Talk:Rickey Henderson/Archive 3

Good article
This article is a good article, as compared with many WP articles. However, the reviewers don't think so &mdash; it has failed GA review three times. The good article review page lists all the good article critiques. Please go there if you want to help improve this article. Timneu22 (talk) 11:14, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * This has now been peer-reviewed, and thoughtfully edited by many. GA Nominating again... Timneu22 (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Intro
Systematically listing all nine teams Henderson played for is ponderous, considering it follows "in a 25-year career with nine clubs" from the opening paragraph, since about a third of the franchises are in the "he played there?" category, and especially since the full list of teams is available in the infobox immediately to the right. If there's a Wikipedia consensus to begin articles by citing all teams for all athletes, okay, but otherwise it expands the intro with little payoff.

The "...in four different decades" achievement is interesting, but esoteric. The "most before age 30/after age 30" tidbit would be a less trivial SB factoid, although both are better suited to the body of the stolen base sections.

Let me know if/how you disagree. Also, the "unintentional walks" total was way off. 208.120.6.206 (talk) 04:27, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * There is almost always overlap between info listed in the info box and in the lead in every article on wikipedia. I checked a few other baseball players, and each of them list the teams they have played for in the introduction.  The stolen bases in four decades fact speaks in part to the longevity of Henderson's career.  In order for the lead to meet GA introduction requirements, it is going to need to be at least as long as it was before your last revision.  You can adjust what is mentioned in the lead and how it is mentioned.  You can work with it if you like.  The lead could use some more information pulling from every section of the article, but until that introduction is achieved, the introduction better meets style guidelines (concerning paragraph length) and WP:lead guidelines the way the introduction was before your last revision.User:calbear22 (talk) 09:37, 17 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I reverted the intro to previous. I believe it gives this article the best chance for GA. Timneu22 (talk) 22:19, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

The straight reversion restored an error of fact (Henderson's intentional walks total, which had been fixed). I cut the mentions of teams that Henderson played fewer than 100 games for. I hope that my current edit will be closer to everyone's liking. 208.120.6.206 (talk) 03:17, 18 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Yeah, looks real good. Timneu22 (talk) 15:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Olerud Anecdote
I am removing the anecdote about Rickey commenting on Olerud's batting helmet worn in the field. Snopes.com lists this story as a false rumour. -Seidenstud (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

A major recently noted problem
I just noticed that there are blogs (blogspot) and comment boards (snopes.com) referenced. These sources are are not WP:verifiable. We need to find alternatives.User:calbear22 (talk) 20:57, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Infobox
Don't you think perhaps his 297 homeruns is more noteworth than his 279 career batting average for the infobox--UhOhFeeling (talk) 06:38, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * That's a tough call. I'm not sure that either are really important. Rickey is all about steals and runs. Timneu22 (talk) 23:48, 24 March 2008 (UTC)


 * True he is all about steals and runs, perhaps we should have runs their instead then. I just think .279 average doesn't really elucidate what a great player he was.--UhOhFeeling (talk) 17:51, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Cards In The Clubhouse
I do not see how this is irrellivant-as this was the main reason that the Mets released him, I am putting it back in for now. 69.122.127.162 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.122.127.162 (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Infobox timeline
Please do not bunch Henderson's separate stints with the same team together. It was agreed upon here in topic #36 Baseball player infoboxes that the list of teams should be in chronological order. Jackal4 (talk) 05:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Image
I think the infobox image should be of his playing days. This is what makes him notable. Timneu22 (talk) 17:22, 25 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Disagree (which is why I changed it). The infobox image should be the highest quality image available for the person.  Maybe you can cut corners a bit for playing vs. non-playing days but, with the picture that was there before, you could hardly tell it was him!  The only legitimate choices IMHO are the 853x1280 commons:Image:Rickey Henderson (New York Mets coach).jpg or the 520x624 commons:Image:Rickeyhenderson2002.jpg.  —Wknight94 (talk) 17:37, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Suggestions prior to GA review

 * I have a concern about a statement in the "Legacy" section: "All that is remembered, however..." I'm sure many people remember more of the speech, so this should probably be rephrased. In addition, the sentence in the text quotes Henderson as saying, "I am the greatest of all time." In the quotation box, however, the quotation is "I'm the greatest of all time." This should be consistent.
 * Fixed, I think.   jj137   ( talk )  21:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Saying what the speech "sounds like" is POV.
 * Fixed, I'm pretty sure it is NPOV now.   jj137   ( talk )  21:03, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * There shouldn't be a space before reference 30.
 * Fixed.   jj137   ( talk )  19:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't see a need or the double quotation marks before reference 44.
 * Fixed.   jj137   ( talk )  19:27, 5 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Ideally, the term "illeism" should be explained in the text rather than forcing readers to follow the wikilink.
 * Fixed, although there might be a better way to reword it.   jj137   ( talk )  21:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * More references are needed in the "New York Yankees (1985–1989)" section.
 * Fixed, I think. I added more refs in that section.   jj137   ( talk )  20:49, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * Henderson's statistics for 2004 in the "Retirement" section should be referenced.
 * Fixed.   jj137   ( talk )  20:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * No need for two periods before reference 39.
 * Fixed.   jj137   ( talk )  20:25, 16 August 2008 (UTC)
 * The references are missing important information. At minimum, they should include a title, publisher, url, and accessdate. If a publication date and/or author is listed, this information should be included as well. See Citing sources for the template.
 * Yep, I'm pretty sure as much information as possible is on just about every (or maybe all of them, I'm not sure) ref, so I don't think that needs to be improved. If I see something though, I'll touch up on it.   jj137   ( talk )  20:55, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

I know a few of these are very minor and I should fix them myself, but I'm just listing them as I see them. I'll come back to this when I have time and get them if nobody else has. I hope this helps, as I would love to see this article as a GA. Best wishes, GaryColemanFan (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Another thing that could be fixed: reference #19 doesn't cover the majority of the information in the paragraph. GaryColemanFan (talk) 20:03, 18 August 2008 (UTC)

Introduction revert
I reverted an edit by MisfitToys; there were numerous problems with the changes that were made:
 * The article went through GA review, and the introduction reached its current form because of the work and discussion of many editors.
 * The edits made the introduction too long.
 * Some of the edit was not correct, such as adding an extra wikilink to the Lou Brock article.

The revert was not meant to offend; I simply don't believe the previous edit made the article better. Timneu22 (talk) 00:12, 8 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you found "unconstructive" about my edit of the intro; I specified his position in the first line (standard for player bios), added the material about his career defensive marks and franchise records (which had not been in the article), corrected a factual error (the year Bonds broke his career walks record, 2004 rather than 2007), and replaced the comment about his career HR ranking (historically less significant) with the one of his leadoff HR record (very significant). The intro length (three paragraphs and a brief quote) is not inappropriate under WP guidelines, especially for an article of this size with a large infobox. I didn't add an extra link to the Brock article; I simply switched its position in the article. And achievement of GA status doesn't preclude further revisions. MisfitToys (talk) 00:29, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm not going to revert again, however I am going to make many changes. There is no reason to bombard the intro with things like "50% more", etc.; this information is covered elsewhere. Some stats are okay, but I look at other articles like Ted Williams or Stan Musial or Cal Ripken. As it is, the intro is not concise enough Timneu22 (talk) 00:36, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the Williams intro is IMO decidedly substandard, and the Musial intro is really atrocious; Ripken's intro doesn't mention his various awards and skips most of his records, but awkwardly lingers on details about his family, which belong further down. I'd be more inclined to compare to FAs like Lee Smith and Moe Berg, and former FA Jackie Robinson; Babe Ruth's intro is about the same size as Henderson's now. I included the 50% remark only to indicate that he broke the record by a staggering margin. Again, I'll note the GA review, which requested a longer intro. MisfitToys (talk) 00:43, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I Tthink we should try to get all the intros to be consistant with retired players--Yankees10 00:45, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There should be no desire to make an intro longer or shorter; the goal is to make the intro better. Adding a bunch of numbers to the intro made it very, very difficult to read. I stripped out alot of that stuff in my recent edits. An intro should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article; it's not a place to overwhelm the reader with numbers of putouts. In addition, consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article when creating a lead section. These are good guidelines to follow. Timneu22 (talk) 01:19, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If an article has a one-paragraph intro, it's simply not going to be an FA, not matter how well-written that par is; the style guidelines clearly indicate how long an intro should be, based on the article length, and the Henderson article's length indicates 3-4 paragraphs (a difference of a couple of sentences is not going to make any real difference in this regard). I have to strongly disagree about the numbers; intros for bios of players should always include the significant records they hold, and not including the specific numbers forces the reader to hunt for them in the body of the article (and it hardly lengthens the intro substantially, nor does it "overwhelm" the reader). I don't think we should include who previously or subsequently held such records unless it was a point of particular attention (e.g. Maris passing Ruth), and specific dates don't belong either (the prev version noted the date on which Henderson broke the career SB mark). But I certainly wouldn't mention Roger Maris setting the single-season HR record without noting his total of 61, nor should the intro to the Barry Bonds article omit his record single-season total and career totals. Also, the fact that Henderson was the leadoff hitter for two WS champions is not historically notable, being true of quite a few players; that doesn't really belong in the intro. What does belong is a summary of (roughly) his ten most notable achievements, including career defensive records; omitting mention of his 3,000+ hits would be especially bewildering. Also, the stats don't really become extensive until the third par. You not only deleted the line about his personality (something specifically requested in the GA review, which you haven't addressed), you also re-introduced the factual error I noted above. I can understand your reluctance about including some of the stats in the intro, but you deleted them from the article completely without shifting them further down; they clearly belong somewhere. Finally, I'll add that today's FA, Nimrod Expedition, has just as long an intro despite being a decidedly shorter article. MisfitToys (talk) 20:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what happened to a comment I was sure I posted here yesterday, but I brought up the fact that the GA review specifically asked that the intro be longer and include something about his personality, as well as more info about his accomplishments/legacy; the version which existed prior to that criticism is essentially identical to the one you're favoring. MisfitToys (talk) 21:27, 9 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The current revision is absolutely horrible. I don't have time to revert. Your "prickley personality" note doesn't fit AT ALL in the flow of things, and all those statistics really do make it difficult to read. In one of the GA reviews, a reviewer complained that this occurs often for baseball articles &mdash; an editor wants to include every statistic because it is a statistical game. His number of steals is worth keeping in the intro, but putouts and at-bats and chances? Come on. It just looks ridiculous. Timneu22 (talk) 22:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * My version answers several of the GA review's criticisms about your version, including the mention of his personality. The fact that he ranked among the top ten players in major league history in the three areas you noted certainly deserves mention, as it clearly illustrates his durability and prowess. MisfitToys (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Well clearly you have hijacked the article for your own preferences. I at least tried to compromise with my recent edit, but you completely reverted it. I guess you must be right and I must be wrong, huh? Is your way just so much better? I just don't care any more &mdash; I don't need a revert war. It is pathetic; you're not even willing to compromise or consider any other way but your own. Good day. I hope someone else comes along and fixes your mess. Timneu22 (talk) 03:49, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm not trying to "hijack" anything, but readers shouldn't be forced to hunt for relevant material which can be added in brief parenthetical notes that don't substantially lengthen the intro; you've also repeatedly reverted a factual error. In an attempt to resolve this, I've asked the editor who did the GA review to have a look at the two versions and offer suggestions. MisfitToys (talk) 20:23, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

What are the issues with the article?
MisfitToys asked my opinion on the varying versions of this article, since I had done the GA review. But I need to know what your goals are before I can be of much help.

Are you trying to get this article to FA status? I looked and could only find one American baseball player that was a FA: Sandy Koufax. Perhaps you could look through FA - Sports and recreation and spot more. It's always helps to look at articles that have passed the test! And also look at Featured article criteria.

I am not really clear what the disagreement is, except over a few relatively small points. If you let me know what you want to accomplish, I will try to help you do that. Regards, &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:05, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

I also found Bob Meusel which I copy edited to get its FA status! &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:15, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The issue is clearly that MisfitToys reverts the introduction to the revision of his liking, and he refuses to acknowledge his method could be wrong. He has overloaded the intro with far too many statistics that are not relevant, he has placed information in an illogical order, and he has even added a sentence that doesn't come close to flowing with the rest of what is being discussed.


 * Just taking the statistics part of this argument, let it be stated simply that Babe Ruth is probably the greatest player ever. Based on this assumption, let's do a comparison of introductions between the articles. Babe Ruth holds dozens of records, some significant and some not. The following stats are in the Ruth intro, and they are all significant:
 * First player to hit 60 HR.
 * A record which stood 34 years until 1961 Roger.
 * Lifetime HR of 714
 * Record for 39 years until Hank 1974
 * .342 average is 10th highest
 * 1923 he hit .393
 * .690 slugging in career
 * 1.164 career OPS
 * One sentence... lead league in
 * HR 12 times
 * Slugging 13 times
 * OPS 13 times
 * Runs eight times
 * RBI six times


 * This is an adequate amount of information. Now compare to the current Rickey revision that MisfitToys has reverted to twice:
 * Holds records for steals (1406)
 * and runs (2295)
 * Also for single-season 130 in 1982
 * Only player in AL to steal 100
 * Did it three times.
 * Ten-time all star
 * AL MVP in 1990
 * .325 average and 28 HR.
 * "not only 119 runs but second in slugging average .577"
 * 81 leadoff HR
 * 2190 walks record
 * Broken by Barry in 2004
 * Over 50 steals 13 times
 * including 66 at 39
 * AL walks 12 times
 * Runs 5 times
 * Walks 4 times
 * Batted .300 seven times
 * 13 seasons 100 runs
 * 25th player 3000
 * Fourth in games 3081
 * Tenth in AB 10961
 * Third in OF games 2827
 * Third in OF putouts 6472
 * 5th in OF chances 6745
 * Held career LF games from 2001 to 2004 when Barry played 2423
 * A's Franchise records
 * Runs 1270
 * Walks 1227
 * Steals 867
 * games 1704
 * AB 6140
 * hits 1768
 * doubles 289
 * total bases 2640
 * Yankee steals 326


 * So there you have it. Babe Ruth, maybe the greatest player ever? Seven primary statistics listed. This article? Over twenty. I have listed all these stats here to show an objective view of the discussion &mdash; there are just too many statistics in the current revision! I tried to compromise between the Misfit's revision and the previous revision that existed for some time, but he flat-out reverted my edits. Here are some more notes:
 * My revision stated: Widely regarded as the sport's greatest leadoff hitter and baserunner, he holds major league records for career stolen bases, runs scored, and leadoff home runs. The current revision has the leadoff HR note somewhere else, which doesn't flow as well. In the current revision, the "widely regarded" sentence is something of a run-on.
 * My revision stated: He was named the AL's Most Valuable Player in 1990 after batting .325 with 28 home runs, leading the league with 119 runs and finishing second in slugging average (.577) as Oakland won its third consecutive pennant. The current revision says not only leading the league with 119 runs but also finishing second in slugging average (.577) . Why is this "not only" text in there? How is this relevant?


 * For all those career stats listed above, I tried to summarize it in prose and remove stats that aren't terribly relevant (putouts, etc.). My revision stated simply: At the time of his last major league game in 2003, Henderson ranked among the sport's top 100 all-time home run hitters; he was also the all-time leader in walks with 2,190, a record since surpassed by Barry Bonds in 2007. As of 2008, Henderson ranks in the top-ten lists for career at bats and games, and he is in the top-five for career putouts, games, total chances for outfielders. He holds the franchise stolen base record for both the Oakland A's and New York Yankees.


 * I just do not think the current revision is pleasing to the reader because it has far too many numbers and it does not flow in a logical manner. Thank you. Timneu22 (talk) 22:52, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * Coincidentally, I just posted a similar complaint about the lead below. I agree that a selected number of significant statistics should be chosen for the lead. Too many statistics result in the really important ones getting buried, plus the reader is overwhelmed with too much info. The lead is supposed to be a summary, not of all the details, but of the main elements of the article.
 * Also, I have been struggling in my mind with the flow in the lead:


 * "Henderson was also noted for his sometimes prickly personality, which often led observers to brand him egocentric and self-aggrandizing. He was named the AL's Most Valuable Player in 1990 after batting .325 with 28 home runs, not only leading the league with 119 runs but also finishing second in slugging average (.577) as Oakland won its third consecutive pennant. ..."


 * The problem is that the first sentence (the lead sentence of that paragraph) has nothing to do with anything that follows in the sentence. The subject is his personality, but then the topic immediately changes to a listing of his achievements.

&mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 23:13, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Also, I think the lead should give a rough chronology of his life. For example, he was drafted by the Oakland A, then  brief descriptions of his successes (or other events) as he moved from team to team. This way the reader gets a sense of the overall arc of his life story, focusing on his professional life.


 * Indeed, I alread made the comment to Misfit about the "prickley personality" (and mentioned it in my remarks here). If I change that, he'll just revert it, though. Timneu22 (talk) 23:40, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * First, the various baseball bios which have reached FA status can be found here. If you're interested, you might have a look at the article I did for Billy Pierce, which was promoted to GA status (I haven'y yet pushed for FA, as I have a couple of things I'd still like to get added, including a graph). I got a nice note from the VP of SABR, stating that the article was one of the best things they'd ever seen on Wikipedia, so I must be doing something right. Also, during the review process when I was promoted to admin status, it was commented that I was one of the site's best baseball editors; again, it was nice feedback on my work.


 * I'll note that the Ruth article is not an FA; the intro clearly could be improved with additional depth, particularly regarding his pitching. Anyway, Henderson set a bunch of career records, each of which should be noted; we're trying (in 3-4 pars) to indicate not only his career heights but also the breadth of his accomplishments; I included mention of the franchise marks to illustrate his major place in the history of a specific franchise.


 * As for the line about his personality, that was a major aspect of his persona during his playing career, and the GA review specifically asked that his personality be mentioned in the intro. I'd be happy to work together on a way to include it more seamlessly, but just deleting it altogether is not ideal. I included stats in the line about his MVP season in order to illustrate why he won, and how the season stands out from his other years; the "not only" was included to show the unusual surge of power. Inclusion among the top 100 career HR hitters is not particularly notable, especially for a player with Henderson's career length; his leadoff HR total is of major significance, while his overall total is not.


 * I continue to maintain that anytime a player ends his career among the all-time top ten in a major category (either offensive or defensive, including putouts and chances), it should be mentioned in the intro; these are major signifiers of the player's accomplishment.


 * I suppose that a big reason I was reverting so insistently was Timneu's repeated re-insertion of a factual error (the year Bonds broke the walks record); to me, it indicated both carelessness and indifference to accuracy on Timneu's part. Sorry if that was not the case. It's true that the previous version had existed for several months, but Matisse's GA review in August had specifically asked for improvements to what was essentially the same intro. MisfitToys (talk) 18:52, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Mattisse has done some more edits today. If you have more information to add, please start from the current revision. Timneu22 (talk) 18:57, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Comments on the lead
Currently part of the lead reads as follows:

Widely regarded as the sport's greatest leadoff hitter and baserunner, he holds major league records for career stolen bases (1,406) and runs scored (2,295); he also holds the single-season record for stolen bases (130 in 1982), and remains the only player in American League (AL) history to steal 100 bases in a season, having done so three times.


 * Since everything in the lead should also already be in the article body, you don't need footnotes. Footnotes are to be avoided in the lead, since they can be in the article body when the material is mentioned there.
 * I wonder if all the statistics have to be given in the lead. For example, you could say:
 * "he also holds the single-season record for stolen bases" leaving off "(130 in 1982)" as presumably that is mentioned in the article body.
 * &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 22:56, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I agree, and I made this claim to MisfitToys. My revision eliminated all the numbers in the lead (oddly, with the exception of the "130 in 1982". I'm glad MisfitToys brought you into this discussion! Timneu22 (talk) 23:43, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mattisse, you may be interested in viewing this version of the article; we could probably use this as a starting point and merge your recent changes. It seems like you will appreciate this lead more than the current revision. Timneu22 (talk) 23:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That version needs some work though. It still has footnotes in the lead, and it does not have a rough chronology of his career. You can't rely completely on the infobox. Also, you do have to work in a para about his personality as that is mentioned prominently in the article. The lead should summarize the article with the info summarized in approximate proportion to the space it is given in the article. Leads are hard to write. Have you read recently MoS:Lead? &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 00:09, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand WP:LEAD, however I think the "no-footnotes" thing hasn't always been a rule. Anyway, I think the revision I cite could still use work, but it seems a better starting point, especially for points mentioned here (personality sentence in the wrong place, too many stats). Timneu22 (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * You're right. The "no-footnotes" thing isn't a rule, but more of a convention. And actually, they seem to be moving toward allowing footnotes in the lead. &mdash; Mattisse (Talk) 00:19, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Based on where this discussion is heading, I reworked the introduction to remove all but the most important statistics. This is not a perfect introduction, but the goal of WP is to make things better. I believe this is a better starting point. I made a comment for the edit about a to-do list:
 * Possibly add something about his personality. (But in a logical location, please!)
 * Possibly merge the first and second paragraphs. However, this current revision is similar to the Babe Ruth flow... some very notable stats in the first paragraph followed by a "dominant player" paragraph as #2. I think it might be good as-is.
 * Thanks. Timneu22 (talk) 02:44, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems a logical place for info about his personality would be before this paragraph: Henderson was the leadoff hitter for two World Series.... Timneu22 (talk) 02:47, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I do think the Babe Ruth article draws the reader in by humanizing him and not reducing him to a batch of raw statistics. I remember when Rickey Henderson played for the San Diego Padres and being fascinated at his level of his alertness, how on top of every situation he was, especially when stealing bases. It was like he was operating in another realm from more mortal players! &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 05:43, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The lead is very good now. Reads well and definitely gets the point across that he is an all time great player, without overwhelming stats.  The only thing missing (which would be noticed by FAC if you are thinking of that) is mention of his personality quirks, since it is discussed in the article.  &mdash; Mattisse  (Talk) 14:19, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I still think that the World Series titles aren't significant enough to his personal legacy that they should be in the intro, as quite a few players have hit leadoff for two champions; it's far better to note the number of teams for which he played in the first line, as there's no real reason to mention the Padres and Mets here (or Blue Jays, for that matter) - the A's and Yankees are enough. The record for career games in LF is also significant enough to include. I won't reintroduce all the stats, but the career totals for runs and steals are certainly deserving, as are the 3,000+ hits. I'll tweak this a bit more, for your review. MisfitToys (talk) 19:01, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Agree with the weird list of teams. I updated this to say something like "for nine teams including two world champs...". I don't think you're right about the career games in LF or the stats. There are already a couple stats on there. Timneu22 (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Hall of Fame
Well, tomorrow is the day when it is announced Rickey will be inducted into the hall. Suggestion for introduction: change Widely regarded as the sport's greatest leadoff hitter to A future Hall of Famer, he is widelty regarded....

In addition, at the end of the intro we should add: He will be inducted into the Hall of Fame on July 26, 2009. Timneu22 (talk) 20:35, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Misc
208's recent edit is quite accurate. Rickey stole 49.89%, not "more than 50". The current text says "50%" which is accurate enough when rounding 49.89. Timneu22 (talk) 14:27, 12 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks like some good cleanup work, Mattisse... keep it up! Timneu22 (talk) 17:53, 12 January 2009 (UTC)