Talk:Jerry Grote

Photo of Grote is not from 1969

That's a nice photo of Jerry Grote, but unlike what the caption reads, the photo is not from 1969. That photo is from later. I can easily tell the material of the uniform. The uniform that Grote's wearing in the photo is a double-knit uniform. The Mets didn't begin wearing double-knits until later than 1969, the Mets were still wearing the heavier uniforms. Also, in 1969, that was the one season that National League players wore the Major League Baseball logo on their right shoulder, and not the Mets circular logo. I'll wait a few days, and if nobody replies to this, I'm going to remove the "1969" in the photograph's caption.Slater79 02:22, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed the "1969" in the photograph's caption

I waited eleven days, and nobody replied to the thing that I wrote in the above paragraph. So I removed the "1969" in the caption under Grote's photo. It definitely was not a photo from 1969; see above. Slater79 07:03, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Warring?

What's the latest Yankees10/Johnny Spasm edit war about here? Anyone care to discuss? Wknight94 ^talk 18:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No there is no edit war, im just tired of Mr. Spasm reverting everybodys edits and making it how he wants it.--Yankees10 19:58, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Wait, you're saying you don't even disagree with the edits? You're blindly reverting? Wknight94 ^talk 21:08, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

No. I am saying there is no edit war because I dont plan on reverting anymore. And yes I do disagree with the edits because he for no good reason reverted Orsoni edits so he could have the article like he wants it.--Yankees10 21:21, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Well let's get Orsoni's and Johnny Spasm's view here... Wknight94 ^talk 21:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

As far as blindly reverting goes, just look at the article's edit history; look at the edit Yankees10 reverted, and you tell me whether or not that fits into the category of blind reverting. As far as my work on this article goes, I haven't taken out a single piece of accurate information. In several cases, I've moved it or rephrased it, but never completely removed. As I pointed out to Orsoni, there is an external link to Grote's stats at baseball-reference and the other baseball sites. I really don't see the need to footnote it every time one of his stats is mentioned. It's redundant and looks silly.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, the article seems a bit disjointed. The sentence, "On September 15, 1977, Grote struck out in his only career at-bat against Tom Seaver", appears at the end of the article almost as an afterthought. One would think it would go in the section related to the Los Angeles Dodgers portion of Grote's career. However, it appears Johnny isn't willing to tolerate anyone else's editing, so that's where I'll leave it.Orsoni (talk) 10:49, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Honestly, I wouldn't include it at all. It's not that noteworthy. But more generally, you don't need to stop editing just because someone is being difficult. You can go to WT:BASEBALL to gather consensus and that consensus will need to be followed. Don't be deterred by edit warring. Wknight94 ^talk 14:59, 23 January 2010 (UTC)

Maybe a bit of bias is showing here as I am a HUGE New York Mets fan, but how could you POSSIBLY believe that the results of Jerry Grote's one career at bat against Tom Seaver is not note worthy?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 01:32, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion, the location of the sentence seems to be sloppy and haphazard editing. Why wouldn't it be placed in the section devoted to his career with the Dodgers? It seems to be alone and disjointed in its current location beneath the career statistics chart. Also, the article adopts the editing style of a sports fan magazine rather than an encyclopedia article. For example, the passage describing his at bat against Tug McGraw as being "surreal" would be out of place in an encyclopedia article. As per the Five Pillars of Wikipedia, articles should adopt an encyclopedic style and avoid peacock terms.Orsoni (talk) 07:45, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed that it's just placed in the middle of nowhere. But I reiterate (despite Johnny Spasm's SHOCK) that a single AB does not mean anything. Is it supposed to indicate a trend of some sort? I'm sure plenty of hitters have struck out in their only at bat against a pitcher - including catchers vs. pitchers they used to catch. I went to look it up on Retrosheet, but they don't bother listing for less than 4 plate appearances. If it's too trivial for a site that shows nothing but stats, then it's too trivial for Wikipedia - which is supposed to summarize. And BTW, I'm as big a Mets fan as anyone (did you notice my signature?!), but I couldn't care less about a single AB. Wknight94 ^talk 12:48, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's really trivial where the Mets are concerned. It might fit in the players' pages, although it's still pretty trivial. The final pitching appearance for Christy Mathewson and Mordecai Brown was against each other in 1916, and much ado was made about it at the time. That's mentioned in their articles, or at least it used to be. I don't think it's mentioned in the Cubs' or Giants' histories. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 23:54, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

I like to do a 1970's Topps baseball card kinda thing in just about every article I re-edit (see: Donn Clendenon, Dave Kingman, Cleon Jones). I put the player stats, and put a sentence underneath it. I know it's kinda dorky, but hey...

Seaver and Grote are one of the most famous pitcher catcher combinations of all time. They only faced each other on opposing teams once in their careers. I think the results of that one at-bat is relevant.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 23:34, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Methinks that might be overstating a bit. I watched and listened to baseball - mostly Mets baseball - incessantly from 1985 into the 1990s. Only 10 years after they parted ways, and I literally never heard of the Seaver-Grote link that entire time. I think it would've come up if it were as you say. Wknight94 ^talk 01:40, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here's the game, and apologies if it's already on this page somewhere:[1] From the fans' perspective, the two of them facing each other might be of some interest, but the issue for wikipedia is whether it's notable, i.e. was there any press coverage, did anyone make a thing of it, etc. The Mathewson-Brown matchup was notable for a number of reasons, although being in the race wasn't one of them, as the Reds and Cubs were also-rans. Now, if Grote had been the last batter Seaver faced during his no-hitter, that might be a bit more notable. But I have a hunch that many former teammates have ended up playing against each other, and that's another dilemma: There's no indication that this particular matchup is "special". There might be hundreds of them in baseball history, and I don't know that anyone has done any research on the matter, but that would be where to look: (1) has someone written about this kind of situation; and (2) did they specially point out the Seaver-Grote matchup. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 04:43, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Well this one sentence has admittedly blown out of proportion. Now we have disagreements about:

1. Whether Seaver-Grote was one of the most famous pitcher-catcher combo ever (I say highly unlikely - Seaver's only mentioned a few times even in this article, and Grote is not mentioned at all in Seaver's!)
2. Whether disjointed trivia usually relegated to tiny sentences on baseball cards necessarily belong on Wikipedia (I say only if appropriately fitted into the article - see no 3...)
3. Whether this should be left as an awkward dangling sentence tacked on to the end of the article, or whether it should be in the Los Angeles section where it at least fits chronologically.

In the interest of not losing a piece of information that could be interesting to some people, I say go ahead and keep it, but as Orsoni suggests, move it into the Dodgers section where it has some context around it. As I alluded above, there is no section in this article devoted to the supposedly legendary Seaver-Grote connection, or else the sentence would fit nicely there. Wknight94 ^talk 05:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Baseball cards are hardly the standard for encyclopedia articles. This article delves too much into minutae that have very little bearing on the subject, such as the passage about the Astros experimenting with Dave Adlesh and John Hoffman, or the section that delves into the final innings of the 1968 All Star game, stating that Tom Seaver and Jerry Koosman entered the game after Grote was replaced. But again, as Yankee10 has stated, Johnny seems to have claimed ownership of the article, and refuses to tolerate any other editors.Orsoni (talk) 05:39, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Far more famous, I would think, was the Lefty Carlton / Tim McCarver combination on that there team from Philly; which, by the way, is discussed in the McCarver article but his "personal catcher" is not even mentioned in the Carlton article. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:03, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Orsoni, Grote was an All Star catcher who was noted for his handling of pitchers. He was taken out of the All Star game, then two of his Mets pitchers were brought into the game. I don't go into "what a travesty this was for Seaver and Koosman. How DARE THEY do that to these young pitchers!!!" It's merely a one sentence mention. Worth the one sentence, I think.

You seem to have a problem with my expanding this article; making unwarranted claims of my taking ownership of it. When did I ever say I own this article and that I would not tolerate other editors? If either one of us has an ownership problem, I think it is you. For some reason, you continuously add unnecessary links throughout this article. Why? Because it makes you feel good? We don't need a link to his baseball-reference page every time one of his stats are mentioned. I remove something I disagree with and I've taken ownership? I saw an article about a Mets player that I know a thing or two about. I decided I wanted to clean it up a bit and expand upon it. Why would that bother you?

I brought this conversation up with a fellow baseball geek friend of mine; we were discussing all time great pitcher catcher combinations. He came up with Yeager/Sutton, McCarver/Carlton and Seaver/Grote (I had to feed him Berra/Ford). While Carlton and Seaver are hall of famers, McCarver and Grote are the unsung heroes who never got the credit they deserve in either in either pitcher's career. I think a lot of people would agree with that. If the "Baseball Card" style I've gone with in referencing that one at-bat is so objectionable to you all, then fine, change it. Though I personally like it.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:58, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

If it were an article in Sports Illustrated, then the reference to Seaver and Koosman in the 1968 All-Star game, or describing an at bat against McGraw as being "surreal" wouldn't seem out of place. However, this is an encyclopedia article and, in my opinion, should remain focused and concise on the subject. I have no problem with your expanding the article, as much as I do with the sports magazine tone of the article. I think the current editing is a bit haphazard, for instance, Seaver's and Koosman's participation in the 1968 All-Star game have absolutely nothing to do with Grote. An entire paragraph is dedicated to describing an extra-inning victory over the Padres. While it would be important in an article covering the 1969 Mets, in an article about Jerry Grote, it only serves to sidetrack the reader from the subject at hand. I have no problem with the Grote versus Seaver at bat, only with its illogical placement at the end of the article, though I have no intention of making any changes that would probably lead to an edit war. The quote from the New York Post stating that "1973 was the miracle" should be referenced.Orsoni (talk) 12:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I started taking a more general read through the article and soon saw what Orsoni is saying. Mentioning how the A.L. only got one baserunner in an All-Star Game while he was catching does indeed seem out of place. Are you giving him credit for that? Or is there a source saying he did a fantastic job catching that game? And the "oddly enough" in the same paragraph - I don't find that odd at all. There is a lot of thinking and speculating and conjecture - both in the article and on this talk page - and not enough sourcing! You and your friend and Baseball Bugs are discussing the best pitcher-catcher combos (of the 1970s for the most part), but no one has given a source for any of it. We need to pull up this article and WP:WEASEL side-by-side and really clean this up. I got nervous after just a few paragraphs. And the point about overlinking makes me nervous too. We are supposed to use inline citations wherever sourcing is unclear.... not remove them. Wknight94 ^talk 17:27, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Anytime an article says "so-and-so was among the all-time greats" or whatever, a comment like that can't stand alone, it has to be supported by reliable sources, such as comments by prominent writers, or respected opinion polls. And the same standard has to apply to pairs or groups of players. The great Dodgers pitching staff of the 1960s had a catcher, Johnny Roseboro, who certainly must have had something to do with their success. Likewise Yogi with the Yankees and Campy with the Brooklyn Dodgers. For that matter, Johnny Kling, whose Cubs won pennants in 1906-07-08-10, missing out in 1909 when Kling decided to sit out for a season and run a pool hall. Johnny Bench made some fair-to-middling contributions during roughly the same time period as Grote, and the Reds won 4 pennants and 2 World Championships, twice the numbers for the Mets on both counts, with a pitching staff that was arguably not as good as the Mets staff. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 19:02, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't even think it is arguable. The Mets of the 70's unquestionably had a better pitching staff than what Bench had to work with.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

The Mets had better pitching, the Reds had better hitting. The Reds and Pirates of that era both carried some serious lumber. However, in 1973 the Mets defeated the Reds in the NLCS, which goes to show the importance of pitching. Here's a trivia question for you. Here's a box score from the Reds pennant-winning 1970 season in a game against the Cubs, who were also in the race for awhile. Guess what's unique about this game:[2] ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 06:46, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just my opinion, but I think it's apparent to the casual reader that the editor of this article might be a rabid Mets fan as opposed to one with a neutral, objective point of view. The article is overflowing with Mets factoids that only distract from the subject. For instance:

1. Seaver's and Koosman's participation in the 1968 All-Star game. How does this relate to Grote?
2. Bud Harrelson hitting a single to drive in Cleon Jones. Again, how does this relate to Grote?
3. Bill Hand knocking down Tommie Agee, then Koosman breaking Ron Santo's hand. Why is this incident important to Grote's career?
4. John Stearns taking over as the Mets starting catcher is important because it relates to Grote losing his starting role, but why the mention that Stearns "had himself developed into an All-Star"? Stearns development as an All-Star has little to do with Grote's career and only serves to distract the reader from the main subject of the article.

I think Johnny should try editing some articles on players from other teams, so that he can get a feel for writing objectively. There's no fault in being a rabid Mets fan, but it shouldn't come across in your editing.Orsoni (talk) 05:05, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed on the WP:POV issues. I've already removed some of what you mentioned and will continue going over it tomorrow. BTW, note how I've explained my reasoning in the edit summaries. I see painfully few uses of edit summaries in the recent history of this article - from anyone - so it's not entirely surprising that edit wars broke out. They're esp. important when editing something that someone has just recently edited. Wknight94 ^talk 05:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Regarding the citation request for Grote being recognised as one of the top catchers in the league by 1968. I had originally written the sentence as follows; "By 1968, Grote was recognized as one of the top catchers in the National League and was selected to be the starting catcher in the 1968 All-Star Game". My intention was to show that Grote was recognized as one of the top catchers via his selection as a starter in the All-Star game.Orsoni (talk) 06:37, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Orsoni, feel free to go through my contributions and see how many non-Mets I've edited and expanded. Might I also suggest that the next time you accuse someone of simply being a rabid fan who merely edits as such, you check that writer's contributions first, and make sure that you actually know what you are talking about.

Jerry Grote's baseball career is only relevant to Mets fans. I'm pretty sure no one has ever uttered the sentence, "He was my all time favorite Dodger." I can honestly say that very few readers who aren't Mets fans would even read the article. I'm pretty sure most readers would find it at least worth noting that he caught most of the 1968 All-star game, got pulled, then Seaver and Koosman both pitched. It's one f'n sentence. Disagree? Fine, pull it. I really don't care.

1969 was an incredibly year for the Mets. The extra innings game against the Padres that led to the winning streak that brought them into second place was something of a turning point for the team. If I've overstated it, then pull it or shorten it. Again, I don't care. Same goes for Koosman breaking Santos' hand.

Grote was an All-star and they got a new catcher who developed into an All-star was the level to which I mentioned Stearns. I don't think that is over stating it. You do? Great, then pull it. I really don't care.

My answer to the question Bugs had, the run scored in the game was unearned. Was it their only win all season the Reds didn't score an earned run?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 10:47, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Even more, it was the only game all season in which the Reds were shut out. Like I said, they carried some heavy lumber. Notice, by the way, that Milt Pappas was the Cubs pitcher. Despite Susan Sarandon's snide comment in Bull Durham, Pappas was a pretty effective pitcher for awhile. He just wasn't to pitching what F. Robby was to hitting. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 15:26, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

To both of you, the accusations and sniping is in no way helpful. Let's call it a draw and stop, k? As for the '68 AS game, I simply disagree. If I were a Grote fan at the time, I would have unlikely even noticed which pitchers he caught for. As a rabid Mets fan not so familiar with team history that far back, I can honestly say the factoid was not so noteworthy and actually distracted from the flow. So yes, I did pull it. For 1969, of course it was an incredible year for the Mets and I believe you when you say some extra innings game was a big deal for the Mets (although I'd like a source even for that). The problem is that game and the Koosman incident and most of what was in that paragraph, had nothing at all to do with Grote. That same spiel could have been copied to the articles of every member of the team. In other Mets articles from the 80s (which I wrote years ago and could also use some polish and trimming), I tried to focus on the individual's contribution to the team success (or failure - see Howard Johnson's dramatic postseason failure in 1988 and lack of contributions to either of his World Championship teams). The content that was here (which I removed) has a perfectly fine place in the 1969 New York Mets season article. Wknight94 ^talk 13:24, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Johnny, I must apologize if you took my "rabid Mets fan" statement as some form of accusation. As a rabid baseball fan myself, I don't consider the term "rabid" to have negative conotations. I was only trying to provide constuctive criticism about an article that was overflowing with Mets lore that didn't pertain to Grote himself as a baseball player. This is an article about Jerry Grote, not the New York Mets.

I would have to disagree that only Mets fans will read this article. There are people on Wikipedia who are just learning about baseball and its past history, and therefore, we must strive to keep the encyclopedic tone of the articles and not write them for just baseball fans.Orsoni (talk) 14:53, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Describing me as a rabid Mets fan is accurate. Saying that I wrote the article as such is an unfair and inaccurate statement. I do my best to edit fairly, and use references whenever necessary.

On a separate, yet related note, I seem to be on the verge of another minor edit war over Cleon Jones if you guys wanna take this discussion there.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 21:42, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, I ignored this page for a while, but I readded some stuff that I found necessary, and tried to avoid looking like a "Mets fan" as much as possible. For one, whose idea was it to remove the "Baby Colts" from this article? Why was Houston's franchise name change removed? I overdid the 1969 Mets? OK, who thought ONE SENTENCE was appropriate for one of the most recognizable, most often discussed underdog teams in sports? I also didn't use statements like "They had a revolving door behind home plate", and readded the fact that they were unsettled behind the plate. The fact of the matter is that they were, then traded away a catcher who emerged as one of the best defensive catchers of his era for another franchise.

The bulls eye is squarely on my head. Sling your arrows.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 14:04, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

I didn't remove the Baby Colts reference, but again, it has very little to do with Jerry Grote "the player". That belongs in an article about the Colt 45s. I don't understand your need to remove references, as they are one of the Five Pillars of Wikipedia. CITE your sources. It still reads as a sports article rather than an encyclopedia with unexplained peacock terms such as the "mighty" Baltimore Orioles. It appears Johnny has laid claim to ownership of this article, as no other editors are tolerated.Orsoni (talk) 05:50, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

See, and that is where you are wrong. You wanna edit it, edit it. Do it right, though. I went through it and eliminated everything you other guys complained about and readded items that never should have been removed in the first place. You seem to think that citations are more important than actual facts in the article. For that matter, you added the "Citation Needed" tag right below a citation I added to show that he was considered one of the best defensive catchers of his era.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 10:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Well, they aren't considered facts until you provide a source. As per Wikipedia's Assume Good Faith fundamental principle, please stop removing referenced sources. Everyone is trying to pitch in to make a better article, but you seem to be unable to tolerate any edits other than your own.Orsoni (talk) 12:26, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I've edited 100 articles, yet for some reason I CAN'T LET GO of Jerry Grote's. Whatever. Anyway, I think the article looks foolish the way it's up now with just about every sentence referenced.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

That's why Wikipedia requires inline citations. Read Wikipedia guidelines at WP:CITE. Particularly when when quoting someone.Orsoni (talk) 04:37, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Citations are one thing, I include citations. You, on the other hand, overdo it. For example, I really don't think the opening line, "Gerald Wayne Grote is a former Major League Baseball catcher considered one of the finest defensive catchers of his era" needs a citation. The rest of the f'n article talks about what a great defensive catcher he was. It's just a simple little introduction. You added "Citation needed" after the line "Grote soon emerged as one of the top defensive catchers in the National League." I included a citation from Marty Noble, the Mets' MLB.com beat writer after the line before that confirming that statement. It needs to be repeated after it, too? The line "Grote's catching and pitch calling skills also played a valuable role for the 1973 New York Mets, when they went from last place on August 30th to win the National League Eastern Division pennant, and defeated the heavily-favored Cincinnati Reds in the 1973 National League Championship Series" has 2 citations at the end of it. I don't see that statement as all that controversial a statement that it needs 2 citations. We don't agree on what this article should look like. My opinion, neither one of us ever looks at it ever again. Let others decide what it should look like.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 10:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

If you read the Wikipedia guidelines at WP:CITE, you'll see that you can't make a statement like that, without citing a reference, otherwise, it is conjecture. It doesn't matter how well the article is written. Also, you removed the citations for Grote's quote to the New York Post about "1973 being the real miracle", and for the Johnny Bench quote, counter to Wikipedia conventions. All quotes must have a reputable source, as per Wikipedia's guidelines. Reading WP:VERIFY is also helpful in determining how an article should be sourced.Orsoni (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Then put those 2 back in, and be done with it. Again, I never claimed ownership; if I make an error, by all means, fix it. Neither one is among the examples I cited when I said you over sourced it. I don't think simple statements like "One of the finest defensive catchers of his era" needs a source, and you did that several times. That's where the article looks silly.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 10:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:When to cite. Saying that a statement like "Grote was one of the finest defensive catchers of his era", will be proven later in the article doesn't comply with Wikipedia guidelines. From the essay:Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity; do not leave unsourced information that may damage the reputation of living persons or organizations in articles.Orsoni (talk) 10:51, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

That little quote you threw in really doesn't say anything. Can we just agree to disagree? I'm tired of arguing with you.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 00:20, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

I apologize if it seemed I was being confrontational. I was simply pointing out articles that outlined Wikipedia's editing standards.Orsoni (talk) 07:37, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Superlatives should have sources, but I fail to see how "Grote was one of the finest defensive catchers of his era" could damage Grote's reputation. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 07:58, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

This will be my last statement on the topic. Seriously, I don't care what is written next; I will not respond. I'm officially done. Check out Ron Herbel's article. I added, "His .029 career batting average is the lowest batting average in Major League history for a player with a minimum of 100 at-bats." It's a superlative, and I sourced it. Saying his batting average was the lowest needs a source. If it was just "one of the lowest," I don't really think it would have been all that necessary.

This article calls Grote "One of the finest defensive catchers" in the intro. It then includes stats to back that claim up and a testimonial from Johnny Bench. I don't think "One of the best" is a superlative that needs to be sourced when there are already 30 sources throughout the article backing up that claim. And whoever added "Citation needed" after the sentence "Grote soon emerged as one of the top defensive catchers in the National League" apparently didn't read the rest of the article.

This article looks silly to my eyes. Thank you, you have my opinion.

Wow. That figure makes Hank Aguirre's .085 and Bob Buhl's .089 look like sluggers by comparison. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 13:59, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The only defensive statistic in the article is his .995 fielding percentage in 1974 and his .990 career fielding percentage. That's hardly enough to make the claim that he was one of the top defensive catchers of his era. Hence, the introductory sentence has a referenced source.

The reference to his 1968 All-Star selection needs to be reverted to the previous edit, which clarified that being selected to start in the All-Star game was recognition that Grote had become one of the top catchers in the league. In the current edit, that distinction has been blurred.

Also, the description of the "mighty" Orioles is a peacock term that doesn't pass the WP:WEASEL test. It's also conjecture without a referenced source. Perhaps "highly-favored" would be more appropriate in a Wikipedia article.Orsoni (talk) 04:36, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

---

Looks like things have settled down a bit? I still have two issues: first is that centerfield maz is apparently a blog and therefore definitely not a WP:RS. I left the content in but removed the links. (Now I see there are a few other links to that site in other articles - I'll get those later). I also have issue with the 1964 "platoon" moniker. Platoon usually indicates a lefty-vs-righty or some other pattern, right? (Platoon system doesn't specify hitting side as the only possible system, but it's completely unreferenced anyway so not of much use.) Both catchers were right-handed though so that's not it. How were Grote/Bateman a platoon? I randomly scanned the B-R game log and found no pattern in pitcher lefty/righty. Randomly choosing your catcher because neither can hit worth a damn anyway doesn't qualify as a platoon in my mind, but maybe I'm thinking too hard on the subject... Wknight94 ^talk 21:35, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur regarding the Astros catching situation. Also with the mention of Gus Triandos and Ron Brand in 1965. Grote was playing in Oklahoma City at the time, so the mention of Triandos and Brand is superfluous.

Also needing work

1. The mention of the Baby Colts. Unless Grote wrote out the line up card, this should be in the 1963 Houston Colt .45s season article.
2. The reference to his 1968 All-Star selection needs to be reverted to the previous edit, which clarified that being selected to start in the All-Star game was recognition that Grote had become one of the top catchers in the league. In the current edit, that distinction has been blurred.
3. The Amazin' Mets section uses the present tense. "The Mets will not relinquish".
4. The term "mighty" Baltimore Orioles is a peacock term that doesn't pass the WP:WEASEL test.
5. Mention of John Stearns development as an All-Star catcher belongs in the John Stearns article. In an article on Jerry Grote, it detracts from the main subject of the article.Orsoni (talk) 08:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I did your 1, 3 and 4. For your 2, I'm not sure which edit you prefer - can you link to it? To me, starting an All-Star Game is synonymous with being one of the top at the position, so it would be redundant to state it, but maybe clarifying that would be better for those less familiar with baseball? For your 5, I don't mind the Stearns All-Star mention - it makes clear that Grote was out, and was not likely to be back in when the other catcher was an All-Star. Maybe it can be re-worded to focus more sharply on Grote, but the point itself seems valid. Wknight94 ^talk 12:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

My only point about Stearns is that, he had already claimed the starting role before his All-Star status, so Stearns being an All-Star has no bearing on Grote losing the job. It's a superfluous Mets factoid that was slipped in. Here is the link to the 1968 Grote All-Star reference: Revision as of 08:14, 28 January 2010.Orsoni (talk) 05:02, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

You might find this interesting

Well, the 1950 Philadelphia Phillies won the National League pennant with an average age of 26. That would be notable in my opinion. However, the notability of one game with an average age of 19 would be better placed in the 1963 Colts article, in my opinion.Orsoni (talk) 11:55, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

That astroland.net page and Wikipedia are the only mentions I could find to "Baby Colts". I'd like some reference that it was noted at all at the time - or if it was only noticed later by someone with a computer doing random database queries. I still don't mind the Stearns mention - at least it relates directly to Grote. When the guy you're backing up gets chosen to an All-Star team, you know you're in trouble. I had originally fleshed-out Ramón Castro way back when (be kind if you look that far back - I was young and stupid! ) and not mentioning that he backed up two certain HOF'ers by that time would've been a disservice IMHO. Wknight94 ^talk 12:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Jay Dahl's wikipedia article not only mentions it, but has the line up.

...where it has been unsourced since inception in 2007. In fact I've removed the claim that it was the only time in history - not even the couple fan sites where I find the game mentioned verify that claim. Wknight94 ^talk 04:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The couple places I've found it mention has different pictures of the nine ball players from the starting line up in a picture together. Why would anyone bother even taking one picture of the group if it wasn't even "noted at all at the time?" It's not as if there was an entire Wikipedia article dedicated to the "Baby Colts"; it was one sentence in Grote's article. You guys lack perspective.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 09:48, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

But you lack a real source. That's more important. This page, with local newspaper coverage, is your best shot, but local newspapers still aren't impressive since they cover every game. And they still don't claim the superlative that the Jay Dahl article had. And they still don't have the term "Baby Colts" which, as far as I can tell, you invented. Wknight94 ^talk 16:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

How much of a source do I need for "He was in the line up for this game"? That's all Jerry Grote's article said. As far as Dahl's goes, I was merely making the point that whoever wrote that article took it to the extent that he included the line up for the game. I think that's over doing it, but what happened that day was historic enough to mention in the articles of the guys who were in the line up for this game. And that was all I did with Grote.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:16, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Here's a reference[3] to "Baby Colts" in that Astroland website. It seems to be more connected with the players in the instructional league in the fall of 1961. Beyond that, I'm not seeing much. I would guess the website owner made it up. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 01:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

@Johnny Spasm, the problem is "He was in the line up for the game" is not that interesting in the context of each player in the game. That is what Orsoni keeps driving at with the various issues. If you mention it in Grote's article, you could mention it for every Colts player that day and it's really not that notable an event to warrant that, IMHO. It might be worth a mention in the 1963 Colts article, maybe even in the manager's article who came up with the idea. Bill Veeck was famous for coming up with strange little ideas - do you mention them in the article of every player involved in those ideas? I don't think so. Veeck's son was involved in the infamous Disco Demolition Night - would you expect to see that in the article of every player on the field at the time? I wouldn't. Every time a pitcher throws a perfect game, do you mention in each of the opposing batter's articles that they went 0-for-3 that day? No - and that's more interesting to me than this weird little rookie gag that went sour. Wknight94 ^talk 05:45, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

I appreciate the back up from Bugs. I didn't like the accusation of making up the "Baby Colts" title, and knew I got it somewhere. That wasn't where I got it, but I don't remember where I saw it. At least it is a source that uses the term, so thank you. The comparisons to "Disco Demolition Night" and perfect games is silly. I think a better comparison is noting that "Disco Demolition Night" has its own article; the "Baby Colts" do not. Again, perspective. Grote hadn't done a note-worthy thing in his career up the the point where he crouched behind home plate for that game. "He was in the line up for this game" is not over stating it IMHO. Personally, I think this whole debate on Grote's talk page is over stating it. If my intention was to make a big deal out of the "Baby Colts," I would have succeeded beyond my wildest dreams at this point.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 10:44, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

"Disco Demolition Night" has its own article; the "Baby Colts" do not - that supports my reasoning perfectly. We don't mention Disco Demolition Night in the article of every participant of Disco Demolition Night, and Disco Demolition Night is notable enough to have its own article. Why would we mention the "Baby Colts" game in the article of every member of the "Baby Colts" game, an event so inconsequential that a separate article for it would never survive WP:AFD? I'd be more interested in seeing a mention of the Longest professional baseball game in the article of every participant there - at least they had to endure 32 innings of baseball in one day in a game noteworthy enough for mention in the Hall of Fame. The Baby Colts participants did nothing other than show up and get trounced in a baseball game by another terrible team. You say, "Grote hadn't done a note-worthy thing in his career up the the point where he crouched behind home plate for that game", but that implies that this should be the first thing mentioned in every chronological recount of his career. And yet it isn't - anywhere. Wknight94 ^talk 11:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh really?

According to this article, the Colts used one more teenager in their starting line up that day than any other team has had on its roster AN ENTIRE SEASON! 15 total were used in the game. That is 150% more than any team has used in an entire season. But it isn't worth a one sentence mention in Grote's article?--Johnny Spasm (talk) 22:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)

Great, so maybe it does merit a mention in the 1963 Colts article after all. The other point still stands - mentioning in the article of every participant is overkill. Wknight94 ^talk 04:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. The amount of teenagers on the 1963 Colts belongs in the 1963 Colts article, and not in a Jerry Grote article. We need to keep in mind, that these articles are not meant to be written as sports magazine articles for experienced baseball fans, but as encyclopedia articles for the complete neophyte who knows nothing about baseball.Orsoni (talk) 06:57, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

He was in the line up for this game is not overkill. This debate, however, is.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 10:05, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

A couple points I forgot: it makes sense to explain the game in Jay Dahl's article - it was the only pitching game of his career. And the BaseballLibrary page you mentioned is just a computer generated search of the name "Jerry Grote" which happened to find a noteworthy game. In his BaseballLibrary biography - much more akin to a Wikipedia article - there is of course no mention of the game. Actually, this game might be worth a mention in a Trivia section near the bottom of Grote's article - but so many people despise Trivia sections in general, that most of them have been done away with. (I never particularly agreed with that except inasmuch as they are always abused and become too large). Wknight94 ^talk 13:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

As far as the trivia sections are concerned, given the disdain that is out there for Wikipedia trivia sections, I often take the facts in a trivia section of an article and try to incorporate it within the article. Pete Rose, for example. I don't see why a trivia section would make more sense to you than the simple one sentence mention I gave it. As for as Dahl goes, I saw that it was the only game he ever played, however, the point I was making was that whoever wrote that article took this game to the extent that he wrote out the entire line-up. I think that is overkill. However, a one sentence mention in Grote's article I really don't think is the big deal that we've made it out to be.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 20:32, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

It appears to have been a publicity stunt by the Colts' management, as opposed to anything to do with Grote's ability as a baseball player. The event is not even noted in the 1963 Houston Colt .45s season article.Orsoni (talk) 06:02, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Bad example. There is nothing at all written in 1963 Houston Colt .45s season article.--Johnny Spasm (talk) 10:01, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Jerry Grote. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604034220/http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Jerry_Grote_1941 to http://www.baseballlibrary.com/ballplayers/player.php?name=Jerry_Grote_1941
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090709131431/http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/San_Antonio_Sports_Hall_of_Fame_members_and_nominees.html to http://www.mysanantonio.com/sports/San_Antonio_Sports_Hall_of_Fame_members_and_nominees.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:46, 21 April 2017 (UTC)