Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Major League Baseball runs scored champions


 * The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review).  No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was   keep. Mark Arsten (talk) 01:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)

List of Major League Baseball runs scored champions

 * – ( View AfD View log  •  Stats )

Not very notable, evident as there are no sources that specifically refer to "runs scored champions." Furthermore, the single-season achievement of runs scored is less notable than RBIs (which make up part of the Triple Crown). —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:30, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Merge/Redirect I would support a redirect into an article entitled List of Major League Baseball offensive statistic champions which would list HR, RBI, hits, runs, and SB champions. That way they'd all be in one place...I know this would be a very long article but I just think that it would be good to have it all in one place. Go Phightins! (talk) 20:33, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The only problem with that idea is HR, RBI and batting champions should not be amalgamated into a single list with other offensive stats. Those three lists are FLs and make up the featured topic for the Triple Crown.  It's better to keep them separate due to their featured status. —Bloom6132 (talk) 20:43, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I forgot that...that's true. If the new article could be made a featured list, that would work. Or the proposed new page could be entitled List of MLB auxiliary offensive statistic champions or something to that effect. I think the topic of this article is important, but I just can't quite see it being a stand-alone article with only one reference from BR. Go Phightins! (talk) 20:45, 4 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Strong keep. Runs scored is a standard and important statistic in major league baseball, and major league baseball is one of the most notable sports in the world. The content is verifiable and raises no other issues that would militate against retention. As a minor quibble, I think that runs scored leaders is a more usual wording than champions, so I would support a rename. (The phrasing might also explain why the nominator is getting few Google hits.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 19:17, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note: This debate has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. — Frankie (talk) 21:21, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per Newyorkbrad. AutomaticStrikeout 21:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment There are lots of baseball statistics, but not all of them deserve to have lists of the annual leaders. Are there any sources that demonstrate WP:LISTN, namely that "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources"? Articles with prose are expected to establish notability, not references to statistics pages.—Bagumba (talk) 22:39, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Note on MLB.COM that Runs is listed ahead of everything except Games and At-Bats. Baseball rule 10.02 specifies that after a given game, the official scorer will report the stats for each player. The first of these is At-Bats. The second is Runs scored. The third is Hits. (The value of "Games", obviously, is always "1" in that circumstance.) The Elias official annual follows a similar convention: After service records and averages, the first raw stats are At-Bats, then Runs, then Hits. The Sporting News record book, which ceased publication in 2007, followed a similar convention: Service Records, Averages, and then At-Bats, Runs, Hits, etc. The earliest box scores in the game had just two batting stats: Number of Runs, and Number of Times Put Out. As with this 1867 example. Runs scored has ALWAYS been the most important stat, apart from a team's winning percentage, of course. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:38, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think where mlb.com lists them is an adequate representation of their importance. I think that when people are talking about stats, BA and HR come first, and everything else is secondary. Therefore, I'd suggest merging runs scored, at bats, stolen bases, and whatever other non-triple crown stats people feel necessary into one article. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:05, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Triple crown is a "glamour" stat, but it doesn't win pennants. Scoring runs win pennants. In case you've forgotten, it's about winning. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:15, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I understand that, but the role of Wikipedia is not to determine the stats that are most important to winning, but rather the most notable stats that people are interested in reading about. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:20, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * You should maybe read Sabermetrics, which discusses the great importance of runs. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (Bugs, I agree with you, but we should probably see what a couple of other people have to say.) Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:26, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd like to see a citation as to what stats people are most interested in reading about. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 00:33, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * First off, I'd like to clarify, I have don't dispute for a second that runs are the most important total in baseball, but just a quick google news search of "rbi leaders" and "runs scoring leaders" definitely shows far more articles about the RBI than the run scoring lead. As noted by Bloom, the triple crown stat listings are all featured lists, while this is cited only by a baseball reference page. Runs scoring totals get far less coverage than BA, RBI, and HR. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:45, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It would actually make more sense to combine all these season-by-season leaders onto a single page. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * (In response to Baseball Bugs' earlier comment) "Runs scored has ALWAYS been the most important stat." Do you have a source for that?  So far, no one has provided an independent reliable sources that specifically mentions "runs scored champions."  Having just BR as the sole citation is unacceptable.  Multiple sources are needed to establish notability.  So long as no one provides a source referring specifically to "runs scored champions," all these "keep" votes can be (and should be) treated as just votes. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sabermetrics and Bill James, like I already told you. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 19:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Add to the list of refs then. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * In response to your earlier comment about combining them all, that's what I originally proposed, but Bloom had a good point that the triple crown stats are all featured lists and disjointing them might not be a good idea, unless the new article will be a featured list, which it probably won't be, at least right away. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a featured topic as well. —Bloom6132 (talk) 19:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Runs scored is the most important statistic except for winning percentage. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 23:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * RBIs have long been considered the more important stat, evident as it is part of the Triple Crown. Furthermore, RBIs have definitely played a role in getting many players into the HOF.  On the other hand, how many players do you know were inducted primarily base on the number of runs they scored?  Let me guess, none. —Bloom6132 (talk) 06:54, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Take a look on this page where they have the all-time leaders in runs scored, and see how many are either in the Hall, or are likely to be, or who would be if they weren't de facto or actually banned. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 07:00, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * They're in the Hall, but not because of the number of runs they scored. Big difference.  No one should blow this statistic out of proportion and give it undue hype (which is what's happening). —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:17, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * If you really want me to break it down for you – Carl Yastrzemski (3,000 hit club, Triple Crown), Hank Aaron (all-time home run leader, all-time RBI leader, 3000 hits), Babe Ruth (500 home runs, then-all time home run leader), Rickey Henderson (3000 hits, all-time stolen base record), Ty Cobb (3000 hits, then-all time hits leader, 6th in RBIs), Stan Musial (3000 hits, 5th in RBIs) and Willie Mays (3000 hits, 500 home runs, 10th in RBIs). Get the picture?  Yes, these players may have scored a ton of runs, but that's certainly not the reason why they're in the HOF.  There achievements in other stat categories is what got them in. —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:23, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * At a minimum Billy Hamilton got into the HOF heavily due to his runs scored (his HOF plaque starts by noting that he holds the single season record for runs scored and ends by noting that he scored 100 or more runs 10 times). And Ricky Henderson would likely have gotten into the HOF without being the all-time runs scored leader, but that was certainly heavily mentioned as one of elements of why he was HOF-worthy.  And we can play the game of "he would have been in the HOF even without that" with any of the stats.  Henderson himself would be in the HOF without being the SB leader, because of his 3000 hits and being the all time runs scored leader.  Babe Ruth would be in the HOF if he had only 714 RBIs just because of his 714 HRs, etc.  The HOF is based on a package of achievements. Rlendog (talk) 20:25, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - Runs scored is an important stat; if not quite as notable historically as RBIs that gap in attention has narrowed recently due to the work of Bill James and other Sabermetricians, and being a triple crown stat is not the standard for notability for such a list. I agree with NewYorkBrad that the title should refer to "runs scored leaders" rather than "champions," as leaders is the more common usage.  Here is a source specifically using the term "leaders" for players who had the most runs scored in their league each season..  Certainly leading the league in runs scored has long been deemed important enough to get you on a baseball card, e.g.,, which distinguishes this from less prominent stat leaders. Rlendog (talk) 20:02, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Just looking at Baseball Digest's most recent issue, page 13 shows the leaders in 5 batting categories for the 1950s (admittedly a decade list rather than an annual list); one of the stats deemed important enough to show was (not surprisingly) runs scored (the others being batting average, RBI, home runs and stolen bases). Rlendog (talk) 20:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Which is why I suggested combining the five into one article...Go Phightins! (talk) 20:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sporting News also seems to deem the list of runs scored leaders worthy of a place in its Baseball Record Book . Rlendog (talk) 20:12, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NOTSTATSBOOK, "articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." It seems that articles with prose are needed to establish the notability of annual runs leaders.—Bagumba (talk) 20:32, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * WP:NOTSTATSBOOK describes what Wikipedia should contain (or not), not what is required of a source to demonstrate notability. In any case, there are plenty of sources describing the importance of runs in baseball, which can also be used to flesh out the prose lede (as required by WP:NOTSTATSBOOK). Rlendog (talk) 20:39, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * In any case, I would imagine that pretty much any source that provides a list of runs leaders (which is specific to a particular league) would take the importance of runs scored (which is fundamental to baseball at any level) to be self-evident.  Rlendog (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps. It would be an easier decision to keep for me if a guideline like WP:LISTN was met with references with prose discussing the significance of the group.—Bagumba (talk) 21:09, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This list has a bit of prose attached but not too edifying. Rlendog (talk) 21:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry to interject, but I was just wanted to comment that the intro to the article is entirely unsourced and contains some unreferenced opinionated statements such as While runs scored is considered an important individual batting statistic, it is regarded as less significant than runs batted in (RBIs)—superiority in the latter, for instance, is one of the elements of the exceptional batting achievement known as the Triple Crown. That, I know, is more an editing issue than a deletion issue, but it's just a comment. Go Phightins! (talk) 21:16, 6 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep. Notability of subject should be unquestioned.  As others have commented before me, I do find it somewhat odd that so many MLB editors who will turn up at AfD to defend an article can't be bothered to add some salient text and sourced footnotes to a supposedly core topic article.  Insightful text and reliable sources should be the defining differences between an encyclopedia and a sports almanac full of random lists of statistics.  Wikipedia is supposed to be the former, not the latter.  Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 20:42, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.