Talk:List of Major League Baseball players with 300 career stolen bases

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former FLC List of Major League Baseball players with 300 career stolen bases is a former featured list candidate. Please view the link under Article milestones below to see why the nomination failed. Once the objections have been addressed you may resubmit the article for featured list status.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
April 20, 2014 Featured list candidate Not promoted
March 8, 2015 Featured list candidate Not promoted
Current status: Former featured list candidate
WikiProject Baseball (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of baseball on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Font discrepancy[edit]

After the graph of the players and their stolen bases, the font shrinks or it's a different font altogether. I'm going to see what's going on in a moment. Fdssdf 00:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Missing Ranks[edit]

Was going to fill in the blanks in the rank column of the tables, but just wanted to make sure that they weren't left blank intentionally for some reason. Anyone with more knowledge of the article know why it is the way it is? NeilHynes - TalkEdits 07:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

It indicates that multiple players are tied for the same rank. Please do no fill in blank ranks as that would not conform to other baseball lists and would, frankly, look like a disaster. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
Oh, duh, should have looked a bit more. More evidence why you shouldn't edit wikipedia at 5 in the morning I suppose NeilHynes - TalkEdits 19:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)


I just switched the page's alignment to four headings instead of three. I would like some other people's feedback on which looks better! Please leave your comments below, and I will certainly change it back if no one seems to like the four columns. Thanks! Clay4president2 (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

As with all the pages in this class, my question is this: what was used to determine the current cutoff of inclusion? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)

Too many entries[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

As per WT:BASEBALL#List of Major League Baseball leaders in career wins, 500 entries is far too many. This cannot remain. Other lists use 100 or 300. Again, we need to standardize these all at some point, but for now we can start by cutting down on this one from 500 to 300. Consensus is apparent at the baseball project. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:24, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Based on similar discussions on other pages, I see so reason that stolen bases needs to stay at 500 and be an outlier.—Bagumba (talk) 21:44, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I disagree with the previous statements. This page should stay at 500. These pages has been this way for years so why the problem now? There are many very good base stealers that would be removed if this list is downsized. I have maintained this page for months and keep it up to the exact date without any problems. Carthage44 (talk) 21:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
(1) "These pages have been this way for years" just means we didn't get around to fixing it yet, and is not an endorsement for the status quo. (2) As it stands (top 500), the threshold for making this list is barely above 100. It only takes a few seasons of decent but not exceptional base stealing to reach that. (3) You don't own this page, and though you have kept it accurate for the top 500 to date, that doesn't mean the criteria need to stay the same. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Again, I disagree with you again. (1) This page has been kept this way for so long for a reason, because there is not a problem with the page. (2) 150 steals in quite and accomplishment. If you know anything about baseball, steals are not easy to come by. And by the way 154 (where the lists starts) is NOT just barely over 100. (3) I don't own the page but I am one of the only users to maintain it so therefore I have a large say in the matter. (4) Muboshgu has bullied many Wikipedia users for years just to get his way. He thinks he owns Wikipedia and will do anything to make sure pages and Wikipedia are the way he thinks it should be. I really wish someone could take a stand against him because Wikipedia is NOT owned by Muboshgu. Carthage44 (talk) 22:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
This is a size limitation on smaller screen like mobile devices. It's not like there is "top-500 stolen base club" supported by reliable sources that makes the number magical.—Bagumba (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Please present some evidence of my wiki-bullying behavior and ownership. I'm struck by the pot-calling-the-kettle-black aspect of that comment. Otherwise, please stop with the personal attacks. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Silence is the weakest form of consensus, and anyways consensus can change.—Bagumba (talk) 22:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The problem is since the cutoff is not performance based, it isn't limited to very good base stealers. A performance based cutoff would be better. isaacl (talk) 22:34, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
What cutoff would make the most sense here? Other pages do have a cutoff of "x home runs, hits" etc., but I'm not sure what that cutoff should be for this page. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:37, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I would do top 100, for no other reason than its a typical round number for all lists, baseball or not. Any other number needs to pass WP:LISTN muster and not be based on original reseach on a numbers significance. I don't think the 200-win club is significant, is it?—Bagumba (talk) 22:47, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Top 100? NO WAY! Look at all the great base stealers and Hall of Famers that would be deleted from this list. The list should stay the same with the top 500 because 150 steals in a career is still a notable stat. Carthage44 (talk) 22:52, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Your point has been registered. You dont need to continually repeat it.—Bagumba (talk) 22:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
I think top 100 may be too low; this excludes some players who averaged over 30 stolen bases per 162 games, such as Eric Davis (35), Lance Johnson (37), and Chone Figgins (44). It also excludes Willie Mays, who led the league four times in stolen bases. isaacl (talk) 23:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps. But "players who averaged over 30 stolen bases per 162 games" is also a subjective criteria without sources that talk about that group. Not saying 100 is perfect, but I suspect it would get less scrutiny in an WP:FLC review by non-baseball reviewers.—Bagumba (talk) 23:41, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
As I stated below, I agree with looking to see what notable sources say. I only raised this for the purpose of evaluating the top 100 threshold, as I believe anyone knowledgeable about baseball will agree that 30 stolen bases per 162 games over a player's career is a notable achievement. Should this list be taken to a featured list review in future, trying to shore up the rationale for the cutoff will be a key task. isaacl (talk) 23:51, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
In the interim, we can address the screen size issue with a smaller list; even if 100 is arbitrary, it at least addresses the size issue. 500 is arbitrary and troublesome for smaler screens. For lack of a better number, align with List of Major League Baseball leaders in career wins at 300 for sake of consistency.—Bagumba (talk) 23:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
It can also be addressed by making the remaining tables longer. Personally I'm happy to have a shorter list, but I don't see it as being such an urgent issue that needs to be resolved before more time is given for discussion. isaacl (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Good point on column size. Thank goodness for discussion!—Bagumba (talk) 01:29, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Looking to see what reliable sources consider to be a notable total for career stolen bases would best align with Wikipedia's guidance on notability. Some different possibilities could be a threshold based on stolen bases per 162 games, or N seasons with at least X stolen bases (to include those who were notable base thieves in their youth but slowed down when they got older; many career bios will include this type of info for players who were known at some point in their careers for base-stealing). isaacl (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
The argument that shortening the list from 500 to say, 300 or 150 or 100, because "it would delete some great base stealers from this list" is antithetical to the point of this list. This list is here to point out those players who would indeed be classified as "great." By including 500 players, there are a lot of players on the list that have either a) strung enough 10-12 SBs/season together over a 15-20 yr career, or b) players who accumulated a lot of SBs but over a short period of time, and for whatever reason, did not have longevity. Doing something at a high level for several years puts you in the category of "great" and would certainly put a player on this list. Something great over a short period of time = flash in the pan. Using a current WP article as an example, List of Major League Baseball players with 2,000 hits has 270 players. This SB article pertains to a statistic far less followed and has roughly twice as many players. Lastly, the tussle seems to have died down, but keeping an article updated is great, but it should not be a large influencer when it comes to making changes to an article. An article that has a consistent, constant editor to its contents does not make the page strong. I dare say because this statistic is not as highly valued (as mentioned earlier), other articles and lists seem to have gotten more attention but change has come to this article, and it's time to take the next step. Zepppep (talk) 15:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Not sure why you're replying to me; I've said I believe a performance-based criterion (such as the hits article you refer to) would be better. isaacl (talk) 15:24, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I wasn't replying to you, except maybe indirectly. Others have used less indentations (see above), so wasn't doing anything different. Hope no offense was taken because none was meant. Zepppep (talk) 15:43, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Objective criteria[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There seems to be a consensus that objective criteria based on reliable sources be used to determine membership in this list. Applicable guidelines to be followed include:

  • WP:LISTN: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."
  • WP:NLIST: "entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections)."

I would expect to see sufficient sources that mention in prose that player X is ranked No. Y on the MLB career stolen base list, or discuss the top-XXX as a whole group. My initial instinct is that seeing mention in Dan Driessen's article that he is No. 499 on the career stolen base list would be trivia, which is likely why it is not in his article. Without research, I assume that the top-100 is notable; someone can prove otherwise if they think it should be more stringent. My instinct tells me anything greater than No. 100 is trivia, but I can be swayed if multiple sources convince me otherwise.—Bagumba (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I would agree that anything greater than 100 is trivia, even if that does include players who lead the league for a couple seasons. Frankly even 100 is probably pushing the envelope. Now I haven't done a search to look specifically, but I can't recall ever reading a statement that someone was ranked X for a stat and that number being greater than the top 20. So clearly the 500 has to go as being extremely trivial. If you are going to go with a subjective number, 500 stolen bases seems to make the most sense to me as it is a round number and it would still include enough players to make a decent sized list without including too many people. But of course any number we choose will be subjective unless you can find articles specifically talking about the top X base stealers. -DJSasso (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
My instinct tells me something like 300 career stolen bases is likely to get mentioned in a summary of a player's notable achievements, and not so much the player's ranking. isaacl (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
If we can't find another way to resolve this, maybe we should just conduct a straw poll with 100, 300, and 500 as the options. AutomaticStrikeout 16:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
That would be top-100, 300 SB, or 500 SBs—Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
I can go with 300 SBs, as it has some mention in news and in books. 200 SBs gets more hits for minor league players.—Bagumba (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the top 50 are listed for the top NBA scoring, rebounding, and assist leaders. The top 30 are listed for NFL's rushing yards and passing touchdown leaders. The article 100 career sacks has 27 players listed. Speaking specifically about baseball, Tony Gywnn appears 142nd on the list, with 319 total SBs in 2440 G, good for .131 SB/game. Nap Lajoie, 88th, 380 total SB in 2480 G (.153). Kirk Gibson, 177th, 284 total SB in 1635 G (.174). Jose Reyes, 74th, 397 total SB in 1158 G (.342). Topping the list at 100 will weed out the Gwynn's of the list (low average despite longevity) and the Gibson's (decent average, lacked longevity) but will include the Lajoie's (low average, had longevity) and the Reyes's (high average, good longevity so far). Zepppep (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

How many players should we include?[edit]

Consensus is that those with 300 or more SBs should be included. AutomaticStrikeout 00:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should the List of Major League Baseball leaders in career stolen bases consist of the top 100, 300, 500, or another option? Please chime in below. AutomaticStrikeout 17:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Applicable guidelines to be followed include:
  • WP:LISTN: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."
  • WP:NLIST: "entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections)."
Bagumba (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
Do we think consensus has been reached? What's next? Zepppep (talk) 00:13, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, this discussion seems to be pretty much over and it looks like four supported 300 SBs, one supported 400 SBs, and one (now blocked) supported top 500. To me, looks like consensus is 300 SBs, so I'll close it as that if you don't object. AutomaticStrikeout 00:21, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
As a user who supported 400, I don't object with you closing it as consensus on 300. Zepppep (talk) 00:27, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, I will do that then. AutomaticStrikeout 00:29, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
top 100
top 300
  • For now, I'll go with this option, since we seem to be using this number for other lists. AutomaticStrikeout 17:05, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    This seems to be an arbitrary number not based on mention on reliable sources. I cannot support being consistent with other lists on an arbitrary number unless it is the generally accepted "top-100".—Bagumba (talk) 17:13, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

top 500
  1. This page is fine how it is so my vote is Top 500 stolen bases. Stolen bases being so hard to come by and they are one of the most exciting plays in baseball, this list is fine as is. The amount of great base stealers and Hall of Famers that would be removed from this list if it's cut down would be very disappointing. Carthage44 (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Can 500 be demonstrated to meet WP:LISTN and WP:NLIST? Otherwise, its notability appears to be original research.—Bagumba (talk) 01:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Yes it sure can and that is something that I would be willing to work towards. If this list is cut down to 300, I want to give you a list of players that would be removed from this page: HOFers - Roger Bresnahan, Zack Wheat, Frank Robinson, George Brett, Bobby Wallace, Jackie Robinson, Wilbert Robinson, Jimmy Collins, Charlie Gehringer, Luke Appling, Ray Schalk, Goose Goslin, Mike Schmidt, Carl Yastrzemski, Bucky Harris and Pie Traynor. Also, the following future HOFers, All-Stars, great base stealers and current players (in bold) will be removed from this great list - Randy Winn, Roger Cedeno, Shawon Dunston, Rajai Davis, Minnie Minoso, Jeff Bagwell, Shoeless Joe Jackson, Jose Canseco, Ken Griffey, Sr., Julio Lugo, Pete Rose, Brian McRae, Willy Taveras, Jason Kendall, Tom Herr, Shane Victorino, Deion Sanders, Ken Griffey, Jr., Bill Buckner, Dave Martinez, Gary Matthews, Torii Hunter, Ellis Burks, Vladimir Guerrero, Darin Erstad, Jacoby Ellsbury, Adam Kennedy, Frank White, Tony Phillips, Alex Rios, Mariano Duncan, Bill Madlock, Ralph Garr, Buck Weaver, Ozzie Guillen, Doug Glanville, Tommie Agee, Dickie Thon, David Wright, Shawn Green, Dale Murphy, Matty Alou, Ian Kinsler, John Cangelosi and Dave Parker. Carthage44 (talk) 02:26, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    There are already lists for Hall of Famers, All-Stars, and current players. It would be best to focus on what I assume is the purpose of this list: to show the great base stealers in MLB history. Please do work towards finding some notable, reliable, independent sources that provide an objective criterion to identify great base stealers. I've also been looking and will see if I can turn up anything. isaacl (talk) 02:36, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Carthage44, the fact that several of the players you listed are HOFers is irrelevant. A player does not have to be considered "good," "great," or "HOFer" to be on this list -- they simply need to have accrued a certain no. of stolen bases to be in the top __ or so. This list is about notable leaders in stolen bases, not "look how many current HOFers had XX number of stolen bases." Whether you deem a stat as "hard to come by" or exciting is not germane. Whether there is one or 1,000 editors dedicated to maintaining a list should not be the measuring stick for how many players are listed. Editors should consider the reader, not themselves. WikiProjects for other sports have it right -- 500 is entirely too many. The logic that is going to be applied to this list is going to be applied to others. This discussion is part of a bigger picture. Zepppep (talk) 07:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    This list of 500 is great for the readers and by removing some of these players would be a disservice to the readers. For example, Deion Sanders player baseball for a few years and was known for one thing, stealing bases! He would be removed from this if it is cut down. He was a great base stealer but cut his baseball career short because he wanted to concentrate on his NFL career. HOFers are relevant because it shows that these players weren't just great hitters but they could also steal bases which further helped their HOF status. Carthage44 (talk) 15:12, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Matt Alexander was a pinch runner most of his career who had only 168 at bats but stole 100 bases, but we can't subjectively have a list size to include him and players "known for one thing, stealing bases!" unless someone comes up with objective criteria that support their inclusion that is supported by sources. I suggest that this thread remain focused on that task.—Bagumba (talk) 15:37, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Carthage44, the only reason anyone's grandkids will know the name "Deion Sanders" is because of what he did in his football career, not MLB. Yahoo! Sports doesn't have their list go down far enough to include Deion on their all-time interceptions list. Looks like their editors weren't worried about making a list long enough so someone's grandkids could see Mr. Sanders up there. And folks who judge the best defensive back or safety solely by the total no. of interceptions might think Sanders isn't so great. A career list of a stat is not meant to inject opinion or bias. But those who know stats don't tell the whole story will come to know that the reason his INTs were not up there was because no opposing QB in their right mind was going to throw the ball to his side of the field. And that's why he has enshrinement in the Football HOF. Now, luckily the name of this article isn't "best MLB base stealers," otherwise it might resemble a talk page. The article is merely about the leaders. If someone wants to crunch the numbers and look at the base stolen to caught stealing ratio, as well as games played and OBP, as well as the era they played in to see how common base stealing was, or how pitching windups have changed over the different eras of baseball, or how players play more at night where the temps are cooler than years past when they largely played during the day when it was warmer, and on and on, now, they might be getting onto to something. This list does not need to go down past the 350-rank so that guys like Sanders can still appear on it. This is not an opinion piece or data chart showing who the greatest base stealers are; it is simply a list that compiles one stat: career stolen bases. I appreciate the fact you think Sanders should forever be remembered for his SBs abilities; keep in mind that doesn't require his career SB count to be etched in the annals of history amongst at least 70 players whose total more than doubled his. Zepppep (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    Zepppep, I made my points and your points do not make any sense. Just because I beat you when it comes to updating Adam Dunn's page first, doesn't mean you have to be so inconsiderate and immature. If you follow baseball, which I now you do not, Deion Sanders is very well know for his abilities in baseball which was base running. Deion Sanders is a leader when is comes to the top baseball stealers of All-Time and that is the POINT. The list of the Top 500 show you how even great base stealers who had short careers still made am impact in the game. Keep our differences out of this discussion Zepppep. Carthage44 (talk) 21:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
    The problem with trying to use this list to illustrate something about Deion Sanders's basestealing ability is that it shows Sanders had less total impact in stolen bases than Sammy Sosa. As Zepppep suggested, having a list based on a different criterion that is more suited for identifying the players with the best basestealing ability would do a better job of highlighting the skills of Sanders. I encourage you to follow through with your pledge to work towards finding notable, reliable, independent sources that identify a suitable criterion. isaacl (talk) 22:02, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
Carthage44, your comments are not in-line with this article. Info. on ownership can be found here. Your behavior is against the principles outlined in the fourth of the five pillars. As others have already stated, if you have sources to support your position, post away. Otherwise you are repeating your position that you have already expressed. I will say no more. Zepppep (talk) 09:21, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
300 SB
  1. It has some mention in news and in books. 200 SBs gets more hits for minor league players.—Bagumba (talk) 17:09, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  2. I can accept this. I would prefer 500 SBs but 300 is reasonable since there are mentions in the media. -DJSasso (talk) 17:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    If nothing else, 300SB is a fair (and hopefully quick) compromise for those who prefer a larger list.—Bagumba (talk) 17:48, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  3. This seems like a fair solution. AutomaticStrikeout 17:51, 7 August 2012(UTC)
    I would support 300SBs before I would 500SBs, even though at this time, that would mean 160 (!) are listed. But it would be moving in the right direction, at least. I'm not worried about SB sin relation to other starts to define inclusion in this list. If a player happens to have good power numbers as well, so be it, but there are plenty of articles which deal with power. Zepppep (talk) 20:11, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    I mentioned 300-300 club (below under "400 SB") since I figured some would naturally wonder upon seeing the term how many players had 300 SBs.—Bagumba (talk) 20:22, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
  4. I agree that this is a fair cutoff. It avoids the silly "top x" cutoff, which has no merit, regardless of what "x" equals. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:02, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
400 SB
  1. It's the level fierce base runners have obtained. Similar to what the hits article does...starting at 2k hits, you get into the players who could slap the ball around. Similar to the NBA and NFL articles listing notable stats (at 50 and 30 players, respectively), you start to get into the players known for that statistic. As of today, 70 players would still be listed at this level! Zepppep (talk) 17:47, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    I think the fact that 300SB is used in reference to Hall-of-Famer Tony Gwynn to demonstrate his early running skills [1] and that it is one of the two requirements for the oft-mentioned "300-300 club" makes me more partial to 300 SB. I could support 400 SB as a secondary choice.—Bagumba (talk) 18:06, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
    Here's a list which lists top 200, while this one goes even lower at 100. favors Top 150 for their all-time rank (link is gonna be tricky because '[]' are used in the URL:[object+Object]&tab_level=child&click_text=Sortable+Player+hitting&sectionType=sp&statType=hitting&page=1&ts=1344505664949. Baseball Bugs says he has a TSN 2007 issue which lists top stolen base leaders of all-time, which starts at 400 SBs. Not sure if he has an online showing of it, though. Zepppep (talk) 09:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    FYI: Refer to Help:URL#Fixing_links_with_unsupported_characters for URL-encoding those brackets and other troublesome characters.—Bagumba (talk) 17:42, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    I rather doubt the 2007 book is online. I also have a 2008 Elias Sports Bureau record book, but it does not provide a list, only the record-holders. I don't know if 400 or 300 is the right number, but the top 500 renders the article title misleading, as someone with 1 stolen base every 10 games is not a stolen base "leader". Valid sources (such as should define with a stolen base "leader" is. I note that Retrosheet only lists the top 25.[2]Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 11:27, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
    The 300 save club article has 23 members listed. Also, on the List of Major League Baseball players with 1,000 runs article, there is an article titled MLB players with 300 stolen bases but it pipe linked to this article, List of Major League Baseball leaders in career stolen bases. Zepppep (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
300 saves is a cutoff that has reliable sources to establish it. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
I'd give stronger weight to sources with prose that mention a grouping as opposed to a plain stats listing of top-XXX players or players with XXX steals.—Bagumba (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
That's exactly the point. Sources should define what qualifies as a "notable" quantity of stolen bases, saves, victories, losses, etc. In any case, the term "leaders" does not belong in these titles, as the term means nothing. Technically, there is only one "leader". Now, if the articles said "top xxx whatever", then it would be factually true... but you still run into a notability issue. A major leaguer is considered notable just for having made it to The Show. That doesn't mean his career stats are notable as such. Gus Triandos had only 1 steal in his career, which wouldn't be notable except that it was his only steal attempt and hence he holds the record for most games without being caught stealing. ←Baseball Bugs What's up, Doc? carrots→ 22:38, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
Leader is a fairly standard term even if there is one one in the lead.[3]. Per WP:LISTNAME, the title of the article does not have to be a complete description. The details can be spelled out in the lead.—Bagumba (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Which source is used[edit]

Which source do people use to update this list? I would like to add it to the references section.—Bagumba (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)


Regarding these edits: can the interested parties discuss the proposed changes, and cease altering the article until a consensus is reached? isaacl (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

In the interest of conciseness, can the entire table just be sourced by [4] or a similar reference list? isaacl (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Well, sometimes several sources may disagree and it is a norm for FL's such as List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples to have individual references from BR (their player profiles). A simple list of leaders is not sufficient on its own and can not always agree with other individual sources. Sportsguy17 (TC) 22:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
If the vast majority of cases are in agreement with a single reference list, I suggest that list be used to source most of the table, for which no individual citations are required. In cases where there is disagreement, presumably a longer explanatory footnote will be required any way to discuss the issue. I don't see a need to cite the same web site over and over, just to focus on the individual's page versus the summary list. It makes the article harder to navigate, and obscures the cases where there is a question about the actual total for a given player. isaacl (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I STRONGLY agree with isaacl. There is no need to have each player referenced when one reference will provide all that a reader might need. If there is a discretion of a players' stats them a footnote should be added. Redmen44 (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Redmen44, we are not factoring in computer speed in case that is why you are supporting. But either way, what is the issue with having more sources and more verifiability? Again, technology speed is not a legit factor. Lots of FL's across many WikiProjects use individual sources and that's how it has been for quite a while. If this article is to attain FL status, then it needs individual sources and I am trying to work toward getting it promoted. Again, having it "cluttering" your screen or slowing down your apparatus device is not a reason to remove sources. Sportsguy17 (TC) 23:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I never said anything about computer speed. Please reread my comments above. See every other baseball lists as a reference. None have a reference for every single player. It is not necessary. Redmen44 (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
For the specific citations in question, since the same web site is being used, there is no additional diversity or reliability being gained by linking to specific player pages versus the leader board page. In general, assuming the stats web sites are self-consistent, there is no advantage to citing the player page versus the leader board page. The ability to navigate through the reference section is a usability issue, and so should be taken into consideration. isaacl (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
isaacl has just "hit it out of the park". All of the player references are from the same site. As long as that site is listed as a reference on the page then there is no need to clutter the page. Redmen44 (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── That is completely incorrect. I will give you 5 lists that do have individual sources and 3 that do not and you tell me the difference. The one with the individual sources and depth in player statistics is better.

Lists that do use individual Baseball Reference sources
Lists that do not use individual Baseball Reference sources

With these examples, do you both see why individual sources are used? Because it opens up to more info and more verifiability. And yes, the advantage of individual citations is verifiability. Sportsguy17 (TC) 00:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Again, page clutter is completely irrelevant and should not have any bearing whatsoever about whether or not refs are included. Sportsguy17 (TC) 00:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Again, just because some pages have them doesn't mean it's correct. Hopefully these discussions will result in a change for the better of Wikipedia and remove unneeded clutter. Redmen44 (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
If you'd like to discuss the style of all leader lists, I suggest we carry on this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 36#List of Major League Baseball players with 300 career stolen bases. isaacl (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
That would mean removing references from Featured Lists like the ones above and demoting them, which will not gain consensus I can assure you. Also, see this page for what it should be. BR is a reliable source and should be used. Sportsguy17 (TC) 00:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
As the main author of the baseball style advice page, I am familiar with its contents. I have not suggested removing any sources; the source is the web site, and its leader board page is as accurate as the individual player pages for purposes of citation. Each player row can continue to have inline citations, if desirable, but they can all cite the leader board page. isaacl (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
The leaderboard pages do not always agree with the individual statistics. One single broad source is insufficient and will never be sufficient for FL status. This is not how articles work: more reliable sources are better, not less. Sportsguy17 (TC) 00:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Edit request[edit]

"Note: Billy Hamilton's career steals total differs, based on the source. The Baseball Hall of Fame credits Hamilton with 937 steals,[4] credits him with 912 steals[5]and credits him with 914 steals.[6]"

There should be a space between reference number 5 and the word "and". Thanks in advance, Gloss • talk 02:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

DoneMr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

In season updating[edit]

I wanted to start a discussion about in season updating of leaderboards like this one. All of the leaderboards have always been updated in season for as long as I can remember, so why has it become a problem now? For the past season, I have kept this page and the List of top 300 Major League Baseball home run hitters up to date everyday during the 2013 Major League Baseball season. Player pages are kept up to date during the season so why not the leaders pages? If someone in August 2014 wants to search on Wikipedia who the top active stolen base leaders, they would come to this page but if it is not kept up to date, they would not be getting the proper information they were looking for. Please feel free to chime in. Thanks. Redmen44 (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

The season is weeks away from starting. Not sure why you need to remove all the 2013 totals so early.—Bagumba (talk) 07:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
I was trying to get a head start on the 2014 Major League Baseball season since spring training has begun. Another user stated that the stats should not be updated during the season and that is what I am strongly against. I can deal with the page reverting because the regular season has not started but to revert because they feel the page should not be updated until the end of the season, I feel that is an injustice to the Wikipedia readers. Thank you. Redmen44 (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
As long as the article always reflects when the stats were updated most recently, I don't see why anyone should complain about the page being updated during the season. Northern Antarctica (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
@Northern Antarctica: Do you have an opinion on whether the 2013 stats should remain until the 2014 season actually starts?—Bagumba (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
@Bagumba: Yes, I think they should remain until the season starts. Northern Antarctica (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
As per the edit notice for this page, the article should specify a specific date for which the stats are current. Thus in the case any editor is unable to update the page on a given day, it is clear which date is reflected by the totals. (On the side note of when to start updating the stats, I agree with Bagumba that clearing them to zero right now may not best service readers.) isaacl (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Commented out lists[edit]

There is a discussion on maintaining commented out lists that you invited to join at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Stats_lists_maintaining_commented_out_lists.—Bagumba (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

Individual player pages used as references[edit]

In this discussion thread, it was agreed that this article did not need to refer to the individual player pages for the same web site. However, the list of references continues to be expanded without adding additional diversity to the sources of statistics, making it harder to navigate the references section. Since the same site is being used, can the leaderboard page be used as the citation? As mentioned in the discussion thread, individual references are not required for featured list status. isaacl (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I also noticed this, and felt it's really not needed. Gloss 04:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
When Sportsguy asked me about helping with adding these refs, I wasn't really thinking. It does make a lot more sense to use one reference, since we can still establish accuracy while keeping things simpler. If we do keep the individual refs, we would at least need to update them to rather than Baseball-Reference. I notice that the key and the table inconsistently refer to 2014 SB totals vs. 2015 totals. I can't imagine that 2015 stats will be a valuable field for at least a couple of months. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Yup my comments in that thread still hold true. -DJSasso (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
Hey guys, just thought I'd clarify the purpose of the refs. Their primary purpose is not for the leaderboard, but for the "seasons active" portion. WP:GENREF would usually apply, but in this case, it doesn't work as well. Sportsguy17 (TC) 04:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
Regarding your amazement, note at the time I started this discussion, the table did not contain the active years for each player. I believe I have explained my point of view clearly and succinctly in a detached manner; if you have suggestions on how to discuss concerns with an article, please feel free to clarify. I'm not sure if you are implying that I am another editor; if you wish to discuss this directly, please let me know. isaacl (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
I apologize for any misunderstandings, hurt feelings, or confusion. I was not trying to accuse you of anything. I did not realize the discussion had begun prior to the dates being added. As I have said previously, the sources are used for the purposes of the dates and not the players themselves. Glad to see we're on the same page. Sportsguy17 (TC) 01:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)

Active players with more than 500 career stolen bases[edit]

The initial section says that "the 2014 MLB season is the first in which no active player has more than 500 career stolen bases." Obviously, there was an earlier season where this was true (at a minimum, when no one had 500 career stolen bases yet). Can this be clarified and a citation provided? isaacl (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

I'll grasp with this one once I get back from the mountains. The hard part will be finding the last season in which this was the case. If I can't find it, I'll remove it altogether. Sportsguy17 (TC) 04:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Should this article become 600 SB?[edit]

Through a google search of "600 stolen base club", I have found a wide array of reliable sources that indicate notability of the 600 SB milestone. Accordingly, the new cutoff should be 600 and not 300, as it is notable and less arbitrary than 300 is. I'll pull up some links once I'm back at my computer, but for now, just Google search 600 SB and a lot comes up. However, I wanted to get consensu before making such a change to the article. Sportsguy17 (TC) 02:38, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

For anyone interested, here are some examples of 600 being notable (more so than 300): 1, 2, 3. Thank you. Sportsguy17 (TC) 22:57, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Sportsguy17: Unfortunately, I think the same issues remain that were brought up at the recent FLC. Sources need to be reliable, and WP:LISTN needs to be demonstrated for the cutoff—namely, the group needs to be discussed and not just the arbitrary round number statistic.
  • Ref 1: What indication is there that the blog SportsAndMetal should be considered reliable?
  • Ref 2: Why should a tweet from baseball player Justin Ruggiano be considered reliable, which anyways refers to a combination of stats—2000 hits, 1000 runs, 600 stolen bases—not just 60 SB on its own?
  • Ref 3: It's mostly about Rickey's 1000. One sentence on 600, the same number as 700, or even 500.
Google is a good source to narrow down information, but the sources then need to be carefully examined. Refer to WP:HITS on interpreting results. In particular: "Personal bias – Tendency to be slightly more receptive to beliefs that one is familiar with, believes, or are common in their daily culture, and also to be more doubtful about beliefs and views that contradict ones preferred views." We can't just pull a few sources with "XXX SB" and conclude that it "proves" XXX is a notable cutoff for a list. Unless you are saying 300 is an equally arbitrary number, but let's at least make the list more restrictive with another arbitrary number, which has it's merits. However, if your intention was to address FLC concerns (may it is not?), 600 with those sources you identified does not fulfill LISTN.—Bagumba (talk) 00:40, 14 March 2015 (UTC)