Talk:Boston Red Sox/Archive 1

message: I came to this article via a link in the Cy Young article.  There is a lot of research going on at the moment that tends to show that the Boston Americans were never actually called the "Pilgrims" at the time -- that it was a name that baseball writers later stuck onto the team's history.  I belong to the Sabremetric baseball research group and will research this issue a little, then, if necessary, make any changes. Hayford Peirce 03:34, 18 Aug 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: there is mention of this now in the article. Lets cosider the issue closed Alkivar 05:50, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There are several highly respected sources (eg., Total Baseball, vol 6 1998; Total Ballclubs 2005) that still cite that the team was in deed referred to as the Pilgrims and the Puritans. If you are going to claim in the article they never were, please cite sources. Until then, I am going to chage it back with a disclaimer.--CrazyTalk 22:10, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Take a deep breath, calm down, this needs to be civil. Please do not edit my comments; you can fix spelling in the article, but not on the talk page.  I have reverted the misspelling in my above comment and please leave it be. Your edit to the article is still POV (Assume good faith}; you say "never" yet I have official publications of Major League Baseball stating otherwise, thereby nullifying the term "never" which is an inappropriate use of the word, and I believe John Thorn and Pete Palmer are also SABR members so they should know. If you can give me a SABR reference, then I will believe it. Until then, you cannot represent what is not yet fully accepted in baseball circles. Even the above comment by Hayford Peirce says he was going to do more research and edit as necessary - he never did state his findings nor make any edit to the page. I personally am not really interested in it, but "never" is an inappropriate stance. In the mean time, I have lessened the POV of the edit and combined it to show both sides. Once SABR fully embraces it, I think you have a point, but until then, it should be left open. What say you?--CrazyTalk 23:39, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: This is ridiculous in-deed. Why did you now remove Sommersets? "Conventional wisdom" is a weasel term. At least what the National Baseball Hall of Fame and Museum and SABR recognize is not totally removed from the article; although it is still POV. Even the article that was provided as a source is one man's opinion - if you can provide me a Bill James article, I will buy you dinner. No offense, but you seem to be heavily invested in the anti-Puritan camp and are presenting more emotion than fact. Can I ask you to step back for awhile and discuss it at a later time? Please leave the article as it is for now. Work toward agreement.--CrazyTalk 01:16, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: The Pilgrims

message: I just removed a couple paragraphs added to a game summary ... this isn't a play-by-play or color commentary - the article is very long as it is. - DavidWBrooks 00:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  let's not overdo game summaries 

message: Well... I think there are simply too many players without supporting pages. If this anonymous user think they are NTBF, how about creating a page for them first explaining why, then add them to this list? And what about some oscure players like Agbayani, Alcantara, Benzinger, Checo, Pemberton, and a long etcetera, joining distinguished ones such as Roger Clemens,  Dick Radatz, Duffy Lewis, Lee Smith, Wes Ferrell, Jim Lonborg and Dwight Evans, between others? MusiCitizen 13:08, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree, this section is really supposed to be for notable players, not a comprehensive list. If a player doesn't even have a stub, it's unlikely they should be in this section. Carbonite | Talk 14:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I also agree, that latest list was rediculously long.  It might even be better to simply list those with retired numbers and those in the RS HOF to prevent too much POV. See the Talk:Boston_Bruins page for some good reasoning. Pal 14:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like y'all need another section: "To be forgotten". Wahkeenah 17:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Not to be forgotten

message: I've added the cleanup template to this article in the hopes that someone with more time can perhaps trim the accounts of recent seasons.  As a Red Sox fan, I'm as excited about the team and their recent progress, but this article is poorly written for an encyclopedia.  Rife with redundancy, clear bias, and unclear phrasing, this piece isn't quite in need of a total rewrite, but needs some serious structural reorganization near the end.  Should I get some time soon, I'll try my hand at it myself. --Dsibilly 02:14, 11 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I've done some of this cleanup, but there still remains a lot of work - there is a noticeable gap in the team's history: the 1980s (Morgan's Magic, the 86 Series).  Also the former players section probably needs to be cleaned up (see above comments). Pal 04:11, 16 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleanup? 

message: IMO the section on the 2005 season and the 2005 post-season is far too long. The 2004 section is probably too long as well but because of winning the World Series and beating the Yankees in such dramatic fashion warrant some attention I can mainly understand that section's length.
If the 2002- 2003 section warrants 3 paragraphs and the championship season warrants 10 and the 2005 section warrants another 12 paragraphs - how many will the next season have ? Eventually you will have an article that is long on details of recent events and shorter on encyclopedic information.
I'm tempted to just wade in and start paring but I'd like some feedback from other users. No Guru 21:15, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Go right ahead and trim!  I did it after last season (which had featured practically an inning-by-inning account of the '04 playoffs -- and it's growin again!) and I have plans to do more this offseason. - Pal 20:08, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe later in the winter, when the Hot Stove League is in full swing. Wahkeenah 20:13, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article length 

message: "Wade Boggs is the only player who meets the criteria for his number to be retired."
Boggs ended his career with Tampa Bay; thus, he does NOT meet the necessary criteria.  How do we go about changing this statement to better reflect what the actual situation is? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by FutureNJGov (talk • contribs) .
: Good catch.  I've made some changes.  How's that? —Cleared as filed. 13:04, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: prior to fisk it was a requirement to have retired a Red Sox.--Kev62nesl 05:40, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, Fisk was made a special assistant for one day by Duquette which allowed him to "retire" with the Sox. I added this to the article with a reference. IrishGuy talk 21:46, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Retired Numbers