||It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The Free Image Search Tool may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.
|This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material about living persons must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard. If you are connected to one of the subjects of this article and need help, please see this page.|
|WikiProject Biography / Sports and Games||(Rated Start-class)|
|WikiProject Baseball / College / Yankees||(Rated Start-class)|
Yankees dynasty 
Anyone out there who cares to explain what does and doesn't belong here? Question: why is it out of place here to comment on Richardson's place in the Yankee dynasty, in some detail? I am not a Yankee fan; hated them in the days of Richardson, actually. I would never praise Richardson motivated by being his fan. But I have an attachment to answering the "so what?" question, and I think that is a fundamental reason why people read encyclopedias. Why did Richardson matter? in other words. You can't tell why he mattered by quoting his stats, not that much. You have to put him IN CONTEXT to tell his story. It is not controversial that he was a critical defensive player on the best baseball team of his era, or that countless times it was the Yankee infield defense that won the day. Nor is it controversial that he had the tendency to shine offensively, when it counted most, and tended to lift his team even when Mantle and Maris weren't lifting it by themselves. Richardson probably wasn't any better than some of the other star infielders of his day, like Maury Wills or Dick Groat or Bill Mazeroski. BUT HISTORY/CHANCE PUT HIM IN A PLACE WHERE HE HAD A GREATER EFFECT THAN THEY DID. By a mile. Why do a good number of you seem to think that saying so is "unencyclopedic?" Or that it might be okay to say that in the article on the Yankees, but not on Richardson?
Thanks in advance for any response. Moabalan.
Another version of the same question: I edited this article to say the defense Richardson, Kubek and Boyer contributed was critical to Yankee success (that part was left in). I said that it was one of about five factors making the Yanks better than the rest. There was a great offense, great pitching, both starters and relievers, and a great manager in Stengel. When you added the way those three infielders played defense, you got a World Series ring about every other year for the full span of Richardson's time with the team. Is there a controversial point in that? If not, why shouldn't an encyclopedia article talk about an individual's contribution to history?
My edit was removed with a note that such observations just might fit in the article on the Yankees, but not here. The implication was that it was either factually questionable or not pertinent to what encyclopedia readers want to read. Are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, because we're so cautious? This is not original research. It was the common knowledge of well-informed baseball fans at the time.
- Bill James wrote several essays and articles to debunk the myth that the Yaknees of the early 1960s were a great all-around team. Says he (and I tend to agree) the pitching was Whitey Ford and one-season guest stars, the bench was thin, and beyond lots and lots of home runs (admittedly a nice start), the offense wasn't all that noteworthy. Their lineup was usually five "cleanup" hitters and three glovemen. In retrospect, the very solid defensive infield was one of their real strengths. WHPratt (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
Information verified 
I removed the tag asking that information in this article be verified. I verified it all with baseball-reference.com, and made a few minor corrections; I believe that it is now completely accurate. I also added one paragraph and a couple of footnotes.Markjoseph125 03:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
It is a mistake to say that Bobby Richardson was a poor offensive player. Other pitchers tried desperately to keep him off the bases because batting after him were Roger Maris, Mickey Mantle, Yogi Berra, Elston Howard, and other all-stars. Richardson came through time and time again in the clutch. He was to the Yankees of the late 50s and early 60s what Phil Rizzuto had been a decade and more earlier: their sparkplug. He was respected by his team-mates for his leadership qualities. He was particularly loved by Mickey Mantle because the Mick knew that, even though he had more pure talent, Richardson was the better man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 23:33, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, I was a Yankee fan and I liked Mantle and Berra and Maris and Ford and Howard etc., but Bobby was my favourite. Of course, much of his success depended on being a Yankee in that era. So he was fortunate. At least moderate skill, great attitude with flashes of brilliance...often just at the right time. Even if he had never done anything else, the catch to win the series is one of the great moments in baseball (for me at least). What is there not to like about Bobby Richardson ?? Zioguido (talk) 01:25, 4 December 2011 (UTC)