Talk:Lonnie Smith (baseball)

NPOV

I'm linking articles to Pittsburgh drug trials but now this one is skewed way too far to the negative. Hopefully someone can expand on the positive aspects of Lonnie Smith's long career. —Wknight94 (talk) 00:06, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• I added a tiny bit about awards and categories led in the intro. Still in further need of expansion (both good and bad; there isn't anything about his notorious plot to murder Schuerholz). -Hit bull, win steak^(Moo!) 03:07, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Smith was a sick man when he thought about killing Schuerholz. No one would even know about it if Smith hadn't told the press last year. I think the most important detail about Smith's career is that he overcame the drug problems to play a key role on a lot of great teams. Jsc1973 03:45, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Should be fixed now. Someone else see if my revision helps. Jsc1973 04:47, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Nixon

The Braves regular outfield for 1991 was Ron Gant, Otis Nixon, and David Justice. Other than giving people a day off every now and again, Smith only played with David Justice was on the DL (see http://www.baseballlibrary.com/chronology/byyear.php?year=1991 scroll down to the enrty for August 28, which says that Justice came back after TWO MONTHS on the DL), and when Nixon was suspended (which was on Sept. 16 see: http://openweb.tvnews.vanderbilt.edu/1991-9/1991-09-16-NBC-17.html ) Ron Gant played in 154 games that year, Otis Nixon played in 124. If Justice had not been on the DL, he would be approaching Gant's number, and the same is true for Nixon if he hadn't been suspended. There is just no way that you can dodge the fact that Smith would not have been playing in the World Series if Nixon had not been suspended. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.77.202.116 (talk • contribs) .

Yes and no. From what I can tell, Nixon and Smith were strictly a lefty-righty platoon. Look at the end of http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/Inixoo0010091991.htm and notice how Nixon didn't start on 8/23, 8/26, 8/27, 8/28, 9/1, 9/3, 9/9 or 9/12. Smith started every one - all against lefties. It goes to your point though that Jack Morris was pitching in Game 7 so there's a decent chance that Nixon would have started but the way you're saying it is way too definite. Smith was not Nixon's backup all season and your claim that Nixon would have done everything correctly does not have a reliable source attached. If you can find a source, you can put a note in there saying what the source said, but without that, it's still just your speculation as far as I can tell. I can just as easily say that Nixon only hit .195 after July (which he did) as opposed to Smith who hit .277 after July (which he did) and therefore, there would have been less likelihood that Nixon would be on base at all in that situation. In fact, I could say that there would be less chance Nixon would still be part of the platoon because of that fact. —Wknight94 (talk) 03:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

One factor that neither of us are considering is that Minnesota is an AL park and therefore has a DH. It is extremely likely that, had Nixon not been suspended, that both Smith and Nixon would have played. What I think proves my point is that Smith was the DH and was batting leadoff. Brian Hunter was in left hitting 6th. Looking at Hunter's Retrosheet page, you can see that the first time he played LF in 1991 was October 6. Their fifth outfielder was Deion Sanders, who Cox was so mad at for leaving and attending Falcons camp that he barely used him after July and did not trust him enough to put him on the postseason roster. Had Nixon not been suspended, you can say with certainty that Nixon would have been in the leadoff spot because he was their leadoff man. Yes, his average was in the tank after July, but he continued to steal bases, setting an Atlanta franchise record that year, and sparking the offense. Can I say with certainty that Nixon would not have been deeked by a fake tag? Yes, because Nixon was much faster than Smith (a point that isn't arguable and I don't think I need a source for it) and would have already been around second before Smith even got there. Nixon's absence from the top of the lineup changed the dynamic of the game considerably, including defensive positioning, and pitching strategies with runners on base. Would Nixon have been on base at that time? Hard to say, really, but I don't think it is arguable to say that, with Nixon, the baserunning blunder isn't made. (And yes, I am the same poster from above. I don't know all of the wiki-tricks to sign posts and what not.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.77.202.73 (talk • contribs) .

First, you can simply use ~~~~ to sign posts. Second, you seem quite knowledgeable so please do stick around and get a user ID!  :) Third, another good point about the DH in Minnesota. What we're still disagreeing on is how speculative that assertion is. So if Nixon is not suspended and he is the leadoff hitter, that means that he definitely would have been on first base in that situation? Of course not! Smith got two hits in that game - if he had gotten those same two hits from another spot in the lineup, that would have thrown off the course of the whole game and Nixon probably would not have even batted in that inning. In fact, the Braves took seven games to beat Pittsburgh in the NLCS - with Nixon not suspended, his crappy second-half hitting may have caused Pittsburgh to go to the World Series in the first place. I could get so speculative as to say that, if Nixon hadn't been on coke, he wouldn't have been good enough to be in the majors at all! The reality is that this is Wikipedia so you're limited as to what can be said. All of these speculations are original research if they have not been put forward by a reliable source. Read WP:V and WP:NOR. Any sort of speculation on your part or my part is not allowed. Neither of our opinions count. If no reliable source has done a writeup on how Nixon would have made everything better, than it doesn't belong in the article. —Wknight94 (talk) 14:25, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I really don't mean to be snarky, so please forgive me if I do. I have a couple of problems with what you said in the last post that are actually beyond Lonnie Smith and his skating incident. First of all, saying that the Lonnie Smith incident would not have happened if Otis Nixon had not been suspended is far removed from original research. My dissertation was original research. Commenting something that is a common fact among long time Atlanta Braves fan is not, by any means, original research. There is really no way that you can do "original research" on a counterfactual. Second, you are taking speculation to an extreme. Sure, we could speculate that if Otis Nixon's mother had used a condom then Lonnie Smith still would have made the mistake. It is totally reasonable that a suspension of an everyday starting outfielder three weeks before the postseason and the inclusion of a decidedly inferior baserunner, who made a tragic mistake in Game 7, changed the outcome of the World Series. We have a set of facts (1. Suspension 2. Smith as Leadoff 3. Smith screwing up) and it is a completely logical inference that the three things changed the outcome of the series. You can't have #3 without #1. Real historians who publish books and do "original research" make these sorts of inferences. Why are these not allowed in Wikipedia? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 12.77.202.97 (talk • contribs) .

Like I said, read WP:NOR. Wikipedia is not a place for "logical inferences" and "common facts among long time Atlanta Braves fans". Wikipedia is for stating things that have been written in books and newspapers, etc. You can also check out WP:RS which basically says that books and newspapers, etc., have editors that do fact checking and such. This is a perfect example of why verification is needed - I happen to disagree with your logical inferences and my reasoning is just as sound (to me anyway). If Smith had gotten one of his two hits from the lower spot in the lineup, the entire game is impossible to reconstruct and, going further, if Nixon hadn't been suspended, the entire postseason is impossible to reconstruct. If it were more clear cut like Bobby Cox electing not to use Nixon as a pinch-runner in that exact situation, maybe I could get behind it. But even then, if a reliable source were not attached to it, anyone would be allowed to remove it without recourse (and they could say anything like the pitcher would have pitched to the next hitter differently or Nixon would've stolen 2b and then the next hitter would be walked intentionally or whatever). All you need to do is find some reliable writeup which mentions the Nixon/Smith comparison and then the statement is allowed. Otherwise, you and I are in a battle of original research and, in those situations, we both lose and no one's statement is allowed. —Wknight94 (talk) 11:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

An old baseball encyclopedia

I have a question. I seem to remember that my father had a copy of a World Series encyclopedia that was published right after the 1991 WS. In it, there was an excerpt talking about the "base running gaffe" by Lonnie Smith, and how it "might have altered the outcome of the series". Here is my question....if I could get my hands on that encyclopedia (I am sure that my father has it....he never throws ANYTHING away, especially not something like that) and provide a copy of the reference, would that help to resolve the NPOV dispute regarding Lonnie Smith in the 1991 series?

On an unrelated side note, I really think that poor Lonnie Smith should be let off the hook after all these years for what happened in the 1991 WS. It is equally as easy to make an argument that the Twins' first baseman Kent Hrbek "cheated" by pulling Ron Gant off base in....Game 2, if memory serves (Tommy Glavine was pitching, he pitched Game 2). I think the final score of that game was 1-0, and if the Braves had won that game and gone on to win the series......Well, I'll let anyone that reads this draw their own conclusions. However, I doubt there is any mentioned of the Kent Hrbek-Ron Gant fiasco in the afforementioned WS encyclopedia anyway.

P.S. - I do not yet have a Wikipedia account, and I don't want to leave my e-mail here for the general public to see. I'll check back later to see if anyone comments on my encyclopedia reference offer.

- A former Atlantan (and still a Braves fan despite all the heartaches).

The encyclopedia you're looking for is probably the Neft-Cohen book "The World Series". I don't know whether it would affect the NPOV issue, as the Neft-Cohen book may contain a POV itself. The play itself is as much a tribute to the decoy skills of the Twins' shortstop and second baseman (Gagne and Knoblauch) as to any gaffe on Smith's part.

Now go create your Wiki account. It's easy to do, and makes this part so much easier.

You think you have problems? I live in Kansas City, and gave up on the Royals years ago. My favorite team? The Montréal Expos. Talk about cursed!

Couillaud 04:02, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

What does NPOV mean? Also, I have seen replay of top of 8th inning of game 7 of 1991 WS, and I saw that 2nd baseman Knoblauch pretended to throw to SS Greg Gagne as Smith rounded 2nd. Smith paused, and only got to 3rd on a play where he could have scored. He was eventually out in force at home plate and the game remained scoreless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.47 (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

(Oops, I just discovered "Neutral Point of View". By the way, the warning to baserunners, in light of episodes like this, is not to base your actions on what the fielders are doing, because the fielders could be faking it.)

a change I made earlier this month -- could there be something not in the replay I saw?

Last March 2, I made a change which was annotated as: (→‎1991 World Series: Corrected the description of what Knoblauch did.)

The old text which I replaced was:

>replays from the TV coverage of the game showed that the Twins' second baseman Chuck Knoblauch had deceived Smith by pretending to receive the baseball thrown in from the outfielder

Unfortunately, I cannot get to the "Battle Scars" article in "The State" (a newspaper in Columbia, South Carolina); that's the reference mentioned in footnote attached to the replaced text and my new text. But what I saw on youtube was what I described in the change I made: Knoblauch pretending to throw to Gagne for a force despite not having the ball. It does occur to me that Knoblauch could have pretended to receive a throw from the outfield before faking the throw to Gagne, but if Knoblauch pretended to receive a throw from the outfield, I was unable to see it. It is rare (at least in the major leagues) for an actual throw from the outfield to arrive in time for an infielder to throw to someone covering a base for a force. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.47 (talk) 15:33, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

As for ACTUALLY taking a throw from the outfield: After Gagne and Knoblauch did that decoy, Gagne (shortstop) headed toward left center field (getting the throw from the outfield) as Knoblauch (2nd baseman) headed toward 2nd base; at the same time, Pendleton (running out his double) arrived at 2nd and Smith, who could have scored had he not been taken in by the decoy, arrived at 3rd.

A TV announcer said he thought the Braves were getting a bad break because (he thought) the ball was going to bounce OVER the outfield fence, but instead that the Braves got a bad break because of the baserunning gaffe. There would have been no penalty if Smith had kept on going to home plate and it turned out the ball bounced over the fence; THAT scenario would have sent Smith back to 3rd. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.63.16.47 (talk) 18:01, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• PHI1980R27SMITH.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 16:53, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Lonnie Smith (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:32, 6 December 2022 (UTC)