Talk:Mendoza Line

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Baseball (Rated C-class, Mid-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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Initial comments[edit]

It would be nice if this article defined the term before the sixth graf.

Agreed -- anon

Removed the following paragraph from the 'External links' section[edit]

"The Mendoza line is actually, Hitting below your weight. For instance, Bob Eucker weighed 215 during his career but he dipped below the mendoza line twice in his career, batting .208 fopr a stint in 1971, and again in 1972."

--Anchoress 06:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Uecker[edit]

The Uecker business is uncited and smells like original research. 69.214.158.244 00:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Makes no sense[edit]

This explanation makes no sense:

"The origin of the term is clouded. Peter Gammons believes that the line was originally named after Eric Salinas, a member of the Roberto Clemente All-Stars and scouted by the Cincinnati Reds while only 14."

How does this explain where the name "Mendoza" came about? Jxyama 00:05, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

  • It doesn't, and the only reference I can find is in "answers.com", which is an echo of this site. I think it should be zapped from this article. Wahkeenah 00:18, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • That was added by an IP address in early July. I take it to be either vandalism or obscureness, and I deleted it. If Salinas' other surname were Mendoza, it could make sense. However, the general consensus seems to be that the source of this "Line" was Mario Mendoza. I don't know where the Minnie Mendoza stuff came from, but maybe it's got some merit. Wahkeenah 00:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
  • There was Minnie Mendoza with the Twins in 1970. However, Mario Mendoza is the name that comes up, so I'm going to switch the order of the two. What a nuisance. Wahkeenah 00:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Capitalisation[edit]

Mendoza Line ? Or Mendoza line ? The Curious Origins article uses both - both mostly small l. -- Beardo 23:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

  • It's a proper name, so it's all init-caps. Wahkeenah 02:18, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Mario Mendoza article & this one should be merged[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The result was no consensus. -- Groupthink 11:08, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

This is all borderline notable in the first place, so merge the two articles. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Piperdown (talkcontribs)

  • Oppose. I believe Wikipedia policy is the reason for Mario Mendoza having his own article, but the Mendoza Line is much more well known, and notable, than the player. A quick Google search produces almost twice as many hits for "Mendoza Line" as "Mario Mendoza", and baseball books frequently refer to the Mendoza Line. It's not known to every casual fan, sure, but that isn't the requirement for notability.Alternator 03:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • I endorse this merger proposal (actually I'm the one who added the merge tags to begin with, sorry I forgot to add a comment here). If Mario Mendoza's notability derives from "Mendoza Line", then the direction of the merge tags is backwards, but that doesn't mean two separate articles are necessary. What policy are you thinking of, Alternator? Groupthink 03:58, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Mario Mendoza spent 9 years in the majors and the Mendoza Line is certainly fairly well known, as such neither article should be merged purely on grounds of notability (at this moment in time there are many articles on baseball players with less major league experience than Mendoza). The other reason for merger would be on the grounds of understandability: in my opinion, a complete knowledge of the life and career of Mario Mendoza is not necessary to fully understand and describe the Mendoza Line and vice versa. Merger would actually result in the loss of information as we attempt to consolidate two very different subjects under one title. I think parallels should be drawn here with other examples of concepts obtaining a greater deal of fame than their eponymous creator/exemplar: Jean-Marc Bosman and the Bosman ruling in soocer, or perhaps even George Marshall and the Marshall Plan. Obviously these two examples are far more famous, but the argument is the same: merging would result in the loss of information for very little benefit. Rje 14:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Olbermann[edit]

Putting Keith Olbermann into this discussion makes it not funny anymore138.163.0.44 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 13:00, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Heroes[edit]

I removed the "Heroes" section which appeared without explanation or citations. It's not relevant to include every player, going back to the 19th century, that performed worse than Mendoza did. White 720 (talk) 19:47, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

The real meaning[edit]

The Mendoza line initially meant anyone who was not hitting his weight. If a guy was hitting .188 and weighed 200 he was below the Mendoza line.

I seem to recall this was because Mendoza gained weight during the off season and his average fell to below his new weight. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.78.56.72 (talk) 21:25, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Minnie Mendoza, no Mario?[edit]

"The Mendoza line is actually named after Minnie Mendoza, a career minor leaguer, who finally made it with the Minnesota Twins in 1970 At age 36. Mendoza hit .188 in sixteen games with the Twins that year. I remember seeing the term Mendoza Line first mentioned in The Sporting News in either 1970 or 1971. It mentioned that some hitters could not even get their averages above the Mendoza Line. It then stated that the term was named after the Twins light hitting infielder Minnie Mendoza. Mario did not come along until 1974. It burns me every time I hear an announcer Mention Mario instead of Minnie when referring to the Mendoza Line. Long live Minnie!" http://www.bostonbaseball.com/whitesox/baseball_extras/mendoza.html twfowler (talk) 20:32, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Show business lingo?[edit]

An editor is claiming that the phrase Mendoza line is particularly extant in the movie business, and that an extended exposition of movie theater finances is therefore in order.

I don't see this at all. The only ref for this is a website (billing itself a source for "Box office data, movie stars, idle speculation") where the writer makes the offhand remark "It is the Mendoza Line of box office numbers...". It seems to be just him using the term, and there's nothing like "Theater managers regularly use the term Mendoza line..." or whatever. (And if there was, I question whether the source would be reliable source for that.)

Checking Google I see this usage in reference to political and financial conditions and so forth, and no evidence that's it's peculiar to the movie business. If it is, we'd need a better ref. Herostratus (talk) 18:42, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

But the ref is to the movie business, and your interpretation of what it says is purely speculative. Besides, the material you're adding is unreffed. If you want to frame it the way you prefer, use those sources you say exist and source that statement. In the meantime, what's there is sourced, please don't change it back again without providiong additional sourcing. Beyond My Ken (talk) 20:21, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
The ref is to the movie business, but it goes into too much detail. We are only trying to demonstrate that the term is used outside of baseball. And the ref is not a reliable source for the movie business -- it appears to be basically a blog and as I noted includes "idle speculation" on its masthead as part of its offerings. It's a demonstration for the statement "sometimes people use this term" and that's it. Here's the current text:
"In the movie business, the Mendoza Line is used to describe a movie that earns a per theater average of less than $2,000 over a weekend. For films released by major studios, it costs about $2,000 to create and ship a print to a movie theater, so, taking into account the revenue earned over the whole week, and the share of revenue kept by the movie theater, if a movie earns less than $2,000 in a theater over a weekend, the studio would have been better off never playing the movie in that theater. Similarly, for movies in limited release, earning over $2,000 in a theater is enough to encourage theater owners to continue booking the movie for additional weeks. Films earning below the Mendoza Line therefore tend to disappear quickly from theaters."<ref><ref>
"Elsewhere, the term is used to describe the line dividing acceptable mediocrity from unacceptable mediocrity."<ref><ref><ref>
And I'm maintaining that only the second paragraph should be included. I took the definition from Wiktionary but a similar one would be OK. (If you want to get technical, these refs demonstrate but don't assert that the term is used outside of baseball, so it's original research to include any of this -- what we'd want is a slang dictionary or other source saying "The term is used outside of baseball...". I don't mind this myself, though, in this instance.)
How about this, although it's more of dictionary-definition type format and not standard, but I offer this if it'll work for you:
The term is also used outside of baseball to describe the line dividing acceptable mediocrity from unacceptable mediocrity:
  • "A sub-$2,000 per theater average... is the Mendoza Line of box office numbers..."<ref>
  • "I don’t think you could find any other figure in politics who has run this far below the Mendoza line and still managed to get taken seriously as a presidential candidate."<ref>
  • Republican pollster Neil Newhouse... argues that these numbers have crossed below the political 'Mendoza line'..."<ref>
  • The U.S. 10-year note yield declined below 2%... before moving back above the Mendoza Line (baseball lingo for a batting average of .200), to 2.09% by early afternoon."<ref>
This would be OK with me. Herostratus (talk)
Sounds OK to me. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 11 September 2011 (UTC)
OK then. Herostratus (talk) 05:18, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

Alternate use of term...[edit]

I know that traditionally the Mendoza Line refers to batting average, but here's my question...

Are there any known instances of a team finishing a season with a win-loss record below the Mendoza Line?

Blozier2006 (talk) 09:07, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The 1899 Cleveland Spiders of the National League won 20 and lost 134, for an average of .129 There were probably others as well. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:28, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Mason-Dixon line[edit]

An editor is asserting, repeatedly, that the following paragraph should be included:\

"Because of the 15 point difference between Mendoza's .215 lifetime batting average and the .200 level that is often implied by the term, at least one fan has suggested that the "Mason-Dixon Line" (so named for Jim Mason and Leo Dixon whose combined average was .204) be used instead because it is closer to .200.[1]
  1. ^ Brandon Gavett & Lee Ashendorf (May 2003). "The Fans Speak Out: Letters to the Editor". Baseball Digest. Archived from the original on 2011-06-23. Retrieved April 19, 2012. 

But it shouldn't. Let us ask ourselves:

  • Is "Mason-Dixon line" (in this sense) in general use among sportwriters, the general public, or anyone? No, it's not.
  • Has "Mason-Dixon line" (in this sense) been used, even once, by a sportswriter or any columnist or other professional writer, in print, in any publication of any kind, ever? No, it hasn't.
  • Does anyone outside of a very small population of very dedicated fans and professional baseball historians remember who Jim Mason and Leo Dixon even are? No, they don't.
  • If anyone used "Mason-Dixon line" (in this sense) in print or in conversation, without first explaining what he meant, would anyone understand him? No, they wouldn't.
  • Are there any sources at all, reliable or unreliable, notable or unnotable, that reference "Mason-Dixon line" (in this sense)? No there aren't.

So why are we even having this conversation? It's very wrongheaded to keep re-inserting this paragraph, its inclusion would violate several Wikipedia rules and guidelines, and it's not going to be included, so let's stop wasting time and move on. That is my opinion. Counter-arguments are welcome. If I'm wrong about this, show me how and where. Herostratus (talk) 17:42, 27 May 2013 (UTC)

I'd like known that I did not re-insert the paragraph; rather I added a clarification explaining who Mason and Dixon were since otherwise the reference to them was quite mysterious, and I very much object to the edit by Herostratus (talk · contribs) which implies that I'm involved in an edit war. I came here as an editor interested in baseball with no prior involvement in the article. Whether this particular usage is noteworthy is unclear to me; there's definitely discussion in the sports world about the appropriateness of the moniker (that is, the concept of the Mendoza line is valid; whether Mendoza is the best exemplar is up for debate). Mackensen (talk) 17:54, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
I didn't mention any names, did not say that there was an edit war (just that someone was being insistent), and don't know who any of the players are here. I certainly don't hold any ill will against Mackensen or anyone else, and didn't mean to imply that you did anything wrong. Certainly it was OK and fine to insert links into the material. I'm just saying that the material itself, links or no, is problematic. I didn't read the history closely, but I think I'm properly using WP:BRD here: someone inserted the paragraph, someone else (me) reverted to the version before the paragraph was inserted, and now we get to discuss it. Hey, I could be wrong about this, I'm wrong often enough, so let's show me where I am wrong. I just don't think we want to be going down the path where "One person wrote in a blog comment section that it would be cool if people started calling the state of Minnesota 'MinneSO-WHAT' instead" and so forth is included in articles even if it is true. Herostratus (talk) 18:16, 27 May 2013 (UTC)