Talk:List of Major League Baseball career stolen bases leaders

message: After the graph of the players and their stolen bases, the font shrinks or it's a different font altogether. I'm going to see what's going on in a moment. Fdssdf 00:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Font discrepancy

message: Was going to fill in the blanks in the rank column of the tables, but just wanted to make sure that they weren't left blank intentionally for some reason. Anyone with more knowledge of the article know why it is the way it is? NeilHynes - TalkEdits 07:39, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It indicates that multiple players are tied for the same rank.  Please do no fill in blank ranks as that would not conform to other baseball lists and would, frankly, look like a disaster. - Masonpatriot (talk) 17:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, duh, should have looked a bit more. More evidence why you shouldn't edit wikipedia at 5 in the morning I suppose NeilHynes - TalkEdits 19:59, 24 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing Ranks 

message: I just switched the page's alignment to four headings instead of three. I would like some other people's feedback on which looks better! Please leave your comments below, and I will certainly change it back if no one seems to like the four columns. Thanks! Clay4president2 (talk) 15:39, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: As with all the pages in this class, my question is this: what was used to determine the current cutoff of inclusion? – Muboshgu (talk) 15:46, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alignment 

message: There seems to be a consensus that objective criteria based on reliable sources be used to determine membership in this list. Applicable guidelines to be followed include:
* WP:LISTN: "A list topic is considered notable if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list."
* WP:NLIST: "entries must have the same importance to the subject as would be required for the entry to be included in the text of the article according to Wikipedia policies and guidelines (including WP:Trivia sections)."
I would expect to see sufficient sources that mention in prose that player X is ranked No. Y on the MLB career stolen base list, or discuss the top-XXX as a whole group.  My initial instinct is that seeing mention in Dan Driessen's article that he is No. 499 on the career stolen base list would be trivia, which is likely why it is not in his article.  Without research, I assume that the top-100 is notable;  someone can prove otherwise if they think it should be more stringent. My instinct tells me anything greater than No. 100 is trivia, but I can be swayed if multiple sources convince me otherwise.—Bagumba (talk) 16:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that anything greater than 100 is trivia, even if that does include players who lead the league for a couple seasons. Frankly even 100 is probably pushing the envelope. Now I haven't done a search to look specifically, but I can't recall ever reading a statement that someone was ranked X for a stat and that number being greater than the top 20. So clearly the 500 has to go as being extremely trivial. If you are going to go with a subjective number, 500 stolen bases seems to make the most sense to me as it is a round number and it would still include enough players to make a decent sized list without including too many people. But of course any number we choose will be subjective unless you can find articles specifically talking about the top X base stealers. -DJSasso (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

text: My instinct tells me something like 300 career stolen bases is likely to get mentioned in a summary of a player's notable achievements, and not so much the player's ranking. isaacl (talk) 16:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: If we can't find another way to resolve this, maybe we should just conduct a straw poll with 100, 300, and 500 as the options. AutomaticStrikeout 16:46, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be top-100, 300 SB, or 500 SBs—Bagumba (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I can go with 300 SBs, as it has some mention in news and in books.  200 SBs gets more hits for minor league players.—Bagumba (talk) 17:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: For what it's worth, the top 50 are listed for the top NBA scoring, rebounding, and assist leaders. The top 30 are listed for NFL's rushing yards and passing touchdown leaders. The article 100 career sacks has 27 players listed. Speaking specifically about baseball, Tony Gywnn appears 142nd on the list, with 319 total SBs in 2440 G, good for .131 SB/game. Nap Lajoie, 88th, 380 total SB in 2480 G (.153). Kirk Gibson, 177th, 284 total SB in 1635 G (.174). Jose Reyes, 74th, 397 total SB in 1158 G (.342). Topping the list at 100 will weed out the Gwynn's of the list (low average despite longevity) and the Gibson's (decent average, lacked longevity) but will include the Lajoie's (low average, had longevity) and the Reyes's (high average, good longevity so far). Zepppep (talk) 17:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Objective criteria

message: Which source do people use to update this list?  I would like to add it to the references section.—Bagumba (talk) 20:18, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Which source is used 

message: Regarding these edits: can the interested parties discuss the proposed changes, and cease altering the article until a consensus is reached? isaacl (talk) 20:31, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: In the interest of conciseness, can the entire table just be sourced by  or a similar reference list? isaacl (talk) 22:22, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, sometimes several sources may disagree and it is a norm for FL's such as List of Major League Baseball players with 100 triples to have individual references from BR (their player profiles). A simple list of leaders is not sufficient on its own and can not always agree with other individual sources. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 22:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If the vast majority of cases are in agreement with a single reference list, I suggest that list be used to source most of the table, for which no individual citations are required. In cases where there is disagreement, presumably a longer explanatory footnote will be required any way to discuss the issue. I don't see a need to cite the same web site over and over, just to focus on the individual's page versus the summary list. It makes the article harder to navigate, and obscures the cases where there is a question about the actual total for a given player. isaacl (talk) 23:26, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I STRONGLY agree with isaacl. There is no need to have each player referenced when one reference will provide all that a reader might need. If there is a discretion of a players' stats them a footnote should be added. Redmen44 (talk) 23:35, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Redmen44, we are not factoring in computer speed in case that is why you are supporting. But either way, what is the issue with having more sources and more verifiability? Again, technology speed is not a legit factor. Lots of FL's across many WikiProjects use individual sources and that's how it has been for quite a while. If this article is to attain FL status, then it needs individual sources and I am trying to work toward getting it promoted. Again, having it "cluttering" your screen or slowing down your apparatus device is not a reason to remove sources. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 23:47, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I never said anything about computer speed. Please reread my comments above. See every other baseball lists as a reference. None have a reference for every single player. It is not necessary. Redmen44 (talk) 23:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

text: For the specific citations in question, since the same web site is being used, there is no additional diversity or reliability being gained by linking to specific player pages versus the leader board page. In general, assuming the stats web sites are self-consistent, there is no advantage to citing the player page versus the leader board page. The ability to navigate through the reference section is a usability issue, and so should be taken into consideration. isaacl (talk) 23:59, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: isaacl has just "hit it out of the park". All of the player references are from the same site. As long as that site is listed as a reference on the page then there is no need to clutter the page. Redmen44 (talk) 00:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

text: Again, page clutter is completely irrelevant and should not have any bearing whatsoever about whether or not refs are included. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:13, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, just because some pages have them doesn't mean it's correct. Hopefully these discussions will result in a change for the better of Wikipedia and remove unneeded clutter. Redmen44 (talk) 00:17, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

text: If you'd like to discuss the style of all leader lists, I suggest we carry on this discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Baseball/Archive 36#List of Major League Baseball players with 300 career stolen bases. isaacl (talk) 00:20, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That would mean removing references from Featured Lists like the ones above and demoting them, which will not gain consensus I can assure you. Also, see this page for what it should be. BR is a reliable source and should be used. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:24, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As the main author of the baseball style advice page, I am familiar with its contents. I have not suggested removing any sources; the source is the web site, and its leader board page is as accurate as the individual player pages for purposes of citation. Each player row can continue to have inline citations, if desirable, but they can all cite the leader board page. isaacl (talk) 00:32, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The leaderboard pages do not always agree with the individual statistics. One single broad source is insufficient and will never be sufficient for FL status. This is not how articles work: more reliable sources are better, not less. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 00:37, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: "Note: Billy Hamilton's career steals total differs, based on the source. The Baseball Hall of Fame credits Hamilton with 937 steals,[4] MLB.com credits him with 912 steals[5]and Baseball-Reference.com credits him with 914 steals.[6]"
There should be a space between reference number 5 and the word "and". Thanks in advance, Gloss • talk 02:12, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 05:58, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request 

message: I wanted to start a discussion about in season updating of leaderboards like this one. All of the leaderboards have always been updated in season for as long as I can remember, so why has it become a problem now? For the past season, I have kept this page and the List of top 300 Major League Baseball home run hitters up to date everyday during the 2013 Major League Baseball season. Player pages are kept up to date during the season so why not the leaders pages? If someone in August 2014 wants to search on Wikipedia who the top active stolen base leaders, they would come to this page but if it is not kept up to date, they would not be getting the proper information they were looking for. Please feel free to chime in. Thanks. Redmen44 (talk) 06:28, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The season is weeks away from starting. Not sure why you need to remove all the 2013 totals so early.—Bagumba (talk) 07:02, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I was trying to get a head start on the 2014 Major League Baseball season since spring training has begun. Another user stated that the stats should not be updated during the season and that is what I am strongly against. I can deal with the page reverting because the regular season has not started but to revert because they feel the page should not be updated until the end of the season, I feel that is an injustice to the Wikipedia readers. Thank you. Redmen44 (talk) 07:15, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: As long as the article always reflects when the stats were updated most recently, I don't see why anyone should complain about the page being updated during the season. Northern Antarctica (talk) 15:37, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Do you have an opinion on whether the 2013 stats should remain until the 2014 season actually starts?—Bagumba (talk) 18:09, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yes, I think they should remain until the season starts. Northern Antarctica (talk) 18:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

text: As per the edit notice for this page, the article should specify a specific date for which the stats are current. Thus in the case any editor is unable to update the page on a given day, it is clear which date is reflected by the totals. (On the side note of when to start updating the stats, I agree with Bagumba that clearing them to zero right now may not best service readers.) isaacl (talk) 07:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  In season updating 

message: There is a discussion on maintaining commented out lists that you invited to join at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Baseball#Stats_lists_maintaining_commented_out_lists.—Bagumba (talk) 19:39, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commented out lists 

message: In this discussion thread, it was agreed that this article did not need to refer to the individual player pages for the same web site. However, the list of references continues to be expanded without adding additional diversity to the sources of statistics, making it harder to navigate the references section. Since the same site is being used, can the leaderboard page be used as the citation? As mentioned in the discussion thread, individual references are not required for featured list status. isaacl (talk) 04:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I also noticed this, and felt it's really not needed. Gloss</span> 04:17, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

text: When Sportsguy asked me about helping with adding these refs, I wasn't really thinking. It does make a lot more sense to use one reference, since we can still establish accuracy while keeping things simpler. If we do keep the individual refs, we would at least need to update them to Baseball-Reference.com rather than Baseball-Reference. I notice that the key and the table inconsistently refer to 2014 SB totals vs. 2015 totals. I can't imagine that 2015 stats will be a valuable field for at least a couple of months. EricEnfermero (Talk) 04:34, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Yup my comments in that thread still hold true. -DJSasso (talk) 13:46, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey guys, just thought I'd clarify the purpose of the refs. Their primary purpose is not for the leaderboard, but for the "seasons active" portion. WP:GENREF would usually apply, but in this case, it doesn't work as well. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 04:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding your amazement, note at the time I started this discussion, the table did not contain the active years for each player. I believe I have explained my point of view clearly and succinctly in a detached manner; if you have suggestions on how to discuss concerns with an article, please feel free to clarify. I'm not sure if you are implying that I am another editor; if you wish to discuss this directly, please let me know. isaacl (talk) 05:40, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I apologize for any misunderstandings, hurt feelings, or confusion. I was not trying to accuse you of anything. I did not realize the discussion had begun prior to the dates being added. As I have said previously, the sources are used for the purposes of the dates and not the players themselves. Glad to see we're on the same page. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 01:41, 20 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Individual player pages used as references 

message: The initial section says that "the 2014 MLB season is the first in which no active player has more than 500 career stolen bases." Obviously, there was an earlier season where this was true (at a minimum, when no one had 500 career stolen bases yet). Can this be clarified and a citation provided? isaacl (talk) 06:07, 18 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll grasp with this one once I get back from the mountains. The hard part will be finding the last season in which this was the case. If I can't find it, I'll remove it altogether. Sportsguy17 (T • C) 04:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Active players with more than 500 career stolen bases 

message: Can all interested editors please discuss the reintroduction of images to the article? Thanks. isaacl (talk) 16:51, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of images 

message: I made the following minor copy edit that has been reverted. If anyone has any concerns with the edit, can you please provide your comments? Thanks. isaacl (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor copy edit 

message: Looks like this series of edits in 2016 altered the criteria from what was agreed upon above to top 100. Is there agreement with having a fixed number of members, rather than a performance-based criterion? isaacl (talk) 01:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Very strange thing to bring up now. Top 100 is the precedent for almost all MLB lists, which is why it was changed it the first place. Taffe316 (talk) 01:58, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, the precedent was discussed above. No time like the present to open discussion. isaacl (talk) 02:13, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok well I think I'm just more confused on why you waited 2 years to randomly reopen this conversation. If you had a problem with the changes, you could of brought them up to me when they were made, and we could've discussed it.Taffe316 (talk) 02:34, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Because I don't always notice every change that occurs at the time, and so yes, I am randomly starting a discussion with any interested parties, now that I have noticed the change. My apologies for this less than ideal approach; unfortunately I can't change the past. isaacl (talk) 03:37, 14 June 2018 (UTC)

text: I'm not tied to 300SB, as it's hardly a magic club.  If we go with a hard number, 100 is a nice round number that doesn't look strange or excessive.—Bagumba (talk) 07:40, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: That was pretty much my reason for changing it in the first place. The whole "300 Steal Club" thing was a bit unnecessary.Taffe316 (talk) 08:32, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I don't think it was unnecessary: when there is disagreement, I think we should discuss it. A ranking cutoff is, in my view, more arbitrary in terms of who is selected for the list than a performance-based one. I believe a concise summary of a player's career is more likely to still mention a player's stolen base totals if the player is 101th on the career list, than if the player misses a performance-based cutoff by one. isaacl (talk) 16:06, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I voted for 300SB before, but top-100 would have been a close second for me.  I'm OK if it stays, but it's also fair if you want to open this up again and see what is the current consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 16:18, 14 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  List criteria 

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 13:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress