Talk:Major League Baseball All-Century Team

Barry Bonds
Someone substituted Barry Bonds in for Stan Musial. I guess to put an asterisk next to his name. I fixed it. 134.121.244.108 12:59, 20 October 2007 (UTC)


 * And the players were unveiled in Atlanta before game three of the World Series. Not sure how the writer got that one wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.121.244.108 (talk) 13:04, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

America is racist
you put ripken but not o. smith? where is r. henderson all time in steals and runs? you cannot count white players that played before 1947. where is clemente? well i got a real new century list for you crackers here it is : 1. a. pujols 2. a. rodriguez 3. m. ramirez 4. r. howard 5. v. guerrero 5. a. jones 6. m. tejada 7. b. colon 8. d. jeter 9. a. soriano 10. d. ortiz 11. b. bonds 12. m. cabrera 13. o.smith 14. d. winfield 15. w. mccovey 16. s. paige 17. h. aaron 18. w. mays 19. b. gibson 20. e. banks 21. r. clemente 22. w. stargell 23. j. robinson 24. f. robinson

Fight racism with racism? And besides, this was not selected by committee. It was VOTED ON by the FANS! Kochamanita (talk) 00:29, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 75.74.0.50 (talk) 03:29, 8 April 2007 (UTC).

To be fair, it's only because Cal Ripken was better than Ozzie Smith. Of course, he couldn't do backflips so there's that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.149.7.114 (talk) 15:22, 15 July 2011 (UTC)

Latino Players
I tried to clarify the paragraph about Latino players. Took out Bonds, Henderson and Musial, none of whom are Latino. Just cut and pasted Bonds and Ricky into the other paragraph about omissions. Novastarj 01:28, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The following comments were added to the article page by an anonymous user (68.234.22.204)
this list is plain racist no frank robinson no satchel page? no rickey henderson steals and runs all time leader? no ken griffey only mostly white players that played with white players? very racist list


 * Maybe it is. But the point here is to just list the facts. And we just list the players who were placed on the team. And I do count 6 black players (including Ken Griffey Jr., who you said isn't on it), a little low but not horrible for a sport that forbade black players for the first 50 years of the time period this list covers. The big glaring omission is Latino players, covered in the controversy section. Novastarj 02:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

those crackers put 5 black players out of 20. god damn racist hypocrites

Someone accuses racism then uses racist language. Funny. It really is. Besides, the FANS voted on this. Last I checked, 40% or so of the population is either African-American or Hispanic, so maybe you've got a beef with the voting fans. Kochamanita (talk) 00:31, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

Votes
I appreciate the effort you put in to include all of the votes for each player, but is it neccessary? I feel like it makes the article look a bit convoluted. Opinions? Does it add to the information there? Novastarj 23:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)


 * well, i think it's necesary because that way you know how many votes each person got. Plus i added the number of votes so i could leave only people who was close to the top in each category and get rid of the people who wasn't. In the "controversy" part of it people just added the name of their favorite player when they weren't even close to making the team and yet they were "worth mentioning" ?? Plus i wanted people to have an idea of who got the most votes and how far apart the second and first person for each position were. i don't think that makes it convoleted. It's clear enough for and and organized enough for me. --CesarCossio 02:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ehh.... I just feel the info is easily enough accessible via the external links. I don't have a huge problem with it. Unless other people post here with my same thoughts, I have no problem with it staying. Novastarj 23:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversy/Snubs
Reading through the whole "Controversy" section, it's getting awfully convoluted. I'm thinking of limiting it to more controversal issues related to baseball as a game (such as lack of latino player, steroids, lack of negro league player, Pete Rose drama), and creating a new section just listing possibly deserving players. Since there are countless good players who didn't make the team who might have deserved to, I'm not sure this really belongs in controversy. Novastarj 02:10, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * yeah, i don't get what "controversy" has to do with the all-century team anyway. i don't even think that should be in there but okay, whatever, but yeah, that's a good idea Novastarj. --CesarCossio 02:19, 24 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Okay, I added the "Snubs" section (wasn't logged in at the time). Honestly I'm not even sure it's neccessary. I'd rather just eliminate it entirely, since there are COUNTLESS players who you could make an argument for putting on the team. I'll leave it up for now and wait for feedback. Novastarj 02:47, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * i like what you did and as i said before i also think that shouldn't be in there at all since the article is about the "MLB All Century Team" and not about who didn't make the team or who should have made the team. To make it fair (in a way) why don't we vote for who wants that information to stay and who doesn't want it to stay. We would need to set a time limit (a week or whatever) I don;t know, just an idea.--CesarCossio 07:32, 29 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd still rather eliminate than have the 2 or 3 people who check this page vote. Just too many possible "snubs." But let's see what we can do with the list, and how many people respond., If this doesn't work then maybe we'll eliminate it. Novastarj 18:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Voting on Snub List
Ok, I've never run this kind of thing before, but I'll give it a shot. We're going to vote on who to include on the "Snub" list in this article.

The rules are this. You can list up to 3 players who you think are most deserving of being mentioned as a "snub." Players do not need to be on the current snub list, but they must not be mentioned in either the current team, or the "Controversy" section.

The voting for the initial list will last until August 8th, though input can be made later and the list can be amended accordingly. There is no set amount of votes a player needs to be included on the snub list. We will simply include the top vote getters (probably 5-7 players) in the article. Novastarj 18:41, 31 July 2006 (UTC)



Okay, since no one voted on this yet, I'll just leave it open. Once we have a few people who have voted, maybe we'll try to finalize the list. Novastarj 02:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

isn't suppose to be about the All Century Team not about who didn't make the team?? --CesarCossio 06:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)


 * I actually agree with you. I was just building off your suggestion above. Anyway, we'll stop this unless the list of snubs grows larger. Novastarj 13:18, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

The above conversation is obsolete, since the voting never actually happened (and was decided that it would not contribute to the article in any way). Novastarj 02:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Location of Ceremony
I feel like I'm living on this page today. Anyway, the article mentions the players were presented prior to Game 2 of the World Series, but I'm fairly certain it was actually before the All-Star game. Or at least there was SOME kind of ceremony before the All-Star game. Does anyone know for certain? Novastarj 18:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC) There were ceremonies at both. The ASG was at Fenway that year (remember the Ted Williams thing?). Woodshed 06:33, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Eeesh
Wow, this is a terrible list. Fans should not be allowed to vote on anything. McGwire as the second best 1B of all time? Griffey in the top OFs? Also, I removed the "snubs" section as obvious original research.Wickethewok 21:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The voting was in 1999, not 2006, which would explain both McGwire and Griffey. These lists by their nature are going to create disagreement. (Somebody's going to re-insert the Snubs section -- just you wait). Woodshed 03:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * i like your edit Woodshed and Wickethewok didn't you read here that we decided on keeping that even though it wasn't neccesary?? before making such a drastic change (removed a list of 10+ players is drastic) you should discuss it first. I know there's no law or rule or anything like that that prevents you from doing that but we (me and whoever else who wants to be include in "we") would appreciate it if you do that before removing something. --CesarCossio 05:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * The "Missed the Cut" section had some original research. You guys voted on who should be on there for heavens sake. I mean, it can't get any more original than that. Is there some sort of statistical criteria for being on the "missed the cut" list? Cuz that would be OK, but not just a list of guys the people on this editor should be on the list, but didn't make it. Wickethewok 12:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * No, it isn't OR. Please read the external links and inform yourself on the team. Woodshed 12:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, okay. So its the highest vote totals that didn't make it?  Thats better than before where it included arbitrary people.  Thanks for adding the clarification in the article.  Wickethewok 12:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
 * why are you editing your comment after somebody replied to it already???--CesarCossio 01:40, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

mistake
Is there a mistake in the number of votes? It shows Roberto Clemente got more votes then Stan Musial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.119.33.110 (talk) 03:28, 23 December 2009 (UTC)

Pictures for list of members
Why is there a Koufax pic? Why not Ryan, Bonds, Ruth, Gehrig, etc ad infinitum? Picking one makes him look like a "favorite" or "most deserving." There shouldn't be one, I don't think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kochamanita (talk • contribs) 02:04, 20 February 2011 (UTC)

"Cross"
The symbol that is used to tell which player is in the Hall-Of-Fame looks like a cross, which is often used to show that the persons has died. It is a little eerie, is there another sign to use ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.159.36.182 (talk) 12:20, 16 August 2013 (UTC)

Not sure why this got lined out, but it's a valid point. HOF members are already designated by the highlight, adding the cross symbol seems redundant, and as was mentioned, looks like the symbol that is used elsewhere (including Wikipedia) for designating that a person is deceased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:1800:1440:0:0:0:34ED (talk) 17:11, 26 September 2022 (UTC)