Talk:Tom Seaver

message: When I was little, he came to our conutry club (was a member) and would on several occasions pitch to the kids hanging around the pool.  This was always a big hit.  His house abutted the golf course. WilliamKF 20:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Historical Personal Note  

message: The article states: "An excellent hitting pitcher, Seaver hit 35 home runs during his career." However, according to the very reliable Baseball Reference, which is listed in the "External links" section at the end of the article, Seaver only hit 12 home runs. By this measure, Seaver is not an excellent hitting pitcher, so I think this sentence should be removed.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 170.252.248.204 (talk) 19:39, August 29, 2007 (UTC) 
I remember reading, and Mr. Seaver himself talking, above his bets or wagers with fellow Mets pitcher Jerry Kooseman, concerning which of the two would get more hits (that particular year).  And this was no doubt serious, as Tom once said, that if he losses, he "is going to [be out] a lot of money."  They were friends, you know, and I think this wagering took pressure off competition to be the best pitcher on the staff.  Sort of a gentleman's gesture, by both, imo.  John G. Lewis (talk) 16:54, 26 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Note on Seaver as a hitter 

message: According to how the colors are in the Reggie Jackson article, why don't we make this a Red Sox?
Or, as I suggest, make that page Yankee colors. 67.87.184.150 18:33, 21 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Color 

message: This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:38, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject class rating

message: "He received the highest-ever percentage of votes with..."
From Wikipedia, Lou Gehrig received 100% of
the vote and was an unanimous selection.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_members_of_the_Baseball_Hall_of_Fame_(chronological)
BTW, if some1 wants to attack the aforementioned W article, then I do not
have a problem with it.
The article shows a blank for a 100%/unanimous selection.  I do not think that
is correct.  If the vote was 100%, then they should put 100% in that columnt.
But I am not getting involved with that. 66.234.33.7 (talk) 22:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inaccurate statistic 

message: In my opinion, this needs to have a source identified (i.e., "considered" based on what? Fan surveys, etc.?)  Or, if the author is implying that this is popular opinion, perhaps it would be best to add an adverb like "widely" or "often" before "considered."  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.231.37.198 (talk) 17:16, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Seaver is considered the greatest player in New York Mets history...." 

message: I have previously placed in the edit for the 3000th strikeout, and did so without references, as the reference was myself (I was watching the game live on television).
Anyway, I did note some unfortunate, and loose, wording concerning the voting for Mr. Seaver, in regard to the Cy Young Award.  I left in bracket's the previous author's statement "Seaver had finished third and fourth in the voting in two previous years."  [Or something very similar...]  My question, to the contributor, or the editor, is two-fold:  1.  *What years* are here so noted?  That is, are these two years *only Cincinnati years* (as the heading, to this section, of the Wiki Seaver biographical article, may lead one to believe.), or were they *any two years in Mr. Seaver's career*?  The (previous) writer was unclear on this point, but as I was unsure, I left what he had written in brackets.  2.  Is this in any event correct?  Was he never second in the voting, previous to the year F. V. won?  (This being, if the time interpretation would be for *Seaver's whole career*, not just his time in Cincinnati, as I think the author intended.)  I believe this is an important point, and should be cleared up  (...)  Tom had pitched for the Mets during 1967-1977(mid-season) prior to his time at Cincinnati.  After he left Cincinnati, Mr. Seaver would no longer compete for the Cy Young.
  
I know that Tom came very close *a number of other years*, besides winning three times he did.  Indeed, at one point, dissapointed he did not win,  named his cat "Fergie", after pitcher Fergeson Jenkins, who won the award, despite having an ERA nearly 1 whole point higher than Seaver's - a very large, near incredible, difference, for starting pitchers contending for the Cy Young.  John G. Lewis (talk) 19:23, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time in Cincinnati; Cy Young Voting 

message: We can all agree on Dementia complications being a part in his death. The only shred of doubt left is whether Lyme disease or Covid contributed as well.
I've seen one source say covid and two say Lyme disease. Before we add either one or the other, let's get all the info necessary to solidify what contributed to his death.
Covid: https://baseballhall.org/discover/hall-of-fame-pitcher-tom-seaver-passes-away
Lyme Disease: https://nypost.com/2020/09/02/tom-seaver-greatest-met-ever-dead-at-75/  
https://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/mets/ny-tom-seaver-obituary-20200903-fyusabaogjepzf6uixn6476k5u-story.html
Thanks, Dannyyankee12let's talk 00:51, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: @Dannyyankee12let's talk, The Daily News article has now been updated to include COVID-19. It's also being reported by many other sources, including the New York Times, the Washington Post, and the Associated Press. There are now more than enough sources to include COVID-19. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:13, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Multiple RS sources are saying COVID was involved. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

text:  @Johndavies837 (talk) I see that now. I just didn't want to jump the gun. Dannyyankee12let's talk 01:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  @Dannyyankee12let's talk Yeah, I understand. The first few reports were a bit confusing. Johndavies837 (talk) 01:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

text: There is no evidence that Tom Seaver died of Lyme disease, which is a curable infection and a very rare cause of death. Based on the 2013 reporting that, even after 8 months of treatment, Seaver was taking 24 pills per day, "most of them vitamins, plus one penicillin pill", it appears more likely that he was involved in chronic Lyme pseudoscience. The standard treatment for Lyme disease is 10-28 days of antibiotics, not the longterm cocktail Seaver was taking. Without a reliable source (e.g. a mainstream doctor), it's best to remove references to Lyme disease from this article. ScienceFlyer (talk) 02:43, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Official Causes of Death 

message: As of this comment, there is one remaining citation needed tag, on Seaver being a color broadcaster for postseason series in the 1970s and 1980s. I've searched for citations, but even Wikipedia's own articles on postseason broadcasters (for example, List of World Series broadcasters or List of National League Division Series broadcasters) are a mess of scattered citations amongst mostly uncitated tables. I'm not sure how to proceed on that last citation needed tag, as Seaver's broadcasting career is an important part of his history, but also seems to be poorly sourced short of citing actual game footage. Dralwik|Have a Chat 02:39, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broadcasting citations 

message: This is language from Wikipedia's "Scotch and Soda" page.  Thought you might want to add to Seaver's page.  
"Scotch and Soda" was discovered by the Trio through the parents of the baseball player Tom Seaver, who had first heard it in a hotel piano lounge in 1932 when on their honeymoon in Phoenix, Arizona. They liked it so much that they had the piano player write it down for them so it would be "their song." One member of the trio (Dave Guard) was dating Seaver's older sister (Katie) at that time, and heard the song on a visit to the Seaver home. Although it is credited to Guard (he had it copyrighted in his name on March 30, 1959), the trio never discovered the real songwriter's name, though they searched for years.[2] 2600:1700:F5E0:EDC0:0:0:0:40 (talk) 13:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: .  Completely irrelevant to a bio of Seaver. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 17:09, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 3 September 2020 

message: An IP back in 2011 added some dubious rankings that seem like WP:OR about Seaver's standing in the live-ball era or among complex cross sections like 300-win HOFers. Any sources after 2011 that seem to support this are likely WP:CIRCULAR, and should be scrutinized before using.—Bagumba (talk) 11:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dubious rankings 

message: TYPO: change ISC to USC 2601:400:8100:605:48DA:32C:1C5F:1058 (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Duplicate request.  Done below.  RudolfRed (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2020 

message: The University of Southern California (USC) recruited Seaver to play college baseball. Unsure as to whether Seaver was worthy of a scholarship, ISC [THIS IS A TYPO] 2601:400:8100:605:48DA:32C:1C5F:1058 (talk) 20:25, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Done Thanks for pointing this out.  RudolfRed (talk) 20:35, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 4 September 2020 

message: I have changed the lead image a few times and have been reverted several times without any explanation. The Reds photograph is 80× the resolution of the grainy Mets image. The Reds photo is full color while the Mets is black and white. The Reds photo is candid while the Mets image is posed. The argument that he's most associated with the Mets is unavailing. MOS:LEADIMAGE says only that the lead image should be "should be natural and appropriate representations of the topic" and not have "shock value." A candid photo is certainly more "natural" than a publicity photo of him mugging for the camera. As for "shock value," Tom Seaver spent six years wearing this uniform. If that shocks you, I don't know what to tell you. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 16:00, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: While WP:BRD specifically states to not re-add the reverted content, it seems you have instead opted for bold, revert, bold by once again re-adding the content, and now starting a discussion. I strongly disagree with your assertion that the arguments for his Mets association are "unavailing"; his career highlights were almost exclusively in a Mets uniform - all three Cy Youngs, ten of twelve All-Star nods, his one World Series title, all five times he led the league in strikeouts, all three times he led in ERA, and two of three he led in wins. He actually spent the majority of his career in a Mets uniform, which would make using a Mets image a far more "appropriate representation of the topic". As for the photo itself, the resolution may be stronger (although completely unnecessary - seriously, an 18MB tif file??), but he's not wearing a cap and his face is partially obscured by his hand. The Mets image may be posed but features better composition, and a more complete uniform of the team with which he is indeed most closely associated. Multiple editors who have reverted your addition previously may have failed to discuss this with you, but that doesn't make your insistence on using this image any more solid. I could see it useful as an image to illustrate the section on his time with the Reds (which lacks images altogether) but not in the lead. Echoedmyron (talk) 18:45, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: As you know, WP:BRD is an optional method of seeking consensus, is not mandated by policy and therefore doesn't warrant mentioning. But if we're hung up on procedure, this is the first time I've made the edit since an editor suggested bringing it to the talk page. In any event, to be clear, I mean the argument is "unavailing" in that it's far from dispositive; a lead image need only be natural and appropriate and not have shock value. If those criteria are satisfied, then the choice should be the higher quality image. Nobody disputes that Seaver is most strongly associated with the Mets. The issue is that it doesn't exactly jar the senses to see him in a Cincinnati uniform where, as we know, he played for six years, was an All-Star multiple times and even threw a no-hitter. His not wearing a cap is an argument for using the image more than an argument against it; it gives a clearer, unobstructed view of the subject. And to say that his face is "obscured" by a finger on his chin is a disingenuous argument that doesn't really warrant any further discussion. I'm also not sure on what basis you can argue the Mets image is "a more complete uniform." All we can see is the sleeve logo and cap logo. You can't see any of the lettering on the front of the uniform and you can't see the uniform number. --Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 20:49, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The Mets uniform is more complete because it includes a team cap. That is part of a uniform. And claiming the lettering on the front of his Mets jersey is not visible when it certainly is, is downright silly. I brought up procedure since you yourself referenced a portion of MOS:SHOCK by referencing a section that is clearly about entirely different examples. At any rate, yes, the two all-star appearances Seaver had that were not with the Mets were with the Reds. He did play six years with them, far less than the 11 + seasons with the Mets, which was more than he spent with the Reds, Red Sox and White Sox combined. Using the MOS:LEADIMAGE you initially raised, I again state that because his career and its highlights were both mostly in a Mets uniform, it is most appropriate to use a Mets image. It's great that two months after this page was briefly protected to end the edit warring, that now you have heeded the admin's advice and started a discussion. But by a) re-adding your preferred image first and b) adding a hidden note telling people to not change your preferred image again and c) making these arguments it's clear you're simply determined to get your way. Echoedmyron (talk) 21:22, 8 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You can't seriously be arguing that you can make out the letters on that uniform. If you didn't know the Mets, you wouldn't be able to identify a single letter or even tell how many distinct letters there were. You also seem to be conflating procedure and substance—the MOS has nothing to do with procedure. But you must know that and I'm not sure why you're suggesting otherwise. I'm also not sure how you can say MOS:SHOCK it's about "entirely different examples" when it's literally one of the few pieces of advice given for selecting a lead image. I'm really not following the logic there. And I've already explained why his having played most of his career with the Mets is not a convincing argument. Anyway, MOS:LEADIMAGE makes no provisions for more or less appropriate. It's a binary system—either an image is appropriate or it is not. As I explained, given that both are appropriate, the tiebreaker is simply which is the higher-quality image. As for the page having been protected, I had no idea about that but I'm not sure what difference it makes? I'm autoconfirmed so I'm not especially concerned about that. Anyway, perhaps the wildest part of this comment is the implication that using a note to redirect people to this discussion is somehow a bad thing. You can't complain about edit warring and complain about a user creating a discussion to try to reach a consensus. Dennis C. Abrams (talk) 01:11, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

text: I'm all for preferring color over b&w, high-res over low-res, and in many cases candid over posed, but I don't think those considerations must always prevail in every situation; the content and composition matter. In the Reds pic, my eye keeps returning to the center where Seaver seems to be holding his hand in mid-air and doing something with his index and middle fingers--maybe resting his chin on them, maybe cracking a knuckle, maybe smoking an invisible cigarette--regardless, it's a bit of a peculiar positioning of his hand, and I find it distracting. I'm the guy who posted the original Mets photo (full disclosure), and I'd be happy to see it replaced with a better pic--I just don't think this one is it. JonP125 (talk) 04:25, 11 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead image 

message: I was thinking of changing it myself because the the current photo is a) incredibly bad; his hand is in an awkward position; and b) Tom Seaver is, as most baseball fans know, a New York Met; the Cincinnati Reds uniform is incredibly misleading. But then I read that note and came here to read the discussion on it... and the person who changed the photo is, to be frank, very much in the wrong.
There are many, many articles where the photograph of baseball players - particularly if the player is pre-1980s - are black and white and, inevitably, grainy which is the issue the user who changed the image seems to have with the photograph of Seaver in the Mets uniform. Would I like a better photo than that? Sure. But the Cincinnati uniform one is NOT the one. It is far too distracting due to the position of his hand.
I won't change the image since the note says so but it has to be changed. Tom Seaver is a New York Met and that is the photo that should be used, especially since it is posed and his features are more recognizable in it. -- All The Knowledge in the World (talk) 16:47, 24 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead Image MUST be changed.