Talk:Cole Hamels

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2008-2009[edit]

Inferences removed, it's just listed stats. I would like there to be something linked to and/or quoted to allow readers to see the relevance of the stats, though. Does there need to be an article that actually used them to present why Hamels was pretty much the same pitcher in 2009? I could find a list of articles and post them here and people could pick which one should go in to the article. 71.115.203.23 (talk) 23:10, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added links to 3 articles describing that. When considering the quality of sources, context matters. For discussing sabermetrics the 3 sources are highly relevant and reputable. Mickeyg13 (talk) 01:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is the way it should be done encyclopedically. KV5 (Talk • Phils) 02:22, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

May 2012 hit-batter incident[edit]

It's already in the article that Hamels got a 5-day suspension. He also got an undisclosed fine.

I am hearing that in that game, Hamels was himself later hit by a pitch, and at that time both benches were warned.

In the hit by pitch article here on Wikipedia, I went to the talk page and noted a 1966 game where there were 3 hit batsmen. In the 2nd and 3rd of those, the hit batter was the pitcher who issued the previous hit-by-pitch. There was no DH rule then, and that was the NL anyway, so the pitcher had to be part of the batting order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 18:59, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I just deleted that paragraph. Aside from the fact that I don't know that "RookPost" is a reliable source, I don't see anything so noteworthy about the event. Pitchers throw at hitters all the time, and throwing at Harper makes sense given the hype. It's undue weight to give it its own paragraph. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On May 14, I am again seeing a paragraph about that incident. It includes "The MLB claimed that Hamels' pitch that plunked Harper was intentional after an instant replay on the media". Could someone revise that? (I recall reading that Hamels publicly admitted intentionally hitting Bryce [Harper]; had he seen, or been confronted with, the replay?) I have changed the remark about the suspension (normally "sentenced" is not used), and put back in the note about fine of undisclosed amount. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.82 (talk) 16:48, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't notice that it was reinserted. I deleted it again as WP:UNDUE, and WP:UNSOURCED. If a source can demonstrate some lasting impact of this event, it can stay, but I think it's already over and forgotten. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:04, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A little later in the 2012 season, with the Nationals again playing against the Phillies (and beating the Phillies 2-1 on May 21), there is this comment from AP about the above-mentioned hit-batter story:

'The play sparked a firestorm, with Washington general manager Mike Rizzo receiving an undisclosed fine for lashing out at Hamels in a Washington Post story by calling him “gutless” and “classless.”'

To-do list[edit]

Mostly for Go Phightins! and me, here is a to-do list for the article for GA. Feel free to add anything to it.

Brambleberry- I'm working on this right now. Feel free to add anything to my list or edit anything you want! Newyorkadam (talk) 17:51, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

  • More recent picture  Working Newyorkadam
  • Reformatting (scouting report, etc.) - will work on scouting report Go Phightins! 20:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any more important info
  • Flesh out lead - I can work on this Go Phightins! 20:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)  Done[reply]
  • Final copyedit
  • More sources are needed to substantiate a lot of the content.  Working Newyorkadam (talk) 01:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]
  • Off to GAN
  • Hamels Foundation section and information.  Done More information needed though! Newyorkadam (talk) 01:13, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

öBrambleberry of RiverClan 17:45, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • My first working items will be those two - scouting report and fleshing out lead. Go Phightins! 20:19, 29 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm about to send a message to steve_trapani asking if I can use his photos of Cole Hamels. He has some great shots of Hamels (the ones at the top of the page here). Newyorkadam (talk) 00:15, 10 December 2013 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

Brambleberry of RiverClan Newyorkadam – myself included, but we have kind of fallen off with this one; let's get it going again. NYA – what's the status of your contacting of Steve Trapani? As far as the to-do list, another task would be making sure that all of the season summaries are summaries, not just random conglomerations of information. I will get to work on the scouting report. We can do this, and if we do, or at least NYA and I do (Brambleberry, are you signed up for the WikiCup? I saw NYA was, but didn't notice if you were), not only 30 points for a GA, but also a multiplier as this is a highly viewed (and as such highly "other-wikied") article worth a 1.2 multiplier. So we can do this. Go Phightins! 19:50, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Go Phightins! - No, I am not signed up for the WikiCup because my activity can be unpredictable. I can definitely work on the season summaries! That sounds like something I'd be interested in. öBrambleberry of RiverClan 20:21, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I found a few articles that may help – [1][2][3]. If you are not an ESPN Insider, the pertinent information from that article is, "That leaves mainly the pitching. Cliff Lee should remain Cliff Lee and Cole Hamels is headed for a rebound season -- his 3.26 FIP in a disappointing 2013 actually was slightly better than the 3.30 in his 17-win 2012 season. But there's no cheap solution available to fix the rotation, so team ownership will have to open its wallet if 2014 is to not be wasted." Let me know if you use it, and I can cite it. Go Phightins! 20:32, 12 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Steve hasn't responded yet; I'll get to work on finding another picture. -Newyorkadam (talk) 01:47, 13 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

@Brambleberry of RiverClan: and @Go Phightins!:- all three of us have fallen off the project again- I can definitely work on this article some today, I think it's pretty close to GA. -Newyorkadam (talk) 16:02, 27 January 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

Right now, the biggest issue is the season-by-season stuff, which needs to be written in summaries, and better-cited. I thought Brambleberry wanted to do that, so I had not, however might be able to in a few days. Busy today, tomorrow, and Wednesday. Go Phightins! 22:47, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Newyorkadam. I have just finished a season review for 2007, and think that is a decent model of how we want each season summary to look - a mix of key games, columnist commentary, statistics, and summative analysis. If you want to work on some other seasons, I can work on some as well, and by maybe the end of next week, we can be ready to nominate this for GA? Go Phightins! 20:56, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Go Phightins!: I'll take a look at your changes, and sure, end of next week sounds good :) -Newyorkadam (talk) 19:20, 2 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

@Go Phightins!: Just finished 2011 and 2012. Ready for Good Article review? And is Brambleberry of RiverClan still working on this? -Newyorkadam (talk) 21:15, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

I think so. And she has not edited in almost three weeks, so I don't know. I will do the honors. Go Phightins! 21:43, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll try to get someone on IRC to do the review to expedite the process. -Newyorkadam (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2014 (UTC)Newyorkadam[reply]

GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Cole Hamels/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Secret (talk · contribs) 00:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be reviewing this within the next few days. Thanks Secret account 00:29, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  1. Ok reviewing....
  • "Numerous injury and maturity issues, such as an injury sustained in a bar fight," Maturity issues according to who? Also injury is mentioned twice in the same sentence, maybe better as "Numerous issues, such as an injury...."
  • "preeminent minor league pitcher" preeminent is a colorful word choice.... top pitching prospect is better.
  • "or the Phillies and has remained there since." Has remained there since is redundant as anyone could tell he's still with the Phillies organization
  • "He was the top pitcher on the team entering the 2008 season, and during the Phillies' postseason run, during which they ultimately won the 2008 World Series, he won the World Series Most Valuable Player Award and from that point on was the Phillies marquee starter." That's one big run-on sentence, also I don't think the latter half of the sentence "from that point on" is necessary because of NPOV issues.
  • Is there any better word than "He plateaued", especially after he was better in 2010 than 2009? Maybe his numbered dipped?
  • "joined by fellow aces" better as joined by fellow pitchers....
    • This is just from the lead. The article is filled with colorful language, redundancy and confusing text... "His cutter, once he attained a "feel for it", helped him increase his groundball rate (percentage of balls in play that were groundballs), including to over 50-percent in 2011.[92]" poor and choppy prose, and some of the citations (some are missing date and author information 67 for example, other are questionable like this, citation 32 has the wrong information, and that's only a quick check) this article isn't ready. Are you sure you want to continue with this? If it wasn't WikiCup I would be failing it quickly and I hate making exceptions but I'll do one here? But this review might take a few days because of the issues. Secret account 20:36, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, much of the "colorful" language you mention is derived directly from the sources, however I did err in the fact that I forgot to consider colorful language in my final pre-nom review. I will do that at this time. My apologies. If you don't mind, please continue. Thanks. Go Phightins! 20:40, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note I did part of the review via IRC with Newyorkadam and Go Phightins! as I felt that was the best way to review an article that had many small issues. It is way better now, I will finish the review tomorrow. Secret account 04:56, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is much better, passing, note I did much of the review via IRC with the two nominators. Thanks Secret account 22:06, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No hitters[edit]

I'm placing the no hitters in the infobox in the order in which they occurred: the combined no hitter came first so I'm listing it first. Bob305 (talk) 01:56, 26 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Bob305, I understand your rationale, but wouldn't you agree that a solo no-hitter is more of an accomplishment than a combined no-hitter? From what I've generally noticed, the more impressive achievements usually tend to be listed higher in infoboxes. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 02:43, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A guy saved by Jesus, you make a good point. I've reversed the order. Bob305 (talk) 04:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2015[edit]

On July 29, 2015 starting pitcher Cole Hamels of the Philadelphia Phillies was traded to the Texas Rangers for starting pitcher Matt Harrison and 5 minor league players.

RockCastille (talk) 15:37, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2015 (UTC

Is ESPN not a reliable sports source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Colin2k4 (talk • contribs)

It generally is very reliable, but in the case of transactions such as trades, the only sources that are sufficient are the teams involved in the trade. And neither the Phillies nor the Rangers have officially announced it. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 17:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
ESPN says "according to reports", so that's not confirmation. They're essentially reporting this the same way they reported the Carlos Gomez non-trade last night. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:52, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I am now seeing that the article has note about the trade of Hamels from Philadelphia to Texas, so the edit request does seem to be taken care of. However, could someone look up the information about Hamels being traded so soon after pitching a no-hitter? Once that's done, such information could be put into a new edit request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.47 (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Cole Hamels. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

  • Attempted to fix sourcing for //proathletesonly.com/news/featured/baseballs-young-stars-caught-in-salary-trap/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 20:33, 30 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cole Hamels. 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:

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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) 10:39, 10 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cole_Hamels&oldid=1207245781"