Talk:Trevor Hoffman

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Portal	Baseball Portal Trevor Hoffman is within the scope of WikiProject Baseball, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of baseball and baseball-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page, or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Assessment comments This article has not been rated for quality and/or importance yet. Please rate the article and then leave comments here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.	Biography Portal
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Someone should really add a picture to this. Hoffman is about to break the all-time saves list and he doesnt even have a picture for people to admire him. For shame... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.54.143 (talk • contribs)

you should get one that complies with the rules. it's not that easy. --CesarCossio 09:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

But you agree with me, dont you? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.136.54.143 (talk • contribs) 15:08, 19 August 2006

i agree with you but as i said, if you add a random picture it won't be long before someone removes it, that's unless anyone find a picture that you can use (i don't know what the rule is but i know a lot of pictures are removed because of it) --CesarCossio 23:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

I (palmdoc) added the "Elias Sports Bureau" reference as support of my addition of most appearances, but the associated website looks like a commercial for a $20.00 book. Not sure what to do . . .

Thanks for helping format that.

[edit] wording change

I made a small change in wording:

He is currently the all-time Major League saves leader with 482 total saves

to

He holds the all-time Major League save record with 482 total saves.

since none of other the major MLB record holders (Hank Aaron, Pete Rose, Nolan Ryan) have the caveat "currently" attached to their records. --Myke Cuthbert 07:47, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] W-L record?

Does the W-L record have to be added as a "selected stat"? It isn't really a useful stat for closers, certainly not more than ERA and Saves. I suppose it's better than adding Hoffman's career batting average, but it doesn't seem necessary for closers. --Myke Cuthbert 03:59, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Whatever, I'm just trying to help out this site and help reorganize all the players infoboxs, which I have put a ton of work into, it would just seem weird, that this players page is the only one without a Win-Loss in the infobox, plus you are the only one I have ran into that have not liked these changes on the pitchers pages. But whatever, I'm not arguing as I have far more players to work on. MetsFan153 02:35, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "great" vs. "greatest"

Hi Y2kcrazyjoker4, this seems to be going around in circles and getting nowhere, but maybe we can talk this out. What I see is that there are two notable comments judging Trevor Hoffman's career as a closer: he is frequently (almost always) listed as one of the greatest closers of all time. That is an important piece of information that allows us to see where most writers consider his career. Then a minority of writers, but writers for the most important national sports publications (incl. as the cover shows Sports Illustrated), have called him the greatest closer of all time. This is a separate statement. The first statement on its own undervalues the career. The second over values. You've engaged in a series of edits to eliminate a seeming redundancy--I'd like to have a better way of integrating these two statements also. But then again and again, no matter which statement you initially choose to remove, you end up taking away the footnoted statement that some writers think he is the greatest. Why is this? Could you point to a policy that supports your edits or a way in which your edits improve the article? Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 21:58, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

There's a few reasons for that. First off, there's the issue of redundancy that you mentioned. I understand your thinking in first qualifying how good he is and then being more specific in certain titles he's been given. However, for an encyclopedia article (or at least the introduction of one), it seems like unnecessary repetition to say "he's been frequently called one of the greatest closers" and then a sentence later say "he's been called by some the greatest." I think it would be best to consolidate those statements into one that gets the pertinent point across. This brings me to my next point: saying he's been called the greatest closer is OK if there are multiple references that back up that claim. In that case, multiple people share that point of view. However, it seems as though the way it is currently written, only having one reference to that statement is confirming its validity. If we can get 3-4 references to back it up, I would have no problem with in being in the article. But as is, it needs some revising. Y2kcrazyjoker4 03:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I think I can work out a compromise that will work for both of us--it's late in my timezone and need to turn in before I can write it up properly, so give me half a day or a day, if you would. The basic thought is that on a player's article, being called the greatest anything on the cover of SI is notable; but maybe it's not so notable that it doesn't belong at the top of the article in the lede. How about I develop the early 1990s section of the article better and work the specific citation of the claim there? The cover was certainly one of the most notable events in the 1992 season for Hoffman.

(There are a two other reliable sources I know which have argued the same as the SI story, but neither of them are as important as an SI cover (one from Baltimore, one Colorado I believe; I looked this up months ago), so I hadn't added them to the lede).

From a practical standpoint also, without mentioning the claim that he was called the greatest, we lose the fair use justification of the SI cover, and with that the only quality photograph of Hoffman. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 04:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Developing the article and including it in there sounds like a better idea to me (and it will allow us to keep the picture). But I'm curious, how it would fit into the 1990's section, when it wasn't until 2002 when that article was published? Y2kcrazyjoker4 10:35, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry; substitute 2002 for every instance of 1992 -- I did say it was really late where I was editing, didn't I? :) Making the move now. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 15:49, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Not done, but it's a start. More to come. -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 16:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)