Talk:Green Monster/Archive 1

Archive 1

Fisk's HR

Fisk's HR hit the foul pole. It did not go over the Green Monster. Is it really part of the Green Monster story? Or is its place in the Fenway Park story? Kingturtle 17:55, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

The Fisk homer did indeed go over the Green Monster. It is the most famous, storied and celebrated home run to ever go over that wall. Much more so than the Dent homer. I think if this article is to mention one, it should mention both. No Guru 18:00, 19 Feb 2004 (UTC)

==though the seating area was considered home run territory and "out" of the playing field.

That sentence seems pointless. Is ther anywhere where seating is in the playing field?

No. Even when fans were seated on the field, the seating area was designated dead ball territory, and thus "out" of the playing field. --65.91.102.204 21:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Uphill in both directions?

From 1912 to 1933, there was a 10-foot-high mound that formed an incline in front of the Green Monster, extending from the left-field foul pole to the centerfield flag pole. As a result of the mound, a left fielder in Fenway Park had to play the entire territory running uphill.

What? How can you have to play the entire territory running uphill? Surely you have to go downhill sometimes? Is there an explanation for this anomaly that is not obvious to this reader? -dmmaus 02:13, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

Joe Brovia

Was he really called the Green Monster. In his article it states that he was famous for hitting homers over the "Green Monster" of the Pacific Coast League ? No Guru 22:00, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Term "Green Monster"

The article says "'Green Monster' is a term mainly used by people not associated with the team. Most Red Sox fans usually refer to it as simply 'The Wall.'"

I would agree that if someone hit a ball off it, a Red Sox fan would say "He hit it off the Wall", but if I were to refer to it I would most definately call it "The Green Monster" or "The Monster". This line from the article (IMHO) makes is sound like nobody but tourists would ever call it "The Green Monster" which I feel is not accurate. Any thoughts or am I just reading too much into it? DrunkenSmurf 17:21, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. In talking about a play, "Manny barehanded the ball after it bounced off the wall," or "Ortiz slammed one over the wall in the 5th," calling it "the wall" is usual. But the seats up top are often referred to as the "Monster seats" by many fans. The current wording in the article does make it seem like only tourists call it "The Green Monster," which definitely isn't accurate. Tin 2006-06-18

Memorable Home Runs

Someone added in Gary Carter's home runs in Game 4 of the 1986 World Series as memorable, but they were quickly removed by someone else who claimed Carter's home runs "aren't 'memorable' in nearly the same sense".

You have to remember that nothing will top Fisk and Dent in terms of memorable. Those are two of the most memorable home runs in the history of baseball, let alone over the Green Monster. But I certainly don't think Carter's home runs' not being able to stand in that class should exclude them from inclusion on this page.

Game 4 was a huge game in that World Series, as the Mets tied it up 2-2 rather than falling down 3-1. I still remember the headlines the next day, "Carter Slays Monster". It was a big deal that not only did Carter hit two home runs, but that he hit them over the storied monster. It felt like it sent a message to Boston.

So my vote is they were memorable. But more importantly, my statement is that despite the fact nothing else compares to Fisk and Dent, there were some more memorable home runs over that fence.Ags412 07:33, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

They are quite memorable. It's a matter of relativity. Carter Slays Monster is much more memorable to myself and a lot of other people in the fact that the mets would have been NOT won the world series without his 3 RBI. It should stay.

The problem here is that there have been many "memorable" home runs hit over the Green Monster in the World Series (and other playoff games or regular season) - Rico Petrocelli, David Ortiz, Nomar Garciaparra, Tony Perez, Reggie Smith, Shea Hillenbrand, Mark McGwire, Vern Stephens and countless other ball players have hit "memorable" home runs over the monster. If we start adding these will will have by defintion a subjective list of home runs that could grow to epic proportions. -- No Guru 20:33, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I see your point. What would you think of a new page called, "Memorable Home Runs Hit Over the Green Monster". We can start with Fisk and Dent and then open it up to all of the others as well. I think it is definitely worth of its own page.Ags412 21:53, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

This is an idea worth considering. Otherwise this article will consist of nothing but a list of home runs. -- No Guru 18:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I have to say this is getting utterly ridiculous. Wikipedia is a fact based website right? Let's see. The Mets were down 2 games to 1 in game three. Gary Carter hit two home runs and single handedly responsible for 3 runs, besting Boston's total runs scored of 2.. hence you can say he was the MVP of that game that GREATLY increased the Mets odds of winning the world series. (talk to any book maker and statiscitian and ask them what the Mets odds were at 3-1 vs. 2-2 in a best of 7 series at that time to see how big it was that Carter had those RBI). It JUST so happened that Gary Carter in his 3 RBI campaign that night hit TWO home runs over the Green Monster. That my friends is EXTREMELY significant. If you remove it this time, it is based on your OPINION, not FACT. Wikipedia is FACT based, not OPINION based.

Thank you.

The Carter home runs were not historic. Dent's was as was Fisk's. I don't believe that Carter's home runs are any more notable than the many other ones that were hit during the world series and playoffs. -- No Guru 18:38, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

The two home runs lead to the Mets tying the series that they would have been down 3-1. Extremely historic. I love that you have an opinion and I EXTREMELY respect it. But as I see fit it belongs :)

Interesting perspective. Carter had 3 RBI's in that game and the Mets won by 4 runs. Most World series homers are important - but not historic. -- No Guru 20:11, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Also,Major League Baseball maintanis a list of Memorable home runs, which does not include Carter's homers. -- No Guru 16:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm with Guru on this one. I wouldn't mind seeing the section gone entirely, honestly, but if it stays there, we'd need to keep it verifiable and the MLB "memorable home runs" is a good place to start. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:19, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

The Pudge Fisk and Bucky Dent homers are part of the collective baseball historical consciousness. Along with similarly memorable blasts by Bobby Thomson, Kirk Gibson, Hank Aaron, Bill Mazeroski, etc., they are recognizable to all kinds of baseball fans. In comparison, Game 4 of the 1986 World Series has been largely forgotten given what happened in Game 6 -- Carter's homers, while significant in the context of that series, have not had nearly the lasting impact as the others. They simply do not belong in the article. -- Padjet1 15:58, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all of your opinions. However Carter apparently is the only player to have 2 HR's over the green monster in a World Series game (especially one that crucial), it remains.  :)

Proposal

I propose a compromise to end this revert war. In the memorable home runs section, we can first list Fisk and Dent, as I agree they are in a class on their own. Then immediately following, we put a sentence saying, "Gary Carter is the only player to hit two home runs over the Monster in a World Series Game, when he did it in Game 4 of the 1986 World Series." That way the Carter home runs get mentioned, as I agree they belong in the article, but it should appease the people who have Fisk and Dent's home runs on a pedestal above all others.Ags412 17:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Where's the source that it's "memorable?" I mean, my most memorable Green Monster home run was David Ortiz in the 12th inning of a game in 2004 on Easter Sunday. If we add the Carter dingers, why not the Ortiz one, since it was the first of what became a series of big hits and wins for the Sox and Ortiz over the course of that season. The opposition isn't that the home runs were there, but to call it "memorable" is POV/OR. I'd much rather be done with the entire section, but if we're going to keep it, we have to draw a line. --badlydrawnjeff talk 17:51, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere have I ever seen Carter's home runs or even Game 4 mentioned as being historically significant. In fact, I can't say I can specifically recall ever seeing video of them. In comparison, the Fisk and Dent home runs are part of the classic baseball imagery -- ESPN, NESN, and FOX show replays of them regularly. Plus, as previously mentioned, his blasts accounted for only three of the four runs that separated the Mets and Red Sox in that game. There's simply no reasonable basis to justify placing Carter's homers on the same level, and as such they do not belong in this article. Only a separate article for something like the Top 100 Green Monster Home Runs would be an appropriate context. -- Padjet1 21:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Carter's homers aren't considered memorable by Major League Baseball (as referenced above), so why add them to this article ? If editors keep adding home runs hit by their favourite player what value does this bring to the article ? -- No Guru 01:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, you're all missing the point of my proposal and just wasted space arguing over the same issue we were arguing over before my proposal.

I said "I agree [Fisk and Dent's home runs] are in a class on their own". My proposal of a compromise was that we include a sentence with the fact that "Gary Carter is the only player to hit two home runs over the Monster in a World Series Game, when he did it in Game 4 of the 1986 World Series." This is a fact. No objectivity whatsoever. Plus, it is an important and notable piece of trivia associated with the Monster. The point of this is to appease the people who won't allow another memorable home run to be mentioned with Fisk and Dent and also to appease the people who rightfully believe Carter's historical feat warrants mentioning.

So to sum up my proposal: No, Carter's home runs were not memorable in the same class as Fisk and Dent. Yes, Carter's feat was historical and warrants mentioning in the following way: "Gary Carter is the only player to hit two home runs over the Monster in a World Series Game, when he did it in Game 4 of the 1986 World Series."

So let's discuss that idea. It is NOT the same as simply listing Carter with Fisk and Dent. It is a different approach. Please discuss.Ags412 02:54, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I mean this with all due respect - you're missing the point. The addition of Carter's home runs in that section fail two major policies: verifiability (i.e., we have nothing verifying that the home runs are considered memorable) and no original research (i.e., we're just pulling home runs out of the stat books and adding them). Not to mention that it's a POV issue ("I think these home runs are memorable") as well as a WP:NOT issue (not a collection of famous home runs). The section as is does not run afoul of anything, as it does meet the major policies, does not stake a particular POV of any particular editor, and does not violate WP:NOT as it's a discriminate collection that legitimately adds to the article in terms of the history, importance, and memorability of the wall. Carter's home runs do not, and there's no legitimate argument for inclusion of them at this time. --badlydrawnjeff talk 03:17, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

You said Carter's home runs would violate two policies.

First of all, Carter's home runs are in no way "original research". They happened, it's documented. Noting their occurrence is not original research. Stating that no one else has accomplished this feat is not original research. These are simply facts.

Actually, the mention of his home runs as memorable is OR, not the mention of them alone.

Second, you said that we have no way to verify that Carter's home runs were "memorable". But again, I am NOT making the argument that Carter's home runs were "memorable".

But you are making the argument that we should include them in that section.

I agree there is too much POV involved with the word "memorable". But the following is a fact: "Gary Carter is the only player to hit two home runs over the Monster in a World Series Game, when he did it in Game 4 of the 1986 World Series." That cannot be denied.

And no one is denying it.

Maybe it belongs in a "Trivia" section so it doesn't tie in with the word "memorable". The fact that Carter is the only person to do something in the stadium's history is an important piece of trivia that belongs in the article and adds legitimately to the article. It has nothing to do with "memorability".

Maybe in another section, yes. Not where this person wants to put it, though. There's also no real pressing need to include the information anywhere: I'm a huge Sox fan, I've never heard the Carter homers mentioned at all.

In future responses, do not use the word "memorable" or "famous", etc. You have won me over on that issue; I agree with you. I want to discuss the historical significance of the fact that Carter is the only man in history to accomplish the feat of hitting two home runs over the Monster in a World Series game.Ags412 05:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

If there's significance, then there's signficance. The problem isn't that, but where the information continues to be added. --badlydrawnjeff talk 11:42, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Notable Historical Moments

Okay, it seems the word "memorable" was removed from this article. That is probably a good thing. Even for Fisk and Dent, "memorable" is an opinion-oriented word that could bother some people. Saying Fisk and Dent's home runs are "among the most famous in baseball history" and are "notable historical moments" is probably more encyclopedic and less opinionated.

In the "Notable Historical Moments" section, after the first part that lists Fisk and Dent's home runs, I added the following:

Other historical feats involving the Green Monster:

-Gary Carter is the only player to hit two home runs over the Green Monster in a single World Series Game, when he did it in Game 4 of the 1986 World Series.

-In Game 3 of the 2004 ALDS, David Ortiz hit a 10th inning walk-off and series-ending home run over the Green Monster. This was only the 2nd time in history a Division Series ended on a walk-off home run.

These are indeed historical feats. We haven't really discussed Ortiz's walk-off here, but it was certainly a historical feat to end a series on a home run, and the fact it went over the Monster makes it legitimate to be in this article. And as discussed, Carter's home runs are historical since he is the only player to ever hit two home runs over the Monster in a World Series game.Ags412 19:38, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So now we're just going to make a random list that anyone can add to. Bad idea per WP:NOR, WP:V, etc etc. What makes them historic? Got sources? Etc etc. I'm removing the whole section, this is silly. --badlydrawnjeff talk 19:48, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I don't really see how it is a "random" list. These are four moments that are quite unique, not random moments. We are obviously disagreeing over the word to associate these home runs with. We agree "memorable" doesn't work. The word "historical" does however, as by it's definition "historical" only implies the event actually happened, as opposed to be made-up or mythical.

The issue of what to include as historical is a different issue. However, I am having trouble seeing how these particular moments are not historical. These are not home runs that went over the Monster in the 3rd inning of a mid-June game in 1956. These are extremely significant spots (i.e. World Series games, a one-game playoff, ending a playoff series). Plus, how can Fisk's home run fail to be included? The pole on the wall is named for him because of this moment!

Here is the section in question:

---

Notable Historical Moments

Two home runs that cleared the Green Monster are among the most famous in baseball history:

-During Game 6 of the 1975 World Series, in the bottom of the 12th inning, Sox catcher Carlton Fisk hit a hooking fly ball that hit off the left field foul pole above the Monster for a game-winning home run.

-In 1978, light-hitting shortstop Bucky Dent of the New York Yankees hit a home run that just cleared the top of the Green Monster, providing the key hit in a one-game playoff which decided the winner of the AL East division.

Other historical feats involving the Green Monster:

-Gary Carter is the only player to hit two home runs over the Green Monster in a single World Series Game, when he did it in Game 4 of the 1986 World Series.

-In Game 3 of the 2004 ALDS, David Ortiz hit a 10th inning walk-off and series-ending home run over the Green Monster. This was only the 2nd time in history a Division Series ended on a walk-off home run.

---

Please discuss the following: Do these home runs belong in this article? Does this section belong in this article? Is listing these home runs as historical a POV issue? If included, what is the best way to title the section? Would the inclusion of such a section clutter the article?

Lastly, I think everyone here knows my opinion and "badlydrawnjeff"'s opinion on the issue. I am interested to see what other people think.Ags412 20:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

To Ags412

Frankly, your approach to this article is unacceptable per WP policies. This has been thoroughly discussed here, and you have found no support for your position among other editors. We have very reasonably asked you to verify your assertions about the historical importance of the Carter homers, and you have not met your burden. For all the reasons stated above, your edits are inappropriate in the current article. Therefore, to continue to revert on this basis approaches vandalism. -- Padjet1 16:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

To Padjet1

Um, I have edited the Green Monster page exactly one time since August 10. So... check your history before you accuse me of vandalism.

I have edited the talk pages several times to support my claim - which is exactly what you're supposed to do! So nice job there Padjet 1! Way to do your homework!Ags412 18:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Whoops -- my mistake. I hastily confused you with in whoever is at 63.117.201.120, and I apologize.

Sporting News

The Sporting News (a completely reputable source) listed Fisk and Dent's home runs on their Baseball's 25 Greatest Moments list. I re-added those home runs, but don't worry, I didn't call them memorable or historical or anything that will make the wikipedia police pull their hair out. I simply stated that the two moments appeared on the Sporting News list and referenced them.Ags412 19:48, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

linking to photos from other sites

I do not think that it is fair to the website owners that this article links directly to photographs on other sites, rather than the page on the photo owner's site where that photo is displayed. If the photo is appropriate and good enough to be referenced it should be shown as it is displayed on their site, instead leeching their webhosting resources by showing the photo via direct URL only. IMHO that is a form of copyright violation, as copyright holders have the exclusive right to control how their works are used, and unless the owners placed the direct links here themselves, the links should be rewritten to show them as they are displayed on the copyright holders sites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.53.245.12 (talk) 06:22, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

I set up archiving on this talk page due to some very outdated comments.   jj137 (talk) 03:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Measurements don't make sense

What kind of measurements are the current [quote] "37-foot (11 m), two-inch (11.3 m)" and [quote] "The phenomenal depth of the "Arch Nemesis" makes it the volume winner with 144,000 cubic feet (4,100 m³)." Volume of what? I can't make any sense out of these figures. Mamarazzi (talk) 03:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

First called "Green Monster?"

Can anyone supply a date? 70.88.213.74 (talk) 19:06, 13 September 2008 (UTC)