Talk:Don Mossi

Don Mossi and "Ugliness"
A while back, I deleted the passage regarding Mossi's physical appearance. I would like to open a discussion on this. Today, in talking with a friend of mine, perfectly out of the blue and without any knowledge that I'd ever touched the Wikipedia article about him, he said something about a guy being "uglier than Don Mossi". Now, of course anecdote isn't enough to support a Wikipedia entry, however it did make me realize that the whole "ugliness" was maybe worth another look. Apparently, his ugliness *is* pretty definitive of who is was... It is cited and discussed in a number of reliable sources. Does anyone have any opinion on this? Does anyone thing the whole "ugly" thing should be a part of the article or not? --LoverOfArt (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Have you ever seen a picture of the guy? Holy Jesus that man is ugly! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.231.208.82 (talk) 01:36, 3 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the guy was uglier than an ass- no doubt about that... The question is- is adding it to his Wikipedia entry OK? This seems to be a very interesting "gray area" sort of matter where in most all other traditional ways, something like this would be inappropriate for Wikipedia but in this one, totally specific and narrow instance, it might fit the criteria as being OK. Any opinions? --LoverOfArt (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Bill James devoted some substantial discussion to it in a couple places. Realistically, this qualifies Mossi as "notably ugly".  James at the very least says "Don Mossi was the complete five-tool ugly player. He could run ugly, hit ugly, throw ugly, field ugly and ugly for power. He was ugly to all fields. He could ugly behind the runner as well as anybody, and you talk about pressure ... man, you never saw a player who was uglier in the clutch. " about Mossi in the section "The Man Who Invented Winning Ugly" in his 2001 Baseball Abstract .. Wily D  13:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

"Never recognized for defense"
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say he was "rarely" recognized for his defense? Saying he is never recognized for his defense and then citing a publicly available statistic that shows otherwise seems circular.