Wikipedia:Featured list candidates/List of Major League Baseball home run champions/archive1


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured list nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured list candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The list was promoted by Dabomb87 13:58, 20 March 2010.

List of Major League Baseball home run champions

 * Nominator(s): Staxringold talkcontribs 00:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

As per KV5's new nomination below, here's my first piece of a planned MLB FT. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 21:55, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I know zero re:baseball but wasn't there a huge kerfuffle over the fact that Barry Bonds should (or even does) have an asterisk next to his records for various reasons?
 * This is the one thing I was uncertain about with this list. Should any (and if so to what degree) mention be made of Banned substances in baseball and their relation to this list. Many players on this list have connections to performance enhancing drugs ranging from being blatently caught by the testing program (Palmeiro, Manny), to admission (ARod, McGwire), to federal cases (Bonds, Tejada), to heavy suspicions (Sosa). The so-called "asterisk" (a favorite of vandalism on baseball articles like this) is the notion that "cheater" records should be marked to separate "pure" numbers of the past from these. But, for example, Tom House, a 1960s/70s pitcher (far before the usually discussed late-80s start for this drug use) openly admits to steroid use and says many were already using. Heck he was Hank Aaron's teammate and caught one of his famous home runs over the wall! And Roger Maris drew criticism at the time for breaking the-then heralded record of Babe Ruth, because he played on a 162 game schedule (and needed them all to break the mark by 1) while Ruth only had 154. This is the subject of the film 61*. I just don't know how much, if any, of this stuff should be included. Perhaps a general statement after noting the recent rash of 50+ HR seasons like "Some have pointed to the rise of performance enhancing drugs in baseball in the so-called "Steroid era" as the cause of this rise in home runs" followed by many sources? I just don't know if that belongs here, plus then why is that more notable than 162 vs. 154 games, or live vs. Deadball era? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:08, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said, I know nothing. But it would be interesting to hear from others.  I think there may need to be something but as of yet, I'm not sure exactly what.  The Rambling Man (talk) 19:29, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I can't think of a way to resolve the drug question in this list. However, I do think a nice addition to this this would be some stats like number of games played that season, or home runs per game or home run every # at bats.—NMajdan •talk 16:23, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * It would just come down to arbitrary choices, though, and doesn't pertain to the simple thing this list models which is "Who hit the most home runs?" Why games and not at-bats? Why at-bats and not plate appearances? And adding much more would make the table a bit too big, IMO. I discussed this back when we started with KV5 and my suggestion was that largely no other stats are really directly connected enough to be clearly needed. Maybe losses on the wins list, or caught stealing on a stolen bases list, but for the most part the inclusion of other numbers would be an arbitrary choice. My earlier work on .400 OBPers has just OBP and plate appearances (the unit of measurement for OBP and the standard for inclusion on the "career" list). Not batting average, or walks, or other kinda-related-but-not-directly stats. As for drugs, yeah... Like I said, maybe a generic sentence? Staxringold talkcontribs 19:29, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * While I don't think its absolutely required, I think noting the number of games played in that season is appropriate. It gives context to the information: it doesn't state that any particular performance is more or less remarkable, but gives the reader an opportunity to decide for themselves. I know that it's a different sport so different things might be right or wrong for it, but when cricketing record lists are displayed (both in the wider community on websites and TV coverage, and on Wikipedia such as List of Australia Test cricket records) that sort of context is given: lists of most runs scored in a career/season/tournament/etc are generally displayed with the number of innings/matches played in that time frame. (Given the numbers involved they also show the average for the player, but I don't think that part applies quite as well here.)
 * And on the drugs question: given that the records are recognised (or not) by MLB, until or unless they start denoting records with asterisks, sad faces or anything else, I would think that any such notation by an editor here would likely be a case of WP:ORIGINAL, and if it wasn't that because the notation was sourced from who knows where, then I'd think that would be in breach of WP:VERIFY and probably also WP:NPOV.  Afaber012  (talk) 23:55, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Mkay, I'll add the games column later tonight. As for drugs, I completely agree on no markings (since there is no official marking). The real question, IMO, is if steroids should be mentioned at all, even in a boilerplate statement not mentioning names like "Some have suggested that the use of performance enhancing drugs have affected the performance of some hitters on this list." Staxringold talkcontribs 00:50, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * As I said earlier, I know nothing about baseball so I wasn't sure if Bonds' records were officially marked or not. I would agree that if they're not, it would be incorrect to note it here.  The Rambling Man (talk) 08:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Pike & Hines double image is showing very strangely on FF 3.6, a large amount of whitespace to the right of the pair of images before the frame. The Rambling Man (talk) 09:27, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 19:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Support. Last remaining issue has disappeared after recent changes to WP:ALT.  Good raise  02:05, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Several pics show "modern pics" such as Mike Schmidt's. Get what I'm saying: The "modern" pic of Mike Schmidt -- playing golf -- is not pertinent, I repear, NOT PERTINENT to the article. Please post pics of players AS PLAYERS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.166.123.49 (talk • contribs)
 * Obviously if we had a period picture I would use it. But until then this does at least show something about what he looks like, which is certainly pertinent. Staxringold talkcontribs 18:22, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Comments –
 * To comment on the hot-button issue here, I don't think there's a good way of incorporating the steriods mess. MLB hasn't issued any kind of asterisk on any of the totals and has shown no inclination that it will do so. As long as MLB lists their totals as valid, we pretty much have to go with them.
 * "that the batter is able to circle all the bases, ending at home plate scoring himself and each runner who was already on base". Something seems off with the punctuation. Try moving the comma before" ending" to after "at home plate", and see if that looks better.
 * The Players League is listed with an apostrophe in the Roger Connor card caption, but not in the table. Should be made consistent, whichever way it is.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 22:26, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 22:33, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support – Meets FL standards.  Giants2008  ( 27 and counting ) 16:08, 9 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note I have added playing time as requested. Staxringold talkcontribs 03:02, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Dabs; please check the disambiguation links identified in the toolbox. Dabomb87 (talk) 00:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Staxringold talkcontribs 05:14, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Comments from Truco
 * General
 * Everything checks out fine from the tools in the toolbox.
 * Lead
 * A home run is scored when the ball is hit in such a way that the batter is able to circle all the bases ending at home plate, scoring  himself and each runner who was already on base, with no errors  by the defensive team on the play.-- that last part of the sentence is confusing, what is trying to be said?
 * If you, for example, get safely to third base (a triple), but someone then starts bobbling the ball or whatever in a way that allows you to score that is scored as a triple and an error, not a home run, even though you round all the bases. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The most recent champions are Carlos Peña and Mark Teixeira, sharing the title in the American League, and Albert Pujols in the National League. -- their stats should be noted, ie. home runs.
 * Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * A player has hit 50 or more home runs 41 times. Of these seasons, 24 occurred since 1990. -- would you mean 'of these feats' instead?
 * Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Inconsistency with acronym usage in lead, you have one instance of the National League as NL while the others are spelled out.
 * Yes. Because constant repetition makes for bad prose. Varied slightly to make it more readable. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Babe Ruth set the Major League Baseball single-season home run record four times, first at 29 (1919), then 54 (1920), 59 (1921), and finally 60 (1927). -- you mentioned him already before, so like the others, the sentence should be started with his last name instead of his full name.-- T ru  c o   503 03:50, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done. Staxringold talkcontribs 04:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Support-- T ru  c o   503 03:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)


 * What's the status on the remaining unresolved issues? Dabomb87 (talk) 22:02, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The only unresolved issue is adding AB to the NL and other league results. I was actually going to do that right now! :) I'll cap my discussion on it and notify those involved when it's done. Staxringold talkcontribs 00:28, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Support - all looks good!  Afaber012  (talk) 08:21, 20 March 2010 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.