Talk:New York Yankees/Archive 3

message: Excluding the retired numbers section there is no mention of Munson, the Yankees' first Captain since Gehrig. Anyone else think he should be mentioned somewhere? AriGold 13:57, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I mentioned this above. Yankees76 21:45, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Thurman Munson]]

message: So your contention is that the official Yankees' website and MLB are wrong and they don't know when their logo was first used and we should trust www.baseball-almanac.com which is a site that is provided information from anon sources like wikipedia? "What would become the most recognizable insignia in sports the interlocking 'NY' made its first appearance on the uniforms of the New York Highlanders in 1909."  AriGold 13:33, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, the Yankees first used their version of the NY logo in 1909, but they were not the first team to use an Interlocking NY. In 1901 the Yankees were the Baltimore Orioles, however that year the New York Giants used the Interlocking NY logo as their official team logo (though not on the uniform) - 2 years before the New York Highlanders existed. The article doesn't specify the first appearace of the Yankees NY logo, it states that " An interlocking "NY" (based on an element of the original Tiffany design of the New York Police Department's Medal of Honor, although the concept of the interlocking NY was first used by". Your statement is therefore wrong. The concept was not first used by the Higlanders.  The Giants first used the interlocking NY. Please read more carefully - I'm reverting it back. Yankees76 13:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you're worried about verifiability, please refer to the Baseball Hall of Fame website - have a look at the 1908 NY Giants uniforms - you'll notice the Interlocking NY on the left sleave of both the home and road jersey.  The NY logo on the Highlanders uniform appeared a year later. Thanks. Yankees76 13:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And just while we're at it, the logo identified as being from the Highlander days is a modern print logo.  I'm aware that Sportslogos.net has mis-identified it as such, but we should not perpetuate the error.  I have corrected the caption and moved the logo down to the "21st Century" section.  --Chancemichaels 21:13, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Yankees logo

message: I cannot believe this did not get noticed this pro-Yankee paragraph added by someone with the IP address 207.219.117.254:
Some argue that the mere consideration of five years without a championship as some sort of "drought" it testament to the level of expectation the Yankees have created. No other franchise would consider a five year stretch as any kind of drought. Indeed, the Yankees are a franchise in a league of their own, and this level of dominance and expectation started with the deal that brought George "Babe" Ruth from the Boston Red Sox and can support the contention that the Curse of the Bambino will remain as long as the Yankees position as the class of the MLB is a reality. Any team can win a championship (no one would consider the Arizona Diamondbacks or Florida Marlins, recent World Series champions, to be franchises threatening to topple the Yankees legacy over the last 85 years), so the Red Sox finally winning one doesn't put them back to the position of dominance over the MLB they held through the WWI years.
If 207.219.117.254 does not consider the last five years a drought, he or she may as well remove the entire section.  Plus, I am sure many Yankee fans will concede that the curse is broken (although the Yankees still hold the most championships at this point).
Whether five years is enough to be a drought is up to debate, though one must admit the expectations are still very high for teams such as the Red Sox, the Yankees, the Braves, the Cardinals, and all the other teams who are almost always in the hunt for division titles, league pennants, and championships.
On a related note, a user with IP address 68.187.229.249 keeps wiping out the entire article.  Three words: banned for life!
"The Yankees also have more championships than any other top league professional team." This information in the article is false, the Yankees have 26 championships, Juventus has 28.
DaDoc540 06:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Non-neutral POV 

message: I doubt the factual accuracy of the claim that the Yankees can directly trace their history back to the Indianapolis team of the Western League.  Although the five teams of the Western League to survive merged with the American League, it was my understanding that there wasn't a specific translation that team x is now team y.  I cite Baseball_Reference's section on the Yankees that the history of the team begins in 1901 in Baltimore. Roodog2k 22:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You know what, if baseballreference.com says that they started in Baltimore, and there is no reference to this day that says that they started in Indianapolis, then I am going to remove Indianapolis. Sportskido8 00:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  disputed 

message: As I've stated in edit summaries, I don't think it is a good idea to include daily updated team records for sports teams:  . There are two key reasons:
#Wikipedia is not a news service, and providing current standings is not what an encyclopedia is for;
#MostlyRainy's caveat of "as long as I can update it"  admits the inherent problem that if an update is missed (which is a reasonable assumption), the information would immediately be inaccurate. 
Other editors at other pages seem to agree . --mtz206 (talk) 12:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Further to that, season highlights should be kept to a minimum. See some of my most recent reversions - the entry for the 2006 season should not contain more than a few historical events. The Yankees beating Billy Wagner and the Mets is not a significant point in the teams history and should not be added. Neither is Matsui's broken wrist. As has been mentioned above, this is not a news service. The entries for 2004 and up contain too many minor details when compared to the entries for the 50's, 60's and 70's. A few years should not overshadow entire decades. 22:11, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current record 

message: Can we check the nationality of players on the roster.
I'm not a big big fan, so i'm not sure myself, but I doubt Mussina is Chinese and Jeter is Japanese.
???
::I'm sure this as an act of vandalism. It has been corrected previously.Djramey 18:41, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nationality of players 

message: I find it interesting that the quick facts sections firmly states, "The Yankees have no mascot". This should be changed to, "currently have no" or alternately, "no longer have a". This statements' predominant appearance is most likely due to the fact that most Yankees fans want to forget about their original mascot; a big eagle that was named "Doodle" or "Dandy" (I'm not sure which), who was reviled by the fans and quickly gotten rid of. Nevertheless, this info should be noted and added as it is a part of Yankees history, albeit trivial.
::Find a verifiable source of this information and add it to the article. Yankees76 22:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Forgotten Mascot 

message: As the All-Star Break approaches, it's time to assess how the Yankees are doing this season.  They surely miss Hideki Matsui and Gary Sheffield.  True they managed to get two lopsided wins, but with two ugly losses sandwiched in between it's clear they could use another bat.  As I write this, the Yankees for scheduled to finish a series with the Cleveland Indians and then head to play a three game series with the Devil Rays before the break.  While the Devil Rays have not played well overall, they have played the Yankees tough -- two of the four Yankee victories against them were decided by two runs in extra innings.  This will be an important series because each win will allow the Yankees to gain ground in wild-card or AL East standings.  After an extended four day break, the Yankees get to play the White Sox themselves in the Bronx, followed by a series against the Toronto Blue Jays at Skydome.  They will meet the White Sox at Comiskey on August 8.  The Yankees will play not one, but two doubleheaders against the Red Sox on August 18 and September 16.  The Yankees will also play 7 games against the Angels, but only one of them will be at 10pm.  We will ultimately see if the Yankees can continue their playoff run.  While they're not playing as bad as the Braves, they will need some consisent pitching and hitting if they Yankees hope to be one of the elite eight vying for that elusive ring every play dreams of getting this October.  Mostly Rainy 07:18, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second Half Outlook 

message: Two players (Sturtze and Rasner) are listed as 60-Day's. Do we then need to also list 15-Day players? Phillips, Cairo, Matsui, Sheffield et al... Djramey 18:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disabled List 

message: Maybe for some reason my wikipedia/I.E. interface is screwy, but when I click on "Thurman Munson" where his name appears in the "Retired Numbers" section beneath his #15, the page I get redirected to is this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_shirt
Obviously, nothing to do with Thurman Munson... I had two of my friends click on the link, one had that come up and the other didn't... is this practical vandalism? Either way, I suggest someone with more wiki experience than myself fix it.
Now fixed, was some uncaught vandalism. Thanks Jaranda wat's sup 03:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nazi Storm Troopers? 

message: ===New York Yankees===
:Nominated September 4, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by September 25, 2006
; Reason
Most well known baseball team. Jaranda wat's sup 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[New York Yankees]] is this week's [[WP:BBAID|Baseball's AID]]

message: :Nominated September 4, 2006; needs at least 9 votes by September 25, 2006
; Reason
Most well known baseball team. Jaranda wat's sup 02:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[New York Yankees]]

message: I have issue with "their reputation for being a team full of acquired superstars".  It's commonly stated, but quite frankly not true.  Sorted by games played this year, 6 of the top 9 batters are lifetime Yankees, and it's been that way for quite some time.  When compared to other top teams like the Red Sox (3), Tigers (3), Mets (2), and Cardinals (3), they're overwhelmingly a "home-grown" team.
:I agree - the common criticism that the Yankees buy their titles is usually leveled by those with only a passing knowledge of the team and the game itself. I've removed the statement and reworded it to be more NPOV. Yankees76 20:21, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 6 of the 9 top batters by games? that's cherry-picking your stats. Looking at the starting lineup for the playoffs, only 3 of the 9 starters are from the farm system: Cano, Jeter and Posada. Six of the 9 were acquired by trade or free-agency: Giambi, Sheffield, Rodriguez, Matsui, Damon, Abreu. If you look at the beginning of the season, essentially sub Williams for Abreu, and it's 4 of the 9 from the farm system. Now 3 or 4 out of 9 from the farm system may not be much different from other teams, but lets at least use reasonable measures. Simon12 05:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Matsui has never played a game for another MLB team (see wording 'lifetime Yankees' in the post at the top), and the Game 1 playoff starter Chien-Ming Wang, is also from the farm system. Good try though. Yankees76 18:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said Matsui wasn't a lifetime Yankee. What I said was Matsui is an acquired superstar, and is not home-grown by any definition, as he did not come from the farm system. You want to use Matsui as an example of how they are "overwhelmingly a home-grown team"? I don't think you'll get very far with that argument. And I'll see your Wang, and counter with Johnson, Mussina, and Wright/Lidle, all acquired from elsewhere. My point was not that the post at top was inaccurate, but that it was worded to make the Yankees look better, as it picked a stat (Games this year) that managed to avoid including Matsui, Sheffield and Abreu, all acquired from elsewhere. I don't know if the Yankees have more or less farm system players than other teams, but their payroll clearly gives them the ability to acquire more expensive players than other teams. By the way, none of this is a criticism of how the Yankees acquire players - they are operating totally with the rules. But to deny the fact that the Yankees are mostly "a team full of acquired superstars", when 9 of their 14 (starting lineup, 4 starters, Rivera) key players starting the playoffs are acquired from elsewhere, is just denying reality.
I think a lot of the criticism is poorly-worded. To be more articulate, the Yankees rely a lot less on their farm system than many other teams do -- something they are able to do because they are particularly well-funded. When the Yankees seek to plug a large hole in their roster, they are able to do it by throwing a lot of money at the problem -- again, because of their funding. Compare guys like A-Rod and Randy Johnson to Mike Lowell and Jon Lester. Sure, the Red Sox have their big stars as well, but they have been with the team arguably longer and are surrounded by a lot more ex-farm guys. I don't hide my Red Sox support, but I'm more interested in calling a spade a spade. The Yankees and the Red Sox have the 1st and 2nd largest payrolls in the MLB, and parts of their success are attributed to that. I don't believe it's disingenuous in saying that the Yankees have had particularly more success as a result of their payroll than, for example, their farm system. Chris 22:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism 

message: This section seems unsourced and biased please fix or remove it if you can't verify criticisms they should be removed see also WP:POV-- yo 19:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Critics" 

message: There was no reason to move the Teams Captains table the article on New York Yankees award winners and league leaders so I have revereted it back to its' previous form.  MOving it to that article makes no sense, as Captain status has nothing to do with MLB awards like every other one of the awards listed in that article. Yankees' Captain status is one of the more treasured pieces of history in the organization, removing it from this article here is unwarranted. It is just as relevent as retired numbers and I have added it near that section to reflect as such. AriGold 16:34, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Team captains

message: The nicknames of various teams have been added to the templates in quotation marks under the name.  It was editted out of here, and the editor said that he worried that it would be considered official.  While the nickname is basically official, being used constantly by personnel and the like.  However, it's probably best not to get into an editting war, so what do you guys think?  We can discuss it here. Silent Wind of Doom 06:03, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it's fine, but it should be noted that there are other nicknames for the team (though less popular)Yankees76 19:05, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really can't think of any besides the Bronx Bombers, but I know there are others.  Can we get a pretty good list going here, whether current or defunct?  When we have enough, we can put them in the article. Silent Wind of Doom 22:41, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Off the top of my head - The Pinstripers, Yanks, Men in Pinstripes, Murderers' Row, The Bronx Zoo... Yankees76 05:04, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  When Miller Huggins was manager they were often referred to as the "Hugmen". Apparently using a manager based nickname was common back then, as an article I saw on the Yanks vs Connie Mack's A's was titled "Hugmen beat Mackmen 8-3". Simon12 14:41, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Doesn't Murderer's Row really refer to a part (sometimes a big part) of the lineup, not the team as a whole?  The Bronx Zoo was Sparky Lyle's book title, not a real nickname for the team.  Bronx Bombers and the Yanks are the only ones, in my opinion, in the running, and I'd say put 'em both up.Tvoz 18:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm cool with that. Murderer's Row was the nickname given to the 1927 Yankees. The Pinstripers" is also very common. Yankees old-timers day teams are usually called "The Bombers" and "The Pinstripers". Yankees76 19:02, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, you're right about Pinstripers, but to me it's really more about the old guys, not the current team. You're also right that Murderer's Row refers to the '27 Yanks, and I've heard it used for the power part of the current lineup when things are going well.  In any case, I think Yanks and Bronx Bombers are the leaders.  Any other folks want to weigh in?  (Go Mets, I guess)Tvoz 04:47, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nickname: "The Bronx Bombers" 

message: Is all the off-season move information since 1996 really necessary? Stanton, Brosius, El Duque, Rondell White, Ventura, on through Pavano and Wright. Other then Clemens, Rodriguez and maybe a couple of others, I think almost all the post-season moves should be deleted. Agree/Disagree? Simon12 01:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree. We shoud discuss edits here first before making them, Johnny Damon might be another key offseason move, and other editors might feel strongly about other edits. Good call though Yankees76 04:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off-season moves 

message: I'm reinstating the sentence and a half about Torre's coaches  in 96 for two reasons:
1) the new dynasty is not only the players, but also the managing team which included Zimmer, Stottlemyre, Randolph, etc. - these guys were more prominent than most coaches were, had a higher profile. (For example, I was a big fan of the Billy Martin years, but couldn't tell you who any of his coaches were. May have known at the time, but it had no lasting impact. I think someone like Zimmer will be remembered, if only for the Fenway brawl, but also because of the way Joe consulted with him during games.)  It's under 2 sentences and hardly dominates the section.   And 2) right, earlier teams' coaches aren't included, but it is to be expected that recent history gets more detail than earlier history - people writing about it have access to much more information about the present or recent past than the remote past.   We can't expect all sections to be exactly the same- not if we want to avoid having a boring page.  Tvoz 06:00, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it may be expected that recent history gets more detail than earlier history, I don't think it should be that way. I mean, you've got a total of 5 sentences on the 5 straight World Series wins from 1949-1953. If we want to keep this article at a reasonable size, and keep the different eras in the right perspective, then the amount of text on the last 10 years needs to be reduced. And your comment about the Martin's coaches "no lasting impact" is exactly right - coaches, in general, have no lasting impact, and therefore don't belong in the article in my opnion. Simon12 12:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree. There's no need to mention the coaches for '96 - they're not any more notable than the coaches from 1955, '61 or '77 (as examples).  We can leave it in for now though, because it fits nicely with the text around it, but should the article end up being too long - less notable details like this would be nominated to possible removal and moved to their own lists/articles. Yankees76 13:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The point was not to just mindlessly list some random coaches. The point was that Torre's management style is one of having more evident input from his coaches, as was discussed a lot at the time, and that Torre's style seemed to have been what the team needed at that time.  So i think those particular  coaches are notable and relevant, and that's why I think they should be where they are. I'll see if I can find a reference to put in there, if that will make people feel better about leaving these coaches in. None of these individual points is all that important, but it's a matter of trying to put some life into this page - still in encyclopedic form and tone - with some detail that makes it enjoyable to read.  If I recall correctly, the community also values well-written material, with substance and verifiable analysis, not just info dumpsTvoz 18:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  new dynasty/coaches 

message: Don't get me wrong, this article is very well written and comprehensive.  As a baseball fan, I did enjoy a lot of it, but there are some major issues.
# Sourcing.  Namely, there isn't nearly enough.  Very little of this article is actually sourced, considering the size of the article and the rich, detailed history available about the franchise. 
# Facts.  Just off the top of my head, this article perpetuates the No No Nanette myth.  That's not a good sign.
# Length.  It's one thing to be comprehensive, it's another to have too much detail.  Perhaps split some sections off?  Shorten some of the more trivial information?
# Images.  Good use of illustration, but I'm not entirely sure of some of the fair use rationales.  The Don Mattingly photo comes to mind specifically, as it's a promotional photo.  There may be another freebie available at commons to use, but this usage may not fly.  I suggest getting a look from the folks at fair use.
It needs a lot of work, but the brunt of it is done.  Good luck. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:53, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The history section needs to be split up somehow.. the article is 81k long, and over half is the history. The recently created History of the New York Yankees seems appropriate. Mlm42 17:31, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd like to know if there's an easy way to measure the K of the non-text sections in this article, like the roster and retired numbers,  so we know what we're talking about here regarding the length.  This article is well-structured, with sections that make it easier to read the prose sections, and I think it would suffer greatly from having all of the history material moved out to a separate page.  Not the end of the world, but not what I think people look for when they look at a page about the Yankees.  What's left if we take out history?   Tvoz 18:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: GA stuff

message: I had a feeling this would happen. Oh well. I'm too tired to argue with an OrphanBot. --Sportskido8 13:40 CST, 7 November 2006
Yeah, me too - i posted a note above when I got the word.  I'm going to try to track down the sources and re-upload, but wiki's interpretation of fair use when it comes to pix is much more stringent than I think is warranted, from my knowledge of the publishing industry - however, they're entitled to set their policies and I don't feel like taking it on right now.  So I'll see what I can do - if you look, as you probably have, you'll see that the individual players' pages also have no pix or very weak ones.(altho I kinda like Yogi on his 80th birthday), so that's no help. I guess we have to accept that this encyclopedia is very light on pictures. Shouldn't be, but there you go.Tvoz 20:01, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is that it?  We were really getting somewhere, greatly spicing the article up, and now they've been taken away and we're just gonna sit here?  What's necessary for a source?  If it's a promotional photo, isn't the source the Yankee's Company?  It's where it came from, isn't it?  Why don't we just put Yankee Global Enterprises LLC as the source and restore the pictures?  Silent Wind of Doom 01:15, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems that promotional photos like that should fall under fair use; perhaps the issue is one of lack of sourcing rather than one of fair use, so your solution might work, SWoD. It's certainly worth a shot.  Brad E. Williams 21:11, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures Gone