Talk:List of Major League Baseball career hits leaders

message: Just a thought... 2000 hits is traditionally not thought of as a baseball milestone, 3000 hits is. I think this page should be split into two, perhaps? One for players with 3000 hits and another for top 200 players ranked by the number hits. What do you all think? Jxyama 18:55, 5 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. I do not understand why this article is here. 3000 hits is the traditional benchmark, not 2000.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.192.28 (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: A number of Hall of Fame batters have between 2,000 and 3,000 hits, and (anecdotally) I feel like there is always reporting when someone collects their 2,000th hit. Probably worth preserving the list, but might make sense to split into two sub-sections. One for players with over 3k hits and one for hitters with over 2k. Magic1million (talk) 18:56, 13 April 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: There are lots of mistakes here: Look and compare to List of lifetime MLB hit leaders through history Happy138 10:29, 15 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of mistakes 

message: Any idea why the leaders are bold-faced, even though they are not active? Fbdave (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  bold-facing leaders 

message: I don't know anything about baseball, but it seems there is agreement that 2000 hits is an arbitrary line with no real notability. How about making it into a list of the 100 players with the most hits instead? --OpenFuture (talk) 10:04, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: 2000 is arbitrary. But so is "top 100". The reason this page is at AfD is because no editorial decisions can salvage this page from a violation of WP:NOT#STATS. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Maybe a top 100 instead? 

message: I posted this on Talk:List of top 500 Major League Baseball home run hitters, and I should also post it here.
I commend your work here keeping this and other similar pages up to date and free of errors and vandalism. This does take a good deal of attention and effort. That said, I still hope the AfD Stax started for this article and the I started for the top 500 home run hitter article are closed as 'delete'. I expect that many others in this category will soon be nominated, and most of them will also be deleted.
This means that many of you who focus on these articles may suddenly have less to do here. I hope that if these pages are closed as deletes, or even if they aren't, you might help WP:Baseball by working on some of our highest profile pages, some of which could use serious improvement. Thank you for your efforts. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:32, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Updating the list before all games have completed for a date would be an error. Editors who selectively edit the list (a lot of times Yankees players are the only ones updated) or edit in a way that would not coincide with the "updated thru" date are doing a disservice to the reader and forcing editors who's only care is accuracy to correct the article. It would be hard to argue an editor in engaging in selective updating/editing is sticking to a NPOV, where players should be updated because they are a member of this article, not because they receive preferential treatment or are made to look better than others on the list. If an editor wishes to update an individual player's article post-game, that would be OK as the player's stats are not being listed (and compared) against any others. If McGwire hit a home run at 2PM on Aug 23 and the list was updated at 2:01 to reflect he was the single-season HR king before Sosa had completed a game with a start time of 7:05PM, then the list would be incorrect as there is not "updated thru 2PM Aug 23"; it is simply updated at a maximum of once per day. Wikipedia is not a newspaper. Zepppep (talk) 02:41, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  To all the tireless editors of this and other baseball stat pages 

message: Seriously, to get 200 hits in a season, you have to be at the top of your game. Nobody has ever had 300 hits in a season. It is silly for you to keep updating a "watch list" where so many people are still so far from the criteria. Why don't you guys focus on improving articles that need to be expanded? That's far more useful. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I know I'm replying to an old thread, but I think 1,800 is still probably a bit far-out for a watchlist. Maybe 1900 would be a better benchmark. Even in a good year, it still takes a ballplayer about half a season to get 100 hits, so there'd be plenty of lead time between watch-list and making the board. Magic1million (talk) 17:52, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  1,700 hits is not "close" to 2,000 

message: I consider it a drawback that the categories used in 'lists' of notable players are inconsistent. For example, a list like this, of those who have hit safely 2000 or more times, operates differently from the list of those who are in the top 300 (formerly top 500) of those who hit home runs. No one who makes the list of 2000 or more hits can ever be removed - for all time, a player who has hit safely 2000 or more times has met the requisite standard. But a member at the bottom of a list of the top 300 (or 500) who do anything (home runs, doubles, value of tickets sold to a movie, etc.) ceases to be on that list whenever another entry is added to the list (absent ties, of course).
 
So, the makers of these should choose one format or the other: all players who have done something; or the top x number who have done it. And use that format consistently.
 
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.187.189.213 (talk) 22:15, 4 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Consistency of Catagories 

message: Johnny Damon is still listed as an "active player" on MLB.com. Additionally, unlike say Vladimir Guerrero, he has been on an active roster with a team during the current 2012 season. Simply because Damon is not on a team's 40-man roster does not mean he is no longer "active," and thus, he should remain in bold text. Strike2216 has had this edit reverted by two editors, myself and Muboshgu within 2 days with explanations in the edit summaries on both occasions. Rather than reverting my latest revert, the user shall come here to engage in discussion and consensus-building rather than instigating an edit war. List any comments below. Zepppep (talk) 07:13, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, Strike2216, if you're trying to show Damon is no longer an active player, why have you left this season's tally next to his name? List your support. Zepppep (talk) 14:04, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Featured list Major League Baseball Most Valuable Player Award states "a player is considered inactive if he has announced his retirement or not played a full season." Zepppep (talk) 01:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Strike2216, seeing as you have not replied (even took the liberty to offer RfC directly to your talk page days ago) but instead reverted you are indeed attempting to edit war rather than attempting to build consensus. Zepppep (talk) 02:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Damon should definitely be listed as an active player.  He was on a MLB 25 player roster this season, hasn't announced his retirement and (presumably) is still in search of a job.  The issue of what defines an "active player" can be found here in this FLC discussion.  As Muboshgu stated, we should consider a player "active until he says otherwise." —Bloom6132 (talk) 07:11, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

text: Makes sense to me, especially since no arguments have been made as to why he should not be considered active.—Bagumba (talk) 17:27, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It definitely looks like Strike2216 is trying to start an edit war.  His refusal to negotiate after being invited to do so a week ago while continuing to edit the page in discussion shows he has no intention of negotiating.  Instead, he has resorted to editing the page unilaterally as if he owns it, which is clearly against WP policy.  We've given him a more than generous amount of time to respond; I say we revert his disruptive edits and if he continues to edit war, report him. —Bloom6132 (talk) 09:27, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The user is back at it. Zepppep (talk) 03:38, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

text: He didn't play in 2012. We can use that as a definition of "inactive" as well as stated retirement. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:34, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: We could also define it as a player who is currently on an active roster (or wasn't at the beginning of the season, or any span he has not been on active roster), or in the event of injury, inactive list. We could also use the same logic that would be applied to a manager. Whilst a manager may not report to the media he has retired, by not being employed with a MLB club, he would therefore be defined as a non-active manager. Like a player, it doesn't mean the desire or potential isn't there; it simply means he is not employed. Bonds or any other player letting it be known he has retired doesn't necessarily mean it is so; however, not being employed does. Zepppep (talk) 20:23, 9 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I like Mobushgu's proposal best because it simplifies it. For the upcoming 2013 season, active status can be given to anyone who was on a ballclub roster in the 2012 season (injured or not) and did not file retirement papers. However, if they go a year without being contracted, they should be listed as inactive. That is for all the players who want to keep playing, but cannot find someone to sign them. If a player gets signed as is on the team's 40 man roster, he should be listed as "active." If he was in the minors at lower levels despite previous MLB experience, like Mark Pryor or Manny Ramirez recently, they should be listed "inactive" until they get into a MLB game. Bonds would be inactive because he was not signed by anyone for a few years now. Likewise, Roger Clemens is playing independent ball and should still be listed inactive unless a MLB club signs him. Arnabdas (talk) 14:58, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You're essentially saying the same thing, but using examples to show your reasoning rather than a more abstract concept. The only thing I would disagree with is that a player should be considered active if they get signed by a MLB club, not whether they get into a game or not. Zepppep (talk) 19:30, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, but that MLB club signing should only be if they make the 40 man roster, not just dwell in the minors, unless if they were active the prior year and are just in the minors for the year in question. Arnabdas (talk) 14:25, 11 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active player 

message: ::Why is Cap Anson not on this list. He has 3,435. Official MLB hit leaders show him as 6th all time. He should be listed on here as well.
http://www.baseball-reference.com/leaders/H_career.shtml
:::: Hey I see the footnote now. I was incorrect about the MLB site. I see now he has less hits on there. I think it was 3011.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.107.0.73 (talk) 16:39, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cap Anson 

message: For some reason Lou Whitaker is listed as active, but I think the stats belong to Albert Pujols?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bbonds775 (talk • contribs) 03:12, 23 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lou Whitaker listed as active? 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Major League Baseball which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 13:50, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress