Talk:Boston Red Sox

From Citizendium, the Citizens' Compendium
Jump to: navigation, search
This article is developing and not approved.
Main Article
Talk
Related Articles  [?]
Bibliography  [?]
External Links  [?]
Citable Version  [?]
 
To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist. To update this checklist edit the metadata template.
 Definition Major League Baseball team in Boston, Massachusetts; in the Eastern Division of the American League. [d] [e]

I'll bet you're still working on this, Andrew, but it's too short even for a "microstub" and so, unless soon expanded, should be deleted. See CZ:Stubs. --Larry Sanger 08:30, 22 February 2008 (CST)

Sorry Larry, i'll expand it more right now. Andrew Sylvia 08:43, 22 February 2008 (CST)

political pressure

Well, not at a national level, of course. But locally, if you read the article I attached. That could be made clearer, I suppose.... Hayford Peirce 12:44, 24 February 2008 (CST)

Works for me. We can't escape politics unless we escape the differences in people. Guess it'd just have to be more specific. Andrew Sylvia 13:05, 24 February 2008 (CST)

Willie

I think they were interested in him around 1949 but didn't do much about it. Hayford Peirce 14:12, 24 February 2008 (CST)

Infoboxes

There has been discussion about them, and a couple have been tried in various articles, but by and large they are not used.... Hayford Peirce 15:03, 24 February 2008 (CST)

Certain people don't like infoboxes so we hardly use them. The merits are weak, I guess. Plus they have to go through the proposal system and yadda, it's not worth the effort. --Robert W King 15:18, 24 February 2008 (CST)
Wow. "Certain people"? I'm beginning to wonder if this place is so different than Wikipedia...Andrew Sylvia 15:22, 24 February 2008 (CST)
In point of fact, no one need go through the proposal system for templates that do not effect the entire system. Andrew is free to make them, including for this, and others are free to improve them or collaborate to create alternative means of presenting the same information. Stephen Ewen 15:52, 24 February 2008 (CST)

1945

While seems likely, it's still only supposition that 1945 was the first tryout. Until we get definitive proof in the article 1945 doesn't seem appropriate. Also, please provide where CZ doesn't like brevity. Andrew Sylvia 15:21, 24 February 2008 (CST)

I am a member of SABR (Society for American Baseball Research) and it has been written about *extensively* there. I have 30 years of their books but I don't feel like digging through them right now -- why don't you accept the Atheneum article? It seems pretty authentic to me, and only repeats what I can find elsewhere....
If you read the articles about How to write for CZ, or How we're different from WP, you will find ample evidence that CZ articles are NOT laundry lists of facts. It is the first thing that ex-WP contributors have to learn. It took me a while to do so, for that matter. Here, the goal is to write a *well-intergrated* article, the way it would be written for a finicky college professor or maybe the editor of the New Yorker. It is *not* journalism, where we have a lede, then put in paragraph after paragraph of decreasing value. Hayford Peirce 15:30, 24 February 2008 (CST)

rewriting

A very good start! Thanks! Hayford Peirce 14:18, 10 March 2008 (CDT)


Hayford!
Your additions, or the reinstatements,


Are purest Citizendium brilliance;
Now if you’d only write the rest of it!
As you say, this is nothing but a start;
What’s written thus far I see as a “core”
or “kernel”, the bare bones, and nothing more.
The "entire history", says my dad,
Of the Boston Red Sox sits in his head;
A close friend is another awesome fan;
Both will contribute their expertise when
The article has been pumped up somewhat.
I await two histories in the post,
And my dad spoke of more relevant books;
I should give each and all of these close looks
Before I continue with the project.
If you or another genius sees fit
To swoop in and write more, all the better!
I’m wondering most of all about structure.
Recent star players such as Ramirez,
Ortiz, Schilling (and his sock), Martinez,
. . . And Clemens (and his 20-strikeout games?). . .
And others: where should we include these names?
Should they be mentioned only with respect
to the Series teams they played for, or . . . what?
I haven’t yet envisioned the structure


That would be best. Structure, structure, structure!

Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 11:04, 12 March 2008 (CDT)

Thanks for the kind words! I really don't think I'll get much more involved here other than occasional editing and random contributions as the mood takes me. I might add some stuff about Lefty Grove's years with the Sox -- they were actually pretty productive, although not as spectacular as his years with the A's and they are, I think, pretty much forgotten by everyone. A learned SABR guru, however, a couple weeks ago in the SABR on-line discussion area open only to members, published some figures in which he tried to calculate, by an elaborate, data-weighted formula, just which pitchers had the best overall records for a 5-year span -- it was nothing so simple as wins or ERA, believe me! In any case, the three best periods since 1900 were the 5 great years of Lefty with the A's, 5 years of Pedro M. with the Sox, AND another 5-year period of Lefty while with the Sox! Even I, a Lefty fan of long standing, was surprised by that. I think the guru actually had links to Web sites in which he had originally published these studies, so I would be able to cite them as credible sources for whatever I did. In any case, didn't Lefty win 3 or 4 ERA titles while with the Sox? Hayford Peirce 12:52, 12 March 2008 (CDT)

Great Depression

I think you were wrong to take out the material I put in about the Depression. We have to remember that this is an encycl. and not a newspaper article, so we can give some perspective and background on subjects that other articles wouldn't. In fact, not only can we, we should. For instance, how many young people today even *know* that there was a Great Depression -- or what its consequences were. I think it's important to make it known just how and why Yawkey was able to do this, while others, such as Connie Mack were doing all they could to stave off bankruptcy. Just as if someone wrote an article about Pete Grey, the one-armed outfielder who played briefly for the St. Louis Browns -- and didn't explain the circumstances that it was during WWII and most of the able-bodied players were in the service. Maybe just a mention of the Depression could go in here, where I had it, and then it could be expanded, if necessary, elsewhere, but I do think that it should be included. Hayford Peirce 18:24, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

Sure, you're totally right. I'll restore it next time I'm on. That is, of course, if you want to deal with it. . . . Just doing this much has sapped me to the bone. Also, it seems ludicrous not to talk about the great players of the present day, such as the idiosyncratic Manny. And most kids can't even point out the US on a map, let alone know of the Great Depression, tee hee.Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 18:48, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
p.s. It seems that it was you who added the Great Depression data in the first place, so sorry a second time. I am one hundred percent with you on this point. Surely I would have restored the concept in some form at some point, because the concept IS relevant, and interesting, and offers an insight into why specifically Yawkey was able to gather together such a slam-bang team. Two books on Red Sox history will be mailed to me shortly . . . And again, if YOU want to augment this article . . . bwee hee hee . . . Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 18:58, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
Holy cow, now I can't find the relevant lines in the history. I can easily come up with new lines (I remember the drift), but if you want your specific lines restored, and can either recall what you wrote, or if you can find them, will you please restore it all? -- because, inept as I am, I simply can't figure it out! Also, I'll do whatever you want with this page. Whatever you say is fine with me. You'll get no argument from me on a single point. This is for CZ . . . and . . . I need sleep . . . now . . . Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 19:07, 10 March 2008 (CDT)
No hoohah, cobber (Aussie talk for, Don't worry, myte)! I'll do it. I was sure that you would have worked it in later but thought I'd bring it up anyhow. I think I read a depressing story in the last month or so about how 50% of all college students thought that WWII was fought against the Brits, or the French, or some such. Maybe it was even worse than 50%. Sigh. All we can do is put in as much as we can (in all the damn articles we do) and hope that some of it filters down.... Hayford Peirce 19:18, 10 March 2008 (CDT)

Retired numbers

I'm curious what others think, wouldn't this section, along with the team records/stats section, be better as catalogs instead of being placed directly in the main article?--Joshua Knapp 06:19, 25 April 2008 (CDT)

Joshua, SOMEONE has to make some hard decisions about structure, because I have no idea WHAT to do with this page. However, I recently received in the post two books about the history of the Sox, so I will be able to augment the early sections as and when. But that will have to be the extent of my contribution.Jeffrey Scott Bernstein 07:23, 25 April 2008 (CDT)
I think it's a minor enough item that it can stay in the main article. But it might be written to have some context. Ie, "The first number to be retired was that of Ted Williams in 1965. It was quickly followed by that of Bobby Doerr. Then seven years elapsed before etc. etc. and blah, blah." Just my suggestion.... Hayford Peirce 11:03, 25 April 2008 (CDT)