Talk:Bobby Richardson

message: Anyone out there who cares to explain what does and doesn't belong here?  Question: why is it out of place here to comment on Richardson's place in the Yankee dynasty, in some detail?  
I am not a Yankee fan; hated them in the days of Richardson, actually.  I would never praise Richardson motivated by being his fan.  But I have an attachment to answering the "so what?" question, and I think that is a fundamental reason why people read encyclopedias.  Why did Richardson matter? in other words.  You can't tell why he mattered by quoting his stats, not that much.  You have to put him IN CONTEXT to tell his story.  It is not controversial that he was a critical defensive player on the best baseball team of his era, or that countless times it was the Yankee infield defense that won the day.  Nor is it controversial that he had the tendency to shine offensively, when it counted most, and tended to lift his team even when Mantle and Maris weren't lifting it by themselves.  Richardson probably wasn't any better than some of the other star infielders of his day, like Maury Wills or Dick Groat or Bill Mazeroski.  BUT HISTORY/CHANCE PUT HIM IN A PLACE WHERE HE HAD A GREATER EFFECT THAN THEY DID.  By a mile.  Why do a good number of you seem to think that saying so is "unencyclopedic?"  Or that it might be okay to say that in the article on the Yankees, but not on Richardson?
Thanks in advance for any response.  Moabalan.
Another version of the same question:  I edited this article to say the defense Richardson, Kubek and Boyer contributed was critical to Yankee success (that part was left in).  I said that it was one of about five factors making the Yanks better than the rest.  There was a great offense, great pitching, both starters and relievers, and a great manager in Stengel.  When you added the way those three infielders played defense, you got a World Series ring about every other year for the full span of Richardson's time with the team.  Is there a controversial point in that?  If not, why shouldn't an encyclopedia article talk about an individual's contribution to history?
My edit was removed with a note that such observations just might fit in the article on the Yankees, but not here.  The implication was that it was either factually questionable or not pertinent to what encyclopedia readers want to read.  Are we throwing the baby out with the bathwater here, because we're so cautious?  This is not original research.  It was the common knowledge of well-informed baseball fans at the time.
:Bill James wrote several essays and articles to debunk the myth that the Yaknees of the early 1960s were a great all-around team.  Says he (and I tend to agree) the pitching was Whitey Ford and one-season guest stars, the bench was thin, and beyond lots and lots of home runs (admittedly a nice start), the offense wasn't all that noteworthy.  Their lineup was usually five "cleanup" hitters and three glovemen.  In retrospect, the very solid defensive infield was one of their real strengths. WHPratt (talk) 17:26, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Yankees dynasty

message: I removed the tag asking that information in this article be verified. I verified it all with baseball-reference.com, and made a few minor corrections; I believe that it is now completely accurate. I also added one paragraph and a couple of footnotes.Markjoseph125 03:01, 5 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information verified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Bobby Richardson. 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/20120217174959/http://www.thenewsstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=DI&Dato=20071027&Kategori=NEWS01&Lopenr=1027005&Ref=PH&Profile=1006 to http://www.thenewsstar.com/apps/pbcs.dll/gallery?Avis=DI&Dato=20071027&Kategori=NEWS01&Lopenr=1027005&Ref=PH&Profile=1006
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I check pages listed in :Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of :Bobby Richardson's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
Reference named "minors":
From Barry Zito: 
From José Rijo: 
From Wally Moses: 
From Madison Bumgarner: 
From Tommy John: 
From Dave Stewart (baseball): 
From Édgar Rentería: 
From Mariano Rivera: 
From Pablo Sandoval: 
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 03:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Orphaned references in [[:Bobby Richardson]]