two-umpire system (innovations-R-us) in which the all-caps heading has this slightly strange wording: "TWO UMPIRES WOULD BE THE PROPER MAJOR LEAGUE CAPER". And here's one from 1905, "BALTIMORE HOPES OF RE-ENTERING MAJOR LEAGUE COMPANY REVIVED." 1904 headline: Giant's owner John T. Brush says "There Will Be No World's Championship Series If The Two New York Clubs Win Major League Championships". 1903: In connection with a contract dispute, an article refers to "a renewal of strained relations between the two major leagues". Jan. 10, 1903, headline: "The Warring Major Leagues Reach An Agreement..." I'm thinking this term come to the fore in connection with the American League. In the 1880s the papers used to refer to "The League" and "The Association". With two organizations called "League", making peace in 1903 along with the lower-level professional leagues, the terms "major league" and "minor league" were a natural. I could look through the pre-1900 stuff, but I'm kinda tired now. Wahkeenah 06:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The above might be overkill in answering a simple question, i.e. how long has the term "major league baseball" (lower case) been around. I'm not sure precisely when MLB became a trademark, but to find the answer, you might want to look for info about the entity known as "Major League Baseball Promotion Corporation", which began in the 1960s and is where that famous logo came from. My assumption would be that it was trademarked at that time. Wahkeenah 06:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The PCL Open classification was not a "delusion." Only some PCL clubs (in some years, only one or two of the eight) had affiliations with NL and AL clubs, and those affiliations were far less determinative of the junior partner's roster and decisions than the type of farm system we know today. Spark240 (talk) 10:15, 3 January 2009 (UTC)

New Topic

We need to make a new section on the 2006 season and update it as games go along. Check out 2006 FIFA World Cup. User:Bornagain4) 18:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Each MLB game is not that notable., If you're that obsessive go for it. One aspect of Baseball in North America that Fascinates me is the independent nature between the American and National league. The PCL was en-route to achieve that status until the New York teams relocated to California. Is there a article about this? How independent are the leagues today from the entity known as Major League Baseball? FancyPants 12:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Game by game is not enough. It needs to be pitch-by-pitch. That will keep somebody busy. The points you bring up are discussed here and there. The leagues are pretty much just a formality any more. Originally they were almost completely independent. But over time, that has become less so. Maybe the most notable difference now is the Designated Hitter rule. Wahkeenah 13:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

'98 Home run chase

I am wondering if people think this it worhty of a Wikipedia article or not. All comments should be made here.

Express written consent

"...without the express written consent of Major League Baseball" is one of the most famous legal warnings in history. This article should at least mention it; possibly there should be a spin-off article that discusses the sentence, its legal meaning, history, and pop culture references. --M@rēino 19:50, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Map of Locations

I am rather upset about the current map of the United States on where the teams are located. Coming from Canada, we have a Canadian Team still, and it is the Toronto Blue Jays. Can we get a North American map with the dots everywhere? Not everywhere, with a blue dot in white. --Aleeproject 23:47, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Let's show the entirety of Canada, including all the major league teams above the Arctic Circle. d:) Wahkeenah 00:03, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

But still, the Toronto Blue Jays are in Toronto, Ontario. When they visit an American park, they fly a Canadian flag and play "O Canada"...so I believe it to be only fair to put up at least the Province of Ontario... They have Alaska and Hawaii showing, and I dont believe they are going to have any teams. --Aleeproject 17:20, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps you could find an Ontario map and merge it with this one? Wahkeenah 19:51, 4 August 2006 (UTC)'

I will look for one. :) --Aleeproject 15:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

You can use Image:National Hockey League team locations.PNG. A little modification will do the trick. --Howard the Duck 13:10, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Race and origin

"19 (16% of MLB) Latin American (76 from the Dominican Republic, 43 from Venezuela)" No way that is right. I mean, the existance of Mariano Rivera alone disrupts that notion. Can someone find out what's right? Rab 02:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

• Feel free to research it and post your findings here. Wahkeenah 02:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

As well, if you are born in Canada and MLB is played in Canada, how can that make you a foreign born player, could someone update this so the Canadians are included not as foreign born players —Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.166.214.5 (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Teams with baseballs on uniforms

As per my edit, it is my belief that in the '70s and 80's several teams WORE logos that had baseball images in them. I have added the Phillies logo (albeit somewhat sloppily) to the page and think there were a few others (Texas Rangers, Cincy Reds, etc.). I wasn't aware such a rule existed, but if so examples can be cited (or a table created) showing said logos that were/are in violation. Feel free to drop a line on my talk page. EnjoysButter 06:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

The Giants' logo has always had a baseball in it, and is worn on the sleve. Their secondary also has a baseball. The A's secondary has a baseball in it, also worn on the sleeve. The Philadelphia A's logo had a basebal las well. Also, when the Angels changed to Anaheim, their cap logo had something like a baseball in it. The Yankees' logo is mostly a baseball. An early White Sox logo has a baseball in it. This appears to prove that the rule is not enforced.

I think that rule is "passive" in some sense. Presumably, the league approves the uniform designs. If a manager were to cite that rule and file a protest, it would have to be considered. The purpose of the rule is to prevent a team from using such a logo to deceive the other team into thinking that they have the actual game ball in their possession. Last I knew, football has a similar rule, and for the same reason. Wahkeenah 22:39, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Stadium and cities

I am not trying to start an edit war or pick a fight, but I am curious to know the logic behind listing Shea stadium in Flushing instead of NYC or Yankee Stad as Bronx instead of NY. The 28 other MLB teams listed just by the city that the ballpark is located, why are the NY teams treated different. I realize NY is a big city and has boroughs and neighborhoods. However other cities have "official neighborhoods". The Metrodome for example is in the Downtown East neighborhood of Minneapols, should that be changed in the chart?. Chicago has north side and south side and neighborhoods within the city as well. LA has sections, subdivision etc, San Francisco as well. I am just trying to understand why 2 teams/stadiums are listed differently than the other 28 thanks Smith03 19:11, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Flushing (for the Mets) and the Bronx (for the Yankees) are actual towns that are named by the U.S. Postal Service. Flushing is the "town" in which Shea Stadium is located, while Bronx is the designation for the "town" of the Yankees (although this actually seems less intuitive, for some reason...). Someone please feel free to correct me and elaborate on this. Theirishpianist 04:59, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. Checking my Baseball America Directory 2006, the street addresses for the offices of the above-mentioned clubs are Minneapolis, Flushing and Bronx. New York City is different from most American cities. It's just the way it is. Wahkeenah 06:29, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

List of family relations in Major League Baseball

There's an article called List of family relations in the National Hockey League. How about having a MLB family relations list, eg: father-son(s)- Bobby & Barry Bonds, Ken Griffey Sr & JR. brothers- the Alous, DiMaggios, Weavers extc. What do you all (wiki community) think? GoodDay 22:33, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

If hockey has one, certainly baseball should also. The list could be substantial. Henry and Tommy Aaron; Christy Mathewson and what's-his-name, his brother; the Delahantys; the Coopers; the Perrys; the Niekros; the Alomars; Roy Smalley Sr. and Jr.; on and on it goes. Wahkeenah 22:46, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I started a new article List of family relations in Major League Baseball. GoodDay 23:49, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The article I've started, should be wiped out. Theres already (I found out) an article for such a list list of second generation Major League Baseball players. My apologies for the mistakes & oversights. GoodDay 00:47, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

I recommend that you issue a REDIRECT from your new one to that other one. Or, better yet, merge that article into this one, as they are not exactly the same idea. Wahkeenah 02:58, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Last name vs. family name

"A league may provide that the uniforms of its member teams include the names of its players on their backs. Any name other than the last name of the player must be approved by the League President." (...) Currently, Ichiro Suzuki of the Seattle Mariners is the only player to have his given name rather than his family name displayed on the back his uniform.

Given that in traditional Japanese fashion family name comes first, it may be said that Suzuki Ichiro is in fact complying with the regulations by wearing his given name, which comes last. Us humans are adept at finding loopholes. – Tintazul ^msg 10:57, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

"Last name" is English slang for "surname" or "family name". Presumably his "surname" is Suzuki. Wahkeenah 15:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Presumably his surname is suzuki according to American and European tradition but he is Japanese so shouldn't his surname follow his tradition similar to Yao Ming who has Yao on his jersey. As you said last name is English slang for surname because in most English speaking areas the surname is the last name, however surname is not defined by whether it comes first or last it is based on family name.

I don't see what the issue is. Ichiro Suzuki's name is infact Suzuki Ichiro. His family name/surname is Suzuki, not Ichiro. He is and has been acknowledged extensively by MLB and the press as the lone exception. Gateman1997 06:20, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Mets and Yankees Names Backwards?

in the picture with the locations of all the stadiums, the name "Mets" appears north of the name "Yankees", where the Mets name is closer to Yankee Stadium than it is to Shea, and vice versa. Shouldn't this be changed? Rmsuperstar99 04:16, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

I moved the Mets & Yankees labels to their correct locations, but the dot and square representing their locations have to be switched because the Yankees are farther north and the Mets are farther east; I can't seem to do that because it can't be edited online. bmitchelf•T•F 17:02, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Trade deadline

I've converted Trade deadline from a redirect page to an article stub. I was really, really surprised that there was no article about this significant sports terminology. (The term had redirected to a disambiguation page that only listed its purely commercial/financial senses.) However, knowing next to nothing about baseball I'm hoping others can help in expanding the article as regards trade deadlines in MLB, and also correct any errors I may have made in the term's definition etc.. Cheers, A bit iffy 15:35, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Teams and schedule

Why are there a different number of teams in each league? The current information is illogical. It says "In all, there are 30 teams in the two leagues: 16 in the older National League ("NL") and 14 in the American League ("AL"). The leagues do not have the same number of teams because an odd number of teams would force at least one team to be off every day (or play a team from the opposite league). " They could have the same number of teams, 14 or 16, and still not have an odd number of teams. 208.71.53.19 23:54, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Due to the way MLB schedules games, most of the season NL tames play only NL teams, and AL teams play only AL teams (with the obvious exception of the two-week interleague period). If there were 15 teams in each league, then 14 NL teams would be playing (7-games x 2-teams per game) and 1 would be left off. Same for the AL. This is why they prefer to have an even number of teams per league, so that (A) there aren't idle teams too often, and (B) they don't play teams from the other league except during the Interleague period or World Series.Entirelybs 21:41, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

References...

...or lack of of them. I can't believe an article of this size and importance has so few references. I was reading the team names and colors section and it struck me that there were no sources cited at all. Looking through the rest of the article, it doesn't look much better. I am tagging the page for reference improvement. WildWildBil 00:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Blackout map

You people can use the map the NHL is using... --Howard the Duck 05:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Alternate uniforms

I have added the Chicago Cubs to the list as teams without alternate uniforms. I believe Lou Piniella did away with their alternate home, all-blue jerseys (much to the displeasure of Carlos Zambrano) this year. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong. Thanks {{subst:user:browne34/sig}} 19:00, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

       Sorry. I'm not member, but I have to say that in 2008 Season, the Cubs are using, again, the all-blue alternate
       uniform.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.104.156 (talk) 23:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC) 

DH rule in lead paragraph

The mention of the DH rule in the lead paragraph is very out of place -- it's not important enough to mention so early in the article and there's no context for it there. I hesitate to just remove it though because it doesn't seem to be mentioned anywhere else. Would there be a better spot for it elsewhere? --Jfruh (talk) 16:18, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Steroids

Mitchell Report this, Mitchell Report that. When will this talk stop? Or will it ever. This years baseball scandal has rocked baseball nation. not one team has a player not included in the mitchell report, or as i like to call it, the witch hunt. I understand that something has to be done about steroid abuse, but did Mr. Mitchell have to attack Major League Baseball so violently? It wasn't right. But I guess we shouldn't kill the messenger. Bud selig, Commisioner of major league baseball, had Mr. Mitchell conduct this report. So it's completely not his fault. Next time you talk about what Mr. Mitchell did to Major league baseball, think about not killing the messenger. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.93.156.190 (talk) 03:26, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

Team founding dates

The "founded" dates for the individual franchises on the table are misleading. In some cases, for the franchises that have moved, you're using the dates that they moved to their current location even though the franchise is much older. In other cases, you're using the actual franchise creation dates. In still other cases, they don't seem to make sense at all. I'm going to change all of the dates to reflect their actual time of creation, and include footnotes to reflect location changes. LoveCowboy2024 (talk) 17:16, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Controversy section.

I believe that Major league Baseball should have a criticism and controversy page similar to the NBA Criticism and controversy page. It should be about steroids, revenue sharing (lack of a salary cap). Major League baseball cannot be covered completly without a controversy page or at least a controversy section. obama=osama(Yomamma22) (talk) 21:25, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Brewers1978logo.gif

The image Image:Brewers1978logo.gif is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

The following images also have this problem:

• File:Baltimore Sun front page mitchel report.jpg

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --23:06, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Statistics, Milestones...

Changed the average attendance from 31,000 per "match" to 31,000 per "game", since this is the way contests between MLB teams are known in the countries where games are played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.11.95.16 (talk) 03:34, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Changes re: North America

While I understand the need to differenciate between the US and Canada over the rest of North America, in some cases, the use of "North America" in the article is completely correct. Also, remember that North America is not just the US, Canada, and Mexico: In the narrower definition, it also includes several areas belonging to other nations, including France (2 islands off the coast of Quebec), Denmark (Greenland), and Bermuda (UK). In the broader sense, it also incluedes all of Central America and the Caribbean.

The statement that "Major League Baseball (MLB) is the highest level of play in North American professional baseball" is completly accurate on several counts.

• Many players from other countries play in the MLB, including Mexicans, and consider this the highest level of playing basball.
• Although its clubs are not part of the MLB farm system, the Mexican League is part of the Minor League Baseball system.
• MLB has played regular season games in Mexico, primarily Monterey, which is a legitimate possible location for expansion or relocation.

Since the "closed shop" league format is primarily in the US and Canada, clarifying that sentence is accptable. However, "US/Canada" or "US/Canadaian" are informal phrases which should not be used in a formal encyclopedic setting. Instesd, use either "the United States and Canada" or "American and Canadian". (Yes, I know some people don't like the use of the adjective "American" to refer to the US, but this is accepted usage in English Wikipedia, and this page is not the forum to debate such usage.) - BillCJ (talk) 22:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Greetings, well, the Mexican League is not the top level baseball league in Mexico, the Mexican Pacific League is. I agree to use the word "American" to refer to the United States citizens in English, what I see in the top US-Canada leagues (not just MLB) is the omission of the other top-leagues in the rest of North America. I consider the Caribbean Series as the 2nd best baseball club tournament in the world where 3 North American clubs are involved. JC (talk) 20:39, 6 November 2008 (PST)

Regular season?

How does the regular season look like? Why is that not explained in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Merijn2 (talk • contribs) 20:26, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

MLB charities

This is a worthy section to include, but what's there now has too many peacock words like "exciting" (probably taken from a promotional piece) and lists every country where MLB's program or partnership works. I could give it a go if I have time, but it would be better for someone who knows more about baseball charities to keep the important facts but recast them in a more neutral form with better sources. —— Shakescene (talk) 22:44, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

This is in fact a straight copy and paste from MLB.com (MLBI)

Equipment Donation
Partnership with Pitch In For Baseball
In 2007, Major League Baseball International formed an exciting new partnership with the charitable organization, Pitch In For Baseball (PIFB). Based in Philadelphia, Pa., PIFB shares MLBI's commitment to promoting and enhancing the growth of baseball around the world by providing the necessary equipment, which can prove challenging to obtain at the grassroots level. MLBI and PIFB partnered on 14 donations to four different continents in 2007. Since the inception of the Major League Baseball International Equipment Donation Program in 2003, MLBI has distributed baseball equipment to organizations in more than 30 countries worldwide, including American Samoa, Argentina, Australia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Cambodia, Chile, China, Costa Rica, Fiji, Ghana, Guatemala, India, Ireland, Israel, Kenya, Malta, Mali, Mexico, Mozambique, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Northern Mariana Islands, Norway, Palau, Panama, Romania, Russia, St. Martin, Tunisia, Uganda and Vietnam. For more information on this program, please contact Erin Sloneker at erin.sloneker@mlb.com.

so it needs some editing before going onto a neutral page like this one. The subject of MLB charities is worth including in an article about Major League Baseball; perhaps this could be combined with mention, among many other worthy baseball-related causes, of the Jimmy Fund started by the Boston Braves in 1947, then taken over by the Red Sox, and championed by the Splendid Splinter, Ted Williams. —— Shakescene (talk) 23:00, 5 December 2008 (UTC)